So alfred's answer is another holy war, of Christian vs Muslims.If you follow "actual" history you'd find muslims far more
tolerating then the christians, when they would gain power in Europe or the holy
land.I have muslim friends, who are not the people you claim, and I
have Christian friends who sound like you and think that we should start some
kind of pre-emptive strike against muslims in general and believe they have God
on their side. Sad little people who have given up on the golden rule for
old testament revenge.
@UtahBlueDevil:"... the vast majority of them want the exact same
things we want - a safe place for their kids to grow up..."Let's say that only one-tenth of one percent were Jihadist terrorists...
How many would that make of the 1.6 billion Muslims, huh? I think over one
million. That's a fairly sizable army."It is only a
minority that feel they need to compel others into belief. In fact the vast
majority of those don't live by Shiria law."See above."What scares them the most is what they see in western media - and
it should scare us too. Violence, Sex, drug abuse..."How's
that differ from the 9/11 carnage?"That is the ideology devout
Muslims are fighting against."Not so... they are fighting for a
western world caliphate. Make no mistake. They've already made
significant inroads into England, Germany, France, the Netherlands, and several
other European nations."But those differences are not worth
killing over."Tell that to the Muslim jihadists.
"Obama DID NOT kill Osama."You can't have it both
ways..... you can't say Obama is responsible for all the misdeeds of
government - then not give him credit when the government does something
right.Rikitikitavi - you need to decide..... you can't have it
both ways. Did you hold Bush responsible for 9/11? For the abuses in Iraq
prisons? For Scooter Libby? For the myriad of other 'scandals' in
that administration?Somehow I don't think so. Did you hold
Bush responsible for failing to get Osama Bin Laden? I doubt you did that
Let's get one thing straight: Obama DID NOT kill Osama. He did not even
issue the order to do so. Obama dithered indecisively when Panetta presented
him with the decision to carry out the operation. Panetta was a "GO"
with or without BO>
AlfredPheonix, AZGood luck with that. There are 1.6 billion
Muslims to change who have been developing ideology for over 14 centuries. Not a
simple task. In fact, the Muslims are seeking to change the world's
ideology.10:23 p.m. May 31, 2013====== Why do they
fight us Alfred?They see out culture full of;SexDrugsAlcoholnot praying to Godand stealing their oil [i.e., pillaging -
something the Romans, Vikings and Nephites all did before their demise as well.]
To be quite honest - from a purely Moral "ideological" Stand
point, I see more positive in the Muslim world than I do the Western
World.But I also value Free Agency, and Free Will over be forced to
do what's right even more.I learned from Alma about freedom - the
wicked must allowed to do their wickedness.Forcing or taking away free
agency is worse than always choosing what is deemed right.The
Founding Fathers knew that.And I can't understand why conservative
today trample that freedom in the name of righteousness.Right or
Wrong, it's what makes me a "Liberal".
"Good luck with that. There are 1.6 billion Muslims to change who have been
developing ideology for over 14 centuries. Not a simple task. In fact, the
Muslims are seeking to change the world's ideology."True...but the vast majority of them want the exact same things we want - a
safe place for their kids to grow up, and most believe in peoples rights to
believe as they wish. It is only a minority that feel they need to compel
others into belief. In fact the vast majority of those don't live by
Shiria law.What scares them the most is what they see in western
media - and it should scare us too. Violence, Sex, drug abuse - all mainstays
of what we can entertainment. But that is the image they see... and they want
nothing to do with the west. That is the ideology devout Muslims are fighting
against. That is part of the fight that "conservatives" should share in
common with them.We can argue over if God has blue eyes or brown
later. But those differences are not worth killing over.
@Eric Samuelsen:"Obama is right on this one. The only way to defeat
terrorism is to refuse to be terrorized."And how do you do that?
Stand around and repeat over and over 'I'm not terrorized, I'm
not terrorized, I'm not terrorized?'@Mountanman"So, if one wants to get technical -- it is a war of Ideology, not a war
on terror."The problem with that approach is... the terrorists
have guns, IED's, and pressure cookers. They also know how to fly Boeing
747's."BTW -- God didn't carpet bomb Lucifer and his
followers into submission."Not yet... but He will.@Ryan Phillips:"The only way to 'win' a war of ideology is
to change the ideology of your opponents."Good luck with that.
There are 1.6 billion Muslims to change who have been developing ideology for
over 14 centuries. Not a simple task. In fact, the Muslims are seeking to
change the world's ideology.
It is rather ironic that the day this was published, the number 2 leader of the
Taliban - their military lead - was killed. If that is considered
"surrendering", well I hope we surrender more often. There
was an actual war authorization - a legal document - that was called the war on
terrorism, and in it was specific authorization to go after the Taliban and Bin
Laden and his gang of thugs. We don't need that authorization to continue
to pursue these goals and pursue these people. The intent here is to do so
inside the bounds of normal law, which the war authorization granted great
leeway. Gitmo is one of those constructs - where normally you can not hold
people from anywhere in prison without bringing charges... indefinitely.But I hardly think this is a relaxation in the pursuit of those who
would go after American interest. Lets not get confused between a legal tool,
and the mission at hand.
@embarrassed Utahn!: "President Obama has the near-impossible task of
repairing the damage caused by Bush's war on terror."What's so tough about closing down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, huh?
Obama said he'd do it in his first term... musta been all talk. Either
that or he has a very poor memory.@isrred:"You can't
'Win' a war with no opponent, so to say that this is
'defeat' is ludicrous."There is an opponent... the
problem is, the opponent is not found in just one country but scattered amongst
dozens of countries in the mid east and elsewhere... even in many countries in
Europe now. They fight in one or two countries and hide in the others until
needed."But hey, at least Obama didn't hang a giant
'Mission Accomplished' banner up a few weeks into it."Neither did Bush. The sailors on the ship hung it.@SEY: "So
then how would you describe victory? How would you know when terrorism has been
finally defeated?"Very tough questions since terrorism has
it's roots in a major world religion... and we see no effort to abandon the
There is no need for the US to win any war. As long as we disrupt our enemies
and they cannot unite against us we have already won, by being the #1 Super
Power on planet Earth. We own the oceans, we own the commerce. The United
States dominates the world. We have already won. Its now a matter of staying on
top. Look at world events with that perspective and our strategy's
make more sense.
The only way to "win" a war of ideology is to change the ideology of
your opponents. We will never change the ideology of terrorists. The way we
"lose" this war is more terror attacks. This will always continue to
happen. So you can either give up and let terrorists have their way, or
continue to protect yourself. Announcing that we are giving up like Obama wants
to do is not the answer. In the liberal fantasy world Bin Laden's death
meant the end of terror threats. The lie about the Libya attack being a
response to a video helped get him re-elected, so that's nice. If the
"war on terror" is just hyperbole and nomenclature, then what, exactly,
is Obama proposing to put an "end" to? If nothing is going to change,
then why give the impression to terrorists that we are letting our guard down?
Ernest T. BassBountiful, UTTwo republicans in my family claimed the
US should nuke the middle east. Yes they believed it and yes they were
serious.=========== As a veteran myself -- I
always ask myself if these sorts of republicans who want to go out and nuke and
bomb everyone they take issue with have EVER served in the military?...and -- Who and How are they gonna pay for it?
Two republicans in my family claimed the US should nuke the middle east. Yes
they believed it and yes they were serious.Peace is the only way to win a
"war" against an ideology.
@MountanmanHayden, IDIf we can't win a war against an
ideology, what shall we do? We have to win or be destroyed because to them you
and I are "infidels" and the solution is our death! =======I can always tell someone who has NEVER served in the
military...1. You fight fire with fire.2. You fight bullets
with bullets.3. You fight bombs with bombs.4. You fight ideologies
with ideologies. [BTW - That's what the "War in Heaven" was all
about.]So, if one wants to get technical -- it is a war of Ideology,
not a war on terror.But conservatives like GW Bush thought fighting Terror
with Terror was the correct approach -- but still get it all wrong.BTW -- God didn't carpet bomb Lucifer and his followers into submission.
Obama is right on this one. The only way to defeat terrorism is to refuse to be
I think if we just be nice to terrorists they will treat us nice too.
Hasn't the past few years already proven that?? In Barack we trust!!!
I thought Obama lead the "non-military seals" operation is take out Bin
Laden? The term "war on terror" is so general and meaningless it could
include shutting down roller coasters.
@ RanchHand. Perhaps you misunderstood my earlier comments? As President Bush
told us, "we are not fighting a country but an ideology from many
countries." If we can't win a war against an ideology, what shall we
do? We have to win or be destroyed because to them you and I are
"infidels" and the solution is our death! "Death to the
@Mountanman;That's right. The "War on Terror" is a war
on an ideology, its not a real war. Who is the enemy? Every strike against
"the enemy" that kills innocent civilians (and there have been many of
these) creates more enemies.What nation attacked us on 9/11? What
nation attacked the Boston Marathon? Who is the enemy? You can't even
pinpoint who it is. You can't have a war on an ideology, it will always
fail.Fortunately, reality is setting in.
"It was revealed this morning that McCain, during his personal mission to
Syria to meet with rebels, appeared in photos with Mohammed Nour and Abu
Ibrahim, two members of the Sunni "Northern Storm" brigade, which
kidnapped 11 Lebanese Shia pilgrims, who were on their way back to Lebanon, from
Iran. The group is still holding nine of the hostages.This should
give everyone pause when it comes to ramping up support for the rebels by arming
them.McCain's office says that the senator didn't know who
they were, and doesn't support their terrorist acts. . If a U.S. senator
can unwittingly pose for pictures with terrorists in Syria, how can we guarantee
that the arms McCain supports sending there won't also end up in the same
place McCain did -- with terrorists? The simple answer is that we can't.What's worse, the Sunni side of the war, which McCain wants to
support with arms, is not just affiliated with these kidnappers and terrorists,
but also al Qaeda-affiliated groups, and Iraqi Sunni insurgents -- the very same
Iraqi Sunnis who killed American troops, and the Iraqi Army."(Jon
Soltz Vote Vets)
What a load of rubbish. Just because we get rid of the silly 'war on
whatever' nomenclature doesn't mean preventing terrorism falls off the
radar. The phrase was only designed to monger fear, and enable poor decision
making. The president surrendered nothing except unnecessary hyperbole. The day
to day activities encompassed in the 'war on terror' are still part of
the normal function of law enforcement and government agencies everywhere, even
though we despise the government that provides them.
1. There never REALLY was a "War on Terror" -- it was all a ruse to
invade an oil rich country, and topple a rogue puppet dictator WE put in office,
who then stopped playing by our Oil Corporation desires.2. Obama
took out the mastermind and kingpin of the 9/11 attacks - [the terrorist] Osama
Bin Laden is dead, Al Qaeda is a side note in history, and like the Marshall
Plan after WWII - it's time America starts building everything we spend
years blowing-up -- most importantly our credibility through the Middle East.3. Benghazi? C'mon. When Republicans take the blame for 12 other
embassy attacks, the deaths of 60 diplomats, 5,000 dead soldiers, 75,000 wounded
protecting "Oil" and not America or our Constitution -- then we can
chat.Until then - this "letter" is just more ranting and
parroting of AM hate radio.
@ RanchHand. Not even a real war? Tell that to those murdered on 9/11 or those
murdered in Benghazi or at the Boston Marathon, among hundreds of others.No need for a military? Sprechen sie Deutch? How about Japanese? Pearl Harbor
ring a bell with you? Ready to buy your wife and daughters a burka? Wise up!
Life is shorter than you think!
What if the best approach to "fighting" terrorism has been right under
our noses the whole time? I say it's worth a shot. I'm guessing it
would be cheaper and cost far fewer lives. "Love your enemies, bless
them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which
despitefully use you, and persecute you."
In 2004, Osama Bin Laden said “We are continuing this policy in bleeding
America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for
Allah,” Now, 10 years later, Osama's goal of driving America to
bankruptcy is succeeding. Our goal of, what, killing all the terrorists, is no
closer to completion than it was in 2001. Maybe we need to reconsider our
strategy in the "war on terror".
It's one thing to disagree on policies, and expected outcomes, but what has
seasoned political observer shaking their heads and saying they have never seen
a political environment like this is the massive misinformation and willful
ignorance displayed by the right today. Should we arm Libyan rebels
is a debatable question, but to say the President has surrendered to extremists
in the middle of the debate about the Presidents use of drones is beyond being
The "war on terror" is just another corporate welfare scheme to give
billions away to the Military Industrial complex. It isn't even a real
We are still spending nearly $700 billion annually in defense. More than we ever
did during the Cold War, Vietnam War, Korean War, and WWII. I don't think
that is an indication of surrender.Besides, what would you have
Obama do to PROVE his stance on terrorism? Kill Osama? Yeah, he already did
that.So what else? Invade Iran or Libya? Have we learned
nothing from Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq?To what end is this war
on terror? Spend $1 trillion annually? Own the entire Middle East? What do
repubs want? There will always be some bad guys in the world. Sorry!
So then how would you describe victory? How would you know when terrorism has
been finally defeated?
You can't "Win" a war with no opponent, so to say that this is
"defeat" is ludicrous.But hey, at least Obama didn't
hang a giant "Mission Accomplished" banner up a few weeks into it.
Obama has a problem with reality. This is why he refuses to admit his
malfeasance in Benghazi, it contradicts his arrogant assertion that HE already
defeated Al Qaida. Perhaps Al Qaida didn't get his memo or have not
listened to his speeches?
Huh? Where did this come from? May we see some solid documentation that there
is any degree of truth behind this nonsense? And hate radio stations do not
count as valid confirmation.
President Obama has the near-impossible task of repairing the damage caused by
Bush's war on terror. Our standing as a respected world-leader may never
recover from the fraud and mismanagement of the Bush years. Bless our Amazing
President Obama! His so-called "blunders" are a hiccup compared to the
disasters Bush caused.