Is the "War on Terror" changing us?

[Rebiu]

Is the "War on Terror" changing us.

 

I watched Saddam,s execution video and it is quite barbaric. Yet a large portion of the US population is reveling in it. Is the war on terror making us less civilized and more like the killers we are fighting. Why was Jail good enough for Noriega and not Saddam. Do we really want to promote revenge and brutality. What place do these goals have in a stable, peaceful, democracy?

[Zythryn]

No, I don't believe the 'war on terror' is changing us in that way.

I believe the recent increase in fanaticism in the US is the reason many in the US are reveling in this.

Not only religious fanaticism, but political as well.

I think 30 years ago our political parties could work together. I don't know if that is the case anymore.

[jackson33]

the twin towers, Pentagon and corn field bombings did change us...

 

the "War on terror" was and is a message to those that want others dead for idealogical reasons...

 

the Iraq people and their fledgling government performed. what they consider justice, is a far cry from chopping heads off innocents, but then their society not us, determines right or wrong, to them...

[Rebiu]

the twin towers, Pentagon and corn field bombings did change us...

I was not changed at all. Please elaborate on how you were changed. Do you think this change is an improvement?

 

the "War on terror" was and is a message to those that want others dead for idealogical reasons...

All violent conflict can be reduced by that oversimplification to that conclusion. Try some substance rather than a platitude.

 

the Iraq people and their fledgling government performed. what they consider justice, is a far cry from chopping heads off innocents, but then their society not us, determines right or wrong, to them...

You the same government that supports the various militias that are killing 1000 of its own people a day?

[jackson33]

I was not changed at all. Please elaborate on how you were changed. Do you think this change is an improvement?All violent conflict can be reduced by that oversimplification to that conclusion. Try some substance rather than a platitude.You the same government that supports the various militias that are killing 1000 of its own people a day?

 

as a nation we stood by and let a few, create havoc and take control of many nations once or twice before. these were lessons in history, that should not be for gotten. this time however the ideology is pointed toward us and the goal is to eliminate us. the ideas behind what happened that day are contrary to human acceptance. this was preceded and has been seceded by events outside the territory we protect, but its the US duty by self decree to help those that cannot help themselves. the "war on terror" changed the passive attitude of most the earths population.

 

no we support no terrorist group, in any manner. they are generally funded by groups that would prefer a socialistic world, based on one religion in total control of the people, especially those females. currently these people live in Saudi Arabia, Iran and segmented groups of almost every nation. the concept itself of these people are self motivated in the insecurity of a lifestyle a thousand years old and for reasons even older. the modern concept are free peoples (all races and religions, especially women) is totally contrary.

 

where i live people don't fear government, they in fact will take issue with the people involved. they all can go to the store, go to school and none fear day to day existence under the thumb of a man, a theology or the leader of that. by law they are free to leave authority that becomes overbearing to the concept of the rest.

[Rebiu]

as a nation we stood by and let a few, create havoc and take control of many nations once or twice before. these were lessons in history, that should not be for gotten. this time however the ideology is pointed toward us and the goal is to eliminate us. the ideas behind what happened that day are contrary to human acceptance. this was preceded and has been seceded by events outside the territory we protect, but its the US duty by self decree to help those that cannot help themselves. the "war on terror" changed the passive attitude of most the earths population.

 

no we support no terrorist group, in any manner. they are generally funded by groups that would prefer a socialistic world, based on one religion in total control of the people, especially those females. currently these people live in Saudi Arabia, Iran and segmented groups of almost every nation. the concept itself of these people are self motivated in the insecurity of a lifestyle a thousand years old and for reasons even older. the modern concept are free peoples (all races and religions, especially women) is totally contrary.

 

where i live people don't fear government, they in fact will take issue with the people involved. they all can go to the store, go to school and none fear day to day existence under the thumb of a man, a theology or the leader of that. by law they are free to leave authority that becomes overbearing to the concept of the rest.

You are meandering all over the place. I do not believe you are addressing how terrorism has changed us.

[Tormod]

the "War on terror" was and is a message to those that want others dead for idealogical reasons...

 

Frankly, the "War on Terror" is (in addition to being an oxymoron) a cop-out to strengthen American arms industry by travelling halfway around the world to fight wars in the name of "democracy".

 

Why should one set of ideologies be allowed to take up arms against other ideologies? Isn't that what terrorism is?

[jackson33]

Frankly, the "War on Terror" is (in addition to being an oxymoron) a cop-out to strengthen American arms industry by travelling halfway around the world to fight wars in the name of "democracy".

 

Why should one set of ideologies be allowed to take up arms against other ideologies? Isn't that what terrorism is?

 

the US took up arms, for obvious reasons. we all know them...

 

your inferring an economic view for cause. if you honestly consider this a possibility, i in decency would not respond.

 

weapon of mass destruction in the hands of "terrorist" or dictatorial thugs is not going to be permitted, by some in this country. others and many of the ignorant (as to what may happen) desire isolationism. this was and remains a political reality for those that would rather put out brush fires before they become forest fires.

 

ideologies of "Muslim Extremist" including the leaders of Iran, are threats to many other peoples, ahead of us in North America. our problem comes from the treaties we are obliged to keep and the knowledge if they succeeded in some places the problem would eventually arrive here.

 

what you should refer to are cultures. to my knowledge no person of authority has suggested any culture, should change to conform to any other, especially to that of the US. cultures (not ideology) do not by nature interferer with others and in a way are self protective to this end. some here do have very strong opinions on "rights of people" and in particular women.

this however is why we try to give a people the right of self government.

[jackson33]

You are meandering all over the place. I do not believe you are addressing how terrorism has changed us.

 

the question is not that simple. we changed in general from a passive attitude

to protective people. there are daily results you and i will never know. occasionally one slips through the cracks and we hear of it. you have changed. maybe not like me or John Doe but you have.

[Zythryn]

weapon of mass destruction in the hands of "terrorist" or dictatorial thugs is not going to be permitted, by some in this country.

 

Really?? Are you sure?

North Korea not only has nuclear weapons, they have tested them.

Iran has blatently announce they are speeding up their nuclear program.

And, going back to Iraq, they had no nuclear weapons and were no where close to obtaining them.

So just who is it that will not permit "terrorists" or dictatorial thugs to have weapons of mass destruction?

[Zythryn]

as a nation we stood by and let a few, create havoc and take control of many nations once or twice before. these were lessons in history, that should not be for gotten.

 

Very true, letting Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield run rough-shod over the constitution and turn the USA into an extreme Fundamentalist Christian nation was a bad idea. Hopefully that will be corrected soon;)

[sebbysteiny]

The War on Terror is undoubtably changing us.

 

The more we are forced to deal with the reality of genocidal suicidal Islamic terror, the more changes are made to our society to deal with it.

 

Are they good?

 

Well, is the 'war on poverty' making positive changes to us? We all now spend vast amounts of money that could be spent on helping our kids have an education or future, or even saving our grandpa, but we can't because Zimbabwe's corrupt dictatorship cannot feed its people.

 

So our countries get poorer and therefore worse. But the alternative of sitting and letting millions of people die is just not an option.

 

We ARE heading in the right direction regarding the war against terror in my view. I think we need to go further personally. The comparitively small sacrifices on human rights mainly for terror suspects is fully worth it. And if it would guarantee eliminating Islamic terror from the world, so too is the collateral damage of the military side of the war against terror.

 

The only alternative is willful blindness, which will serve to delay and never stop the changes we make. And if Iran goes nuclear, that delay may cause millions more casualties.

 

I notice that discourse in the West is becoming closer and closer to Israel's. This trend, I predict will continue. This really does not surprise me since Israel is the only country in the world to have fully grasped the implications of Islamic terror at the grass routs AND leadership level.

 

So just who is it that will not permit "terrorists" or dictatorial thugs to have weapons of mass destruction?

 

Once again, it is likely to be Israel that will save the world to the corus of global criticism, disdain and hate.

[Spiked Blood]

The War on Terror is undoubtably changing us.

 

The more we are forced to deal with the reality of genocidal suicidal Islamic terror, the more changes are made to our society to deal with it.

 

I do not wish to appear indecorous, but what the frak are you talking about. Terrorism comes in many forms, in different shapes and sizes and is a whole lot more complex than "genocidal suicidal Islamic terror".

 

 

Once again, it is likely to be Israel that will save the world to the corus of global criticism, disdain and hate.

 

Israel saved the world before? I must have fallen asleep during that episode of 'Wacky history of the world : Revealed!'.

[jackson33]

Really?? Are you sure?

North Korea not only has nuclear weapons, they have tested them.

Iran has blatently announce they are speeding up their nuclear program.

And, going back to Iraq, they had no nuclear weapons and were no where close to obtaining them.

So just who is it that will not permit "terrorists" or dictatorial thugs to have weapons of mass destruction?

 

No. Korea, is a problem, but more so for China and Japan. to my knowledge they have not indicted the annihilation of another people or country. additionally they have -0- economy and no legal means to go much further than belly aching and threats.

 

even in the first gulf war, Iraq tried to send their scuds into Israel, which was not involved in that war. Iran's president has indicated he is the proclaimed religious leader to lead his people into the final days of mankind. they also and Iraq have some economic value, in oil.

 

"who is it", are many nations. primarily it should be those who will be directly effected. most nations are welfare poor, having little or no military strength.

Israel is the one nation that can handle Iran, that is in the area, but this would enrage the Muslim religious leaders over ideology that goes back 1500 years. the who, then becomes those nations tied by treaty to protect those with out the means.

 

your opinion on what was or was not is based on hind-sight. the list of nations, leaders, organizations and those that should have known are very much known. every person in Congress that voted for and later made claimed ignorance were privy to all the information the leaders had to judge. some have admitted they just didn't read the material or that they were told, other than was available to also read simply lied.

[jackson33]

Very true, letting Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield run rough-shod over the constitution and turn the USA into an extreme Fundamentalist Christian nation was a bad idea. Hopefully that will be corrected soon;)

 

by comparison, those you suggest did anything but run rs over the Constitution. politically correct, is a new phenomenon in this country. it may be the exact opposite to what is correct, but this will be for future generations to judge.

 

if you will explain to me this correctness to the Islamic Women, i will explain the Christan angle.

 

no; for awhile the US people, will do whats right. i have to believe this. we may change leaders, even to one you currently agree with, but in the end what those you now disagree with will have been judged correct.

[Zythryn]

"who is it", are many nations. primarily it should be those who will be directly effected. most nations are welfare poor, having little or no military strength.

Israel is the one nation that can handle Iran, that is in the area, but this would enrage the Muslim religious leaders over ideology that goes back 1500 years. the who, then becomes those nations tied by treaty to protect those with out the means.

 

Yet your stance appears to be that it was the business of the USA to become involved in Iraq??

We were not directly involved. There was no ally that went in which we then followed into battle.

 

N.K. on the other hand, threatens S.K. with its behavior. It is an ally of China, so I don't see China taking care of the situation. More likely it will fall upon Japan since they are directly affected as well.

 

However, we are moving off topic.

 

How has terrorism changed us?

Me personally, not much. However, I believe governments are using fear as a method of control. And due to this, individual rights are being eroded in the effort to be more secure.

Ben Franklin would be spinning in his grave.

[Zythryn]

by comparison, those you suggest did anything but run rs over the Constitution. politically correct, is a new phenomenon in this country. it may be the exact opposite to what is correct, but this will be for future generations to judge.

 

I agree, political correctness has been taken too far in some cases. However that statement seems non-sensical here as I didn't raise anything about political correctness.

 

Wire taps without warrants, the insistance of the president that he has the right to open and review any USPS mail without a warrant? These are not invasions of privacy?