this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2010
53 points (70% like it)
90 up votes 37 down votes

comments

TheMemo 114 points115 points 5 months ago* [-]

Hi, I'm from the UK.

All I have to say in response to your teacher is this:

  1. The British Empire used to think this way, once. It didn't get us very far - in fact it provoked rebellion and made it increasingly difficult to maintain any kind of control.

  2. Your successful attempt at independence from colonial rule was terrorism. Your Founding Fathers were terrorists. The Boston Tea Party, for instance, was an act of economic sabotage that could be construed as terrorism. The Declaration of Independence was a terrorist manifesto. Eventually, we had to send the redcoats in as 'peacekeepers' because if we let you guys get away, the very survival of the British Empire and the freedom of its citizens (the ones that weren't subjugated) would be at stake.

  3. Americans have funded terrorists (such as the IRA) right up until 9/11, despite being repeatedly warned by other countries about this fact and provided with names of charities that acted as fronts for terrorist organisations. (I saw several collection boxes for known IRA fronts during the time I lived in the US).

Terrorism is a matter of perspective. If you really want to stop terrorism, you either deal with the grievances of the terrorists (some of which are legitimate and well known before 9/11) or you stop the media reporting on any terrorist atrocities. Modern terrorism is a result of the media, it uses the media to disseminate fear; without reportage, it has no oxygen. However, the media enjoys exaggerating the threat.

Anyone considering violence as a solution to this problem is woefully ignorant of several hundred years of history, and has probably let their own fear cloud their judgement.

cainmarko 6 points7 points 5 months ago[-]

And Nelson Mandela was also a terrorist - how many people have a bad word to say about him now?

cozzer 6 points7 points 5 months ago[-]

No, no. When we agree with them, they're freedom fighters.

thewakebehindyou 5 points6 points 5 months ago[-]

Americans have funded terrorists (such as the IRA) right up until 9/11, despite being repeatedly warned by other countries about this fact and provided with names of charities that acted as fronts for terrorist organisations. (I saw several collection boxes for known IRA fronts during the time I lived in the US).

The Senator for my district, Peter King was an out-spoken supporter of the IRA throughout the 80's, 90's and 00's up until the U.S. Invasion of Iraq. The epitome of a hypocrite.

AngelaMotorman 1 point2 points 5 months ago[-]

Peter King is much worse than a hypocrite, and you have my condolences for having to put up with him. But the real problem is that he wasn't alone in that: mindless support for the most rejectionist factions of the IRA was an article of faith in bar rooms (and squad rooms) all over the northeast during those years. King was just an opportunist, not a believer -- which explains the seeming "change".

Jimmycc 8 points9 points 5 months ago[-]

Best comment here in my opinion. The sad thing is that no-one is really brave enough to just say: why don't we just ignore terrorism.

notheory 4 points5 points 5 months ago[-]

Successful counter insurgency strategies require eroding or demolishing the emotional and material support for the insurgency's cause. That doesn't mean ignoring, but it also doesn't mean arresting and/or killing everyone who's ever said or thought a negative thing about the US.

Unfortunately the US is unwilling to deal with most of the largest causes of support for pan-arabic nationalism, or muslim fundamentalism, namely the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and support for authoritarian regimes in the region.

You have to engage, but if your only method of engagement is guns and bombs, all you're going to is piss people off, and make more enemies.

cainmarko 2 points3 points 5 months ago[-]

Ignoring isn't necessarily the best idea. Its better than invading a country because of it but it would be better to address the reason that people are becoming terrorists for.
Some of the people will have legitimate concerns and grievances that need addressing, although some will just be nutters.

ScannerBrightly 2 points3 points 5 months ago[-]

Economy of fear, the currency of the media.

theneonwind 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

WOW, that's pretty much you're whole essay right there.

foolsjourney 48 points49 points 5 months ago[-]

Your teacher is ignorant and jingoist. It takes very little knowledge of the Middle East to understand that even if the US is to think of only its own interests, the most sensible thing to do is to go away and stop fucking around over there.

You should ask your parents to complain to the school's board that the teacher is not qualified to teach politics.

nwtreeoctopus 19 points20 points 5 months ago[-]

Yes. And lodge a complaint yourself. Don't say it's on ideological grounds, but on the grounds of not showing both sides and speaking in hateful terms about another group of people. There's no permanent record for students, but there sure is one for teachers. If you don't complain about your bad teachers, not only will the not be fired, they can't be fired.

(of course, as others have said, this is likely a troll. Find out if she really believes it before complaining. Still, have a good rebuttal to her point; lots of students are liable to think she's right)

officeroffkilter 3 points4 points 5 months ago[-]

Unless the OP is in Texas, in which case, depart at your (his/her) earliest possible convenience.

petewilko 7 points8 points 5 months ago[-]

it reminded me of starship troopers & the classroom scene

WhitePootieTang 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

Nobody likes a tattle-tale. Do not tell on your teacher. The world is overpopulated with humans, and war is a classic solution.

powercow 58 points59 points 5 months ago[-]

you cant blow away hate. Terrorism is a chinese finger trap. The more you attack it, the more it grows.

she is assuming terrorist attack us for no reason.. and that terrorists are a finite resourse.. but they really arent.. you can kill terrorists until there is no one but you and one other guy on earth.. think he will like you? think he wont try to kill you? wow he just became a terrorist.

so when your all alone, you can be glad you finally stopped all terrorism.. just dont break your glasses as their will finally be time to read all them books.,

best bet is to stop putting them on pedastals, this just helps them recruit. treat them like criminals and not soldiers like they want. we should really think of removing our bases.. the cold war is over and our new tech says we can have a good bit of fire power on your door step in a matter of hours. we dont need all these bases that annoy the down trodden(it's kinda amazing while americans think their bases cause zero trouble in the world, WE WOULD NEVER ALLOW A FORIEGN BASE ON OUR SOIL. NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS. But foreign countries arent our soil, foreignors arent americans so we are sure they dont care like we would.

You can look at other super powers. Russia has been hit but that is mainly an internal civil war.. but even then they rarely see their interests hit.. china as well.. china has a policy of "silent superpower"

they think that interfearing with the politics of smaller nations that causes strife.. america has no problem dictating who you will or will not appoint for certain posts.

we like to dictate preexisting conditions to having talks.

our arrogance helps attract terror.

most of these people would barely know of america if we werent up to our noses in their business.

daemin 17 points18 points 5 months ago[-]

WE WOULD NEVER ALLOW A FORIEGN BASE ON OUR SOIL.

Hell, we don't even allow bases on sovereign countries that are near our soil.

rhartman 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

I would draw your attention to CFB Kingston, which is only ~ 20km from US soil and the air base CFB Trenton which is ~ 100km from US soil.

Info: Canadian Forces Bases.

I think it would be more accurate to say you don't allow "non-allied" bases near your soil.

Uiaccsk 4 points5 points 5 months ago[-]

No, like....you know, real military.

Tyroneshoolaces 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

Ay?

ScannerBrightly 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

I feel this is true, but do you happen to have a citation for this? I'd like to know what the policy really is. Thanks in advance.

daemin 10 points11 points 5 months ago[-]

Well, the Cuban missile crisis springs immediately to mind. Which was pretty hypocritical considering that we had missile bases in Europe, right next to the USSR, at the time...

Dinjaga 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

Which, as part of deal that made the USSR remove bases in Cuba, we also removed. It was pretty fair trade.

keithjr 5 points6 points 5 months ago* [-]

she is assuming terrorist attack us for no reason.. and that terrorists are a finite resourse.. but they really arent.. you can kill terrorists until there is no one but you and one other guy on earth.. think he will like you? think he wont try to kill you? wow he just became a terrorist.

This is it, OP. This is what you say if you really want to turn this class into a debate and not just a soapbox for your vapid, ignorant instructor.

You cannot elevate terrorism to the level of nation-state or culture. Extremism is a world view, a meme. Her argument revolves around the assumption that continued US aggression will cause this world view to disappear. Ask her for evidence that this is the case.

Counter-examples:

  1. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq until we invaded.
  2. We attempted to halt the Soviets in Afghanistan by proxy, and got the Taliban.
  3. We attempted regime change in Iran by installing the Shah, and the insurgency that replaced him brought us the ayatollahs.

Aside: I know that Glenn Greenwald did a piece that mentioned an interview with an al qaeda recruiters, where he mentions the US war on terror (detention, torture, invasion) helped his efforts. But I can't seem to dig it up. Anybody have it?

drummerman345 4 points5 points 5 months ago[-]

You should also probably mention that its pretty hard to kill an idea.

Eggby 9 points10 points 5 months ago[-]

Ideas, Mr. Creedey, are bulletproof.

citnaj 1 point2 points 5 months ago[-]

so when your all alone, you can be glad you finally stopped all terrorism.. just dont break your glasses as their will finally be time to read all them books.,

Great Twilight Zone reference :)

huntwhales 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

I used to be against the war 100% until Obama decided we needed to send more troops to Afghanistan. I'm no Obama apologist, but on this issue I feel like he would stop the war if it was in our best interest.

Doesn't everyone here at least agree that Obama knows something that we don't? I think he has the trust (so far) of most people on Reddit. Why does no one trust him on the decisions to keep the war going for now? I don't get it.

Shredder13 17 points18 points 5 months ago[-]

As the sole remaining superpower, the United States...

This teacher isn't a social studies professor, is she? This statement definitely disqualifies her as such.

It is the U.S. government's responsibility and duty to protect its people and make the world safe from terrorists.

Sound like somebody took "Team America: World Police" seriously.

the United States must move forward with a worldwide offensive to combat it until all who threaten peace and security are destroyed

Irony...so...thick....drowning....blub......

I can't believe a teacher would think this is appropriate outside of her Bigots of America/KKK/Tea Party meetings. Just keep quoting her and posting the hilarious stuff on reddit!

spankenstein 12 points13 points 5 months ago[-]

replace the word "terrorism" with "communism" and you have your answer.

plus, you might want to point out to her that according to our own definition of terrorism, we are the terrorists to the citizens of the countries we are occupying.

ndewitt 17 points18 points 5 months ago[-]

That's a crazy slide for the middle of band practice.

stumonji 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

I know, right? Seems a little off topic...

Metal_Mike 9 points10 points 5 months ago[-]

RAND release a great paper a couple years back that looked at terrorist groups from the 60s to the present and what stopped them. Direct military action was the bottom of the barrel.

Link: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9351/index1.html

spinlock 1 point2 points 5 months ago[-]

This is the thing I don't understand about "Conservatives." The term is supposed to mean that you conserve what works and you don't try new things because of the downside risk that those new things might fail. But, as you've just shown, there is a ton of data that shows that our new "Conservative" ideas are ineffective.

A_Pickle 13 points14 points 5 months ago[-]

You should ask her how many Americans have died from terrorist events in the past half century and then ask her how many Americans have died from AIDS in the past decade.

In my mind, this nearly settles the debate. Terrorism isn't a non-issue... but it's not the overblown, $1 trillion world-ender that the Republicrats would have us believe.

drgreedy911 6 points7 points 5 months ago[-]

So true, aspirin killed more people in one year (2009) in the us than terrorists have killed in the last 30 by a huge massive margin.

marshallt 3 points4 points 5 months ago[-]

More directly, compare the number of people terrorists have killed in the last decade to the number the U.S. military has killed in the last decade as a reaction to terrorism.

Upintheair 5 points6 points 5 months ago[-]

Terrorism has one fundamental cause, at least in my worldview - grievances.

One could argue that those who fund and maintain terrorist operations have other geopolitical or economic interests at mind, but the people that commit to and carry out terrorist plots have grievances that they feel warrant extreme response.

Maintaining a cycle the perpetuates U.S. interference in the natural processes of sovereign nations for profit and political gain only serves to increase the number of people with grievances. When I think about 9/11, I don't think about people "hating capitalism" and "American pop culture". I think about U.S. military bases parked miles away from the holiest site in Islam, completely ignorant (or worse, oblivious) to the religious and political repercussions of such an occupation to even the more moderate practitioners of this ancient religion.

Just my 2 cents. Occupation only serves to continue this cycle of aggression. I think the Israeli occupation might be one of the best examples, though definitely not the same by any means.

onezerozeroone 4 points5 points 5 months ago[-]

Wow...how are teachers even allowed to say shit like that? That's some preachy bullshit right there and I'm damn sure it's not part of the approved curriculum.

What class is this for??

[deleted] 50 points51 points 5 months ago[-]

Your teacher is a fucking moron.

gthermonuclearw 16 points17 points 5 months ago[-]

Why is this the top voted comment? It adds nothing to the discussion. There's nothing to discuss here. Yes, the teacher is a moron. Throw us something we can chew on. Thanks.

YourFaceSucks 5 points6 points 5 months ago[-]

Thank you. That was my first thought, WHY is the a moron. How did such an unsubstantiated remark make it to the top? Anyone can form an opinion, it's being able to articulate the opinion that makes conversation interesting. Let me pose this question, why is it a bad idea for the US to fight terrorism, should we just let terrorism occur and not worry about it unless it is directed towards us?

gthermonuclearw 2 points3 points 5 months ago[-]

An excellent question. I believe that the US military is best used for missions with well defined objectives and multinational support, similar to how the first Gulf War was executed. For terrorists, get them where you can do the most damage. Capture some leaders, destroy a few training camps, but leave the civilians unharmed. A large scale campaign like the Global War on Terror is like trying to stop an ant infestation in your house with a box of fireworks.

As for stopping terrorism on US soil, I think that one well trained and alert TSA officer probably does more good than a dozen infantry in Iraq.

mandog -2 points-1 points 5 months ago[-]

Why is the US military best used for missions with multinational support? It confuses me why people believe it should take a consortium of nations to agree that terrorism should be eradicated. It takes just one to realize that something must be done about this.

winterbourne 6 points7 points 5 months ago* [-]

Because when you start acting unilateraly all the time, the rest of the world gets pissed when you don't consult the other 6.5 (around there) billion people on the planet before you start making war on everyone that disagrees with your ideology.

Edit: people already agree that terrorism = bad, the thing they disagree on is that the best way to combat it is through force rather then through education, social change, negotiation or other means I can't think of right now.

mandog 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

Hmmm...where do I start? So, worldwide unanimous support is needed before wiping out terrorism? Interesting. So, If I get mugged on my way home, should I consult with everyone in the city before I figure out how to prevent that from happening again? "before you start making war on everyone that disagrees with your ideology." This is a good one...isn't terrorism just what you describe? The difference is, we are being punished for not agreeing with their ideology. I believe the term is "infidel."

"education, social change, negotiation or other means." Right. How many radical Islamic nations that support terrorism have you heard of are open to social change, education, and negotiation?

winterbourne 2 points3 points 5 months ago[-]

I don't get what is with people and comparing terrorism to a mugging. How many people are out on the street mugging you and then telling you it was "because of western imperialism and decadence infidel!" When that starts happening let me know. The motivation for the crimes is entirely seperate. One is for short term monetary gain and the other is for long term political and social goals. Also I said "people already agree terrorism = bad"

But taking your mugging example. Yes people do need to agree that something needs to be done about it, that is how society works. Your solution I assume would be to kill every person who commits a mugging, most people would disagree that is necessary.

You should take a look at how many terrorist problems have been solved by direct military intervention and how many have been solved through negotiations, education and social change, I guarantee that my methods have a lot more success then simply trying to kill them all. Thats another thing, these people are screaming "we are ignored, people think they can exploit us, kill us and deny us our place in the world" and your response is to play into their hand. They want us to use force so that they have justification for their actions.

Terrorists are groups that feel marginalized and their needs ignored by those in power. As the guy from the UK pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the actions of American revolutionaries fit the current definition of terrorism perfectly. The difference is that those damn terrorists won and are now called the founding fathers and heroes.

Last time I checked America fucked with the middle east first not the other way around. What do you call funding the "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan in their fight against Russia and helping to create Israel.

The radical segment of islamic nations constitutes a very small part of the population, the rest of them just want to raise their children, work and live in peace. These aren't whole countires full of people hungry for western blood that's just hyperbole put forth by the media. Try watching frontlines latest piece (or any other frontline having to do with the war on terror) "Inside the taliban". Many of the people involved in miltias or "jihad" say the only reason they fight is to force the invaders to leave and when they are gone the fighters will lay down their weapons.

Asimov said it best "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent"

mandog 1 point2 points 4 months ago[-]

The assumption that simply using negotiations, education, and social change is extremely naive. They simply do not want western influence, which rules these out. "Terrorists are groups that feel marginalized and their needs ignored by those in power" this is another absurd statement. Don't try to glamorize their cause...they are killers.

I also love the misguided comparisons of American revolutionaries as terrorists. No member of American militias or the Continental Army beheaded civilians or killed children in the name of god.

"Last time I checked America fucked with the middle east first..." oh yeah? So, your knowledge of History goes back no further than the 1980's. Interesting. I see this argument is not worth getting into, clearly you are quite ignorant on this subject.

"Try watching frontlines" now its clear to me. You simply just regurgitate what you see on TV, how thoughtful. If you think for a second that if the invaders leave that they will simply lay down their arms is true, then you are even more naive than I could imagine. That "small group" will continue to kill their own people, as they are now. They will certainly kill even more when we are gone.

winterbourne 0 points1 point 4 months ago* [-]

Columbia - Negotiating with FARC and other armed militia groups results in decrease in kidnappings, fighting, 4000 militia retire from fighting. Nicaragua - US directly funded contra's who engaged in terrorist acts against the populace. IRA - Negotiations result in a truce between IRA and UK government. When was the last news story about an IRA bombing or killing? Afghanistan - US directly funds mujahideen "freedom fighters" against Russian invaders. Freedom fighters later become the taliban. Iran - US/UK government topples elected officials in operation Ajax

American revolutionaries burned and looted loyalist homes and forced all of them north to Canada or back to Britain. I'm pretty sure somewhere some woman got raped and some babies died because of the revolution. But then this was not 2010 it was 1776 and there was not instantaneous communication between the entire planet so there is bound to be less reportage about events and less knowledge they occured. Also there is no requirement for a killing to be committed in the name of a god for it be terrorism. Try looking up a few of the common definitions (since there are several).

Actually I have a very good handle on american involvement in the middle east. It pretty much begins with the truman doctrine in '47 if you don't count the troops in WW2 in Iran. Then Israel, Syria, Iran again, Suez crisis and six day war, US threatens Russia with nuclear weapons if it intervenes. If the middle east had been fucking with us before we did anything to them, I sure as hell never heard of it in any history book I've ever read. I'm sure if they had been this whole "war on terror" would have been started a long time ago. I seem to know my history and provide clearly stated and cited arguments for my point of view. You on the other use flimsy emotionally charged attacks on my position while providing no evidence to back up your own point of view.

Several of my friends immigrated from Afghanistan to Canada, they lived in Kabul and the places where these attacks are going down now. I would trust their words and interpretation of the situation rather then the ignorant belligerence of your position. Come back when you are going to contribute something other then more hate and arguments without facts to back them up. Actually I'm done because you will never provide the facts to back up your arguments.

Learning is learning. I choose a tv program that has been constantly cited by numerous academics as providing a fair portrayal of both sides of the issue. When both sides are not presented I do further research, I look for evidence in other news items, text books etc. I don't sit down and turn on glenn beck and start saying "Oh god the world is ending because TV says so!"

gthermonuclearw 1 point2 points 5 months ago[-]

I'm willing to change the word "support" to "approval". You wouldn't need everyones support if you got mugged, but you'd expect a degree of approval if you defended yourself in an appropiate manner the next time someone tried to mug you, because your actions would be justified.

This is why the UN Security Council exists. It's supposed to prevent unilateral, unprovoked military action that might jeopardize peace and security. I'm not saying that it does a perfect job of this, but the US did not get full support from the UN for the Iraq war partly because our justifications for war did not pass the smell test, and rightly so.

Had this not been the case, had all of our stated justifications for war (WMD's, support of Al Qaeda, etc.) turned out to be true, I might be inclined to agree with you.

zerobass 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

If you get mugged on the way home you should consult with the city before you kill him or mug him back, yes. The city is represented by law enforcement officials and judges, as well as elected officials who instate laws; these laws give the power of retributive action to the officials, who then either kill or mug him back (fines, prison, death).

So yes, you do get consent from the city. Not sure what the fuck you do -- go burn his house down or kill him? I think not.

cainmarko 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

I wonder how many Islamic terrorists there were before we started fucking around with their countries. You guys might be able to claim you were helping them defend themselves against the Soviets but you did arm the guys who went on to become the Taliban.

chiefmonkey [!] 8 points9 points 5 months ago[-]

Because it's easier for some to laugh and point, rather than form a cohesive argument.

Aradon 4 points5 points 5 months ago[-]

Are we sure the teacher isn't just trying to spark debate? Just saying.

ButtermilkBlue 1 point2 points 5 months ago[-]

Apparently you are. :)

landyda 8 points9 points 5 months ago[-]

ohh, i feel the word moron is being insulted by comparing it to his/her teacher.

M0b1u5 1 point2 points 5 months ago[-]

No, his teacher is a paranoid schizophrenic fucktard with very little brain, and a very large agenda.

Kinda like most of your politicians, I feel compelled to add.

[deleted] 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

Most of my politicians? Where do you think I'm from?

Gimli_The_Dwarf 1 point2 points 5 months ago[-]

As a moron who does occasionally engage in intercourse, I must strongly object to being compared to this person.

mandog 1 point2 points 5 months ago[-]

Sure says a lot about this group, since this is the top voted comment. You are no better than the people you hate. The worst part is you think you are better. I wonder why the US response to terrorism is often criticized more than the acts of terrorism themselves, when we are the only ones who have the courage and dedication to eradicate this threat. For your sake, I hope you never have to come face to face with what terrorism really is, and you get to remain on your couch passing judgment and offering simplistic solutions to things you could not possibly understand or relate to.

[deleted] 4 points5 points 5 months ago[-]

when we are the only ones who have the courage and dedication to eradicate this threat.

That's strange; I didn't realize America was eradicating radical Islam. Did that start with shock and awe? Let me tell you, the Great Satan isn't going to make any friends by garrisoning the Middle East with Xe mercenaries.

winterbourne 3 points4 points 5 months ago[-]

Terrorism is the government intercepting almost all communications made by US citizens with the assistance of telecom companies without warrant.

Terrorism is the government holding "enemy combatants" indefinitely without trial or legal counsel.

Terrorism is government lawyers (like John Yoo) who authorize torture based on faulty logic.

Terrorism is JSOC having a list of US citizens suspected of terrorism and targeted for assasinaton rather then arrested, given a lawyer and a fair trial.

Terrorism is a government more concerned with health sector profits and political wrangling then ensuring every citizen has the ability to receive medical care without fear of going bankrupt.

Terrorism is forcing 99.99% of the population to submit to draconian security measures to find the .01% who might commit an "act of terror".

officeroffkilter 1 point2 points 5 months ago[-]

Terrorism is government lawyers (like John Yoo) who authorize torture.

FTFY

mandog 0 points1 point 4 months ago[-]

Although I do not support the government intercepting communication, has it really terrorized you? I cant say I am terrorized by that.

Those enemy combatants will kill you and your family without hesitation...in fact, over 20% that are released go directly back to the Taliban.

Draconian security measures? Like what? I took my shoes off at the airport....big fucking deal!! And I don't care if its just .01%...that .01% killed a member of my family. I hope that doesn't happen to anyone here.

winterbourne 0 points1 point 4 months ago[-]

The government is specifically prohibited from doing these things by the constitution to prevent the growth of tyranny. If they can listen - they will listen. You don't support it, yet your OK with it. No one seems to support it but no one has the willpower to do anything about it either.

Omar Khadr was 14-15 years old when he was captured in Afghanistan, accused of throwing a grenade at US soldiers. So this person defends his country from people who invaded his land and most likely killed members of his family or friends. It's a fucking war and they arrest someone for throwing a grenade back at the people who air strike the shit out of their country every day? Ok suppose he did throw a grenade, who did it injure? who did it kill? who saw it? why didn't they just shoot him then if he was throwing grenades? why is he not being tried as a criminal? Instead he's been sitting in guantanamo being interrogated and water boarded for years. The kid was 14, do they really think he's a Taliban master mind? Oh not to mention he's a citizen of Canada being held without trial or possibility of release.

How about the fact that they want to scan your naked body. Yeah its a grainy image now, but $10 says in 5 years the same company that came out with this scanner is going to come out with a new one with higher quality image resolution, thats how technology works. Add in the fact that these machines have no ability to detect explosives other then by sight and the wavelength they use to detect objects does not detect liquids, plastics or powders. Then add in the fact that we already have these things called "trace portals" that can detect a single molecule of 16 different types of explosives by GC/MS or MS(99.99% accuracy) and no image of you is required.

Why should I submit to a security measure that is A) Much more invasive of my privacy and B) Less effective then other technology already available and paid for by the TSA. They have $200 million worth of the things, but they aren't installed because they require a skilled operator (you know one who doesn't make $10/h).

mandog 1 point2 points 4 months ago[-]

Although my heart bleeds for Omar Khadar, this one story is just not convincing me that the US is the horrible monster you want to believe it is. You like percentages, so lets look at it this way: there are 520 prisoners at Gitmo, and lets say half are as 'innocent' as Omar above (not accounting for the video of him planting landmines you conveniently left out), that's 260. Of the 30K Taliban (and that's an exceptionally low number), That makes the captured enemy combatant % at Gitmo 0.86% of the Taliban. So, why do you draw conclusions about the US conduct of the war based on what amounts to 0.86% of the Taliban force? I know why. It's because self deprecating ultra liberals, such as yourself, continually offer naive and simple solutions to problems they have no experience with, and cannot look into the future past their own nose. Instead, you'll focus on poor Omar, rather than the long term goals of peace and stability in the region that will NEVER exist as long as radical ideologies, such as the Taliban, are around.

winterbourne 0 points1 point 4 months ago* [-]

If they are so bad, try them for their crimes. Tell the world what they did and why they deserve such treatment don't just tell us they are "high-value" and that its a security risk for us to know or even put them to trial. I'm sure the terrorists already know so-and-so al qaderi or whoever has been captured since he fucking disappeared completely.

Radical ideologies and ideas have been around forever. Protestantism (everywhere at first), Catholicism(in England), In fact almost every western religion went through a period where it was declared "radical"(Some still are). Communism, used to be so hated it was forbidden to trade with them. Now China is the 2nd largest importer to the US, behind Canada and we are fucking next door to each other. Capitalism was seen as a pretty radical idea. So were womens rights, ending apartheid in South Africa, ending segregation in the US. Not to mention the fact that the earth revolves around the sun. I mean the man was threatened with death and excommunication if he did not recant.

Some ideals and ideas will always be viewed as radical by the main stream, but so many important advances have been achieved through radicalism (and yes blood was shed almost every time it's tragic). Instead of trying to eliminate something that has been a constant of humanity and (in large part a driver of its progress) we should be figuring out how to guide it towards better ends. Thats not a simple solution, but its a lot less naive then thinking you can eliminate radicalism with the barrel of a gun. In fact Mao said "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" didn't he? Come on everyone knows Mao tore shit up, killing millions in China and look what it got him. From what you've been saying that quote seems to fit well with your ideology, might you be a chinese communist sir?

Let me ask you this: Do you ever think of the parallels/differences between what we do to them at Gitmo and what they do to us when captured/ransomed?

Same: Your probably gonna get beaten and interrogated. You might die. When captured, no one may know what happened to you for a while

Difference: They get on TV and say "we have captured so and so for this reason (release our men/give us money) and they will live. Sometimes we pay, and they live, sometimes they get let go and live, sometimes they die.

US locks them up indefinitely, doesn't really say why or when they might be released, punished/tried for their crimes. This is the example the US wants to set for the world? We can detain anyone for whatever reason we choose, for however long we choose and they can go fuck themselves if they want a trial.

If your country wants to set an example it shouldn't be detaining anyone without trial, or failing to explain to the world at large why they have detained a foreign citizen indefinitely. Not to mention starting aggressive wars on spurious evidence. If every country did what the US did in the name of "peace and stability" it would be a constant world war.

Yes I'm a liberal what of it? You should check the definition. Its central tenets are liberal democracy, fair elections, human rights, free trade, secular society and constitutions. Yeah I could agree with all that. But throw in a little socialized medicine and employment insurance.

[deleted] -1 points0 points 5 months ago* [-]

agreed. moron.

BluthBananaStand 3 points4 points 5 months ago[-]

But didn't you learn anything from the "Mission Accomplished" banner? We got 'em all mother fuckers!!!!!!

But I would honestly answer her with a quote from David Cross, "You cannot win a war on terrorism, it's like having a war on jealousy, you ain't gonna win it. It's fucking ridiculous, it's an absurd notion, at no point in time ever, will we say 'whew, got em all, everybody loves us again… all we're doing is just creating more terrorists."

prof0ak 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

upvote for awesome name.

NichaelBluth 4 points5 points 5 months ago[-]

What is she, a recruiter for Army?

runbmd 3 points4 points 5 months ago[-]

Is your teacher's name Mrs. GeorgeWBush?

taeratrin -1 points0 points 5 months ago[-]

nah...my bet would be on Mrs. Cheney

Demaskus 3 points4 points 5 months ago[-]

You just got trolled. Good job. All HS gov/politics/ethics teachers do this.

carter6 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

No he didn't - OP is an acquaintance of mine and I know the teacher. She's literally a dumbass.

dontlolatme 7 points8 points 5 months ago[-]

Ha! The US isn't the world's policeman. The sooner they realize that, the better. How much misery is caused by American hegemony? If the rest of the world had her attitude, you'd have a 9/11 every two weeks.

Dinjaga -1 points0 points 5 months ago[-]

Last time we said "Fuck it, let the world do what it wants" and became an introvert, what happened? Do you remember?

Oh yes, that's it, WORLD WAR MOTHERFUCKING TWO.

I don't agree with everything America does, but you people are being silly. SOMEONE has to watch the Middle East and Africa, both of those places are bat-shit insane. If we just leave them alone, some guy takes power, makes a big-ass military, takes over the area around him, makes over a bigger military with his newly acquired resources, and then we have some psycho with real power. Think 9/11 was bad? Imagine what would happen if Iran really is working on nuclear weapons, and some crazy gains control of them. People will fucking DIE man. Not a few soldiers here or there, but potentially MILLIONS OF PEOPLE.

And for those saying if we just stopped being world police, and the world wouldn't hate us? Yeah, our actions piss the off, but we started those actions because they hated us from the start. They hate what we stand for. They hate our freedoms and liberties, our dreams and ambitions. That don't just hate America, they hate the foundation America lies atop. Nothing we can do will EVER make that hate go away.

Igggg 3 points4 points 5 months ago[-]

Last time we said "Fuck it, let the world do what it wants" and became an introvert, what happened? Do you remember?

Yeah, because obviously, WWII only happened because U.S. did nothing to stop it, and as soon as U.S. started doing something, the war was over. No other countries mattered there, it was all America alone.

New American History.

Dinjaga -3 points-2 points 5 months ago[-]

I never said it was completely our fault, or even our fault at all. But if we had been involved, do you think we would have been like Britain and just rolled over while the Nazi's took over the Sudetenland and all that shit? I don't. Even with the most democratic President in the history of ever, I think if we had any policy other than the "we don't give a fuck" for our stance on foreign issues, we would have stood up to Hitler much sooner than Britain, France and the USSR did.

And I didn't say ANYTHING about the rest of the war, I know full well that the USSR did more than we did. But we did contribute a ton. If we hadn't stepped in, there's a very good chance Britain would have been lost, and the USSR would be fighting Germany on one side and Japan on the other. I'd like to think that their raw man power still would have won, but it would've taken a lot more time, and a fuckton more deaths.

But yeah, I didn't say shit about what happened during/after the war, so great comeback man. You're a real pro.

diuge 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

People will fucking DIE man. Not a few soldiers here or there, but potentially MILLIONS OF PEOPLE.

You seem to be completely discounting any war casualties beyond allied military forces.

Dinjaga 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

The casualties, both military and foreign and domestic civilians, of today's "war" is still very small compared to what could happen. Any loss of life is tragic (to someone, at least), and I mean no disrespect to those who have died in the current conflict. But it's utterly insignificant against the number of people that would die if, say, Washington D.C. or NYC or LA were decimated by a nuclear weapon. Even other WOMD, such as biological bombs could just wreak havoc.

Imagine if D.C. were bombed and every single federal official were killed. Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue? Not just here in America, but throughout the world? Everyone, everywhere would FLIP SHIT.

zenfunk 5 points6 points 5 months ago[-]

my advice is to stop caring about highschool senior life.

lexmichaels 3 points4 points 5 months ago[-]

Ask her how the Iraq war is going, and tell her to STFU.

maleman 2 points3 points 5 months ago[-]

The answer comes from one of my former teachers, here:

http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/kuipers/opinions/defeating-terrorism.html

ubrayj02 1 point2 points 5 months ago[-]

The first paragraph is all that is needed:

Terrorism is a tactic used by a small set of extremists to fight against an overwhelmingly powerful opponent while surrounded by a large population that mostly just wants peace and quiet.

maleman 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

the professor actually has quite a few interesting reads on his website. I recommend checking it out.

ghandimangler 2 points3 points 5 months ago[-]

Your teacher equates the status of the U.S. as a 'superpower' with having the superpowers of a Super Hero.

The idea that it is the U.S.'s responsibility and duty to fight terrorism negates the sovereignty and duty of every other country on the planet.

Your teacher has daddy issues.

Dinjaga 1 point2 points 5 months ago[-]

Which means that if she is attractive, the time is ripe to make your move.

Go ahead champ, get that detention.

bigtoine 2 points3 points 5 months ago[-]

Here's my view on the War on Terror. This is from a conversation I was having on Reddit a few months back.

I think the reason I don't understand the right-wing view on Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terror is that I have a different view of what terrorism is.

Most mainstream Republicans appear to believe that terrorism is something that can be defeated through force. That it can be hunted down, found, and destroyed. I would disagree. To me, terrorism is ideological. In fact, I would agrue that it has to be ideological in order to be terrorism. Otherwise it's simply a crime. Killing 3000 people may be horrific, but unless there is an ideological purpose behind it, it's simply the murder of 3000 people, nothing more. What made 9/11 a terrorist act was the ideology professed by Al-Qaeda.

Now how do you fight an ideology? Well it certainly doesn't seem like a good idea to invade 2 countries whose people you are trying to win over. Wouldn't it be a better idea to maybe send humanitarian aid? To build schools, send food, send medicine.

There's the argument that we won over the Iraqis by removing a dictator who routinely slaughtered his own people. Ok. But what did we leave in his place? A power vacuum for which the warring factions of Iraq that had been controlled (albeit violently) under Saddam were now free to do battle. And from all appearances, Bush's intelligence staff were not prepared for that reality when they said "Hey, let's go fight some people."

How can you hunt down and destroy something which has no leader? You compare Osama to Hitler and Al-Qaeda to Nazi Germany. What happened when Hitler died and the Allies took over Berlin? The German army surrendered en masse. Did we have to hunt down and capture, interrogate, and kill every remaining Nazi? No. Because once the leader was dead, there was no reason for the rest to continue. It wasn't an ideological fight for anyone other than the very top Nazi commanders. The rest were just following orders.

Al-Qaeda doesn't work that way. Kill Bin Laden and the rest aren't just going to lay down their arms and come peacefully. They will continue to fight, because they believe in the cause that they are fighting for. Kill them and more will take their place. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO END TERRORISM BY FORCE. The only possible way to forcibly stop terrorism would be to unleash a counterattack so devastating that the terrorists would never want to risk suffering that fate again. Is that what you want?

By torturing, by killing civilians, by invading countries, we give the terrorists more fuel by which to recruit. They just have to mention Abu Ghraib and there are people lining up to join them. So explain to me how the "enhanced interrogation" that was performed there helped us.

DamnJester 2 points3 points 5 months ago[-]

Have her play this game: http://www.newsgaming.com/games/index12.htm

Makes things a little clearer for those that don't get it.

Tyroneshoolaces 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

Wow. How have I never seen this before. Brilliant.

FilthyElitist 3 points4 points 5 months ago[-]

Your teacher is wrong and a complete moron. I've got common sense, basic knowledge, as well as a four-year degree in peace and security studies with a focus on the Middle East so this is an issue I feel fairly comfortable holding forth on, complex though it may be.

I can dig up some papers and whatnot to give some sort of academic argument against your teacher, but it's pretty easy: America's freedom is not threatened and will not be threatened by terrorism — we could probably take China on their home turf, nobody external can take away our freedom. And a "worldwide offensive" had better be a charm offensive. All the top thinkers in COIN are going with the less is more, more is less school of thought.

Sorry if this isn't cogent, I'm rushing out to print a paper but this ignited my defense nerd rage. If you want me to craft a better response or hunt around for some supporting material, just let me know.

victorwilliams 3 points4 points 5 months ago[-]

Perhaps your teacher put it there to make you think. If so, it may be working...

collinisballn [S] 1 point2 points 5 months ago[-]

haha good thought - I have a feeling she believes it though

sweep71 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

Then just ask if she believes that, or if it was there to make you think. In the end, make your disagreement respectful and move on quickly if it appears that their will be no room for common ground. Make your point, but hold on to the high ground and respectful tone. In short, practice being an adult even if the adult is not.

floyd084 1 point2 points 5 months ago[-]

"The war on terrorism is a worldwide struggle and the United States must move forward with a worldwide offensive to combat it until all who threaten peace and security are destroyed." This is why she is wrong, by her own statement the United States must be destroyed because its "worldwide offensive to combat terrorism" is a threat to world peace and security. Catch 22 type of deal.

kaythetall 1 point2 points 5 months ago[-]

Attempts to use the military as a police force for longer than an immediate emergency lead to problems.

What was the line from Battlestar? The police are for your people, your army is for your enemies. If you use your army as police, those you're trying to protect become your enemies.

thrawny 1 point2 points 5 months ago[-]

All of this has happened before, and all of it will happen again.

Sooner or later, there comes a time when you can no longer hide from the things that you've done.

jahallah 1 point2 points 5 months ago[-]

I was really just wondering what must teachers of this age be teaching or talking about. I know during the impeachment proceedings of clinton my high school teacher was excited, not happy just really into it. And again when my actual county was the questionable count for the 2000 election my teacher was talking about it's 'precedence' and what not. Well, violence begets violence and our presence creates terrorism. That is something you could point out.

fforw 1 point2 points 5 months ago[-]

With this logic, wasn't it the British Empire's right and duty to squash the American terrorists' uprising?

YourFairyGodmother 1 point2 points 5 months ago[-]

It really disturbs me that this shit is going on. That aint teaching, that's spewing proaganda. Indoctrination. Authoritarian bullshit.

longhairedcountryboy 1 point2 points 5 months ago[-]

Talk to your children. The education system is being used to brainwash an entire generation. I remember when this really was a free country and it was not that long ago.

RonaldFuckingPaul 1 point2 points 5 months ago[-]

Tell her this country was founded by terrorists.

bokmal 1 point2 points 5 months ago[-]

Hi,

  1. I would ask your teacher how well she thinks that approach has been working? We've had at least 8 years of it under W and its only gotten worse.

  2. Did she go into the causes of terrorism?

  3. Did she define terrorism? Regan and co were supporting terrorists in Central America and Afghanistan and calling them freedom fighters.

ssladam 1 point2 points 5 months ago[-]

Give up. It's impossible to argue with people that believe this. You can't use logic and reason to discuss the issue. Just give up. You're better off making some joke about how "occupation sure worked great for the French in Algeria!", and hope people get enough of a clue to realize there's more than one side to the story.

[deleted] 1 point2 points 5 months ago[-]

Terrorism takes root wherever people are ignorant enough, desperate enough, and frustrated enough that it becomes a viable option. Killing terrorists doesn't remove the core issues that cause all three issues to congeal and drive people to terrorism. Until you fix those three key drivers, terrorism is never ending.

Educate them and provide them economic and life opportunities and you'll do more to combat terrorism than any military solution. Look at first, second and third generation Muslims emigrating from the Middle East if you want an example. By the second generation, you're lucky if the kids speak Arabic fluently. By the third, they are all but indistinguishable from the general populace and tend to identify more with their new nation than they do the old.

What the US has to expand is the benefits found within the US, clearly, so that as many people around the world can enjoy them as possible.

Orangutan 1 point2 points 5 months ago[-]

Tell her the truth about the Anthrax and 9/11. And tell her China is now a Superpower as well.

busytigger 1 point2 points 5 months ago[-]

You are calling it brainwashing because you don't agree with the statement. If she had stated the "correct" path was a total pullout, reconciliation and substantive economic aid to the non-wealthy people of the Middle East you wouldn't be calling it brainwashing.

The true negative in this is trying to entertain any conversation on policy at all at the HS or undergraduate levels. Outside of it being done purely as an intellectual exercise of course, with no "correct" answer.

Felugah 1 point2 points 5 months ago[-]

As the sole remaining superpower, the United States has no choice but to take on the job of rooting out terrorism wherever it exists.

white mans burden.

daskro 1 point2 points 5 months ago[-]

While your teacher's lack of powerpoint etiquette and nuance is insulting, what she is advocating is basically the policy of the current administration which is to take an active role in failed and weak states in strengthening their bodies of governance to deny terrorism sanctuary.

CENTCOM has had a significant role with the Yemini Government over the last few years in the government's skrimishes with the Huuthi minority, beyond its very active role in Iraq and Afghanistan. The same can be said with their role with Pakistan's ISI and the Jordanian military.

AFRICOM has also been established to provide a US presence in current and future African hotspots, namely in Somalia, Sudan, and Chad, albeit it barely is comparable to other COMs.

Your teacher is right about fighting it alone if necessary. Even if the EU as a whole were to want to aid the US in a military endeavor the EU only has the logistical capability to field 3 maybe 4 divisions outside their borders (Compared to US's 10). It's helpful but not contingent.

Now are these the reasons your teacher used to write that paragraph? I most certainly doubt it.

fifth0 1 point2 points 5 months ago[-]

What about spending INSTEAD OF military dollars maybe some money into EDUCATION and infrastructure. You know humanitarian efforts, those sorts of things that people look at and go ... wow they actually want to help us. Leaving a pile of rubble behind you doesn't do much more then send a gigantic fuck you to the poor destitute people of those countries.

shayar7 1 point2 points 5 months ago[-]

Ask her to consider how well this response worked in Massachesettes circa 1776.

DarrenEdwards 1 point2 points 5 months ago[-]

Arresting those directly responsible for destructive or violent acts and putting them in a public court, while finding out the cause for conflict has worked again and again. Because desperate people want a voice they will be heard one way or another, through words, votes or bombs.

Shooting in the near vicinity of an angry person tends to rile up a lot of complacent people. Governments tend to like the second option, you don't have to be good at governing when you have bad guys to shoot at.

notheory 1 point2 points 5 months ago[-]

The [US] cannot tolerate [...] those nations who harbor terrorists

This is a particularly loaded statement. What does "harboring" constitute? The Taliban in Afghanistan most certainly did provide substantial support for non-state actors. On the other hand, Dick Cheney justified the invasion of Iraq on the same grounds, although Iraq had provided no support to terrorists, simply because the US said a terrorist had visited the country at some point.

Moreover, it's not clear that waging a campaign against terrorism everywhere either makes sense, or is effective in protecting citizens of the US. What constitutes terrorism vs freedom-fighting is pretty subjective (the US has supported coup attempts in the past which could certainly be classified as terrorism by their targets).

Further yet, there's an efficacy question. It's not clear that it's possible to ever stop terrorism. The point of asymmetric warfare is that the target is unable to defend all it's vulnerable assets. When all it takes to cause fear and damage is 80$ worth of supplies and a person with no will to live, there's not much that even a super power can do to protect all potential targets.

Also. please don't plagiarize :P

cwilsons 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

I think your teacher is right- liberal democracies have a moral duty to undermine and depose leaderships which make slaves of domestic and foreign populaces- of which terrorist leaderships are a component. (Please, no "like the American leadership?" comments: You belittle the struggles of the people that live these conditions with such frivolous comparisons).

Though I believe it is a moral obligation to liberate -yes, liberate, it's not a dirty word- the oppressed, and safeguard against the violent actions of violent groups, I don't believe it serves America's domestic interest to engage with this project alone- simply because of the expense of it. However, if an international coalition is unwilling to aid America, any unilateralist action it takes against these despicable people demonstrates a sacrifice on Americas part that should shame those countries that were able to assist and didn't.

Terrorists have demonstrated their inability to honor diplomatic agreements- as is evidenced by the annexation of the Swat Valley by the Taliban in an agreement with the Pakistan government, who then broke the terms of the bargain with further encroachment onto Pakistani territory. The Taliban had reduced the people of that once fertile region to paucity, fear, and humiliation- and there are those who would blame their actions on the failure of their enemies to capitulate to them! As if they had no choice but to beat, rape and murder to further their political and religious agendas.

Al Qaeda makes no attempt to disguise that they are engaged in a holy war with the West in general- a war which on their terms would be won with our unconditional surrender, but even once won, would never be over, for they would have us forever submit to them, or die- preferably both. They know they're at war, so we should know it also.

You did not give information regarding the appropriateness of the lecture to the subject material, so I cannot comment on that front. However, regarding your assumed responsibility to safeguard the minds of your peers, you would do both them and yourself a service to reflect on the value of an educational institution that protected its students from being introduced to unwanted opinion.

Code347 2 points3 points 5 months ago[-]

I agree with this asessment. Unfortunately we drag our feet in getting the job done because of opinion. These wars will go on for many years to come because we treat it with kid gloves, instead of treating it like war.

udaybhanu 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

You're exactly right. The last time we won this kind of war was in the Philippines. We took off the gloves then, and punished the guerrillas by burning down villages and putting the civilians in concentration camps. That's the only way to win this kind of war. To make the people fear us more than the guerrillas. Thankfully we've moved past this kind of behavior, but it's not doing us in any favors in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So, I have a better idea - if we don't have the stomach to do what it takes to build nations out of places like these, why don't we just not try to build nations out of places like these?

cwilsons 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

I'll leave it to the reader to decide how apt the likeness of combating terrorism is to a colonialist enterprise. However, there is the nasty implication in your comparison that you view those terrorist groups as legitimate governments of the people.

Contrary to your suggestion, I think it is in the moral and practical interest of America, the West and the regions concerned that we do have the stomach to oppose those who seek to oppress and destroy the lives, culture, and economies of everyone they encounter, in order that the peoples of those lands can build nations for themselves.

udaybhanu 0 points1 point 5 months ago* [-]

I don't think it is America's responsibility to liberate the oppressed through military force. I don't remember who said it, but democracy does not come from the barrel of a gun. The culture must evolve to accept it. Otherwise, unless the US is willing to go bare knuckles and kill massive numbers of people to force them to change their ways, we will be trapped in a quagmire which we will not be able to extricate ourselves from short of another Vietnam. Ironically, Britain helped us in Iraq, when they tried to do the same thing in 1921. They should have known better. That's why the rest of "Old Europe" decided not to get involved. They've been at this game a lot longer than America, and after WWII, mostly got out of it. It is self-defeating.

Let's look at the Taliban. The Taliban was actually an improvement in Afghanistan, after the collapse of the socialist government reduced the country to anarchy and civil war. The problems the Pakistani government is having with the Taliban are of their own making. The ISI - Pakistan's CIA - has aided and abetted the Taliban, and has even harbored them. They created their own mess (with a lot of help from us, too). Pakistan must solve this problem.

Let's look at Al Qaeda. They are a criminal organization. They can talk big about fighting a "war" against the West, but they have no more capacity to do this than the Mafia. We didn't take out the Mafia by bombing Sicily. We took them out by calculated strikes against their leadership. Al Qaeda should be dealt with similarly. We should be engaged with the police forces and intelligence agencies of our allies to root out safehouses in places like Hamburg. We should have sent in special forces to capture Osama Bin Laden like we did Noriega. Instead of trying to smash Al-Qaeda with wild swings of a huge hammer and toppling countries, we should be making small, surgical strikes.

In fact, I remember after 9/11, Bush made a speech when he first announced the War on Terror. He said this would be a war we wouldn't see, a war conducted by Special Forces and with cooperation with police and intelligence agencies of our allies. When I heard that, I thought here was a man who knew what he was doing. Then he fucked everything up by trying to build nations in Afghanistan and Iraq, ignoring centuries of history.

So yeah, that guy's teacher is a moron.

cwilsons 1 point2 points 5 months ago[-]

You endorse the use of Special Forces, so you're clearly not against military force- which is good, because neither is the enemy.

Democracy certainly does not come down the barrel of a gun- particularly when a regime uses those weapons to hold its population hostage. A culture may only evolve to accept democracy when it has the freedom to do so. The Ba'ath Party, the Revolutionary Guard, The Kim Family, and the Taliban have demonstrated repeatedly an unyielding resistance to giving their subjects the smallest degree of that freedom, regardless of protest both peaceful and violent from the domestic peoples, and entreaties from international bodies.

As far as America's involvement goes; the government most certainly has a constitutional responsibility to the security of its own people, and so is, and should be, highly involved in the dismantling of Al Qaeda- which you correctly point out is a criminal organisation, one which operates multinationally, and whose manifesto demands its expansion worldwide at the expense of the collapse of Western Civilisation. As far as tactics to combat them- whatever works. I make no claims to aptitude for offensive strategy, but I make a moral demand for the minimisation of peripheral devastation in addition to the demand for their absolute destruction and discreditation.

You make the argument that Pakistan is responsible for the current level of power the Taliban holds and that they therefore have an obligation to combat them. I share this perspective, and agree with the logic. You also correctly point out that America, or more correctly the CIA, had a huge hand in their rise to power, yet you say the Taliban is solely the problem of Pakistan. Does America's involvement not intensify its obligation to depose this group and in some small way make reparations for the horrors inflicted on its subjects?

I'll leave it to you to make a moral conclusion, but I won't be the one to argue that the Taliban was an improvement for the people of Afghanistan- let alone a solution to anarchy, rather than the cause of it.

oldcrustysailor 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

I am with your teacher. N korea Sunshine policy, Clinton = Magnificent failure. You cant pay them off.

The Dirty little secret is that it is a war of Tribalism (Muslim) vs western civilization and they will kill 1000 of their own to kill 10 of ours because their religion says so. Only narcissism makes people think that peace can be legislated through mandates.

Israel is only here now because they are so bad ass hardliners against terrorists. Munich olympics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_Summer_Olympics

ubrayj02 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

The North Korean State depends on antagonism with the West to maintain its power. It is a state designed to fail in its international negotiations and relationships.

We kill 1,000 tribesmen in a remote part of the world, and the enterprise costs us 10 soldiers. This is not an artifact of religion. This is what happens when you use a modern military and logistics supply chain to massacre lightly armed country rubes as part of a political kabuki theater.

Israel is where it is now because the U.S. (and other nations) have a vested interest in supplying the tiny nation with all the arms and money it needs to be "bad ass hardliners". What does Israel produce that allows it to afford so many jets, nukes, weapons, and cement for walls? There is no resource that pays as well as the bodies of dead arabs.

mastertwisted 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

Tell her that you disagree with her OPINION, and if she gives you shit remind her that the ACLU is there to allow you to do so.

What she is doing is dangerous - she should be presenting FACTS.

fdcckg6 -1 points0 points 5 months ago[-]

Start with the biggest terrorist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

Redmoons 0 points1 point 5 months ago* [-]

That's pretty simple...

Make a slide show comparing rights that 'terrorists' have taken from us, and rights the government has taken from us under the guise of protecting us.

BondsOfEarthAndFire 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

Your teacher is making the HUGE assumption that there are actually legions of terrorists who are waiting to give their lives to attack, terrorize, paralyze, and destroy America's morale, economy and military.

If so, where are all the fucking attacks? Ten people with prepaid cell phones coordinating across the country could 'beltway sniper' 50 major cities in 5 days, without even getting caught. This would shut the country down. Why has no one done this? Because there are no terrorists who actually want to do this. Otherwise they would have already done it.

I live in Portland, OR. If the I-5 bridge that crosses the Columbia and connects OR and WA were taken down during rush hour, it would cripple the economy of the Pacific NW for months, let alone the obvious deaths and horrifying morale-crushing mayhem that would result. Why has no one done it? Because there are no terrorists who actually want to do this. The bridge is not guarded. It's not even videotaped. You could plant C4 at every truss and never even be looked at cross-eyed.

I've got pages of these, but I'll spare you. This is not what you're looking for in terms of material for an essay that includes objective evidence, but it's a hell of a lot of circumstantial evidence that the terrorist threat is nothing like we're being told. If it were, and there were legions of angry bastards just chomping at the bit to take down America, it would have happened by now. We simply cannot protect all of our infrastructure, nor police every single citizen of our country.

Bacore 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

Does rootiing out terrorism include busting down my door and looking under my beds?

sublimeone 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

I find it amusing how the right uses phrases like duty and responsibility while referring to the war on terror. The only thing the neo-cons think our government should do is battle terrorists.

I also love the way that the neo-cons continually "educate" people about the attack the terrorists are mounting on freedom and civil liberty. The only people who are taking away our freedoms is our own government and they must be stopped by any means necessary.

The true terrorists are the state sponsored police forces running rough shod over an uneducated, unobservant and uninterested American citizenry which has no rights now.

Is it a coincidence that these same people who are screaming for action in the Middle East are from the same demographic of Americans who are time and time again blowing shit up and resorting to the same terrorist actions of another minority which they so adamantly oppose.

All hypocrites.

jonathanjose 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

Wow! I could hardly fathom her comments. Coming from Canada my perspective includes the following. I would ask for clarification as to avoid premature adjudication.

Ask her to define terrorism and whether her government uses it? Ask her to describe the overthrow of Chile President Allende.

Or her governments role in he Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America[1] was a 1986 case of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in which the ICJ ruled in favor of Nicaragua and against the United States and awarded reparations to Nicaragua. The ICJ held that the U.S. had violated international law by supporting Contra guerrillas in their rebellion against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. ( would that meet her definition of terrorism ?? )

How about the US using white phosphorus gas in Fallujah in 2004? Ask her with all of the US Military might and smarts that in WW1 10 per cent of casualities were civilians, whereas now it is 90 percent. Isn't that terrorizing citizens?

Good for the goose, good for the gander.....

Sole remaining superpower? Hah! More like a crumbling superpower on its way down. Ask if Russia, China or India would be construed as a (emerging) superpower. " until all who threaten peace and security are destroyed'...would that apply to Afghanistan, Iraq or Pakistan?

Ask her who exactly anointed or appointed the US to be the world police? With 5 percent of the world population?

What gives the US the "Moral High ground" in this matter? "Nothing less than US freedom is at stake". Really? How so? Freedom in the US or outside it's borders?

It is imperative for her to clarify said comments.

I would personally print off the most lucid responses and present to her Reddit readers take on things.

Thanks for your consideration!

bored-now 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

I remember reading somewhere (years ago, and sadly - I don't remember where), that one of the best ways to deal with terrorists was to take the ideology out of the picture completely. (someone here posted this link: http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/kuipers/opinions/defeating-terrorism.html, and it's really good).

Terrorists "win" when the society they are attacking goes completely bonkers and overreacts. The best way to deal with the terrorists is to treat them as criminals. The crime they commit isn't "terrorism" and that isn't what they should be charged with. The crime they commit is murder, kidnapping, destruction of property, money laundering, etc. When they are caught, they need to be tried in criminal court (not military) and due process MUST be followed.

Because if we can't treat the lowest common denominator with the same rights no matter what they do, and sacrifice our beliefs and morals in an act of revenge, that's when the society that is the subject to the attacks really lose.

ubrayj02 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

The United States uses terrorism daily, as it is a technique of waging war. A war against a successful technique is not winnable and can only be a distraction or a justification for some other goal.

cometparty 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

What if 9/11 was an inside job? Then her actions would make her a monster.

avalanche142 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

I would suggest some Fareed Zakaria writings...but use the ones from a few years ago when he actually focused on the role of terrorism and the United States

stengela 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

She's your TEACHER? How incredibly arrogant and ignorant can she possibly get. This kind of attitude about the 'righteousness' of American policy in EVERYTHING they do is the DIRECT cause of terrorism. She was lied to about how 'great' America is(n't) and she's lying to you, now.

whatifimright 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

Sounds like an excerpt right from republican talking points.

mathewferguson 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

What the hell class is this in?

Your teacher is fucking stupid.

I'm Australian and I can tell you I disagree with a lot of US policies. In fact, I hold the same opinion as the terrorists: get the fuck out of their countries.

So are we now terrorists? Or does it take me throwing an egg at the US embassy?

If the US had any sense they'd withdraw troops and start handing out iPods filled with entertainment to everyone. Get McDonalds in there and sell cheap food. Fat rich people don't blow themselves up or do fuck all against anyone.

The only way to destroy terrorists is to destroy the conditions that make it a viable option.

oblivion95 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

Hey, Collin! What part of Texas are you from?

dhzz 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

Brainwashing is your teacher's job. You are being trained to be a good docile citizen.

If you disagree, then ask yourself, should the teacher bite the hand that feeds her and teach something that that disagrees with official government policy? You can question her slide, and even if she secretly agrees with you, I doubt you will get her to change her statement.

Blackrazor 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

Allow bravery and honor this country was founded upon to ring true. We do not need to cower behind the "Patriot Act"(oxymoron if I ever heard one). We need to stand strong in the face of adversity and do not allow the terror they try to inflict spread like the disease it is. Your teacher is infected with the fear the terrorists try to spread.

cdenyikayedu 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

Ask your teacher if Nelson Mandela was a terrorist or a freedom fighter. Like so many have said here already, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"

MrFactualReality 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

ask your teacher if she believes we need to spend so much money killing terrorists to keep us safe why cant we spend money on healthcare to keep us safe? Then tell her she is crazy if she thinks America is the only world superpower.... we now have the EU and China to play with too.

SA1L 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

A teacher, but clearly not a scholar of foreign policy or history. Does she realize why radicals target Westernization?

sonnyclips 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

She seems to be advocating international vigilantism. I think their can be an argument made that we need to fight organizations that are a demonstrable threat to the United States. I have to agree though with the assertion that she has a comic book view of foreign policy. We are neither responsible nor should we go into functioning sovereign nations to affect any change, other than maybe the odd spy.

On her assertion we should be fighting Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, the FARC in Colombia or ETA in Spain too? How much do you think those countries would appreciate our intervention? What kind of damage do you think we would do to our diplomatic efforts and our treasury if we followed your teacher's views on fighting the terrorists?

tinypanzer 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

This kind of thought is a conclusive argument if you believe in the logic of "American Exceptionalism", as I understand it.

Totenhenchen 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

Typical neocon bullshit that has been wrong for the past thirty-plus years.

flfolks 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

I would complain because she shouldn't be injecting her personal political views into a lesson.

It seems like the type of quote that would be put there to start a discussion rather than be presented as fact, but if that is not the case she seriously should get a talking to.

DragonHunter 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

Ask her if you and gang of your friends should go around the school yard beating the shit out of people you declare to be a threat. She should have no problem with that.

epicgeek 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

That is the cause of terrorism.

People don't come over here to terrorize us due to a difference of opinion, they do it because we won't leave them alone.

More interference in their affairs will only create more terrorism.

GustoGaiden 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

Ask her when you would leave the Middle East. When are you sure that you have killed the last terrorist?

Killing terrorists creates more terrorists. Imagine for a second that the US had a dangerous terrorist rebel organization, and Canada had successfully invaded the US and has set up peacekeeping forces to root out the remaining US Rebels.(your teacher will balk at this, insist that it's a thought experiment, and use their indignation against them later). Your friend is a small time rebel, and the canadian peacekeeping force kills him. Granted, your friend was an "insurgent", but he's still your friend. Now lets assume that the Canadians grab YOU and interrogate you harshly just for knowing this guy. Are you still grateful for canada's presence? What about if they killed a civilian as well when trying to kill your friend.

The tighter you try to grip a population, the more slip through your fingers.

Now lets imagine that canada comes in briefly, decapitates the Rebel leadership, and takes most of their military home. Instead they build schools and infrastructure destroyed by the rebels. They provide jobs building important civic resources, and keep enough military around to protect their own civilians overseeing the operation. Suddenly these canadians seem like pretty rad dudes.

I don't think that Bin Laden wanted Americans to be crippled by fear of terrorist attacks. That's pretty naive for a dude who lives in a country nicknamed "The Graveyard of Empires". It's easy to stand up to oppression. What IS difficult is trying to fight in the hellish foreign terrain of Afghanistan, spending the money to keep those troops supplied, and keeping your citizens at home happy with the war.

When do you pull out of the middle east? Once you've killed the last terrorist? You can't fight an idea. Your teachers ideas are expensive, impractical, and counter productive, and would break the United States, just like it broke the soviet union.

tom2275 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

United States is the sole remaining superpower? With 1.3 billion people, nuclear armed China might think otherwise.

bostonmolasses 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

terrorism is about trying to control something through fear. you don't beat fear by shooting it or bombing it.

sheddd 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

Bring up that with our current economic woes, these military campaigns aren't sustainable so we should consider the nuclear option.

The only way to ensure all terrorism is rooted out is to destroy all life on the planet.

footsold 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

I would like to hear if there are any updates. Plus, if your teacher thinks we are the last remaining superpower then she is being silly. China, despite all of its problems has been growing into a pretty powerful nation.

mrsiffer 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

What class was this? Opinion 101? What context allows a teacher to insert so much non-factual information into the class material?

Citation Needed!

justtech3 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

I propose a lottery. Each peaceful county is automatically entered each year. The winner gets a $100 Billion. There could be 2nd, 3rd and 4th prizes. It would cost far less than what we are spending on our military.

DPraved 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

Um - DEFINITELY tell somebody in a position of authority. This is NOT a neutral, educational sort of stance, balanced by an opposite view, to say the least. Fanatiacal Jingoism is as inappropriate in the classroom as porn.

u4eazcool 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

A majority of "terrorist" attacks on american soil have come from actual americans. If anything we should have invaded ourselves first...no wait we did do that since the only actual freedom we have actually lost in the past 10 years has been imposed by our own goverment. They are a crafty bunch.

mean7gene 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

Well, it's worked with great success in the war on drugs. not.

davida_usa 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

Your teacher's comments are ignorant because they are based on a exaggerated view of the United States' power, incorrect assumptions about the governments of other countries, misunderstandings about the nature of terrorism, and an exaggerated view of the threat of terrorism. We live in an interconnected world and it is foolish to believe that the U.S. could or should act without regard to what others think. Your teacher's comment that the U.S. should not "tolerate... nations who harbor terrorists" is ridiculous -- many nations, including the U.S., harbor terrorists while there are few, if any, which have governments that deliberately or openly harbor terrorists. This also reflects your teacher's ignorance about the nature of terrorism; there are not many people who have a full-time career of being terrorists -- most "terrorists" are people who have other lives and, for one reason or another, decide to commit a terrorist act. This is one of the biggest problems with your teacher's views of the world: the U.S. obsessing about terrorism and acting aggressively would make the problem worse by causing otherwise peaceful people to become angry at the U.S.

The best way to keep the United States safe from terrorism is to be defensive, not aggressive, and behave in a manner that does not make the more than 95% of the world who are not U.S. citizens angry and hateful about the U.S.

Jaduardo 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

I would start by saying, "OK, I'll grant you that, if we can define terrorism clearly." As she tries to do it, test her definition with contradictory examples.

It won't be that hard if you do a little preparation: * Killing innocent people = what the US does in Iraq, did in the bombing of Germany, with the atomic bomb, etc. (Also, bring up the fact that we have people like the guy who shot-up the holocaust museum... but don't consider him a terrorist.) * Guerilla warfare = what we did in the revolutionary war, what we would do if someone occupied our country. * Etc.

The goal is to drive to the conclusion that, for her, "Terrorists" is really a euphemism for her enemies or Islam. Also, drive to the point that terrorism isn't an enemy, it's a tactic that any individual or group of individuals can employ.

udaybhanu 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

How do you fight a war on "terrorism"? Terrorism is just a tactic. You might as well fight a war against the Pincer Movement.

On top of that, "terrorists" aren't a military force. They are criminals. We didn't fight the Mafia by bombing Sicily.

Pituquasi 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

As a high school teacher myself (yeah, yeah I know... the kids are watching a film right now) I'd ask you to remind your teacher that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and that resisting imperialism is NOT terrorism no matter how much the imperialists try to spin it that way. However, if your teacher is an education major and doesnt actually have a degree in his/her subject matter just disregard what I suggested since it will be a waste of time anyways.

marshallt 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

You can never destroy all those who threaten peace and security. As you attempt to, you create more and more enemies until eventually you are weakened and outnumbered. The only way to ensure long term peace and stability is through cooperation, communication by identifying mutual benefits and maximizing them. That said, I believe your "teacher" is under the assumption that there is some sort of international conspiracy of terrorists who are jealous of our liberty. This simply isn't true. There are terrorist organizations that are unreasonable and should be hunted down and put in jail. There are others who could legitimately make the argument that their actions are justified by the same rational your teacher is promoting. So, the first step toward better national security would be to learn more about our "enemies" and truly develop some empathy. Then we can rationally and logical look for ways to maximize our shared best interests.

Biuku 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

You could take that approach, yes. You could roll into Michigan in the days after a member of its militia committed a terrorist act against the United States. You could bomb and lay waste to the region, round up suspects by defying both local laws and the laws of war, you could remove from the theatre of battle those male children and adults who were armed and house them without access to rights in an offshore prison. You could torture those who oppose your invasion. You could do all that.

Or, you could defeat terrorism in Michigan, as Clinton did.

okcorgi 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

at the least, ask your teacher to define the difference between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter".

PROTIP: it's a trick question.

sleet01 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

Hahaha, "make the world safe from terrorists". How do people like this not realize this is exactly the same rhetoric the terrorists use, except they replace 'terrorists' with 'imperialistic Americans'?

fotorobot 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

War IS a form of terrorism. In fact, war is a much more devastating and aggression is considered a far worse crime by the UN charter.

gthermonuclearw 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

There's a very simple rebuttal here: "Have you been asleep the past six years?"

Your teacher sounds like a neoconservative. A central tenet of this ideology is a strong belief in the overwhelming and transformative power of the US Military through direct military intervention.

Afghanistan and Iraq: two wars undertaken under the auspices of the Global War on Terror. These conflicts have not gone nearly as smoothly as they expected them to. They have cost over a trillion dollars (or are projected to do so). There have been setbacks and downright failures in both of them (i.e. Iraq nearly disintegrating into sectarian violence in 2005). The fledgling democratic governments have had mixed success, at best. Iraq is only recently starting to stabilize, after seven years.

You can agree (or pretend to) with your teacher that the US has an important role to play in international security and fighting terrorism. But its simply not practical or possible to conduct the sort of large scale offensive that he's describing. We're already overextended with just two wars. We just aren't that powerful when it comes to that sort of warfare. This isn't the Cold War, where we had enough nukes to destroy the entire world several times over.

Note: Yes, Iraq probably didn't have much to do with terrorists or terrorism, but your teacher was probably the kind of person who agreed with GWB that it did. Separate issue.

TL;DR - Your teacher is a neoconservative, and ideology that has received a vicious and well deserved spanking as a consequence of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

buttsmutts 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

Sounds like your teacher is a full blown american nutcase , oh wait thats half the population.

AimlessArrow 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

As the sole remaining superpower, the United States has no choice

She hasn't been paying attention to the news the last 15 years or so.

China is rapidly gaining ground. America is in decline.

spiritcrusher 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

Replace the word terrorist with murderer and give it back to her. Ask her if that helps to clarify the craziness. You can't stop "bad" people from existing. Bombing the shit out of other countries certainly won't help.

daemin 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

It is the U.S. government's responsibility and duty to protect its people and make the world safe from terrorists.

The problem is right here. She conflates two separate points. She implies that the US governments obligation to protect its citizens entails that it make the world safe from terrorists, and this is simply wrong. Protecting US citizens from terrorist can be done other ways. For example, if we shut our borders and didn't allow anyone at all to come into the country, we would be completely safe from another 9/11 style attack.

Furthermore, there is a basic tension here:

The war on terrorism is a worldwide struggle and the United States must move forward with a worldwide offensive to combat it until all who threaten peace and security are destroyed.

To quote an old chestnut, fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity. More seriously, the basic tension is that you are undermining the existing peace and security in pursuit of... future peace and security?

thisispeace 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

Is she a good teacher otherwise? It sounds like inflammatory rhetoric intended to create real dialogue.

Reanimator 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

It is the U.S. government's responsibility and duty to protect its people and make the world safe from terrorists.

I bet your teacher is the kind that likes to complain about high taxes and the deficit, little does she realize that an unending, unilateral, global war on terror is exactly the kind of thing that increases both.

[deleted] 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

Terrorism has existed as long as warfare. People have always used fear (the church, anyone?) to control others. The more you sweat and fight, the more power you give terrorists.

RosieMuffysticks 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

Tell her that if we do that, we have become the terrorists.

We have already become the enemy, but don't let her know that, it might make her brain explode.

Side note: It is time for things to change. I move for a re-implementation of the Monroe Doctrine.

Bubba-Booey 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

At what point do these actions change from being defensive to being terrorist acts themselves?

aristotle2600 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

Don't tell her. It's a completely lost cause.

Instead, tell your friends. Read about the issues, and talk with them about them. Use standard HS teacher-demonization as your breaking of the ice. Use logic and reason with them. Because ultimately, although you (all) are younger, you will have more chance to influence a change than some retarded HS teacher. Out of curiosity, what does she teach?

collinisballn [S] 1 point2 points 5 months ago[-]

AP Government - We're doing a simulation summit on terrorism and she told us this is the answer - frustrates me, but some of the kids are much more impressionable than I am.

aristotle2600 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

Which is exactly why you need to talk to them yourself, if your teacher has failed in her duty.

[deleted] 5 months ago[-]

[deleted]

prof0ak 1 point2 points 5 months ago[-]

If it was Comic Sans, she might be joking.

theloren -1 points0 points 5 months ago[-]

Your teacher is a lousy teacher.

absolutelyamazed 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

...or an amazingly great teacher - look at the lengths she's inspiring her students to go to to prove her wrong.

theloren 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

1 student. Who knows what the others may be thinking. As others have said, she's supposed to be teaching, not injecting personal opinion. And her opinion is scary.

absolutelyamazed 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

Well, I did say "or". I'd like to wait and see how this turns out. I've known teachers who make outrageously provocative comments to try and provoke students into really thinking about an issue. Granted, you're probably right - she's more than likely a loon...but one can hope that she's actually a troll.

techfoolery -1 points0 points 5 months ago[-]

Maybe point out that teachers should cultivate opinions, not push their own viewpoints. The bigger issue here is why she's injecting that thought into a classroom setting. A teacher would present the situation and let the students form an opinion. In my opinion what she's doing is borderline criminal.

geigerwf -1 points0 points 5 months ago[-]

Nothing less than US freedom is at stake.

This may be the best quote I have ever heard. I would love to see a foreign entity take my freedom. Sorry your teacher is a moron.

redditer43 -1 points0 points 5 months ago[-]

There are a lot of good arguments here, so let me make a different one: A cost benefit one. Once you make the point that terrorist resources are not finite (as suggested elsewhere), you then look at the conflict in terms of attrition. How much money are we shoveling into the fire vs how far have we gotten in eliminating terrorism, extrapolate how much money we would have to spend, and how large our deficit would be, then suggest: maybe Osama Bins Laden's grand strategy was not to just knock down a building or engage us in some sort of guerrilla war, but to corral us into bankrupting ourselves. That is we are hurting ourselves financially worse than Osama Bin Laden could himself, we are our own worst enemy.

[deleted] 5 months ago[-]

[deleted]

jaykoo21 0 points1 point 5 months ago[-]

Cognitive dissonance FTW!

dasfunked -1 points0 points 5 months ago[-]

ask her at what benchmark she would consider the war a victory.

then tell her to leave the important stuff to the men and she should get back in the kitchen...if you want.

ohsofunny -1 points0 points 5 months ago[-]

RAMIREZ, ENROLL IN THIS HISTORY CLASS!