• 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
US Conservative said:
The point is Obama's new direction has demonstrably failed, and arguably while emboldening our enemies.
Click to expand...
What new direction? Obama has been doing the same thing that every other POTUS has done since the end of WW2.
 
US Conservative said:
Appeasement. Its Obama's style and apparently they dont respect it.
Click to expand...

What exactly should he have rather done? Invaded more countries? Kept more American troops in harms way helping a populace that doesn't want us here? Please, elaborate what your grand strategy would be.

By the way, at a 4% yes vote, even republicans don't agree with you. Sounds like you're just making up things as you go along and no one here agrees with you.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
What exactly should he have rather done? Invaded more countries? Kept more American troops in harms way helping a populace that doesn't want us here? Please, elaborate what your grand strategy would be.

By the way, at a 4% yes vote, even republicans don't agree with you. Sounds like you're just making up things as you go along and no one here agrees with you.
Click to expand...

4% ot what? Links n sht.
 
US Conservative said:
Im a beautiful and unique snowflake, but you should never assume-look at the poll results-we cant trust the results based on lefty agitators.
Click to expand...

Because you completely sidestepped my question by either pretending to be stupid or actually being it, I'll repeat:

RabidAlpaca said:
What exactly should he have rather done? Invaded more countries? Kept more American troops in harms way helping a populace that doesn't want us here? Please, elaborate what your grand strategy would be.

By the way, at a 4% yes vote, even republicans don't agree with you. Sounds like you're just making up things as you go along and no one here agrees with you.
Click to expand...

Also, did you only make the poll to try to confirm your own opinion and disregard any results you don't like? Rarely is a poll on DP this one sided.
 
US Conservative said:
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?
Click to expand...
Have you every thought that the meer fact that the United States is already in over 130 countries militarily might be the reason terrorism is "spreading"?
 
Yet another hackish poll thread.
 
Kobie said:
Yet another hackish poll thread.
Click to expand...

Do you think you could have got that in.....somewhere before the 14th page. "What" a lil slow this morning Kobie. :roll:
 
While I agree that terrorism appears to be flourishing, I don't believe it is correlated to "under Obama". That leaves the impression that Obama has either encouraged or promoted terrorism, explicitly or implicitly, and I don't believe that to be true at all.

I think what we're seeing, and to a greater extent, is a return to terrorist actions throughout the world that were occurring prior to 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. While those wars were going on, much of the terrorist activity gravitated to those arenas and neighbouring areas. Now that those war efforts have ended, under Obama, the terrorists are freer to spread their evil again. If the alternative is/was to continue the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq, then we'll just have to live with being more vigilant in our various homelands.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
What exactly should he have rather done? Invaded more countries? Kept more American troops in harms way helping a populace that doesn't want us here? Please, elaborate what your grand strategy would be.

By the way, at a 4% yes vote, even republicans don't agree with you. Sounds like you're just making up things as you go along and no one here agrees with you.
Click to expand...

Thats a requirement?
 
MMC said:
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.
Click to expand...

I KNOW what I am talking about. It is the idiots that don't understand the founding of ISIS and how it came about that don't have a clue. We wouldn't have ISIS today if GWB hadn't decided to manipulate the public fear and use 911 to "justify" a decades old neo-con agenda that Rumsfield/Cheney, et al couldn't get the first Bush to do. They had to wait for a puppet to get in office and then figure out a time that they could do it. Sorry....but you have to know your history to understand the present.
 
disneydude said:
I KNOW what I am talking about. It is the idiots that don't understand the founding of ISIS and how it came about that don't have a clue. We wouldn't have ISIS today if GWB hadn't decided to manipulate the public fear and use 911 to "justify" a decades old neo-con agenda that Rumsfield/Cheney, et al couldn't get the first Bush to do. They had to wait for a puppet to get in office and then figure out a time that they could do it. Sorry....but you have to know your history to understand the present.
Click to expand...


It appears they began, long before Bush ever came around.


Salafi-Jihadists

The methodology of the salafi-jihadists is in the primarily armed confrontations to bring about the Islamic state in the Muslim world. The salafi-jihadists are an international phenomenon and have especially made their presence felt in Afghanistan, Mali, Syria, and Iraq. Skilled in the use of new media, they have made the internet one of their prime recruiting grounds especially for high value western citizens. High value because of the media attention they receive [which acts as a recruiting feedback loop] and presumably the financial line they create with wealthy western donors.

Salafi-jihadists have relied on foreign recruits for most part of their history, hence their connection to the indigenous population has never been strong, and this continues to be their primary tactical weakness. This weakness was plainly exhibited when the AQ were expelled from Afghanistan, which is where the salafi-jihadist ideology was born, then from Sudan when they became too much of a liability. Even when the salafi-jihadists are home-grown like ISIS, their extremist and counter-intuitive behavior have earned them a reception ranging from lukewarm at best to downright hostile in places like Gaza, Iraq and Syria; even from their fellow ideological allies the Islamists [Hamas, Ahrar-al-Shams] and relatively moderate AQ factions [al-Nusra Front].


AQ-ISIS: The Hikmah Behind the Methodology, A Comparative Analysis between the Islamists and Jihadi-Salafists
 
humbolt said:
Thats a requirement?
Click to expand...

Requirement for what? Did I say something had to be qualified? Last time I checked conservatives almost never waste a chance to stick it to Obama, so if he can't even get them to agree with him on this then you can probably bet he's pretty far of course.

Do you have an actual argument or were you just here to insert lazy one liners?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Requirement for what? Did I say something had to be qualified? Last time I checked conservatives almost never waste a chance to stick it to Obama, so if he can't even get them to agree with him on this then you can probably bet he's pretty far of course.

Do you have an actual argument or were you just here to insert lazy one liners?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you haven't noticed that the polls have been corrupted by outside parties. In any case, agreement with any stated position isn't a requirement for posting on this site. Agreement or disagreement does not discredit the stated position, and since you brought it up, agreement or disagreement isn't an argument at all. It's a declarative statement devoid of content.
 
US Conservative said:
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).
Click to expand...
We did respond with force after 9/11. We killed and captured those who were responsible for it. Now we are just in a cycle of killing people who do not agree with our views.
 
Dear OP: For the thousandth time, PLEASE LEARN HOW TO PROPERLY WRITE A POLL. kthxbai.
 
Libertie76 said:
Have you every thought that the meer fact that the United States is already in over 130 countries militarily might be the reason terrorism is "spreading"?
Click to expand...

I have, and then I realized that terrorism has also spread to other nations that have nothing to do with the US. See how this works?
 
iacardsfan said:
We did respond with force after 9/11. We killed and captured those who were responsible for it. Now we are just in a cycle of killing people who do not agree with our views.
Click to expand...

My comments were regarding the weak foreign policy of many libertarians. The biggest problem is the world isn't libertarian, and does not see things like them.
 
US Conservative said:
My comments were regarding the weak foreign policy of many libertarians. The biggest problem is the world isn't libertarian, and does not see things like them.
Click to expand...

Again, I do not consider it weak to not invade sovereign countries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom