A note to readers always , ALWAYS , go through these mass source propaganda type posts. You will be surprised what you find.
Remember the incidents in the list are supposed to be a response to this statement
" Funny, I haven't heard of any large Islamic attacks on Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Luxembourg, The Bahamas and on and on "
and are supposed to refute the charge that if you don't get involved in attacking other countries you are safer from attack than if you do
here's the list again and my response will be , because of the sheer numbers/site word restrictions , carried out over a series of posts for reasons of clarity starting at the beginning
1. 2010 Stockholm bombings
Two bombs went off in the attacks carried out by a Muslim of Iraqi origin who had posted links to videos of Iraqi prisoner abuses ( presumably Abu Ghraib ) on his face book account. Before the bombs went off an email was sent to the Swedish authorities and a media outlet that stated the attack was a response to Swedish forces involvement in Afghanistan , it also stated “"Now your children, daughters and sisters will die in the same way our brothers and sisters die “
The bomber himself was the only fatality with two people receiving minor injuries
To conclude it was not a “ large scale “ attack . And it actually confirms the opposite of what the poster intended IE Swedish involvement in the war was what inspired it ( get used to the idea , it will appear again soon )
2. Syrian Islamist group planning terror attack on Norway
This second link doesn’t even refer to an attack that has occurred , it only refers to speculation that some Norwegian Muslims might plan stuff on their return from Syria where , you’ve guessed it , Western interference and that of its allies has accounted for much of the death and destruction there. If the US and others carry out the threat to extend bombing campaigns in Syria these people may well carry out their alleged plans.
Once again this runs directly counter to the posters alleged assertion and is not proof of his claims anyhow
Do people really need to find out what the problem with the French is with some Algerians ?
Those three countries and many others are fighting Islamic seperatists and those groups havent attacked anyone outside of those countries. You know, like Hamas hasnt attacked the US either.
So youre wrong again.
What Should We Do To End The Terror War?
I dont care how crazy Islamists live in their societies, when they are muslim societies, since that is a part of what has produced them, but they have brought it to western societies, and they are a scourge. Imo, it is a shame that we can't turn them into dust. Every single one.
(And we aren't going to end this war, because we dont have the stomach to do what it takes)
we should get out of the Middle East entirely and replace oil. we should also close all embassies in hostile regions.
Although oil is the more popular topic when it comes to US involvement, it's also about standing by current allies in the region who stand to lose by our pulling out. And it's also about maintaining some semblance of a status quo in stability, especially with regards to when nuclear weapons finally arrive in the non-Israeli Middle East.
The regional powers need to act to bring stability to their own region. We cannot and should not attempt to do it for them.
Yes, and when/if we leave, they're going to achieve that "stability" any way they can, such as by acquiring nuclear weapons.
Good idea except for one thing. One cannot eradicate terrorism by force alone. Plus if one were to pile up all the peaceful nation forces in a polar position to terrorists it may polarize positions even more (i.e., may increase recruiting).
The best possible scenario would be for another superpower (e.g., Russia or China?) to attempt to squash terrorists by force. Sometime the smarter members of the country may turn for help towards us. Then we could intervene (with agreement of course) and "remove" the superpowers' suppressive force. Then we could be heroes rather then the enemy and we would eliminate terror.
Thereby perhaps the sum of all and possible other ideas may do better service to aid anti-terror campaigns compared to just force.
But it wouldn't be by force alone. It would be via shared intelligence to thwart plots before they could be implemented, to mutually cooperate to shut off funding, and swift retaliation. Once terrorism becomes ineffective and nonproductive for the terrorists, recruitment and cooperation becomes more difficult for them to achieve. And most would likely eventually just give up and find something else to do. Weakness and timidity only encourages more terrorism. Taking charge of the situation instead of allowing them to dictate it is the only way to go.
It doesn't need to refer to an attack, the fact the Norwegian authorities claimed an attack was planned proves the threat is real and that was the point.
Likewise the Stockholm bombings didn't need to be a large scale attack to show that the threat exists and in that case was followed through.
One also needs to point out the fact that it only takes one case to prove it that it doesn't take an occupation or attacks on Islamic terrorists to draw their attacks.
" Funny, I haven't heard of any large Islamic attacks on Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Luxembourg, The Bahamas and on and on "
and are supposed to refute the charge that if you don't get involved in attacking other countries you are safer from attack than if you do
British security forces were immediately placed on alert amid fears that Norway’s worst terrorist outrage might be the first in a series of attacks on the West. The carnage followed repeated warnings that al-Qaeda was planning a Mumbai-style attack on countries involved in the war in Afghanistan, where Norway has about 500 troops.
One will also point out you're the only propagandist here knowing you'd defend Islamic terrorism and spread anti-Western propaganda wherever you'd go.
And you ain't the only one who can overuse the bold function.
(...)
So out of the original list that your post was supposed to be a response to only one country had actually been attacked by Islamic terrorists and the reason given was their involvement in the attack on Afghanistan :roll:
Pointing out that some people will go to any lengths to continue the war against Muslims , even conjuring up attacks that haven't happened , and using examples that support the case of the opposition , is not " defending Islamic terrorism ". It's just highlighting those that abuse the links they provide
The " overuse " is only in your imagination
Its been 13 years since 9/11 and yet it seems there are now more terrorists than ever before. Can this war be won? What are your thoughts on this? Are the governments of the West doing the right things or are they making the situation worse?
As for me, I dont want to see another American solider or civilian killed in a pointless war with no end. The West needs to stop minding the business of other countries. No more overseas military bases or occupation- if these Islamists want to live according to their religion then I say let them do it. These very governments like Saudi Arabia, who we are fighting with to maintain their status quo over there are the very people who bankroll these terrorists. The US has got the largest shale oil deposits in the world- more than the entire middle east combined, why not spend billions in developing these fields and get oil form then instead of letting the Arabs do it and paying them for it?
Exactly.
See my post 2 in this thread about helping people in the area find something else to do. It is also a method of taking charge in the area.
The question concerns what the West should do to end the war on terror. This question implies that the conclusion of this campaign is entirely up to the West. In fact, the various terrorist organizations ranging from Al Qaeda to ISIS have a lot of influence on this matter.
Such a skewed response is inconsistent with prevailing national attitudes. A recent Gallup Poll suggested that 81% of U.S. respondents felt that ISIS poses a critical (50%) or important (31% important but not critical) threat to the vital interests of the United States. (See Gallup Poll of September 20-21, 2014: Iraq). Ignoring such a threat (the non-interventionist/neo-isolationist approach) would not be a logical choice. A 9/12-15 CBS Poll (same website) revealed that 71% of Americans support U.S. airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq and 69% support airstrikes against ISIS in Syria. Moreover, that poll indicated that 57% felt that President Obama’s approach is not tough enough and 31% felt that it is about right. The “too tough” (closest analogy to the non-interventionist/neo-isolationist approach) option garnered 2% of respondents.
Nonsense. Do you deal with rapists by helping them find something else to do? Arsonists? Burglars? Deal with terrorists by convincing them they will reap few rewards and a whole lot of grief if they continue to engage in terrorism. I am NOT advocating taking charge of any country unless we need to declare war upon which we should go in with overwhelming force and bludgeon them into complete submission and unconditional surrender and then dictate to them the terms by which they regain their autonomy. Otherwise as long as they leave us and our interests alone, they are none of our business.
Its been 13 years since 9/11 and yet it seems there are now more terrorists than ever before. Can this war be won? What are your thoughts on this? Are the governments of the West doing the right things or are they making the situation worse?
As for me, I dont want to see another American solider or civilian killed in a pointless war with no end. The West needs to stop minding the business of other countries. No more overseas military bases or occupation- if these Islamists want to live according to their religion then I say let them do it. These very governments like Saudi Arabia, who we are fighting with to maintain their status quo over there are the very people who bankroll these terrorists. The US has got the largest shale oil deposits in the world- more than the entire middle east combined, why not spend billions in developing these fields and get oil form then instead of letting the Arabs do it and paying them for it?
Its been 13 years since 9/11 and yet it seems there are now more terrorists than ever before. Can this war be won? What are your thoughts on this? Are the governments of the West doing the right things or are they making the situation worse?
As for me, I dont want to see another American solider or civilian killed in a pointless war with no end. The West needs to stop minding the business of other countries. No more overseas military bases or occupation- if these Islamists want to live according to their religion then I say let them do it. These very governments like Saudi Arabia, who we are fighting with to maintain their status quo over there are the very people who bankroll these terrorists. The US has got the largest shale oil deposits in the world- more than the entire middle east combined, why not spend billions in developing these fields and get oil form then instead of letting the Arabs do it and paying them for it?
Both of those groups have had support from the US and/or their allies in the region, Getting rid of Assad ( see project for a new American century which predates 9/11 and the war on terror ) proved the duplicity of the approach as did events in Libya ( see PNAC again )
Not supporting the national war is also seen as unpatriotic.
You're referring here to the list of nations he specifically listed, which includes Sweden, Norway and the Bahamas. How ridiculous.
My comment was there to show that countries that didn't occupy Islamic land were also under attack from Islamic terrorism and the list of nations that fit these situations pretty much proves this already known fact.
Try again.
So were you when you provided all those links that backed the very opposite of what you claimed they did. It wasn't "ridiculous" then was it ?
Sweden and Norway have provided troops that have played a part in the occupation of Afghanistan
The links you provided backed that up. You just didn't expect anyone to take the time to go through them , obviously.
And as POS has already stated some of the others contain references to separatist movements in other countries.
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?