Do you think that people who oppose the war on terror are...?

Question

ANTI-AMERICAN or worse yet with Al-qaeda?

Answer 1

Yes, you have no alternative but to stay the course. Start the invasion of Iran and North Korea now, before it's too late and we declare a victory.

Answer 2

that was a very loaded and ill posed question. I don't think anyone is against the war against terror per se, the issue is whether or not that we uphold the ideals that we as Americans hold dear, those expressed in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, the Federalist Papers, etc. Also to consider our role in international politics and how we uphold the treaties that we have signed. All this before we can begin behaving hypocritically. We cannot point fingers at rogue players when we ourselves do not follow guidelines that we have accepted. It's a very difficult thing, this war on terror, but it should not be used to invade countries (under the UN constitution and our acceptance of sovereignty of other nations, we may only defend, not "offend") without sound basis or under politicized circumstances.

Answer 3

The time period "warfare on terror" is between the most idiotic words i have ever heard. It jogs my memory of greasy promoters hyping a wrestling tournament. till human beings commence understanding the genuine rationalization why 9/11 exceeded off they do stand a danger of seeing extra attacks with the aid of the jihadists. in case you equate the international commerce company with u . s . a . you want to re imagine it. The 3000 who died in new york deserve the sorrow we sense for his or her loss for sure. The 4000 individuals killed in a unjust, faulty, and poorly prosecuted warfare in Iraq deserve our sorrow as well. some might want to even sense sorrow for the only hundred,000 Iraqis we've killed. All wasted lives immediately attributed to the pursuit of economic and protection rigidity empire. in case you succumb to the faux rear and wall of noise from the republicans as they wrestle and turn 09/11/2001 into 911 the action picture, you will strengthen the genuine probability we are dealing with from the outcome of our company authorities's moves. you may bypass decrease back to observing Fox information now.

Answer 4

I don't think anyone opposes the war on terror, only the people who are, supposedly, running that war and the way they are running it, This is not a "with me or against me" thing.

Answer 5

Not for the most part but I do believe there is a rather of large opposers who are against what makes America strong such as a powerful military and capitalism.

Answer 6

No. they are patriots for expressing dissent and questioning the government. I doubt anybody would be against terrorism being reduced, but war only creates more recruits for terrorist organizations.

So no, I think that they are thinking. Agree or disagree, they are patriots for expressing their opinion even if it may be unpopular and trying to keep government accountable and honest.

Answer 7

we dont oppose the war on terror, just the war in Iraq, now if you confuse the two, you should vote for george bush again

Answer 8

Niether...I'd seriously consider that Al-Qaeda thing.

http://jihadidujour.blogspot.com/

Answer 9

According to the twisted logic recently espoused by Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, the failure to support illegal, immoral and unnecessary wars defines one as a terrorist. Let me be clear about where I stand: I know who the real terrorists are, and can name each one of them—Rumsfeld among the rest.



Everywhere you go in America you see the slogan, “Support our troops.” You see it on bumper stickers, storefronts, flags and banners, yellow ribbons and even in the windows of private homes. But what does it mean to support our troops? Is it to send them into harm’s way; to invade and occupy sovereign nations in illegal wars for empire? Is it to ask them to commit heinous crimes, to maim and to kill innocent civilians; to torture, insult, and to humiliate people who have done us no harm? Is it to steal the natural wealth that belongs to other nations and turn it over to American corporations?

If that is what it means, then I cannot support our troops. I cannot wish them well if their purpose is conquer other people, and plunder the wealth of other countries that have done us no harm. That would require me to endorse crimes against humanity conducted under the guise of national security and patriotism. I cannot do that—I will not. It is simply wrong.

Neither should we, as we so often do, confuse supporting our troops with supporting the president, or wrongful and immoral policies of corrupt government. The president and his ilk do not support our troops or he would not use them as pawns; he would take care of them when they come home broken and torn with psychic scars. He does not care about them—they are only a means to an end.

No, the best way to support our troops is to take a principled stand; to hold the moral high ground—to bring them home alive and whole. A government must not be allowed to require any of its citizens to engage in immoral or criminal behavior on its behalf. When a government behaves like a crime syndicate it does not mean that the people should follow its example—they must provide a better alternative, and refuse their allegiance to it.

So if the failure to support a government’s wrongful policies makes me a terrorist—so be it. If speaking truth to power makes one a terrorist—sign me up; move me to top of the NSA and FBI lists of suspects. Send forth the assassins with their rifles. If exposing the lies and corruption that attends power makes me a terrorist—I will proudly wear the crown and bear the cost. I will cheerfully take my place alongside other terrorists with names like Thoreau, Debs, King, Gandhi, Einstein, Zinn, and Christ.

Answer 10

Actually I think they may be Democrats.