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-...ubl040.107.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.