• 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 right leaning American, yes.

    Votes: 9 37.5%

  • Im a left leaning American, yes.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Im not American, yes.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Im a right leaning American, no.

    Votes: 4 16.7%

  • Im a left leaning American, no.

    Votes: 7 29.2%

  • Im not American, no.

    Votes: 4 16.7%
  • Total voters
    24
eohrnberger said:
CP, do you have a link for the page that this came from? I'd like to read the article. Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

:shrug: it came from the wonkblog. Someone else (I think perhaps even DemSocialist) posted it a while back, the blue and red writing is my own.
 
iguanaman said:
He wrote the recuiting posters for Al Qaeda and sent 100's of thousands of targets for jihadists into their backyard so yes you could say he created them. Thee was no Al Qaeda presence in Iraq before Bush invaded and took out Sadaam for them.
Click to expand...

Actually AMZ was in Iraq prior to the invasion :prof
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: it came from the wonkblog. Someone else (I think perhaps even DemSocialist) posted it a while back, the blue and red writing is my own.
Click to expand...

Yup. And he did post his link for me, for which I thank him. Gonna read it over tonight. :)
 
US Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...

You cannot draw any correlation between Obama and increased terrorism activity, as there is no actual correlation, just coincidential timing.

The drop in major crimes over the last decade mirror an increase in gun purchases, but there is also no correlation, just unrelated timing.

The largest spike in terrorism in the US was 9/11 under W's watch, but you conveniently ignore that fact.

Honesty is not your strong suit.
 
cpwill said:
That is interesting. Is it your opinion, then, that Islamist Fundamentalists and their potential supporters are uniquely not tied into global news networks, social media networks, and the like?


That would sort of violate almost everything we know about this movement, which is almost defined in the modern era through media operations (which both bin Laden and Zawahiri said was the most important line of operation), but if you have anything to show supporting that, I'd be interested to see it.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. However, the withdrawal from Iraw could hardly be described as a terrorist victory, and it certainly does not account for worldwide trends in terrorism in worldwide. It may and most likely is a factor, but there is a whole lot going on in the world that also have an effect. There is a reason correlation does not mean causation.



:shrug: take a look at the darker and lighter red - you will notice that they generally move in tandem. Yes. Perceived success of Islamist Fundamentalist terrorism in one portion of the globe inspires and increases adherence in other portions of the globe. That is part of why ISIL declaring a Caliphate is so huge - it has reached out to and inspired jihadists globally, allowing them to establish support networks that span continents and oceans and increase local levels of threat all over.
Click to expand...

Why do you think I specifically used Russia as an example. Was there some event that happened in Russia that might have influenced them numbers, maybe by a whole lot?

Edit: sorry if that came off as excessively snarky - it wasn't intended to be abusive.
Click to expand...

I_CAN_HAS_HUGGLE .jpg
 
cpwill said:
"raises eyebrow" Did you attend a public school where they did taught you neither how to read charts nor the definition of "exponential"?
Click to expand...
If you are going to make remarks on my education it would be wise to actually use proper English...
But I dont know about you, but it seems that it has been expanding at a very fast rate since we declared the "war on terror". I wonder why that is? Are you saying we need more troops? I mean after all during the last "surge" it shows an increase in attacks, but then again its been increasing very quickly for the bast 11 years... B


Yes. Attacks leveled off, and then indeed started to spike again.
Click to expand...
Attacks went down one year in the whole world, but then again you seem to pick and choose what you want to analyze. You seem to mention Iraq a lot and the "troop pull out" and you claim they "stabilized" after the surge..
But lets look at the number of attacks in Iraq during this "stabilization period".. You will see an increase...
2008: 1104 attacks GTD Search Results

2009: 1137 attacks GTD Search Results

2010: 1178 attacks GTD Search Results

2011: 1301 attacks GTD Search Results
 
Redress said:
Seems like it would be more acurate to say it has skyrocketed under the republican House of Representatives. It was kinda flat the first couple years after Obama took office, then went way up once republicans took the house.
Click to expand...

This is whats called the dance of the liberal.
 
iacardsfan said:
I voted yes, but not for the reasons most. I do not believe it is because Obama is too weak, or because we are no longer technically occupying the Middle East. I voted yes because of our policy towards terrorism. It also expanded under Bush, Clinton and the Elder Bush due to this policy. We cannot go around and bomb everybody that hates us, it is not realistic. There will always be people that hate America. Unfortunately, the majority of people who hate America right now are not people who hate it "just because". They hate America because we cause them to hate us. Every time we play wack a mole with terrorism and use drones to take people out, there is collateral damage, innocent civilians. When we kill them, we make more enemies then we kill. It perpetuates violence. Obama has done too much working to go after terrorists. So that is why I voted yes. We have been entrenched in this war for so long, and every year the attacks get worse, the ideologies get more extreme, we spend more money, and lose more sons and daughters. Maybe we need a new policy, one that fosters peace. How about listen to the people who want to kill us and consider their grievances instead of bombing the sugar out of them. You cannot combat violence with more violence, it will only perpetuate itself.
Click to expand...

Terrorism is a global problem, surely its not all because they "MADE" the terrorists hate them. Why the appeasement?
 
I'm not American and the question is too idiotic to reply to. "Terrorism under Obama"? On the heals of tragic events in France? Is there no bottom?
 
SMTA said:
You cannot draw any correlation between Obama and increased terrorism activity, as there is no actual correlation, just coincidential timing.

The drop in major crimes over the last decade mirror an increase in gun purchases, but there is also no correlation, just unrelated timing.

The largest spike in terrorism in the US was 9/11 under W's watch, but you conveniently ignore that fact.

Honesty is not your strong suit.
Click to expand...

In other words its time to jump around dancing?
 
US Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Terrorism has flourished where governments haven't stamped it out. The USA doesn't rule this planet.

There will be no GOP president anytime soon.

Wait and see.
 
Only a complete fool wouldn't realize that ISIS has formed as a direct result of the idiotic decision of the previous administration to engage in their neo-con imperialism and attack Iraq. It was the destabilization of the entire region that was the impetus of ISIS to form If you don't know that you are either completely ignorant or simply not paying attention.
 
US Conservative said:
Terrorism is a global problem, surely its not all because they "MADE" the terrorists hate them. Why the appeasement?
Click to expand...

First of all, I do not consider refraining from occupying foreign lands a form of appeasement. Furthermore, the policy of being hard on terrorism has not worked for 15 years now. We still have these massive events such as the terror in France. We have been fighting for so long and yet these style attacks are still prevalent. Maybe, just maybe, it is time that we try a new avenue of combating this problem. If the world was getting safer under the policies that you propose we use, then I might understand the continued use of them, but as you argue yourself, terrorism has flourished. Not only under Obama, who you argue to be soft on terror, but under Bush as well, who I assume you consider hard on terror.
 
The Obama aspect is irrelevant. It's been building and flourishing a lot longer than he's been a politician, let alone President. And no, I don't think it would be substantially less under someone different. **WE**, as a collective society, have lost our will to stand up and do what needs to be done to stem it.
 
disneydude said:
Only a complete fool wouldn't realize that ISIS has formed as a direct result of the idiotic decision of the previous administration to engage in their neo-con imperialism and attack Iraq. It was the destabilization of the entire region that was the impetus of ISIS to form If you don't know that you are either completely ignorant or simply not paying attention.
Click to expand...

Only a fool wouldn't know how ISIS got to become a problem. So when did you say you would start learning about ISIS and Terrorism so you know what the **** you are talking about.
 
It depends on how you frame the question. Has terrorism gotten worse while Obama has been in office? Certainly, there's no denying it. Was he responsible for it? No, I don't think he was, certainly there isn't much he could have done about most non-U.S. terrorism and only an idiot would say otherwise.
 
US Conservative said:
In other words its time to jump around dancing?
Click to expand...

Here ya go USC. :2wave: Oh and I was wrong.....its not 56% its 58%. But if I was you I wouldn't explain out any correlation. KnowwhatImean. :lamo


Terrorism Flourishes During Obama Years.....


Seth Jones, the associate director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at the RAND Corp., released a report yesterday called "A Persistent Threat: The Evolution of al Qa'ida and Other Salafi-Jihadists." In a WSJ op-ed yesterday about the report, Jones reports, without mentioning Obama's repeated claims of having al Qaeda "on the run," that

"The number of al Qaeda and other jihadist groups and fighters are growing, not shrinking.... From 2010 to 2013 the number of jihadist groups world-wide has grown by 58%, to 49 from 31; the number of jihadist fighters has doubled to a high estimate of 100,000; and the number of attacks by al Qaeda affiliates has increased to roughly 1,000 from 392.".....snip~

Terrorism Flourishes During Obama Years
 
iacardsfan said:
First of all, I do not consider refraining from occupying foreign lands a form of appeasement. Furthermore, the policy of being hard on terrorism has not worked for 15 years now. We still have these massive events such as the terror in France. We have been fighting for so long and yet these style attacks are still prevalent. Maybe, just maybe, it is time that we try a new avenue of combating this problem. If the world was getting safer under the policies that you propose we use, then I might understand the continued use of them, but as you argue yourself, terrorism has flourished. Not only under Obama, who you argue to be soft on terror, but under Bush as well, who I assume you consider hard on terror.
Click to expand...

When the people from that land have already decided we are at war and attacked us-leaving them be is indeed appeasement. I hear from some libertarians that they would be all about defense and that an attack would be met with force-but then we get people like Ron Paul who have a naive and utopian view-who think perhaps that electing a libertarian will somehow improve things-in the mean time we will be attacked with no substantive response-and as that libertarian is voted out his/her polices will go with them. Radical islamists will hate us the entire time-and the only thing that will have changed is 4 years of soft responses-in other words a cue for our enemies to attack (much like word powers and terrorists are emboldened under weak leaders like Obama).
 
radcen said:
The Obama aspect is irrelevant. It's been building and flourishing a lot longer than he's been a politician, let alone President. And no, I don't think it would be substantially less under someone different. **WE**, as a collective society, have lost our will to stand up and do what needs to be done to stem it.
Click to expand...

The point is Obama's new direction has demonstrably failed, and arguably while emboldening our enemies.
 
US Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...

If we are going to start in this manner. Isis would only exist if George W. Bush had not been under the insane notion that invading Iraq would lead to a new peaceful united country. Isis did not start because of Obama but because of the emerging of the Arabian spring where a lot of oppressive governments where overturned in a peaceful uprising of the population of those countries. Because of that, the people in Syria thought it was time to revolt themselves. That has nothing to do with Obama (in the negative or positive) and extremist groups joined the fight against the Syrian government and when that was no longer a goal they could achieve, they went to start their own little country (ISIS).

And a new Potus (democrat) will be just as powerless to solve this crisis as Obama is. You cannot stop an extremist mind with bombing runs. The only thing that will stop Isis is troops on the ground from the Muslim countries around there and a new dawn in the minds of Muslims that this kind of extreme Islam is damaging them and the image of their faith.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom