16

Mainstream Media Journalist Exposes How the US ‘War on Terror’ Increased Terrorism by 4,500%

Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 4 months ago to Politics
119 comments | Share | Flag

So after all the talk in last night's Republican Debate about ISIS and Muslim Terrorists, let's back up a little bit and take a closer look at what $6,000,000,000,000.00, 7,000 KIA's, and 22 Veteran Suicides/Day has accomplished since we started the "WAR ON TERROR", and what we can expect from a future under "leadership" by a large part of the Republican Party or the Democratic Party.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the article:
“According to reports from our own U.S. government, reports of deaths from terrorism in the Middle East between 2002 and 2014 have increased 4,500 percent.

But let’s go a little deeper. Take for instance just the country of Iraq. Before the 2003 U.S. invasion, do you know how many suicide attacks there were in Iraq? None. In the country’s history there had never been one. But since the 2003 invasion, there have been 1,892.

And what about Afghanistan? Just last year alone, insurgents killed 2,643 civilians last year—the highest number since U.N. records began.

How about Pakistan? In the 14 years prior to 9/11 there was one suicide attack on Pakistani soil. In the 14 years since, there have been 486 suicide attacks.

The same is true in the past 14 years in Somalia (88), Yemen (85), Libya (29), Nigeria (91), and Syria (165).”
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And where are the 1.5million Christians that were living in their native country of Iraq before 2003? That's a question for Conservatives.




All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by edweaver 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No not at all. One doesn't have to be rich to want to serve your country. And it's not that they shouldn't get paid, but it should not be a living. Then and only then will they be doing it for reasons other than getting rich off the backs of the taxpayers.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Bethesda-gal 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think you mean "have not gone to school"...
    That aside, so then this idea 100% excludes all but those who can afford to "not earn a living serving", meaning you guarantee only the Trumps of the world would be able to survive if they held public office. Is that what you want ?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by edweaver 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'm more advocating to elect people who have not went to school for political science or have not made it their profession. Term limits would not be needed if they were not earning a living serving. It should be just that, serving because you have something to offer. Put in a few years after they have made their living and then return to the private sector to work until retirement. There would only need to be one simple law passed and that is they could not work in any lobbying industry for 10 years.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Bethesda-gal 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There might be something that some govt agency has done efficiently, but when you are spending someone else's money the incentive to be careful just isn't there.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by edweaver 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No, what I'm saying is we need people in office, not politicians. Citizen legislators that are not making their living off the backs of the people. If they truly had a stake in the outcomes that they vote for we would retain a much more ethical government. As it is, most are just trying to get reelected to keep their paycheck coming. The best way to do that is pass bill that provide money to the largest groups of people. This is why the Democrats have been so successful.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ditto on the last paragraph coupled to what is wrong with accepting refugees who are non islamic and raising the bar for those those who are? It's a group effort for them why treat them as individuals - they are not. What is wrong with fighting terror within our own borders. Plenty enough of that to go around.

    Yes Paul is speaking with sense but that's one subject. He failed when he demonstrated a liking for leftist economics and a lack of faith in himself and a continued allegiance to the those whose primary goal is socialist. Talk is one thing, he walks on the wrong side with his actions. Espousing more of the same is to me is a political, cultural and social three strikes your out. A. He's a Republican. B. He's an economic Pelosite. C. He ducks too many questions and issues. Same applies to Cruz. You find your solution or acceptance. I'll reject those who don't qualify and those have no suggestions, plans, ideas, nor answers except flush a toilet --- again. .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Abaco 9 years, 4 months ago
    Rand Paul is the only one speaking any sense on this topic. This war on terror is a joke. We've played a highly active roll in destroying so much in the middle east...cementing in place our role as a nation of dangerous f'ups.

    I've been asking for a few years now, "If we are at war with terror, why are our borders wide open?"
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "Keep making lite of those that want you and your family dead."
    I take crime very seriously, but it's always been with us. Failing to aggrandize criminals is not the same as taking crime lightly.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Bethesda-gal 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    So then what is your solution ? You're saying as soon as someone wins an election they're disqualified ! So we should be a government without any elected officials ?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by edweaver 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't believe it is cynical to tell the truth as I see it. I participate so I've known a number of politicians. Politicians are exactly the people I wouldn't vote for. Politics is simply a game playing with peoples lives, in which they rarely tell everyone the entire truth. Therefore I still stand that ethical and politician cannot be used in the same sentence with a straight face. And I've been an elected official so I've seen first hand what power does to even the the most trustworthy of politicians. I agree there are some good candidates though, if they don't turn into politicians.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    What puts me in Edward Snowden's camp? That it was 39 years after the event that we finally found out that our" most eithical, educated politicians so that they will be modt likely to put ethical, educated bureaucrats into the policy positions to make the best possible decisions for our country." lied to the world leading to some 54,000 American deaths and several hundred thousand dead Vietnamese, not to count the few hundred thousand of suicide and OD deaths of Viet vets that's still going on today. If that's what puts me in Edward Snowden's camp, letting the American people know just how much they've been and are being lied to, then I'd be proud to join him. The absolute shame of this country is that we haven't listened to or paid attention to what he's told us.

    Then Nixon (I'm Not A Crook), then Reagan (I Don't Have A Memory Of That), Bush I (Read My Lips), Clinton (It Depends On What The Definition of Is, Is), Bush II (Mission Accomplished) and Obama (If You Like Your Doctor, Then You Can Keep Your Doctor).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Bethesda-gal 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That would put you in Edward Snowden's camp. And is dangerously misguided. If all Americans know every detail about what our government is doing, albeit in our name, then our enemies will also know it and put our security at risk. In the real world there is no perfect solution and one has to do the cost / benefit analysis as they see fit. But indicting all politicians on the mistakes of some is unfair.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Bethesda-gal 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think that is unnecessarily cynical. There might not be a lot of them whose word I'd trust, but there are some. How many congressmen or senators do you know personally ? I know a couple and one more who's currently a candidate.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    OK Chesty:

    Religion bad, Objectivism good.

    People that rely on religious belief and faith to direct their lives and actions, bad.

    Islam is a religion, so it's bad. Muslims believe in Islam and what it tells them to do, bad.

    Objectivist rational, logical reasoning leads to understanding that all individuals have rights, to include whether to use reasoning or not. No one may force another to believe, not to believe, or to use reason.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by edweaver 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Blind faith can be reserved for no one, but trusting politicians to be ethical is simply asking for the impossible. Trusting politicians has made the mess of this country that it is and maybe to the point that we can never return to the true freedom that I so desire.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ChestyPuller 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Good to know, but what of your Grandchildren or their grandchildren, hmmm. You see Saudi Arabia has been spending 32 Billion for years to take over U.S.A. as islamic. Their plan has a finish date of 2070. Of course ignorant people will say; "Oh well, I won't be around".

    Keep making lite of those that want you and your family dead...Ostriches do that as well, they don't see it coming either
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ChestyPuller 9 years, 4 months ago
    If only I had not and did not continue to study islam; maybe then I would fall for this garbarge, but I have and do study islam. over the centuries islam has constantly attacked non-muslims, known as Kafir (singular non-muslim) Kuffar (plural non-muslims). As matter of fact Iraq became by attacking the Kuffar that was living and ruling there.

    Maybe we should discuss a few items;
    What is a Caliphate?
    What does Salafi mean, and who calls themselves that?

    You see most who write articles like this are either; ignorant of the facts, dhimmi's [fools helping islam expand], or islamists lying to help islam to expand.

    Let us begin the discussion; shall we
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo