Frequently some Iraq war supporters state we haven't had a terrorist attack since 9-11. While agreeing we have had no attack in the US, others maintain the bombs and snipers in Iraq are terrorist attacks. If that is so, we've had thousands of "attacks". What is your opinion?
2007-03-12 08:09:30 · 7 answers · asked by Studbolt Slickrock Deux 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
LOTS of good thought-provoking answers. Thanks!
2007-03-15 10:02:28 · update #1
What does it matter? We are fighting the Terrorist in Iraq and not in the U.S.
I would think this is a good thing, now the terrorist have to fight people that are ready to fight back. and not just fight women and children.
2007-03-12 09:20:41 · answer #1 · answered by need4speedsc 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Prove that the people in Iraq are attacking American troops there for the purposes of causing terror and political dissent in the US, and then the count as terrorists.
If all they are doing is fighting in a civil war (with America either in the middle or on one side), or if all they are doing is fighting against an armed force that invaded their country and toppled the former government, then that's not terrorist activity.
Terrorism is defined by motivation and mindset. Shooting at someone because they broke down your door or blew up your neighbor's house is not terrorist. It's self defense.
So, before your question can be answered, look a little deeper at exactly who is attacking American forces in Iraq, and why they are doing it. And whether they would be doing it if the US had not unilaterally invaded Iraq.
2007-03-12 08:31:31 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The so called terror attacks on US forces in Iraq are not the same. They want all foreign troops to leave. That's the message. The US is an occupational force now, they over threw the dictatorship got most of Saddams cronies in prison they have done there job, now leave. They want Iraq for Iraq and until the troops are gone the Iraqis are going to keep on fighting.
2007-03-12 08:24:46 · answer #3 · answered by idak13 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Those are not terrorist attacks since Iraq is a war zone.
2007-03-12 08:20:42 · answer #4 · answered by Tadow 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't think that attacks on soldiers are terrorists attacks, however attacks on journalists and contractors in Iraq could be considered terrorists attacks, although it's a little fuzzy since they choose to put themselves in the middle of a war.
2007-03-12 08:17:19 · answer #5 · answered by Sean 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Great Question: I believe that if the United States get attacked on there own soil, then they have a right to rebel. I love what Truman done with the united nations and they, most of them agree with the united states. I love what the United States is doing because if you can't live in freedom,,,,,WHY LIVE....
2007-03-12 08:33:31 · answer #6 · answered by roost2 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, attacks on our troups are attacks on Americans. They qualify for "terror" status in that they usually don't have much of a military objective other than to sway public opinion. Their goal is to create enough chaos and grab enough headlines to break the will of peoples and governments.
2007-03-12 08:23:44 · answer #7 · answered by floatingbloatedcorpse 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋