What other countries were we going to invade?

[Lanya]

No, we don't have to bomb every country we disagree with or who harbors terrorists. 

The Cold War:

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/suez.htm

[BT]

And if Eisenhower had backed the French and Brits, Nasser would not have been an Arab hero and the rise of Qaddafi, Hussein and Arafat could very well have been thwarted along with all the mischief they created.

[BT]

Using terror as a tactic is not the same as terrorism, I suppose that is an argument that could be made depending on how one wanted to define the terms.

Thus my query concerning your inclusion of nuclear options under the umbrella of terrorism.

[Universe Prince]

Thus my query concerning your inclusion of nuclear options under the umbrella of terrorism.

That is not what I said.

[BT]

That is not what I said.

Then please elaborate, because that is what i got from what you said.

[Plane]

To me there is a diffrence in what comes prior, and what is emphasised.

We do want out enemys to have terror of what we would do to them if they were to attack us , but that isn't the only note we can strike.

A terrorist attacks so that he will be taken seriously , he has nothing elese.

[Universe Prince]

Then please elaborate, because that is what i got from what you said.

Okay. You spoke of "serious about stopping terror at it's source." So I suppose the question then is, did you mean terror or terrorism?

[BT]

So I suppose the question then is, did you mean terror or terrorism?

Specifically terrorism.

[Rich]

>>Many in the Bush administration were eager to invade Iraq immediately following the September 11 attacks, regardless of who was later deemed to be responsible.<<

Total bullshit.

Next.

[Universe Prince]

So I suppose the question then is, did you mean terror or terrorism?

Specifically terrorism.

Ah. Well, therein lies the confusion. When I said terror, I meant terror, not terrorism.

[BT]

Ah. Well, therein lies the confusion. When I said terror, I meant terror, not terrorism.

And when i said terror i meant terrorism, never dreaming that instilling fear of military reprisals would be equated with terrorism. Live and learn, i guess.

[Universe Prince]

And when i said terror i meant terrorism, never dreaming that instilling fear of military reprisals would be equated with terrorism. Live and learn, i guess.

I'm not convinced that is what I did. In any case, is our goal to stop terror? Should it be? Torture (or extreme interrogation) has been defended with the argument that we need the enemy to believe we will do whatever it takes to defend ourselves and stop them. If we claim to be trying to stop the use of terror, is that consistent with the notion that we need to be able to use whatever means to defend ourselves? I think we need to define what terror is, what using it means, and ask whether our goal is really to end it.

[BT]

I'm not convinced that is what I did. In any case, is our goal to stop terror? Should it be? Torture (or extreme interrogation) has been defended with the argument that we need the enemy to believe we will do whatever it takes to defend ourselves and stop them. If we claim to be trying to stop the use of terror, is that consistent with the notion that we need to be able to use whatever means to defend ourselves? I think we need to define what terror is, what using it means, and ask whether our goal is really to end it.

Your arguments have the consistency of jello, constantly shifting.  Conflating military actions like Hiroshima with the criminal acts of 9/11. They aren't the same.

[Universe Prince]

Your arguments have the consistency of jello, constantly shifting.  Conflating military actions like Hiroshima with the criminal acts of 9/11. They aren't the same.

I don't recall having said they were the same. I'm not even the one who brought up Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I spoke of not taking the "nuclear option" off the table.

But since you want to talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I'll ask again, if the point of dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not to frighten and intimidate the Japanese into surrender, then what was it? In my studies, limited though they might be, the reasoning for using the bombs was to psychologically impact the Japanese into deciding to surrender, ending the war without further loss of Allied troops. If the psychological impact intended was not terror, then what was it? If keeping the "nuclear option" on the table is not intended to cause a fear based intimidation of U.S. strength in order to persuade others to comply with our wishes (however benevolent those wishes are), then what is it intended to accomplish? If waterboarding is not intended to cause fear and to intimidate an interrogation subject into answering the interrogator's questions, then what is it the intent?

If you think this places military actions like dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima on the same level as criminal actions like the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, then I suggest you're making that connection on your own. I'm certainly not saying that they are the same. What I am saying is that we clearly use terror, not terrorism, terror as a tactic. So I question again, don't we want to keep it as a tactic?

[BT]

What I am saying is that we clearly use terror, not terrorism, terror as a tactic. So I question again, don't we want to keep it as a tactic?

And what i am saying is that wars between nations and the fear and trepidation that ensues are not on the same plain as acts of terrorism such as OKC and WTC. The actors are different. Sanctioning is different. Authorization is different.

Your analogy seems to place a SWAT team on the same footing as home invaders. And they aren't.