So mass deportations is needed is what your saying?
Nope that actually would not solve anything. Aside from just making more enemies your terrorist threat is mostly from domestic ones.
Exactly they can't crash planes into buildings if they can't get into the country. Good point
.. But why would they if they dont need to? They could just get sympathizers from the inside.
They haven't in the past. Just Muslim converts
Factually incorrect. Besides even if its just "Muslim converts" what will you do about it? Deport them? Sorry but you can't deport them because they are your citizen.
We just don't want to end up like Sweeden
How convenient. Sweeden does not exist to begin with so you are in no danger.
Yeah we call it swedistan now lol
How convenient because we call UK the 53'rd state of United Stains of America.
it's not factually incorrect actually. Al Qaeda as a movement was near dead before the US decided to invade the middle east. the 6 months following the invasion saw something like a 270% increase in terror attacks in Iraq and basically gave extremists a huge recruiting drive.while ignoring extremists likely wouldn't make them go away, it is also true that aggression in the middle east does make it easier for them to gather support.The EU needs to tighten up on it's freedom of movement.
@irondice you don't think slamming two planes into the twin towers didn't give them a massive recruitment drive? "270% increase in terror attacks in Iraq " i agree but theyd been building their terror infastructure from 2001 with new recruits coming in from all over the middle East. We just didn't invade and terrorists appeared out of nowhere. Al Queda wanted to attack America and Americans wherever and whenever they can.
@irondice Of course its not incorrect. I would probably not have said it if it was. (although I do have a habit of speaking at times when I should be fact checking a second time)Anyway the free movement of people is not really an issue. If someone wants to commit an act of terror in another country then a visa is not going to stop them especially if they have the support of an organization behind them. You might as well give them a questionnaire with the question "Will you commit an act of terror in our country?" in the application for all its worth (USA actually has that..)Aside from what we are already doing with various secret services there is no reasonable cause of action which will prevent further Terrorist attacks without dealing with the root cause back in the middle east.
My own opinion is to ban immigration from the middle East and pull out of the middle East and let them kill each other. All we want is the oil so we continue to buy it from them and stop trying to impose western cultural morality on them as it's not our business if they throw homosexuals off buildings or treat women like shit or brutally kill their own people, we should also stop providing aid as it ends up in the hands of dictators and warlords and gives them more power, money and feeds their armies. Democracy is not for everyone its time for the West to stop interfering. The greatest mistake the US ever made was in the Gulf war when the Arab league begged us for military help and we agreed thus making us a target for al Queda and other radicals.
Al Qaeda never used to function as a force of their own per se, they funded and organised activity around the world. That's part of why Al Qaeda was so factionalised. The shift in role created a lot of division. That's actually part of what led to IS. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who was at the time the head of an Afghan training camp eventually left to begin his own movement. He and Bin Laden didn't really even get along particularly well as even by extremists standards Zarqawi was considered... well, extreme lol. cont...
The twin towers wasn't the result of growth, it was a last ditch effort. It didn't require near as much planning or resources because security was so much more lax prior to 9/11. The attack itself didn't generate anywhere near the support that having a foreign power march in did. Had the US not responded as strongly as they did or perhaps differently, the attack would have been condemned and their wouldn't have been civilian killings and bombings to foster the hatred of western nations that was used to drive recruitment.
There is a tincy wincy little problem with that which is called "Morality" and "Human Rights". You either believe in them or you dont and if you dont then dont pretend you do when the shoe is on the other foot.
@irondice 9/11 was cheered in the streets, it was major recruiting tool and as a last ditch effort it worked. Al Queda showed that a major western power could be struck hard.
It's immoral to impose your morality and human rights laws on other countries or do you support the overthrow of a sovereign leader in Syria and bombing by NATO planes?
@askerbut where to from there? 9/11 generated support but suppose security had been raised but the US didn't resort to an invasion? A second attack using the same method wasn't viable, and there hasn't been an attack of such scale since. so without the fighting in the middle east which has been the bulk of recruitment and has sustained the movement well beyond 9/11, how would it have proceeded?
@irondice what would have happened if the US did nothing? Better to fight them their than here
fighting them is exactly how we ended up with IS and the current situation. The point was if the US hadn't gone over there, there probably wasn't a hell of a lot they could have done subsequently. The only issue then is whether it would have been ethical to ignore humanitarian issues in the area as well. It's an interesting contradiction that many people are against war but also insist on intervention in many situations.
@irondice no helping them is how we ended up here. If we had just stayed out of the 91 gulf war and let the Arabs fight their own battles we could have avoided Al queda attacks which started occurring against the US intervened against Saddam.
That's precisely the point I'd made saying that the US shouldn't have invaded following 9/11 to which you responded "better to fight them there than here". So you're contradicting yourself.You blame the situation on US intervention but then also put forward that intervention was a good idea. The US is repeating their own mistakes.
@irondice the US didn't intervene in Afganistan we invaded in pursuit of our enemies and those that harboured them. Completely diffrent thing.
except it's not. it's identical except the US itself happened to also not like who they were fighting rather than it being on behalf of someone else. The motive may be different but the action and result is the same.To use an analogy.I see someone bullying someone else and fight them. One would reasonably conclude this party then hates me and retailiates.orI start a fight because I don't like someone (the reason for dislike or who started is irrelevant, the aggressive action is the same either way) One would reasonably conclude this party then hates me and retailiates.different motive, same course of action, same result.
@irondice yeah but we didn't start the fight they did.
but you just said the US started it in 91 by participating in the gulf war.If you'd stayed out of that then maybe 9/11 wouldn't have happened.but it did happen and rather than thinking "hey last time we did this it ended up biting us in the ass", you decided to go and do the same thing again.A few years later after that instead of All Qaeda we have IS. Starting to see a pattern?
@irondice no I didn't. The US was asked to help by the Arab governments we didn't start it, al Queda saw this as provocation to start shit as non Muslim armies and people's are not to be tolerated within Islamic lands, it's the same reason that 7 muslim nations tried to exterminate every Israeli man woman and child in 1948. Instead of interfering for whatever reason we should let them kill each other and just buy our oil off whoever has it that's all I said.
@askerYou are really not seeing what irondice is saying are you? Just because you are upset at someone does not mean that the action you should take necessarily changes. You are falling into the trap of infinite retaliations with the hollow justification of "its better to fight them over there" which does not make any sense in the first place.
No it's more like our nation was attacked rather than tolerating it like the sweds would we bring the people responsible to justice and those that sheltered them.
@askerPutting aside that you literally invaded the wrong country for any of that to make sense and that the justification for war was that they had weapons of mass destruction (which turned out to be an outright fabrication). Now you have birthed "world terror". Congratulations.Your intolerance has not gained you anything but more enemies who are more motivated and equipped to attack you.
We invaded Afganistan which Al Queda was hiding out in. The invasion of Iraq was more intervention delusional bullshit just like in the Gulf war where we overthrow a regime and put in place democracy bringing human rights, women's rights, LGBT rights freeing the people from tyranny and oppression, Obama did the same thing in Libya, Syria, Yemen and Sudan inferring on humanitarian grounds instead of letting them slug it out. World terror was birthed in the 90's look it up al Queda has been attacking America since then and in 2001 before the invasion of Afganistan and Iraq America was attacked very globally. Just look at tolerant Europe how many times terrorists have attacked them in the last year, just look at tolerant Britain, France, Belgium, Germany and Sweeden who take in millions of Muslims each year feeding, sheltering, educating and all kinds of benefits only to be shit on every few weeks while Muslims in America are grateful to be here.
*facepalm* Oh really? Bringing democracy, human rights and things that the US dont even have? From where I am looking it just appears that you went over there, kicked their sand castle and occupied them for over a decade with bullshit excuses with little if any intentions to ever help them. Same goes for England and to a lesser degree France and Germany.Also do tell me how many terrorist attacks there has been in Sweden.
Gang rape is pretty terrifying.
Is that terrorism though? Also rape in Sweden is on the lower side compared to the rest of Europe.
The statistics say otherwise as does Swedish women. Also raping women because they are not Muslim is terrorism. Rape is classified as a weapon of war by the U. N.
You can't compare rape statistics between nations because of conflicts between definitions and other factors like report rate, as such the only way to even attempt to compare them is through rape SURVEYS in which Sweden ranks average if not below average in Europe.Sexual violence or rape is not a defacto weapon of war according to the EU but can be considered one depending on the circumstances like systematic rape, forced prostitution in a systematic fashion or otherwise just imprisoning and raping women.
www.wonderslist.com/.../ Sweden is number 2 behind South africa. According to rape crisis advocates in Sweden, 1 out of 3 Swedish women have been sexually assaulted by the time they leave their teens. During the first half of 2013, more than 1,000 Swedish women reported being raped by Muslim immigrants in the Stockholm; over 300 of those were under the age of 15.
Again that is statistics taken from police reports. Considering the majority of cases are never reported even in Sweden, much less in the rest of the world (since we are basically world leading in getting women to come forward about their rape) as well as our classification of Rape including more things, you are going to get a bad ranking.Also the whole "reported being raped by Muslim Immigrants" is complete bullshit.
Yet Sweden has banned any rape statistics relating to race or religion. Awfully convient. I can only go by what Swedish people tell me about living in swedistan
That is factually wrong. They dont do a REGULAR report on the origin of crime (such as their religious beliefs and whatnot) because they dont think it is valuable information. Last time was in 2005 FYI. Also there is nothing stopping private groups from doing their own investigation if they actually care enough but the government does not want to waste tax payer money.
Eh heh so the skyrocketing crime wave and rape in Sweden is not linked to anything lol?
You are assuming there is a skyrocketing crime-wave to start with.. Crime is actually decreasing according to latest numbers.
Since sweden cut the number if muslim refugees and immigrants coming in. Coincidence I think not.
Actually 2016 was a new record for the number of immigrants to Sweden thanks to Syria.
Thus the rise in rapes
But I thought we just agreed that it was going down?
@askee yes you did."@irondice no helping them is how we ended up here. If we had just stayed out of the 91 gulf war and let the Arabs fight their own battles we could have avoided Al queda attacks which started occurring against the US intervened against Saddam."you literally explained exactly how the US started conflict. If they had never gone there, there wouldn't be a conflict for the US. Again the motive doesn't change the action. whether you call it an intervention or invasion is irrelevant to the people you're fighting. Either way the US entered the country and started fighting.
Sorry for late reply by the way, was sleeping. AU timezone
@irondice again we didn't start it Saddam and Am Queda started it. We went into the Gulf war to help. Did the US start ww1&2?
@askeryou don't get it.The US was just chilling. Then, they went to the middle east to pick a fight. whether they were asked to or not is irrelevant. The US went over and started fighting during the gulf war.Then suddenly you're surprised when years later a bunch of people from the Middle East hijack aircraft and plowed into your towers.So then you have the bright idea of going over there AGAIN, and a few years later you have IS attacking instead.
@irondice it wasn't just America it was Kuwait, United States, United Kingdom, France, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Canada, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bangladesh, italy, Australia, Netherlands, Niger, Philippines, Sweden, Argentina, Senegal, Spain, Bahrain, Belgium, Poland, South Korea, Singapore, Norway, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Denmark, New Zealand, Hungary. The coalition was organised by the U. N. any country part of the U. N. is part of the military intervention to free Kuwait, also Saudi Arabia and Kuwait funded half of the operation. Read the news ISIS and Al Queda are not attacking us and rarely do anymore, but other countries involved in the 1990 gulf war and 2001 invasion of Afganistan. There's a difference in helping an ally out as we did in ww2 saving western Europe from Hitler and the Pacific from the Japanese and responding to those that attacked you and their allies.
it doesn't matter who else it was. You didn't have a fight, then you went over there and you did.returning to the fist fight analogy, do you think of some other people join in when you're beating on someone that you're somehow magically any less their enemy?
@irondice exactly that's what and you are right America and western countries needs to withdraw all military and humanitarian aid and let these countries fight it out, what does it matter if the are killing their own citizens, women don't have rights and gays are being tossed off tall buildings that's not our problem, we should just continue to buy their oil and sell our manufactured goods and weapons to them.When somebody asks me to join in a fight and then they attack me from behind just after me saving them yeah that is surprising."It doesn't matter who else it was. You didn't have a fight, then you went over there and you did." You mean WE dont you?
if you think the people who told the US to come drop bombs and the people pissed off about you dropping bombs are somehow the same people, I don't know what to tell you. If you can't see beyond a state then you're wasting time on IR.Other Western nations did the same, never claimed otherwise. But you tried to say it wasn't the IS who started a fight between the US and Middle East. Whether other nations did the same doesn't change that the US did.
@irondice you the middleast same us for help, even paid half the cost then they attacked us.www.nytimes.com/.../...ee-holy-war-on-hussein.html
I'll repeat since you apparently didn't read it or understand it the first time."Other Western nations did the same, never claimed otherwise. But you tried to say it wasn't the IS who started a fight between the US and Middle East. Whether other nations did the same doesn't change that the US did."I don't know what you did with regards to the first paragraph either, but had you read it you might have raised the same point about western states.
@irondice it was ISIS and Al queda that started the fight.
Then grudge was already there. Just because you end a fight does not mean that the people there think its over and done with. If you slighted them they will be out for revenge and "The West" has fucked around in the middle east since the colonial era and beyond so they got plenty of reasons to be angry at you.Your idea of just pulling out the troops and humanitarian aid, aside from being a barbaric action also will just continue the unstable situation there which in turn provides more resources and people willing to join the cause against the west. Its not a solution but a status quo.
You mean Britain did. We just bought oil off them.Humanitarian aid enriches dictators and gives them more power, more weapons and larger armies. More humane to let them fight it out quickly rather than draw it out by interfering.Which do you want troops in blowing the shit out of the middle East or troops out and let them solve their own problems?
No, US has been fucking around in the middle east as well. Also compared to humanitarian aid, you dont think buying their OIL does not enrich dictators etc? Also I am in favor of a 3rd option.
It's not our business who it enriches and it's better than inferring in other countries. Which are yo for inferring in sovereign nation
... nations or just staying out of it?
I am all for intervention but there is a smart way and a really dumb way of doing it. Also it is your business who it enriches.. Like literally. You also share some of the blame as well.
Like how Obama played it smart in Syria and Libyia?
You do realize that I classify Obama as a rightwing politician right?
Because your racist
Of course that makes sense.
Sounds about right.
You don't like.
What does it have to do with the question?
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Maybe but to the great harm of their own people living in western countries. How far can the push it until there's retaliation?
ISIS has been in combat practically since its inception. So has Al-Qeda. Actually most terrorist cells are fighting off others practically all the time.That's why well coordinated attacks are so rare; The Twin Towers attacks took years of preparation but most of these? The plan is simply "show up at venue and disrupt it." Most are far from masterminds or political genii.
Exactly we need to shut down the mosques these terrorists come from
Happens all the time. Problem is that many of the bases are just regular homes. I'm sorry that you believe there's a conspiracy but most major churches, mosques, monasteries and temples aren't involved in terrorism. Shutting them down does absolutely nothing.
Well looking from their perspective they are not chasing them around with flame throwers so maybe its a case of different definitions of "tolerance"?
The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!