Are we losing the war on terrorism?

Forums: Politics, Terrorism
Email this Topic • Print this Page

It seems to me that we are hearing about terrorist attacks more than we ever did before. Has the news media just started reporting more of this stuff because they found out that words like "terrorism" and "terrorist cells" make people buy papers and tune in to radio and TV stations, or is it that we are losing the battle against terrorism?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,467 • Replies: 25

No top replies

I vote for "C- All of the above."

0 Replies

Over the years I've learned that where there's an action, there's a reaction. The US government likes to push their weight around and they are not doing their citizens any favors.

0 Replies

The Army War College's own report on the global war on terror (coming soon to a theatere near you!) states taht the "war" is unwinnable, and likely to do major damage to the United States.Bounding the Global War on Terrorism

0 Replies

Since the war began, there have ZERO terrorist attacks on American soil. I woould say that woould be an example of us "winning the war on terror".

0 Replies

Right. We've got troops being shot at and killed every day in Iraq, a huge chunk of the world's population hating our guts, and a significant losses in our rights to privacy.

But no recent attacks in the US means we're winning?

0 Replies

There have been exactly two events of such magnitude in American history, the first was the attack by an American Christian in Oklahoma. The difficulty in caryout such events makes them a poor predictor.
On the other hand, there have been numerous "terrorist incidents" in the US since 11th September. Abortion clinic bombings, the DC snipers, the Anthrax mailings, etc.....

0 Replies

D'artagnan wrote:

Right. We've got troops being shot at and killed every day in Iraq, a huge chunk of the world's population hating our guts, and a significant losses in our rights to privacy.

But no recent attacks in the US means we're winning?

Did you not understand what I wrote or are you purposefully being obstinate?

0 Replies

Alright Hairsplitterbob,

I think you know very well that McG was saying that there had been no new terrorist attacks on America by Muslim extremists and assorted other peoples from outside our borders.

Hobbit, you remind me of Clinton arguing about the definition of the word IS

0 Replies

So terrorism is fine as long as its American? Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Fedral wrote:

I think you know very well that McG was saying that there had been no new terrorist attacks on America by Muslim extremists and assorted other peoples from outside our borders.

Given that the occurance of such attacks is very rare you are arguing about an insignificant statistical sampling.

I'd not base any conclusions on it if I were you.

0 Replies

Or maybe attacking doctors and clinics isn't really terrorism?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Since the war began, there have ZERO terrorist attacks on American soil. I woould say that woould be an example of us "winning the war on terror".

McGentrix,

That's a very naive way of looking at it.

There have been many three year periods(and longer) with ZERO terrorist attacks on American soil.

Saying that this is an example of us "winning the war on terror", is like my "alien-abduction" keychain. I have never been abducted by aliens while I have had my keychain nearby. It must be the real thing.

0 Replies

So explain to me how we are losing then.

1. It's a war. Soldiers fight wars and soldiers die. 500 US compared to how many non-US? (your numbers)

2. No further terrorist attacks on US Soil from any known terror organizations. (If there were, I would be inclined to say we were losing...)

3. Libya has decided to disarm itself. NK is at the table for negotians. Etc... (Read Sofia's factual, informative posts)

4. A greater chunk of the world still likes the US and agrees with our policies.

5. Bush will most likely be re-elected.

So, there.

0 Replies

I don't think we are winning the war on terror. I think my "terror-preventing" keychain is doing the trick.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

So explain to me how we are losing then.

1. It's a war. Soldiers fight wars and soldiers die. 500 US compared to how many non-US? (your numbers)

Actually, the Army's own study suggests the US is incapable of "winning" a "Global War on Terrorism."

Quote:

2. No further terrorist attacks on US Soil from any known terror organizations. (If there were, I would be inclined to say we were losing...)

This has already been shown to be a fallacious argument.

Quote:

3. Libya has decided to disarm itself.

Except that negotiations between the UK and Libya date to 1998.

Quote:

NK is at the table for negotians. Etc... (Read Sofia's factual, informative posts)

NK is always willing to negotiate.

Quote:

4. A greater chunk of the world still likes the US and agrees with our policies.

Oh, the "coalition of the willing to be paid off" argument. I expected better from you, somehow.

Quote:

5. Bush will most likely be re-elected.

If there is even an election.

Quote:

So, there.

Up to your usual standars of reasoning, I see.

0 Replies

So if Bush will be re-elected is an identicatif for winning the war against terrorism?

And Libya has decided to dosarm itself? (Here, it is only known that the Tripoli's Dec. 19 pledge was about to abandon biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.)

IMHO, you never can "win" against terrorism, there will always be some, who just think they can't fullfill their ideas other than with hijackings, hostage takings, kidnappings, car bombings, or suicide bombings.

Looking back to men's history, terrorism appears to be an enduring feature of political life.

0 Replies

Your so good at deriding someone else's examples, but continue to fail at giving your own. You are suggesting we are losing the war on terror. How so? Stop reacting to my posts and try being creative on your own for once.

hobitbob wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
So explain to me how we are losing then.

1. It's a war. Soldiers fight wars and soldiers die. 500 US compared to how many non-US? (your numbers)

Actually, the Army's own study suggests the US is incapable of "winning" a "Global War on Terrorism."

"winning" as a final solution and "winning" as in not losing are 2 different things.

Quote:
2. No further terrorist attacks on US Soil from any known terror organizations. (If there were, I would be inclined to say we were losing...)

This has already been shown to be a fallacious argument.

No, this has been shown to be disagreed with.

Quote:
3. Libya has decided to disarm itself.

Except that negotiations between the UK and Libya date to 1998.

So? It took the impetus of the war in Iraq for Libya to commit. You just can't admit it.

Quote:
NK is at the table for negotians. Etc... (Read Sofia's factual, informative posts)

NK is always willing to negotiate.

No, they aren't and haven't been. Especially before the war.

Quote:
4. A greater chunk of the world still likes the US and agrees with our policies.

Oh, the "coalition of the willing to be paid off" argument. I expected better from you, somehow.

Yeah, you know, the majority of the world that consists of freedom loving peoples who supported the US.

Quote:
5. Bush will most likely be re-elected.

If there is even an election.

Now, there is a fallacious arguement. It's also a retarded view of American politics.

Quote:
So, there.

Up to your usual standars of reasoning, I see.

Ditto

0 Replies

We are losing quite a bit.

We have lost 500 US lives and thousands of Iraqi lives. We have also lost international credibility and near $100 billion dollars in Iraq.

We have lost civil rights and national fear.

In addition we may lose 4 more years with this disastrous presidency.

The question is if we are gaining enough to make it worthwhile. You point out that there hasn't been any terrorist attacks. The big question is whether there would have been any terrorist attacks without this "war on terrorism". Of course there is no way to answer this question one way or the other.

To answer your points.

1. I would say that the loss of any human life is terrible. 500 US soldiers is certainly a loss. Thousands of Iraqi civilians is just as bad. I hope you are not implying that we are winning because more of them died than us.

2. See above.

3. The US is now in a weaker position internationally. Syria is acting up and don't think that N.Korea is capitulating. They know that they are in a stronger negotiating position post-Iraq. The success in Libya is more a result of European Diplomacy than either your war or my bracelet.

4. Like who? I count Blair.

5. I hope not, but perhaps this is the greatest loss of all.

0 Replies

Today, the President said his main duty is to protect Americans. Not exactly doing a brilliant job of it whilst he continues shipping sitting-targets overseas for execution - even saving America-haters the effort of coming over here? Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Are we losing the war on terrorism?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know