War on Terror is over? or not?

Uhhh, "the great one" is neither quoted or mentioned in your article.

Nor does anybody mention the war on terror being over. Rather, it indicates the opposite:

"The terror threat from Al Qaeda linked groups in Africa has been growing steadily, particularly with the rise of the extremist Islamist sect Boko Haram in Nigeria. Officials also believe that the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, which killed the ambassador and three other Americans, may have been carried out by those who had ties to Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb."
 
What is this “terror” we are at war with?

Is terror our enemy? What does terror want? I wonder how we came to be at odds with a thing like terror, and what exactly the quarrel between us could be. Maybe we can make friends with terror. Is this possible? Or is terror unreasonable?

What if we meet terror with love?

Lets talk about a strategy. I want to hear your ideas.
 
May 27, 2010 The Great One announced the War on Terror is over, you do not remember that? I believe you were hooting and hollering on that day with the joyous of glee and the uttermost bitter hate of George W Bush.
 
Agree with Mr. Deez and said so all the way back then.

MajorWhiteApples, to whom do you address your petulant post above?

Also, is there a link to the statement of the Great One, to whom you obviously refer with admirable emotional detachment.
 
MWA
To be accurate it was a " senior State Dept Official> who said that.
and he also said 'moderate" groups like the Muslim Brotherhood" are an opportunity for legimitate Islamism

We see how well all these moderate takeovers, including in Egypt have played out. With ' moderate " Morsi calling for Muslim children to be" nutured on hatred * not to mention calling BO a Liar) I'd say there will be terrorists around for a long time.
 
It is always amusing to see the supporters ( well and the " libertarian as well ) try to attack the poster instead of commenting on the topic.

supporters can pretend to forget BO decided over 2 years ago to" distance himself from Mr Bush's concept of pre-emptive wars to prevent emerging threats, instead citing the national security implications of global economic crises and climate change. :
and BO's state dept to decide al Q was no longer a threat

and for posters on here to make fun of Romeny when he spoke of mali being a hot spot for Al Q insurgency during the debates

yes yes let's forget all that and pretend we don't understand MWA"s link that reports in Dec the USA would be sending troops to Africa for what we now know IS AlQ in Mali

So Alq is no longer a threat EXCEPT for where it is and we ONLY have moderate Islamismm and don't have to worry about extreme islamists EXCEPT for where we do.

i can see why supporters ( and a libertarian) wouldn't want to comment on real events.
rolleyes.gif
 
Read the April, 2010 Statement, Horn475433. Directly from it:

"We are at war with a specific network, al-Qaeda, and its terrorist affiliates who support efforts to attack the United States, our allies, and partners."


The 52-page statement says in essence that we no longer have a war on terror (since "terror" is not an opponent), but on terrorists, specifically Al-Qaeda, and mentions them specifically.

But, yeah, Bush didn't provide any funding for his pre-emptive wars (in fact, he went with a tax cut) and we're trillions of dollars deeper in debt now because of them and Republicans will never vote to raise the taxes necessary pay for them, so abandoning the strategy of pre-emptive wars was an economically wise decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top