Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Menoman
The Jazz we were talking about how countries can ignore terrorism in other parts of the country. Battling terrorism in your own country is one thing, and its an expected course for governments to take.
What I'm speaking of is what countries have done more, to combat terrorism, when it's not directly against your own country. When you can ignore it, and it wont affect you, and you still do something about it.
All the examples you posted weren't about combatting terrorism, they were simply about a government policing itself.
|
I don't know how you come up with the idea that we were discussing countries that have done more than the US when it comes to battling terrorism that doesn't affect them...
if that's the line of logic that you want to pursue, I think you should provide a single example of the US combating terrorism even though it had no interest in doing so. or any country, for that matter.
for one thing, I don't even know if it's possible by definition. terrorists are non-government entities. the very basis for our detaining terrorists without trial is on argument that they are not members of a recognized army. That being the case, I don't see how any act of waging a war on terrorists that weren't affecting us would be legit. I may not agree with our government's assessment of the harm wrought on us by foreign entities, but that's certainly the only legitimate claim they've put forward for us waging a war abroad on terrorism that I know of.
it seems to me that if any foreign country actually started arresting or killing "terrorists" in another country without even the most minimal claim of right to be there securing their own interests, they'd basically have no jurisdiction to even be there.
I'm confused as to how you even came up with the idea that the US is combating terrorism that it doesn't see as negatively affecting the security of the nation, pre or post 9/11.