Does fighting the terrorists over there, stop them from coming here?

Question

Has anyone told the terrorists they are not allowed over here since we are over there fighting them? Is this just a ploy to save them money on airline tickets?

Answer 1

Of course not.

Only a right wing zombie would believe that.

The 9/11 crowd had nothing in common with the poor, uneducated, ragtag insurgents we are screwing around with now in Iraq. Nor did the bombers in London. They were middle class to wealthy, educated, from professional families.

The insurgents in Iraq are nothing more than street thugs.

As if those guys in Iraq would be hopping on the next plane here with their AK-47's, and IED's in carry-on? Besides they'd be too poor to afford a cab ride from the airport anyway....lol

Only an idiot would buy that line of reasoning you asked about. Someone who just repeats what they're told without thinking.

Answer 2

It depends. First of all, if you mean do they stop coming here, the answer is no, even by conservative news purveyors, new terrorists have been discovered, and thwarted here. Are they less likely to be successful here? probably, but not only because we are over there, but also because we are much more aggressively monitoring all suspicious activity since 9/11 and because most of Europe, Indonesia, China, Saudi Arabia and Israel are also monitoring for terrorist activity on a higher level. Has it had an effect? Yes a twofold effect. In Afghanistan, where terrorist cell activity is still high, and where our initial roundups of suspects has given us the ability to interrogate them and develop more suspects, the effect has been good. In Iraq, it seems to be working the other way around, we are making more suspects than we had before.

Answer 3

All the territories the Israelis now possess are theirs by legal right -- the right conferred by the League of Nations Mandates Commission, when it carefully defined the territory which would be set aside, from the vast territories in the Middle East that had formerly been in the control of the Ottoman Turks as part of their empire, and which had been won by the Allies.

An Arab State, a Kurdish State, and a Jewish state were all promised. The Arabs got their state -- no, in the end, they got far more than their state but rather, in 2005, 22 members of the Arab League, the most richly endowed with natural resources of any states on earth, enjoying the fruits of the greatest transfer of wealth in human history The Kurds did not get their state, because by the time things had settled, Kemal Ataturk was driving a hard bargain and would not permit it.

The Jews got the Mandate for Palestine set up for the express purpose of establishing the Jewish National Home, which would inexorably become, all parties realized, in time a Jewish state. It did not seem wrong then, and does not seem wrong now, that the Jews should have a state of their own. They asked only for the right to have no barriers put up to their immigration, and no barriers put in the way of their buying land. That was it. That was the sum total of what they demanded.

Until the 1948 war, when five Arab armies attacked, not a single dunam of Arab-owned land (and remember that nearly 90% of the land, in any case, remained the possession of the state or the ruling authority, as in the Mandatory period) was appropriated. No one should dare to write about this subject without having done the research on demography, land ownership, and law.

The Israeli claim to the West Bank (as Judea and Samaria were carefully renamed by Jordan after 1948, in precisely the same way, and for the same reason, that the Romans, nearly two thousand years before, had renamed Judea as "Palestine" and Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina) is not that of a military occupier, though it is also that. The main legal and historic claim is that based on the League of Nations Mandate, which in turn, was based on a considerable historic and moral claim recognized by the educated leaders of the then-civilized world, who actually knew something of the history of the area, and were not nearly as misinformed as so many have been by the mass media, and the laziness and prejudice of journalists today.

The notion of "occupation" of course evokes imagines of Occupied Paris, or Occupied Berlin, after the war. It implies no justification for the claims of the power with the military presence. But the claim of Israel to the lands it took in 1967 are based, for the Sinai, on the standard rules of post-war settlement, the rules which have obtained for centuries, whereby a victor in a war of defense keeps what he has won. If the Israelis chose not to, or were forced not to exercise that right, it does not mean that the right did not exist. It did, and it applies even more forcefully to Gaza and the West Bank. But the claim there is not based merely on the successful conquest of territory to which otherwise Israel had no claim. It did have a claim, a claim based clearly on the Mandate for Palestine -- and like all the other League of Nations Mandates, was formally accepted, taken over as it were, by the United Nations when it came into being. This is a matter of record. It cannot be undone.

Whatever else one wishes to say about the West Bank or Gaza, the word "occupation" is a tendentious, and cruel, misnomer. What it seeks to imply, what it seeks to implant in the minds of men, is clear: Israel has no rights here. This is nonsense. This is the very reverse of the truth. Read the Mandate, and the Preamble to the Mandate, for Palestine. Then read the records of the Mandates Commission -- and especially how they reacted when the British unilaterally announced that the terms of the mandate would not be applied to Eastern Palestine -- that is, the consolation prize given to Abdullah of the Emirate of Transjordan.

It is indeed ironic that the "Palestinians" demand their rights as "Palestinians." The term Palestine was give by Titus to the land of Judea & Samaria when the Romans wanted to obliterate a Jewish connection to their homeland. He turned to his historians and asked who was the worst enemy of the Jews. When Titus learned the worst enemy was the Philistines, he renamed the place Palestine or Philistine. Unknown to Titus and the "Palestinians" of today is the fact that the word Philistine means invader in Hebrew. Look at the irony the invading Moslem Arab nomads are demanding their rights as "Palestinians." We demand our rights as "invaders!" We are Palestinians, we demand our rights. We are "invaders," we demand our rights. How religion plays into this dynamic of deceit is now becoming readily apparent.

Answer 4

Almost 12,000 Al-Qaeda and other terrorists (non-Iraqi's) killed in the last 3 years would lead many to believe that the Iraqi war has led their troops to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of attacks on other US interests. There is only a finite number of people and money to be spent, and much of it is being spent in those countries where the main threat to the US troops is not insurgents but rather non-Iraqi terrorists.

However, there may be other factors involved in the decrease in terror activities, such as clamping down on their money pipelines, and keeping the terrorists leaders under pressure and unable to commmunicate effectively with their operatives.

Answer 5

They are already in over 40 states. Saudi Arabia is shipping school books here to Muslim Children filled with propaganda. Don't think they are asleep at the wheel when they can come in over the border and when gangsters are selling phony ID's for $150 that can fool most scanners. They have already protested a anti-terrorist rally by Muslims here in US.

Answer 6

We are not and never have been fighting terrorists, we invaded the wrong country, and are fighting people who want their country back. Don't forget that Bush lied to get us into the quagmire, and he's the one who left us no way to get back out.

Answer 7

Every Islamofascist is a terrorist. So we ARE fighting them "over there". And if they are DEAD, they can't fly planes into buildings, can they? So every dead terrorist who meets with a US Marine or Ranger is one less to worry about over here. One of my favorite old sayings: "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out"

Answer 8

I think the terrorists are being kept busy in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Answer 9

The thing is, we're not fighting terrorists "over there"-- we're fighting sectarian insurgents. The only thing the Shiites and the Sunnis can agree on is that neither of them wants the US there. If we leave, I guarantee they're not coming here.

Answer 10

No. They can and will mount an attack here. The only way to stop the fight is to let them go to Hell in their own way and renegotiate with them later.