• 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!

How Do We End The War on Terror?

What Should We Do To End The Terror War?

  • The West is doing the right thing.

    Votes: 4 7.5%
  • We need more WAAAUGH! We need to bomb more! Boots on the ground!

    Votes: 6 11.3%
  • The West needs to change their foreign policy. Stop meddling in other countries.

    Votes: 30 56.6%
  • Other

    Votes: 13 24.5%

  • Total voters
    53
3.Norway Faces Terror Attack From Group Linked To Extremists In Syria, Officials Warn

Is the same as link two ,no further comment needed

4. This incident actually took place in Algeria at a time of the civil war there in 1994 which predates the war on terror announced by Bush. 9 people were injured 4 died , security forces stormed the plane. Do people really need to find out what the problem with the French is with some Algerians ?
So once again it has no relevance to the statement and theme it is supposed to be tackling

5. Now this was a significant attack , size wise ,but once again it doesn’t support the posters claims nor their position , in fact once again it is the opposite claim that it supports. It also predates , again , the war on terror

The Khobar Towers are in Saudi Arabia who were right at the heart of the invasion of Iraq in 1991 [/b] and 19 of the 20 people killed were US air force personnel . That’s because the towers were being used to house US military personnel based in Saudi.

Ive been through the first 5 links and not once do they confirm what the poster wanted to convey , in fact the confirm the opposition side or have little or no relevance to the theme they are supposed to be addressing

TBH I can’t be bothered going through all of them. And I don’t dispute that some will have some merits but I have made a point that I think is important
 
A note to readers always , ALWAYS , go through these mass source propaganda type posts. You will be surprised what you find.

Remember the incidents in the list are supposed to be a response to this statement

" Funny, I haven't heard of any large Islamic attacks on Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Luxembourg, The Bahamas and on and on "

and are supposed to refute the charge that if you don't get involved in attacking other countries you are safer from attack than if you do

here's the list again and my response will be , because of the sheer numbers/site word restrictions , carried out over a series of posts for reasons of clarity starting at the beginning



1. 2010 Stockholm bombings

Two bombs went off in the attacks carried out by a Muslim of Iraqi origin who had posted links to videos of Iraqi prisoner abuses ( presumably Abu Ghraib ) on his face book account. Before the bombs went off an email was sent to the Swedish authorities and a media outlet that stated the attack was a response to Swedish forces involvement in Afghanistan , it also stated “"Now your children, daughters and sisters will die in the same way our brothers and sisters die “

The bomber himself was the only fatality with two people receiving minor injuries

To conclude it was not a “ large scale “ attack . And it actually confirms the opposite of what the poster intended IE Swedish involvement in the war was what inspired it ( get used to the idea , it will appear again soon )


2. Syrian Islamist group planning terror attack on Norway

This second link doesn’t even refer to an attack that has occurred , it only refers to speculation that some Norwegian Muslims might plan stuff on their return from Syria where , you’ve guessed it , Western interference and that of its allies has accounted for much of the death and destruction there. If the US and others carry out the threat to extend bombing campaigns in Syria these people may well carry out their alleged plans.

Once again this runs directly counter to the posters alleged assertion and is not proof of his claims anyhow

It doesn't need to refer to an attack, the fact the Norwegian authorities claimed an attack was planned proves the threat is real and that was the point.
Likewise the Stockholm bombings didn't need to be a large scale attack to show that the threat exists and in that case was followed through.

One also needs to point out the fact that it only takes one case to prove it that it doesn't take an occupation or attacks on Islamic terrorists to draw their attacks.

One will also point out you're the only propagandist here knowing you'd defend Islamic terrorism and spread anti-Western propaganda wherever you'd go.

And you ain't the only one who can overuse the bold function.
 
Do people really need to find out what the problem with the French is with some Algerians ?

This is your best justification for the terror attack on Air France?
I expected more. What a failure.
The French colonization of Algeria ended 32 years before the attack... so no.
 
Those three countries and many others are fighting Islamic seperatists and those groups havent attacked anyone outside of those countries. You know, like Hamas hasnt attacked the US either.

So youre wrong again.

I wasn't wrong to begin with, how can I be wrong again? How frustrating.
Regardless your lack of ability to recognize the absurdity of the bollocks that are your claims is showing as has been shown before.
 
This poll provides a classic example of how not to frame polling questions. In this case, four options are available:

The question concerns what the West should do to end the war on terror. This question implies that the conclusion of this campaign is entirely up to the West. In fact, the various terrorist organizations ranging from Al Qaeda to ISIS have a lot of influence on this matter.

The responses are also problematic. The first response is “The West is doing the right thing” without providing any specificity. The most one can attain from that response is that the ‘status quo” approach is correct, even as the approach has been evolving given the evolution of ISIS. In addition to the dynamism of the strategy, there is a lot of disagreement as to whether the current approach is too much or too little (or even too late). Hence, the way this response is framed is almost assured to generate very little support.

The next response exaggerates among one of among a number of possible alternatives to the undefined first option. It transforms the use of combat troops into a larger issue of “we need more war.” Hence, this option has also been defined to generate little support.

The third response connects two matters: Change and non-interventionism/neo-isolationism. While many would likely agree that a change in strategy is necessary, it is not clear that the non-interventionist/neo-isolationist option would generate much support on its own. Hence, the two are fused together. Couples with the framing of the working on the first two responses, the design almost certainly ensures that a plurality would support this response against two unattractive options.

Such a skewed response is inconsistent with prevailing national attitudes. A recent Gallup Poll suggested that 81% of U.S. respondents felt that ISIS poses a critical (50%) or important (31% important but not critical) threat to the vital interests of the United States. (See Gallup Poll of September 20-21, 2014: Iraq). Ignoring such a threat (the non-interventionist/neo-isolationist approach) would not be a logical choice. A 9/12-15 CBS Poll (same website) revealed that 71% of Americans support U.S. airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq and 69% support airstrikes against ISIS in Syria. Moreover, that poll indicated that 57% felt that President Obama’s approach is not tough enough and 31% felt that it is about right. The “too tough” (closest analogy to the non-interventionist/neo-isolationist approach) option garnered 2% of respondents.

The fourth is a fairly standard option. Normally, such an option would lag, but given the above problems and non-viable nature of non-interventionism/neo-isolationism, support would probably be elevated, but not to the extent that it would supersede the third option.

All said, the above poll can only produce a skewed outcome that exaggerates support for the non-interventionist/neo-isolationist approach.
 
What Should We Do To End The Terror War?

we should get out of the Middle East entirely and replace oil. we should also close all embassies in hostile regions.
 
I dont care how crazy Islamists live in their societies, when they are muslim societies, since that is a part of what has produced them, but they have brought it to western societies, and they are a scourge. Imo, it is a shame that we can't turn them into dust. Every single one.

(And we aren't going to end this war, because we dont have the stomach to do what it takes)

There is a reason that they have brought it to American shores, and they have been candid about it. But Americans deny the real reason in favor of a strawman.
 
we should get out of the Middle East entirely and replace oil. we should also close all embassies in hostile regions.

Although oil is the more popular topic when it comes to US involvement, it's also about standing by current allies in the region who stand to lose by our pulling out. And it's also about maintaining some semblance of a status quo in stability, especially with regards to when nuclear weapons finally arrive in the non-Israeli Middle East.
 
Although oil is the more popular topic when it comes to US involvement, it's also about standing by current allies in the region who stand to lose by our pulling out. And it's also about maintaining some semblance of a status quo in stability, especially with regards to when nuclear weapons finally arrive in the non-Israeli Middle East.

The regional powers need to act to bring stability to their own region. We cannot and should not attempt to do it for them.
 
The regional powers need to act to bring stability to their own region. We cannot and should not attempt to do it for them.

Yes, and when/if we leave, they're going to achieve that "stability" any way they can, such as by acquiring nuclear weapons.
 
Yes, and when/if we leave, they're going to achieve that "stability" any way they can, such as by acquiring nuclear weapons.

if that happens, so be it. i'm pretty tired of the fearmongering that is used to keep foreverwar going. in reality, you're infinitely more likely to get killed by a car than by a terrorist. Middle Eastern countries are not going to nuke each other, because it's bad for business, and they like money. they asren't going to fire missiles at us, either. if anyone was going to do that, it would be NK.

if you'd like a strategy that could actually work, it's replacing oil as a transportation fuel. that's how they fund this stuff.

either way, it is the responsibility of the regional powers to maintain stability, not the US. if this goal could be achieved through external military force, the region would have been stable for some time now. i don't support a strategy that can't work. get all troops out now, and end perpetual war.
 
Good idea except for one thing. One cannot eradicate terrorism by force alone. Plus if one were to pile up all the peaceful nation forces in a polar position to terrorists it may polarize positions even more (i.e., may increase recruiting).

The best possible scenario would be for another superpower (e.g., Russia or China?) to attempt to squash terrorists by force. Sometime the smarter members of the country may turn for help towards us. Then we could intervene (with agreement of course) and "remove" the superpowers' suppressive force. Then we could be heroes rather then the enemy and we would eliminate terror.

Thereby perhaps the sum of all and possible other ideas may do better service to aid anti-terror campaigns compared to just force.

But it wouldn't be by force alone. It would be via shared intelligence to thwart plots before they could be implemented, to mutually cooperate to shut off funding, and swift retaliation. Once terrorism becomes ineffective and nonproductive for the terrorists, recruitment and cooperation becomes more difficult for them to achieve. And most would likely eventually just give up and find something else to do. Weakness and timidity only encourages more terrorism. Taking charge of the situation instead of allowing them to dictate it is the only way to go.
 
But it wouldn't be by force alone. It would be via shared intelligence to thwart plots before they could be implemented, to mutually cooperate to shut off funding, and swift retaliation. Once terrorism becomes ineffective and nonproductive for the terrorists, recruitment and cooperation becomes more difficult for them to achieve. And most would likely eventually just give up and find something else to do. Weakness and timidity only encourages more terrorism. Taking charge of the situation instead of allowing them to dictate it is the only way to go.

Exactly.

See my post 2 in this thread about helping people in the area find something else to do. It is also a method of taking charge in the area.
 
It doesn't need to refer to an attack, the fact the Norwegian authorities claimed an attack was planned proves the threat is real and that was the point.
Likewise the Stockholm bombings didn't need to be a large scale attack to show that the threat exists and in that case was followed through.

One also needs to point out the fact that it only takes one case to prove it that it doesn't take an occupation or attacks on Islamic terrorists to draw their attacks.

I'll remind the reader once again as to what the links are in response to

" Funny, I haven't heard of any large Islamic attacks on Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Luxembourg, The Bahamas and on and on "

and are supposed to refute the charge that if you don't get involved in attacking other countries you are safer from attack than if you do

I have shown that out of the first five...........

Two are references to speculation over attacks ,not attacks themselves

Two back up the notion that nations who get involved in attacks against states with a high Muslim population face an increased chance of retaliatory Muslim terrorist attacks at home. That shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone with a brain imo

In this case Sweden's involvement in the attack/occupation on/of Afghanistan ( as cited by the attackers themselves ) and Saudi/US involvement in the invasions/attacks of Iraq.

Out of the five countries the original poster cited only Sweden has had a retaliatory attack. Norway had only speculation . In fact the biggest terrorist attack in Norway which took the lives of 77 people and injured over 300 was committed by a Norwegian nationalist that had been fired up by the anti Islamic brigade

Here's what a UK right wing media outlet stated at the time

British security forces were immediately placed on alert amid fears that Norway’s worst terrorist outrage might be the first in a series of attacks on the West. The carnage followed repeated warnings that al-Qaeda was planning a Mumbai-style attack on countries involved in the war in Afghanistan, where Norway has about 500 troops.

Norway: 'At least 87' killed in terror attacks - Telegraph

That was after police had already arrested Anders Breivik which the article writers went on to admit after their initial scaremongering tactics concerning Muslims ( a common currency for the outlet )

So out of the original list that your post was supposed to be a response to only one country had actually been attacked by Islamic terrorists and the reason given was their involvement in the attack on Afghanistan :roll:



One will also point out you're the only propagandist here knowing you'd defend Islamic terrorism and spread anti-Western propaganda wherever you'd go.

Pointing out that some people will go to any lengths to continue the war against Muslims , even conjuring up attacks that haven't happened , and using examples that support the case of the opposition , is not " defending Islamic terrorism ". It's just highlighting those that abuse the links they provide
And you ain't the only one who can overuse the bold function.

The " overuse " is only in your imagination
 
Find a way for average Americans to grow a spine and stop thinking there are terrorists hiding under the bed would be a good start.

The amount of sheer cowardice in America since 9/11 is disgusting to me.

When you are victimized, you have a choice...let the attack bring constant fear to your life or don't let the attackers win by putting it behind you and getting on with your life.

Instead of the latter, America is running around like a scared bully; pissed off, frightened and prepared to do anything, hurt anyone...just so long as that pain goes away.

The result?

This WAY overreaction to ISIS, rendition, torture, NSA run wild, Gitmo, TSA, reduction of American's rights, drone strikes, double-tap drone strikes, destabilizing countries, thousands of U.S. soldiers dead, tens of thousands of innocent civilians killed and on and on.

Grow a spine America.

Because all you are now - in essence - is a frightened bully.

How long do those 22 whackos and a loophole in airline security back on 9/11 mean the rest of the world (including those Americans who are not afraid of al Qaeda or ISIS and who crave liberty and freedom above all else) and the Constitution have to suffer?
 
Last edited:
(...)

So out of the original list that your post was supposed to be a response to only one country had actually been attacked by Islamic terrorists and the reason given was their involvement in the attack on Afghanistan :roll:

You're referring here to the list of nations he specifically listed, which includes Sweden, Norway and the Bahamas. How ridiculous.
My comment was there to show that countries that didn't occupy Islamic land were also under attack from Islamic terrorism and the list of nations that fit these situations pretty much proves this already known fact.
Try again.

Pointing out that some people will go to any lengths to continue the war against Muslims , even conjuring up attacks that haven't happened , and using examples that support the case of the opposition , is not " defending Islamic terrorism ". It's just highlighting those that abuse the links they provide

Labeling and referring to the war against radical Islam as a "war against Muslims" is just the most recent example of you defending, scratch that, outright siding with Islamic terrorism. Your anti-West agenda is obvious.

The " overuse " is only in your imagination

It is actually very well documented. ;)
 
Its been 13 years since 9/11 and yet it seems there are now more terrorists than ever before. Can this war be won? What are your thoughts on this? Are the governments of the West doing the right things or are they making the situation worse?

As for me, I dont want to see another American solider or civilian killed in a pointless war with no end. The West needs to stop minding the business of other countries. No more overseas military bases or occupation- if these Islamists want to live according to their religion then I say let them do it. These very governments like Saudi Arabia, who we are fighting with to maintain their status quo over there are the very people who bankroll these terrorists. The US has got the largest shale oil deposits in the world- more than the entire middle east combined, why not spend billions in developing these fields and get oil form then instead of letting the Arabs do it and paying them for it?

I'm kind of resignated as well, and sympathize with your idea -- let's get independent from Middle Eastern oil and let these people sort out their problems on their own.

Unfortunately, this is difficult for various reasons: It's unlikely they'll leave us alone even if we do, but more likely these islamist thugs will compete for committing new attacks in the West. It's almost impossible to ignore them under these circumstances. And second, there is Israel in the middle of that mess, and I feel we have a certain obligation to support Israel for that it can defend itself. But as long as Israel still exists and we support it, the islamists won't leave us alone either.
 
Exactly.

See my post 2 in this thread about helping people in the area find something else to do. It is also a method of taking charge in the area.

Nonsense. Do you deal with rapists by helping them find something else to do? Arsonists? Burglars? Deal with terrorists by convincing them they will reap few rewards and a whole lot of grief if they continue to engage in terrorism. I am NOT advocating taking charge of any country unless we need to declare war upon which we should go in with overwhelming force and bludgeon them into complete submission and unconditional surrender and then dictate to them the terms by which they regain their autonomy. Otherwise as long as they leave us and our interests alone, they are none of our business.
 
The question concerns what the West should do to end the war on terror. This question implies that the conclusion of this campaign is entirely up to the West. In fact, the various terrorist organizations ranging from Al Qaeda to ISIS have a lot of influence on this matter.

Both of those groups have had support from the US and/or their allies in the region, Getting rid of Assad ( see project for a new American century which predates 9/11 and the war on terror ) proved the duplicity of the approach as did events in Libya ( see PNAC again )




Such a skewed response is inconsistent with prevailing national attitudes. A recent Gallup Poll suggested that 81% of U.S. respondents felt that ISIS poses a critical (50%) or important (31% important but not critical) threat to the vital interests of the United States. (See Gallup Poll of September 20-21, 2014: Iraq). Ignoring such a threat (the non-interventionist/neo-isolationist approach) would not be a logical choice. A 9/12-15 CBS Poll (same website) revealed that 71% of Americans support U.S. airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq and 69% support airstrikes against ISIS in Syria. Moreover, that poll indicated that 57% felt that President Obama’s approach is not tough enough and 31% felt that it is about right. The “too tough” (closest analogy to the non-interventionist/neo-isolationist approach) option garnered 2% of respondents.

I wouldn't argue about the validity of those poles , however , to me they reflect the medias role in supporting the war. I gave an example of this in an earlier post that referred to Anders Breivik. Magnify that a thousand times over and understand that it is a daily occurrence here in the West and it goes some way to explaining the results imho

Not supporting the national war is also seen as unpatriotic. Add to this that a very high percentage of those polled will be victims of societal WMDs ( weapons of mass distraction , IE apolitical consumers/reality tv suckers etc etc ) and the whole result starts to unravel further
 
Nonsense. Do you deal with rapists by helping them find something else to do? Arsonists? Burglars? Deal with terrorists by convincing them they will reap few rewards and a whole lot of grief if they continue to engage in terrorism. I am NOT advocating taking charge of any country unless we need to declare war upon which we should go in with overwhelming force and bludgeon them into complete submission and unconditional surrender and then dictate to them the terms by which they regain their autonomy. Otherwise as long as they leave us and our interests alone, they are none of our business.

Okay, but the jobs are not aimed at terrorists, they are aimed at civilians. Bludgeoning civilians into submission so as to carry out interests may not be appropriate?
 
Its been 13 years since 9/11 and yet it seems there are now more terrorists than ever before. Can this war be won? What are your thoughts on this? Are the governments of the West doing the right things or are they making the situation worse?

As for me, I dont want to see another American solider or civilian killed in a pointless war with no end. The West needs to stop minding the business of other countries. No more overseas military bases or occupation- if these Islamists want to live according to their religion then I say let them do it. These very governments like Saudi Arabia, who we are fighting with to maintain their status quo over there are the very people who bankroll these terrorists. The US has got the largest shale oil deposits in the world- more than the entire middle east combined, why not spend billions in developing these fields and get oil form then instead of letting the Arabs do it and paying them for it?

Who says anyone wants to end it?
I say that in part in jest, but with a bit of seriousness. We're too easily swayed to commit to endless wars, those not easily defined. We keep the goals vague enough that we can fight it forever. It's poor policy in my view, but it is how we do it all too often. So, one has to consider that we really don't want wars to end.
 
Its been 13 years since 9/11 and yet it seems there are now more terrorists than ever before. Can this war be won? What are your thoughts on this? Are the governments of the West doing the right things or are they making the situation worse?

As for me, I dont want to see another American solider or civilian killed in a pointless war with no end. The West needs to stop minding the business of other countries. No more overseas military bases or occupation- if these Islamists want to live according to their religion then I say let them do it. These very governments like Saudi Arabia, who we are fighting with to maintain their status quo over there are the very people who bankroll these terrorists. The US has got the largest shale oil deposits in the world- more than the entire middle east combined, why not spend billions in developing these fields and get oil form then instead of letting the Arabs do it and paying them for it?


"Throw the bums out."
Vote for any third Party candidate in the next election. There is no other way. The problem is internal.
 
Both of those groups have had support from the US and/or their allies in the region, Getting rid of Assad ( see project for a new American century which predates 9/11 and the war on terror ) proved the duplicity of the approach as did events in Libya ( see PNAC again )

We don't disagree that aiding the armed elements in Syria's sectarian conflict is not a constructive policy (and I've argued against it time and again) and that such a policy has contributed to the power vacuum that has been exploited by ISIS, among others. I hold similar views with respect to the regime change that was carried out in Libya. In neither case were critical or vital American interests at stake to justify such actions.

With respect to the PNAC document, I'm not a neoconservative. I believe the neoconservative flaw is the underlying assumption that military force can be an agent for expanding the sphere of democracy. Ironically, the liberal internationalists have similarly flawed thinking when they assume that international institutions can accomplish the similar ends. Note, I'm not arguing against international institutions, as I think they can play a valuable role, but that like any other institution, there are limits to what they can accomplish. Democracy largely depends on a country's own structural and institutional framework, historical experience, absence/presence of civil society, etc. Outside influence, be it international rules or military force, can't readily overcome such basic factors. Hence, the liberal internationalist's neoconservative equivalent, the so-called doctrine of a "responsibility to protect," is just as flawed as its neoconservative counterpart. Both use different rationale to justify the use of force in situations where force can accomplish little.

Not supporting the national war is also seen as unpatriotic.

I don't think opposing war is, by itself, "unpatriotic." Compelling arguments can be made for or against a military response. Blanket non-interventionism/neo-isolationism, though, does not provide such lines of argument, as such a doctrine is based on failed assumptions of the past that such an approach can effectively serve as a substitute for deterrence. It can't. Nations have invaded neutral states before. A successful argument against the present use of force would depend on building a viable framework for deterring ISIS from threatening key Western interests and allies, not idealistic assumptions that "if we leave them alone, they'll leave us alone."
 
You're referring here to the list of nations he specifically listed, which includes Sweden, Norway and the Bahamas. How ridiculous.

So were you when you provided all those links that backed the very opposite of what you claimed they did. It wasn't "ridiculous" then was it ?

My comment was there to show that countries that didn't occupy Islamic land were also under attack from Islamic terrorism and the list of nations that fit these situations pretty much proves this already known fact.

Sweden and Norway have provided troops that have played a part in the occupation of Afghanistan. Sweden had a minor incident that was a direct response to their involvement , Norway fears attacks but has so far had NONE.

That you skipped the massive terrorist attacks by Breivik ( bomb and mass shooting ) speaks volumes

One of your links that I didn't shred referred to the Madrid bombings. They were definitely a result of Spain's involvement in the illegal attack on Iraq in 2003. Again that goes completely counter to your assertion

The links you provided backed that up. You just didn't expect anyone to take the time to go through them , obviously.


And as POS has already stated some of the others contain references to separatist movements in other countries.

In Europe, separatist terrorist attacks , Left wing terrorist attacks , Right wing terrorist attacks etc etc are far more frequent than Islamic terrorism

All Terrorists are Muslims...Except the 94% that Aren't | loonwatch.com

and the updated one

Updated Europol Data: Less Than 1% of Terrorist Attacks by Muslims | loonwatch.com


Try again.

I don't have to , your own links undermine your claims themselves
 
So were you when you provided all those links that backed the very opposite of what you claimed they did. It wasn't "ridiculous" then was it ?

It was because I was providing links to prove the point that a country doesn't need to occupy Islamic lands to be under attack from radical Islam.
The Indonesian link proves it, the French one proves it, the Chinese one. So does the Indian one and many others. They provide cutting evidence to something that should be common sense - nobody is immune to radical Islam.

Sweden and Norway have provided troops that have played a part in the occupation of Afghanistan

A very minor part sure but the attacks came when they've had no troops there. Same for Spain. And you'll have to refer to the entire set of links as as I already stated it requires one example to prove the point.

The links you provided backed that up. You just didn't expect anyone to take the time to go through them , obviously.

I actually did as I took the time in collecting them to make a statement that was supposed to be an obvious reality.

And as POS has already stated some of the others contain references to separatist movements in other countries.

It doesn't matter it shows that those countries were not occupying any Islamic lands and still were targets of radical Islam - which is really the point, it can be separatist movements and it can be any other reason, radical Islam doesn't strike only where it's being hit from and that notion is absurd and illogical.

Please do refer to the part where I'm exposing you as an anti-West pro-radical-Islam propagandist thaaaaaank you.
 
Back
Top Bottom