• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Has terrorism flourished under Obama?

Has terrorism flourished under Obama?

  • Im a left leaning American, yes.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Im not American, yes.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    24

US Conservative

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 11, 2013
Messages
33,522
Reaction score
10,826
Location
Between Athens and Jerusalem
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
ISIS, Paris, Africa, Asia-terrorist groups are rapidly expanding as is radical islam in general-even more disconcerting is they are becoming highly organized. Thousands around the world have died due to islamic terrorists just over the last few days. Despite Obama being POTUS, radical groups seem to be expanding.

Terror_incidents.png


Has terrorism flourished under Obama? In any case, kindly explain why.
 
I voted yes-Obama is seen as a weak leader who appears to prefer playing domestic politics rather than combat terror. ISIS only exists in Iraq because Obama lost the peace there for votes.

Its a shame but it will take a new POTUS (Republican) to clean up Obama's mess.
 
ISIS, Paris, Africa, Asia-terrorist groups are rapidly expanding as is radical islam in general-even more disconcerting is they are becoming highly organized. Thousands around the world have died due to islamic terrorists just over the last few days. Despite Obama being POTUS, radical groups seem to be expanding.

Terror_incidents.png


Has terrorism flourished under Obama? In any case, kindly explain why.

Terrorism has been "flourishing" ever since 2004..........
GTD Data Rivers
2qiziic.png

Oh boy that war on terror seems to be working real well!


But I get it, OBAMA SUCKS! THE LEFT SUCKS!
 
That's quite a paranoid fantasy you have going. The ODS is strong.
 
Your own chart suggests its exponentially expanded under Obama.
Its been "exponentially expanding" since 2004... All data suggests this.

How did you vote?
I dont vote in polls that are clear hackery. The rise of terrorism is bigger than one person. The supplying of Islamic jihadis in the 80's, the destabilization of the middle east is all to blame. At least 5 administrations can all share parts of the blame for this monstrous reaction of our policies.
 
I think he has a presence in many, and influence in still more. POTUS (before Obama) was the leader of the free world.

The POTUS before Obama is why you see terrorism flourishing all over the world. Obama hasn't helped the situation by maintaining horrible Bush policies, but I haven't see too many skiers who could stop the avalanche they are swept up in either.
 
Its been "exponentially expanding" since 2004... All data suggests this.


I dont vote in polls that are clear hackery. The rise of terrorism is bigger than one person. The supplying of Islamic jihadis in the 80's, the destabilization of the middle east is all to blame. At least 5 administrations can all share parts of the blame for this monstrous reaction of our policies.

Its quite true that terror didn't start with Obama, however Obama is POTUS and leader of the free world. Why does terror expand under him? You never answered that.
 
The POTUS before Obama is why you see terrorism flourishing all over the world. Obama hasn't helped the situation by maintaining horrible Bush policies, but I haven't see too many skiers who could stop the avalanche they are swept up in either.

So we agree here, then that terror is flourishing under Obama?
 
Its quite true that terror didn't start with Obama, however Obama is POTUS and leader of the free world. Why does terror expand under him? You never answered that.
I did answer that. "The supplying of Islamic jihadis in the 80's, the destabilization of the middle east is all to blame. At least 5 administrations can all share parts of the blame for this monstrous reaction of our policies."
 
I did answer that. "The supplying of Islamic jihadis in the 80's, the destabilization of the middle east is all to blame. At least 5 administrations can all share parts of the blame for this monstrous reaction of our policies."

So then you mean to say that yes terror has expanded under Obama, as a results of his policies?
 
I voted yes-Obama is seen as a weak leader who appears to prefer playing domestic politics rather than combat terror. ISIS only exists in Iraq because Obama lost the peace there for votes.

Its a shame but it will take a new POTUS (Republican) to clean up Obama's mess.

ISIS only exists because the Bush Administration choose to go into Iraq back in 2003 and depose a contained dictator that was no longer a threat to the United States. If we had continued the policy of containment in Iraq like we had since the original Gulf War, then Iraq would not be the mess it is today, there would have been no "Arab Spring", there would have been no resurgent Iran, there would have been no Al Qaeda in Iraq which later became ISIS. I mean seriously, were you in a coma from 2001 through 2009?? The neoconservative Middle Eastern social experiment is what created all this for us. Its your team that through the grenade in the outhouse that is now bitching about **** being everywhere because of it.
 
ISIS only exists because the Bush Administration choose to go into Iraq back in 2003 and depose a contained dictator that was no longer a threat to the United States. If we had continued the policy of containment in Iraq like we had since the original Gulf War, then Iraq would not be the mess it is today, there would have been no "Arab Spring", there would have been no resurgent Iran, there would have been no Al Qaeda in Iraq which later became ISIS. I mean seriously, were you in a coma from 2001 through 2009?? The neoconservative Middle Eastern social experiment is what created all this for us. Its your team that through the grenade in the outhouse that is now bitching about **** being everywhere because of it.

ISIS exists because Obama pulled out of Iraq and left them a giftwrapped present.
 
In that terrorism is the use of violence by non-governmental entities in order to achieve a political goal, no. Terrorism seems to be pretty unchanged as a tactic for a long long time. Don't forget, World War 1 began with an act of terrorism. What is currently different is Islamic terrorism, but that's just the current breed. There were different types before and there will be different types after. That's one more reason why the war on terror is bull. It's really a war on the political sovereignty of a handful of oil rich nations.
 
So we agree here, then that terror is flourishing under Obama?

It is continuing to flourish under Obama, yes. It will continue to flourish under the next two Presidents as well.
 
ISIS exists because Obama pulled out of Iraq and left them a giftwrapped present.

Oh for crying out loud. I guess we should have stayed in that country for the next century spending a 100 billion a year there. Mind you, even the Iraqi government did not want us there anymore and if we stayed they wanted us to agree to subject our soldiers to their courts of law. Nevertheless, to appease the chicken hawks that "bravely" commit American lives and tax dollars to their failed nation building social experiments, we should have just stayed there doing all we could to cobble the country together with its corrupt and ineffectual government indefinitely.
 
ISIS exists because Obama pulled out of Iraq and left them a giftwrapped present.

ISIL has grown not because of Iraq but because Obama did not seem to fully appreciate why Syria had a dictatorship in the first place. I think he got wrapped up into the abstract principles of an Arab Spring without realizing that the only reason Syria has held together this long is because Assad's father was iron fisted toward all radicalism, no matter where it was coming from, because that was the only way to hold the country together. Syria is not a country in which there is anything naturally holding people together. It has always been a Pandora's Box of competing interests and factions, and Obama blew the side out while Assad was trying to shut the lid back.
 
Oh for crying out loud. I guess we should have stayed in that country for the next century spending a 100 billion a year there. Mind you, even the Iraqi government did not want us there anymore and if we stayed they wanted us to agree to subject our soldiers to their courts of law. Nevertheless, to appease the chicken hawks that "bravely" commit American lives and tax dollars to their failed nation building social experiments, we should have just stayed there doing all we could to cobble the country together with its corrupt and ineffectual government indefinitely.

A small force to maintain a constant presence (as in Germany, Japan, etc) would have done that. In the mean time the nation could have gotten its footing-but instead Obama pulled out and lost the peace-and now we are back. So you tell me outside of helping Obama in an election season-who benefited?
 
In that terrorism is the use of violence by non-governmental entities in order to achieve a political goal, no. Terrorism seems to be pretty unchanged as a tactic for a long long time. Don't forget, World War 1 began with an act of terrorism. What is currently different is Islamic terrorism, but that's just the current breed. There were different types before and there will be different types after. That's one more reason why the war on terror is bull. It's really a war on the political sovereignty of a handful of oil rich nations.

Nobody is claiming terrorism is a new tactic-though you referencing its history does bring up the fact that at the very least, these attacks were able to be suppressed in the past-but that came through oppression and violence.
 
A small force to maintain a constant presence (as in Germany, Japan, etc) would have done that. In the mean time the nation could have gotten its footing-but instead Obama pulled out and lost the peace-and now we are back. So you tell me outside of helping Obama in an election season-who benefited?

A little Social Studies lesson for you: Iraq is not Germany or Japan.

ISIS has about 30,000 members or so depending on the estimate. Iraq has about 250,000 in its military. Yet, despite having nearly 9 times as many people in it's Army and being much better equipped than ISIS, the Iraqi government cannot defeat ISIS in its own country because it is that corrupt and impotent. If you think that leaving some little residual force in Iraq would have made any difference then you are in a dream world. It takes a brutal dictator to keep Iraq under control. The only time we ever even remotely pacified the country was during the surge, and that was hardly a small force. We either need to accept the fact it would a surge level military commitment indefinitely to pacify that country or we need to find another dictator to prop up there. Of course, had we left the last dictator running it and contained, we would not have these problems today.
 
A little Social Studies lesson for you: Iraq is not Germany or Japan.

ISIS has about 30,000 members or so depending on the estimate. Iraq has about 250,000 in its military. Yet, despite having nearly 9 times as many people in it's Army and being much better equipped than ISIS, the Iraqi government cannot defeat ISIS in its own country because it is that corrupt and impotent. If you think that leaving some little residual force in Iraq would have made any difference then you are in a dream world. It takes a brutal dictator to keep Iraq under control. The only time we ever even remotely pacified the country was during the surge, and that was hardly a small force. We either need to accept the fact it would a surge level military commitment indefinitely to pacify that country or we need to find another dictator to prop up there. Of course, had we left the last dictator running it and contained, we would not have these problems today.

How long did reconstruction take after the civil war? WW2? We left Iraq to the wolves, and now we are right back in with thousands of US troops. Even if you supported the withdrawal-its a failure now.
 
Nobody is claiming terrorism is a new tactic-though you referencing its history does bring up the fact that at the very least, these attacks were able to be suppressed in the past-but that came through oppression and violence.

They were not suppressed at all. The oppression and violence only served to make them inevitable.
 
Back
Top Bottom