Does American interferance in arab countries cause terrorism

[Michael Dorosh]

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.

Missed the point, I think.

The point was that people do what they do for more than just one reason.  I'll bet so-called "terrorists" are the same way.

I don't recall any nation ever being well served in the long term by demonizing their enemies.

 

[geo]

One could argue that all is fair in war AND that all out war will be fought with no holds barred. The victors get a chance to write the history and dish out the accusations and allegations of terrorism. (except if you're Japan)
If you asked the Brits of 1776 about terrorists; George Washington, Ben Franklin and their friends would all be labeled terrorists. So would Benedict Arnold â “ but not sure which side ended up most terrorized .
If you ask the Brits of 1948 about the Jewish IRGUN, Meacham Begin (later a Prime Minister of Israel) would be labeled a terrorist.
If you ask the German citzen of Dresden about terrorists; the whole darn RAF would be labeled terrorists


so - to answer the current question; does american interferance in arab countries cause terrorism?....
the answer will be.... well - yeah, sort of....
it certainly hasn't resulted in reducing the threat...

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Now, as far as goals go, some goals are more laudable than others.  Beating Germany senseless in WW II just so "we" could build them back up again was laudable.  So was ending the genocide that claimed 10 million lives.

Was American independence worth fighting for?  They seem to feel it was.

If Islamic extremists really do have as a goal the extermination of all Christians, whites, etc., then I'd say that was not a laudable goal.

Is it possible to define "terrorism" on the basis of how laudable these goals are?  Because from where I sit, killing women and kids to stop the Holocaust was justifiable.  And RCAF crews were not terrorists.  But only because I define it based on what their goals were.

 

[geo]

Michael,
don't get me wrong... not 100% against you on this but....
- some will say that the US supporting & arming & financing much in Israel is causing Israel to terrorise and occupy land that they claim was theirs some 2000 years ago.....  but hasn't been for some 2000 years.
Do we simply say that "might is right"? and leave it at that?

what about the Amreican Irish who have strongly supported, funded and helped arm the IRA for all those years? should they  be classified as terrorists.

IMHO invading Iraq was a little bit "over the top" - still looking for those WMD that they had stockpiled up to the kazoo - isn't that why they went in there for?... or did they go in there 1st to give freedom and a multi party democracy?

In spite of all... I do like and respect the American people - but on Iraq... we'll have to agree to dissagree.

Cheers!

 

[Glorified Ape]

Does American interferance in arab countries cause terrorism

I don't think it's solely US foreign policy that's responsible (or British policy, or French policy) but I would say it's definitely a major contributing factor. Terrorism doesn't sprout from nothing and doesn't develop in a vacum. I think Michael Dorosh is right about there being more than one reason for fighting/terrorism. Does Islam, by their interpretation, support their acts? Yes, but so does every terrorist's ideology - be it the FLQ, IRA, Basques, etc. Terrorism is political and as such, ignoring the political history behind it does nothing to further an understanding of it. We can all imagine that a bunch of Islamic fundamentalists got up one fine morning and said "Hey, lets attack Western countries" with no further impetus than religious interpretation but I don't think that's realistic, nor does it help in understanding (or preventing) terrorism, be it Islamic in flavour or otherwise.

One might as well say that the history between Britain and Ireland played no part in spawning the IRA when it's painfully obvious that that's not the case.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Michael,
don't get me wrong... not 100% against you on this but....
- some will say that the US supporting & arming & financing much in Israel is causing Israel to terrorise and occupy land that they claim was theirs some 2000 years ago.....  but hasn't been for some 2000 years.
Do we simply say that "might is right"? and leave it at that?

what about the Amreican Irish who have strongly supported, funded and helped arm the IRA for all those years? should they  be classified as terrorists.

IMHO invading Iraq was a little bit "over the top" - still looking for those WMD that they had stockpiled up to the kazoo - isn't that why they went in there for?... or did they go in there 1st to give freedom and a multi party democracy?

In spite of all... I do like and respect the American people - but on Iraq... we'll have to agree to dissagree.

Cheers!

And you managed to ignore completely what the central point is.

What are their goals?

If the Israelis seek to live in harmony with their neighbours while allowing ethnic minorities in their own borders to practice their own religion and culture - then why not?

If the Irish wish to stop foreign occupation of their nation, so they, too, can live in peace with their neighbours across the Irish Sea - well, why not?

If the US wants to invade Iraq to remove a brutal dictator who gassed his own people, terrorized ethnic and religious minorities, and waged war openly on their neighbours - why not?

 

[Glorified Ape]

And you managed to ignore completely what the central point is.

What are their goals?

If the Israelis seek to live in harmony with their neighbours while allowing ethnic minorities in their own borders to practice their own religion and culture - then why not?

If the Irish wish to stop foreign occupation of their nation, so they, too, can live in peace with their neighbours across the Irish Sea - well, why not?

If the US wants to invade Iraq to remove a brutal dictator who gassed his own people, terrorized ethnic and religious minorities, and waged war openly on their neighbours - why not?

Do such positive statements of intent go for the Iraqi insurgents and AQ?

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Do such positive statements of intent go for the Iraqi insurgents and AQ?

I have no idea what the answer is for any of them.  I think the distinction comes in asking the question to begin with.

Before demonizing AQ, one needs to ask - what do they want?

If AQ itself can't answer the question, then to my mind, they are terrorists.

If an Iraqi insurgent wants the US out of Iraq, that isn't the question.  The question is - what will the Iraqi insurgents do once the US is gone?  Set up a stable goverment?  Install a new brutal dictator?  Create a system of warlords living off of crime and human suffering?  If the answer is the first one, then their goals are laudable.  Not so much in the last two answers.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

And you managed to ignore completely what the central point is.

What are their goals?

If the Israelis seek to live in harmony with their neighbours while allowing ethnic minorities in their own borders to practice their own religion and culture - then why not?

If the Irish wish to stop foreign occupation of their nation, so they, too, can live in peace with their neighbours across the Irish Sea - well, why not?

If the US wants to invade Iraq to remove a brutal dictator who gassed his own people, terrorized ethnic and religious minorities, and waged war openly on their neighbours - why not?

Yuck - that was badly worded and hard to read....

To your point which is valid and in my opinion is the crux, it is an individual's motives that determine right and wrong.

Britain firebombed Germany to accelerate the end of the war, but then proved with its reconstruction efforts that their overall objective was de-Nazification.

The United States has gone into Iraq and will spend a minimum of $500 billion out of pocket in the effort to change regimes, to start the rebuilding process and hopefully nurture a young democracy.

In my opinion, although violent, these are examples of noble intervention.

The Al-Qaeda Fighter intentionally sacrifices himself in this planet proving his dedication to Allah by killing as many infidels (which is religiously defined, not politically defined) as possible so he may acheive martyrdom in the next life.

The Sunni Nationalist Fighter kills to undermine a democracy that if successful will put them in the position of a minority after they abused/murdered/maimed the two groups that will form the majority.  In essence, they wish to return to what they perceive as their rightful position as the dictators of Iraq and all its wealth with the apostate Shia and Kurds as their servents of convenience at best, and ethnic cleansing targets at worst.

....both in essence are 100% selfish motives in which they are willing to kill for their own ends.

Bottom Line:  It is motives that determine right and wrong, and when you look at different groups it is easy to see the difference.



Matthew. 

 

[x-zipperhead]

Yuck - that was badly worded and hard to read....

To your point which is valid and in my opinion is the crux, it is an individual's motives that determine right and wrong.

Britain firebombed Germany to accelerate the end of the war, but then proved with its reconstruction efforts that their overall objective was de-Nazification.

The United States has gone into Iraq and will spend a minimum of $500 billion out of pocket in the effort to change regimes, to start the rebuilding process and hopefully nurture a young democracy.

In my opinion, although violent, these are examples of noble intervention.

The Al-Qaeda Fighter intentionally sacrifices himself in this planet proving his dedication to Allah by killing as many infidels (which is religiously defined, not politically defined) as possible so he may acheive martyrdom in the next life.

The Sunni Nationalist Fighter kills to undermine a democracy that if successful will put them in the position of a minority after they abused/murdered/maimed the two groups that will form the majority.   In essence, they wish to return to what they perceive as their rightful position as the dictators of Iraq and all its wealth with the apostate Shia and Kurds as their servents of convenience at best, and ethnic cleansing targets at worst.

....both in essence are 100% selfish motives in which they are willing to kill for their own ends.

Bottom Line:   It is motives that determine right and wrong, and when you look at different groups it is easy to see the difference.



Matthew.   

Disagree100% Motive alone does not determine right and wrong!  How you achieve your motive is as much a factor.  Is it really that easy to ditinguish good motives and bad motives?

If as you say the US is in Iraq for entirely altruistic goals of building democracy defeating evil why are they only pursiung this agenda in Iraq?  There are tyrants the world over.  Where were they for the 1 million people slaughtered in Rwanda in 1994?  For that matter where were they for the people oppressed by tyrants throughout half of Africa?

Bottom line: the US does what is in the interest of the US.  Not bashing the US here but let's not have rose colored glasses either.  Places like Rwanda have nothing that is in the US interest.  Iraq does have something that is in the US interest.  Can you guess what it is? It starts with "o" ends in "L" and has a "I" in between ;D
This is not about ending tyranny and building democracy.  This is about what is in their interest.

IMHO

 

[geo]

If the Israelis seek to live in harmony with their neighbours while allowing ethnic minorities in their own borders to practice their own religion and culture - then why not?

If the Irish wish to stop foreign occupation of their nation, so they, too, can live in peace with their neighbours across the Irish Sea - well, why not?

If the US wants to invade Iraq to remove a brutal dictator who gassed his own people, terrorized ethnic and religious minorities, and waged war openly on their neighbours - why not?

So long as the Palestinians and their brothers agree to think and behave in the presence of Israel, then Israel continues to he "harmoneous".... but Israel is occupying land that hasn't been theirs for 2000 years. No immediate family of the Israeli disposessed is around - the palestinians are..... is there a difference?

If the Irish wish to stop....? have you spoken to any of the protestants living in Belfast lately?.... they might have few words to tell you and they're not "merry christmas"

Iraq and the brutal dictator that the US encouraged and supported and financed and backed as long as he fought against the Ayatolah? Senator Kennedy recommended that the US back Nazi Germany and their brutal dictator who gasses his own people, terrorizedd ethnics...... etc..... "don't see much of a difference from here.

have a good one.

 

[48Highlander]

Bottom line: the US does what is in the interest of the US.   Not bashing the US here but let's not have rose colored glasses either.   Places like Rwanda have nothing that is in the US interest.   Iraq does have something that is in the US interest.   Can you guess what it is? It starts with "o" ends in "L" and has a "I" in between ;D

Well you're bang on the money when you state that they do what's in their best interest, but you're right the fuck out of 'er if you think that Oil was the major factor.  I'd suggest more research.

 

[Old Ranger]

Just wondering why the US would spend $100.00 for every liter they ship overseas?

Don't think they're there for the OIL.

 

[x-zipperhead]

Well you're bang on the money when you state that they do what's in their best interest, but you're right the frig out of 'er if you think that Oil was the major factor.   I'd suggest more research.

Well at least we agree that they do what is in their interst. If you've done the research I'd appreciate if you would enlighten me as to exactly why a stable middle east is in the US  interest.  If not for oil then what?  Freedom and Democracy?  Okay.  But why?  How does the plight of Joe Q Iraqi benifit the US .  Let me clarify one point I don't think this is just about the oil in Iraq ( altough there is plenty, 6th largest importer to the US ) this is about oil in the middle east.  This is about stablizing a region that is home to the second largest supplier of crude to the US - Saudi Arabia.  Saudi Arabia is already friendly to the US ( at least as far as business is concerned ) however Iraq remained a threat - not to the US directly but to the stability of the region they have become so dependent on.  US petroleum dependency has doubled since the 80's.  They now use far more than they produce.  Crude imports now account for well over half of the oil used domestically.  IMO it is all about oil, however I don't claim to know everything and wil not tell someon they are " right friggin out of er " if they don't agree

Just wondering why the US would spend $100.00 for every liter they ship overseas?

Don't think they're there for the OIL.

Not quite sure what you are driving at there.  I'm talking about US need for oil not what they export.  Canada and Mexico are the only real recipients of US petroleum exports anyway.  I'm all ears if you care to elaborate.

Cheers,

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Disagree100% Motive alone does not determine right and wrong!   How you achieve your motive is as much a factor.    Is it really that easy to ditinguish good motives and bad motives?

If as you say the US is in Iraq for entirely altruistic goals of building democracy defeating evil why are they only pursiung this agenda in Iraq?   There are tyrants the world over.   Where were they for the 1 million people slaughtered in Rwanda in 1994?   For that matter where were they for the people oppressed by tyrants throughout half of Africa?

Bottom line: the US does what is in the interest of the US.   Not bashing the US here but let's not have rose colored glasses either.   Places like Rwanda have nothing that is in the US interest.   Iraq does have something that is in the US interest.   Can you guess what it is? It starts with "o" ends in "L" and has a "I" in between ;D
This is not about ending tyranny and building democracy.   This is about what is in their interest.

IMHO

I know you'll be shocked but I disagree 100%.....  ;D

Well, not really....more like 95%.  I think your point on "method" is important too, although using the wrong method often comes down to bad decisionmaking as opposed to bad intent.

RE:  Africa - Sorry, but this has been beaten to death.  Bush is the first guy who has actually put "values" ahead of "interests" as far as I'm concerned and in that effort he's maxxed out the US Armed Forces in trying to transform both Iraq and Afghanistan (which are both laudible goals).  It is the rest of the world (specifically China, France, Russia and Germany) that blocked the use of the term "genocide" to describe Darfur because such a declaration would require THEIR intervention.

Bottom Line:  It is non-US Interests that are the foundation of much of the tyranny you describe.  Specifically, find a dictator, tryant or collection of thugs that don't have good relations with the PRC (and more to the point their UN Security Council veto)....



Matthew.   

P.S.  Hillier talked about the importance of values and interests in his latest speech at Carlton which I caught part of on CSPAN the other day.  His opinion (which I assume is shared by Paul Martin as he hand-picked Hillier) is that in particular "failed states" (the definition of which is debateable) do require intervention on both a "Canadian Values" and a "Canadian Interests" level, as destabilization anywhere has a cascading effect that has proven a threat to all nations of the world.  In essence, there is a new recognition that our values and our interests are much more intertwined than previously believed.

 

[x-zipperhead]

You disagree??   lol

As far as the Africa thing being beaten to death,  you'll have to excuse me but I haven't been through every thread on this forum.   

I cannot believe that both the Afganistan campaign and Iraq campaign are both 100% value driven.  Although there are not 100% corrupt, either, don't get me wrong.  It would be naive to think there were single, simple motives in anything. Bush's "if your not with us your against us" policy is meant to stifle debate and try to dupe the average american into believing this is simple good vs. evil.

Afganistan - they needed to go in there and destroy any remaing al quaida terrorists, training camps and anyone who supported them. :threat: No arguments here! The only good Al- Quaida is a dead Al-quaida!!  I'm proud as hell that we were a part of that.  However don't think for a second that was the only interest at work.  The US had been trying since the early 90's to install a regime in Afganistan that would allow them to run a pipeline through their country so that western oil companies could run oil out of the Caspian sea to the Arabian Sea since that was the only way(Russia , Iran and the former soviet republics were not a choice).  All in all I support the US mission in Afganistan as far as fighting terrorists is concerned.  But again there were other interests at work.

Iraq - There is something  very telling when most (not all) of your allies are not on board with you.  I have one simple question.  If there was not one drop of oil in the middle east, do you think this all would have transpired?


I am not anti- american.  I just don't see things as black and white as George W. would like.

I don't want to take this thread too far off track.  Terrorists are scum bags.  No matter what your motive is, no matter what US foreign policy is, if your method involves the targetting and murdering of innocents then you should be exterminated.

Bottom line: terrorism is caused by cowards who think any means, no matter how reprehensible, will justify their end.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

  No matter what your motive is, no matter what US foreign policy is, if your method involves the targetting and murdering of innocents then you should be exterminated.

Does this apply to air crews of the Royal Canadian Air Force, Royal Air Force, and United States Army Air Force, who in 1943-45 deliberately targeted German civilians in the millions in the Combined Bomber Offensive?

It's not too late to round them up for war crimes trials, and no, I'm not being funny, I would like your honest answer to this.  What makes them different from the clowns who flew into the World Trade Centre? 

I think I posted the answer a page or two back, but perhaps you have a better one, since you don't seem to like anyone else's.  Can't wait to read it.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Would you rather (irrelevent stuff snipped)

The point I was making sailed completely over your head, and I wasn't even addressing you in any event.  x-zipper says motives don't count.  Fine.  What then distinguishes the group I mentioned from the group he mentioned?  that is my question to him.

 

[x-zipperhead]

Does this apply to air crews of the Royal Canadian Air Force, Royal Air Force, and United States Army Air Force, who in 1943-45 deliberately targeted German civilians in the millions in the Combined Bomber Offensive?

It's not too late to round them up for war crimes trials, and no, I'm not being funny, I would like your honest answer to this.   What makes them different from the clowns who flew into the World Trade Centre?   

I think I posted the answer a page or two back, but perhaps you have a better one, since you don't seem to like anyone else's.   Can't wait to read it.

Easy there fella!  I am sensing alot of hostility.  No need to get your nickers in a knot.  This is just a civil exchange of opinions here.

You posted the answer a page or two back?  Well I am glad you have the answers.  For your information I have no problems with anyone's opinions on this board.  Just because I don't share your opinion doesn't mean " I don't like anyone else's" answers.

If you really want my opinion ( although I sense you are just being condescending ) no I do not equate Allied aircrews with the 9/11 terrorists. Germany was the agressor in WW2.  The Nazis were evil and, unfortunately being the governing party at the time, lead that country down a very dark road.  War had been declared on both sides and terrible things happen in war on all sides.  Don't forget that London had been bombed mercilessly by the Luftwaffe.

Germany attempted world domination and almost achieved their goal.  The allies were faced with very daunting task.  It's easy now to sit back 60 yrs later and arm chair quaterback the allies decisions.  What would have been the greater evil, the combined bomber offensive or for the Germans to have continued with their final solution?
But IMO and it is just that, my opinion, those guys are not terrorists! And before you even go there, no I do not believe that being at war is carte blanche to kill civilians. 

If you would like to equate those that secured your freedom with Al- quada terrorists.  That's your right.  Perhaps you could lobby to have some of our veterans tried as war criminals.  Good luck with that.

Regards

 

[Michael Dorosh]

From the thread Does American interferance in arab countries cause terrorism

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on Today at 12:32:07
Does this apply to air crews of the Royal Canadian Air Force, Royal Air Force, and United States Army Air Force, who in 1943-45 deliberately targeted German civilians in the millions in the Combined Bomber Offensive?

It's not too late to round them up for war crimes trials, and no, I'm not being funny, I would like your honest answer to this.   What makes them different from the clowns who flew into the World Trade Centre?    

I think I posted the answer a page or two back, but perhaps you have a better one, since you don't seem to like anyone else's.   Can't wait to read it.

x-zipperhead said:
Easy there fella!   I am sensing alot of hostility.   No need to get your nickers in a knot.   This is just a civil exchange of opinions here.

You posted the answer a page or two back?   Well I am glad you have the answers.   For your information I have no problems with anyone's opinions on this board.   Just because I don't share your opinion doesn't mean " I don't like anyone else's" answers.

If you really want my opinion ( although I sense you are just being condescending ) no I do not equate Allied aircrews with the 9/11 terrorists. Germany was the agressor in WW2.   The Nazis were evil and, unfortunately being the governing party at the time, lead that country down a very dark road.   War had been declared on both sides and terrible things happen in war on all sides.   Don't forget that London had been bombed mercilessly by the Luftwaffe.

Germany attempted world domination and almost achieved their goal.   The allies were faced with very daunting task.   It's easy now to sit back 60 yrs later and arm chair quaterback the allies decisions.   What would have been the greater evil, the combined bomber offensive or for the Germans to have continued with their final solution?
But IMO and it is just that, my opinion, those guys are not terrorists! And before you even go there, no I do not believe that being at war is carte blanche to kill civilians.    

If you would like to equate those that secured your freedom with Al- quada terrorists.   That's your right.   Perhaps you could lobby to have some of our veterans tried as war criminals.   Good luck with that.

Regards

I have no idea where you draw the conclusion I am angry; i am a bit mystified why you would prove my point about "motive" and then pretend like you don't understand the concept.

Clearly you don't get it; I never said that RCAF pilots were war criminals, nor did I say we shouldn't be at war with AQ.

My point, which you seem incapable of grasping, is that there is something tangible which has to seperate the terrorist from the soldier.   If you can't define that, you have no reason to go to war.

The MOTIVE of the RCAF was to restore order to Europe; peace, stability, and democracy.   A side product of that was ending the Holocaust.

If the AQ are acting in defence of their people, then they are no different from the RCAF.   If they are, in fact, different, then you need to say why.   And the litmus test is not the fact that they kill women and children; the RCAF did that in spades and it was okay.

So the challenge is on you to say why it is ok to kill German babies in 1945, but not American civilians today.

You haven't done that other than a lot of ranting and raving.   It's not about oil, or George W. Bush, or Axes of Evil, or any of the other suggestions in this thread that wandered off topic - it's about what you are trying to achieve through the use of violence.   Your motive, and your desired end-state will either justify your methods, or not.

Demonstrate that AQ as no credible desired end-state, and you've distinguished between them and the RCAF.

So...tell us - what is their desired goal or end-state?   And do they have a right to feel that way, and can it be achieved by their methods?