- Joined
- Nov 11, 2013
- Messages
- 33,522
- Reaction score
- 10,826
- Location
- Between Athens and Jerusalem
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
ISIS, Paris, Africa, Asia
ISIS, Paris, Africa, Asia-terrorist groups are rapidly expanding as is radical islam in general-even more disconcerting is they are becoming highly organized. Thousands around the world have died due to islamic terrorists just over the last few days. Despite Obama being POTUS, radical groups seem to be expanding.
Has terrorism flourished under Obama? In any case, kindly explain why.
Terrorism has been "flourishing" ever since 2004..........
GTD Data Rivers
Oh boy that war on terror seems to be working real well!
But I get it, OBAMA SUCKS! THE LEFT SUCKS!
I don't think Obama is president of those places.
That's quite a paranoid fantasy you have going. The ODS is strong.
Its been "exponentially expanding" since 2004... All data suggests this.Your own chart suggests its exponentially expanded under Obama.
I dont vote in polls that are clear hackery. The rise of terrorism is bigger than one person. The supplying of Islamic jihadis in the 80's, the destabilization of the middle east is all to blame. At least 5 administrations can all share parts of the blame for this monstrous reaction of our policies.How did you vote?
I think he has a presence in many, and influence in still more. POTUS (before Obama) was the leader of the free world.
Its been "exponentially expanding" since 2004... All data suggests this.
I dont vote in polls that are clear hackery. The rise of terrorism is bigger than one person. The supplying of Islamic jihadis in the 80's, the destabilization of the middle east is all to blame. At least 5 administrations can all share parts of the blame for this monstrous reaction of our policies.
The POTUS before Obama is why you see terrorism flourishing all over the world. Obama hasn't helped the situation by maintaining horrible Bush policies, but I haven't see too many skiers who could stop the avalanche they are swept up in either.
I did answer that. "The supplying of Islamic jihadis in the 80's, the destabilization of the middle east is all to blame. At least 5 administrations can all share parts of the blame for this monstrous reaction of our policies."Its quite true that terror didn't start with Obama, however Obama is POTUS and leader of the free world. Why does terror expand under him? You never answered that.
I did answer that. "The supplying of Islamic jihadis in the 80's, the destabilization of the middle east is all to blame. At least 5 administrations can all share parts of the blame for this monstrous reaction of our policies."
I voted yes-Obama is seen as a weak leader who appears to prefer playing domestic politics rather than combat terror. ISIS only exists in Iraq because Obama lost the peace there for votes.
Its a shame but it will take a new POTUS (Republican) to clean up Obama's mess.
ISIS only exists because the Bush Administration choose to go into Iraq back in 2003 and depose a contained dictator that was no longer a threat to the United States. If we had continued the policy of containment in Iraq like we had since the original Gulf War, then Iraq would not be the mess it is today, there would have been no "Arab Spring", there would have been no resurgent Iran, there would have been no Al Qaeda in Iraq which later became ISIS. I mean seriously, were you in a coma from 2001 through 2009?? The neoconservative Middle Eastern social experiment is what created all this for us. Its your team that through the grenade in the outhouse that is now bitching about **** being everywhere because of it.
So we agree here, then that terror is flourishing under Obama?
ISIS exists because Obama pulled out of Iraq and left them a giftwrapped present.
ISIS exists because Obama pulled out of Iraq and left them a giftwrapped present.
Oh for crying out loud. I guess we should have stayed in that country for the next century spending a 100 billion a year there. Mind you, even the Iraqi government did not want us there anymore and if we stayed they wanted us to agree to subject our soldiers to their courts of law. Nevertheless, to appease the chicken hawks that "bravely" commit American lives and tax dollars to their failed nation building social experiments, we should have just stayed there doing all we could to cobble the country together with its corrupt and ineffectual government indefinitely.
In that terrorism is the use of violence by non-governmental entities in order to achieve a political goal, no. Terrorism seems to be pretty unchanged as a tactic for a long long time. Don't forget, World War 1 began with an act of terrorism. What is currently different is Islamic terrorism, but that's just the current breed. There were different types before and there will be different types after. That's one more reason why the war on terror is bull. It's really a war on the political sovereignty of a handful of oil rich nations.
A small force to maintain a constant presence (as in Germany, Japan, etc) would have done that. In the mean time the nation could have gotten its footing-but instead Obama pulled out and lost the peace-and now we are back. So you tell me outside of helping Obama in an election season-who benefited?
A little Social Studies lesson for you: Iraq is not Germany or Japan.
ISIS has about 30,000 members or so depending on the estimate. Iraq has about 250,000 in its military. Yet, despite having nearly 9 times as many people in it's Army and being much better equipped than ISIS, the Iraqi government cannot defeat ISIS in its own country because it is that corrupt and impotent. If you think that leaving some little residual force in Iraq would have made any difference then you are in a dream world. It takes a brutal dictator to keep Iraq under control. The only time we ever even remotely pacified the country was during the surge, and that was hardly a small force. We either need to accept the fact it would a surge level military commitment indefinitely to pacify that country or we need to find another dictator to prop up there. Of course, had we left the last dictator running it and contained, we would not have these problems today.
Nobody is claiming terrorism is a new tactic-though you referencing its history does bring up the fact that at the very least, these attacks were able to be suppressed in the past-but that came through oppression and violence.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?