why as America claimed a war on terrorism when they gave money to the IRA for so long?
438966
I agree with you - it is two faced! Why is it ok for America to bomb Afghanistan when the legitimate government, the Taliban, who were America's allies against Soviet invaders, were unable to hand over Osama bin Laden? (The new government even with aid from American Navy Seals, Britisn SAS and Ausie SAS troops have not been able to accomplish this task). With that logic Britain should have bombed the USA for not handing over Irish-Americans in NY and Boston - the biggest sponsors of terrorism against the UK, the Irish Republican Army.\n\nIn the same way why did USA not bomb Pakistan for harbouring Osama and Al Queda, running Madrassas where hatred and violence against all other religions is taught. Yet Musharaf was given bribes by Bush and allowed to be a nuclear power. Why is Pk allowed to threaten India with nuclear war and sponsor terrorists to kill MPs in the democratic India Parliament building but Bush told India not to retaliate? Why is Iran not allowed to develop a nuclear deterrent like North Korea's, when US performed blitzkrieg, invasion & occupation on Iran's neighbours who were former US allies: Iraq & Afghanistan!   \n\nWhy is Bush trying Saddam for killing revolutionary seperatist Kurds using the same method Winston Churchill did to the Kurds - poison gas, but sold to him by Donald Rumsfeld (who even embraced Saddam and declared that Saddam was his best friend in the world!!!); but kissing China's communist leader's a.s.s. when China has threatenned Bush with nuclear war over Taiwan & killed their own citizens - students protesting that they want democracy!
205378
Terrorism = acts of violence commited against non-combatants (that includes civilians and auxiliary military personnel and any military that's not actively involved in an open armed conflict) with the purpose of harming the psychological balance of the enemy (basically seeding terror within an opponent's ranks).\n\nThe men fighting US and UK in Iraq (and elsewhere where US and UK have troops on soil other than their own) are basically freedom fighters. But when they employ tactics that are ment to seed fear rather than obtain tactical advantages over a declared enemy, that makes them terrorists also.\n\nHowever even here there's a fine line as some freedom fighters commit terrorists acts others don't. The difference is even more obscured by the fact that US declared a war on terror and if such a notion is to be taken seriously (though normally it isn't enough to just say you're at war and actually considered to be at war lawfully) then the attacks against US personnel in Iraq can't be considered terrorist acts, since it's war.\n\nIf another country occupied mine I would fight by any means I see fit. There is only one justified reason for occupation and that is if the occupied country has requested foreign military intervention through recognized representatives that speak for an accepted majority of the country. Sometimes the UN can authorize military intervention on a country's soil if that country has commited repeated acts of aggresion against UN members or the violent conflict within a country threatens the territorial integrity of a UN member. If my country would be at fault for any of these, I would join the occupation force (which wouldn't be called an occupation force anyway).\n\nAs such, the US presence in Iraq isn't justified and is also illegal. The US campaign there was accomplished with the use of lies, deception and acts of terrorism performed by US military (attacks against civilian population, economic embargo even of humanitarian products, the 'oil-for-food' extorsion attempt - some which were conveniently called mistakes, a very unbelievable excuse from the most modern army in the world which also claims high moral principles).\n\nAgain, as such we can identify two types of terrorism: classic terrorism (performed by international organisations such as Al-Qaeda or national such as ETA or IRA that usually employs physical violence: guns, bombs, etc) and neo-terrorism (or state-terrorism - performed by a nation against another, state-endorsed which employs methods of economic coercion, indirect violence against civilian population such a economic embargo, high prices for food and water, etc commonly performed by US, Israel and sometimes China outside of international lawmaking agencies such as UNESCO and UN).\n\n--- to bungiebabe (edit): it will be a challenge to find the source which I copy/pasted simply because it doesn't exist. All answers I give come from my personal experience and research (I am correspondent on Middle East issues for some newspapers in my area, which is why I tend to answer this type of questions) and sometimes I credit Noam Chomsky and Annabel McGoldrick for quotations, but I don't copy paste. My main source is, as always if you've followed my posts, www.un.org and the UN list of General Assembly resolutions and Security Council resolutions.
798778
The terrorist President has failed to alienate the Europeans, he carried all the shame on his head although some Americans too have been contaminated by him. What a shame on bush. Blair has no option but to carry bush's bag or the IRA Christian terrorists would receive new funding from the USA.
777069
It's an absolute outrage, and the sad truth is, this has been going on since BEFORE 9/11.  The link I've included below takes you to a paper written by the Center for Security Policy back in 2001.  In in turn references an investigative report that ran in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review back in January of 2001.  Those Investments go back to when Barbara Hafer was the State Treasurer.  This has been a known issue for almost six years, and as far as I'm concerned, Bob Casey along with everyone else who serves on the retirement fund board, should be charged with treason!\n\nThe paper below includes the entire original article, which gives the names of five companies, and how those companies are involved in aiding terrorists.
1182668
It causes the government to spend money on war materials, many of which are made in the USA. The money is debt-financed, which suggests that the positive effect may only be short-lived.
180886
Well A good question but not enough . Why is america caring about the whole world who gave the authority to america to bully around its only the nuclear and the latest mass destuction weapons it has that all those leading the country are shameless people can do anything for money and oil ..... They got a new issue to occupy the whole world by saying we love democracy and they kill every one who oppose them .. Even if some one ask for its own right and that is against the american policy he is surely in deep trouble belive me u can get enough evidence for this ... They killed million in afghanistan only as they wanted to hunt couple of 100's qaeda people who are so called sponsors of 9-11 attack. killed millions in iraq saying iraq is having mass destruction weapons so do u america y dont u get the hell out of arabs place and let us leave in peace ... when USA got exposed that no mass destruction weapon is there in IRAQ the fools tried to lie again saying we wanted to librate iraqis from saddam ... and now wants to stay in iraq as it fears iran could invade it and then supply lot of weapons to israel to eliminate iran and arabs around living in the horrors of israel ... lol funny this is that killing million in the name of al qaeda i dont no till when YOu america will tell lies to your people ...... shame on you ...
833444
It is an isolationist attitude much like that of America pre WWII.  Hitler had conquered Europe and N Africa minus the UK and Japan had dominated the Asian front, yet nobody in America wanted to commit money or troops to war.  History repeats itself often.  The same thing happened during the Revolution.  Our Army nearly starved to death during winters at valley forge and morristown because of the lack of local support, it was only after the war was won the Americans took credit for their loyal trust in support of the war effort.  Civil War identical, see how Lincoln trampled the constitution to get things done in order to win.  Anyway whether we win against terrorism is purely whether the people wake up from their long slumber and fight for their liberty.  I hope an American City doesn't have to be destroyed before we wake up and take action.
861938
One man's fight for his/her rights is terrorism for another. That does not justify attacks like 9/11 but if you pick up any history book, the majority of wars of independence have been won by retaliating against prevailing, strong authorities by covert tactics, at least initially. This includes American independence as well. If you were to consider the British view point at that time, the founding fathers could not have been considered very favorably! Unfortunately, modern day armaments are so destructive that the innocent always suffer, more than at any time in the history of man. While this makes their actions criminal, it does not remove the validity of their demands.
398909
I am a proud American combat veteran, retired professor, and retired career Army officer. Just as when we were in Vietnam and most of the Cold War period, the normal American people never really notice or care that their country is at war. That is primarily because of our geographic location and separation from the warzone, our tendency to focus on family and jobs, and the lack of any economic impact on their daily lives. It is only the current and former soldiers, marines, airmen, sailors and their families and friends who realize we are at war. The war on terrorism will last until the last SOB that supports terrorism is dead. So this may take a while. Throughout our history, Americans get behind our military and President in fighting our wars for a very short time, then they lose interest, go back to their jobs and daily life and ignore the war until it touches them or their family personally. In the past century, actually since 1898, the US has been involved in many small military incursions, brush-fire wars, and a few big wars. On average, we are in armed conflict about 1 out of every 4 years. But in general the US civilians (realize that we have an all volunteer armed force since 1973) are both unaware and unaffected by the war - unless they have a personal interest in the conflict - usually in the form of a son or daughter risking their lives for the betterment of the rest of the world. Mike
616559
Because we are paying a very great deal for a war going on in two different countries. Afghanistan and Iraq.
1039236
I keep seeing that justification. "We're at war, and during war you have to make sacrifices".  The amazing thing about the justification is that it's completely wrong. We're not at war. Congress never declared a war. There is no identifiable enemy that we're fighting.\n\nThe war on terror is a marketing phrase. It means the US is going after everyone that might pose a threat to it. Every subversive influence, everyone who stands up and points out that what the administration is doing is illegal, every nut-job across the world who hates America. And anyone the government arbitrarily decides is a threat, regardless of whether there is any proof or not, and regardless of whether they have ever committed a crime or not.\n\nThe problem is, there is never going to be an end to the War on Terror, because there will always be people who want to hurt us. There will always be terrorists. Why? Because there always have been, throughout the history of the world. They just used to be called criminals and bandits. But terrorist is such a better term, because it justifies any means necessary to stop them.\n\nYes, there have been tragedies -- bombings and hostage situations and threats and mayhem. But those things are nothing new. They've been going on for thousands of years and the only difference is that technology has improved to the point where the bad guys have better weapons. \n\nFighting terrorism and fighting terrorists are two entirely unrelated goals. Of course we should stop people from blowing things up. We're not going to get everyone, because we're never going to eliminate crime or kill all the bandits. Still, we try because we oppose senseless violence. But remember, that's only fighting terrorists. It does nothing to stop terrorism.\n\nTerrorism is relying on hatred and fear to hurt people. It's doing things that are illegal, in the name of questionable goals, just because you can. It's a process of stripping people of their freedom and happiness because you don't think people deserve to be free and happy. It's about controlling and hurting those who are different from you, just because you don't like them.\n\nNow, take a look at what the new Patriot Act does. And ask yourself, how much of it is really aimed at stopping individuals, and how much of it is aimed at using hatred and fear to control people. Look at the definition of terrorism above, and ask yourself -- how many of those things are our government doing every day?\n\nThen ask yourself if the ends (even if they were somehow magically achievable) justify those means.
519399
The War on terror is just another in a long line of fake conflicts that benefit the Military Industrial Complex. After world war two made so much money for the war machine they decided to manufacture consent for never ending war. The Cold War, Korea, Viet-Nam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Kosavo, The Fascist Coups in South America that the U.S. backed. That's right the U.S. backed fascists. All of these things benefited the elites that run the Five Sided Fistagon and the government.
733442
really good question(one mans freedom fighter is anothers terrorist)this is just powerful countries propaganda,i agree\nwith you about oil and the dollar(changing to euros really\nhurt the USA. FACT)put it this way,just imagine someone\ntried to invade the UK and occupied us.some of us take up\narms and start a campaign of guerrilla warfare.we would\nbe labelled terrorists by some and freedom fighters by\nothers.its simply down to who has the power.I think this\nwhole world has been manipulated by bush and blairs\nlies about this war(they new once they got there ,people\nwould just forget about the lies and deceit and be glad\nthey ousted saddam)now they have a civil war on their\nhands.(but at least they have control of the oil and huge\nspoils of war.IE contracts for rebuild)I think our soldiers\nshould come home,to many have died already for some\nof the worst straight faced liars on the planet.
1081561
Isn't this a wonderful country that you can say these things without facing a firing squad?  Of course, you may not be an American & you probably don't remember or care why the war on terrorism began. If America allows terrorists to plot, infiltrate & attack at will, we will soon have no need for things like a national health care program.\nIf you are indeed an American, you should realize that this war is not a game, it is real.  We are in real danger. And our freedom does not come cheap. But, it is our troops, led by our president that are willing to make the supreme sacrifice so disrespectful cowards like you can continue to say whatever you want, whenever you want.
399909
its yes and no answer. The Americans supported and armed the Mujadin during the 1980's in which a lot  of terrorist   leaders got their training and learned how to fight against a formal country in this case Soviets in Afghanistan during the 1980's. And after the Soviets left the Afghanistan we left the rebels high and dry and they were forced to a civil war. Has for the terrorism part especially suicide bombings it didn't start until the Iran and Iraq war were a young man (16 i believe) strapped on a bomb went after an Iraqi tank.  Khomeini the leader of Iran during this time saw an opportunity    were he can be idolized just like on of the successors to Mohammad was after a battle were the warriors were claimed to be Martyrs. The Americans did not back this regime but they backed Iraq's and prior regime in Iran. So, they were seen has the enemies. So, in short  both Americans and English did play a part in the rise of Islamic terrorism but it was also some Muslims leaders played a part in it.
1092262
America has not "attacked" those countries, by themselves, out of a whim.  They are backed by the United Nations and many other countries have helped in the effort to decrease terrorism.
429850
inreality non of those ,the war was to make money for the european powers and especialy Rothchild.\nwww.infowars.