Who is to blame for radical Islamist terror attacks in America?

First to blame would be the Syrian refugee. Then one has to look at how to prevent these things in the future.

 

How do we prevent it? Ban AR-15s? Ban Night Clubs? Ban Gays?

 

Interestingly enough, the only logical choice is left off of the poll.

I blame....the Syrian refugee(s) who committed whatever act we're talking about here.

Not the ones who didn't.

 

None of the above.

 

Thx for the incite, what do you suggest?

 

Keep in mind I have been a military man all my life, no politician, diplomate or anything else. First and foremost is to utterly defeat ISIS in both Syria and Iraq. If this means Assad remains in power, so be it. I am sure we could work with the Russians and coordinate massive air strikes to help Assad's 200,000 strong military, although not well trained and the the weak Iraqi Army to move and fight with our air support along with the Russians.

Then you have the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan and now thanks to Obama overthrowing Qaddafi the terrorist safe haven and training grounds in Libya. The Egyptians have show a willingness and have struck certain terrorist site in Libya in the past, we could work closely with them. That is where I would start. But the big question is do we have the will. Have we lost what it takes to win, have we become too squeamish? If we have it probably doesn't matter what we do.

 

What/who is to blame for Islamic terror attacks? Guns? Trump? Obama? And what do we do to prevent radical Islamist from continuing to attack us?

 

Dropping them supplies and flying airstrikes that don't drop bombs doesn't seem to be working. At the current rate ISIS is being defeated, we'll have them totally gone in 621 years-ish.

 

There's no one cause. And I wouldn't hold Trump or Obama responsible beyond anybody else. Terror attacks as we know them have been mainstream since the late 70s. A lot of what drives it is how this country's government and businesses conduct and have conducted themselves across the world. Bush liked to tell us that the terrorists hate our freedoms, but it was never as simple as that, if that was ever even a part of it to begin with. In truth they hate our meddling, just like we hate when other country's or groups meddle with our stuff. Islam is just the recruitment tool that supplies them with bodies to die for them. It's rather ingenious actually because not only does it inspire buffoons to die for them, the reaction against Islam by non-Muslims also drives recruitment.The leaders aren't actually trying to spread Islam itself, they are trying to spread their control. When you realize what it's really all about, you also realize this is just the same old pissing match that warfare, domination, and imperialism have always been, no matter what ideology they try to dress it up in.

And when folks lose their minds and lash out against all Muslims, you're really doing half the work for them. The left is accused of aiding the terrorists when in actuality those folks who want Muslim witchhunts are contributing their fair share as well. Cowboy in the desert stuff like Bush II's Iraq fiasco are like a gold rush for the terrorists. Bush has probably been their favorite president ever. The right likes to joke about Obama, but in reality it was the Bush administration's actions that has swelled their ranks.

It's easier to make jihadists than it is to get rid of them.

 

I don't think Obama wants to defeat ISIS. He knows if he weakens ISIS too much, Assad will take advantage of that as the weaker ISIS gets, the stronger Assad gets. Obama seems to have put removing Assad ahead of defeating and destroying ISIS. Just an observation.

 

It looks like a total proxy war. Everyone has a team. Obama is willing to let ISIS exist and kill Americans in order to win.

 

Proxy wars, I been in a couple. I sure hope you're wrong about Obama.

 

I voted other, because I think hatred is to blame for any and all attacks.

The better question is, how big of a threat is ISIS to the U.S. mainland? While I agree that something should be done about them, the U.S. doesn't need to legitimize them any more than they already are.

 

If you look at the numbers of Islamic terrorists and terror incidents before our invasion of Iraq you will have your answer! That Said of course Obama could have been more effective in fighting ISIS but that would probably have had little if any effect on terrorism and perhaps would have even increased the attacks against the US.

 

Before the thread gets totally drowned into the stupid, I would say that the person that is doing it is responsible, unless that person was a soldier, a merc, or otherwise was paid for it. In these cases it is the people who commanded it.

Now let's go to your obvious indirect targets.

- The Orlando shooter wasn't a foreigner. He was an American.
- He wasn't religious; He was gay. He consumed alcohol. His life was a lie.
- Muslims are a peaceful people for the vast majority. You never hear about the peaceful ones simply because there's nothing to hear.
- The ones that are not in peace are, most of the time, the ones which are in countries the Occidental colonial powers have been messing with since the end of WWI. Those who are too peaceful for the sht we created there try to immigrate here.
- No need for Islam to be homophobe, anti-abortion, against women or otherwise regressive. These are not novelty muslim ideas. They are conservative ones, anywhere you might be on the damn globe.

You can now resume your anti-muslim hysteria.

 

Terror groups were getting stronger in number, wealth and in the number and frequency of attacks leading up to 9/11. If we had done nothing, they'd be stronger today than then, and the threat of our annihilation even greater. Our going after them didn't increase our danger. It stymied our danger by breaking them up. The increase in attacks by terrorists since then are acts of desperation. I think we did the right thing.

 

A strong argument can be made that the US has not achieved any lasting significant benefit from its use of military force since 1945.

 

Yahtzee!!! The creation of Israel seemed like a (*)(*)(*)(*)-poor idea to a lot of people at the time including Generals Marshall & Eisenhower. It was a rotten decision.

 

I sure hope the people who put "Jews" were poll-trolls.

In any case...does anyone really think such a complex situation boils down to individuals and their actions? That seems incredibly naïve.

 

Total and absolute nonsense! There were less than a thousand full time terrorists at the absolute highest estimate before the Iraq war. And you can easily check the growth rates of worldwide terrorist incidents online should you care to become informed.

 

Liberals are to blame, definitely liberals.

 

That's nutty. Defending ourselves by going after those organizations who wish to kill us doesn't increase our enemy's numbers. It merely defines our enemies from the shadows or allows them to define themselves. With your measure, we'd never do anything but sit here until they come to kill us. And that's stupid because they really do want to murder all of us by any means. We do not seek the same of them except in defense of our liberty and our lives. You and your stats neglect the dormancy factor when counting. What you see as an increase or something new, I see as an expose or something that already existed.

 

Ummmm... Why is "Islam" not one of the options. Seems like a pretty important bit of information.

 

Going by the highly twisted and perverted "logic" I see here the main perpetrators would be our Founding Fathers who tried to found a country based on Truth and Justice, guaranteeing Freedom to its citizens. This somehow made somebody do something in the 200+ years since that offended somebody

Or we could try whoever actually did it and/or claimed credit, but where's the fun there?

 

I blame the people who committed the terrorist attack themselves. Not Islam, not the West, not guns. If someone blows up a building, it's no one's fault but that person. Rather than go cause a Middle Eastern Armageddon however, out of the benevolence and nobility of us superior American, we should develop their society. We did it with Japan, and look at them today. Clearly, the area lacks the stability required to develop on their own, but they can gain stability unless they are developed. So we have to lend a helping hand and build them up, control their governmental system for a couple years, and then leave them alone. If the only image of Americans you have is a bunch of people with guns pointing them at you, of course you're gonna attack the West. If they see the nobility and superiority of Americans rather than out military prowess, I sincerely doubt they would attack us. Furthermore, if we develop their countries and replace their governments with our own puppet regimes, then we can put down organizations like ISIS with secret police forces and such. We can just show up guns blazing and shoot everything that moves, it won't solve the problem.