• 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!

Terrorism Poll

Is 90 - 95% of terrorism committed by Muslims?

  • Total voters
    67
sKiTzo said:
Who are the terrorists? Are they French? Norwegian? African? Maybe one or two. Are they Canadian? British? Japanese? Let's see...um....how about Muslim? Are they Muslim?
Click to expand...

General Curtis LeMay was not a Muslim.
 
sKiTzo said:
Cutting off the head of some innocent person on youtube in the name of some fanatical sharia belief.. I believe only muslims have done that.
Click to expand...

So if it's not Muslims, it's not terrorism?
 
Kobie said:
So if it's not Muslims, it's not terrorism?
Click to expand...

I do not know. Were US attacks on civilians in Japan 1945, Korea 1950-'53, Southeast Asia 1965-'73 acts of terror?
 
Desert Storm said:
Oh puhhhleeasseee.

They were done to end a World War, they werent done to START a Jihad!!
Click to expand...

Hiroshima and Nagasaki had strategic objective. Osama also had strategic objectives in 9/11/01. Which acts are terror?
 
molten_dragon said:
How exactly is someone supposed to keep members of a religion out of the US. Has it never occurred to you that when asked if they're muslim, a terrorist might lie?
Click to expand...

I think it's reasonable to expect a terrorist would lie.

Since that is a reasonable assumption, it would make sense then to identify the countries where such terrorists live and operate, as opposed to just a religious test. Instituting a more determined and regimented process to allow people from such countries to enter the US would be logical.

If the idea were to simply label all Muslims terrorists, a policy that bans or restricts citizens from all Muslim majority countries would follow.

To my knowledge, the US has not called for a ban or restrictions on citizens travelling from all Muslim majority countries.
 
SCitizen said:
Hiroshima and Nagasaki had strategic objective. Osama also had strategic objectives in 9/11/01. Which acts are terror?
Click to expand...

Napalm and nukes.

It's not terror when we do it.

TrangBang.jpg
 
SCitizen said:
Hiroshima and Nagasaki had strategic objective. Osama also had strategic objectives in 9/11/01. Which acts are terror?
Click to expand...

Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved the lives of millions of Allied soldiers, sailors and marines and tens of millions of Japanese soldiers and civilians.
 
Nilly said:
Napalm and nukes.

It's not terror when we do it.

TrangBang.jpg
Click to expand...

So should we have invaded Japan directly? Do you have any idea how many casualties that would have caused on both sides?
 
Tigerace117 said:
Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved the lives of millions of Allied soldiers, sailors and marines and tens of millions of Japanese soldiers and civilians.
Click to expand...

Osama had strategic goals which were achieved by 9/11/01. Horrible but true.
 
Kobie said:
So if it's not Muslims, it's not terrorism?
Click to expand...

Correct; without Muslims, Mossad, NATO, and the CIA terrorism would be practically nonexistent.
 
Last edited:
Tigerace117 said:
Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved the lives of millions of Allied soldiers, sailors and marines and tens of millions of Japanese soldiers and civilians.
Click to expand...

Tigerace117 said:
So should we have invaded Japan directly? Do you have any idea how many casualties that would have caused on both sides?
Click to expand...

You can deal in hypotheticals if you want, but the strategic goals of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were to instill so much fear/terror into the opposition that they would lay down their arms. It worked.

In principle, terrorists believe the same thing about bombing us.

I am very thankful that we live in a western liberal society that I think is objectively better to a theocratic authoritarian one. But it's naive to think that it did not come at a price (not just a price to ourselves, but at a price to other people). To a father who lost a child from a bomb, it won't matter to him whether it came from a muslim terrorist or the USAF.

If you think the ends justify the means (which it may well do) then sure, you can sleep easy at night knowing that bombing Japan, Syria, Iraq etc saved (hypothetically) a bunch of lives, but it is incredibly hypocritical to suggest that those countries are the only exporters of terror when they're only doing what we do, but on a far smaller scale.

If someone is to hold all Muslims or all Syrians or whatever as responsible for terrorism then they should at least be consistent and recognize their complicity in the terror inflicted on other regions around the world by western countries.

And this doesn't even begin to cover the hardship and terror inflicted on poor countries by US corporations.

SCOTUS to Decide If U.S. Corporations Can Be Liable for Overseas Terrorism - In House
 
Tigerace117 said:
So should we have invaded Japan directly? Do you have any idea how many casualties that would have caused on both sides?
Click to expand...

We had already been bombing Japan long before we dropped two nukes on them, in fact we were running out of military installations to bomb and began hitting urban areas. They weren't in a position to repel a ground force by the time the nukes dropped. And I don't think it was the Nukes that caused to quit the war, they didn't actually surrender til the Russians took Manchuria.

I think we dropped the bombs more to intimidate Stalin, than to beat the Japanese. Which would qualify it as an act of terrorism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Japan

Historians: Soviet offensive, key to Japan's WWII surrender, was eclipsed by A-bombs | Fox News
 
truthatallcost said:
There's over 100 current groups designated as terrorist organizations, most of them Muslim. I don't think the CIA created all of these groups.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_groups
Click to expand...

Way back, shortly after WWII ended, the CIA began distributing extremist propaganda material in the Middle East. Textbooks written in opposition to Russian infidels, Rhetoric print calling for Jihad on the Russians, and several other things. You see, they wanted to harden the people against the Russians using their religion. You know that old saying, gettem while they are young. The found young tribal leaders, and began funding and training them to keep Russia out of the area.

Then we expanded groups like Al Queda across the globe to destabilize regions and topple governments. Allowing our interests free unregulated reign.

So yeah, the CIA can be responsible for all those groups. Because most of those groups are second and third generation forms of the original groups the CIA did create and use extensively.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
We had already been bombing Japan long before we dropped two nukes on them, in fact we were running out of military installations to bomb and began hitting urban areas. They weren't in a position to repel a ground force by the time the nukes dropped. And I don't think it was the Nukes that caused to quit the war, they didn't actually surrender til the Russians took Manchuria.

I think we dropped the bombs more to intimidate Stalin, than to beat the Japanese. Which would qualify it as an act of terrorism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Japan

Historians: Soviet offensive, key to Japan's WWII surrender, was eclipsed by A-bombs | Fox News
Click to expand...

The Soviets had absolutely no ability to transport an amphibious assault force. Which is why their marines spent the war as urban combat specialists. The Soviet Pacific Fleet's biggest warship was a cruiser. Even the denuded IJN of 1945 could have posed a major threat to any such landing.

Now, it's hypothetically possible the Soviets could have tried an airborne assault--- after all, they and the Germans had been the first to really pioneer such tactics. But Crete and Allied experiences in Normandy and Sicily show that an airborne assault unsupported by conventional troops has a very hard time accomplishing its goals.

Actually, considering the Japanese tried to keep fighting even after we nuked them, it's safe to say no further peripherial invasions could have shaken them into surrender.
 
SCitizen said:
Osama had strategic goals which were achieved by 9/11/01. Horrible but true.
Click to expand...

Osama didn't save anyone's life via 9/11. He laid the seeds for the shattering of his own organization.
 
Last edited:
Tigerace117 said:
Osama did save anyone's life via 9/11.
Click to expand...

I do not know what his objective was. Definitely killing innocent civilians was wrong -- on 9/11/01, in Japan, Korean War, Vietnam War.
 
truthatallcost said:
There's over 100 current groups designated as terrorist organizations, most of them Muslim. I don't think the CIA created all of these groups.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_groups
Click to expand...

In 1953 the CIA assisted the British govt in bringing down Mossadegh, who was a democratically elected, progressive leader of Iran who championed secular government. We deposed him because he didn't want to hand over oil to us. We appointed one of our own choices Zahedi, and this eventually led to the Iranian revolution of 1979 where the Islamist Grand Ayattollah Ruhollah Khomeini came into power.

Now who are one of the biggest state sponsors of terrorism? Under a theocratic government? Iran.

You reap what you sow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh
 
Last edited:
Tigerace117 said:
The Soviets had absolutely no ability to transport an amphibious assault force. Which is why their marines spent the war as urban combat specialists. The Soviet Pacific Fleet's biggest warship was a cruiser. Even the denuded IJN of 1945 could have posed a major threat to any such landing.

Now, it's hypothetically possible the Soviets could have tried an airborne assault--- after all, they and the Germans had been the first to really pioneer such tactics. But Crete and Allied experiences in Normandy and Sicily show that an airborne assault unsupported by conventional troops has a very hard time accomplishing its goals.

Actually, considering the Japanese tried to keep fighting even after we nuked them, it's safe to say no further peripherial invasions could have shaken them into surrender.
Click to expand...

Manchuria was on the mainland and a vital part to the Japanese war machine, as the US had bombed Japan itself extensively crippling them there.

"The impact of the lightning Soviet advance comes through in the words of Japan's wartime prime minister, Kantaro Suzuki, urging his cabinet to surrender.

He is quoted in Hasegawa's book as saying, "If we miss (the chance) today, the Soviet Union will take not only Manchuria, Korea and Sakhalin, but also Hokkaido. We must end the war while we can deal with the United States."

Historians: Soviet offensive, key to Japan's WWII surrender, was eclipsed by A-bombs | Fox News

They surrendered for the same reason Hitler shot himself, they didn't want to deal with the Russians. In spite of us bombing their homes and causing hundreds of thousands of casualties (way more than the Nukes) and then dropping the Nukes, they would have rather dealt with us.

But you keep telling yourself it didn't matter because the Russians didn't have boats, that it was two special bombs that that did it, when thousands of bombs hadn't before. Just keep telling yourself that.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
And without the US specifically the CIA, Islamic Extremism would be practically non existent...

America Created Al-Qaeda and the ISIS Terror Group | Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization
Click to expand...

Thankfully your source is wrong. It perpetuates the usual "the Taliban are the same thing as the Mujahideen" myth(which is the equivelent of claiming the Free French are the same thing as the Action Directe terrorist group of the Cold War).

Additionally, it makes another obvious mistake by claiming ISIS having American arms means the US has been arming ISIS. Quite a bit of American made weaponry was supplied by America to the legitimate government of Iraq and then captured by ISIS,magic happens is where said equipment comes from. Obviously your source hasn't been paying close enough attention.

Oh, and despite the "poor innocent Iran" shtick, according to my copy of the book "A Quick and Dirty Guide to War"(4th Edition) here is a listing of some of the countries where Iran has been conducting covert operations in in recent times:

Israel, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan(supporting Azeri troops against Armenia) radicals in Turkey, Islamist terrorist groups in Malayasia and the Philippines, arms and supplies for Bosnian Muslims, supporting Sudan as well as radicals in Somalia and Ethopia, radicals in Egypt and several Central Asian states, arms for Algerian fanatics, and attempting at radicalizing the ethnic Muslim groups in Western Europe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom