"First off, there is a big difference between being complacent with our security and leaving ourselves open to attack, and being generally prepared and with being paranoid and suspicious of everyone and everything."


True. And IMO we are leaning into the paranoid side, + I suspect that commercial interests are exploiting this paranoia in among other areass security measures in airports and weapons. The last bright idea with everybody being x-rayed in the airports is so totally over the top for several reasons.

I would rather have yto show up and hour early and be x-rayed then have things be ultra convient and get blown up or taken hostage etc.


"Secondly, Yes, one must be ready and able to retaliate in the event that one's preparedness doesn't present enough of a deterrent to those who would harm one or one's nation. The sharpest sword is of little use if one lacks the will to wield it."

The whole "retaliate" idea is, IMO, such a bit mistake!

And what instead...we should reward them for attacking us?



1) As I see it, terrorism is a crime and should be treated like one. Meaning you deal with it by police and intelligence, because it is a crime, and because you cannot hit mosquitoes with a broad sword.

When its perpetrated by a single individual or small group...perhaps, when its perpetrated by international organizations with national backing...it is indded war, a jyhad by their own declaration even. As for the spurious insect coorolation...tell that to Osama Bin Laden...oh thats right, his little mosiquito brains finally got blown out by some of our broad sword so he wont be responding now will he.

2) By making it a 'war', you upgrade your opponents to soldiers, not criminals, and legally they should then be under the Geneva convention. Which makes the Guatamamo base a matter of lawlessness and war crimes. (The base is a whole topic in itself.)

Our finally going after them with some of our military is hardly upgrading them...they didnt change status all of the sudden becuase we decide to root them out for reciprocity.

3) By attacking a whole country, you clear the ground for countless new terrorists.

In some regards we did, in others we got rid of them too, they can no longer feel safe in any event since we have taken the war to them.

4) The retaliation idea should have gone out with the dinosaurs - the world is too small and world peace too fragile for that kind of thinking.

Keep in mind ...the majority of the worlds powers that be supported our going in after them.

5) It is not my intention to hurt anybody's feelings with these opinions.

I too hope that I am not hurting you or anyone else with my own.


"Third, it goes without saying that the cause and possible effects must be delved into and discussed at length...and should have been prior to taking action as well as during and after,
"

Prior, yes!
And both my countries (UK and DK) were equally stupid and non-thinking!

I believe they had planned for many different contingencies in this regard actually. I may not personally like everything they have done or how things have turned out, but I do recognize they didnt just ask the magic 8 ball or flip a coin eaither. Funny thing is ...if previous administrations had more balls and did the right thing, 911 probebly would have never happened.


" hindsight of course always provides better insight than that which is available at the time during any incident but is still a necessity if one doesn't wish to repeat past mistakes. Only ten years have elapsed, IMHO we are only now just finding out the consequences of actions taken on that day."
"

I do not think you can say 'hindsight' when you start two wars. You have to think first and shoot afterwards - and again, that goes for all the countries who did not. Likwise, many people have had serious opinions on the whole thing for all 10 years. It is just that no one have been listening under Bush.
Or Blair. Or Fogh.

Or Obama or Brown...since both just keep following the play book left for them in office by their predesessor.


"Fourth, the war's intent as I understand it was that it should never be conducted in any manner that at all suggests that its being waged against someone else s religious beliefs so much as to bring to justice those responsible for perpetrating terrorism against us"


Well, that war certainly meant a lot of grief for a lot of muslims - totally innocent people. Harrasment everywhere. Also harrasment of peole who oppose the war.

Muslims alone are not the only agrieved here. We all are on all sides.

I wonder how many have died by now, how many civilians and innocent bystanders - one article said about 30.000.

Oh way way more than 30 thousand civilians have died.

You cannot wage a war and assume that you only hit the criminals, that is obvious.

No one is more aware of that than the solider's on the ground hon.


"and prevent future acts of such aggression against us and or our allies. "

As for that, the threat of terrorism is said to be mulitiplied now compared to before the war.

Then why has the number of attacks that reach our shores been radically reduced or eliminated long before they can come to futition?



"It's my opinion that it's the media, (who thrives on any kind of opposition)"

Sadly you have a very big point here! Though thankfully not all the media are that bad.

Nope...aside from state sponsered internal systems...mainly just the top 99% thats owned and opperated by only 5 international super corperations. The rest get close to zero airtime btw.


"and the ignorant (who act as drones for the manipulative hateful few with the means and an agenda) who wish to make it a war between cultures and religions."

The scary thing is that it does not seem to be specially ignorant people who fall for the terrorist progaganda. It is all sorts of people: university students, normal workers, professional women with children...All the more reason to start looking into WHY these things happen. It is, IMO, too easy to simply say that they are religious fanatics - though the core of them must be, they are, after what is said, a minority.

Im not sure if your refering to the people of the effected areas who get duped into or choose to become terrorists due to the propoganda used by said terrorists upon them...or if your refering to our own people who get war hawkish and discriminatory against muslims in general out of ignorance or spite due to the propoganda of our media and those with hateful agendas like the KKK etc? Though in my opinion both are equally ignorant.




But are we? Who are looking into it - who are researching the phenomena of terrorism?

Too many interests in calling everyone you do not like 'terrorist', too many political and commercial interests here, too much muddling of the waters and keeping the pot boiling.

What is needed is unbiased (if such a thing is possible) research and political thinking.[/QUOTE]

Yes its possible to be unbiased, and yes more people than you will ever see on televison are indeed studying the subject with as much scientific objectivity as possible.