»

[Stripey]

Originally Posted by Stichman

Noam Chomsky isn't my favourite writer and that particular article irritated me, especially for the phrase "Israel has helped to destroy secular Arab nationalism and to create Hizbullah and Hamas, just as US violence has expedited the rise of extremist Islamic fundamentalism and jihadi terror", which is quite simply a ridiculous thing to say. That's a whole new can of worms, though...

What chomsky has said there is entirely true actually.

[Stichman]

Originally Posted by Neutral

They are fighting for freedom from Israeli forces this makes them freedom fighters, not terrorists However in a few years if the Israelis stop oppressing them which probably won't happen they will probably turn on each other for the pure and simple reason that they are Arabs.

The phrase "Freedom Fighters" suggests the sparing use of righteous violence against the oppresive forces. It's how you fight that makes the difference between the two terms.

This most certainly was terrorism...

BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Israel buries victims of shooting

[Stichman]

Originally Posted by Stripey

What chomsky has said there is entirely true actually.

I don't think so. To say that US violence has directly lead to increased "extremist Islamic fundamentalism and jihadi terror" is tiresome at best.

There are countless examples of terrorism from Islamic extremists before the US invaded Afghanistan or Iraq. 9/11 anyone? The '98 American Embassy Bombings? Also, for Chomsky's view to have any credence, surely attacks should be confined, or at least primarily targetting, American citizens? What about Madrid, London and Bali? And then there are attacks on individuals - Theo Van Gogh's murder, for example.

Perhaps you might say there has been a rise in the number of Americans being targetted, but there hasn't been increased jihadi terror - it's just that the world has started to notice it.

[Stripey]

Originally Posted by Stichman

I don't think so. To say that US violence has directly lead to increased "extremist Islamic fundamentalism and jihadi terror" is tiresome at best.

There are countless examples of terrorism from Islamic extremists before the US invaded Afghanistan or Iraq. 9/11 anyone? The '98 American Embassy Bombings? Also, for Chomsky's view to have any credence, surely attacks should be confined, or at least primarily targetting, American citizens? What about Madrid, London and Bali? And then there are attacks on individuals - Theo Van Gogh's murder, for example.

Perhaps you might say there has been a rise in the number of Americans being targetted, but there hasn't been increased jihadi terror - it's just that the world has started to notice it.

Unfortunately you're quite wrong. Yes, "militant islamic extremism" has existed for years before the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan, but largely because of Israel and the US's actions way before any of this 9/11 nonsense, and 9/11 was itself a response to american actions. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are very much generating more radicalism, this is what chomsky was getting at.

[Stichman]

Originally Posted by Stripey

Unfortunately you're quite wrong. Yes, "militant islamic extremism" has existed for years before the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan, but largely because of Israel and the US's actions way before any of this 9/11 nonsense, and 9/11 was itself a response to american actions. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are very much generating more radicalism, this is what chomsky was getting at.

There is quite simply no evidence linking American involvment in any conflicts to increased Islamic terrorism. We're obviously not going to agree on this, but I'm adamant that I'm not mistaken on this one.

To be blunt - the fact is, these extremists don't target Americans because they're American, they target them because they're not Muslim. Which is the same reason they targetted Madrid, London and Bali and the same reason why terrorist attacks are carried out indiscriminately against non-Muslims the world over. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan simply provide a helpful excuse.

[Stripey]

Originally Posted by Stichman

There is quite simply no evidence linking American involvment in any conflicts to increased Islamic terrorism. We're obviously not going to agree on this, but I'm adamant that I'm not mistaken on this one.

To be blunt - the fact is, these extremists don't target Americans because they're American, they target them because they're not Muslim. Which is the same reason they targetted Madrid, London and Bali and the same reason why terrorist attacks are carried out indiscriminately against non-Muslims the world over. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan simply provide a helpful excuse.

They don't target anyone "because they're not muslim", they have a political agenda, in al qaeda's case the removal of foreign troops from saudi arabia amongst other things.
Madrid, London and Australia by proxy in Bali were targeted for being allies of the USA and providing political support for the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is just straightforward logic that when you kill peoples families, bomb their neighbourhoods, take over their country and start a bloody occupation, the longer it goes on the more and more pissed off people are going to become and the more likely they are to become radicalised and militant. That is exactly what is happening in Iraq in particular.

To suggest that these terrorist attacks such as in Madrid or London, or New York are just the indiscriminate work of people who hate non-muslims and want islam to take over the world is just propagandistic nonsense.

[Addi]

Originally Posted by Stichman

There is quite simply no evidence linking American involvment in any conflicts to increased Islamic terrorism.

I suggest you read this article (part 4 of 5). It has nice graphs showing the increase in terrorist attacks (both in the middle east and worldwide) after the invasion of Iraq.

This link to a new york times article shows that the assessment by the US intelligence services concur with the above article

An opening section of the report, "Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement," cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology.

The report "says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse," said one American intelligence official.

Originally Posted by Stichman

The phrase "Freedom Fighters" suggests the sparing use of righteous violence against the oppresive forces. It's how you fight that makes the difference between the two terms.

This most certainly was terrorism...

BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Israel buries victims of shooting

So if you cannot get the funds or equipment to fight you are a terrorist?

These men were murderers not terrorists. Would you call Thomas Hamilton a terrorist?

[Stichman]

Originally Posted by Neutral

So if you cannot get the funds or equipment to fight you are a terrorist?

These men were murderers not terrorists. Would you call Thomas Hamilton a terrorist?

Erm, no, where are you getting that from? You're a terrorist if you target civillians purposefully with the aim of spreading fear and terror throughout the population.

What a poor comparison. Hamilton is quite clearly a murderer because he killed children in a motiveless, random attack. In this case, however, a Palestinian has entered into an Jewish college and killed 8 people - you surely can't be serious if you think the fact it was a Jewish college is purely coincidental and he just had a desire to kill some people, irrispective of their religion or nationality?

[Stichman]

Originally Posted by Stripey

They don't target anyone "because they're not muslim", they have a political agenda, in al qaeda's case the removal of foreign troops from saudi arabia amongst other things.
Madrid, London and Australia by proxy in Bali were targeted for being allies of the USA and providing political support for the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is just straightforward logic that when you kill peoples families, bomb their neighbourhoods, take over their country and start a bloody occupation, the longer it goes on the more and more pissed off people are going to become and the more likely they are to become radicalised and militant. That is exactly what is happening in Iraq in particular.

To suggest that these terrorist attacks such as in Madrid or London, or New York are just the indiscriminate work of people who hate non-muslims and want islam to take over the world is just propagandistic nonsense.

This is true of certain branches of extremist organisations, they are simply fighting for freedom from oppression.

I'd like to point out Iraq wasn't all fun and games before the yanks marched in. I don't believe that if a western country rolled into my dictatorship and overthrew a tyrannous ruler (even though their motives were distinctly suspect to say the least), terrorism would be the first thing on my mind. It's not like Iraq is united against the American occupiers, the fall of Saddam has simply reignited existing cultural and sectarian tensions.
I certainly wouldn't say it's "straightforward logic" that an occupation would make you more likely to become "radicalised and militant". It might make you want to rise up against the occupying troops, in which case you could argue that you are a freedom fighter. Yet, the murder of innocent western civillians can never be seen as a logical or valid method of protest against occupation.