Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama and the "War on Terror"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-10-10 03:04 PM
Original message
Obama and the "War on Terror"
It has been noted here and elsewhere many times that the term "War on Terror" is a misnomer as well as a propaganda tool of the Republicans - and some say of Obama, too. There is currently a post on the Greatest Page with a article by Scott Ritter about the bogus "War on Terror".

Along with his other gaffes, Guiliani said he was glad to hear Obama use the term "War on Terror" in his recent speech.

But that is not what Obama said. Obama scrapped the term back in March.

What Obama actually said was "We are at war with al Qaeda."

And we are.

Luckily, Obama understands that to fight this was we need to use every legitimate tool in our arsenal: intelligence gathering, "police actions" (that the Republicans decried so loudly), and international cooperation via diplomacy.

So let's make sure we correct everyone who uses the term "War on Terror". There is no War on Terror. We are at war with al Qaeda and their allies the Taliban.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-10-10 03:22 PM
Response to Original message
1. No war on terror? Then what is our military doing the Middle East?
Who are all those people our military are killing? Surly not all those dead people were trying to keep our oil that is under their land from us, U.S.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-10-10 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Did you read the post? We are at war with al Qaeda.
And Bush's war may have been about oil, but Obama was never in the oil business and doesn't have the oil cronies that Bush had.

Obama has redefined the war back to what it should have been about - the people who attacked us and continue to plot further attacks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-10-10 03:25 PM
Response to Original message
2. How many Taliban were on the planes that hit on 9-11?
This is all about the OIL and pipelines to carry it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-10-10 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Strawman. The Taliban harbored and supported al Qaeda.
This is no longer about oil. Arbusto Bush is no longer in office. Obama has to clean up his mess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-10-10 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. The US supported the Taliban until May 2001--perhaps we should invade ourselves
While Saudi Arabia continues to support the Taliban and the schools from which a new generation of jihadists is trained.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-10-10 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Do you have any references to back up those statements?
any links? And perhaps I should clarify that I am speaking of the Taliban that was in control of Afghanistan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-10-10 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. How's this for ya Charlie?
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040426/scheer0413

On May 15, 2001, I blasted the Bush Administration for rewarding the Taliban for "controlling" the opium crop with $43 million in US aid to Afghanistan, to be distributed by an arm of the United Nations. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell announced the gift, specifically mentioning the opium suppression as the rationale and assuring that the United States would "continue to look for ways to provide more assistance to the Afghans."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-10-10 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Well, that's certainly not the first fuck-up Bushco made, but it was
stated that it was a reward for controlling opium.

May I also point out this:

Foreign powers, including the United States, were at first supportive of the Taliban in hopes it would serve as a force to restore order in Afghanistan after years of division into corrupt, lawless warlord fiefdoms. The U.S. government, for example, made no comment when the Taliban captured Herat in 1995 and expelled thousands of girls from schools.<78> These hopes faded as it began to be engaged in warlord practices of rocketing unarmed civilians, targeting ethnic groups (primarily Hazaras) and restricting the rights of women.<40> In late 1997, American Secretary of State Madeleine Albright began to distance the U.S. from the Taliban and the next year the American-based Unocal, previously having implicitly supported the Taliban in order to build a pipeline south from Central Asia, the oil company withdrew from a major deal with the Taliban regime concerning an oil pipeline.

In early August 1998 the Taliban's difficulties in relations with foreign groups became much more serious. After attacking the city of Mazar, Taliban forces killed several thousand civilians and 10 Iranian diplomats and intelligence officers in the Iranian consulate. Alleged radio intercepts indicate Mullah Omar personally approved the killings.<79> The Iranian government was incensed and a "full-blown regional crisis" ensued with Iran mobilizing 200,000 regular troops,<80> though war was averted.

A day before the capture of Mazar, affiliates of Taliban guest Osama bin Laden bombed two U.S. embassies in Africa killing 224 and wounding 4500 mostly African victims. The United States responded by launching cruise missiles attacks on suspected terrorists camps in Afghanistan killing over 20 though failing to kill bin Laden or even many Al-Qaeda. Mullah Omar condemned the missile attack and American President Bill Clinton.<81> Saudi Arabia expelled the Taliban envoy in Saudi Arabia in protest over the Taliban's refusal to turn over bin Laden and after Mullah Omar allegedly insulted the Saudi royal family.<82> In mid-October the UN Security Council voted unanimously to ban commercial aircraft flights to and from Afghanistan and freeze its bank accounts world wide.<83>


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

Notice it says as well "Saudi Arabia expelled the Taliban envoy in Saudi Arabia in protest over the Taliban's refusal to turn over bin Laden and after Mullah Omar allegedly insulted the Saudi royal family.<82>"

So that also blows apart your assertion that the Saudi's are still supporting the Taliban.

And further, from the same article:

After the 11 September attacks and the PENTTBOM investigation, the United States delivered this ultimatum to the Taliban:

Deliver to the US all of the leaders of Al-Qaeda;
Release all imprisoned foreign nationals;
Close immediately every terrorist training camp;
Hand over every terrorist and their supporters to appropriate authorities;
Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps for inspection.<133>
Over the course of the investigation, the United States had petitioned the international community to back a military campaign to overthrow the Taliban. The United Nations Security Council and NATO had by this stage approved of such a campaign as self-defense against armed attack.<134><135>

On 21 September 2001, the Taliban responded to the ultimatum, promising that if the United States could bring evidence that bin Laden was guilty, they would hand him over, stating there was no evidence in their possession linking him to the 11 September attacks.<119>

On 22 September 2001, the United Arab Emirates, and later Saudi Arabia, withdrew recognition of the Taliban as the legal government of Afghanistan, leaving neighboring Pakistan as the only remaining country with diplomatic ties. On 4 October 2001, it is believed that the Taliban covertly offered to turn bin Laden over to Pakistan for trial in an international tribunal that operated according to Islamic Sharia law, but Pakistan refused the offer.<136><137> On 7 October 2001, before the onset of military operations, the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan offered to "detain bin Laden and try him under Islamic law" if the United States made a formal request and presented the Taliban with evidence.<138> This counter offer was immediately rejected by the U.S. as insufficient.
{emphasis added}

Does that explain everything now, Sparky?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-10-10 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Saudis faulted for funding terror
THE NATION

Saudis faulted for funding terror

Treasury official shows frustration at U.S. efforts to force action. An audit is ordered.

April 02, 2008|Josh Meyer, Times Staff Writer


WASHINGTON — Saudi Arabia remains the world's leading source of money for Al Qaeda and other extremist networks and has failed to take key steps requested by U.S. officials to stem the flow, the Bush administration's top financial counter-terrorism official said Tuesday.

Stuart A. Levey, a Treasury undersecretary, told a Senate committee that the Saudi government had not taken important steps to go after those who finance terrorist organizations or to prevent wealthy donors from bankrolling extremism through charitable contributions, sometimes unwittingly.

"Saudi Arabia today remains the location where more money is going to terrorism, to Sunni terror groups and to the Taliban than any other place in the world," Levey said under questioning.

U.S. officials have previously identified Saudi Arabia as a major source of funding for extremism. But Levey's comments were notable because, although reluctant to directly criticize a close U.S. ally, he acknowledged frustration with administration efforts to persuade the Saudis and others to act.

"We continue to face significant challenges as we move forward with these efforts, including fostering and maintaining the political will among other governments to take effective and consistent action," Levey said, later adding: "Our work is not nearly complete."

Levey was the sole witness before the Senate Finance Committee, which Tuesday ordered an independent review of the efforts to choke off financing used by Al Qaeda and other extremist groups.

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), the committee chairman, announced the review at the end of the hearing held to assess the money-tracking campaign by Treasury's Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, headed by Levey.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/02/nation/na-terror2

One thing that needs to be aired is Saudi government's financing of a global network of Wahhabi schools teaching the next generation of anti-Semites and jihadists. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda are Wahhabi.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-10-10 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. And that is where the "diplomacy" I mentioned in the OP comes in.
Notice that I said Obama needs to use every legitimate tool, not just military might. One of the things I mentioned specifically was "international cooperation via diplomacy".

The difference is that the funding is coming from within Saudi Arabia and we don't think the government is doing enough to stop it. The Saudi government is not harboring al Qaeda and refusing to give them up as the Taliban did. In fact, the Royal Family disowned Osama and (in my previous post) kicked out the Taliban envoys.

Sorry, but you are just blowing smokescreens and your logic doesn't hold up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-10-10 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
7. When did Congress declare war?
I missed that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-10-10 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. I will refer you to UNSCR 1368 & 1378 both in 2001.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-10-10 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. Ummmm... yeah... those are UN resolutions.
Edited on Sun Jan-10-10 04:34 PM by arcadian
Again I ask, "When did the U.S. Congress declare war?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-10-10 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. They are UN resolutions that Congress voted on and accepted. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-10-10 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #16
30. That is not a declaration of war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-10-10 04:18 PM
Response to Original message
11. You're exactly right. Joe Scarborough said it several times on his show Friday morning...
and not one person challenged him on it. He said, "Obama used the phrase 'War on Terror' in yesterday's speech. That's no accident." The accident is Joe's, Rudy's, et al. I emailed them about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-10-10 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Good for you! It's amazing how people hear what they want to hear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-10-10 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-10-10 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. Yeah, I must be doing something right! And another case of people
hearing what they want to hear. They never paid attention to what Obama actually said, they just heard what they wanted and are now blaming Obama for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-10-10 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. Yup...
I've seen more than a couple of people here say even though they knew Obama's position, they thought he was "smart enough" to not go through with an increase in troops once he got into office. Others claimed they spoke out against his Afghanistan position during the campaign but searches found nothing of the sort.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-10-10 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. Well they can't deal in reality,
can they? Their little heads would explode.:nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-10-10 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. Obviously not...
which speaks poorly of THEM-not Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-10-10 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. Of course it does and I'm glad President
Obama is taking care of business to make sure al qaeda shrinks and lessens the chances of them blowing themselves up in the middle of innocent people.

There's a big difference between the nebulous "war on terror" and the targeted al qaeda.

Anyone who's been paying attention could see that the bushits wanted a neverending "war on terror" and Pres Obama is intent on wrapping this up in Afghanistan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-10-10 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. So am I...
I'm so glad Obama doesn't listen to the fringe on either side and just keeps doing what he said he was going to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-10-10 06:02 PM
Response to Original message
19. How is a war on al-qaeda any different than a war on terror?
The outcomes are identical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-10-10 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Good point. They are one and the same.
Just substitute al-Qaeda for terror. Presto, we no longer have a war on terror.

Somewhere in 1984 there should be a quote that covers this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-10-10 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. You could read the Scott Ritter article for one, but the short answer
is that "terror" is a technique whereas al Qaeda is a specific enemy.

In practice, the "War on Terror" was used by Bushco and the neocons to spread fear throughout the populace and justify any action they wished, in a very Orwellian application.

Obama has narrowed it down to a specific enemy and specific goals. A big difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-10-10 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. How are the outcomes different?
Military build-ups, expansion of drone strikes, endless war and curbing civil liberties.

It is the same, on the name has changed. We are still a nation compromising our values to chase would-be terrorists in far away places. We are still escalating the war.

'Al-qaeda' as a label and target is just as Orwellian as 'terrorists'. It includes any person who has sympathies or has had any contact with an al-qaeda member. Al-qaeda is in dozens of countries around the world, including the US, the UK and Germany.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-10-10 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. No, it is not the same. As I stated, Obama has clearly defined
both the enemy and the goals, whereas the indistinct "War on Terror" is not clearly defined.

And al Qaeda is a specific group who attacked us several times and vows to continue to attack us. Not Orwellian, at all.

As for compromising our values and curbing our civil liberties, the PATRIOT has been altered (although not enough, granted), FISA rules have been reinstated, and we have ended torture, begun having legal trials, and restored our image in the world by RETURNING to our values.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clio the Leo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-10-10 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
29. The President is smart enough to know that "terror" is in the eyes of the terrorized....
.... and he's pragmatic enough to know that symbolic stands in favor of an ideal may not always keep the nation safe.

It's a sticky wicket if there ever were one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 05:27 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC