Does American interferance in arab countries cause terrorism

[Mouslim Mojahid]

For 25 yrs the usa used sadam husein and bin ladin to acheive awful goal

 

[Jaxson]

im sorry can you.... elaborate on what you said therE?

but heres what I'm gonna say, saddam and Castro (yes Castro) and bin laden were all put in power and trained by the US for what i believe (some correct if I'm mistaken) was to cause stability in their countries at the time because, they were on the level and shared the views of the US and had their support, over time they became the enemies because of their views and ways and had to be taken care of (with the exception of Castro, he doesn't seem to be causing to much terror)

 

[Gunnar]

No.  In any country, terrorism is largely started by sub-human slimebags who think that blowing up women and children will actually change anything.

 

[Old Ranger]

For 25 yrs the usa used sadam husein and bin ladin to acheive awful goal

Are you asking a Question?  Or trying to make a statement?

Look up the history of Terrorism, it's allot older than 25 years.

Did you mean Awful or LAWFUL?

 

[George Wallace]

Are they "Terrorists" or "cowardly mass murderers"?  It seems that many attacks on Coallition Forces are not the locals, but racist fanatics from other states, with delusions of martyrdom.  (They are probably not completely sane.)  

Why, I may ask you, are you asking these questions?  This region has been conquered by many Armies over the centuries.  Alexander the Great passed through here.  Genghis Chan, the Ottoman Turks, the British, and many others have made their mark on this land.   Why now blame the Americans?

 

[Infanteer]

Actually, most of the literature points out the fact that the US was not responsible for "growing" or "training" bin Laden.  The CIA gave resources to the Pakistani ISI, and they offloaded that to Afghan Mujihadeen organizations (there was 4 main ones).  Bin Laden and the rest of the "Arab Afghans" went through Abdullah Azzam's Maktab al-Khadamat.  I've seen this in a few sources, but I've yet to read Steve Coll's Ghost Wars (which seems to be recognized as one of the more definitive books available) to see if he agrees with it as well.

As to the claim made in your header, I would not argue against the notion that terrorist groups find their support in opposition to US actions.  Bin Laden himself got Al Qaeda going due to the American military coming into Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War (he wanted to lead mujihadeen fresh from victory against the Soviets against Hussein's apostate regime).  However, I've come to the conclusion that it is largely a chicken-egg argument between the "What we do" and the "Who we are" camp.

I will leave with an interesting quote however; Mark Sagemen notes in his analytical profile of global Salafism that the group dynamics of these specific cells within Al Qaeda and the rest are based off of "in-group love" rather than "out-group hate".  The traditional reasons pointed to trying to link American/Western policies to terrorism (in the specific case of the global Salafists) in reality doesn't exist - poverty, lack of education, and "green diapers" from the madrassas are not huge factors (or even present in most cases) in any of more than 100 terrorist profiles.

 

[48Highlander]

Isn't this sorta like asking if laws cause crime?

 

[Old Ranger]

For 25 yrs the usa used sadam husein and bin ladin to acheive awful goal

Are you looking for someone to write your Essay for you?

 

[Infanteer]

Are they "Terrorists" or "cowardly mass murderers"?  It seems that many attacks on Coallition Forces are not the locals, but racist fanatics from other states, with delusions of martyrdom.  (They are probably not completely sane.)

The better sources I've seen point to the opposite - that 95% of the attacks in Iraq are local Sunnis, mostly based around Ansar al-Sunnah.  The other chunk are the foreigners, I think who float around Abu Musub al-Zarqawi's Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad - I believe it is the foreigners who make up most of the suicide bombers.  The locals (which I understand are built around old Fedayeen groups) are the IED experts.  Abu Buckwheat, over on Lightfighter.net, has spoken in detail about this (and is publishing 2 more books on it).

As well, the insanity case seems to be disproved, and pretty much is only used by the pundits and neo-con mudflingers.  Sageman does an excellent job of debunking the "crazy terrorist" theory, as does Scheuer.  Sageman's opinion (which seems to be quite sound) is that terrorists/insurgent attackers are driven by two main forces:

1) Kinship-Friendship-Discipleship as a method of forming the social bonds necessary to create and motivate a terrorist/insurgent network.

2) A particular Islamic notion of martyrdom.  As Sageman states:

They also place greater trust on the testimony of people who have sacrificed in the service of God.  The Arabic word for witness, shahid, is also the word for martyr.  Martyrdom is a profession of faith, shahada.  A testimonial from one who has little to gain from his faith on this earth is most credible. (Sageman, 116)

Now, notions of martyrdom are going do be different between the different maddhabs, Sunni schools of religious jurisprudence, and between Sunni and Shia (which is, as I understand it, a faith built around the martyrdom of Ali), but the fact remains that martyrdom lies not in the realm of "craziness" in the Islamic faith.

Cheers,
Infanteer

 

[KevinB]

FWIW SeniorCheif Nance (Abu) has been on Fox recently as well.  He has outted himself publically Infanteer, so no need to hide him anymore.
Terrorist Recognition Handbook

Now back to the origin of the thread...

Judging by the posters use of the English language, I'm going to go out on a limb, and suggest arabic may be his first tongue.  I will leave it at that.

Cynically now --> It is the unsucessful terrorist who cause terrorism, while sucessful ones write laws...

 

[TCBF]

"Cynically now --> It is the unsucessful terrorist who cause terrorism, while sucessful ones write laws..."

- Yep.  GUN Laws...

;D

Tom

 

[Franko]

For 25 yrs the usa used sadam husein and bin ladin to acheive awful goal

Alright....care to explain your view a bit more?    :

Kind of a blanket statement...try elaborating a bit.

If you're trying to fish for a specific response...give it up.

Regards

 

[Pfc_Norup]

Does American interference in Arab countries cause terrorism?

No! Stupidity causes terrorism!

Terrorist are people who can't quite succeed in normal life. Thereby making them jealous and angry at those who can. So when they get told a million times that it's the big bad USA and evil Europeans/Australians/Israelis who's the reason they are poor/unsuccessful/gay/live in a hut made of cowdroppings and straws or whatever... they eventually starts to believe in it... And by killing innocent people it's all going to be better.... NO!
That's f****** stupid! But then again, one would have to be extremely stupid to let someone tell you to wrap yourself in explosives and go and blow someone, you have never met, up!

 

[tomahawk6]

Have to agree with Norup completely. America does not cause people to become terrorists, islamic fanatics cause people to become terrorists. After all they think they will be rewarded by 72 virgins for their sacrifice. Our people know that their sacrifice keeps people free. What would you rather fight for ?

 

[48Highlander]

Have to agree with Norup completely. America does not cause people to become terrorists, islamic fanatics cause people to become terrorists. After all they think they will be rewarded by 72 virgins for their sacrifice. Our people know that their sacrifice keeps people free. What would you rather fight for ?

Well...are they hot virgins?

 

[Pfc_Norup]

Well...are they hot virgins?

Nahhh, I've seen hotter virgins in the mighty Halls of Valhalla!!  Definitely not worth "getting your private Ryan blown off" - hot!!

 

[Joe Blow]

If you're trying to fish for a specific response...

Forgive me if I am misunderstanding ..but doesn't the fellow's name say it all?  If muhjadin is the plural, is mojahid the singular? 

Mouslim Mojahid -

First off, although I'm obviously I'm not on staff here or anything like that, let me welcome you to army.ca. 

Secondly, I apologize if I am misunderstanding your name, but you seem to be presenting yourself as a warrior on behalf of Islam.  (Although at least one of your other three posts comes off as more moderate than that..  Forgive me if I am wrong.)

If that is the case, you will find that you are a fish out of water here and as such will be required to present your position in a very well reasoned way if is to be entertained.  I'm afraid that your question and the one-line, leading/suggested answer to it do not qualify in that regard.

However, to answer your question: "no".

Further more nuanced and thoughtful discussion of your position (on my behalf anyway) will follow further more nuanced and thoughtful presentation of your position on your behalf.  (Although I think Infanteer has some good posts above.)

EDIT:

Well...are they hot virgins?

;D Oh man.. I hope so..

 

[Michael Dorosh]

sub-human slimebags who think that blowing up women and children will actually change anything.

Like the RCAF pilots who dropped incendiaries on millions of German women and children in WW II?

"sub-human" is a term the Nazis reserved for Jews, gypsies, and those who didn't agree with their politics.

Can't we do better than them?

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Have to agree with Norup completely. America does not cause people to become terrorists, islamic fanatics cause people to become terrorists. After all they think they will be rewarded by 72 virgins for their sacrifice. Our people know that their sacrifice keeps people free. What would you rather fight for ?

You could also say, quite honestly, that the US soldier fights for money (40,000 dollars per year for a private sound right?  Plus danger pay, overseas pay, seperation pay).  And the terrorist fights for what he sees as the freedom of his people.

Does anyone ever really fight for a single purpose?

Have any US soldiers refused to accept their salary because they felt they were fighting for freedom only?

 

[muskrat89]

Have any US soldiers refused to accept their salary because they felt they were fighting for freedom only?

Straw man, I think...

I would argue that most Doctors, EMTs, Police Officers, Priests, etc., chose a career path because of some calling, or urge to serve their fellow man. I doubt most of them refuse to accept salary, either.