Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

Inconsistancy on handling terrorism

Quadrunner
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 5:34:04 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
Okay, terrorism, currently ISIS is the main headline....We want all those ISIS guys disbanded or obliterated, right? They are everything that's wrong with the world, and we need to fight them to keep them from expanding and attacking us on home soil.

So what are we doing? We've bombarded them and still their numbers are standing, still they are an issue, still they terrorize the world. I don't understand. Are we in or out? If we are attacking them, why aren't we in a formal war and dominating them? If its humanitarian issues we are going in for, why don't we go about it like we care? If we aren't at war, why not just increase homeland security and let them terrorize their hearts out, till a hip new terrorist organization rises to stop them. if their numbers aren't decreasing abroad our argument that foreign intervention is keeping the fight over there seems, well, non-existant. Homeland security is preventing people from bringing the problem here if we clearly aren't defeating the enemy abroad, so why are we still fighting abroad if we aren't defeating abroad?

We keep arguing that they've been culturally fighting for centuries, and then we keep selectively egging groups on and expecting it to stop? Are we even trying to stop it? If they are so evil, I just can't understand why we aren't going into full on war as a nation until they are gone. If we don't care enough to do that, then why are we sacrificing lives in the first place?

Can anyone give me a logical statement on the morality based on some sort of principle, for fighting middle eastern terrorism in the fashion we have been operating? I feel as though its just become a senseless reactionary tradition, but I don't want to believe it. Maybe I'm just ignorant. Educate me.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 6:31:13 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 5:34:04 AM, Quadrunner wrote:
Okay, terrorism, currently ISIS is the main headline....We want all those ISIS guys disbanded or obliterated, right? They are everything that's wrong with the world, and we need to fight them to keep them from expanding and attacking us on home soil.

So what are we doing? We've bombarded them and still their numbers are standing, still they are an issue, still they terrorize the world. I don't understand. Are we in or out?

ISIS has been losing ground for a while now, but because of their tactics and numbers it's been some what slow for allied forces (Kurds, Iraq, Shia Militia etc) to retake ground. Right now the largest city ISIS controls, Mosul, is falling to allied forces. After that they'll be kicked back into Syria. The writing is on the the wall for ISIS, after Mosul I bet they'll be reduced to just another rebel faction in Syria by 2017. However this coordination isn't easy to maintain due to complicated tribalism. The US is "in" in the sense we have advisors there to help this coordination and provide air support. The US is "out" in the sense that we're war weary, we don't want to send another 100,000 troops and trillions of dollars more to glue back the vase we broke the first time around. Our current approach is a matter of cost efficiency. And if we allow them to retake their own land it helps their public perception of nationalism, which is needed among the Iraqis.

If we are attacking them, why aren't we in a formal war and dominating them?

Because ISIS despite their declaration, is not a formal state. Just like Al-Queda and the Taliban.

If its humanitarian issues we are going in for, why don't we go about it like we care?

I don't know how you define "care" we are giving tonnes of humanitarian aid to Iraq [http://rudaw.net...] and Europe is trying to take as many Syrian refugees as possible.

If we aren't at war, why not just increase homeland security and let them terrorize their hearts out, till a hip new terrorist organization rises to stop them.

There's 2 problems, first our national security departments like the NSA and TSA are jokes that aren't that great at stopping terrorist attacks. They practice security theater. If we allow determined terrorists to plan and just say "come at me bro" we'll see more successful attacks like the Boston bombing. Also we'd rather not want the US government increase its ability to spy on US citizens as Snowden reavealed that's already being done. Second, as for a new group replacing ISIS, that won't be a possibility until they are widdled down to a point another group can over take them, which requires a concentrated effort to dismantle ISIS.

if their numbers aren't decreasing abroad our argument that foreign intervention is keeping the fight over there seems, well, non-existant. Homeland security is preventing people from bringing the problem here if we clearly aren't defeating the enemy abroad, so why are we still fighting abroad if we aren't defeating abroad?

Who's said their number aren't decreasing? We're killing quite a few of them, Mosul will be liberated by the end of the year. The problem is they've sent many terrorists abroad to commit attacks as well. If we cut them off in Iraq/Syria then we cut off the source and supplies for most of these terrorists.

We keep arguing that they've been culturally fighting for centuries, and then we keep selectively egging groups on and expecting it to stop? Are we even trying to stop it? If they are so evil, I just can't understand why we aren't going into full on war as a nation until they are gone. If we don't care enough to do that, then why are we sacrificing lives in the first place?

Again cost effect. We were already there for 10 years, the American public is not happy about re invading Iraq. Also they exist in Syria, we can't invade Syria without risking a conflict with Russia who supports them. We're not sacrificing that many US lives now, we are providing air support and military logistics and training. It's money we're still spending.

Can anyone give me a logical statement on the morality based on some sort of principle, for fighting middle eastern terrorism in the fashion we have been operating? I feel as though its just become a senseless reactionary tradition, but I don't want to believe it. Maybe I'm just ignorant. Educate me.

It's geopolitics, in the end all wars the US engages in is suppose to benefit the US in some way. The current fight against ISIS is to destroy a group that poses a major threat to all of our allies in the region like Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Israel. There's also a lot of oil coming from there that we need to secure so the US economy can keep functioning.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 11:17:15 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 5:34:04 AM, Quadrunner wrote:
Okay, terrorism, currently ISIS is the main headline....We want all those ISIS guys disbanded or obliterated, right? They are everything that's wrong with the world, and we need to fight them to keep them from expanding and attacking us on home soil.

So what are we doing? We've bombarded them and still their numbers are standing, still they are an issue, still they terrorize the world. I don't understand. Are we in or out? If we are attacking them, why aren't we in a formal war and dominating them? If its humanitarian issues we are going in for, why don't we go about it like we care? If we aren't at war, why not just increase homeland security and let them terrorize their hearts out, till a hip new terrorist organization rises to stop them. if their numbers aren't decreasing abroad our argument that foreign intervention is keeping the fight over there seems, well, non-existant. Homeland security is preventing people from bringing the problem here if we clearly aren't defeating the enemy abroad, so why are we still fighting abroad if we aren't defeating abroad?

We keep arguing that they've been culturally fighting for centuries, and then we keep selectively egging groups on and expecting it to stop? Are we even trying to stop it? If they are so evil, I just can't understand why we aren't going into full on war as a nation until they are gone. If we don't care enough to do that, then why are we sacrificing lives in the first place?

Can anyone give me a logical statement on the morality based on some sort of principle, for fighting middle eastern terrorism in the fashion we have been operating? I feel as though its just become a senseless reactionary tradition, but I don't want to believe it. Maybe I'm just ignorant. Educate me.

The boogeyman.

As for energy.... people do realize that the US is the largest energy producer in the world?

Bush negotiates a wd. It occurs under Obama. He takes credit for keeping a campaign pledge. ISIS begins its campaign. They are mocked at first. They make huge gains. We go 'uh oh'. We start bombing again...and giving logistic and armament support, training, and start inserting more 'advisors'... special forces. Some gains are made by 'allies'.

Resultant political partisanship back home. To half what was once bad is now good and to the other half what was once good and is now bad.

And neither partisan side will own up to they are supporting or opposing both the original, which helped foster the current engagement, or our current participation, based solely on their political ideology. Terrorism, geopolitical stability, aiding allies, humanitarian assistance... sure these are all novel arguments never used in this part of the world before.

Welcome to 2016.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 2:03:44 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Question 1: should the patriot act be rescinded (along with TSA, dept of homeland security, unauth'd wire taps, FBI partnering with isp's--coercively often-- in gaining access to databases)?