DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**aaaaaaaabbbby** · 06-02-2010, 08:58 PM

Do you think, that informations only on an individual, is enough to launch an assassination program on him ?

Or would you prefer, that there has been due process`, courts, judges, lawyers, and all in all a fair trial, before you kill a man?

It is not exactly a secret, that since 9/11, America is imidiately going into a flat spin whenever the word terror is mentioned.
And without even an attempt to define the word terror, it has become a universal tool to legitimize just about anything you can possible think of.

Mention the word terrorists, and all of the above mentioned processes, plus a lot of others are imidiately circumvented, and the decission to either enter other nations with troops, or sending out remote controlled drones to kill, can be taken by one man.

I very seriously believe, that America is moving in a direction, where it has one foot placed on a slippery slope, and the other on a banana peel.

Jen

I avoid the word "terror" or "terrorist." They're subjective and emotional; what the US is involved in, though, is certainly an armed conflict. It is an insurgency, asymmetrical warfare that exists in several areas of the world and, in some of those cases, is interlinked. This type of conflict does not fit neatly into any preconceived notion of warfare, nor do its combatants. It is not simply a power grab by the US military and executive branch. My point is that all your rhetoric about America's knee-jerk reaction to the word 'terror' is not entirely true, and that the controversies surrounding things like Guantanamo or drone strikes have legitimate points not captured by the usual 'tyrannical US power vs peace and justice' dichotomy.

What would you suggest the United States do about Anwar? Should they kidnap him and give him a trial?

06-02-2010, 08:58 PM	#12
aaaaaaaabbbby Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 434 Senior Member	Do you think, that informations only on an individual, is enough to launch an assassination program on him ? Or would you prefer, that there has been due process`, courts, judges, lawyers, and all in all a fair trial, before you kill a man? It is not exactly a secret, that since 9/11, America is imidiately going into a flat spin whenever the word terror is mentioned. And without even an attempt to define the word terror, it has become a universal tool to legitimize just about anything you can possible think of. Mention the word terrorists, and all of the above mentioned processes, plus a lot of others are imidiately circumvented, and the decission to either enter other nations with troops, or sending out remote controlled drones to kill, can be taken by one man. I very seriously believe, that America is moving in a direction, where it has one foot placed on a slippery slope, and the other on a banana peel. Jen I avoid the word "terror" or "terrorist." They're subjective and emotional; what the US is involved in, though, is certainly an armed conflict. It is an insurgency, asymmetrical warfare that exists in several areas of the world and, in some of those cases, is interlinked. This type of conflict does not fit neatly into any preconceived notion of warfare, nor do its combatants. It is not simply a power grab by the US military and executive branch. My point is that all your rhetoric about America's knee-jerk reaction to the word 'terror' is not entirely true, and that the controversies surrounding things like Guantanamo or drone strikes have legitimate points not captured by the usual 'tyrannical US power vs peace and justice' dichotomy. What would you suggest the United States do about Anwar? Should they kidnap him and give him a trial?
	Quote