War and Freedom

[c0wardlyli0n]

It's often said that those fighting such and such war are "fighting for our freedom". I find that phrase highly objectionable. Let me use the "War on Terrorism" as an example. First, "terrorism" has yet to be clearly defined by those waging the war. My best understanding is that it is a campaign to either kill or subdue anyone who opposes the US government or the financial interests of certain entities. That being said, are we as a people more free or less free because of this "war"? We have designated "free speech zones", limitless electronic surveillance, executive assassination of US citizens without trial or judicial oversight, the definition of due process has been redefined to mean whatever process government deems as due process, secret trials in secret courts, torture....... Is this freedom worth fighting for?

 

[joG]

It's often said that those fighting such and such war are "fighting for our freedom". I find that phrase highly objectionable. Let me use the "War on Terrorism" as an example. First, "terrorism" has yet to be clearly defined by those waging the war. My best understanding is that it is a campaign to either kill or subdue anyone who opposes the US government or the financial interests of certain entities. That being said, are we as a people more free or less free because of this "war"? We have designated "free speech zones", limitless electronic surveillance, executive assassination of US citizens without trial or judicial oversight, the definition of due process has been redefined to mean whatever process government deems as due process, secret trials in secret courts, torture....... Is this freedom worth fighting for?

If you were living in Syria or had said something like the above prior the war, you would believe that the answer is "Yes". Of course, you probably would not believe anything, because the torture would have been real and to the end.

 

[c0wardlyli0n]

If you were living in Syria or had said something like the above prior the war, you would believe that the answer is "Yes". Of course, you probably would not believe anything, because the torture would have been real and to the end.

I don't think I understand the post.... Are you saying that the US is more free than Syria? If so, then I guess until we're on par or worse than some of the worst, it's all good?

 

[joG]

I don't think I understand the post.... Are you saying that the US is more free than Syria? If so, then I guess until we're on par or worse than some of the worst, it's all good?

Nope. Not all good. But not reason for despair either. And in order not to slip into a Syrian or even Turkish situation we do have to defend ourselves.

 

[dimensionallava]

It's often said that those fighting such and such war are "fighting for our freedom". I find that phrase highly objectionable. Let me use the "War on Terrorism" as an example. First, "terrorism" has yet to be clearly defined by those waging the war. My best understanding is that it is a campaign to either kill or subdue anyone who opposes the US government or the financial interests of certain entities. That being said, are we as a people more free or less free because of this "war"? We have designated "free speech zones", limitless electronic surveillance, executive assassination of US citizens without trial or judicial oversight, the definition of due process has been redefined to mean whatever process government deems as due process, secret trials in secret courts, torture....... Is this freedom worth fighting for?

First of all, the idea that american troops are fighting for anyone's freedom much less America's is ridiculous, George Bush didn't even try to sell the idea that al queda or somebody else was going to conquer the USA. Second of all, they are not at war with the USA, they are war with literally every government on earth. Any country you can name, they are at war with that country. To put it simply its nothing personal.

also what do free speech zones have to do with alqueda?

 

[Fledermaus]

It's often said that those fighting such and such war are "fighting for our freedom". I find that phrase highly objectionable. Let me use the "War on Terrorism" as an example. First, "terrorism" has yet to be clearly defined by those waging the war. My best understanding is that it is a campaign to either kill or subdue anyone who opposes the US government or the financial interests of certain entities. That being said, are we as a people more free or less free because of this "war"? We have designated "free speech zones", limitless electronic surveillance, executive assassination of US citizens without trial or judicial oversight, the definition of due process has been redefined to mean whatever process government deems as due process, secret trials in secret courts, torture....... Is this freedom worth fighting for?

Assassination of US citizens?

Please share.

 

[Fledermaus]

It's often said that those fighting such and such war are "fighting for our freedom". I find that phrase highly objectionable. Let me use the "War on Terrorism" as an example. First, "terrorism" has yet to be clearly defined by those waging the war. My best understanding is that it is a campaign to either kill or subdue anyone who opposes the US government or the financial interests of certain entities. That being said, are we as a people more free or less free because of this "war"? We have designated "free speech zones", limitless electronic surveillance, executive assassination of US citizens without trial or judicial oversight, the definition of due process has been redefined to mean whatever process government deems as due process, secret trials in secret courts, torture....... Is this freedom worth fighting for?

Your 'understanding' of the war on terror is deeply flawed.

 

[DVSentinel]

It's often said that those fighting such and such war are "fighting for our freedom". I find that phrase highly objectionable. Let me use the "War on Terrorism" as an example. First, "terrorism" has yet to be clearly defined by those waging the war. My best understanding is that it is a campaign to either kill or subdue anyone who opposes the US government or the financial interests of certain entities. That being said, are we as a people more free or less free because of this "war"? We have designated "free speech zones", limitless electronic surveillance, executive assassination of US citizens without trial or judicial oversight, the definition of due process has been redefined to mean whatever process government deems as due process, secret trials in secret courts, torture....... Is this freedom worth fighting for?

Apparently you are not very good at collecting knowledge that doesn't fit your view. President Bush defined the war on terror. It was, and should still be, using US Forces to take down regimes in countries that have historically and currently support terrorism, i.e. State Sponsored Terrorism.


Simple Definition of terrorism (Terrorism | Definition of Terrorism by Merriam-Webster)

: the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

 

[DVSentinel]

First of all, the idea that american troops are fighting for anyone's freedom much less America's is ridiculous, George Bush didn't even try to sell the idea that al queda or somebody else was going to conquer the USA. Second of all, they are not at war with the USA, they are war with literally every government on earth. Any country you can name, they are at war with that country. To put it simply its nothing personal.

also what do free speech zones have to do with alqueda?

Of course we see less freedom at the moment, we have a socialist in office.

Bush didn't try to sell that idea that we were being conquered, most people understand that we were being attacked. Further, we have allies throughout the world with which we have defence agreements with. We are committed to those nations defence as well as our own.

It appears that you do not like such treaties, but then again, most were made to fight and destroy Communism/Socialism throughout the world.