CNN/ORC poll: More Americans say terrorists are winning than ever before


Washington (CNN)Americans are more likely to say that terrorists are winning the war against the United States than they have been at any point since the September 11 attacks, according to a new CNN/ORC poll.

The public is broadly unhappy with the nation’s progress, with nearly three-quarters of Americans saying they are not satisfied with how the war on terror is proceeding. That figure, following terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, California, this fall, is well above the previous high of 61% who said they were dissatisfied in August 2007.


The poll was conducted December 17-21, several weeks after the Bernardino shootings.

While less than half of Americans say the terrorists are winning, the current 40% who do believe that is 17 points above the previous high of 23% reached in August 2005. Another 40% say neither side has an advantage, and just 18% say today that the U.S. and its allies have the upper hand – 10 points off the previous low for that measure, reached in January 2007.


In ideological warfare, it is not enough to be against an opposing ideology. What is more required is to advocate, promote, defend, strengthen, and improve an alternative ideology.

There are stories in the Bible in which God wants to glorify himself by setting up barriers so that only ridiculously low numbers of true believers are left to fight the war in his name.
It is not so much the numbers that determine the final outcome of any battle, but the intensity of the believe of those who enter into the battle in the first place. It is not so much what a people are fighting against, but what a people are fighting for. In Christian terms, Jesus warns us of clearing out a demon only to have seven other demons rushing into the vacuum of the room bereft of belief in any alternative.

Civil society, based in the 3500 year struggle with Judeo-Christian teaching, is something worth believing in. Unless and until that arrow is pulled out of the quiver of weapons that may be used against the nihilistic forces of the Islamist, the feeling will remain that the battle is going badly, no matter how large and powerful we are, and no matter how ridiculously trivial the numbers of Islamists might appear to be.

In a battle against the pure evil of ISIS, the MB, and the Islamists in general, what is needed are nations of believers who understand that there is no greater weapon than being the people that Christ and his 3500 year old Judeo-Christian ethic has transformed us into.


are things better or worse since 9/11? worse. the terrorists have grown stronger!


As it stands, I’d say the terrorists are winning. Their numbers are growing as human culture in general becomes more discontent with reality, making it easier to recruit than ever before. Couple that with certain portions of the population being embittered by a decade of constant warfare while also being influenced by existing radical ideologies, and it’s no surprise that we’re seeing the significant increases we are.

It’s going to take a lot to get our world back in order, and I don’t think most of our modern societies are going to survive whatever catalyst it takes…


After Paris and San Bernardino, it’s no question who’s winning.


It’s difficult to imagine a worse situation overall.

ISIS is a terrorist organization with, apparently, a lot of tentacles.
It’s fighting against the number one terrorist supporter on earth, Iran, for control of the Middle East. In that endeavor, Iran is allied with Russia. Amazingly, the U.S. is supporting Iran.


How about the Soviet Union existing, that is a worse situation for you. That is even worse than ISIS.

It would seem that Islamism is the lesser evil compared to states at oppose US foreign policy.


They do have territory in Syria.
The Taliban has regained territory in Syriathey have not seen since 2001.
Libya now is a safe harbor for ISIS, and Boko Haram is a strong presence in Nigeria and northern Africa. Wave after wave of economic and war refugees from Syria, North Africa, and the rest of the House of Islam is inundating European shores, with ISIS assuring us that they are a part of those waves.
Worse of all, the largest state sponsor of terror, Iran, has been given a legitimate path to nuclear weaponry.

On the other side of the ledger, any further attempts at terror the scale of 911 have been thwarted. The anxiety caused by the anthrax attacks that occurred at the time of 911 has not proved to be the wave of the future, as had been feared.
And Iraq, the one country that could have potentially become a producer of biological weapons of mass destruction under Saddam Hussein has had that threat neutralized.

There is good and bad to be seen in the revival of nationalism in Europe. The good is that the multi-culturalist who seek to erase European culture have finally grown an opposition, The bad is that national supremacist ideologies never bode well for Europe which is a heterogeneous mixture of a myriad of indigenous cultures.


Our entire “strategy” is to arm moderate terrorists and pray to God that they overthrow Assad with the weapons and money they’ve been given.

With a foreign policy that idiotic, of course “the terrorists are winning.”

The only way they could possibly lose is if they commit suicide with the guns and bombs we give them.

But, of course, it’s the American soldiers who are committing suicide in droves.


The West has nobody to blame but themselves for all of the radical jihadists groups. We recruited them to help us fight the Soviets and it’s coming back to kick us.

If America had a humane foreign policy and would quit pillaging in other areas of the world for natural resources, wealth, etc, we may not be having these issues.

I love America, but we are our own worst enemy. God help us!


Winning, that must be state department propaganda. We are importing a holy war to America and the West by large is starting to reject the theory. :rolleyes: And “finally”, and many NOW think we should identify the ideology because its begining to dawn on them the magnitude of this mess we are confronted with let alone the course of guerrilla warfare it takes. I suppose the state department will tout Ramadi as evidence of our “winning” :blush:


I would be curious to know what Europe and the rest of the world think - Canada, Australia, etc.


I think in many ways we are hearing from them as with the UK and the Muslim brotherhood and the Czech Republic, Netherlands also and latest with Germany and France with multiculturalism in which Merkel I think we safely say has been most generous. Apparently the generosity extended so far. :wink: Canada nothing jumps out at me to report, they might be on the state dept version of reality still. :slight_smile:


I was talking about the present, of course. One could, I suppose, argue that the reign of Timur was worse too, but it has no relevance to the present.

And the Soviet Union might not have been worse in some ways. Soviet agents didn’t bomb or shoot American civilians in the U.S., and had no apocalyptic vision at all. They wanted to live. Internally, of course, the situation was worse in the Soviet Union numerically.


Please take no offense to this, but this reflects an almost ethnicist bias. Many are inclined to believe that “foreigners” are incapable of coming up with their own plans and evils, and that they would be nice, supine “little brown brothers” if we didn’t give them bad ideas.

There is nothing new under the sun or in human conduct. People like, say, Baghdadi have their own agendas, based on beliefs they did not get from the west, and have ambitions based on their own histories and that predate western influence by centuries. That they see the west as a barrier to the plans they would have anyway, is simply incidental. Their worst enemy is actually Iran, and I’m sure they know that as well, and for reasons having to do with their own history and ideology.


Blame the West, er…

Nigeria, Chad, Mali, Sudan, Tunisia, Algeria, Pakistan, India, Philippines, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Kenya. Islamic terrorist attacks in China too, they’ve had to crack down and Russia for that matter.

Also, the Taliban hate the Mujahudin who were the enemy of the USSR in Afghanistan, the Mujahadin had thousands of fighters from different countries to somehow claim this is the US’s fault.

Besides that, some argue that what the USSR under Brezhnev did in Afghanistan was very, very bad.

Between 850,000–1.5 million civilians were killed[24][25] and millions of Afghans fled the country as refugees, mostly to Pakistan and Iran.

So, we should just okay a slaughter that happens? It’s not the Rebels who are blamed for most of these fatalities if many at all.

Prior to the arrival of Soviet troops, the pro-Soviet Nur Mohammad Taraki government took power in a 1978 coup and initiated a series of radical modernization reforms throughout the country.[27] Vigorously suppressing any opposition from among the traditional Muslim Afghans, the government arrested thousands and executed as many as 27,000 political prisoners.


Yeah, you’re absolutely correct. The United States has been funding and training anti-government forces in Syria since 2005.

This means that the United Staes is responsible for deliberately engineering the Syrian Civil War.

Which means that the United States is directly responsible for 250,000 Syrian deaths, or thereabouts.

And although people here will dismiss it out of hand, and likely in the rudest terms possible, it’s not in the least bit surprising or out of the ordinary, considering that the United States’ policy of foreign intervention is responsible for thirty million deaths since World War Two.


It would be more accurate to say the U.S. has attempted, with only modest success, to bring peace to the killing fields of the world and, when it succeeds here and there, abandons the effort before it’s really achieved.


The US is responsible for the causalities in Afghanistan because it initiated and prolonged that war. The Soviets did not want war, but the US certainly did. You do not have any evidence that suggested the Soviets outright murdered hundreds of thousands of people. I looked at one source for the claim and it did not heavily use the word “kill”, except referring to 151,000 people dying during the war in 1984 and 35,000 killed in the first year of the establishment of the PDPA (page 107). Also mentioned on that page was the annual war death rate for men was three times higher than that of women, suggesting that most of those deaths were combat-related, and other deaths could be ascribe to the further breakdown of infrastructure (as that what wars do), exacerbating the health situation in an already poor country.

So sponsoring the Contras is “bringing peace”.


Sometimes “peace” is the absence of a government that murders its own people. What’s the communist toll up to? 100 million, perhaps more?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit