Terrorist are winning.

[Rebiu]

If we apply the rhetoric and perspective of the President we must conclude that the US is loosing the war on terror.

 

President claims that the terrorists hate our freedoms and want to destroy them. The patriot act, unwarranted surveillance, illegal imprisonment, disregard for due process and many more show that the terrorists have succeeded in destroying a great deal of our freedoms.

 

President claims that we are fighting the terrorists in Iraq so we do not have to fight them here. The President now admits that we are loosing the armed conflict in Iraq.

 

President said we must cut of the funds to the terrorists. He said himself that Iran was supplying money to the insurgents. Afghan and world drug trade is surging and much of this money is going to the terrorists.

 

Terrorist attacks worldwide are way up since the beginning of the war on terror.

 

The discovered and stopped plots in the US have all been established citizens without previous ties to Al Queda. Homegrown terrorism is on the rise.

 

Why are we loosing?

 

I suggest that Mr. President is our weakness. We have chosen a leader that does not have the brains, drive, intuition, common sense, or courage to match and beat the terrorists leaders.

[LJP07]

You can't come to that conclusion, currently maybe the war might be lost but he has much more back-up and could fleece the area if he wanted. But as regards losing, he can never actually "lose" the war with such a minority group with their colossal army.

[Rebiu]

You can't come to that conclusion, currently maybe the war might be lost but he has much more back-up and could fleece the area if he wanted.

I said loosing not lost. What do you mean by fleece?

But as regards losing, he can never actually "lose" the war with such a minority group with their colossal army.

If one cannot loose they cannot win.

[Rebiu]

You can't come to that conclusion, currently maybe the war might be lost but he has much more back-up and could fleece the area if he wanted. But as regards losing, he can never actually "lose" the war with such a minority group with their colossal army.

 

I seem to recall the colossal USSR army retreating in defeat from Afghanistan.

[sebbysteiny]

President claims that the terrorists hate our freedoms and want to destroy them. The patriot act, unwarranted surveillance, illegal imprisonment, disregard for due process and many more show that the terrorists have succeeded in destroying a great deal of our freedoms.

 

I do not think your examples demonstrate what you are trying to demonstrate.

 

It takes a lot more than the govermnent having the right to tap phones of suspected terrorists and use that tappings as evidence for terrorism cases for me to say that the ideals of the West are truely under threat.

 

Extremely mild and justifiable intrusions into freedom of speech does not a dictatorship make. Wake me up when journalists start getting silenced or when a man unconnected with terror is convicted for a crime using such evidence. Or when political opponents get imprisoned for political reasons under the guise of terror. Because as long as GB remains a place where those captured in Iraq or Afghanistan in the front lines with no good excuse are held, I'm really not worried.

 

President claims that we are fighting the terrorists in Iraq so we do not have to fight them here. The President now admits that we are loosing the armed conflict in Iraq.

 

I can't help but notice there have been no further successful attacks on America since 9/11. I can see no better evidence of success than that.

 

President said we must cut of the funds to the terrorists. He said himself that Iran was supplying money to the insurgents. Afghan and world drug trade is surging and much of this money is going to the terrorists.

 

Evidence supporting the alligation that 'much' of the money in drugs goes to terrorists would be nice.

 

As would evidence that drugs is the main financer of terror. If only a small %age of finances of terror groups from drugs is low, then this is almost a misleading statistic.

 

Terrorist attacks worldwide are way up since the beginning of the war on terror.

After therefore because of logical falacy.

 

This is not knit picky logic. Almost every analysist in the Middle East predicted that with no action, things would be getting worse. And almost all those supporting the war on terror argued that things would get worse before they get better.

 

The discovered and stopped plots in the US have all been established citizens without previous ties to Al Queda. Homegrown terrorism is on the rise.

 

Again, the ultimate statistic is this. No of successful terror attacks since 9/11 = 0.

 

Why are we loosing?

 

I'm not convinced we are.

 

I suggest that Mr. President is our weakness. We have chosen a leader that does not have the brains, drive, intuition, common sense, or courage to match and beat the terrorists leaders.

 

In the end, this seems to be another Bush bash. Bush has his problems. But I'm not convinced 'intelligence', 'courage' or even 'drive' are among them. Bush has a learning difficulty which makes him sound orally clumsy. But nobody I know in the higher echelons of political discusion disputes the mans clear intelligence and political talant.

[Racoon]

The war on terror is really a war with Islam. theres no sugar coating it. The world isn't big enough anymore.

 

We, the United States and its allies, are losing because we are merely being worn down and exhausting the money of future generations; while terrorist recruitment and support is on the rise.

 

Its fleecing of America; a peeling away of our freedoms combined with open-borders and off-shoring profiteering.

 

Theres nothing anyone can really do about it at this point, short of killing all the Muslim extremists, or allowing the Muslims to kill all the infadels....

 

:)

[IDMclean]

You can't come to that conclusion, currently maybe the war might be lost but he has much more back-up and could fleece the area if he wanted. But as regards losing, he can never actually "lose" the war with such a minority group with their colossal army.

 

I'm sorry Prolu2007. I must admit that made me laugh. Snort actually, but still I found it humorous.:)

 

I was thinking primarily of the multiple failed conquests across the world and through out the world. The shear number of stories (and verifiable events) where the little guy or force beats out, sometimes with little to no loss, the big guy or force.

 

Then on top of that this is an Idealogical war. That means that might does not make right, and the one who kills the most does not win. Well that might be win condition if you are a terrorist, but it's not for the "good" guys.

 

Not only could the terrorist succeed in this "war" but the reported "good" guys like our major governing branchs (so far removed from the right way of governance, and the founding principles) might actually be the weapon that turns the tides of this "war" as we slowly decay into facsist police state, where TERROR is the order of the day.

 

So I would encourage you to sit back, reread and think about what you have said and more importantly what others have said on the matter. There is plenty of information here in the Social Science forums and much more in the news and on wiki.

 

Read the definitions of Terrorism then ask yourself if we are moving away from the objectives of the terrorist?

[maikeru]

The war on terror is really a war with Islam. theres no sugar coating it. The world isn't big enough anymore.

 

I disagree. I think we're warring with ourselves, because we're not sure what we're warring against. Is it al-Qaeda? Insurgents in Iraq? Islamic extremists? Terrorists? Terrorists of all kinds? Only a military effort or one that encompasses more techniques and strategies? The original War on Terror was supposed to be against al-Qaeda and its affiliates. The current War on Terror, however, has devolved to the point that no major objectives are clear, and no major progress has been made. We war against everything and everyone, and we war against nothing and no one outside of ourselves.

 

The world is plenty big, but our perspectives, our memories, are too small.

 

We, the United States and its allies, are losing because we are merely being worn down and exhausting the money of future generations; while terrorist recruitment and support is on the rise.

 

I think it's a lack of focus and an expansion of our problems through carelessness and mismanagement.

[Rebiu]

I can't help but notice there have been no further successful attacks on America since 9/11. I can see no better evidence of success than that.

Where did you hear that? Here are a few examples of terrorist attacks on American citizens

 

2001

September 18, 5 killed and 17 ill from anthrax letters.

 

2002

June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.

 

2003

May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.

 

2004

May 29–31, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American.

June 11–19, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.

Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.

 

2005

Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan: Suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.

 

There have been over 2,000 fatalities and ten times that number of wounded and permanently maimed in Iraq.

 

With success like this the terrorists are our biggest fans.

[Rebiu]

It takes a lot more than the govermnent having the right to tap phones of suspected terrorists and use that tappings as evidence for terrorism cases for me to say that the ideals of the West are truely under threat.

 

Extremely mild and justifiable intrusions into freedom of speech does not a dictatorship make. Wake me up when journalists start getting silenced or when a man unconnected with terror is convicted for a crime using such evidence. Or when political opponents get imprisoned for political reasons under the guise of terror. Because as long as GB remains a place where those captured in Iraq or Afghanistan in the front lines with no good excuse are held, I'm really not worried.

Consider the case of

 

Brandon Mayfield

He was tracked by the FBI because he was a Muslim. They broke into his home several time and then arrested him when his print was misidentified in the Madrid train bombing. He was released after the Spanish authorities disagreed with the FBI on the print and they finaly relented. He would still be in jail if the Spanish had not insisted the FBI take a closer look at the evidence. He ended up with a two million dollar settlement and an apology.

 

Maher Arar

On Sept. 26, 2002, while in transit in New York’s JFK airport when returning home from a vacation, Arar was detained by US officials and interrogated about alleged links to al-Qaeda. Twelve days later, he was chained, shackled and flown to Syria, where he was held in a tiny “grave-like” cell for ten months and ten days before he was moved to a better cell in a different prison. In Syria, he was beaten, tortured and forced to make a false confession.

On September 18, 2006, the Commissioner of the Inquiry, Justice Dennis O'Connor, cleared Arar of all terrorism allegations.

 

Khaled Masri

Kidnapped, detained and tortured for 5 months until CIA figured out they had the wrong guy.

 

The Patriot Act has been used to obtain search warrants against doctors and scientists who had been warning about the threat of bioterrorism in the U.S. The most prominent such cases are Dr. Steven Hatfill and now Dr. Kenneth Berry. No evidence has been produced against either man, but the highly publicized raids on their homes.

 

There are more known cases and many more yet to be discovered.

 

Soon we will need pasports to travel to Mexico and Cananada these cost several hundred dollars and take about two month to get. Signifigantly less freedom.

 

Some of the “protection” for the American people in the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 includes further moves to eliminate The Freedom of Information Act in the name of national security, giving the government greater secrecy in detaining, jailing, holding, and arresting individuals branded as terrorists. Under this bill, the federal government wouldn’t need to release any material to the public about whom it has under arrest. Anyone who is thought to be a terrorist or who could become a terrorist can simply be taken from their homes, work, or off the street, and be imprisoned indefinitely, without the ability to notify friends or family. Anyone who is detained/arrested and is suspected of being a terrorist will be locked away, without opportunity for bail, until their tribunal. He or she can also be hauled off to another country, where pesky rules and laws against such interrogation “techniques” as torture don’t exist. All without being formally charged with a crime.

[sebbysteiny]

With success like this the terrorists are our biggest fans.

 

1) The anthrax was not a terrorist plot. It was done by a crazy non-Islamic man acting independantly from any Islamic terror organisation.

 

2) All the other examples are regarding attacks on foreign targets in the Middle East. Such places have been targetted before and since 9/11.

 

The point is that the homeland is now out of reach, or has been since 9/11 at least. This shows that the war against terror has been perfectly successful in moving the front line of the war against terror from the streets of new york to the streets of the middle East.

[Rebiu]

Almost every analysist in the Middle East predicted that with no action, things would be getting worse.

Perhaps you could provide some sources on this rather dubious assertion.

And almost all those supporting the war on terror argued that things would get worse before they get better.

It has been four years and things just keep getting worse and worse with not "better" in sight. Claiming that you knew your policies would make things worse does not excuse a president from failing to produce any results.

[Edella]

1)

The point is that the homeland is now out of reach, or has been since 9/11 at least. This shows that the war against terror has been perfectly successful in moving the front line of the war against terror from the streets of new york to the streets of the middle East.

London and Madrid bombings, Sebby.

 

Again, the ultimate statistic is this. No of successful terror attacks since 9/11 = 0.

Do you think this statement would qualify as Post hoc ergo propter hoc,the "after therefore because of " logical fallacy you mentioned earlier?

[Buffy]

Just posted by ABC News:

 

London Braces for Attack; 'Miracle' If There Isn't One...

 

Ignorance is Bliss,

Buffy

[Rebiu]

In the end, this seems to be another Bush bash. Bush has his problems.

What are these problems you acknowledge.

But I'm not convinced 'intelligence', 'courage' or even 'drive' are among them. Bush has a learning difficulty which makes him sound orally clumsy. But nobody I know in the higher echelons of political discusion disputes the mans clear intelligence and political talant.

You call approval ratings of his handling of Iraq below %30 political talent? Loosing his parties control of both houses of congress = clear political intelligence in you eyes. Firing General Shinseki when he said the post war occupation would require several hundred thousand soldier and then firing the man who he had canned Shinseki when it turns out he was right. Please tell me of the Presidents great accomplishments.

[IDMclean]

Also Sebby, the assertion made was world wide terrorism is up. Not the American front, necessarily. Though I don't think that America is to far from the edge on this one. The more oppressive a government becomes, the more malcontent it generates in it's own people. This can be shown through a study of history.

 

Now I have to ask, Sebby, what does it matter if a person is islamic or not, part of al-queda or not? A terrorist by any other name is still a terrorist. Which to me is:

Source: Terrorism

 

Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political, nationalist, or religious goals. As a type of unconventional warfare, terrorism means to weaken or supplant existing political landscapes through capitulation, acquiescence, or radicalization, as opposed to subversion or direct military action.

 

"Terrorist attacks" usually are characterized as "indiscriminate", the "targeting of civilians", or as executed "with disregard for human life". The term "terrorism" often is used to assert that the enemy's political violence is immoral, wanton, and unjustified. Per the most common definition of terrorism — typically used by states, academics, counter-terrorism experts, and civil, non-governmental organizations —, "terrorists" are actors who do not belong to any recognized armed forces or who don't abide the laws of war, and who, therefore, are regarded as "rogue actors".

 

Those labelled "terrorists" rarely identify themselves so and, instead, typically use terms referring to their ideological or ethnic struggle, such as: separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, revolutionary, vigilante, militant, paramilitary, guerrilla, rebel, jihadi or mujaheddin, or fedayeen, or any similar-meaning word in other languages.

 

Terrorism has been used by a broad array of political organizations in furthering their objectives; both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic, and religious groups, revolutionaries and ruling governments.[1]

 

Some persons and governments believe that the term "Terrorism", as defined in dictionaries, now has a negative connotation, under the theory that a person who attacks the civilian population is, instead, a militant, regardless of the status of the victims of terrorism.

 

The highlighted part is why I would say we are playing into the hands of the terrorist.

 

 

Terrorist does not imply islamic. In fact, I would categorize that as racial profiling.

 

So, it is not germane to the thread as to whether it is just Middle Eastern terrorist. When we talk about terrorism we are talking about it anywhere and everywhere it occures.

 

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

-Martin Luther King Jr.

Letter from Birmingham Jail

[sebbysteiny]

So the first issue is what is 'the war on terror'. Is it Islamic terror, or is it all terror.

 

I'm fairly convinced that it is against all terror in principal but with the main focus on Islamic terror.

 

If you allow non-Islamic terror to count (to prove an attack on home soil), then you must also include the successes against these organisations.

 

These include:

 

The dismantling and almost complete conversion to democratic means of Eta;

 

The Northern Island peace process in which the IRA has actually decommissioned it's arms and called to also persue their policies at the ballet box.

 

But we all know the main fight is against Islamic terror. So it is up to the person who started this thread to choose. Are you going to allow examples of non-Islamic terror, in which case one must include both the successes and the setbacks, or are you not?

 

Time out.