• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you support the war on terrorism and believe in Al Qeada?

Do you suppore the war on terrorism? Do you believe in Al Qeada

  • I support the war on terrorism

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I do not support the war on terrorism

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I dont know if I support the war on terrorism

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I believe in Al Qeada

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I do not believe in Al Qeada

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I dont know if I believe in Al Qeada

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

mtguy8787

Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
111
Reaction score
35
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
"Terrorism" has become a way of justifying increased assault on liberty and increased government. It has become a means by which the majority of the populace will accept just about anything in the name of preventing the T-word. It has become a one-line explanation by the government that shuts down further questioning and reason.

In the US, your risk of dying from terrorism is next to nothing.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/...le-stupid.html

The government tells us, and people agree, that terrorists "threaten our freedom". How do they threaten our freedom. Criminals and car accidents kill more people than terrorism. In fact, most causes of death kill more Americans than do terrorism. Do these things threaten our freedom? Most people would agree that they dont, yet most support going to war against "terrorists" in order to "protect freedom". Or if they don't all it requires is another attack, and a government declaration, to scare them into agreeing.

The logic of a "war on terror" is questionable, at best, and beyond asinine at worst. Terrorism is more of an idea, an ideology, than anything. That can't be killed with a war. If anything, it would fuel anti-American sentiments.

We are told that there is a global terror network that is well supplied and well trained and organized. Belief in such an entity is used by the government to justify wars, oppressive policies, and worst off, a mentality among the populace that is more and more receptive to whatever the government declares is necessary in the name of security.

Worse than the policies that are already in place is the mentality behind it. Its absurd to believe that such policies can do anything to stop any half intelligent, half organized terrorist attack. Meaning that if some people decided to attack the US again, with the prevailing mentality that exists, the government will say that current measures did not stop the terrorist attack, and so even more heavy handers are necessary. Meanwhile, people become even more complacent, more dependent, and more stupid, as they fail to see through such simple fallacies.

We are told that invading a country is the way to stop terrorists. Any half organized, half intelligent terrorist group would be globally mobile, anonymous and hidden, and for the most part immune to conventional military tactics. Think about it. A global network of terror cells would consist of relatively inconspicuous agents, with supplies distributed in various locations. A group of terrorists meeting in some office, or some basement somewhere, with supplies in various warehouses, etc somewhere, is not going to be disrupted by any "war on terror".

As this BBC documentary reveals, there were no "terrorists" apprehended in Afghanistan. Mission after mission turned up empty. The purported networks of bases in the mountains were nowhere to be found. The US paid Northern Alliance members for turning in so-called al-qeada members, and these were held up as victories in the so called war on terror. Because they wouldnt just turn any any old enemy militant in exchange for money.... why would they do that?

GorillaVid - Just watch it! (link takes awhile to buffer after you start it)

Furthermore, such a war only shows the stupidity and sheep like mentality of most people. Nobody questions the logic behind a supposedly well organized global terror network holing up in a centralized base in the mountains that could easily be targeted, and is more fitting of a localized, militant organization, rather than a distributed, compartmentalized global terror network.

The government tells us about "terrorist training camps", which are nothing more than, for the most part, militants serving local causes and their own ideologies, i.e. Taliban. Because of the fear of "terrorism", hardly anybody questions why such a global terrorist network that is compartmentalized would have a "camp" that would be counterproductive to such goals. Not to mention that few point out that such camps would be one of the least desirable means of operating, for an organization that aims to remain hidden.

Because of 9/11, most Americans now believe the government declaration that there is a global terror network, well organized, well trained and well supplied, that has cells throughout the world, and in and among Americans, whose goal is the downfall of America.

Seems like nobody can figure out that if such an organization did exist, there would be almost countless options for causing widespread disruptions, damage, and terror throughout America, that would be next to impossible to predict, much less stop. Systematized mass murder in the name of so-called Al-qeada could be carried out unchecked. All but the most secure government targets could be easily bombed. All but the most protected government officials could be assassinated almost at will.

We are told that Al Qeada hates our way of life, our culture. And it is true, many people around the world do oppose our culture. But if the legend of Al Qeada were true, it would be very easy to cause mass panic, and strike blows against symbols and pillars of our culture, through assasinations of various well known figures, or attacks on places that exemplify what Al Qeada wishes to destroy.

But...... none of this has happened, or is happening.

Yet the people, and apparently the government, are immersed in the stupidity of imagining that invading Afghanistan would somehow hinder the efforts of such an organization. If you believe so, simply put yourself in the shoes of such an organization. Even if you were centered in Afghanistan, all you would have to do is hide your stuff. Even if one compartmentalized cell was compromised (unlikely), it wouldnt have much effect.

Yet even that notwithstanding, we are simultaneously told that this is a global terror network, yet somehow the solution is to invade a country with conventional military. If Jack Bauer were real, he would be shaking his head saying "thats not the right play".

We are told that things like NSA surveillance is going to prevent terrorism. We are told that people like Edward Snowden aided the enemy by letting them know what we were up to. Are government officials really this stupid, or are they just feeding this to the people to justify increased power and budgets, and to further their agenda?

Any half intelligent person, much less this supposed well trained, organized, and supplied global terror network, knows that governments have the resources to analyze and intercept communications. Such and organization would obviously be savvy in such things.

Even a non-trained person with basic knowledge of the internet could find ways of evading even a far more aggressive surveillance state than exists today. Or are people simply so stupid and unimaginative that they cannot figure out that if they could do it, this so-called terrorist network could do it in their sleep?

We were told by Bush that there were Al Qeada cells throughout America. the BBC documentary linked to earlier reversals some of the sheer stupidity and paranoia among the government when it came to these so-called terrorists.

In one case, a bunch of college students who had made a video of their trip to disneyland were arrested because their video was evidence of terrorist activity. Government officials declared that the fact that it was so innocuous, was evidence that it was suspicious. Brief footage of garbage cans in disneyland were touted as "scouting locations to place bombs". When the video showed them in their hotel room, and briefly looked outside to see the view, officials declared that the tree next to the hotel was being shown as a "possible location for a sniper".

One has to imagine just about the stupidest and most incompetent terrorists to find that even remotely plausible. Yet people eat it up, and the Bush administration publicly declared that it had scored a victory against terrorists. No convictions were made.

The BBC documentary also reveals how the US paid a former associate of bin Laden to testify that he was part of a massive terrorist organization called "al qeada", in order to be able to prosecute him under US law.

9/11 caused people to believe this legend almost unquestioningly -- taking it as evidence of such an organization. I have heard people say "how could some terrorists living in a cave have pulled that off?". Well, its easy. You get some plane tickets, some weapons, and get on the plane and then hijack it. All it takes is a few hundred dollars, an an IQ over 80.


Events like the underwear bomber further solidify fear of terrorists and trust in the governments paranoia, agenda, or perhaps conspiracy. People eat up the declarations that things like the TSA are needed, despite the simple observation that even strict security protocols would not stop anything more than 1 or 2 idiot militants trying to hijack a plane.

Paranoia and fear that would be ineffective against any real terrorist, much less a global terror network, if it existed at all.

A simple case of the pilots being armed, or allowing airlines to have their own security aboard, would probably have stopped 9/11.

What's also troubling is that the government rarely, if ever, discloses detailed information about the so-called "terrorists" that it claims to be working against. Some information would have to be classified due to security concerns, but much more could be safely revealed, such as in the case of the NSA claiming that it had stopped 50 terrorist attacks since 9/11.

One problem with so much secrecy is that all of it gets lumped into one category called "terrorism", which is scary, unlike regular crime becuase...... um, because its TERRORISM.

Thus, anytime the government makes a declaration about "terrorism", it fuels things like the legend of Al Qeada by virtue of association. When the government catches some half-assed underwear bomber, or some other incompetent fool plotting a crime, it fuels fear of "terrorism", and further justifies the war on terror, and further turns people into sheep who can be rendered complacent with mere mention of the T-word.

People believe things unquestioningly, such as bin Laden being responsible for 9/11, despite there being no publicly available credible evidence that he was behind it.

Osama bin Laden Responsible for the 9/11 Attacks? Where is the Evidence? | Global Research

The government insists it has evidence, although it is hard to imagine how releasing such evidence could in any way compromise operations, or aid the enemy.

If the what constitutes "evidence" as documented in the Power of Nightmares is anything to go by, it is more than likely that such evidence is non existent.



Were the terrorist acts that do exist to be labeled as what they really are -- crimes that may or may not be based on radical ideology -- there would be far less grounds for justification and fear as there is today.

With a label such as "terrorism" and the "war on terror", the "next step" can always be justified.

Slippery slopes such as this do exist, because the same basic premise, and the same basic justification for taking the next step, remains intact and the same.
 
Top Bottom