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

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.

unsung

I won't go to Europe again.  Locally I am aware and ready as best as I can be if the need should arise where I need to defend.  I hope I never have to.

rgambs

Same

unsung said:

I won't go to Europe again.  Locally I am aware and ready as best as I can be if the need should arise where I need to defend.  I hope I never have to.

Paranoia is the only way to define this.
I can't wait to go back to Europe, I'd be more likely to get struck by lightning than be involved in a terror attack. 
You're probably more likely to suffer a firearm malfunction than a terror attack for goodness sake.

Go Beavers

mace1229 said:

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.

I disagree that it's becoming more violent. Even the one link in the thread doesn't support the thought that it's more violent. 

tbergs

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

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.

I disagree that it's becoming more violent. Even the one link in the thread doesn't support the thought that it's more violent. 

The Atlantic did a story last year that indicates terrorism has increased dramatically since 2000, but there are caveats to the data, as they pointed out.

"Between 2000 and 2014, less than 3 percent of deaths from terrorism occurred in Western countries, according to the Institute for Economics and Peace."

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/07/terrorism-isis-global-america/490352/

HesCalledDyer

No

I actually feel less safe knowing that my own government can invade my privacy any time they want under the guise of "homeland security."

mace1229

Yes

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

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.

I disagree that it's becoming more violent. Even the one link in the thread doesn't support the thought that it's more violent. 

We are more aware and witness to worldly violence at least. It wasnt in the news every with video available day like it is now.

Bentleyspop

rgambs said:

unsung said:

I won't go to Europe again.  Locally I am aware and ready as best as I can be if the need should arise where I need to defend.  I hope I never have to.

Paranoia is the only way to define this.
I can't wait to go back to Europe, I'd be more likely to get struck by lightning than be involved in a terror attack. 
You're probably more likely to suffer a firearm malfunction than a terror attack for goodness sake.

You are absolutely correct on all points.
Plus living a life of paranoia and fear is sad.
You aren't  here forever  so why waste so much time and energy bring afraid. 

If you're  afraid to travel because  of terrorism fears then the terrorists have won.

CM189191

Did the War on Drugs works?  Or the War on Poverty?  You can't declare war on an intangible idea like Terror.  

my2hands

No

HesCalledDyer said:

I actually feel less safe knowing that my own government can invade my privacy any time they want under the guise of "homeland security."

now we are talking...

tbergs

I think this was mentioned in another thread, but the Manchester bombing is a perfect example of how US citizens are easily swayed to believe we need a stronger response to terror and thus justifies the bombing in Afghanistan or missile launches in Syria. We know that children were targeted and killed in Manchester, but to this day I have yet to hear, see or read anything on the demographics of those ISIS "fighters" who were killed by the MOAB. Doesn't anyone find that a bit odd? I have no way of knowing this, but I would estimate that there were women and children who died in that bombing. I don't know what their contributions to the cause were or what level of involvement they had, but the US needs to quit hiding behind our military actions.

The US citizens may have no clue who was killed, but you better believe the locals and those supporting ISIS know and it furthers their agenda when we aren't publicly open about what the full story is. That bombing has disappeared from US media and attention even though we still don't know exactly what was destroyed or who was killed.