Not to bash the right or left but just to make sense of some stuff. Terror is an emotion, so we have waged a war on an emotion. Well let's see terrorists who we connect to the war on terror have people in their lives that they love, so should we start a War on Love? How can we claim war on an emotion, at least I agree with Bush on one thing, and that's not always the outcome. Bush did state war on "islamic facists" and clarified who the US waged war on. So we need to drop the war on "terror" because we cannot fight an emotion, just like when someone's loved one dies and they feel the grief, they can't fight it, change it to the true targets and make it a War on Islamic Facists.
2006-08-30 06:16:16 · 15 answers · asked by Fiesty Redhead 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
That has to be the most ignorant thing I have ever heard.
Your questions and answers usually don't exude that much ignorance. are you feeling OK today?
2006-08-30 06:22:15 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Define Islamic fascists then if you can. Terror is an emotion and cannot be fought because it is too abstract. Same with Islamic Fascists - they do not belong to a country, neither are they a specific group. What are their motives and why would they wage war? See if you succeed in perfectly defining who is an Islamic Fascist because I think the whole term is science fiction and can easily be classified in line with the war on terror. I agree with what you are trying to say but the term Islamic Fascist is a new term invented by George Bush during a Press Conference, just as he invented axis of evil and war on terror.
2006-08-30 06:25:38 · answer #2 · answered by Avatar13 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Terror is not an emotion on its own. It is ACTING on emotion, it is destroying life based SOLELY on emotion (or is it?). Al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Hamas, these are ORGANIZED bodies that conduct terrorist attacks. Are they EMOTIONAL all day long? Doubt it.
Their JOB, raison d'etre, M.O., lifestyle IS TERRORISM.
So we have complaints about fascism being applied to Islam (see previous Yahoo questions, and my response), now we complain about the term 'war on terror'. We all know who the enemy is, and they are being dealt with globally. Frankly, the more time we spend deciphering nomenclature and softening our response to make it 'proportionate', the more face we lose in the global community, the more we are cast as the aggressor, the more we guarantee losing our freedom and our way of life.
Terrorism is not simply emotion. It is a psychosis, proliferated through an imagined legitimacy that is unfortunately heavily financed by our physical needs for oil. We should perhaps declare war on our emotive response to our needs for road trips, vacations, food, clothing, computers, iPods, TV's, DVR's, etc. Maybe when we need absolutely NO OIL, then their 'emotional' response to the U.S. will subside.....doubt it, because when oil revenue dries up, these terror-supporting states will be DIRT POOR, and then even MORE of the population will turn to terrorism and outright combat against anyone their mullahs and imams say is the enemy.
Let's just be factual, the EMOTIVE response that is terrorism, IS THE ENEMY. Do we soften that emotion? How? We can't, reasonably. The decision to act on their emotions was made by them, they made that bed, they're going to lie in it, and NOT at the cost of my life.
You want to really see an emotional response? Lord forbid another terror attack in the states. There may not be an emotional terrorist left in the world if that ever happens.
Stop the psycho-babble, we're at war, support America first, last and always, quit the rhetorical masturbation.
2006-08-30 06:32:42 · answer #3 · answered by rohannesian 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Can't beat an idea like terrorism with warheads. Someone else just picks up the idea and spreads it. What's worse is that the phrase "war on terror" infers that the only solution is military agression -- a nice marketing tool to sell the idea of going to war.
If terrorism could be defeated by war, then it would have been eradicated a long time ago.
2006-08-30 06:22:27 · answer #4 · answered by truthyness 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, but stating a war on a religious group is not wiser. it is like blowing up the whole thing...
Ever since the president made his way violently Thru the demonstration after the elections day, he had put on his agenda a list of f. ups. that he is committed to achieve, this huge war was not on the list.
But maybe next time...
2006-08-30 06:24:06 · answer #5 · answered by Leexo 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
did u asked yourself y this emotion "terror" is becoming bigger and bigger that's because we made it a war on Muslims not all Muslims terrorists so when we call it a war on Islam i think it's a big mistake .. and the only terrorist here is us
2006-08-30 06:30:12 · answer #6 · answered by CrAzY LoVeR 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The reason they use the "war on terror" term is because that gives them the green light to destroy whatever or whomever they wish as long as they say they are connected to "terror".
2006-08-30 06:28:52 · answer #7 · answered by one voice 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Agreed.
2006-08-30 06:20:20 · answer #8 · answered by SVern 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush has already begun to call it a war on Islamo-Facism...that was weeks ago!
2006-08-30 06:26:10 · answer #9 · answered by Brand X 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Fear is just an emotion. Our government uses terror to instill fear in us.
2006-08-30 06:33:41 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋