I have never said that people 'should' engage in armed attacks on the United States, but that such attacks are a natural and unavoidable consequence of unlawful U.S. policy.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Indiscriminate attacks on civilians ought, under all circumstances, to be illegal in war as in peacetime.
I think, for me, anybody who is a terrorist should not have access to firearms.
Armed attack has a definition in international law. It means sudden, overwhelming, instantaneous ongoing attack.
Americans have no idea of the extent of their government's mischief... the number of military strikes we have made unprovoked, against other countries, since 1947 is more than 250.
Our pre-9/11 gun laws allow our enemies in the War on Terror to arm themselves right here in our own country.
Islamic terrorists do not need an excuse to attack the United States. To attack us is what they do; they attack us for what we are.
There is no question that chemical weapons attacks are a heinous abuse of humanity and power. But to assume that military strikes are an effective retribution for the crime committed is wrong.
Since the events of September 11, we've rightfully changed our military strategy so we're now taking the fight to those individuals who aim to do us harm, rather than waiting for another atrocious attack to happen.
Every U.S. citizen should have the assurance that the U.S. government will come vigorously to their defense in a time of need, especially when they are unjustly tried in a foreign country.
If we have reason to believe someone is preparing an attack against the U.S., has developed that capability, harbours those aspirations, then I think the U.S. is justified in dealing with that, if necessary, by military force.