Americans are prevented by the interventionists to see that American foreign policies are doing the opposite of what they are supposed to do. They are actually inspiring terrorists to seek to harm United States and perpetuating terrorism.

The neo-conservators consider that a full blow-black is really justified. However, people who they identify as terrorists in reality seek to attack us not because we are champions of democracy and freedom but because we occupy and bomb their countries. It is just a matter of time until their former stronghold over foreign policy will start to fade away. American citizens will soon realize that fighting terrorists brings actually more terror upon America. According to Bussiness insider, 2016 might be a dangerous year ahead.

10. When there is an event like the killings in Paris on November 13th, the neocons rush to terrify Americans even more on the television stations. They try to make citizens in agreeing to even more surveillance at home and more cuts to our civil liberties. They push the agenda of more occupation and more bombing of foreign lands.

We are educated that we need to do it in order to fight the international terrorism. However, the reality is that their neocon policies actually have the opposite effect to increase terrorism. It might sound a bit harsh, but according to the 2015 Global Terrorism Index report over the last 15 years deaths from terrorism have increased dramatically. And, by chance this is exactly the period coinciding with the Bush's neocon agenda of "war on terrorism" that was presented as a means to end terrorism.

According to the conclusion of the same report, the two most deadly terrorist organizations in the world, Boko Haram and ISIS, have achieved as a direct consequence of US interventions their prominence today. Michael Flynn, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, declared that he regrets now the invasion of Iraq in light of the rise of ISIS. As Flynn put it, we asked where the terrorists came from instead of asking why they attacked us.

9. Even if Flynn is not among non-interventionists, he still does make the connection between creation of terrorist organizations such as ISIS and the US invasion of Iraq. The former head of DIA raises the issue of the reasons the terrorists might find in order to seek attacking us. The same applies to the rise of Boko Haram in Africa. This is also a direct result of a US intervention in Libya. Anyone can see today how or response to terror by bombing and invading countries in the Middle East has lead to the contrary effect that the one promoted by the neocon interventionists.

8. Before the "regime change" Boko Haram was rather a poorly-armed gang. The removal of Gaddafi left the country in chaos. The group got access to advanced weaponry, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades, advanced explosives, and even light anti-aircraft artillery. This allowed them to start killing on a massive scale and overtake ISIS as the most deadly terrorist organization in the world according to the Global Terrorism Index. What's left for the interventionists is only the desperate option to draw public attention from the fact that terrorism increases as a result of their own policies.

7. Another neocon, James Woolsey, former CIA director, actually pinned the blame after the Paris attacks on NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. In his opinion this could happen because of Snowden's revelations regarding NSA surveillance. This way the terrorists became aware of the dangers and upgraded their communication devices with sophisticated encryption. However, this is hardly the reality. But long before the Snowden revelations other groups had used encryption and the attackers in Paris's terror act did not even use encryption. The raise of international terrorism has nothing to do with the former NSA employee turned whistleblower overnight.

6. The truth is that US-lead interventionism is increasing terrorism worldwide more than any leak of classified intel from the intelligence agencies. If we followed a policy of non-interventionism the world would not become a peaceful utopia but it's clear that fighting back will not bring peace either. Does anyone still believe today that continuing to apply a foreign policy that increases terrorism will suddenly lead to eradication of the plague of international terrorism?

5. The situation in Syria and the international intervention has lead to more complications rather than a peaceful solution. Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan declared in an interview for CNN International that if Russia takes down a Turkish plane flying in the Syrian airspace then his country will consider it an act of aggression. According to Apa, a Turkish publication, Erdogan said that Turkey will be forced to take serious measures in this case but he declined to discuss them further. We can only assume that those measures are he is referring to are not among those usually defined as more round table diplomatic talks.

4. However, the president of Turkey made it clear that would be considered as an act of aggression against his country's rights of sovereignty and will force them to protect those rights. Obviously, this situation would represent an escalation of the situation already tensed in the region. Erdogan declared further that those to blame are those parties who side with Syria. This is totally opposite to Putin's vision, and the Russian former KGB leader tenses his muscles in a dangerous international poker game with uncertain results.

3. Turkey, a NATO member, has to change its aggressive declaration to a tone more in accord to the alliance's prudent approach. The president Erdogan said that the safety of the Russian fighting jets will be ensured by more means. Lt. Gen. Charles Brown Jr. declared for Air Force Journal that NATA forces in Syria have good connectivity with the Russians. A MOU [Memorandum of Understanding] is in place that stipulate the rules of collaboration between the two major forces in the region. It is certainly not supposed to show any hostile intent or acts hostile acts from the Russians toward the coalition or the coalition toward the Russians. Despite that a fighting jet of Russian Air Force went down as a result of Turkey fire from the sol.  

2.  While Turkey is part of the NATO, Russia is not in good terms with the US and the European Union. Moscow deployed in Syria on Thursday its advanced S-400 air defense system in order to protect the Russian airbase. According to Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov cited by Yahoo News, his government was counting on the fact that Russian planes destroying IS targets would not to be attacked from the any-IS coalition led by the US. It seems that Russians trusted us too much, but now they clearly are not going to repeat the same mistake again.

1. According to online publication Infowars, Russian President Vladimir Putin declared that the flight path of the aircraft shot down was known to the United States. He blamed the American side, who knew about the time and location of Russian planes' flights, since the fighter jet was "hit exactly there and at that time". According to Putin, Russia's Air Force had shared the flight details with the American counterpart. This sounds like an accusation targeting the US for conspiring with Turkey to destroy the plane.

Russia and Turkey might be on the verge of going to war, since the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused on Friday the Turkish government of being "secret allies" with ISIS and on Monday, the Russians made an attempt to seal the border between Turkey and Syria and rushing heavy artillery unites into Syria. Tensions between Turkey and Russia continue to escalate, and in their efforts to fight terrorism the neocon interventionists might have pushed the world closer to the danger of seeing World War III erupting in the Middle East.