Has the 16 year "War On Terror" made you feel safer?

my2hands

Has the 16 year "War On Terror" made you feel safer?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Needs to be an option: 'Less Safe' (as the world has become since the 'War on Terror').

pjhawks

Same

same. if you are honest the chances of being affected by a terrorist attack are still incredibly slim for most of the population. 

"drilling for fear makes the job simple"

Thirty Bills Unpaid

pjhawks said:

same. if you are honest the chances of being affected by a terrorist attack are still incredibly slim for most of the population. 

"drilling for fear makes the job simple"

This is true. But speaking to the reality... as slim as it might be to get blown up... the incidents have increased significantly since the idea germinated.

If no meddling had occurred... I'm pretty sure very few of these sensational events we have witnessed would ever have occurred.

PJfanwillneverleave1

I think so.

rgambs

Same

There was never much reason not to feel safe to begin with.

brianlux

No

Need a "hell no" button.

Go Beavers

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

pjhawks said:

same. if you are honest the chances of being affected by a terrorist attack are still incredibly slim for most of the population. 

"drilling for fear makes the job simple"

This is true. But speaking to the reality... as slim as it might be to get blown up... the incidents have increased significantly since the idea germinated.

If no meddling had occurred... I'm pretty sure very few of these sensational events we have witnessed would ever have occurred.

Do you have a link for the data showing it's increased significantly?

tbergs

Go Beavers said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

pjhawks said:

same. if you are honest the chances of being affected by a terrorist attack are still incredibly slim for most of the population. 

"drilling for fear makes the job simple"

This is true. But speaking to the reality... as slim as it might be to get blown up... the incidents have increased significantly since the idea germinated.

If no meddling had occurred... I'm pretty sure very few of these sensational events we have witnessed would ever have occurred.

Do you have a link for the data showing it's increased significantly?

Mostly increased globally except in 2015.


https://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2015/257526.htm

PJ_Soul

No

No, but FWIW, I have never felt particularly unsafe. Fear isn't going to help anything.

The war on terror obviously just makes things progressively worse, if we're talking about radical Islamic terror (which I assume we are, since there isn't any war against any other terror as far as I can tell). It will never help. All that will help is a major cultural shift on this planet.... and it seems everyone is just moving backwards in that regard. My hopes are not high when it comes to this topic.

jeffbr

No

tbergs said:

Go Beavers said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

pjhawks said:

same. if you are honest the chances of being affected by a terrorist attack are still incredibly slim for most of the population. 

"drilling for fear makes the job simple"

This is true. But speaking to the reality... as slim as it might be to get blown up... the incidents have increased significantly since the idea germinated.

If no meddling had occurred... I'm pretty sure very few of these sensational events we have witnessed would ever have occurred.

Do you have a link for the data showing it's increased significantly?

Mostly increased globally except in 2015.


https://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2015/257526.htm

The Global Terror Database is an interesting site that lets you look at the data in a bunch of different ways. I haven't played around with it much, but it's worth a look. 
This graph shows significant increased terror activity, especially since 2011.  http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/features/GTD-Data-Rivers.aspx 

Go Beavers

tbergs said:

Go Beavers said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

pjhawks said:

same. if you are honest the chances of being affected by a terrorist attack are still incredibly slim for most of the population. 

"drilling for fear makes the job simple"

This is true. But speaking to the reality... as slim as it might be to get blown up... the incidents have increased significantly since the idea germinated.

If no meddling had occurred... I'm pretty sure very few of these sensational events we have witnessed would ever have occurred.

Do you have a link for the data showing it's increased significantly?

Mostly increased globally except in 2015.


https://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2015/257526.htm

Interesting and informative link, but it only focuses on data since 2012 and wasn't showing a steady increase over time. Looks like we should also be fighting a war against radical Maoists since they're responsible for 2/3rds of the terrorism in India. 

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Go Beavers said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

pjhawks said:

same. if you are honest the chances of being affected by a terrorist attack are still incredibly slim for most of the population. 

"drilling for fear makes the job simple"

This is true. But speaking to the reality... as slim as it might be to get blown up... the incidents have increased significantly since the idea germinated.

If no meddling had occurred... I'm pretty sure very few of these sensational events we have witnessed would ever have occurred.

Do you have a link for the data showing it's increased significantly?

It seems as if others have began answering your question- which I'm okay with.

But your question had me think more on the issue and research a bit:

Airport security
Border agencies
Increased Intel
Playbooks developed for chemical and biological attacks
Direct military intervention resulting in persons considered dangerous killed...

... and others have all contributed to my personal safety. So... on one hand... it could be said that since the 'War on Terror'... I feel safer, but these items have all been developed or enhanced with the premise that more attacks were imminent. 9-11 happened, but were a long series of coordinated attacks to follow?

In the event 9-11 was more or less a 'one off'... then the response to 9-11 has definitely resulted in a spike in global wide terror activity on an unparalleled pace in the modern era.

So, I feel I am to answer the poll... the ultimate question for me to assist me with my answer would be to know the answer to this: did the US response to 9-11 deter further mayhem or did it provoke more?

My 'feel' is it provoked more.

mcgruff10

Yes

I think america needed a wake up call and 9/11 was it.  Air travel comes to mind; it was way too lax before sept 11.  Beefed up security at bridges, tunnels, and "soft targets" as in port authority and times square.

my2hands

No

mcgruff10 said:

I think america needed a wake up call and 9/11 was it.  Air travel comes to mind; it was way too lax before sept 11.  Beefed up security at bridges, tunnels, and "soft targets" as in port authority and times square.

but how about the actual War On Terror? i'm not talking about taking our shoes off at the airport brother

Thirty Bills Unpaid

my2hands said:

mcgruff10 said:

I think america needed a wake up call and 9/11 was it.  Air travel comes to mind; it was way too lax before sept 11.  Beefed up security at bridges, tunnels, and "soft targets" as in port authority and times square.

but how about the actual War On Terror? i'm not talking about taking our shoes off at the airport brother

Did you care to address the question I posed?

Do you feel the US response to 9-11 thwarted future terrorist activity that was already in the making... or that it germinated future activity?

Could 9-11 have been a massive one time event with nothing more planed that people needed to worry about... or was it the champagne cork and the west resentment was about to unleash itself?

mcgruff10

Yes

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

my2hands said:

mcgruff10 said:

I think america needed a wake up call and 9/11 was it.  Air travel comes to mind; it was way too lax before sept 11.  Beefed up security at bridges, tunnels, and "soft targets" as in port authority and times square.

but how about the actual War On Terror? i'm not talking about taking our shoes off at the airport brother

Did you care to address the question I posed?

Do you feel the US response to 9-11 thwarted future terrorist activity that was already in the making... or that it germinated future activity?

Could 9-11 have been a massive one time event with nothing more planed that people needed to worry about... or was it the champagne cork and the west resentment was about to unleash itself?

9/11 was definitely the beginning of something but thankfully our intelligence stepped up (along with our allies) and thwarted a heck of a lot of attacks.  And no I don't have specific cites to back up my claim, just a very intelligent guess.
I was always for Afghanistan but against Iraq.  Iraq was and is just one big fuck up.  By eliminating Sadaam you completely destabilized the region.  

mcgruff10

Yes

my2hands said:

mcgruff10 said:

I think america needed a wake up call and 9/11 was it.  Air travel comes to mind; it was way too lax before sept 11.  Beefed up security at bridges, tunnels, and "soft targets" as in port authority and times square.

but how about the actual War On Terror? i'm not talking about taking our shoes off at the airport brother

I"m not sure.  You could pose the same question about any war.  I'd have to think about this a little more.  I definitely feel safer in america due to increased security in various places but I'm not sure if the actual war on terror several thousand miles away is part of that reason.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

mcgruff10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

my2hands said:

mcgruff10 said:

I think america needed a wake up call and 9/11 was it.  Air travel comes to mind; it was way too lax before sept 11.  Beefed up security at bridges, tunnels, and "soft targets" as in port authority and times square.

but how about the actual War On Terror? i'm not talking about taking our shoes off at the airport brother

Did you care to address the question I posed?

Do you feel the US response to 9-11 thwarted future terrorist activity that was already in the making... or that it germinated future activity?

Could 9-11 have been a massive one time event with nothing more planed that people needed to worry about... or was it the champagne cork and the west resentment was about to unleash itself?

9/11 was definitely the beginning of something but thankfully our intelligence stepped up (along with our allies) and thwarted a heck of a lot of attacks.  And no I don't have specific cites to back up my claim, just a very intelligent guess.
I was always for Afghanistan but against Iraq.  Iraq was and is just one big fuck up.  By eliminating Sadaam you completely destabilized the region.  

Why not Saudi Arabia though? To me... it seemed pretty obvious who your enemy was given the fact that nearly every one of the hijackers was Saudi Arabian. Attacking Afghanistan made as much sense as attacking Canada.

Yes. I know the pitch that Afghanistan was the 'training ground' for the terrorists.

Ultimately... I saw Team Bush look to satisfy the US' need for vengeance, but preserve business interests with Saudi royalty. Invading Iraq made even less sense. The weapon system of mass destruction notion was a conscientious flat out lie.

We are experiencing the long term effects of such criminal activity right now.

my2hands

No

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

my2hands said:

mcgruff10 said:

I think america needed a wake up call and 9/11 was it.  Air travel comes to mind; it was way too lax before sept 11.  Beefed up security at bridges, tunnels, and "soft targets" as in port authority and times square.

but how about the actual War On Terror? i'm not talking about taking our shoes off at the airport brother

Did you care to address the question I posed?

Do you feel the US response to 9-11 thwarted future terrorist activity that was already in the making... or that it germinated future activity?

Could 9-11 have been a massive one time event with nothing more planed that people needed to worry about... or was it the champagne cork and the west resentment was about to unleash itself?

the official story tells me that Bin Laden & Al Queda were a small extremist group that had to hide and operate out of caves in literally the armpit of the planet, Afghanistan, because they were not welcome anywhere else. I think the literacy rate of Afganistan at the time was below 10%, it was and is still essentially below 3rd world status. They were rejected and isolated

I think it's obvious that the West's response to 9/11 only made the issue worse and legitimized the beliefs of what we call radicals today... the disgusting invasion of Iraq based on obvious lies... shock & awe... torture... Guantanamo... black sites... drone strikes... collateral damage... carnage & slaughter... we ended up being the exact monstrous oppressors that they believed us to be... and this has helped fuel events and resentment.... it may not be the only cause, but it sure feels like gasoline got thrown on a fire 

we had a moment to turn the cheek, show a kinder gentler side of America through true global leadership, but instead we lit the whole motherfucker on fire

why are we surprised that all these 20-somethings that have grown up in The War on Terror are now willing to take the war to a western/european front?

did I mention that 15 of the Hijackers and the supposed mastermind were all Saudi's, and we just gave the Saudi's a $100 billion weapons deal so they can continue to bomb and starve the people of Yemen with our hardware... that's another thing, do we really think the people in these countries don't realize where all the fucking weapons are coming from that are leveling their homes and communities? The USA is the largest arms dealer on the planet, littering the planet with weapons...

make America great again my ass.... one day, maybe.... but we aren't even fucking close to greatness

tbergs

I think you're all focusing on the wrong war. What got us on the terrorist attack target list was our involvement in the first Iraq war. What the US did there and how we left that country is what started everything. 9/11 was the culmination of several smaller attacks against the US, both domestic and internationally, that began with the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. We are no safer now than we were in 1993, but we probably feel safer because all of these policies, security checks and measures have been implemented; however, those are only in place based on methods of attack we are planning for or expect. The method of attack for 9/11 was unexpected and so will the next major attack.

I'm not sure how we end this cycle, but dropping random bombs in Afghanistan or firing a bunch of missiles at Syria isn't going to change how the US is viewed by terrorist cells. We put the target on our back every time we get involved, especially if we use force. Some of that is the cost of doing business the way we have chosen. Our military, intelligence agencies and government know this, but have obviously decided the residual casualty rate is acceptable to achieve success (whatever success truly means).

mcgruff10

Yes

tbergs said:

I think you're all focusing on the wrong war. What got us on the terrorist attack target list was our involvement in the first Iraq war. What the US did there and how we left that country is what started everything. 9/11 was the culmination of several smaller attacks against the US, both domestic and internationally, that began with the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. We are no safer now than we were in 1993, but we probably feel safer because all of these policies, security checks and measures have been implemented; however, those are only in place based on methods of attack we are planning for or expect. The method of attack for 9/11 was unexpected and so will the next major attack.

I'm not sure how we end this cycle, but dropping random bombs in Afghanistan or firing a bunch of missiles at Syria isn't going to change how the US is viewed by terrorist cells. We put the target on our back every time we get involved, especially if we use force. Some of that is the cost of doing business the way we have chosen. Our military, intelligence agencies and government know this, but have obviously decided the residual casualty rate is acceptable to achieve success (whatever success truly means).

very well said.

Del, Saudia Arabia was the obvious target but you and I both know W would have never invaded there.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

tbergs said:

I think you're all focusing on the wrong war. What got us on the terrorist attack target list was our involvement in the first Iraq war. What the US did there and how we left that country is what started everything. 9/11 was the culmination of several smaller attacks against the US, both domestic and internationally, that began with the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. We are no safer now than we were in 1993, but we probably feel safer because all of these policies, security checks and measures have been implemented; however, those are only in place based on methods of attack we are planning for or expect. The method of attack for 9/11 was unexpected and so will the next major attack.

I'm not sure how we end this cycle, but dropping random bombs in Afghanistan or firing a bunch of missiles at Syria isn't going to change how the US is viewed by terrorist cells. We put the target on our back every time we get involved, especially if we use force. Some of that is the cost of doing business the way we have chosen. Our military, intelligence agencies and government know this, but have obviously decided the residual casualty rate is acceptable to achieve success (whatever success truly means).

This event motivated Sadam (the first Iraq war). Another 'Bush blunder'.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

mcgruff10 said:

tbergs said:

I think you're all focusing on the wrong war. What got us on the terrorist attack target list was our involvement in the first Iraq war. What the US did there and how we left that country is what started everything. 9/11 was the culmination of several smaller attacks against the US, both domestic and internationally, that began with the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. We are no safer now than we were in 1993, but we probably feel safer because all of these policies, security checks and measures have been implemented; however, those are only in place based on methods of attack we are planning for or expect. The method of attack for 9/11 was unexpected and so will the next major attack.

I'm not sure how we end this cycle, but dropping random bombs in Afghanistan or firing a bunch of missiles at Syria isn't going to change how the US is viewed by terrorist cells. We put the target on our back every time we get involved, especially if we use force. Some of that is the cost of doing business the way we have chosen. Our military, intelligence agencies and government know this, but have obviously decided the residual casualty rate is acceptable to achieve success (whatever success truly means).

very well said.

Del, Saudia Arabia was the obvious target but you and I both know W would have never invaded there.

Agreed. So then... no invasion at all.

But as we both know too... this was an opportunity.

dignin

Same

I felt safe before and feel safe now. 

Anyone from North America who is afraid of being involved in a terrorist attack needs to gain a little bit of perspective.

MayDay10

Yes

I would say, both yes and no.

No, because there is much more sophistication out there and the proliferation and spreading of technology as well as dark ideas/groups.  This would have 'progressed' this way, no matter what actions the US has taken.

Yes, because IMO, the war on terror has done a reasonably good job with limiting/preventing attacks.  The intelligence community of the USA has been ratcheted up since 9-11 as has other ally nations.  The cooperation between agencies internally and globally has been improved drastically.  We have had to sacrifice some degree of privacy and freedom, whether you agree with it or not, it does assist in intelligence


The US actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as drone strikes and various blunders definitely feed into the cycle... but I am not sure it really matters.  These groups and people will always use the decadent 'West' as their eternal enemy and spread their ideals to frame that.  The best way to fight terror, in theory, is education, but it is very difficult to achieve.  Much easier to play whack a mole.  


Honestly, I am much more worried about a random domestic shooter in a public place or a situation like that occurrence in Times Square than I am a terrorist.  I would like to move my family to Wyoming

Thirty Bills Unpaid

dignin said:

I felt safe before and feel safe now. 

Anyone from North America who is afraid of being involved in a terrorist attack needs to gain a little bit of perspective.

I'm pretty sure OP meant this as a global poll and not specific to North America... which (I'm agreeing with you)... doesn't have much to fear.

my2hands

No

mcgruff10 said:

tbergs said:

I think you're all focusing on the wrong war. What got us on the terrorist attack target list was our involvement in the first Iraq war. What the US did there and how we left that country is what started everything. 9/11 was the culmination of several smaller attacks against the US, both domestic and internationally, that began with the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. We are no safer now than we were in 1993, but we probably feel safer because all of these policies, security checks and measures have been implemented; however, those are only in place based on methods of attack we are planning for or expect. The method of attack for 9/11 was unexpected and so will the next major attack.

I'm not sure how we end this cycle, but dropping random bombs in Afghanistan or firing a bunch of missiles at Syria isn't going to change how the US is viewed by terrorist cells. We put the target on our back every time we get involved, especially if we use force. Some of that is the cost of doing business the way we have chosen. Our military, intelligence agencies and government know this, but have obviously decided the residual casualty rate is acceptable to achieve success (whatever success truly means).

very well said.

Del, Saudia Arabia was the obvious target but you and I both know W would have never invaded there.

so you think we should have "invaded" Saudi Arabia after 9/11?

same result we would have now... because military force does not work... and again, would have let us show ourselves to be the monsters they said we are... all the things i detailed above that Americans want to forget would still happen... torture... shock & awe... black sites... Guantanamo... drones... millions of dead, or should I say collateral damage to make everyone feel better about bombing grandparents and children whule we BBQ on Memorial Day Weekend?

how many trillions spent in this war? how may slaughtered? how many communities destroyed? and what has that achieved exactly? war doesn't work brother, and as a matter of fact the point being made is that in this case it only exacerbated the problem...

my2hands

No

I don't have the answers... but I know for a fact that war and the military are NOT the answer

mace1229

Yes

This was hard because I felt I needed a different option, I don't feel more safe from terrorism than I did 16 years ago, I actually feel less safe. But that is probably partly because we are just more aware of it and the growing threat around the world. But I chose safer because even though the world is becoming more violent, I think I am less vulnerable to the increasing violence than I otherwise would be. Countries less involved in the counter-terrorism effort are still being attacked, so I don't think we are more of a target as a result of this war, but it heightens our awareness at a personal and government level which increases our safety.

tbergs

my2hands said:

mcgruff10 said:

tbergs said:

I think you're all focusing on the wrong war. What got us on the terrorist attack target list was our involvement in the first Iraq war. What the US did there and how we left that country is what started everything. 9/11 was the culmination of several smaller attacks against the US, both domestic and internationally, that began with the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. We are no safer now than we were in 1993, but we probably feel safer because all of these policies, security checks and measures have been implemented; however, those are only in place based on methods of attack we are planning for or expect. The method of attack for 9/11 was unexpected and so will the next major attack.

I'm not sure how we end this cycle, but dropping random bombs in Afghanistan or firing a bunch of missiles at Syria isn't going to change how the US is viewed by terrorist cells. We put the target on our back every time we get involved, especially if we use force. Some of that is the cost of doing business the way we have chosen. Our military, intelligence agencies and government know this, but have obviously decided the residual casualty rate is acceptable to achieve success (whatever success truly means).

very well said.

Del, Saudia Arabia was the obvious target but you and I both know W would have never invaded there.

so you think we should have "invaded" Saudi Arabia after 9/11?

same result we would have now... because military force does not work... and again, would have let us show ourselves to be the monsters they said we are... all the things i detailed above that Americans want to forget would still happen... torture... shock & awe... black sites... Guantanamo... millions of dead, or should I say collateral damage to make everyone feel better about bombing grandparents and children whule we BBQ on Memorial Day Weekend?

how many trillions spent in this war? how may slaughtered? how many communities destroyed? and what has that achieved exactly? war doesn't work brother, and as a matter of fact the point being made is that in this case it only exacerbated the problem...

I think we were in a really tough spot after 9/11, but we made the wrong decision to go after Iraq. Should we have invaded Saudi? Debatable, but probably not. To wage war against an entire country for the acts of a dozen individuals is a pretty big jump. We definitely needed to respond by getting intelligence officers in those countries and start working with their leaders to eradicate the radical groups. The response to 9/11 was really the US' chance to do something without being viewed negatively, but then we fucked it up and blew our get out of jail free card.

As a world power and leader sometimes we need to restrain from flexing our military prowess just because we can because it usually bites us in the ass, but we've got this giant chip on our shoulder so we decide to teach a lesson. It's like we're Marty McFly and can't stand someone thinking we're chicken.