Stripey Posted March 7, 2008 Report Share Posted March 7, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addi Posted March 7, 2008 Report Share Posted March 7, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Neutral Posted March 7, 2008 Report Share Posted March 7, 2008 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 shootingSo 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stichman Posted March 7, 2008 Report Share Posted March 7, 2008 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stichman Posted March 7, 2008 Report Share Posted March 7, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stripey Posted March 7, 2008 Report Share Posted March 7, 2008 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.sorry, you just don't know what you're talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stichman Posted March 7, 2008 Report Share Posted March 7, 2008 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 articleCome now, I think we all know that statistics are probably the most easily manipulated sources of information in the world. For example, what exactly constitutes a "jihadist attack"? Of course there have been more attacks on US and British troops in the last few years, thousands of them have been fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Do these figures take on board the one-off, religously motivated murders of thousands of people across the world, whos countries have not been inolved in Iraq?Haha, the US Intelligence Service? Ah yes, a trustworthy bunch. The very same Service that missed the impending attack on their own country in 2001? The same chaps that found evidence for LOADS of WMDs in Iraq? Hmm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stichman Posted March 7, 2008 Report Share Posted March 7, 2008 sorry, you just don't know what you're talking about.A well-informed, concise response. Glad you're not getting petty... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stripey Posted March 7, 2008 Report Share Posted March 7, 2008 A well-informed, concise response. Glad you're not getting petty...Nah I'm not being petty, you just have no idea what your talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stichman Posted March 7, 2008 Report Share Posted March 7, 2008 Nah I'm not being petty, you just have no idea what your talking about."I certainly wouldn't say it's 'straightforward logic' that an occupation would make you more likely to become 'radicalised and militant'. The murder of innocent western civillians can never be seen as a logical or valid method of protest against occupation."That's the crux of my argument, hopefully in a Stripey-friendly, succinct format. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stripey Posted March 7, 2008 Report Share Posted March 7, 2008 "I certainly wouldn't say it's 'straightforward logic' that an occupation would make you more likely to become 'radicalised and militant'. The murder of innocent western civillians can never be seen as a logical or valid method of protest against occupation."That's the crux of my argument, hopefully in a Stripey-friendly, succinct format.You're just wrong, sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addi Posted March 7, 2008 Report Share Posted March 7, 2008 Come now, I think we all know that statistics are probably the most easily manipulated sources of information in the world. For example, what exactly constitutes a "jihadist attack"? Of course there have been more attacks on US and British troops in the last few years, thousands of them have been fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Do these figures take on board the one-off, religously motivated murders of thousands of people across the world, whos countries have not been inolved in Iraq?If you had bothered to actually read the article instead of just looking at the graphs, deciding you didn't like the what they meant for your argument and then discarding them out of hand you would have seen that the sources for their data are given at the end.There is no point in even trying to engage you in a reasonable discussion about these things. You have presented no evidence, you just state your opinion and when it's shown to be wrong using evidence (which you dont bother reading) you just decide that the evidence doesn't count.You have formed your opinion and no amount of evidence will change your mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stichman Posted March 8, 2008 Report Share Posted March 8, 2008 You're just wrong, sorry.I don't have a problem with you thinking I'm wrong; I have a problem with you telling me I don't know what I'm talking about just because we have differing opinions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stripey Posted March 8, 2008 Report Share Posted March 8, 2008 I don't have a problem with you thinking I'm wrong; I have a problem with you telling me I don't know what I'm talking about just because we have differing opinions.It's not a difference of opinion atall, you are ignorant of the facts, and literally wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stichman Posted March 8, 2008 Report Share Posted March 8, 2008 If you had bothered to actually read the article instead of just looking at the graphs, deciding you didn't like the what they meant for your argument and then discarding them out of hand you would have seen that the sources for their data are given at the end.There is no point in even trying to engage you in a reasonable discussion about these things. You have presented no evidence, you just state your opinion and when it's shown to be wrong using evidence (which you dont bother reading) you just decide that the evidence doesn't count.You have formed your opinion and no amount of evidence will change your mind.Please don't patronise me by suggesting I haven't read the article in full. You'll notice I didn't question the validity of the sources in themselves; just how the information was gathered in the first place. In the report, it says "The rate of fatal terrorist attacks around the world by jihadist groups, and the number of people killed in those attacks, increased dramatically since the Iraq war", which I'm afraid still doesn't answer my question - what constitutes a 'jihadist attack'? As far as I'm concerned, a 'jihadist attack' needn't be carried out by a recognised organistation like Al-Qaeda. A 'jihadist attack' can be an individual murder motivated by a certain perception of Islam in which the attacker believes they are entirely justified in killing a non-muslim. The word 'jihad' doesn't just mean a righteous war against opposition forces, it can also refer to the forced spread of Islam via the use of excessive force.As for having a lack of evidence, for which of the views I've expressed in this thread would you like evidence for? I'll do my best to provide a list of sources if you like. You're right in asserting that I have no evidence to back my view that Iraq hasn't globally increased jihadi attacks, but then I never claimed I did - I simply questioned the evidence that you presented, questions you shrugged off by claiming I hadn't even bothered to read the articles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stichman Posted March 8, 2008 Report Share Posted March 8, 2008 It's not a difference of opinion atall, you are ignorant of the facts, and literally wrong.Sigh. Yes, it's very easy to say that but less easy to actually engage me in a real response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Neutral Posted March 8, 2008 Report Share Posted March 8, 2008 Eh IsraelStichman, you are wrong, so very wrongIf the Norweigans invaded Scotland and arrested, harassed, stole things from your family and country how would you fight back? With millitary grade weapons? Stones? Buckfast bottles? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stripey Posted March 8, 2008 Report Share Posted March 8, 2008 Sigh. Yes, it's very easy to say that but less easy to actually engage me in a real response.I've already told you what's wrong with the nonsense you are coming out with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stichman Posted March 9, 2008 Report Share Posted March 9, 2008 Eh IsraelStichman, you are wrong, so very wrongIf the Norweigans invaded Scotland and arrested, harassed, stole things from your family and country how would you fight back? With millitary grade weapons? Stones? Buckfast bottles?I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at with that map...And please don't tell me you think the situation in the Gaza Strip is as straightforward as Israel invading Palestine. Please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stichman Posted March 9, 2008 Report Share Posted March 9, 2008 On the off-chance anyone is interested, here's an extremely interesting critique of Noam Chomsky's blethers - Oliver Kamm: Chomsky, antisemitism and intellectual standards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stichman Posted March 9, 2008 Report Share Posted March 9, 2008 I've already told you what's wrong with the nonsense you are coming out with."I certainly wouldn't say it's 'straightforward logic' that an occupation would make you more likely to become 'radicalised and militant'. The murder of innocent western civillians can never be seen as a logical or valid method of protest against occupation."You still haven't told me why this is nonsense... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.