War on Terror
17 views | +0 today
Follow
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by Sydney Cummings from War on Terror
Scoop.it!

U.S. War on Terrorism Timeline

U.S. War on Terrorism Timeline | War on Terror | Scoop.it
U.S. War on Terrorism. Timeline of the stories linked to the articles and displayed as icons.

Via Klage Van Vark
Sydney Cummings's insight:

I was looking around and I found this website. It leads to so many different sites showing all the different places we (the US) have attacked, or striked. There's a map that shows where we have commonly fought. It shows you anywhere there's every been anything that has to tdo with terrorism, it shows where there's be fighting, and strikes, and just all the places we've been thorughout this whole war on terror. 

more...
Klage Van Vark's curator insight, October 2, 2013 1:23 PM

This website goes to tons of sites on where the US has striked on the war on terror and even shows a map of some of the most popular places we have fought. Its a very helpful resourse and cna locate you to any terrorism.

 

Rescooped by Sydney Cummings from War on Terror
Scoop.it!

Pakistan urged to quit war on terror but not ties with US

Pakistan urged to quit war on terror but not ties with US | War on Terror | Scoop.it
Islamabad A panel of eminent speakers, holding divergent views, was unanimous in exhorting that Pakistan should not allow its relations with the United States to be under ...

Via Klage Van Vark
Sydney Cummings's insight:

This whole article was talking about how Pakistan doesn't want the US to leave them in the war of terror. They want our help, so they want us to stay involved with it and stay the "World's Police."  Although I do disagree. I think that we would be a lot better off with Pakistan and the rest of the Middle East. 

more...
Klage Van Vark's curator insight, October 2, 2013 1:15 PM

This article talks about how the Pakistanians do not want the United States to disengage in the war against terror. They feel like we should stay in and help them outand remain the worlds police. I Don't believe that we should stay. In the long run the US world do lots better out of the Middle East.

Rescooped by Sydney Cummings from War on Terror
Scoop.it!

Pakistan : US-led war on terror still causing civilians death - report

...last week we learned that, as President Obama came under fire for the many scandals rocking his administration, the government was quietly moving to give the Department of Defense unprecedented authority on U.S. soil, effectively nullifying Posse Comitatus.

Eric Blair of Activist Post writes:

First, the senate is debating an expansion of the already broad powers of the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) so the U.S. can essentially engage any area in the world in the war on terror, including America. Which brings us to the second development: the Pentagon has recently granted itself police powers on American soil.

Assistant Secretary of Defense Michael Sheehan told Congress yesterday that the AUMF authorized the US military to operate on a worldwide battlefield from Boston to Pakistan.  Sheehan emphasized that the Administration is authorized to put boots on the ground wherever the enemy chooses to base themselves, essentially ignoring the declaration of war clause in the US Constitution.

While Americans were distracted with three developing scandals pushed by both wings of the mainstream media, sinister developments were taking place behind closed doors. In essence, the US military has granted itself the power to deploy troops on the streets of America without approval from the President or Congress, and the AUMF, which was originally designed to target the terrorists responsible for 9/11, has been expanded to give the government authority to use military assets on the domestic front without a declaration from Congress.

In fact, Senator Angus King went so far as to say that the hearing he was involved in was the most astonishing and disturbing hearing he has ever seen.

Even John McCain, war hawk John McCain, came out and said the government has gone way beyond its authority.

What are they talking about? The AUMF – Authorization to Use Military Force.

This piece of legislation that was put into place way back when we started the war on terror that is now turning from foreign enemies to YOU. Don’t be shocked by that, because you are on the list if you are a freedom minded, free thinker that believes in a Constitutional Republic.

They are changing the wording of this thing so that the military can be used on the streets of this country.

It’s not a conspiracy theory. It’s not some kind of a fancy fantasy that may come true down the road.

It is happening right now, in the guise of other news events that are not news events.

Even more terrifying is the fact that West Point has come out recently and said that you – if you have a theory that the federal government is trying to take over and implement a national police force – you could fall into the category of a domestic terrorist.

A domestic terrorist that can be dealt with by military force…

The only conspiracy here is what the government is telling us.

This legislation is real. The militarization of America is in full force. We are the targets.

 


Via Ben-Perrusi Martins, Kaytline Schroder
Sydney Cummings's insight:

This video talks about how many people we killed and how many different attacks they had. It talked a little a bit about 9/11 and the pentagon, which I found interesting. They're ignoring the declaration of war clause in the US Constitutuion. It also talks about how the government has gone way out of it's authority. I just found it interesting that the government really isn't as innocent as what it seems. 

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Sydney Cummings from War on Terror
Scoop.it!

Obama welcomes Syria chemical weapons deal but retains strikes ...

Obama welcomes Syria chemical weapons deal but retains strikes ... | War on Terror | Scoop.it
U.S. senators are now floating the idea of an assassination court as a way to rein in the ever-expanding drone program.

________________________________________________________

It sounds like an Orwellian idea from a futuristic sci-fi movie. Government officials gather in a secret courtroom, poring over documents and weighing whether to approve the fly-by killing of a suspected terrorist. 

If the judges say yes, the target dies. If not, the target lives.

 

But U.S. senators are now floating the idea of an assassination court as a way to rein in the ever-expanding drone program -- a secretive operation that, as it is, sounds like thriller fiction, but isn't.

 

The idea was bandied about during Thursday's confirmation hearing for CIA director nominee John Brennan, who fueled the talk by saying he thinks the concept is "worthy of discussion." The nominee, as a vocal supporter of the targeted-killing program, has come under scrutiny for what some lawmakers see as the administration's unchecked power to kill, even if the target is an American citizen. 

 

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said as part of an effort to regulate the killing, she wants to review proposals to create something similar to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- which reviews requests for wiretaps against suspected foreign agents -- for drone strikes

Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, is pushing the idea the hardest. 

According to his vision, the drone court would be an avenue for U.S. officials to argue in secret before a judge why an American citizen should be targeted for death. He said it would be like "going to a court for a warrant" and proving probable cause.

 

Except in this case, the judge would be ruling not on a search warrant or a wiretap -- but a missile strike from thousands of feet in the air, and thousands of miles away.

  

"If you're planning a strike over a matter of days, weeks or months, there is an opportunity to at least go to some outside-of-the-Executive Branch body like the FISA court in a confidential and top-secret way -- make the case that this American citizen is an enemy combatant," he said. 


Via sebastian Martin, Kaytline Schroder
Sydney Cummings's insight:

Obama & Russia agreed that after 3 days they'd stop chemical weapons in Syria. Obama said they'd stop military strike if they were to keep firing their chemical weapons. In November Syria should have already let the US in there to check everything out. Halfway through next year everything should be destoyed. Their goal is to limit weapons and they are doing it little by little & not super fast.

more...
Kaytline Schroder's curator insight, October 2, 2013 12:00 PM

I think this is good. Syria is a threat to America because of their chemical weapons. 

sebastian Martin's curator insight, October 3, 2013 4:04 PM

Syria has to provide a list of their chemical weapons to the United States. Obama wants to disarm them of their weapons. Obama keeps changing his mind about what to do. Syria is killing their own people and have killed over 1,400 people. He is working with Russia to come up with a plan. In my opinion, I think it is ridiculous that they can bomb their own people and not get a consequence for it. It is not right. 

Maddison Stursma's curator insight, October 3, 2013 7:15 PM

This article talks about how Russia and Obama have come up with an agreement that after three days they will stop chemical weapons in syria. If production continues obama will use military strike

Rescooped by Sydney Cummings from War on Terror
Scoop.it!

Dorschner | The United States "War on Terror" Has Been Overtaken by Events

Dorschner | The United States "War on Terror" Has Been Overtaken by Events | War on Terror | Scoop.it

Via Klage Van Vark
Sydney Cummings's insight:

This article was talking about how we (the US) did alot to try and get rid of the amount of terrorism , and we have spent so much fighting. In the article it said that we had spent billions just to fight in and with other countries. There were many efforts made by the Bush administration, which are now effecting how President Obama wants to decrease the amount of terrorist attacks. 

more...
Klage Van Vark's curator insight, October 2, 2013 1:00 PM

Since 2001 the US has had several opperations done to decrease counter terrorism and we have spent billions to fight in other countrys on the War on Terror. The Bush administration made lots of efforts and now people are saying that those affected the way Obama wants to counter attack on terrism.

 

Rescooped by Sydney Cummings from War on Terror
Scoop.it!

US senators propose assassination court to screen drone targets

US senators propose assassination court to screen drone targets | War on Terror | Scoop.it
U.S. senators are now floating the idea of an assassination court as a way to rein in the ever-expanding drone program.

________________________________________________________

It sounds like an Orwellian idea from a futuristic sci-fi movie. Government officials gather in a secret courtroom, poring over documents and weighing whether to approve the fly-by killing of a suspected terrorist. 

If the judges say yes, the target dies. If not, the target lives.

 

But U.S. senators are now floating the idea of an assassination court as a way to rein in the ever-expanding drone program -- a secretive operation that, as it is, sounds like thriller fiction, but isn't.

 

The idea was bandied about during Thursday's confirmation hearing for CIA director nominee John Brennan, who fueled the talk by saying he thinks the concept is "worthy of discussion." The nominee, as a vocal supporter of the targeted-killing program, has come under scrutiny for what some lawmakers see as the administration's unchecked power to kill, even if the target is an American citizen. 

 

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said as part of an effort to regulate the killing, she wants to review proposals to create something similar to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- which reviews requests for wiretaps against suspected foreign agents -- for drone strikes

Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, is pushing the idea the hardest. 

According to his vision, the drone court would be an avenue for U.S. officials to argue in secret before a judge why an American citizen should be targeted for death. He said it would be like "going to a court for a warrant" and proving probable cause.

 

Except in this case, the judge would be ruling not on a search warrant or a wiretap -- but a missile strike from thousands of feet in the air, and thousands of miles away.

  

"If you're planning a strike over a matter of days, weeks or months, there is an opportunity to at least go to some outside-of-the-Executive Branch body like the FISA court in a confidential and top-secret way -- make the case that this American citizen is an enemy combatant," he said. 


Via SASFOR, Zach Lee, Kaytline Schroder
Sydney Cummings's insight:

This is talking about terrorists and one way that they're targeted .It talks about how we fly over them in a plane, or drone,  and they get their target and then decide on whether to shoot or not. The most interesting part was the way that they talk about launching missiles, firing at things, and how far in they are they are when they lauch or fire at their targets. 

more...
Zach Lee's comment, March 7, 2013 8:02 AM
Senate is debating whether or not to have a separate court for the drones.
SASFOR's comment, March 14, 2013 12:44 AM
Sir thank you for pointing out the Senate's deliberations. A special court for Drones would no doubt be opposed by the Pentagon. Surprising that almost a hundred and fifty years ago no one proposed a special court for Mr Mr Richard Gatling's toys?
SASFOR's comment, March 14, 2013 12:48 AM
In continuation I would like to draw your attention to this article by Willard Foxton in The Telegraph,
“Drones will change warfare as much as machine guns did – but our generals don't realise it yet”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/willardfoxton2/100008755/drones-will-change-warfare-as-much-as-machine-guns-did-but-our-generals-dont-realise-it-yet/
Rescooped by Sydney Cummings from War on Terror
Scoop.it!

How the War on Terror Changed the Way America Fights - The Atlantic

How the War on Terror Changed the Way America Fights - The Atlantic | War on Terror | Scoop.it
The Atlantic
How the War on Terror Changed the Way America Fights
The Atlantic
Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, 'war' has come to mean something different for the U.S.

Via Klage Van Vark
Sydney Cummings's insight:

This article summary was about how America has pretty much slowed down because of the war in a way. All we want is to have peace, and we're tired of fighting with other countries. Basically says that America doesn't want to fight in any more wars unless there's not an option. 

more...
yongyee yang's comment, October 2, 2013 1:11 PM
I think that although we may be tired of fighting in wars that we weren't involved in, it'd still be smart to join anyway. I think that we should do this because we didn't join WW2 until a while, and that cost us a lot just because no one would stand up to Hitler. What I'm trying to say is that we should do it anyway so that we could hopefully keep things in check before they get out of hand.
katelyn kime's curator insight, October 2, 2013 4:39 PM

This article was very powerful on what Obama wants to do. HIs opinon of going to war in Syria is now to not go to war. He says we have been to war with Iraq, Afganastian and that people don't want to go to war with another country. Obama is letting congress vote on it but as of right now he doesn't want to go to war with them. 

Maddison Stursma's curator insight, October 3, 2013 1:46 AM

This article talked about how the war has slowed down america. It also talked about how we want peace and don't want to be in any more wars unless there is no option

 

Rescooped by Sydney Cummings from War on Terror
Scoop.it!

US withdraws military equipment through Pakistan

US withdraws military equipment through Pakistan | War on Terror | Scoop.it
The US military has started to withdraw equipment from Afghanistan through Pakistan ahead of next year's deadline for combat troops to leave the war against the Taliban, an official said Monday.

_____________________________________________________

Two convoys, each hauling 25 shipping containers, entered Pakistan at the Chaman and Torkham border crossings on Sunday as part of the US redeployment of equipment from Afghanistan, US Lieutenant Colonel Les Carroll told AFP.

"The passage of these convoys marks the first US shipments from Afghanistan through Pakistan since July 2012," Carroll said.

Pakistan in July temporarily stopped NATO traffic after gunmen attacked NATO trucks, killing a driver, in the northwestern border town of Jamrud.

Islamabad also imposed a seven-month blockade on NATO traffic passing overland to Afghanistan after US air strikes killed 24 Pakistani soldiers on November 26, 2011.

Carroll told AFP that the two convoys had been sent through Pakistan as a "test" as the military decides how best to withdraw the huge amount of US and NATO equipment in Afghanistan, more than 11 years after a US-led invasion brought down the Taliban.

"There are still 100,000 men and 200 bases. Some of the equipment will stay (in Afghanistan), some of it will be redeployed," Carroll said.

"We have got to use any feasible way to do that. The northern route and of course air are other solutions."

Pakistani-US relations have now largely recovered and the outgoing US commander in Afghanistan, General John Allen, and his successor, General Joseph Dunford, on Thursday held talks with Pakistani army chief of staff, General Ashfaq Kayani.

The New York Times reported last month that in the next two years NATO forces are expected to remove about 70,000 vehicles and 120,000 shipping containers from Afghanistan, and the way out will require rail lines and well-surfaced roads.

Although Pakistan is the most efficient and cheapest route, the blockade and Pakistan's past demands for more money have made Western officials wary of over reliance on Islamabad.


Via SASFOR, Kaytline Schroder
Sydney Cummings's insight:

There are still 100,000 men & 200 bases there, but some with be deployed while other parts of it stay there. NATO is planning on removing about 70,000 vehicles, plus 120,000 shipping containers from Afganistan & is exported by roads & railroads. It's the cheapest & most efficiant way out. 

more...
Molly Langstraat's comment, October 2, 2013 11:54 AM
I think that this is a good thing. It will keep us together as one nation to fight this war on terror. I think that we should try to take the cheapest and least violent route possible. But it is something that will have to be controlled as time goes on.
Kaytline Schroder's curator insight, October 2, 2013 12:02 PM

I think this is absolutely awesome. It gives Americans hope that we won't have to go to war with Pakistan. Or in fact, another war that we don't need to be involved in. If they aren't bothering us then there is no reason to have us bother them. 

Maddison Stursma's curator insight, October 3, 2013 6:56 PM

This article is about how there is a hope that we wont need to go to war with Pakistan. We dont need to get involved in a war that we dont need to be involved in