• 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!

Al-Qaeda-linked terror plot targeting Europe foiled

Is it just me, or is this "war on terror" we've been on for the past decade about to go the same useless way as the other un-winable wars like the "war on drugs" or the "war on poverty"? Can a war on a concept ever be won? It seems to me the terrorist threat on the West is pretty much the same it was on 9/10/01. Can someone explain to me what exactly this war on terror has accomplished so far? It seems to me that intelligence agencies have been far more effective at fighting terrorism than any military action. What's the point of staying in Afghanistan?
 
Is it just me, or is this "war on terror" we've been on for the past decade about to go the same useless way as the other un-winable wars like the "war on drugs" or the "war on poverty"? Can a war on a concept ever be won? It seems to me the terrorist threat on the West is pretty much the same it was on 9/10/01. Can someone explain to me what exactly this war on terror has accomplished so far? It seems to me that intelligence agencies have been far more effective at fighting terrorism than any military action. What's the point of staying in Afghanistan?

Depends on what the objectives of said war are.
If the objectives of the war on drugs is to minimize the use of drugs by 13% by the end of the year, it surely can be won.
If the objective is to minimize the use of drugs by 100% however then that's just impossible.

Likewise, the war on terror can minimize terrorism, it cannot completely erase it.
Of course, terrorism can never win either.
 
Depends on what the objectives of said war are.
If the objectives of the war on drugs is to minimize the use of drugs by 13% by the end of the year, it surely can be won.
If the objective is to minimize the use of drugs by 100% however then that's just impossible.

Likewise, the war on terror can minimize terrorism, it cannot completely erase it.
Of course, terrorism can never win either.

The rationale at the time was "We're gonna fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here."

Fat lot of good that has done, huh?

Given that the latest intelligence warns of the danger of homegrown terrorists, both in Europe and the US, and that these people are STILL able to go to Afghan-Pakistan border for training (not to mention Yemen too), I just don't know what our soldiers are dying for anymore over there.

And terrorism only wins if we give in to the fear.
 
The rationale at the time was "We're gonna fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here."

Fat lot of good that has done, huh?

Given that the latest intelligence warns of the danger of homegrown terrorists, both in Europe and the US, and that these people are STILL able to go to Afghan-Pakistan border for training (not to mention Yemen too), I just don't know what our soldiers are dying for anymore over there.

And terrorism only wins if we give in to the fear.

Yep. Pretty much.
 
The rationale at the time was "We're gonna fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here."

Fat lot of good that has done, huh?

Given that the latest intelligence warns of the danger of homegrown terrorists, both in Europe and the US, and that these people are STILL able to go to Afghan-Pakistan border for training (not to mention Yemen too), I just don't know what our soldiers are dying for anymore over there.

As I said, terrorism cannot be erased, as we're talking about a trend amongst individual human beings from all around the planet who decide that murdering civilians of a specific nationality would promote their political causes.
It can however be minimized.

Anyway I'm totally against labeling it as a "war on terror", it simply is the opposition to terrorism, something that should be inherent in every society.

And terrorism only wins if we give in to the fear.

Not entirely accurate. As I said terrorists seek to accomplish their political goals through the use of terrorism, through the creating of fear amongst the bulk of society, the common and average civilian.
They can never however acheive their goals through the use of terrorism, as by engaging in such inhuman acts they draw hatred upon them, hatred that would only cause strong opposition to the political goals that they seek.
 
Not entirely accurate. As I said terrorists seek to accomplish their political goals through the use of terrorism, through the creating of fear amongst the bulk of society, the common and average civilian.
They can never however acheive their goals through the use of terrorism, as by engaging in such inhuman acts they draw hatred upon them, hatred that would only cause strong opposition to the political goals that they seek.
You succumb to fear when you allow yourself to lash out blindly, or give up your own way of life to help prevent reoccurance. In London they still traveled on the Tube and the busses. Same in Madrid. He means that kind of thing.
 
You succumb to fear when you allow yourself to lash out blindly, or give up your own way of life to help prevent reoccurance. In London they still traveled on the Tube and the busses. Same in Madrid. He means that kind of thing.

Arcana is a she.
And yes you don't need to stop your life, simply be more attentive and alert.
The terrorists can never win because they will never achieve their goals through the targeting of the civilian population, they'll only create a stronger opposition to said goals.
 
And terrorism only wins if we give in to the fear.

I think it wins if we give in to denial, myself.

It is this blase' sense of denial that will facilitate it to a far greater degree than a unified effort to confront it. The problem in the west isn't one of a struggle between those united in their wish to preserve their way of life against the threat of Islamism but just happen to disagree upon the best methods for doing so, but between those who wish to preserve their way of life and those who deny the threat even exists.
 
Not entirely accurate. As I said terrorists seek to accomplish their political goals through the use of terrorism, through the creating of fear amongst the bulk of society, the common and average civilian.
They can never however acheive their goals through the use of terrorism, as by engaging in such inhuman acts they draw hatred upon them, hatred that would only cause strong opposition to the political goals that they seek.

They can and do succeed when they do so in their own country. It wouldn't be the first time that a terrorist group overthrows a legitimate government. And sometimes, after they succeed, we no longer call them terrorists anymore. We call them heroes, freedom fighters, dear leaders...etc...

But yeah, when it comes to these Islamist terrorists, I agree that what they are trying to do is doomed to fail time and again no matter what the fearmongers in some circles would like us to think.
 
I think it wins if we give in to denial, myself.

It is this blase' sense of denial that will facilitate it to a far greater degree than a unified effort to confront it. The problem in the west isn't one of a struggle between those united in their wish to preserve their way of life against the threat of Islamism but just happen to disagree upon the best methods for doing so, but between those who wish to preserve their way of life and those who deny the threat even exists.

There is no denial. The current wave of anti-Islam backlash sweeping over Continental Europe is evidence that we're only willing to go so far in our efforts at multi-culturalism. The change is palpable over here. The only country that still clings to unrealistic multi-cultural ideals is the UK.
 
Arcana is a she.
And yes you don't need to stop your life, simply be more attentive and alert.
The terrorists can never win because they will never achieve their goals through the targeting of the civilian population, they'll only create a stronger opposition to said goals.

Not necessarily the case. Al-Q purportedly had some success in Spain

BBC NEWS | Europe | Spanish government admits defeat

"But the BBC's Chris Morris in Madrid says the late swing to the Socialists also raises one disturbing thought.

If al-Qaeda was responsible for Thursday's attacks, it appears to have had significant influence in changing the government of a leading Western democracy, he says.
"


Paul
 
Not necessarily the case. Al-Q purportedly had some success in Spain

BBC NEWS | Europe | Spanish government admits defeat

"But the BBC's Chris Morris in Madrid says the late swing to the Socialists also raises one disturbing thought.

If al-Qaeda was responsible for Thursday's attacks, it appears to have had significant influence in changing the government of a leading Western democracy, he says.
"


Paul

I strongly doubt that changing the government of Spain was al-Qaeda's goal when it has carried terror attacks in Madrid.

Edit: Especially when the new PM comes up with this statement:

The Socialist party's Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero is now set to become Spain's new prime minister, ending eight years of conservative rule.

"My immediate priority will be to fight all forms of terrorism," he said in a victory speech on Sunday night.
 
Last edited:
Not necessarily the case. Al-Q purportedly had some success in Spain

BBC NEWS | Europe | Spanish government admits defeat

"But the BBC's Chris Morris in Madrid says the late swing to the Socialists also raises one disturbing thought.

If al-Qaeda was responsible for Thursday's attacks, it appears to have had significant influence in changing the government of a leading Western democracy, he says.
"


Paul

It's more complicated than that.

The Spanish population was overwhelmingly against Aznar's decision to join Bush and Blair's wars. They did not want their soldiers involved in a war they felt was not theirs to fight at the time and many also feared that it would bring Islamic terrorism to Spain.

When the Madrid attacks happened, Aznar's government tried to blame them on the basque terrorist group ETA. He did so until he could no longer deny the truth.

The Spanish people had enough of his bull**** and voted him out.
 
Not necessarily the case. Al-Q purportedly had some success in Spain

BBC NEWS | Europe | Spanish government admits defeat

"But the BBC's Chris Morris in Madrid says the late swing to the Socialists also raises one disturbing thought.

If al-Qaeda was responsible for Thursday's attacks, it appears to have had significant influence in changing the government of a leading Western democracy, he says.
"


Paul

Utter bull****. The polls were neck and neck before the bombing and the conservative government was under huge pressure after many scandals that had painted them as incompetent fools. When they, then go out and accuse ETA of the bombing from the start, the Spanish population had enough of a bunch of incompetent fools.

The American and British media really loved spinning this vote as some sort of victory for Al Q, but the reality is that Spain has lived under the threat of terror far longer than anyone else in Europe, and up to that point and after that they have yet to vote on the basis of said terror threat. Like it or not the conservative government at the time was its own worst enemy and they are still struggling with those problems to this day.
 
It's more complicated than that.

The Spanish population was overwhelmingly against Aznar's decision to join Bush and Blair's wars. They did not want their soldiers involved in a war they felt was not theirs to fight at the time and many also feared that it would bring Islamic terrorism to Spain.

When the Madrid attacks happened, Aznar's government tried to blame them on the basque terrorist group ETA. He did so until he could no longer deny the truth.

The Spanish people had enough of his bull**** and voted him out.

Some what right, but in fact far more complicated than that. Aznar's ass licking of Bush had very little impact in the over all campaign.. it was far more domestic issues that caused the swing in the polls and then of course the coup de grace was the Aznar governments jumping of the gun and blaming ETA.
 
c38ff04bb0.jpg
 
I said "I'm not claiming that they can't learn but it seems clear that too many of them don't learn".

And you responded:
Are you really asserting that the European vets on this forum aren't fluent in English?

It really is clear from this obvious incomprehension that you are one of those people I was referring to, isn't it?
 
Apparently you have no idea what the definition of genocide is. Using your logic, the Ottoman Turks didn't commit genocide since there are still Armenians left. :roll:

You come up with the most asinine conclusions ever.

The definition of genocide is "The systematic killing of a racial or cultural group".

If the American people were genuinely interested in the systematic killing of Indians they could have done it easily at any time, and indeed could do it today. But it was never genocide. The word is only used by the European left because they are not only unfamiliar with the definition of the term but also with American history. This is ever evident.
 
Moderator's Warning:
There were warnings in this thread (Posts #272/#273) to stop the personal innuendo and return to the topic. This is the final friendly warning. Infractions and thread bans will follow.
 
Actually, using his logic, we should totally erase the word genocide from the history books. After all, there are people from practically every single genocide ever committed still walking around. I guess that makes him a Holocaust denier too. :shock:

The holocaust was the "systematic killing of a racial or cultural group" while there was no such thing which ever occurred in the United States or Canada.

Do you really believe that with the overwhelming odds of the day, or when they were the world's only Superpower, that they could not eliminate Indians entirely if they were at all interested in committing genocide?

What's the matter with you people???
 
Is it just me, or is this "war on terror" we've been on for the past decade about to go the same useless way as the other un-winable wars like the "war on drugs" or the "war on poverty"? Can a war on a concept ever be won? It seems to me the terrorist threat on the West is pretty much the same it was on 9/10/01. Can someone explain to me what exactly this war on terror has accomplished so far? It seems to me that intelligence agencies have been far more effective at fighting terrorism than any military action. What's the point of staying in Afghanistan?

It is being fought quite unllike traditional wars. Think China and Tibet.

The tactics are terrorism and demographics. While Europeans have decided to have fewer children, or abort them, Muslims will continue to have children. They'll control Europe in about two generations.

You can live long and prosper, and I hope you do, but successive generations in Europe will be living under Sharia law. That is certain.
 
The definition of genocide is "The systematic killing of a racial or cultural group".

If the American people were genuinely interested in the systematic killing of Indians they could have done it easily at any time, and indeed could do it today. But it was never genocide. The word is only used by the European left because they are not only unfamiliar with the definition of the term but also with American history. This is ever evident.

Your definition is incomplete. Genocide is the deliberate and systematic killing, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

Please stop pretending that we didn't deliberately kill any and all First Nations people that got in our way. It was genocide. I'm sorry you find this truth so uncomfortable to accept. We did it in Canada and Americans did the same in the US.
 
It is being fought quite unllike traditional wars. Think China and Tibet.

The tactics are terrorism and demographics. While Europeans have decided to have fewer children, or abort them, Muslims will continue to have children. They'll control Europe in about two generations.

You can live long and prosper, and I hope you do, but successive generations in Europe will be living under Sharia law. That is certain.

You didn't answer my question. It's becoming increasingly clear that the threat is still the same it was on Sept. 10, 2001. You believe that it's only going to get worse. So what are we doing in Afghanistan again? Why not focus our efforts on intelligence, instead of wasting countless soldiers' lives for nothing?
 
Back
Top Bottom