Answer to Terrorism? I hope my teacher is wrong...

TheMemo

Hi, I'm from the UK.

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

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.
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.
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.

foolsjourney

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.

powercow

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.

Shredder13

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

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

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

Metal_Mike

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

A_Pickle

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.

Upintheair

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

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??

gthermonuclearw

Your teacher is a fucking moron.

BluthBananaStand

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."

NichaelBluth

What is she, a recruiter for Army?

runbmd

Is your teacher's name Mrs. GeorgeWBush?

Demaskus

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

dontlolatme

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.

zenfunk

my advice is to stop caring about highschool senior life.

lexmichaels

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

maleman

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

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

ghandimangler

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.

bigtoine

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

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

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

FilthyElitist

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

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

floyd084

"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

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.

jahallah

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

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

YourFairyGodmother

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

longhairedcountryboy

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

Tell her this country was founded by terrorists.

bokmal

Hi,

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.
Did she go into the causes of terrorism?
Did she define terrorism? Regan and co were supporting terrorists in Central America and Afghanistan and calling them freedom fighters.

ssladam

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.

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

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

busytigger

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

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

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

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

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

DarrenEdwards

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

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

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.

oldcrustysailor

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

mastertwisted

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

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

Redmoons

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

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

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

sublimeone

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

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

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

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

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

avalanche142

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

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

Sounds like an excerpt right from republican talking points.

mathewferguson

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

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

dhzz

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

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

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

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

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

sonnyclips

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

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

Totenhenchen

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

flfolks

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

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

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

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

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

bostonmolasses

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

sheddd

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

davida_usa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PROTIP: it's a trick question.

sleet01

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

The U.S. is a leading terrorist state

fotorobot

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

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

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

AimlessArrow

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

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

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

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

Reanimator

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.

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

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

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

aristotle2600

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?

prof0ak

[deleted]

theloren

Your teacher is a lousy teacher.

techfoolery

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

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

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.

jaykoo21

[deleted]

dasfunked

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

RAMIREZ, ENROLL IN THIS HISTORY CLASS!

comments

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login