are you talking about haditha?

It's super easy to have this attitude when you know the others guys have the capability of flying over a military base and crash a plane into it. Unless, of course, you forget about this capability. I digress though, many here would rather have more convenience at the airport than reduce the ability of people hijacking a plane, of which, they supposedly believe the "other guys" do not have this capability.

Does it change your opinion if the "other guys" do have this capability, of which, you seem to imply they do not?

Interesting thing, looked up the definition for terrorism and war. The dictionary definition is by no means what my personal understanding of what terrorism is.

Terrorism:

1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

War:

1.
a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
2.
a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.
3.
a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.



According to the dictionary, war is a subset of terrorism, which in my mind are very different political tools. Yet, the same source for the above definitions has a description much more line with with my understanding when you query terrorist attack.

terrorist attack

a surprise attack involving the deliberate use of violence against civilians in the hope of attaining political or religious aims

My definition: using violence for political lobbying.

It's a level of indirection, like stock options.

In common usage it is degrading to ~ violence by the enemy.

They would have become terrorists in the future, can't you see?

Preventive care is cheaper

Let's bomb them before they bomb themselves!

you might want to join the 20th century, and then make the jump to the 21st. It was your military that decided in IndoChina that a body count was more important than a strategic victory. Its been a long time since 2 foes met on a field of battle, then settled the score. The game is about making the other side lose the will to continue, and if that means taking out collateral damage to make he invaders go home, then that is what's done.

I'd guess the chances a terrorist would be able to hijack a plane and successfully pilot it into any high value target, in the US at least, would be minuscule now.

With or without the on-going War on Terror, that is.

Interesting that you presume the extremist goal is for the US to leave despite the ultimate goal of 9/11 which clearly indicated they wanted the US to become more involved in the Middle East.

It always amazes me this detail is always forgotten when discussing terrorism and foreign policy. I understand many have a fundamental disagreement on US policy in regards to terrorism and US purported transgressions, but this whole idea that they just want us to leave them alone is false. They purposely attacked the US to provoke US military action in the Middle East. They sent a calling card and we responded to it. Yet, the only thing people seem to talk about is "they do not want us their" despite it being exactly what the terrorist wanted.

You do not have to believe me, look up "ultimate goal" and the "9/11 commission report."

Given this definition, I'd say the US is definitely guilty of terrorism. Even if you can't get behind 1 or 3 completely, you can not say that the media and Bush administration did not go bonkers trying to scare the **** out of everyone for years after 9/11 to push their agenda.

That definition is so imprecise it is useless. You are labelling every news organisation terrorist for example.

my subscription to chain mail emails has expired, I suppose that's why I was so uninformed

I wouldn't be so quick to conclude here. An apparently innocent man was convicted of the Lockerbie bombing in which 200 odd Americans were murdered.

There have been numerous mentions of an Iranian connection, and evidence exonerating Libya.

http://libya360.wordpress.com/2012/0...nerates-libya/

Is the "chain mail" argument the current standby response to information in which opposes an one's opinion?

The third and “ultimate objective,” according to Al Adl, “was to prompt [the United States] to come out of its hole.” Al Adl claims that Al Qaeda wanted to provoke the United States into attacking areas of the Islamic world associated with the organization and its affiliates. In doing so, Al Adl claims, Al Qaeda hoped to make it easier to attack elements of U.S. power and to build its “credibility in front of [the Islamic] nation and the beleaguered people of the world.

Reflecting on the subsequent U.S. response to the attacks, Bin Laden and others have described the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq as new “crusades” and highlighted both the considerable economic impact of the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent costs of the U.S. military response as indications of Al Qaeda’s effectiveness. Al Adl and others have conceded that the attacks on New York and Washington were not totally successful, while arguing that the September 11 attack“was enough to prompt the Americans to carry out the anticipated response” —namely direct military action within the Islamic world.

Al Qaeda appears to have been less successful in using the purportedly hoped for U.S. military response to “help the [Islamic] nation to wake from its slumber,” as it claims to have planned. Both Bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al Zawahiri have criticized the population and governments of the Islamic world for failing to answer their calls to arms and for cooperating with the United States and its allies. These criticisms have been coupled with renewed calls for armed “resistance” against the United States and its allies from
Al Zawahiri, Al Adl, the late Al Zarqawi, and others


Once again, the constant proclamation that "they just want us to leave them alone" is contradicted by direct evidence suggesting terrorist wanted increased military involvement from the US in the Middle East.

Then you should contact your local selected member of congress, and tell them you fully support military action against North Korea. NK of course is currently the largest country who produces counterfeit US currency.

While those conclusions could be reached, the underlying reason for their efforts was/is to not be under imperial control from a far distant government. Which if you are an American should resonate with you. Your ancestors were traitorous terrorists, who partook in a war to free yourselves from the reign of a distant monarchical society. The 'founders' as you have canonized them, were not interested in bringing a fight, just for a fight sake. They were intent on militarily achieving what negotiation could not deliver.

Look at the current state of Iraq, it was a difficult journey to actually get the US to leave. Then there is Western Europe, where that same military stance has plagued the landscape for 70 years. And why so, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, some 3 decades ago. Still no voluntary step to leave the scene.

Those brown people are not stupid. They study history, both current and distant. So while you may look at your citation as the only acceptable one, it would behove you to look at other cause & effect reasons. They want to fight us, its the only reason they would attract us is assuming the conclusion. The same was done with the yellowcake from Niger.

Small group of random terrorists speaks for all sovereign countries in the middle east itt.

sorry cres you are wrong with about 80% of what you said.

Top notch refutation!

that was expected based on your slant of knowledge and understanding of events.

cres did u open the link i posted itt about iran? not about imperialism but about spreading the revolution.

How so?

terrorism not being about imperialism. also the us declared war with britain and formed a sovereign force thus limiting engagements to military on military. we did not sail to england and blow up a market limiting our target to 100% civilians with 0 military value of such target.

leo, they see the US as an imperialistic hegemony. All the intellectual somersaults to portray a different front will not be seen nor accepted. And its nice to try to explain how the American Colonists did all that formal paper work. But they weren't under siege, occupied by a foreign powers army (which IS a state of war). It was a domestic dispute. Yet there are the Yanks (over the past 50 years or so), intruding on how many domestic disputes in Central America, Cuba, Europe, Asia..................

Show, not dictate, is the most important trait. That means if the US wants any sort of peaceful coexistence, they must be the first to show it. Any other activity is a bully getting the other side to disarm, then slapping them.

Maybe, when the US breaks down to the states fighting each other, you might get a taste of how the rest of the world functions. The UN gets a bad rap because all it does is talk, talk, talk, talk. Bloody wars start when the talk stops, because no one would listen, or just refuses to acknowledge a differing position.

Finally, they are not obligated to follow your rules, especially when you hardly follow them too.