Let me restate what you stated:Quote:
Originally Posted by BPC
Which has NO basis in fact. Terrorist acts in the US happen with such a sporadic timeline it is impossible to say that more or less terrorism has been created in the US.Quote:
The question we were discussing, however, is something entirely different -- namely, whether the Iraq War has created more terrorism of the type seen on 9/11. At least in the United States, the answer has been a resounding no
Add that to the fact that many have been arersted in suspicion of terrorist acts and even some with plans (albeit not well formed) is an indication of the opposite.
So are you saying now that a decrease in terrorism does not mean we are safer?
I am saying that there is no proven decrease in it, and therefore we are not safer from it, and in my book that means we are not safer.
If you did not mean to imply we are safer by saying terrorist attacks have not gone up (with an already known increase in domestic security) then you may need to rephrase your statement.
The two were not connected. But saying that all muslims act as a whole is ludicrous. Acts of American Imperialism will have a definite effect on the reactions of the radical muslim sects.Quote:
My point was there is no correlation whatsoever between acts of Al Qaeda-based domestic terrorism and whether our foreign policy is nominally pro or anti-muslim. Clinton launched military to save muslims, and 9/11 followed.
Analogy: No matter how much fresh water you add to a sewer line, you will still not be able to drink it. And only one drop of bad water can ruin hundreds of gallons of fresh water. So any acts that the US is seen doing as impreialistic will do more damage than 100 times the beneficial acts will do to help our relationship.
Bottom line: The small effect of good intended acts does not corrolate with the large reaction from bad ones.
Stop correlating directly. How long was it between 9-11 and the original bombing? How many roadside bombs and other attacks have gone off attacking our American troops overseas? Saying that there has not been a Tornado in Kansas in 5 years does not mean there will not be another one. (not saying we can control the weather, that is where the analogy ends). Saying that there has not been a 9-11, although there have been some plans for other events that were not able to be carried through, since Bush invaded does not remove them from the realm of possibilities or prove that Muslims are not effected by it. The tow are two faer apart to be associated directly.Quote:
Bush has occupied 2 muslim countries, and to date no 9/11 like event has followed.
Yes it does! Geez man, I am not playing "who's right who's wrong" here, but you seem to be getting all up in that.Quote:
That does not mean it won't; only that, whether it will or won't doesn't have a damn thing to do with our foreign policy.
HAVING A FOREIGN MILITARY FORCE CLOSE TO YOU IN YOUR HOMELAND THAT DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOUR OWN STANCE IS A DEFINITE RECRUITMENT INFLUENCE FOR RESISTING FORCES!
Now you are generalizing and lumping everyone in the same boat. Putting quotes around a group that opposes different actions in order to lend less creedence to their statements by implied incompetency in these issues.Quote:
The "blame America" crowd would like to argue that, but the facts are just the opposite.
I may not agree with a lot of the most vocal in the group, but when someone says "bullets kill" it is hard to argue with them just because they do not like guns in general.
It is not a question of growing, but how fast and where would it be directed.Quote:
Islamic fundamentalism exists and will continue to exist and grow regardless of our foreign policy. That is not to say there aren't good reasons for why the Iraq War was a mistake -- there are a lot of them. Stopping domestic terrorism just isn't one of them.
And since when did anyone say that the CAUSE of domestic terrorism was the invasion of Iraq? You are twisting the issue.
The military action in Iraq has proven to be an incentive for recruitment for foreign radical Islamic elements.
What? The war, in the long run, will discourage terrorism?Quote:
It won't cause the enemy to give up, but it may, in the long run, discourage them, even just a little, which is better than nothing at all.
Oh come ON! By your own comment about the occupation in Cyprus being ongoing and therefore it is not historical and the anger evidenced by former Cyprusians over 25 years after the event, you invalidate your own statement saying that this will discourage them "in the long run".
It just does not work that way. When people do not have anything, they are less willing to settle with something they are not happy with. These people have little to lose besides their idealogy, and their leaders know this. They use it as the fuel, that we are a threat to the only thing that they really have in their life that is valuable.
Once you do that, it is very difficult to put logical solutions on the table. You have to deal with emotional. Until we start looking at it that way, we will never be safer, they will never be happy, and we will never get what we want.