hamas vows revenge on US

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Mar 22, 2004.

  1. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #1
    this morning, the US press secretary refused to denounce the killing of the hamas leader. later, he then said the WH was deeply disturbed by it.

    could the WH possibly be pandering to hamas after it said it would start targeting the US?

    shall we expect sidewalk and restaurant suicide bombings in the US now? thank god saddam is no longer a threat!
     
  2. Krizoitz macrumors 6502a

    Krizoitz

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Location:
    Wakayama, Japan
    #2
    when will terroists realize that terroisim never suceeds. Honestly name a succesful terrorist group? As for suicide bombings in the U.S. if they ever do happen they will just mobilize the country AGAINST the terrorists and as Japan learned in WWII you don't piss of the U.S. We would throw our full power behind any serious atempt at terroism in the U.S. and they know it. Look what happened to Al Qaida after Sept 11. While they are still around the Taliban is mostly gone and they were severely weakened. Unfortunately in places like the middle east they can get away with stuff still, but notice how there have been no terror attacks here since Sept. 11.
     
  3. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #3
    "lisa, i'd like to buy your rock"
     
  4. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #4
    Off the top of my head...

    Irish Republican Army
    Stern Gang

    I would venture to guess there are several more.
     
  5. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #5
    I wouldn't call either of them "successful" -- but that's not really the point, is it.

    The issues here are (or should be): 1) are we really fighting a war on terrorism when we go on adventures like Iraq and allow Al Qaeda to escape in Tora Bora and now Pakistan without sending in one member of the American armed forces?; 2) why do we weaken our relations with our allies in Europe by acting like schoolyard bullies? (what is with the name calling at the French, and now the Spaniards? Come on, grow up!).

    Sure there has been no Al Qaeda attack since 9/11 -- but there was not an attack on American soil by Al Qaeda before 9/11. Everything was overseas.

    Bush should not get "credit" for being the only President to have had a terrorist group successfully attack the U.S. homeland.
     
  6. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #6
    Um...this one group succeeded in bringing down the WTC and sending the country into a panic and turned us sharply towards becoming a police state. Their leader is still on the loose somewhere. The name was....al...something.

    How do you propose mobilizing the country against suicide bombings? Tanks on every street corner? Soldiers with machine guns in every store/office/theme park/nightclub/etc?

    Japan was a nation that could be bombed. It's infrastructure was destroyed, and it could no longer support the army needed to fight the war. Al Qeada is not a traditional army, with traditional supply lines or weapons or government backing. A traditional war will not defeat them. It cannot. They don't play by the same rules.

    Yeah, look at what happened after 9-11. The US was locked down, creating a new "Fortress America". We spent two hundred billion dollars in Iraq proving that we're just as bad as the terrorists say we are. We couldn't beat al Qaeda with our traditional army, so we found another traditional army to blow up instead. The US is less popular now than ever, and now we've annoyed our allies in such a way as they won't trust us the next time we cry wolf.

    No new terror attacks since 9-11. True. Have we stopped terrorism? Or have we encouraged it? We won't stay safe forever. Not if we continue the same failed policies that lead us here to begin with.
     
  7. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #8
    Most successful independence movements involved some measure of what would now be called terrorism, including those in the US and Ireland. What other category would you place the colonists' tarring and feathering of British tax collectors? Pranks?
     
  8. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #9
    Which totally unrelated nation would we invade this time? France?

    First off, al Qaeda and the Taleban are quite distinct and it's alarming that you think them so closely tied. The Taleban may have tolerated them, and even supported them a bit but by no means were the Taleban a major ally of al Qaeda. The Taleban "nation" was simply a flag of convenience for Al Qaeda's Saudis and Egyptians who have likely returned home or moved on.

    There were no external terror attacks here between 1993 and 2001 and we weren't occupying any nations during that time. I fail to see a more than coincidental connection between our actions post-9/11 and the prevention of terror attacks.
     
  9. nospleen macrumors 68000

    nospleen

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2002
    Location:
    Texas
    #10
    What nation were we occupying when we were attacked on 9-11? Not trying to argue, just wondering if we were. If we were not occupying any nations, then there is not a correlation between peace/occupation.
     
  10. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #11
    A hostile unilateral occupation like Afghanistan or Iraq?

    None that I know of. AFAIK, all US troops abroad at that time were either in the host nation by assent or part of a UN force.
     
  11. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #12
    UBL has often cited the presence of US troops in saudi arabia as an affront to Islam.
     
  12. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #13
    I think the point is, if you are going to call the election in Spain a 'victory for terrorists' as many around here have, then you have to call the creation of an Israeli state a complete and total super-duper colossal win for terrorism. Groups like the Stern Gang used the tactics of terror to achieve their aim. Same goes for Northern Ireland. The British were forced out by those using asymmetrical warfare.

    We call those people 'evildoers' today.
     
  13. Juventuz macrumors 6502a

    Juventuz

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2002
    Location:
    Binghamton
    #14
    Northern Ireland is still part of Great Britian, they're British.

    The IRA's goal was for NI to be part of the Republic of Ireland. That has not and will most likely not happen. To that end the IRA has failed.
     
  14. iGav macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
    #15
    I think not...
     
  15. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #16
    I thought part of the compromise was that the troops were removed?
     
  16. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #17
    It depends which version of the IRA you're talking about. The old IRA or IRB was quite successful in most of its aims. The majority of Ireland is an independent Republic because of their "terrorist" tactics and guerilla warfare. Michael Collins might have been the closest thing to bin Laden that the British ever had fighting against them, and he's revered as a national hero in the Phoblacht.
     

Share This Page