• 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!

Are we to blame? The relevancy of Abu gharaib in the escalating war on terror

Do atrocities such as Abu gharaib fuel the escalating war on terror?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 27.8%

  • No

    Votes: 10 55.6%

  • Maybe

    Votes: 1 5.6%

  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Albatross!

    Votes: 2 11.1%
  • Total voters
    18
Unitedwestand13

Unitedwestand13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
20,738
Reaction score
6,290
Location
Sunnyvale California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
This subject is an open wound, but I feel that in light of recent events I have been troubled by questions similar to the one that I am about to ask.

I can see the appeal of viewing the war on terror in terms of good and evil. I can imagine that there are some people out there who have the perspective that the United States and the rest of the free world are in a battle with radical extremists who follow a religion that is opposed to the values that form the basis of western civilization.

However I do not think it is that simple. I can imagine that a few hundred or a thousand people are purely motivated by the aggressive desire to force their fanatical believes upon the world. But I find it impossible to fathom that the second largest religion on the planet, with up to a billion followers, is completly comprised of fanatical killers. Groups like al Qaeda and ISIS commit atrocities so inhuman that it makes one wonder what makes average people want to join them.

That is when Abu gharaib becomes relevant to the discusion.

The question of this poll is this: is the war on terror a conflict that has both sides of the conflict partly responsible for escalating the conflict? Is there a Abu ghraib responsible for radicalizing someone to retaliate With a ssuicide bombing?
 
Is Henry Ford to blame for your automobile accidents?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
This subject is an open wound, but I feel that in light of recent events I have been troubled by questions similar to the one that I am about to ask.

I can see the appeal of viewing the war on terror in terms of good and evil. I can imagine that there are some people out there who have the perspective that the United States and the rest of the free world are in a battle with radical extremists who follow a religion that is opposed to the values that form the basis of western civilization.

However I do not think it is that simple. I can imagine that a few hundred or a thousand people are purely motivated by the aggressive desire to force their fanatical believes upon the world. But I find it impossible to fathom that the second largest religion on the planet, with up to a billion followers, is completly comprised of fanatical killers. Groups like al Qaeda and ISIS commit atrocities so inhuman that it makes one wonder what makes average people want to join them.

That is when Abu gharaib becomes relevant to the discusion.

The question of this poll is this: is the war on terror a conflict that has both sides of the conflict partly responsible for escalating the conflict? Is there a Abu ghraib responsible for radicalizing someone to retaliate With a ssuicide bombing?
Click to expand...


If these monsters were only killing solders, or the people who ran Abu-grab-an-Arab(Abu gharaib) prison then you might have a point.However most of the victims of these terrorists are other Muslims and middle easterners that don't have dick to dith Abu Gharab prison.
 
That prison holds ENEMY COMBATANTS. They are by definition different from criminals. Now, yeah, it's sad and it sucks that a few (FEW) people there are actually innocent, just victims of circumstance. The same can be said of ANY prison, ANYWHERE, EVER. That a few get screwed is no reason to trash the concept.


Would it have been better to make them all eat a bullet? Again, enemy combatants. These are people who have declared war on USA. Regardless of their actual ability to engage us, the intent is clear. A simple criminal, be they a thief, murderer, rapist, serial killer, what have you...they are not declaring war against the US. These people have, and ARE.

So again, would all of those enemy combatants stewing in their cells be better off had we simply shot them on their CHOSEN field of battle?
 
All things that are a part of this war on terror are fueling it. Whether it is 9/11, Abu Ghraib, Mumbai attacks, invasion of Iraq/Afghanistan, Guantanamo bay, Madrid attacks, etc. etc. etc.

But so is poverty and poor education and a whole host of other issues that fuel this war on terror and the terror itself.
 
Sadly brutal terrorist atacks can lead to a circle of violence. That of course countries have the right to defend themself and strike back against terrorists. But sadly after a horrific events like 9/11 it can be too little debate and thoughs about how and why you strike back against terrorists.

You need of course to capture terrorists, but for example paying huge bounties to warlords for capturing terrorist and then don't have a court or law or other process to check that it was really terrorist that got captured can lead to more innocent people imprisoned. Also you can discuse if torture is really usefull mean of getting information and if you believe in torture you atleast need to see it is done in a proffesionell maner. Because tortured prisoners will always be a propaganda tool for the terrorists escpecielly if you have pictures of prisoners forced to lay naked in big piles or in dog leash. Also then you thinking of going to war you really have to disuse the reason and method. Because it seems with the Iraq war it was both faulty intilligence for going to war and at the same time the Bush administration didn't have a good plan to create a stable, peacfull and prosperous Iraq. That the failures in Iraq became both a propaganda tool as well as breeding ground for terrorists.
 
Last edited:
Are you limiting your question to the most recent events?

I ask because the prison and the abuses occurred after the 9/11 attacks so if you are going to ask "Are we to blame" you will need to qualify your question.

If you think "we are to blame" please tell us why they hated us so much before the abuses happened to attack the twin towers.
 
Peter King said:
All things that are a part of this war on terror are fueling it. Whether it is 9/11, Abu Ghraib, Mumbai attacks, invasion of Iraq/Afghanistan, Guantanamo bay, Madrid attacks, etc. etc. etc.

But so is poverty and poor education and a whole host of other issues that fuel this war on terror and the terror itself.
Click to expand...

What about their radical religion?
 
The abuses at the abu Graib prison absolutely accelerated the radicalization of some Islamist Fundamentalists. This process was additionally enabled by the high-profile, continuous attention it received in many media outlets, who perceived a chance to attack the Bush administration.


That, for example, is also why this thread is about Abu Ghraib, rather than the Kill Squad.
 
Last edited:
Unitedwestand13 said:
This subject is an open wound, but I feel that in light of recent events I have been troubled by questions similar to the one that I am about to ask.

I can see the appeal of viewing the war on terror in terms of good and evil. I can imagine that there are some people out there who have the perspective that the United States and the rest of the free world are in a battle with radical extremists who follow a religion that is opposed to the values that form the basis of western civilization.

However I do not think it is that simple. I can imagine that a few hundred or a thousand people are purely motivated by the aggressive desire to force their fanatical believes upon the world. But I find it impossible to fathom that the second largest religion on the planet, with up to a billion followers, is completly comprised of fanatical killers. Groups like al Qaeda and ISIS commit atrocities so inhuman that it makes one wonder what makes average people want to join them.

That is when Abu gharaib becomes relevant to the discusion.

The question of this poll is this: is the war on terror a conflict that has both sides of the conflict partly responsible for escalating the conflict? Is there a Abu ghraib responsible for radicalizing someone to retaliate With a ssuicide bombing?
Click to expand...

Of course the conservatives out there don't want to hear this, but YES, when we do stuff that is incredibly wrong - like torture, and like overthrowing democratically-elected governments and installing a puppet government (like we did in Iraq in the 1950's) - YES, our actions radicalize the locals and perpetuates terrorism against us.
 
apdst said:
What about their radical religion?
Click to expand...

And what is "all things" that are part of this war on terror? Or do you think extremist religion is not one of the things that fuels terror and thus the war on terror which leads to more terror (or so they try).
 
Peter King said:
And what is "all things" that are part of this war on terror? Or do you think extremist religion is not one of the things that fuels terror and thus the war on terror which leads to more terror (or so they try).
Click to expand...

Obviously you don't.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Of course the conservatives out there don't want to hear this, but YES, when we do stuff that is incredibly wrong - like torture, and like overthrowing democratically-elected governments and installing a puppet government (like we did in Iraq in the 1950's) - YES, our actions radicalize the locals and perpetuates terrorism against us.
Click to expand...
Good thing Obama ended all that, yet the violence and hatred and the growth of the radicals hasn't slowed but only increased. Why is that? I mean Abu Gharaib was what? Ten years ago? Perhaps the increase in radicalism and growth of radical groups has less to do with that than it does drone strikes that have killed hundreds if not thousands.
 
apdst said:
You place more blame on the people fighting the terrorists.
Click to expand...

No, I do not. You are lying when you claim I place more blame on the people fighting terrorists.

This thread was about whether Abu Ghraib added to this war. Another thread was about the entire blame and there I voted "all of the above" (which was including Muslim clerics).
 
Peter King said:
No, I do not. You are lying when you claim I place more blame on the people fighting terrorists.

This thread was about whether Abu Ghraib added to this war. Another thread was about the entire blame and there I voted "all of the above" (which was including Muslim clerics).
Click to expand...

Before you call someone a liar, you need to be sure of what you said...

Peter King said:
And what is "all things" that are part of this war on terror? Or do you think extremist religion is not one of the things that fuels terror and thus the war on terror which leads to more terror (or so they try).
Click to expand...
 
apdst said:
Before you call someone a liar, you need to be sure of what you said...
Click to expand...

Well, maybe you simply failed to understand what I wrote. It could be my fault, your fault or an innocent mistake. But to once again explain it:

I said:
Extremists religion is one of the things that fuels terror

THUS (meaning "as a result of this")

to combat the original terror (which is the starting point), there is a war on terror. During the war on terror things happened (even though it is not that important for extremist anger, these idiots would even have become angry if Abu Ghraib had not happened) that should not happen and they are being used to fuel the anger under Muslim youths, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

So to make it clear again:

1. extremists clerics (among others) leads to Muslim terror against the West

2. thus the West has to responds and the war on terror begins (re-ignites what ever you want)

3. the extremists (among them clerics) claim this is a crime against Muslims (even though it was not), they plan more attacks on the West. Which they do and they commit another heinous crime (like 9/11)

5. thus (as a result of this) the West has to respond and invades Iraq and Afghanistan, during this continued war on terror Abu Ghraib happens.

6. the extremists cry foul and plan more attacks (but as said, they would have been angry no matter how humane the troops would have been) and commit them.

7. thus the West has to respond

etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Of course the conservatives out there don't want to hear this, but YES, when we do stuff that is incredibly wrong - like torture, and like overthrowing democratically-elected governments and installing a puppet government (like we did in Iraq in the 1950's) - YES, our actions radicalize the locals and perpetuates terrorism against us.
Click to expand...

Mosah Degh wasn't democratically elected. He was appointed by the Iraqi parliament; the same parliament that he later dissolved. Therefore, we didn't overthrow a democratically elected government.
 
Peter King said:
Well, maybe you simply failed to understand what I wrote. It could be my fault, your fault or an innocent mistake. But to once again explain it:

I said:
Extremists religion is one of the things that fuels terror

THUS (meaning "as a result of this")

to combat the original terror (which is the starting point), there is a war on terror. During the war on terror things happened (even though it is not that important for extremist anger, these idiots would even have become angry if Abu Ghraib had not happened) that should not happen and they are being used to fuel the anger under Muslim youths, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

So to make it clear again:

1. extremists clerics (among others) leads to Muslim terror against the West

2. thus the West has to responds and the war on terror begins (re-ignites what ever you want)

3. the extremists (among them clerics) claim this is a crime against Muslims (even though it was not), they plan more attacks on the West. Which they do and they commit another heinous crime (like 9/11)

5. thus (as a result of this) the West has to respond and invades Iraq and Afghanistan, during this continued war on terror Abu Ghraib happens.

6. the extremists cry foul and plan more attacks (but as said, they would have been angry no matter how humane the troops would have been) and commit them.

7. thus the West has to respond

etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
Click to expand...

There's no way to blame anyone, but the terrorists and their supporters.
 
apdst said:
There's no way to blame anyone, but the terrorists and their supporters.
Click to expand...

Except that you are the one who started with blame. I never mentioned the world blame. I was talking about fueling the fire, not blaming this that or the other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom