Not going to happen since we are building the biggest military bases in Iraq at this moment in time.
Poll
Will a withdrawl result in more terrorist acts on Western nations?
| Yes | 30% | 30% - 27 | ||||
| No | 33% | 33% - 30 | ||||
| It will happen no matter what | 36% | 36% - 33 | ||||
| Total: 90 | ||||||
You think it's luck?Jenkinsbball wrote:
It will happen no matter what, I think. I think we're lucky they haven't tried in the last 5 years, but that may be part of their plan, you never know.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Terrorism will happen no matter what. The terrorists who struck the UK, USA and Spain most recently were medium/long term residents or in fact residents of the countries they attacked. Keeping troops in a country that had nothing to do with terrorism didn't change the threat of terrorism one bit, in fact it increased it (as evidenced by the Madrid and London bombings - two previously unaffected countries).
It amazes me when people think that watching a civil war from a fortified bunker actually reduces or prevents terror!!! It's hilarious.
It amazes me when people think that watching a civil war from a fortified bunker actually reduces or prevents terror!!! It's hilarious.
So you say keeping troops in Iraq increased terrorism and also terrorism will happen no matter what. Which is it?CameronPoe wrote:
Terrorism will happen no matter what. The terrorists who struck the UK, USA and Spain most recently were medium/long term residents or in fact residents of the countries they attacked. Keeping troops in a country that had nothing to do with terrorism didn't change the threat of terrorism one bit, in fact it increased it (as evidenced by the Madrid and London bombings - two previously unaffected countries).
It amazes me when people think that watching a civil war from a fortified bunker actually reduces or prevents terror!!! It's hilarious.
Coincidence? You make it sound like before the invasion of Iraq terrorist attacks on US soil were a common occurence. The most recent attack on US soil I can think of prior to 9/11 (by Islamic groups at least) is the WTC bombing in '93 - 8 years before 9/11. There were foiled plots during that time but there have been more foiled plots since 9/11 and since the invasion of Iraq. Very deceptive logic you're using there.Stingray24 wrote:
I voted yes and I'm not saying there will never be another attack simply because we're in Iraq. I am saying that terrorists will have more freedom to organize and coordinate attacks. And there hasn't been another terrorist attack on the US since we went into Iraq. Coincidence? You decide.Spearhead wrote:
It will happen, regardless of what we do in Iraq. Terrorism has no boundaries. Terrorists are CHOOSING to go into Iraq, they weren't there until after we invaded.
Terrorism is meant to terrify civilians..... attacking Americab soldiers in Iraq isn't fulfilling that purpose. So people who say flat out "Yes" are pretty much saying that there will never be another terrorist attack as long as we are in Iraq? THAT is political manipulation.. It will happen regardless.
I have no idea what effect pulling troops out of Iraq will have. It could increase terrorism in the West, since terrorist organisations will have less resources focused on Iraq (which has become a real terrorist breeding ground since the invasion, ironic really). It could reduce terrorism in the West, due to fewer domestic terrorists being recruited, drawn in by opposition to the war in Iraq. It will probably, however, make virtually no difference.
I think the terrorist attacks would continue regardless of our invasion of Iraq. But BECAUSE we did invade, destroy, and terrorize Iraq, we have heaped on ourselves a much greater potential for it. Withdrawing only starts the timetable for when they can give more focus to doing it. So we can thank Bush for INCREASING the threat of international terrorism! Woohoo! 2 more years!!
no most terrorist acts are committed in the middle east and that's the way it will stay, because the Muslims are crazy.
hell if were lucky they will kill eathother to death
hell if were lucky they will kill eathother to death
I voted no. Will it show weakness on our part, it depends on how we withdraw. A cold hard pullout will definately show weakness. If we use the premise we are allowing the Iraqi people to begin to control their own country it takes away one of Al Queda's weapons of propaganda. I.E. The west is attempting to control the middle east.
No I'm saying it had no impact on terrorism either good or bad.Stingray24 wrote:
So you say keeping troops in Iraq increased terrorism and also terrorism will happen no matter what. Which is it?CameronPoe wrote:
Terrorism will happen no matter what. The terrorists who struck the UK, USA and Spain most recently were medium/long term residents or in fact residents of the countries they attacked. Keeping troops in a country that had nothing to do with terrorism didn't change the threat of terrorism one bit, in fact it increased it (as evidenced by the Madrid and London bombings - two previously unaffected countries).
It amazes me when people think that watching a civil war from a fortified bunker actually reduces or prevents terror!!! It's hilarious.
How can you say that. There was no terrorism in Iraq prior to the invasion, now there is more terrorism there than anywhere else in the world. Whether the terrorism will spread beyond Iraq's borders after troops leave, certainly as far as the West, is another story entirely.CameronPoe wrote:
No I'm saying it had no impact on terrorism either good or bad.Stingray24 wrote:
So you say keeping troops in Iraq increased terrorism and also terrorism will happen no matter what. Which is it?CameronPoe wrote:
Terrorism will happen no matter what. The terrorists who struck the UK, USA and Spain most recently were medium/long term residents or in fact residents of the countries they attacked. Keeping troops in a country that had nothing to do with terrorism didn't change the threat of terrorism one bit, in fact it increased it (as evidenced by the Madrid and London bombings - two previously unaffected countries).
It amazes me when people think that watching a civil war from a fortified bunker actually reduces or prevents terror!!! It's hilarious.
The presence of Western troops in Iraq gives easy targets to potential terrorists, I think it is naive to claim that the occupation has no impact on terrorism. It is one thing to mount a coordinated overseas terror strike, it is quite another to go down to the end of your street and plant an IED, or just to shoot someone. Withdrawing troops from Iraq will certainly reduce the amount of terrorism there, by eliminating opportunist terrorism.
Agreed. We've not only killed off 3000 of our finest citizens, but we've trained terrorists, inspired terrorists, and we've compelled terrorists to avenge the wrongs we've made. This was not so in 2002.Bertster7 wrote:
How can you say that. There was no terrorism in Iraq prior to the invasion, now there is more terrorism there than anywhere else in the world. Whether the terrorism will spread beyond Iraq's borders after troops leave, certainly as far as the West, is another story entirely.CameronPoe wrote:
No I'm saying it had no impact on terrorism either good or bad.
The presence of Western troops in Iraq gives easy targets to potential terrorists, I think it is naive to claim that the occupation has no impact on terrorism. It is one thing to mount a coordinated overseas terror strike, it is quite another to go down to the end of your street and plant an IED, or just to shoot someone. Withdrawing troops from Iraq will certainly reduce the amount of terrorism there, by eliminating opportunist terrorism.
I'm talking about in the western world. Of course Iraq is now infested with terrorists. I wasn't referring to the middle east. I took the thrust of the thread to concern the domestic terrorism the 'war on terror' purports to prevent, not the terrorism that the 'war on terror' created the fertile breeding grounds for in the likes of Iraq.Bertster7 wrote:
How can you say that. There was no terrorism in Iraq prior to the invasion, now there is more terrorism there than anywhere else in the world. Whether the terrorism will spread beyond Iraq's borders after troops leave, certainly as far as the West, is another story entirely.CameronPoe wrote:
No I'm saying it had no impact on terrorism either good or bad.Stingray24 wrote:
So you say keeping troops in Iraq increased terrorism and also terrorism will happen no matter what. Which is it?
The presence of Western troops in Iraq gives easy targets to potential terrorists, I think it is naive to claim that the occupation has no impact on terrorism. It is one thing to mount a coordinated overseas terror strike, it is quite another to go down to the end of your street and plant an IED, or just to shoot someone. Withdrawing troops from Iraq will certainly reduce the amount of terrorism there, by eliminating opportunist terrorism.
OK, sorry. I misunderstood.CameronPoe wrote:
I'm talking about in the western world. Of course Iraq is now infested with terrorists. I wasn't referring to the middle east. I took the thrust of the thread to concern the domestic terrorism the 'war on terror' purports to prevent, not the terrorism that the 'war on terror' created the fertile breeding grounds for in the likes of Iraq.Bertster7 wrote:
How can you say that. There was no terrorism in Iraq prior to the invasion, now there is more terrorism there than anywhere else in the world. Whether the terrorism will spread beyond Iraq's borders after troops leave, certainly as far as the West, is another story entirely.CameronPoe wrote:
No I'm saying it had no impact on terrorism either good or bad.
The presence of Western troops in Iraq gives easy targets to potential terrorists, I think it is naive to claim that the occupation has no impact on terrorism. It is one thing to mount a coordinated overseas terror strike, it is quite another to go down to the end of your street and plant an IED, or just to shoot someone. Withdrawing troops from Iraq will certainly reduce the amount of terrorism there, by eliminating opportunist terrorism.
Look, the only ones who are dedicated enough to try to bypass our security in our country to strike at us are not the low-tech people killing eachother over in Iraq.
And besides, the usually reasonable demands of the terroist activities over there are usually for us to get the hell out of there. If we did, they would have no gripe with us.
And besides, the usually reasonable demands of the terroist activities over there are usually for us to get the hell out of there. If we did, they would have no gripe with us.
Iraq in this context is irrelevant. It's not like there are or will always be a finite number of terrorists and even if that were the case, for US involvement in Iraq to stem terrorism 2 things have to be true:
1) The finite number of terrorists would all have to be focused primarily on the US not on allied nations
and
2) They would all have to seek engagement with US military forces in Iraq at the same time
Clearly these 2 things are not true as there have been terrorists attacks on US interests and allied nations while the coalition has been engaged in Iraq. Obviously terrorists are not all in Iraq and many are focused on more than just the US or purely US interests.
And besides, the 2 main goals (at this point) of Gulf War II (democracy promotion in Iraq and combatting terrorism) are in conflict. Seeking to turn Iraq into a battleground/killing field for terrorists and/or occupying the country expressly to attract terrorists (flypaper theory,"fight them there so we don't have to fight them here") is not conducive for promoting a stable democratic state. Since we know there aren't a finite number of terrorists then choice 1 (battleground) will always be the case as long occupation continues, meaning stability will never occur and thus the conditions for democracy will never occur.
1) The finite number of terrorists would all have to be focused primarily on the US not on allied nations
and
2) They would all have to seek engagement with US military forces in Iraq at the same time
Clearly these 2 things are not true as there have been terrorists attacks on US interests and allied nations while the coalition has been engaged in Iraq. Obviously terrorists are not all in Iraq and many are focused on more than just the US or purely US interests.
And besides, the 2 main goals (at this point) of Gulf War II (democracy promotion in Iraq and combatting terrorism) are in conflict. Seeking to turn Iraq into a battleground/killing field for terrorists and/or occupying the country expressly to attract terrorists (flypaper theory,"fight them there so we don't have to fight them here") is not conducive for promoting a stable democratic state. Since we know there aren't a finite number of terrorists then choice 1 (battleground) will always be the case as long occupation continues, meaning stability will never occur and thus the conditions for democracy will never occur.
Indeed you can't export democracy...it sorta just evolves out of the conscious will of the people being governed.Masques wrote:
Iraq in this context is irrelevant. It's not like there are or will always be a finite number of terrorists and even if that were the case, for US involvement in Iraq to stem terrorism 2 things have to be true:
1) The finite number of terrorists would all have to be focused primarily on the US not on allied nations
and
2) They would all have to seek engagement with US military forces in Iraq at the same time
Clearly these 2 things are not true as there have been terrorists attacks on US interests and allied nations while the coalition has been engaged in Iraq. Obviously terrorists are not all in Iraq and many are focused on more than just the US or purely US interests.
And besides, the 2 main goals (at this point) of Gulf War II (democracy promotion in Iraq and combatting terrorism) are in conflict. Seeking to turn Iraq into a battleground/killing field for terrorists and/or occupying the country expressly to attract terrorists (flypaper theory,"fight them there so we don't have to fight them here") is not conducive for promoting a stable democratic state. Since we know there aren't a finite number of terrorists then choice 1 (battleground) will always be the case as long occupation continues, meaning stability will never occur and thus the conditions for democracy will never occur.
I read arguments like this, which for the most part make complete sense, and I'm still amazed on how people could argue that we need to stay there otherwise we are perceived to be weak thus inducing more attacks on us.
Only moderate Islam can defeat militant Islam. Sorry but true. It is a mindset that can only be changed by providing hope and education. A person who has nothing is more susceptible to being brainwashed by the assholes who say go kill yourself in the name of Islam.
Xbone Stormsurgezz