Today is 23rd Anniversary of the terrorist attack in Lebanon that killed 241 American

[ProfJohn]

Beirut Veterans of America
23 years ago today a truck carrying the equivalent of 20,000 pounds of TNT detonated on the ground floor of the Beirut barracks.

The result was the deaths of 241 Marines, sailors and soldiers.

Many think Hezbollah did the deed, but it seems that has never been proven and many within our government have no idea of who really did it. Iran was certainly in Lebanon at this time, and are still there via Hezbollah. This is one of the main reasons we can NOT let Iran get a nuke, their LONG history of terror. No US President would never launch a nuke on a civilian population due to moral reasons, the Iranian President doesn't see to have this problem though.

Was this event the start of the war on terror? I don't know of any major terror attacks on American forces before this one.

 

[Pens1566]

No. US Embassy in Tehran.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
No. US Embassy in Tehran.

Good point, but not sure if that falls under "terror attack" hmmm
Let's see what others have to say.

 

[Craig234]

Oh, you mean the attack after which the brave Reagan pulled out?

Funny how the right has a double standard for how they treat him on the incident, versus how they treat democrats.

Had a democrat done it, we'd be hearing to this day how he'd 'flip flopped' and 'emboldened the terrorists' and didn't 'finish the mission'.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Pens1566
No. US Embassy in Tehran.

Good point, but not sure if that falls under "terror attack" hmmm
Let's see what others have to say.

It was your favorite neighborhood islamo-facists, wasn't it???

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Oh, you mean the attack after which the brave Reagan pulled out?

Funny how the right has a double standard for how they treat him on the incident, versus how they treat democrats.

Had a democrat done it, we'd be hearing to this day how he'd 'flip flopped' and 'emboldened the terrorists' and didn't 'finish the mission'.

The flip flop junk didn't start until after Bush jr.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: blackllotus
The flip flop junk didn't start until after Bush jr.

The catch phrase was popularized by Jr., like mocking veterans' war wounds was, but the same issue has existed for millenia as a political attack.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
No US President would never launch a nuke on a civilian population due to moral reasons...

We dropped TWO of them.

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
No US President would never launch a nuke on a civilian population due to moral reasons...

We dropped TWO of them.

No ... never = double negative, you just have to watch how they post to make you think one thing why they say another

 

[Termagant]

No US President would never launch a nuke on a civilian population due to moral reasons, the Iranian President doesn't see to have this problem though.

Ahmedinejad won't drop a nuke on civilians???

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This is one of the main reasons we can NOT let Iran get a nuke, their LONG history of terror.

Bombing a military target is terror? Traditionally, that would be described as war.

No US President would never launch a nuke on a civilian population due to moral reasons, the Iranian President doesn't see to have this problem though.

Equating an attack on a military installation by Hezbollah 23 years ago with a nuclear attack on a civilian population by a current head of state? Maybe you could make a visual so we can connect the dots.

 

[Rainsford]

The idea that there is this all-encompassing "war on terror" that links all even vaguely terrorist actions anywhere into some global fight is a naive (and dangerous) fantasy concerning the current state of our world. Treating the Lebanese terrorists like the Iraqi insurgents like the Taliban remnants like the Al-Qaeda groups like the Iranian government is stupid, they aren't even close to the same, and looking for some way to tie all this into some over-arching war on terror is less than useless.

 

[Mardeth]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
No US President would never launch a nuke on a civilian population due to moral reasons, the Iranian President doesn't see to have this problem though.

Hmm done that twice already or is that double negative intentional? And it was a military installation after all...

EDIT: Wasnt the first one to notice...

 

[judasmachine]

did we even retaliate for that one? i don't remember much about that incident.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Banned Member with a New ISP
Beirut Veterans of America
23 years ago today a truck carrying the equivalent of 20,000 pounds of TNT detonated on the ground floor of the Beirut barracks.

The result was the deaths of 241 Marines, sailors and soldiers.

Many think Hezbollah did the deed, but it seems that has never been proven and many within our government have no idea of who really did it. Iran was certainly in Lebanon at this time, and are still there via Hezbollah. This is one of the main reasons we can NOT let Iran get a nuke, their LONG history of terror. No US President would never launch a nuke on a civilian population due to moral reasons, the Iranian President doesn't see to have this problem though.

Was this event the start of the war on terror? I don't know of any major terror attacks on American forces before this one.

And in retaliation Reagan ordered the invasion of Greneda!

 

[Thump553]

This was the first major modern attack directly against US interests and Ronald Reagan (the darling of rightwingers everywhere) reacted by pulling US troops out of Lebanon, allowing it to descend into a multi-year bloody civil war.

Terrorists and potential terrorists learned that the US can be defeated (no sense in sugar coating our reaction) by a simple, low cost terrorist act. Apologists for Reagan would argue that this was an attack against a military target and thus should not be classified as terrorism.

Others may go back further and claim the bombing of Congress by Puerto Rican seperatists in the early 1950s was an act of terrorism, with some justification. After a very effective crackdown by US police authorities (done under ordinary criminal laws, without suspension of basic rights), coupled with effective financial aid to Puerto Rico to win the hearts and minds of the general population, this ended up being essentially the only major terrorist act in that "war" (not counting a few common crimes, like armed robbery).

I'm sure a student of history could go back even further without much effort. Much depends on your definition of terrorism. There were many acts committed during war where the intent was to terrorize and demoralize the enemy population, and the military importance of the targets was of minimal importance. Examples-German V2 bombing of London, US fire bombing of Dresden (a target of essentially no military importance, and intentionally designed to destory the city and inflict maximum civilian damage), the US fire bombing of Japanese cities, etc.

The point-and probably one ProfJohn did not intend to make-the "war on terror" will have no end, and we should be extremely careful of the freedoms we allow our government to take from us in the name of such a war.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Thump553

Terrorists and potential terrorists learned that the US can be defeated (no sense in sugar coating our reaction) by a simple, low cost terrorist act. Apologists for Reagan would argue that this was an attack against a military target and thus should not be classified as terrorism.

No no no, that was Clinton's fault in Somalia, remember? Stay on the message pelase. :disgust:

 

[1EZduzit]

IMO it would have to go back at least to the Iran Embassy hostage crisis and probably farther back then that. Maybe the attack on the Israel at the Olympics. It wasn't called "the war on terror" but that's what it was.

 

[sierrita]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn


Was this event the start of the war on terror? I don't know of any major terror attacks on American forces before this one.

It was the first opportunity for Rummy's incompetence to result in the deaths of hundreds of American servicemen.

 

[DaveSimmons]

So you're saying Bush should have invaded Iran instead of Iraq?

That would have made more sense.

 

[OrByte]

the term, "War on Terror" is a media and (political) marketing ploy. Americans are dumb enough to think it means something moreso now than it has since the dawn of society.

there have always been terrorists, there always will be.

This reminds me of how popular the saying, "Where's the Beef?" used to be...