Are we creating more terrorists than we are killing?

Question

And,If you were the leader of our country, how would you deal with the terrorism threat?

Answer 1

Yes. if we use fear, repression and deadly force to keep Iraq under control, while hiding out in our green zone, it only makes the US more hated and this occupation serves to incubate more terrorists. The ignorance and violence only serves to create more. How do we deal with it. First get rid of all the current leaders and policy makers and start talking, dialogues.
Begin to seek understanding and stop all this religious rhetoric.
We really know politicians are behind this. Lets hold some of the accountable.

Answer 2

The current leader could only deal with the terrorism threat by committing suicide.
If I was leader I would get rid of all secret service departments, because they are the ones who conduct the terrorism.
Yes, more are being created, because none of the government or CIA responsible have yet been brought to justice, but they have alienated so many others who were previously peaceful, that more terrorism occurs.
One very significant point is the depleted uranium in Iraq.
The radiation from the DU shells is causing so much pain and anguish to Iraqis that many of them know they are doomed to die from the cancers thy have caught from the radiation.
So, in order to get rid of the pain, they don't mind killing themselves, and may as well take some of those whom they see responsible with them.
This is why there are so many suicide bombers - because so many people are affected by radiation from the DU weapons, including American soldiers.

Answer 3

Believe it or not the United States has been a home to terror almost from the beginning. Look at how blacks and other minorities were terrorized. The formation of the Ku Klux Klan in 1866 pretty much guaranteed that we were in for a wild ride. I have a real problem with us send troops overseas to fight terrorism when we did so little to fight the terrorists we have here at home. I know it's digging in the past a little bit, but history always repeats itself.

Answer 4

The answer is complicated. Yes, we are creating more than we are killing: there was never a shortage of people who didnt like America, just a shortage of those willing to do anything about it. That number is decreasing, but not by much. Those quoting the leaked story only have a fraction of the information and are jumping to conclusions (yet again).

I dont have enough information to make an educated guess on how to deal with the threat. There are many who have their ideas on how things should be done, but I would need more specific information before deciding what was best.

On a side note, I feel GWB is doing a better job at it than I wouldve suspected Kerry or Gore.

@violence begets violence- turn a blind eye to what was done and you invite another until it hurts. Although that is not the way to live your personal life, you have to look at the bigger picture- if you allow everyone and anyone the opportunity to challenge you without consequence- let me give you an example:

If you have a cup of sugar and leave it uncovered, one ant finding it is no big deal...but quickly that one ant becomes many.

This situation is much like that cup of sugar, but there is no lid. Either you destroy the entire colony, or wait for them to claim all your sugar.

Answer 5

We do not create terrorist. The terrorists philosphies have existed way before this prez and before the last prez and before that. Terrorist i think are created by their failures in life maybe?
And just like some people in America blame their problems on whomever is president...some people overseas blame their problems on the USA.
How would I deal with terrorism...maybe i would behead them as they behead ours. Maybe I would round them up and dismember their bodies as the Sunnis and Shiites are doing at this moment to each other in Iraq.
And also we have to have a radio free europe kind of operation in the middle east...I think they only get slanted information from the media?

Answer 6

That would depend on how you define 'terrorist'. In general, yes.

Look at how many people are shooting schools randomly. Would you consider that to be a terroristic act? At this point, the gov't does. Who created the kids shooting up schools? Their parents and the bullies who tormented them.

Answer 7

That governments have permitted terrorist acts against their own people, and have even themselves been perpetrators in order to find strategic advantage is quite likely true, but this is the United States we're talking about.

That intelligence agencies, financiers, terrorists and narco-criminals have a long history together is well established, but the Nugan Hand Bank, BCCI, Banco Ambrosiano, the P2 Lodge, the CIA/Mafia anti-Castro/Kennedy alliance, Iran/Contra and the rest were a long time ago, so there’s no need to rehash all that. That was then, this is now!

That Jonathan Bush’s Riggs Bank has been found guilty of laundering terrorist funds and fined a US-record $25 million must embarrass his nephew George, but it's still no justification for leaping to paranoid conclusions.

That George Bush's brother Marvin sat on the board of the Kuwaiti-owned company which provided electronic security to the World Trade Centre, Dulles Airport and United Airlines means nothing more than you must admit those Bush boys have done alright for themselves.

That George Bush found success as a businessman only after the investment of Osama’s brother Salem and reputed al Qaeda financier Khalid bin Mahfouz is just one of those things - one of those crazy things.

That Osama bin Laden is known to have been an asset of US foreign policy in no way implies he still is.

That al Qaeda was active in the Balkan conflict, fighting on the same side as the US as recently as 1999, while the US protected its cells, is merely one of history's little aberrations.

The claims of Michael Springman, State Department veteran of the Jeddah visa bureau, that the CIA ran the office and issued visas to al Qaeda members so they could receive training in the United States, sound like the sour grapes of someone who was fired for making such wild accusations.

That one of George Bush's first acts as President, in January 2001, was to end the two-year deployment of attack submarines which were positioned within striking distance of al Qaeda's Afghanistan camps, even as the group's guilt for the Cole bombing was established, proves that a transition from one administration to the next is never an easy task.

That so many influential figures in and close to the Bush White House had expressed, just a year before the attacks, the need for a "new Pearl Harbor" before their militarist ambitions could be fulfilled, demonstrates nothing more than the accidental virtue of being in the right place at the right time.

That the company PTECH, founded by a Saudi financier placed on America’s Terrorist Watch List in October 2001, had access to the FAA’s entire computer system for two years before the 9/11 attack, means he must not have been such a threat after all.

That whistleblower Indira Singh was told to keep her mouth shut and forget what she learned when she took her concerns about PTECH to her employers and federal authorities, suggests she lacked the big picture. And that the Chief Auditor for JP Morgan Chase told Singh repeatedly, as she answered questions about who supplied her with what information, that "that person should be killed," suggests he should take an anger management seminar.

That on May 8, 2001, Dick Cheney took upon himself the job of co-ordinating a response to domestic terror attacks even as he was crafting the administration’s energy policy which bore implications for America's military, circumventing the established infrastructure and ignoring the recommendations of the Hart-Rudman report, merely shows the VP to be someone who finds it hard to delegate.

That the standing order which covered the shooting down of hijacked aircraft was altered on June 1, 2001, taking discretion away from field commanders and placing it solely in the hands of the Secretary of Defense, is simply poor planning and unfortunate timing. Fortunately the error has been corrected, as the order was rescinded shortly after 9/11.

That in the weeks before 9/11, FBI agent Colleen Rowley found her investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui so perversely thwarted that her colleagues joked that bin Laden had a mole at the FBI, proves the stress-relieving virtue of humour in the workplace.

That Dave Frasca of the FBI’s Radical Fundamentalist Unit received a promotion after quashing multiple, urgent requests for investigations into al Qaeda assets training at flight schools in the summer of 2001 does appear on the surface odd, but undoubtedly there's a good reason for it, quite possibly classified.

Answer 8

"GREENWICH, United States (AFP) - The White House acknowledged that Iraq was among several factors that "fuel the spread of jihadism," but said that winning the war would dishearten potential terrorists."

Do I need to say more?

Answer 9

Hell yes. Understand that going in guns blazing will not solve a problem. Try a more diplomatic approach working with other countries.

Answer 10

Violence begets violence.
I would form an ant-terrorism group that would infiltrate terrorist cells & disrupt their operations as well as secretly assassinate their operatives & leaders.