Terrorist are winning.

[IDMclean]

In conclusion I would draw that if the objective of the "War on Terror" is to halt terrorism world wide, then we are in fact losing that conflict.

 

If the objective is to kill people, or subjegate the USA citizen under the yoke of what I can only describe as despotism, or the world for that matter. Then yes, we are in fact winning.

 

For all further disputes on the nature of the Constitution, and otherwise I would refer to the Federalist Papers.

[sebbysteiny]

The op's intent was do dialogue on wether the War on Terror is being won or lost. The morality angle is a strawman you grabbed onto because you could not stand up to the arguments suggesting we are loosing.

 

Not so fast grasshopper.

 

KAC and yourself I believe argued that one reason why we have lost is because we have done actions including go to war which is as immoral as the actions we are trying to stop.

 

I disagreed. Hence the lengthy moral debate that is very relavent to this debate.

 

You have not given an argument that stands up either .

 

The best you have said is that world wide terror has gone up. You refused to say if you were or were not including terror groups other than Al-Quaeda. Probably because you can't work out if it helps you yet. Perhaps now is a good time to put your cards on the table and give this debate a tangible meaning :doh:.

[Kriminal99]

Terrorists do not want to destroy our freedom. That is an idiotic statement by the president. Terrorists are people not inhuman demons. They want to gain their own freedom, and for whatever reason think killing us is the way to do it. Perhaps because we (our governments) influence their world according to our own beliefs which they may not agree with.

 

Any behavior by terrorists which might look like a desire to "destroy our freedom" could simply be reinterpreted as them trying to inflict on us who indirectly support our governments' and militarys' actions exactly what they feel has been inflicted on them by these governments.

[sebbysteiny]

Terrorists do not want to destroy our freedom. That is an idiotic statement by the president. Terrorists are people not inhuman demons. They want to gain their own freedom, and for whatever reason think killing us is the way to do it. Perhaps because we (our governments) influence their world according to our own beliefs which they may not agree with.

 

Any behavior by terrorists which might look like a desire to "destroy our freedom" could simply be reinterpreted as them trying to inflict on us who indirectly support our governments' and militarys' actions exactly what they feel has been inflicted on them by these governments.

 

This was true until a decade ago. With the advent of Islamic terror, the rules are rewritten in their entirety. They really ARE inhuman demons intent on destroying our freedom and even our right to live.

[InfiniteNow]

This was true until a decade ago. With the advent of Islamic terror, the rules are rewritten in their entirety. They really ARE inhuman demons intent on destroying our freedom and even our right to live.

 

Perhaps for you Seb, but that is a very bold statement and is limited to your own perceptions, not some absolute truth.

[Rebiu]

KAC and yourself I believe argued that one reason why we have lost is because we have done actions including go to war which is as immoral as the actions we are trying to stop.

The fact that we are currently loosing does not change in accordance with your moral orientation.

 

I disagreed. Hence the lengthy moral debate that is very relavent to this debate.

You simple found a new subject that you were more comfortable with.

 

You have not given an argument that stands up either.

Is that why you do not address the refutation of your assertions.

 

The best you have said is that world wide terror has gone up.

It was you who asserted, in error, that it had gone down.

You refused to say if you were or were not including terror groups other than Al-Quaeda. Probably because you can't work out if it helps you yet.

It is you who first maintained terrorism went down. Because it is your assertion you should choose. Either way terrorism has risen sharply.

Perhaps now is a good time to put your cards on the table and give this debate a tangible meaning.

Is that they best you can do?

[Rebiu]

This was true until a decade ago. With the advent of Islamic terror, the rules are rewritten in their entirety. They really ARE inhuman demons intent on destroying our freedom and even our right to live.

This statement shows you to be and unquestioning ideologue unaffected by facts, unyielding to evidence and blind to truth.

[Rebiu]

Terrorists do not want to destroy our freedom. That is an idiotic statement by the president. Terrorists are people not inhuman demons. They want to gain their own freedom, and for whatever reason think killing us is the way to do it. Perhaps because we (our governments) influence their world according to our own beliefs which they may not agree with.

 

Any behavior by terrorists which might look like a desire to "destroy our freedom" could simply be reinterpreted as them trying to inflict on us who indirectly support our governments' and militarys' actions exactly what they feel has been inflicted on them by these governments.

 

The president makes a lot of idiotic statements. The position that the terrorists hate us for our freedoms rather than the history of US foreign policy in the region is both unsupported and untenable. A increasingly schizophrenic rational must be used to prop up such claims in the face of mounting evidence that is never was the case hence the pattern of sebbystein's dialogue.

[Michaelangelica]

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

So it has taken you 5 years to realise this?

 

But Bush is not only LOOSING the "War on Terror" (sic)

He is promoting and encouraging terrorism throughout the world.

E.G.,

1.When will he stop Saudi Arabian money going to Terrorist groups?

 

2. If I was a Palestinian Father who had just lost my 6 kids and wife to an Israeli bomb; What do you think I will do next? Suicide or Homicide?(or both?)

 

3. The silly, pointless Iraq war is creating terrorist by the gross

 

4. The Arab/Muslim world can point to the abuses of Law that the so called "democracies" now indulge in. Showing the world that they are hypocrites.

[IDMclean]

One of the things that must be discussed and defined, at least partially before we can objectively decide whether the Terrorist are winning, is what are the terrorist winning?

 

What is the conflict, what type of conflict is it? What are the objectives of the terrorist, what are the objectives of the counter-terrorist {or opposing side(s)}?

 

What side are we? One of the ways to determine what side we objectively (which side we really) are, not subjectively (which side we think) are; is to determine what objectives we are pursue, and what actions are we using to pursue those objectives.

 

There is two things, as you have pointed out, Sebby, to consider in this. What is our intent, and what is our action?

 

For me, irregardless of what our intent is, our actions are serving what I would characterize to be the objectives of the terrorist. Now in law it maybe important to know if the defendant had the intent, but in game theory that is immaterial. What you intend to do and what you actually do are independent, and in a game all that matters is the action you take.

 

So like I said, I would say either way, we are losing (if we are not the "terrorist") or we are winning (if we are the "terrorist").