Question of the Week: Terrorism

It has been 13 years since the war on terror began so the question I want to ask is this: Has the war on terror made the world (most notably western countries) a safer place?

well the obvious answer is no.

Anyway I think it's important to remember the cause of the war on terror, namely 9/11, which shook the American world and turned it upside down. Suddenly they realised they were vulnerable to outside attack, something which had in reality never happened before on American soil (Pearl Harbour maybe, but that was a military base and not really in American territory). I was very young at the time (I guess 13?) and of course the talk at home and in school was very much centered on the horrific event.

I do remember our History teacher making some very interesting points, especially one about what the US would do next. She said basically it could go one of two ways:
- either they would withdraw in on themselves completely, become an "island" with very little contact with anyone else (and stop trying to influence the way the world was run, which was what led to 9/11 in some sens).
- or they would lash out and look to impose their will on the world even more, show them that the USA was still the dominant force.

In hindsight it's easy to say the latter (which is of coures what happened) was always likely, but in reality at the time there was a genuine possibility of the former (the US of course had history for seeking to avoid conflict).

In general, the answer to the question may depend on what one means by the word "safe"? The turn of the millenium has seen exponentially rapid increases in technological developments, which goes both ways, both towards our safety (defensive) and against it (offensive), with the line between the two often blurred (the NSA: does it make us safer by rooting out potential terrorists, or less safe because we are exposed to people who have little/no accountability?).

I'm aware I've strayed from the question quite a bit, turning it more into "are we safer now than 13 years ago?" rather than limiting myself to the impact of the war on terror, but for me the principle is the same. In some ways we are safer, in others less so. Overall? I feel safe when cycling to work, working, sleeping, traveling, etc. I tend not to worry too much in any case, as there's not much I can do about it if some nutter decides to blow up my work office or the plane I'm flying on, so...

Yes the US did take up a more aggressive approach in response to 9/11 but there approach has gone beyond what it should have.

The US seems to be trying to invade/ destabalise all countries who oppose the US (even if they offer no threat).

The US invaded Afganistan due to Afganistan refusing to hand over Osama bin Laden. Afganistan was run by the Taliban who oposed the US and so the US invaded Afganistan and overthrew the Taliban and replaced it with a pro-US government.

The US then invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein had WMD's. Saddam Hussein was an opponent of the US (been in a previous war with them in the 90's). The US executed him and replaced him with a pro-US govt. No WMD's were ever found.

The US took part in air strikes to help remove Gadaffi from power in Libya. Gadaffi opposed the US and so the US removed him.

The US have supported the uprising against Assad in Syria and were close to invading but lost public support and allied support. Assad is an ally of Russia and Iran who are 'enemies' of the US. The US want Assad to be replaced with the FSA who are pro-US.

The US financially supported the Ukranian rebels who overthrew the previous pro-Russian Ukranian government because that government wanted closer ties to Russia and of course Russia is an 'enemy' of the US. The US supported the new rebels because they were pro-EU and the EU is an ally of the US. The US supported the rebels claiming the people of ukraine are expressing their democratic right to remove a govt but somehow when the pro-Russian rebels try to overthrow the new pro-EU ukranian government the US suddenly starts saying that it is anti-democratic and starts putting pressure on Russia through bans on exports and fines etc etc

It is only a matter of time before Iran and N Korea are invaded and both of those countries are against the US.

It looks as though the US is using 'terror' as a justification for regime change which is of course illegal and the US under the guise of terror are invading countries or financially supporting rebel groups to overthrow anti-US governments in order to replace them with pro-US governments.

Is the world a safer place now after 13 years of war? No!. The US/UK has far more enemies now and we have seen grous such as al-qaeida grow in strength and numbers and splinter groups emerge such as ISIS and al Nusra who are even more aggressive in their approach.

What a sack of turd...

What would any Country do when 3,000 of it's people were killed by terrorists and a billion dollars of damage was caused??..You'd go and find the scum !!....

We asked for permission to enter Afghanistan....The regime said no.......and no Country would let 9/11 go unpunished so we went in !!

As for Iraq Americans like the Brits were fed erroneous information by the Government....It was a war that divided our Country..All this America is this and that baloney !!!

Brits helped in Libya also...

Let's not forget Obama has built bridges with plenty of Countries like Iran..

So enough of the ignorant US hatred.....

Sick of it !!!......You don't hate America when you want something..

Let's just let terrorists do what they want.....After all they love the West don't they !!

I hope that last post wasn't aimed at me Truss?

C_S I very much doubt USA have any intention whatsoever to invade North Korea, as there's a risk that could set off a nuclear war, which nobody wants...

I think 9/11 genuinely had a profound impact on the American psyche. I went to ground zero a few years ago and it was a rather harrowing experience, but I suspect you have to be American to really understand the full impact of the event.

This will end well.

The more interesting, but harder to answer question, is would the situation have got worse anyway, in spite of the US/UK 'war on terror' response??

The terrorists slapped America in the face, if America hadn't slapped them back would they have actually became more emboldened and encouraged to commit more atrocities??

I don't feel unsafe when I'm in good old Blighty but when I'm out working it can be a bit weird (although doesn't help I hate flying).

I'm not sure you can lay the blame at the US's door as they've done what every country's been doing for decades and that's looking after themselves. I'm not entirely sure they could have ignored where Osama was in the same way that I don't think any country would have left it.

A lot of what you've written CS sounds like Conspiracy Theories rather than fact. I thought we went into Afghanistan to get the Taliban out of power due to human rights abuses and the general fact that they promoted terrorism (correct me if I'm wrong on any of this as I like to learn.) Also isn't the government against the USA/UK interferring over there?

Iraq was a cluster from the very beginning and I think it's hard to doubt it was driven by the oil fields and some very bad information. Again as far as i'm aware the governments want the US/UK out as fast as possilbe so they can sort the issues out with the various factions.

Libya started with it's people rioting and escalated, everyone looked wary about getting involved and they were left to sort it out themselves. (I don't remember us going in at all.)

I think the amount of involvement in Syria has been vastly overblown and while countries looked at aid, there was never any danger of us giving full on military aid which was completely scuppered when it was seen that the rebels were aligned with terrorist groups.

I don't think the Americans (or anyone else for that matter) is daft enough to try and invade N.Korea or Iran as it's the quickest way to mutual annihilation.

I'm not sure where your getting the idea that all these countries have pro US governments?

I'm actually surprised you didn't try to say that the US was controlling all of the terrorist groups and it's a massive plan to take over the world.

GSC wrote:This will end well.

It will certainly end quickly.

Rowley wrote:

GSC wrote:This will end well.

It will certainly end quickly.

I apologise for the death penalty thread. Just thought I'd say it.

Love to know what you guys would have done after 9/11....

Silly question asking Is the World safer or not as 9/11 was the biggest terrorist act of all time and was a huge game changed !!

Had we not retaliated...The terrorists would have been emboldened by their act and looked for even more enterprising targets and devastation..

So with all respect....The question sucks..

It's not that bad Trussy and it's a pretty good question if you take a lot of other bits into account as 9/11 did open up the possibilities for things like Iraq, which in a post 9/11 world I don't think would have happened.

BUT

it's also like you say, if America hadn't done anything it's not like everything would stop and go back to the way it was, you'd have more terrorists than ever (IMO) as they'd believe and see it as a legitimate way to force the issue (ie if the US didn't do anything then that Bin Laden guy must have had a point)

No one should forget who the real enemy is.....and I'm not talking about Man Utd fans...

From where my folks live....It' a two and a half hour drive to Ground zero....Been to New York plenty of times..

Still I'm off to Marbella for two weeks tomorrow so let's not be too down hearted...

There he/she goes again

Everyone seems to be going on holiday now instead of me, I hope it pees down the whole time your there   

Just kidding Trussy, enjoy yourself and have fun.

She...At the weekends..

I look forward to the news article reporting sightings of a gigantic blubber whale off the coast of Spain. Also look forward to hearing that the Japanese have flown in their crack harpoon squad to deal with it

Japanese are still recovering from the spanking they got in 45...

One look at me in my Stars and stripes shorts will have them fleeing the Coast in record time..

Only if they send their women to do the fighting

One look at your giant shorts and they'll think they sailed to Lilliput. Even Danny Williams thinks they're on the "roomy" side

Try getting a marrow in a small pair !!!!

You wanna go to the docs if your ar$e is shaped like a marrow. Thought the fact it's green would be enough of a concern

Anyway, I'm off home...pleasant weekend to all, I'll praying for Tyson Fury to be floored but I think God hates me.

Are we ('Western' nations) safer now? No-one knows for sure.

Not entirely sure what Iraq, Libya, Syria etc have to do with the 'war on terror'. All of them were/are, essentially, ruled by secular dictators. Is it any surprise that, given uprisings, several bunches of jihadist whack jobs are taking advantage? Are we saying the whack jobs weren't in existence before 9/11? I think not.

Problem w/ response to 9/11 is that, arguably, the World's most powerful military had at the time a C-in-C who possibly didn't know the right way to sit on a toilet seat and was surrounded by some of worst money-grabbing neocons imaginable. He also got support from Mr. Tony B. Liar, someone whom I sincerely hope faces a Hague tribunal at some point although I won't hold my breath.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:It has been 13 years since the war on terror began so the question I want to ask is this: Has the war on terror made the world (most notably western countries) a safer place?

No, but it has served to de-stabilise the Middle East even more, so there is that.

A war on terror is a stupid concept anyway. You can't bomb terror.

First off I have my doubts about the official 9-11 explanation.

For something so big and tragic it merited more then just a cowboy and Indian story which the US government gave to the world.

''The indians attacked and now the Cowboy heros will get revenge'' I am sorry there is more to the explanation that needs to be discussed in a court of law.

It has been proven that a few of the recent big wars have started on a lie. There are questions surrounding the pearl harbour attacks, the Gulf of Tonkin incident which led to the Vietnam war that has been proved to be a lie, the pananma invasion, the sinking of the Lusitania and most recently the lies that have led to the war in Iraq.

So history has showed us that inventing a reason to go to war in order to gain public support has been used again and again by nations with an agenda which can only be met through military expansion.

9-11 has more questions then answers and that is my opinion.

As for the question well NO the west promised along with many other lies to make the world a safer place which it has failed to do. It got rid of Saddam and now look at the situation in Iraq today. Is Iraq a safer place? NO, was operation Iraqi freedom a success? NO. So ask yourself WHO BENIFITED from the war in Iraq?

The soldiers out there fighting?
the parents and loved ones of the fallen soldiers?
The Iraqi people?
the middle eastern region?

Or have the numerous arms contractors benifitted from the war? Yes
the oil contractors? yes
the people funding the war? yes

The so called war on terror was never meant to be won. Its imperative that this war continues for a long time because war is money. So get used to a world of conflict

http://www.debunking911.com/

Derbymanc wrote:http://www.debunking911.com/

Something slightly tragic about putting that much effort into responding to the ramblings of loons.

Rowley wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:http://www.debunking911.com/

Something slightly tragic about putting that much effort into responding to the ramblings of loons.

Haha

says the loon.

That told me. Hard to come back to such a scorching response.

The wit displayed on this section can bring a man to his knees at times.

Rowley wrote:That told me. Hard to come back to such a scorching response.

There is really no need to scorch a member of the sheeple fraternity.

You will blindly follow the the doctrine of the lie spreading, phone tapping, agenda upholding media because you it is always safer to walk with the strong majority straight down the lizard pit.

My views are aimed at those who are able to think for themselves and see the 2 sides to every story.

To be serious for a minute who actually believes conspiracy theories. They are part of the seemingly popular modern phenomena that the likes of holistic medicine and those idiot mediums off the TV buy into, the idea that you are allowed to fill in any gaps in knowledge or understanding with absolute mumbo jumbo and just because the actual truth cannot be explained away beyond any reasonable doubt this gives the mumbo jumbo the same credence as more rational explanations, it doesn’t, in any way, shape or form.

Also think they feed peoples need to feel intellectual, how much does it appeal to your vanity to believe you are so smart you can see through stories put forwards by governments or official channels? Also feel there is a strange comfort to be had in conspiracy theories. If we take 9/11 the idea that 20 odd fundamentalists in barely developed countries can carry out such a devastating attack on the most powerful country in the world is not one that should make any sensible person sleep well in their beds. There is something almost comforting in believing more powerful or shadowy forces are at play, if you have to believe some pretty implausible things to buy into that suspect many are willing to do so.

Suspect the truth is virtually none of the conspiracy theories that abound stand up to much in the way of detailed analysis, one only has to think of Watergate, all that involved was hiding a couple of tapes and that was unpicked by a couple of committed journalists. The idea that the same governments or agencies could cover up events of multiple times the magnitude or complexity is just a step too far for me to accept.

Bored people with too much free time I suspect. People like to feel as though they're in on some grand secret.

GSC wrote:Bored people with too much free time I suspect. People like to feel as though they're in on some grand secret.

The US and UK lied about the reasons for going to war with Iraq.

They lied about Saddams nukes
They lied about WMD's
They lied about chemical weapons that could reach London in 45 minutes
They lied about Saddams close ties with terrorists when under Saddam Iraq was the most secular state in the region

If they could lie about something so big as invading another country then they can lie about anything.

If you disagree then please prove the above accusations which led to the war.

They did lie and said lies stood up for about three minutes before being ruthlessly exposed. However the lies about landing on the moon, the death of Princess Diana, 9/11 and the assasination of JFK remain intact. Seem plausible to you?

OneTwo - Can we have some answers related to "how"? How did the American government organise 9/11, and keep it a secret? Surely it would be quite vast an undertaking?

It was the Lizard People Duty.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

GSC wrote:Bored people with too much free time I suspect. People like to feel as though they're in on some grand secret.

The US and UK lied about the reasons for going to war with Iraq.

They lied about Saddams nukes
They lied about WMD's
They lied about chemical weapons that could reach London in 45 minutes
They lied about Saddams close ties with terrorists when under Saddam Iraq was the most secular state in the region

If they could lie about something so big as invading another country then they can lie about anything.

If you disagree then please prove the above accusations which led to the war.

They didn't lie about invading another country though, did they?

They simply lied about their reasons.

If they've pulled off the former I'd be a) much more impressed; and b) much more inclined to agree there's something fishy about 9/11.

GSC wrote:It was the Lizard People Duty.

Prince Charles is a reptile! #shocker

Rowley wrote:They did lie and said lies stood up for about three minutes before being ruthlessly exposed. However the lies about landing on the moon, the death of Princess Diana, 9/11 and the assasination of JFK remain intact. Seem plausible to you?

As of 2013 rowley 500,000 people died since the US led invasion of Iraq yet its a trivial matter for you.

You accept that the US and UK governments lied but then trail of into talking about the moon and Diana things which have nothing to do with the bloodshed in the Iraqi war.

You say ruthlessly exposed?

Last time I looked Blair was a multi millionaire and Bush is still playing golf.

Not much of Conspiracy theorist, but the idea that government can pull off a large scale plan, or idea is hardly without precedent. See: Manhattan Project, The. Or even, albeit with lesser success, and hands on deck, Project Mind Kontrol.

kingraf wrote:Not much of Conspiracy theorist, but the idea that government can pull off a large scale plan, or idea is hardly without precedent. See: Manhattan Project, The. Or even, albeit with lesser success, and hands on deck, Project Mind Kontrol.

Can always rely on raf with sensible sound judgement.

These lot ask how?

how can a government hide such plans?

Well most technology used by the public today had been in existence 10 or more years before the public even knew about it. Its not hard for them to hide things they do it ALL the time. When you are part of a network that has its hands in every aspect of society from the economy, to science, to military you can choose what to reveal and what to conceal.

The American governments have many secret projects we don;t know about.

Rowley wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:http://www.debunking911.com/

Something slightly tragic about putting that much effort into responding to the ramblings of loons.

I've been reading about conspiracy theorists for the last couple of days, it's pretty scary the amount of twisting they can do to make anything fit their ideology and also the amount of things that they think are complete conspiricies. (If you've got the stomach for it look up sandy hook conspiricies.)

I cannot get my head around the fact that at the same time as saying Bush was a complete wazzack he also had the brains to mastermind 9/11   
Oh 9/11 also sticks in my head cause I remember a documentary ch4 did on it a few years ago (the conspiracy) and when they interviewed the geezer behind the theory and pointed out the flaws he flew into a childlike rage and walked out. (Can't remember the name of it now though.)

Plus it's not that much effort to put in debunking 911 conspiricies into google

I think this is the most outlandish conspiracy I've ever seen:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_is_dead

I'm actually quite no the fence about 9/11. From the random videos that has some people shouting "That was not American Airlines!" (on the other hand, I'm equally impressed at the ability to be cognitive of such a fact when you've just seen a building get smashed), to the time, or rather lack thereof, the inflamed buildings took before they fell, more especially compared with the Windsor Tower in Madrid. Both these issues can be explained away, but that's not to say they can be adequately explained away. To be honest, though, I just can't quite get my head around it actually being an inside job.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

Rowley wrote:They did lie and said lies stood up for about three minutes before being ruthlessly exposed. However the lies about landing on the moon, the death of Princess Diana, 9/11 and the assasination of JFK remain intact. Seem plausible to you?

As of 2013 rowley 500,000 people died since the US led invasion of Iraq yet its a trivial matter for you.

You accept that the US and UK governments lied but then trail of into talking about the moon and Diana things which have nothing to do with the bloodshed in the Iraqi war.

You say ruthlessly exposed?

Last time I looked Blair was a multi millionaire and Bush is still playing golf.

Do you write your responses to people before they actually post and just hope what you write fits? You also seem to confuse whether Bush and Blair being exposed as going to war based on a lie is the same as whether they have been prosecuted for doing so, they are not the same thing. Also whilst you're at it please direct me to where I have desctied half a million deaths as trivial, because that is not a particularly pleasant accusation, so probably is not something you should just make up.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

kingraf wrote:Not much of Conspiracy theorist, but the idea that government can pull off a large scale plan, or idea is hardly without precedent. See: Manhattan Project, The. Or even, albeit with lesser success, and hands on deck, Project Mind Kontrol.

Can always rely on raf with sensible sound judgement.

These lot ask how?

how can a government hide such plans?

Well most technology used by the public today had been in existence 10 or more years before the public even knew about it. Its not hard for them to hide things they do it ALL the time. When you are part of a network that has its hands in every aspect of society from the economy, to science, to military you can choose what to reveal and what to conceal.

The American governments have many secret projects we don;t know about.

If they're secret projects, how do you know they exist? Either you know about them and therefore they're just projects or you don't know about them and are talking out the back of your head.

Bill Clinton couldn't manage to hide the fact that he got his d!ck sucked in the Oval office by an intern...but you honestly believe that a plan to murder 3000 American citizens in order to justify an invasion of another country has still been kept under wraps?

DAVE667 wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

kingraf wrote:Not much of Conspiracy theorist, but the idea that government can pull off a large scale plan, or idea is hardly without precedent. See: Manhattan Project, The. Or even, albeit with lesser success, and hands on deck, Project Mind Kontrol.

Can always rely on raf with sensible sound judgement.

These lot ask how?

how can a government hide such plans?

Well most technology used by the public today had been in existence 10 or more years before the public even knew about it. Its not hard for them to hide things they do it ALL the time. When you are part of a network that has its hands in every aspect of society from the economy, to science, to military you can choose what to reveal and what to conceal.

The American governments have many secret projects we don;t know about.

If they're secret projects, how do you know they exist? Either you know about them and therefore they're just projects or you don't know about them and are talking out the back of your head.

Or they are 'secret', yet people (1-2) still know about them, therefore lending considerable credence to Rowley's view that no government would actually be sufficiently competent to pull-off something of the scale of 9/11.

Jews / Arabs. Build a wall round them and let them get on with it.