• 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!

The War on Terror

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,079
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
This is directed mainly at people who feel either that the War on Terror is a good or positive thing, or that our military actions in the Middle East make us safer.

This idea flies totally in the face of logic. For a moment, put yourself in the shoes of an Iraqi or Afghani civilian. Take those pictures of neighborhoods being blown up, of houses destroyed, of civilians killed. Imagine those are your neighbors, your home, your street. Wouldn't that make you want to pick up a gun and fight back?

Additionally, these military actions create (rightly or wrongly) a great deal of anger at the United States. It radicalizes people because you take away ammunition from the rational arguments. A person trying to be moderate and point out that the US presence in the Middle East has been an overall benefit cant point to anything beyond a handful of feel-good stories and Saddam himself. Meanwhile the arguments that radicals present start looking better to someone else.

People get angry because their house was blown up or their son was shot and the people that want to talk that person out of falling in with the radical side dont have any reasonings to give him.

We are creating the problem we are ostensibly trying to combat, it's a feedback loop.

On top of that, we feed into this problem by supporting the notion that this kind of action is somehow helping us and by denouncing people who try to actually show everyone else what the true costs and consequences of this conflict are. It's more ammunition for the radicals to recruit with. "Look at these Americans. They come in here, take over, lie to us, kill journalists, shoot us, bomb our cities. And their people support it, watch their news, listen to their media."
 
Last edited:
T

This idea flies totally in the face of logic. For a moment, put yourself in the shoes of an Iraqi or Afghani civilian. Take those pictures of neighborhoods being blown up, of houses destroyed, of civilians killed. Imagine those are your neighbors, your home, your street. Wouldn't that make you want to pick up a gun and fight back?

Additionally, these military actions create (rightly or wrongly) a great deal of anger at the United States. It radicalizes people because you take away ammunition from the rational arguments. A person trying to be moderate and point out that the US presence in the Middle East has been an overall benefit cant point to anything beyond a handful of feel-good stories and Saddam himself. Meanwhile the arguments that radicals present start looking better to someone else.

People get angry because their house was blown up or their son was shot and the people that want to talk that person out of falling in with the radical side dont have any reasonings to give him.

We are creating the problem we are ostensibly trying to combat, it's a feedback loop.

On top of that, we feed into this problem by supporting the notion that this kind of action is somehow helping us and by denouncing people who try to actually show everyone else what the true costs and consequences of this conflict are. It's more ammunition for the radicals to recruit with. "Look at these Americans. They come in here, take over, lie to us, kill journalists, shoot us, bomb our cities. And their people support it, watch their news, listen to their media."


Terrorism is now a logical action, is it? Supporting terrorism makes one a "moderate?

Killing innocent people is not a logical response, but merely murder, and supporting such murder does not make you moderate -- only desperate.
 
Killing innocent people is not a logical response, but merely murder, and supporting such murder does not make you moderate -- only desperate.

There are no innocent people. There are only your people and aliens. Anything you do to aliens to destroy them and drive them from your shores is justified.
 
"War on terrror" is the bull**** contrivance of a PC president.

We are at war with Islam, and the reason we aren't winning it, is because we call it a war on terror.

Know your enemy.
 
Then why are so many of our allies in the War on Terror other Muslim countries? Shouldn't they be at war against us as well?
 
"War on terrror" is the bull**** contrivance of a PC president.

We are at war with Islam, and the reason we aren't winning it, is because we call it a war on terror.

Know your enemy.

I have a feeling that this guy is an Alfons sockpuppet

Anyway,
1)Only Islam-hating idiots like Alfons would declare war on Islam. Face it. Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Christians all torelate each other and live peacefully side by side (not sure about Islam and Judaism but let's hope that it would be resolved). They're all similar, monotheistic religions. I know many people that believe in both Buddhism and Christianity. Can't people just live by peace?
2)(In relation to 1) If you declare war on Islam, you declare war on the 1 billion people who believe in Islam. Complete BS
3)You have forgotten that most Muslims are peaceful, average citizens and that most predominantly Muslim countries are allies of the US and democratic? (Indonesia, etc...)
4)The quote is incorrect. It's Know Thine Enemy.
 
"War on terrror" is the bull**** contrivance of a PC president.

We are at war with Islam, and the reason we aren't winning it, is because we call it a war on terror.

Know your enemy.

Not really because I have fellow Marines here that are Muslims so do you declare war on those that serve the U.S.?
 
I have a feeling that this guy is an Alfons sockpuppet

Anyway,
1)Only Islam-hating idiots like Alfons would declare war on Islam. Face it. Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Christians all torelate each other and live peacefully side by side (not sure about Islam and Judaism but let's hope that it would be resolved). They're all similar, monotheistic religions. I know many people that believe in both Buddhism and Christianity. Can't people just live by peace?
2)(In relation to 1) If you declare war on Islam, you declare war on the 1 billion people who believe in Islam. Complete BS
3)You have forgotten that most Muslims are peaceful, average citizens and that most predominantly Muslim countries are allies of the US and democratic? (Indonesia, etc...)
4)The quote is incorrect. It's Know Thine Enemy.

You call other posters "idiot" while indulging in nothing but platitudes.

He may have overstated it in regards to the war on terrosm being misnamed as being against all of Islam, but to declare it a war on a tactic is certainly a misnomer. We are at war with a people, not a tactic, and the people with whom we are at war are the Islamists -- those who seek to establish a caliphate where sharia prevails.

The problem in identifying the war as a war upon a tactic is that it leads people to believe there are far fewer people fighing the war than there are in reality, as is much in evidence by your own response .
 
What are the options??

Should we become isolationists and wait for our enemy to bring the war to us? Let them get ever stronger in the Middle East, one country at a time? Pakistan has nukes. Should we wait and let the radical Muslims take over Pakistan? Thus their nukes?

It's really easy to take potshots at a strategy. Don't tell us about the problem. We all know the problem!! Give us another solution.
 
4)The quote is incorrect. It's Know Thine Enemy.

Because I paraphrase that makes a difference? Your effort to show how much more educated you think you are leaves you looking like the factoid nerd from grade school that got spit on at lunch every day.

The rest of your post is simplistically silly. Islam declared WAR on us, not the other way around. Call it "Radical Islam" if that makes you feel better, but it is the religion and it's tenets of the Qur'an that are the basis for the consternation.
 
Not really because I have fellow Marines here that are Muslims so do you declare war on those that serve the U.S.?

No, but I think they need to be scrutinized on their main allegiance.
 
The rest of your post is simplistically silly. Islam declared WAR on us, not the other way around. Call it "Radical Islam" if that makes you feel better, but it is the religion and it's tenets of the Qur'an that are the basis for the consternation.

In this regard, Islam is no different from the other Abrahamic religions. The tenets are virtually identical across all of them.
 
Last edited:
This is directed mainly at people who feel either that the War on Terror is a good or positive thing, or that our military actions in the Middle East make us safer.

This idea flies totally in the face of logic. For a moment, put yourself in the shoes of an Iraqi or Afghani civilian. Take those pictures of neighborhoods being blown up, of houses destroyed, of civilians killed. Imagine those are your neighbors, your home, your street. Wouldn't that make you want to pick up a gun and fight back?

Additionally, these military actions create (rightly or wrongly) a great deal of anger at the United States. It radicalizes people because you take away ammunition from the rational arguments. A person trying to be moderate and point out that the US presence in the Middle East has been an overall benefit cant point to anything beyond a handful of feel-good stories and Saddam himself. Meanwhile the arguments that radicals present start looking better to someone else.

People get angry because their house was blown up or their son was shot and the people that want to talk that person out of falling in with the radical side dont have any reasonings to give him.

We are creating the problem we are ostensibly trying to combat, it's a feedback loop.

On top of that, we feed into this problem by supporting the notion that this kind of action is somehow helping us and by denouncing people who try to actually show everyone else what the true costs and consequences of this conflict are. It's more ammunition for the radicals to recruit with. "Look at these Americans. They come in here, take over, lie to us, kill journalists, shoot us, bomb our cities. And their people support it, watch their news, listen to their media."

I believe the CIA has a term for this, its called "Blowback"
 
No, but I think they need to be scrutinized on their main allegiance.

Most were born in the U.S. they have fought and died for this Country and U.S. Should we be watching out for extermist yes always, but Ed don't become the McCarthy of Islam.
 
Most were born in the U.S. they have fought and died for this Country and U.S. Should we be watching out for extermist yes always, but Ed don't become the McCarthy of Islam.

No doubt you are correct, but there have already been multiple attacks by US Islamic soldiers, on fellow soldiers. There was one in theater a few years ago who did some nice praising of Allah with a grenade, and of course who can forget the number one hit by Hassan in Ft Hood?

No witch hunts, no. But intelligent scrutiny and non PC approach would have saved the lives of many of your fellow soldiers, by the hands of their brothers-in-arms.

BTW, thank you for your service.
 
Terrorism is now a logical action, is it? Supporting terrorism makes one a "moderate?
No, but if the moderate forces of a society dont have anything to point to when they try to dissuade or attack the extremists, there is very little they can do.

If all of the available information supports the extremists, the moderates have nothing to leverage.

If the US had gone it, removed Saddam, rebuilt infrastructure, and been out as quickly as possible, extremists in the region would have nothing to say. They'd still try, but the average person would be able to look at what we had actually done and say "This extremist guy is nuts."

What are the options??
Not rubbing our dicks in everyone's face, for a start.

Should we become isolationists and wait for our enemy to bring the war to us? Let them get ever stronger in the Middle East, one country at a time? Pakistan has nukes. Should we wait and let the radical Muslims take over Pakistan? Thus their nukes?
Actively fighting these kinds of groups only makes them stronger and screws us over in the end. We cant start wars with everyone who has nuclear weapons just to take them away. The answer is probably somewhere in between.

It's really easy to take potshots at a strategy. Don't tell us about the problem. We all know the problem!! Give us another solution.
1. Stop giving the extremists ammunition with a foreign policy that amounts to "democratize or we shoot you."

2. Stop complaining when people try to show you the true cost of this kind of war.
 
To use it subtly, and with care, as to not leave a sticky mess when you pull out.

The stickiness of our messes is typically a direct result of plunging in recklessly and then pulling out even more recklessly. We need to have clearly defined and objectively measurable victory conditions every time we deploy troops, and we need to support their mission until such time as those victory conditions are either achieved or determined to be impossible. I suppose that would constitute the "with care" part of your post, but I see no real virtue in applying military force subtly, as military force is pretty much the exact opposite of subtlety.
 
1. Stop giving the extremists ammunition with a foreign policy that amounts to "democratize or we shoot you."

This is really rich, considering that the fundamental complaint by the extremists is that we actively support Middle East dictatorships, against the people. Now that we have changed our Foreign Policy to the Middle East to one of promoting democratization, it becomes the new raison d'etre. We have finally started to realign our actions with our values, and it is a desired consequence that this disrupts the ultimate plans of the Islamists to form a Caliphate. While the invasion of Iraq was a one time deal, creating a Democracy in the Middle East, even at the point of a gun, has stirred the desires of peaceful, moderate Muslims to have their own Democracy. See Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Yemen, Algeria, and Syria.
 
Last edited:
This is really rich, considering that the fundamental complaint by the extremists is that we actively support Middle East dictatorships, against the people. Now that we have changed our Foreign Policy to the Middle East to one of promoting democratization, it becomes the new raison d'etre. We have finally started to realign our actions with our values
How is invading and conquering a country "realigning our actions with our values"?

While the invasion of Iraq was a one time deal, creating a Democracy in the Middle East, even at the point of a gun, has stirred the desires of peaceful, moderate Muslims to have their own Democracy. See Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Yemen, Algeria, and Syria.
Is there any indication that the unrest in the aforementioned places would have happened regardless of our actions in the Middle East?
 
How is invading and conquering a country "realigning our actions with our values"?

We helped Iraqis create a democracy in place of an autocracy.

Is there any indication that the unrest in the aforementioned places would have happened regardless of our actions in the Middle East?

Unknown. It is notable that the reactions of the governments in question have been more restrained. It is also notable that those primary involved in the protests are liberal, seculars who have not been involved in demonstrating against their governments before.
 
Killing innocent people is not a logical response, but merely murder, and supporting such murder does not make you moderate -- only desperate.

Hiroshima and Nagazaki were acts of desperation? we were winning at the time.

geo.
 
It's really easy to take potshots at a strategy. Don't tell us about the problem. We all know the problem!! Give us another solution.

strategy number one:

do.

do pursue the enemy that you can quantify as an enemy. the people of Afghanistan are not and have never been, our enemy. The Taliban was not our enemy until we made them our enemy. that the tactic of fighting people who are NOT our enemy in order that we might, by some extraordinary stroke of luck, somehow hit our enemy randomly was foreseeable as not a very good strategy. the strategy of taking down a government we did not like in order to try to implant a government that we might like has proved over the last hundred years to be a very, very bad strategy. we have enemies in all over the world for precisely this reason. the real enemy well hidden in the mountains of Afg/Pak is our enemy because we did this in a number of countries in the Middle East where the whole brouhaha started.

the people of Iraq are not our enemy. they are not hiding our enemy and they never were. the government of Iraq was not our enemy. we were largely responsible for installing and preserving the former dictator.

strategy number two:

don't.

don't start wars that do not need to be fought. don't invade sovereign nations that pose no threat to us or our allies. don't fabricate reasons to go to war. don't lie to the American people. Don't lie to the people about having lied to them. don't continue to feed our fellow citizens into the maw of an unwinnable fight. don't attempt to decide for others what kind of governance they should have.

start there.

geo.
 
We helped Iraqis create a democracy in place of an autocracy.
No, we created a half-functional government that depends almost completely on us and responds to our demands. We replaced one autocracy for another, a nicer one I grant you, but an autocracy none the less.

Then your previous statement would seem to be unsupportable.
 
Back
Top Bottom