quote:Few Americans have given more thought to the motivation of suicide-bombers than Robert Pape, author of "Dying to Win: The Logic of Suicide Terrorism." His book is drawn from an immense database on every suicide-bomb attack from 1980 to early 2004. Conclusion: The claim that 9-11 and the suicide-bombings in Iraq are done to advance some jihad by "Islamofascists" against the West is not only unsubstantiated, it is hollow.
EDIT: Just so y'all know, this was in the Miami Herald this morning, but the Miami Herald makes you register to read stuff. So I found another source using Google news.
[ July 13, 2005, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: narrativium ]
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
quote: suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation and not Islamic fundamentalism
So refresh my memory... Where were U.S. troops before 9/11? Because that's suicide terrorism if I've ever seen it, and I don't recall the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan starting till after -- indeed, they were directly caused by -- 9/11.
Gee, reality is so inconvenient when you're trying to prove a point, isn't it?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Where were U.S. troops before 9/11?
All over the world, particularly in the Middle East around Iraq. (This is not to suggest America needs to have troops in a country to be able to exercise a degree of control over that nation... which we did to many nations, Middle Eastern and otherwise.)
If you don't believe this was an issue prior to 9/11, I can see if I still have saved several of the threads back in 2000 on this forum, in which some of us complained that our foreign troop presence and manipulation of the world was going to result in the world fighting back at us...
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by digging_holes: So refresh my memory... Where were U.S. troops before 9/11? Because that's suicide terrorism if I've ever seen it, and I don't recall the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan starting till after -- indeed, they were directly caused by -- 9/11.
1. We provide a lot of support to Israel. 2. We invaded Iraq before. 3. We have troops all over the Middle East, especially in Saudi Arabia, home to the holy cities of Islam.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote: So refresh my memory... Where were U.S. troops before 9/11? Because that's suicide terrorism if I've ever seen it, and I don't recall the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan starting till after -- indeed, they were directly caused by -- 9/11.
Gee, reality is so inconvenient when you're trying to prove a point, isn't it?
Iirc, Osama Bin Laden released statements that the 9/11 attacks were planned and performed because of US military presence in Saudi Arabia, his home country. But of course, we wouldn't want to listen to the terrorists' reasons why they do anything. They must just hate our freedom.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Jon, we invaded Iraq after 9/11, though we were part of the coalition that stopped Iraq from invading Saudi Arabia and got them out of Kuwait.
However, to make sure Iraq stayed peaceful we kept a lot of troops in Saudi Arabia, which contains the holy city of Mecca. These troops were some of the main problems Osama Bin Laden claimed as an excuse for 9/11
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Yes, Dan, I know. I was referring to the first Gulf War when I said that we invaded Iraq before. It wasn't the same sort of invasion as the current war, but we did deploy troops and send them across the border.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
US troops in Saudi Arabia, US troops in Kuwait, the Fifth Fleet's home is Bahrain. We have a large complex in the UAE. And I believe an air force base in there somewhere, maybe Qatar?\
Ironic, considering the only reason US troops were ever in Saudi Arabia was to protect it from Iraq. I'd say to pull them out now, no reason to be there.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
The 9/11 attack didn't happen because we had attacked Iraq, that much is certain.
Don't confuse Osama Bin Ladin with Saddam Hussein.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I didn't. However, the first Gulf War put a lot of US troops in the Middle East, especially in Saudi Arabia.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:What Pape is saying is that the neocons' "World War IV"...
Wait-- what? When was World War III? Is this a reference to something that I'm missing?
--j_k
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
The Cold War. Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
quote:1. We provide a lot of support to Israel.
The day that changes, the USA will officially become a force for evil.
quote:US military presence in Saudi Arabia
Which was requested and approved by the Saudis...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Requested and approved by the Saudi GOVERNMENT.
Like any country, especially middle eastern countries, there can be a vast chasm of difference between what a government wants and approves, and what the people want and approve.
And why is not supporting Israel evil?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm of the opinion we provide too much support to Israel; it should be scaled back to on par with what we provide our other allies, not ended, though.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
Because Israel is the lone example of an open, democratic and free society, the only country in that entire region that is under the rule of law rather than the rule of terror and corruption. And all of its undemocratic, corrupt and fanatical neighbours want to destroy it completely.
There are other reasons to support Israel, but those are justification enough. If the US ever withdraws its support, that is the day I become anti-american.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*snort*
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
Yes, that's basically my reaction to everything you say, fugu.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
While many of the countries in the area are hardly idyllic, saying they're under the rule of "terror and corruption" doesn't exactly persuade me you're looking at this rationally.
Plus, at least a few of its neighbors don't want to destroy it completely.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
You must be joking. "Hardly idyllic?" The words terror and corruption accurately describe several (though you are right in saying not all) of the neighbouring Islamic states. Think Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia (yes, them again), a large part (indeed, until quite recently, all) of the Palestinian infrastructure. I stand by my words, and I think they are quite rational. You are letting your anti-Israel bias get in the way of your judgement.
But you're right about your second assertion. Not all of Israel's neighbours want to wipe it off the map. Jordan and Egypt are currently taking a much more laudable approach in recognizing and cooperatng with Israel. It is, however, notable that this is to a large extent against the will of their own people.
The problem in the middle-east is not just corrupt governments oppressing the people. It's the people themselves who are indoctrinated from birth with a vicious hatred of Israel; and while one could speculate that a silent majority in the neighbouring Islamic countries are opposed to this mentality, they don't speak up, and they don't hold the power. Also, I would be very skeptical of such speculation. The evidence simply doesn't point to it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I wasn't the one speaking in absolutes.
You just contradicted yourself, yet you stand by yourself?
quote:the only country in that entire region that is under the rule of law rather than the rule of terror and corruption
And combining that with this quotation, we get that all of the surrounding states (since none are particularly democratic, and the other parts are stated above) are out to destroy it:
quote:And all of its undemocratic, corrupt and fanatical neighbours want to destroy it completely.
Little wonder why I snort at such things.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
They are all undemocratic and corrupt. They are not all fanatical. You need to learn to read more carefully.
Frankly, if you feel like nitpicking details to see contradictions that aren't there, you might as well keep your thoughts to yourself.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Try reparsing this sentence, you called every state in the area but Israel under the rule of terror and corruption:
quote:the only country in that entire region that is under the rule of law rather than the rule of terror and corruption.
I can't tell what you meant to say, only what you said.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
You have a quibble with this? Even the non-fanatical (i.e. out to destroy Israel) governments in the area are corrupt and repressive.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Repressive != rule of terror. And one or two of them, while having cultural problems leading to repression, are also fighting some of those issues on a national governmental level.
Not to mention that not everything we consider repressive would be considered repressive by the people living there.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
It's fine that you think it is wise of us to support Israel, as you long recognize that the cost of this is losing the safety and security of American families. We can't have our cake and eat it too. If we wish to actively fight something we can't simultaneously expect not to be fought back. Thus, if you are willing to accept that cost in the name of supporting Israel, I think we could do so.
But we should not pretend terrorists are completely irrational - they are responding to our own choices, and by making different choices I think we can impact how they respond.
Having said that, I don't think Israel is the biggest cause of terrorism, and thus I see no need to stop supporting Israel. It is a slight cause. I think the biggest cause is our imperialistic approach to manipulating the world to be the way we unilaterally want it. If we stopped doing that on a broader level, we could probably get away with supporting Israel with only a very limited danger of terrorist response.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I'm of the opinion we provide too much support to Israel; it should be scaled back to on par with what we provide our other allies, not ended, though.
I totally agree with this. We rarely get anything back from Israel either. Sharon and previous leaders of Israel have regularly rebuffed, ignored, and gone back on promises to US Presidents. I don't expect them to obey us, but without the tanks, weapons, helicopters and fighter jets we give them, they wouldn't exist today. And they seem to have little or not appreciation of that fact.
Give them enough to survive, let them figure the rest out by themselves.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, last year Sharon promised Bush TO HIS FACE that they would not retaliate against a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv. Three days later they launched a helicopter attack that killed a few terrorists and half a dozen children. I'll find the web link later. So, not a lie. Get YOUR facts straight.
The news media doesn't even really cover the crisis over there anymore, too focused on the deaths in Iraq.
And please, the US can't stop attacks in Iraq with a quarter of a million troops. What could we do to stop Palestinian suicide bombings in Israel that the Israelis themselves haven't already tried? Apparently missile attacks on apartment buildings ISN'T a good strategy. WOW, there's a revelation!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not putting it entirely on Israel. But America's unrelenting support of Israel and our overwhelming blame laying on Palestine is stupid at best, and dangerous at worst.
And yes, sometime last year, after a specific attack, I can't remember which one, Sharon promised not to assasinate anyone in retaliation, Bush had asked him not to. It was back when the whole road map thing was doing well, and a cease fire was ongoing. Like I said, I'll find the article later. But other than that, no, I've never heard him make a similar promise.
As for the Palestinians and children, bullshit. That's like saying Iraqis should keep all their children locked in their rooms 24 hours a day for the next few years. Palestinians don't use five year olds as human shields, at least not the average Palestinian. When Israel launches a missile attack into an APARTMENT complex, you're claiming it's the Palestinians' fault for living there? Where do you want all the children to live? Bunkers? They'd have to, to get away from all the Israeli missile attacks.
That's seriously one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
What Bucchanan says is exactly what the peace movement has been saying for over a decade.
The idea that 9/11 happened because people hate our freedoms is simply laughable to anyone who knows diddly about middle east politics. 9/11 happened because we back the Israelis and the house of Saude.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
So out of the several thousand Palestinian civilians killed during the intifadahs, you think that ALL of the children killed in them were being used as human shields? That's ridiculous.
"And when the Palestinians put children in places that they know are about to be bombed, or use them as human shields, or send them out to shoot at Israeli troops, children are going to die. If the Palestinians didn't want their children to die, they wouldn't purposely put them in the line of fire."
That's what you said, you never said "When terrorists kidnap children and use them as shields" which means I can only assume that when you say "Palestinians" you mean ALL Palestinians and not a specific group you failed to mention.
When Israelis attack cars in crowded streets, or level ENTIRE apartment complexes, you really think the Palestinians in the surrounding cars and other floors are purposely loading those areas up with children to raise the body count?
![[Wink]](wink.gif)