War on terror

[Classact]

Is the US at war with Terror? How can the struggle against the threat be otherwise defined? Does President Obama have the authority to attack any nation harboring terrorists? Did President bush have the authority to attack any nation harboring terrorists?

We can play name games all day long but the US is in War on Terror until peace is declared.

[hjmick]

Could be Obama plans on wrestling with terrorism.

[Classact]

Could be Obama plans on wrestling with terrorism.After reading this how could a sane person define this public law? http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ040.107.pdf

[hjmick]

Ya got me, brother. I'm pretty sure I didn't understand it.

[Little-Acorn]

Is the US at war with Terror?
A better name for it I've heard, the the War by Terrorists Against Us.

But yes, we are absolutely at war. Maybe not against one country, but undoubtedly a war.

[DragonStryk72]

A better name for it I've heard, the the War by Terrorists Against Us.

But yes, we are absolutely at war. Maybe not against one country, but undoubtedly a war.

Problem is though, we're not entirely fighting against terrorism either, given that the idea of attacking them like this is to make them fear the repercussions of attacking, but on another level, we did not one thing for Darfur, where genocide was going on, and I'm sorry, but that's terrorism by any definition

[Gaffer]

You can't have a war on strategy. Terrorism is a strategy not a thing or place. It's a war with islam. That is the true name. It's denied by everyone, because it might offend some people to call it what it is.

You can't have war on someone if you won't even name them and refer only to their strategy.

[Classact]

You can't have a war on strategy. Terrorism is a strategy not a thing or place. It's a war with islam. That is the true name. It's denied by everyone, because it might offend some people to call it what it is.

You can't have war on someone if you won't even name them and refer only to their strategy.If you go back and read the law I linked it is a war with Islam but limited to Islamic Terrorists or any terrorists that may support them in attacking America. So if a few radical US citizens like John Walker Lynn or anyone else joins the action they are fair game and considered enemy under the law.

[Gaffer]

If you go back and read the law I linked it is a war with Islam but limited to Islamic Terrorists or any terrorists that may support them in attacking America. So if a few radical US citizens like John Walker Lynn or anyone else joins the action they are fair game and considered enemy under the law.

Actually it just says acts of terrorism, doesn't specify who. It's knee jerk legislation that congress always puts out after the fact. They still refuse to name our enemy.

This is legislation that should have been put in effect back in the 80's not in response to 911. It's typical put all the responsibility on the president legislation that covers their dumb asses.

[5stringJeff]

The act says:

"The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

So Congress gave the President the power to fight only against the perpetrators of 9/11 (or those that harbor them). Bush determined that al Qaeda was that organization. Thus, the best name for the war is the War Against Al Qaeda.

Since AQ was in Afghanistan, that's where the war started. Since AQ is in Pakistan now, we ought to be fighting them there, if we are truly going to fight against those who "planned, authorized, committed, or aided" 9/11.

I disagree that the current war is against all terrorists or all muslims. That is not what the authorization of force resolution says.

[Gaffer]

The act says:

"The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

So Congress gave the President the power to fight only against the perpetrators of 9/11 (or those that harbor them). Bush determined that al Qaeda was that organization. Thus, the best name for the war is the War Against Al Qaeda.

Since AQ was in Afghanistan, that's where the war started. Since AQ is in Pakistan now, we ought to be fighting them there, if we are truly going to fight against those who "planned, authorized, committed, or aided" 9/11.

I disagree that the current war is against all terrorists or all muslims. That is not what the authorization of force resolution says.

And the reason it will go on for a very long time is that congress authorized a selective war. There are two hundred divisions out there and we are concentrating on one battalion.

[5stringJeff]

And the reason it will go on for a very long time is that congress authorized a selective war. There are two hundred divisions out there and we are concentrating on one battalion.

There are two hundred divisions worth of al Qaeda terrorists?

[Gaffer]

There are two hundred divisions worth of al Qaeda terrorists?

There are 200 divisions of muslims. al queda makes up one battalion. Do the math.

[5stringJeff]

There are 200 divisions of muslims. al queda makes up one battalion. Do the math.

But we're not at war with Islam. We're at war with al Qaeda.

[Little-Acorn]

I disagree that the current war is against all terrorists or all muslims. That is not what the authorization of force resolution says.

The war is against us. By terrorists. We are merely replying appropriately to defend ourselves and prevent their hostile acts in the future.

Where they are from is less important than what they are doing, and what they (and their allies) will do in the future.

Congress saying that only the initial attackers and people who supported them are at war, doesn't make it so.

[Gaffer]

But we're not at war with Islam. We're at war with al Qaeda.

That's what so many don't understand. We are at war with islam. Even our own government doesn't understand this. When it comes to islam this whole country has become a bunch of mushrooms.

[Kathianne]

That's what so many don't understand. We are at war with islam. Even our own government doesn't understand this. When it comes to islam this whole country has become a bunch of mushrooms.

I agree, though not all 'Islamics' but yes to the religion. Those who are not our foes are not really adhering to the tenants of the religion. Am I understanding you Gaffer?

[Gaffer]

I agree, though not all 'Islamics' but yes to the religion. Those who are not our foes are not really adhering to the tenants of the religion. Am I understanding you Gaffer?

Yes you are Kath. There are those that don't adhere and those that are apostates and don't say anything because it means death. But those are the true minority in islam.
Those not taking part in violence are just biding their time.

[Kathianne]

Yes you are Kath. There are those that don't adhere and those that are apostates and don't say anything because it means death. But those are the true minority in islam.
Those not taking part in violence are just biding their time.

Seriously, I hope you are wrong, but fear you are right.

[5stringJeff]

The war is against us. By terrorists. We are merely replying appropriately to defend ourselves and prevent their hostile acts in the future.

Where they are from is less important than what they are doing, and what they (and their allies) will do in the future.

Congress saying that only the initial attackers and people who supported them are at war, doesn't make it so.

Perhaps not, but Congress has only authorized force to be used against those organizations that planned and executed 9/11. If you want a larger war, got to Congress and get the authorization to use the military against all Muslims.

[FSUK]

The so called war on terror is a war on islam. Its obvious. Al Qaeda do not represent islam, they represent a twisted, distorted and fake version of islam. Islam teaches peace and says that if some is killed, its like killing the whole of mankind.

Look,on 9/11 - the dead also consisted of muslims. This is a terror outfit that is fully of brainwashed, fundamentalists. They have hijacked a religion.

But, i blame the US foreign policies for creating Al Qaeda. The CIA armed bin laden and his team during the soviet invasion of afghanistan. America is not going to win this war, by bombing villages in pakistan, by raping iraqi women or by sitting back and letting zionist criminals massacre a strip of land within 20 days.

[Gaffer]

The so called war on terror is a war on islam. Its obvious. Al Qaeda do not represent islam, they represent a twisted, distorted and fake version of islam. Islam teaches peace and says that if some is killed, its like killing the whole of mankind.

Look,on 9/11 - the dead also consisted of muslims. This is a terror outfit that is fully of brainwashed, fundamentalists. They have hijacked a religion.

But, i blame the US foreign policies for creating Al Qaeda. The CIA armed bin laden and his team during the soviet invasion of afghanistan. America is not going to win this war, by bombing villages in pakistan, by raping iraqi women or by sitting back and letting zionist criminals massacre a strip of land within 20 days.

You are a prime example of what I am referring too. Trying to shift the blame with the usual lies. But then your koran says it's ok to lie as long as it's in the interest of islam. If you don't like the west, go back to pakistan and join the rest of your buddies in the caves. They probably have some women there you can beat on when you get frustrated.

You can hide behind your anonymity but your still pakboy the muslim pig.

[Yurt]

You are a prime example of what I am referring too. Trying to shift the blame with the usual lies. But then your koran says it's ok to lie as long as it's in the interest of islam. If you don't like the west, go back to pakistan and join the rest of your buddies in the caves. They probably have some women there you can beat on when you get frustrated.

You can hide behind your anonymity but your still pakboy the muslim pig.

do you have the verse in the quran for that?

[Gaffer]

do you have the verse in the quran for that?

Not off the top of my head. Have to look it up and since I'm not on my pc and don't get a lot of time online now, not sure how soon I can get it done. But to paraphrase it. You are permitted to say anything to the infidels until such time as you are stronger than them and can conquer them.

[FSUK]

Not off the top of my head. Have to look it up and since I'm not on my pc and don't get a lot of time online now, not sure how soon I can get it done. But to paraphrase it. You are permitted to say anything to the infidels until such time as you are stronger than them and can conquer them.

find the verse. lying fuck. you seriously are such a fucking bigot. you dont know anything, you sit in ur fucking arm chair back in america drinking beer and absorb the bullshit that you guys hear in your so called free media.

[Kathianne]

Not off the top of my head. Have to look it up and since I'm not on my pc and don't get a lot of time online now, not sure how soon I can get it done. But to paraphrase it. You are permitted to say anything to the infidels until such time as you are stronger than them and can conquer them.

Perhaps this?

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/032.smt.html


Chapter 25: FORBIDDANCE OF TELLING A LIE AND THE CASES IN WHICH TELLING OF LIE IS PERMISSIBLE

Book 032, Number 6303:
Humaid b. 'Abd al-Rahman b. 'Auf reported that his mother Umm Kulthum daughter of 'Uqba b. Abu Mu'ait, and she was one amongst the first emigrants who pledged allegiance to Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him), as saying that she heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: A liar is not one who tries to bring reconciliation amongst people and speaks good (in order to avert dispute), or he conveys good. Ibn Shihab said he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them).

Book 032, Number 6304:
This hadith has been narrated on the authority of Ibn Shihab with the same chain of transmitters but with a slight variation of wording.

Book 032, Number 6305:
This hadith has been transmitted on the authority of Zuhri with a slight variation of wording.


Chapter 26: SERIOUS PROHIBITION OF TALE-CARRYING

Book 032, Number 6306:
'Abdullah b. Mas'ud reported that Muhammad (may peace be upon him) said: Should I inform you that slandering, that is in fact a tale-carrying which creates dissension amongst people, (and) he (further) said: The person tells the truth until he is recorded as truthful, and lie tells a lie until lie is recorded as a liar.