The TRUE reason behind terrorism, this is the most brilliant article I ever read!

<p>Okay, screw this poll over political debates on CC. I found a very facinating article about terrorism. I would like to read your input. Thanks.</p>

<p>"Why do terrorists hate America enough to give up their lives in order to deal the country such mortal blows? Of course it’s not America the terrorists hate; it’s American foreign policy. It’s what the United States has done to the world in the past half century – all the violence, the bombings, the depleted uranium, the cluster bombs, the assassinations, the promotion of torture, the overthrow of governments, and more. The terrorists – whatever else they might be – are also rational human beings; which is to say that in their own minds they have a rational justification for their actions. Most terrorists are people deeply concerned by what they see as social, political or religious injustice and hypocrisy, and the immediate grounds for their terrorism is often retaliation for an action of the United States.</p>

<p>Most Americans find it difficult in the extreme to accept the proposition that terrorist acts against the United States can be viewed as revenge for Washington’s policies abroad. They believe that the US is targeted because of its freedom, its democracy, its modernity, its wealth, or just being part of the West.</p>

<p>But government officials know better. A Department of Defense study in 1997 concluded that: “Historical data show a strong correlation between US involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorist attacks against the United States.” Former president Jimmy Carter, some years after he left the White House, was unambiguous in his concordance with such a sentiment: “We sent Marines into Lebanon and you only have to go to Lebanon, to Syria or to Jordan to witness first-hand the intense hatred among many people for the United States because we bombed and shelled and unmercifully killed totally innocent villagers – women and children and farmers and housewives – in those villages around Beirut. . . . As a result of that . . . we became kind of a Satan in the minds of those who are deeply resentful.”</p>

<p>The terrorists responsible for the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 sent a letter to the New York Times which stated, in part: “We declare our responsibility for the explosion on the mentioned building. This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel the state of terrorism and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region.”</p>

<p>For more than four months the most powerful nation in history rained down a daily storm of missiles upon one of the poorest and most backward people in the world. Eventually, this question pressed itself onto the world’s stage: Who killed more innocent, defenseless people? The terrorists in the United States on September 11 with their flying bombs? Or the Americans in Afghanistan with their AGM-86D cruise missiles, their AGM-130 missiles, their 15,000 pound “daisy cutter” bombs, their depleted uranium, and their cluster bombs? By year’s end, the count of the terrorists’ victims in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania stood at about 3,000. The total count of civilian dead in Afghanistan was essentially ignored by American officials and just about everyone else, but a painstaking compilation of numerous individual reports from the domestic and international media, aid agencies, and the United Nations, by an American professor – hunting down the many separate incidents of 100-plus counts of the dead, the scores of dead, the dozens, and the smaller numbers – arrived at considerably more than 3,500 through early December, and still counting.</p>

<p>The American scorched-earth bombing of Afghanistan may well turn out to be a political train wreck. Can it be doubted that thousands throughout the Muslim world were emotionally and spiritually recruited to the cause of the next Osama bin Laden by the awful ruination and perceived injustice? That is to say, the next generation of terrorists. Indeed, in December, while the American bombs were still falling on Afghanistan, a man – British citizen Richard Reid, who was a convert to Islam – tried to blow up an American Airlines plane en route to the United States with explosives hidden in his shoes. At the London mosque that Reid had attended, the cleric in charge warned that extremists were enlisting other young men like Reid and that agents aligned with radical Muslim figures had stepped up recruiting efforts since September 11. The cleric said that he knew of “hundreds of Richard Reids” recruited in Britain. Reid, described in the press as a “drifter,” reportedly traveled to Israel, Egypt, the Netherlands, and Belgium before arriving in Paris and boarding the American Airlines plane. This raises the question of who was financing him. The freezing of numerous bank accounts of alleged terrorist groups throughout the world by the United States may have rather limited effect.</p>

<p>Americans do not feel any more secure in their places of work, in their places of leisure, or in their travels than they did a day before their government’s bombings began.</p>

<p>Has the power elite learned anything? Here’s James Woolsey, former Director of the CIA, speaking in December in Washington, advocating an invasion of Iraq and unconcerned about the response of the Arab world: The silence of the Arab public in the wake of America’s victories in Afghanistan, he said, proves that “only fear will re-establish respect for the U.S.” What, then, can the United States do to end terrorism directed against it? The answer lies in removing the anti-American motivations of the terrorists. To achieve this, American foreign policy will have to undergo a metamorphosis.</p>

<p>If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize to all the widows and orphans, the tortured and impoverished, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. Then I would announce, in all sincerity, to every corner of the world, that America’s global interventions have come to an end, and inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the USA but now – oddly enough – a foreign country. I would then reduce the military budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims. There would be more than enough money. One year’s military budget of 330 billion dollars is equal to more than $18,000 an hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born. That’s what I’d do on my first three days in the White House. On the fourth day, I’d be assassinated."</p>

<p>This is a poorly written article and the simple “solution” at the end is laughable. There is an excellent op-ed in the NYTimes today that speaks on this very question in a clear and concise manner. </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/22/opinion/22roy.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/22/opinion/22roy.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Apoligizing or rationalizing terrorists actions is despicable. Tony Blair had it right when he was questioned about the possiblity that Britain’s envolvment in Iraq was responsible for the terror attacks in London:</p>

<p>It is not England’s fault it is the terrorists.</p>

<p>Here is another piece in the NY Times by Thomas Friedman: <a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/22/opinion/22friedman.html?th&emc=th[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/22/opinion/22friedman.html?th&emc=th&lt;/a&gt;

</p>

<p>The article makes some good points, primitive future. It may not contain all the answers, but it does show a side that many Americans do not like to consider. Thanks for sharing it.</p>

<p>its not a matter of making excuses, it is a matter of coming to terms with the horrible atrocities our government has illegaly committed</p>

<p>Bin Laden’s goal is simple… get american troops out of the middle east, and frankly, I agree with him</p>

<p>if you notice the statement he made 1 week before the election, you’ll notice that he said, its not a matter of bush or kerry, it is a matter of US foreign policy</p>

<p>kerry, trying to posture himself said “we will hunt them down” etc etc, instead of saying that YES!, indeed, we should change our foreign policy</p>

<p>How about if you kids go to the regular cafe and leave this one for us parents!</p>

<p>Why is that many folks are always so quick to believe intentions of our government as public stated, and so easy about dismissing the stated intentions of those who oppose it?</p>

<p>The reality of course is institutional motives are always mixed, and personal motives usually are. But if folks are telling us they are bombing English underground stations to get the English government to rethink its participation in the Iraq occupation, we have every reason to abhor their actions, disagree with their politics, look askance at the idea of being blackmailed into submission, think them very naive, or criticize their intentions as wrongheaded, but none of these are reasons to dismiss the motives as not being what they are.</p>

<p>Well put, Mini. The question, of course, is whether we should also automatically assume that the motives of killers always have validity as a justification for their actions. </p>

<p>If someone murders his wife because he finds her with another lover, should the wife be blamed for her murder? I think most people would say no. The fault still ultimately lies with the husband who took the action. He has every right to be enraged, but no right to murder her.</p>

<p>By the same token, if a terrorist murders citizens of a country because he disagrees with the policies of that country, should we blame the country for the murders? I don’t think so. The terrorist has the right to disagree and to be outraged, but not to murder no matter how much he objects to the country’s policies.</p>

<p>Murder is almost never justified purely by motive.</p>

<p>I’m not sure I see the brilliance here. In fact it reads like your typical run-of-the-mill left wing diatribe against the U.S. They’re a dime a dozen. Who’s the author, Noam Chomsky?</p>

<p>“Well put, Mini. The question, however, is whether we should also automatically assume that the motives of all killers have validity.”</p>

<p>Of course not. I’ve been asking that for a long time, but of course since the Clinton’s “sacrifice” of the half a million Iraqi children, and Bush’s invasion.</p>

<p>The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and evil ones, too. ;)</p>

<p>Agree with that Mini. But I also feel that one murder (or thousands) never justifies another. That’s one of the reasons I’m opposed to the death penalty, even though there are plenty of cases where my first reaction is to impose it.</p>

<p>Hey, I’m the pacifist here! Validity is in the eye of the beholder. But virtually every family in Iraq, Shia and Sunni alike, lost a child in the immediate family or first cousin from the Clinton “sacrifice”, and to expect them not to remember it, or that it ould not motivate the actions of some small segment of the population, wouldn’t be particularly realistic.</p>

<p>War is just war. Homicide bombers are just a weapon used by a military force that is underequipped and can’t afford to do direct battle with a superiorly equipped enemy - and casualties (the bombers themselves) are lower. The question is not particularly what one is willing to “kill” for, but what one is willing to “die” for. Calling it “terrorism” or a “surgical air strike” has nothing to do with it.</p>

<p>Do you really think that war will end terrorism, or will it just intensify it?</p>

<p>Neither. They will do what they will do as will we. Acts of terror were common before the war too as the PM of Australia pointed out.</p>

<p>Copied from the Michigan board. No link provided.</p>

<p>Apparently PM Howard was visiting the UK today.</p>

<p>(Howard’s response to a “didn’t you bring this on us by helpiung invade Iraq” type question) </p>

<p>PRIME MIN. HOWARD: Could I start by saying the prime minister and I were having a discussion when we heard about it. My first reaction was to get some more information. And I really don’t want to add to what the prime minister has said. It’s a matter for the police and a matter for the British authorities to talk in detail about what has happened here. </p>

<p>Can I just say very directly, Paul, on the issue of the policies of my government and indeed the policies of the British and American governments on Iraq, that the first point of reference is that once a country allows its foreign policy to be determined by terrorism, it’s given the game away, to use the vernacular. And no Australian government that I lead will ever have policies determined by terrorism or terrorist threats, and no self-respecting government of any political stripe in Australia would allow that to happen. </p>

<p>Can I remind you that the murder of 88 Australians in Bali took place before the operation in Iraq. </p>

<p>And I remind you that the 11th of September occurred before the operation in Iraq. </p>

<p>Can I also remind you that the very first occasion that bin Laden specifically referred to Australia was in the context of Australia’s involvement in liberating the people of East Timor. Are people by implication suggesting we shouldn’t have done that? </p>

<p>When a group claimed responsibility on the website for the attacks on the 7th of July, they talked about British policy not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan. Are people suggesting we shouldn’t be in Afghanistan? </p>

<p>When Sergio de Mello was murdered in Iraq – a brave man, a distinguished international diplomat, a person immensely respected for his work in the United Nations – when al Qaeda gloated about that, they referred specifically to the role that de Mello had carried out in East Timor because he was the United Nations administrator in East Timor. </p>

<p>Now I don’t know the mind of the terrorists. By definition, you can’t put yourself in the mind of a successful suicide bomber. I can only look at objective facts, and the objective facts are as I’ve cited. The objective evidence is that Australia was a terrorist target long before the operation in Iraq. And indeed, all the evidence, as distinct from the suppositions, suggests to me that this is about hatred of a way of life, this is about the perverted use of principles of the great world religion that, at its root, preaches peace and cooperation. And I think we lose sight of the challenge we have if we allow ourselves to see these attacks in the context of particular circumstances rather than the abuse through a perverted ideology of people and their murder. </p>

<p>PRIME MIN. BLAIR: And I agree 100 percent with that. (Laughter</p>

<p>

Primitive future, I think I know the author of this perfect article. I’m betting you’re wearing their drawers right now. LOL. There’s some truth there but the naivete is staggering. Sounds to me like it was written by a 17 year old with a big heart and little experience.</p>

<p>I agree that American Middle Eastern Policy decisions could have been better had they been written by someone with their head in a bag of glue but-the Al Queda type terrorists don’t have room in their world view for Israel or Ipswich. They both have to be purged. You don’t negotiate with crazy people. You negotiate with barbarians , dictators, even the IRS, but you can’t reason with somebody trying to get to Heaven on the Expess to get his virgins. You won’t compete with that in most instances. JMO, as always.</p>

<p>So years and years ago, before frankly I had ever heard of Al-Qaeda, but after Albright’s statement about U.S. being willing to kill the half million children in Iraq, I read an interview between a member of the American Friends Service Committee staff (who had been helping to repair wastewater treatment facilities in Iraq in violation of U.S. law), and an Iraqi (vehemently anti-Saddam) living in the U.S. The Iraqi was well-educated but no kind of scholar or anything like that. </p>

<p>The guy from AFSC asked the Iraqi what he thought about U.S. policy toward Iraq. The Iraqi said he had been puzzling for several years why instead of bombing military installations or army barracks, etc., Clinton bombed wastewater treatment plants and then refused to allow shipment of simple antibiotics, which could have saved most of the children who were dying of dysentery and other waterborne diseases. “It’s quite simple, really,” he said, “once I figured it out. Clinton wants to kill the children. He knows what he is doing. In the long run, if he kills the children, there will be nobody left to fight, and the population will be so weakened, the Americans will be able to walk in and rule however they want. They’ll set up a puppet government, of course.”</p>

<p>The AFSC representative was shocked, and said Americans weren’t like that. “Oh, you Americans,” he said, “you always think your government has higher motives. One thing we learned under Saddam is if you want to understand government intentions, you look at the results first, and then work backwards. The question is not whether you intended to kill the children, but why you chose to do so.”</p>

<p>Thats brilliant, mini.</p>

<p>“if you want to understand government intentions, you look at the results first, and then work backwards. The question is not whether you intended to kill the children, but why you chose to.”</p>

<p>THE MOST SAGE PIECE OF ADVICE EVER</p>

<p>This may in fact explain why this riff-raff wants to kill Americans, British, Spaniards and Australians, but it only explains a varietal choice, not the intention and willful desire to slaughter innocents; it has been done, as has been mentioned, within Islamic countries themselves for years (though I suppose it is somewhat sexier to go all-animal in the West). </p>

<p>These ones kill as a social dynamic. The Nazis killed too; try to explain their actions through their ‘righteous’ grievances and see how far that gets you (did they simply need an apology—and Poland!)…how about Timothy McViegh, what should have been done to satiate he and his militia-buddies self-righteous demands?</p>

<p>If, on the other hand, what you mean to ask is, why do so many in the Middle East despise the US and its foreign policy, then you have already answered your own question: they despise US FOREIGN POLICY—such as it is (Israel, oil, et al), but they are not motivated to kill anyone because of it; they are civilized people, the terrorists are criminals and behave as they do by definition. </p>

<p>Thinking of the terrorists as Muslims or Arabs, rather than criminals, and wondering what ‘they’ might want in order to desist, both sanctifies the terrorists and demonizes Arabs and Muslims; they are not of the same kind.</p>

<p>US Foreign policies, like most foreign policies, are liquid things and they can change: maybe they should, but that is not the question.</p>

<p>I have been rather interested in the fact that so many of the terrorists (the 9-11 bombers and their contacts etc.) have spent extensive time in the West prior to exhibiting their own savage inhumanity in such a public manner—pretty much all of them. This in itself would be a great distinction amongst most of the people residing in the Middle East: relatively few have had such libertine foreign experience. I’m sure that someone smarter than me could make something of this peculiar and demented social dynamic.</p>

<p>“These ones kill as a social dynamic. The Nazis killed too; try to explain their actions through their ‘righteous’ grievances and see how far that gets you (did they simply need an apology—and Poland!)”</p>

<p>You see, that’s just the thing. You see 56 dead Londoners. The anti-Saddam Iraqi saw 500,000 dead children. You see “terrorists”; the Iraqi saw American efforts at genocide (and he was “pro-American”.). You see “savagery” in suicide bombers; he saw “savagery” in bombing wastewater treatment plants, and withholding simple antibiotics. Both see “slaughter of the innocents”. Whether I agree with one view or the other is not the point; the point is that I need to understand what it is they are saying.</p>

<p>You don’t need to make excuses for it, condone it, or let up on attempts to stamp it out, in order to know that to not to try to understand it makes fools of us all. Words like “terrorism”, “savagery”, “demented” don’t lead to greater understanding, which could help us FIGHT what we despise.</p>

<p>Muslims and Arabs did not invent the “human bomber” technique. That one came from the Tamil Tigers (at least most recently), secular and leftist nationalists, who used it until they gained enough legitimacy within the Sri Lankan Tamil population to launch a civil war. It’s just a weapon, one that a militarily weaker foe uses to inflict damage with fewer casualties to itself.</p>