These 'are' terrorist attacks, and one was succesful.

Silent Poet,

The anthrax attack, in my opinion, was part of the same 9/11 attack. Remember there are still terrorist living in the country. The fact that the best they can do is attack a few people in an airport is proof that what we are doing is the correct action. This was not an attack against America or Americans it was against Israel.

The way AQ was set up it put in many individules to create cells in each country with oders to attack when they can. Only the big operations require advance planning and coordination. We never got all the 9/11 hijackers so they are floating around. Compare that to the list of failed attacks since 9/11 and keep in mind that that is not the complete list of failures.

1. The war in Iraq. My thoughts on WHY I think is a bad thing are quite complicated and I don't want to write an essay at the moment. My reasons in short: a) It is nice to say in theory that they are better with Saddam gone. However I think the basic instability caused by the tension between ethnic groups and terrorist groups will mean instability for years. Will the benefits balance out the chaos caused by the war? I don't know, but I don't have a good feeling. I think a countries has to fight for its own democracy in the same way it is better to "teacher a man to fish" etc. etc.

These tensions were there before we went to war. Just like when the Soviet Union fell and all the old hate came out again. Civil wars all over the place and it is slowly calming down. It is natural and reasonably expected, unless you’re an idealistic fool that expects everyone to act with peace and love.

The reasons given for going to war. WMDs turned out to be a bust, there is no stong evidence to support Saddam being involved with 9/11. Regime change may be valid but it seems unlikely to be the true reason since there are other regimes that are just as bad that they are doing nothing about.

This is crap. You have to be getting your information from hate groups because none of this is true.
No one in power in the US government said that Saddam was involved in 9/11. The press said it many times but no one in government made that bogus claim. In fact Colin Powel, when asked if he believed Saddam was involved, specifically said it was not the case. It is true that Saddam has aided al Qaeda after the attack on Afghanistan but there was no proof of him helping before.
Prior to the invasion, the United States' official position was that Iraq was in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 regarding weapons of mass destruction and had to be disarmed by force. The United Kingdom and United States attempted to get a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing military force, but withdrew it before it could come to a vote after France, Russia, and later China all signaled that they would use their Security Council veto power against any resolution that would include an ultimatum allowing the use of force against Iraq.

2. Not leading the way with environmental reform (goes for my government too). The Kyoto protocol situation is only part of it but a big part of it. The reasoning given such as "well China isn't a part of it so we won't either" is stupid. China may be heading towards being one of the largest polluters but they DIDN'T CAUSE THE PROBLEM. The US uses 25% of the worlds fossils fuels and should take some responsibility for it (as we all should). If the US gov wants other countries to do the same thing they have to realise that they can't expect others to do what they aren't prepared to. The US does set the standard as a super-power whether we like it or not.

What I am getting from you is that it is ok to destroy the economies of the US and Australila by foillowing the protocols while everyone else is allowed to do what they want. It is our politicians mandate to protect the nation not make it weak.

For you American Liberal tree huggeres that blame Mr. Bush you can Thank Mr. Clinton for not being stupid enough to sign the protocol.
On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98), which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations.

3. Hypocritical stance on nuclear weapons.

Please explain this to me.

4. Keeping people in Gitmo for years without trial or even charges. I don't care if these people did do what they what they supposedly did, they should still get trials. Especially since the US wouldn't stand for the same thing happening to one of their citizens in another country. I hate my government for sitting back a letting one of our citizen being treated this way. Especially since other countries have fought and got just treatment for there citizens.

We are following international law when it comes to the people held at Gitmo not US laws. Blame the UN and the Geneva Conventions for that. Or do you suggest we should break the law? This is a serious problem many of the people held in Gitmo we wanted to get rid of but the host countries won’t take them.

5. Acting like you can fight a "War on Terror" anymore than you can fight a "War on Abstract nouns". ALl that has happened is more people are being pissed off and becoming terrorists. Especially since for a lot of people it is seen as a "War on Islam".

We can't help that, and trust me if we were at war with Islam it would be done a lot differently. If that was the case all we would have to do is get rid of the current leader and install our own puppet and let him be a dictator. It would take about 18 months to do the entire Middle East and we would not have to send in a single troop. Sort of what we did when the UK asked us for help with Iran.

6. Not accepting that bad foreign policy is responsible for a lot of anger from other countries. Instead spouting pithy statement like "they hate our freedom" etc. etc. that may be true for some of the "masterminds" but many of the grass roots terrorists have reasons along the lines of "supplying Israel with weapons" and so on.

Sorry, are you saying that the US should abandon a friend in need? Israel is a friend. The land was given back to the Jews by the UN so I guess the UN should be hated as well? These terrorist have been around for 50 years, Iran has been supporting terror for 30 years, Saudi Arabia has been supporting terrorist until al Qaeda started attacking the house of Saud now they only support the terrorist that attack Israel.

I'm not doing my reason justice with these short statements. Nearly every reason I've given deserves a whole essay on it's own. Aside from that you can see that I don't dislike the US government because of America's optimism or some such bullshit.

Its ok, I get what you are saying and respect some of your points. I am glad to see your points of view and I suggest you rethink some of them. I will give your points some serious thought as well. Thank you for being honest.

The way AQ was set up it put in many individules to create cells in each country with oders to attack when they can. Only the big operations require advance planning and coordination. We never got all the 9/11 hijackers so they are floating around. Compare that to the list of failed attacks since 9/11 and keep in mind that that is not the complete list of failures.

I remember a saying that goes along the lines, "guerrila warfare, using weaknesses and strengths agains the enemy." Just because their are, as you claim, cells within the US, does not mean in anyway that they cannot plan, and execute a major attack.

They are small, we are big.

This was not an attack against America or Americans it was against Israel.

Erm....what the heck? If it wasn't an attack against us, then it sure fooled me.

How possibly could it have been an attack against Israel? It missed it, or any Israel relation....by quite a bit.

These 'are' terrorist attacks, and one was succesful. Granted, they are not on a massive scale. However, they do refute your statement.

No they don't. Good god, you don't even know who did them. They could have been kooks. This hardly constitutes a terrorist attack.

That's like saying crime is a terrorist attack. Or some guy going on a killing spree in a school.

A terrorist attack is a military-level attack typically against civilians using asymetric techniques.

Hence: The Unabomber = kook.  Oklahoma City = terrorist attack (by an American).

Here's your rule of thumb, Silent Poet: If YOU could do it, then it's probably not a terrorist attack.   The only thing remotely unusual about the anthrax is that the sender managed to get ahold of anthrax.

No they don't. Good god, you don't even know who did them. They could have been kooks. This hardly constitutes a terrorist attack

Brad, terrorism is defined as:

The Oxford English Dictionary defines terrorism as "a policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorising or condition of being terrorised." Webster's New International Dictionary defines terrorism as the "act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; specif.: a The system of the Reign of Terror. b A mode of governing, or of opposing government, by intimidation. c Any policy of intimidation. The definition of the term in the Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics (2nd edition) begins: Term with no agreement amongst government or academic analysts, but almost invariably used in a pejorative sense, most frequently to describe life-threatening actions perpetrated by politically motivated self-appointed sub-state groups. Look up terrorism in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.The American Heritage Dictionary defines terrorism as "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

WWW Link 1">Link


This means that anyone who has carried out an attack to: "...strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorising or condition of being terrorised," -OR- ""The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

...IS a terroist. Granted, they may not be AQ in strength/scope, but they are still terrorists/terrorist attacks.

It says nothing about terrorism/terrorist attacks being, "A terrorist attack is a military-level attack typically against civilians using asymetric techniques."

However, if it follows the following criteria:

Official definitions determine counter-terrorism policy and are often developed to serve it. Most official definitions outline the following key criteria: target, objective, motive, perpetrator, and legitimacy or legality of the act. Terrorism is also often recognizable by a following statement from the perpetrators. Violence – According to Walter Laqueur of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, "the only general characteristic [of terrorism] generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence". However, the criterion of violence alone does not produce a useful definition, as it includes many acts not usually considered terrorism: war, riot, organized crime, or even a simple assault. Property destruction, that does not endanger life, is not usually considered a violent crime, but some have described property destruction by the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front as terrorism. Psychological impact and fear – The attack was carried out in such a way as to maximize the severity and length of the psychological impact. Each act of terrorism is a “performance,” a product of internal logic, devised to have an impact on many large audiences. Terrorists also attack national symbols to show their power and to shake the foundation of the country or society they are opposed to. This may negatively affect a government's legitimacy, while increasing the legitimacy of the given terrorist organization and/or ideology behind a terrorist act. [6] The September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon are examples of this. Attacking the World Trade Center symbolizes that the terrorists can threaten the economic foundation of America and its capitalist ideals, and attacking the Pentagon symbolizes that America's great and prided military strength is yet vulnerable at its very core to the terrorists power. Perpetrated for a Political Goal – Something all terrorist attacks have in common is their perpetration for a political purpose. This is often the key difference between an act of terrorism and a hate crime or lone-wolf "madman" attack. Terrorism is a political tactic, not unlike letter writing or protesting, that is used by activists when they believe no other means will effect the kind of change they desire. The change is desired so badly that failure is seen as a worse outcome than the deaths of civilians. This is often where the interrelationship between terrorism and religion occurs. When a political struggle is integrated into the framework of a religious or "cosmic" [7] struggle, such as over the control of an ancestral homeland or holy site such as Israel and Jerusalem, failing in the political goal (nationalism) becomes equated with spiritual failure, which, for the highly committed, is worse than their own death or the deaths of innocent civilians. Deliberate targeting of non-combatants – It is commonly held that the distinctive nature of terrorism lies in its intentional and specific selection of civilians as direct targets. Much of the time, the victims of terrorism are targeted not because they are threats, but because they are specific "symbols, tools, animals or corrupt beings" that tie into a specific view of the world that the terrorist possess. Their suffering accomplishes the terrorists' goals of instilling fear, getting a message out to an audience, or otherwise accomplishing their political end.[8] Unlawfulness or illegitimacy – Some definitions of terrorism give weight to a distinction between the actions of a legitimate government and those of non-state actors, including individuals and small groups. In this view, government actions that might be violent, operate through fear, aim at political ends, and target civilians would not be terrorism if they are being pursued by agents who are accountable to legitimate governmental authority. Governmental accountability, presumably, would operate to limit and restrain the violence, both in volume and tactics. Furthermore, taking this approach to the definition of terrorism would help prevent some of the analytic problems associated with characterizing some military tactics (such as firebombing of cities) which are designed to affect civilian support for the enemy war effort. However, governments which repeatedly resort to these kinds of tactics tend to lose legitimacy, whether philosophically or politically. Loss of legitimacy erodes the distinction between governmental and non-governmental violence where there is a consistent practice of targeting civilians.

[link="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism#Key_criteria"]WWW Link 2

I will admit, that there have been "kooks," however...they too, had a reason to do the attacks, etc...