• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Creating Terrorists, Why do we continue to do it?

Catawba

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The recent terrorist attempt in the US and other attacks around the world should surprise no one.


Sen. Fritz Hollings
Former South Carolina Senator ~

Creating Terrorists


"On 9/11, Afghanistan and the Swat Valley in Pakistan were peaceful. We ran Osama bin Laden into the Swat Valley and now have ended up shooting lethal missiles from drones into villages, killing civilians, turning a peaceful valley into chaos, and causing two million refugees to flee. Refugee camps are hotbeds for energizing militancy, insurgency, and Al Qaeda. How do the Secretary and generals think one creates a terrorist?

Exactly the way my friend, Vice President Biden, suggests. Stay off-shore and lob artillery into the Valley, or with drones lob missiles into supposed militants' homes. You hit a home in my neighborhood and you've got a militant. I've become a believer in Osama -- a terrorist. Osama said the U. S. was engaged in a Crusade against Islam. Now, the U. S. deployed in Kuwait, having invaded Iraq, invading Afghanistan, and invading Pakistan, I'm a believer. Here I am peacefully reading my Koran and missiles from the United States hit my neighbor. You've got a militant. Come hell or high water I'm going to get you one way or the other. Yes, even learn to fly -- and kill myself to destroy your World Trade Towers."
Sen. Fritz Hollings: Creating Terrorism

July 31, 2008 - "The Rand Corporation, a conservative think-tank originally started by the U.S. Air Force, has produced a new report entitled, "How Terrorist Groups End - Lessons for Countering al Qaida."

"the study concludes that the "war on terrorism" has been a failure...."

"And, why is this so? Because, Rand concludes, after studying 648 terrorist groups between 1968 and 2006, that military operations against such groups are among the least effective means of success, achieving the desired effect in only 7% of the cases. As Rand explains, "[a]gainst most terrorist groups . . . military force is usually too blunt an instrument." Moreover, "[t]he use of substantial U.S. military power against terror groups also runs a significant risk of turning the local population against the government by killing civilians."

"As the Rand Corporation predicts in such circumstances, this has only led to an increase in popular support for those resisting the U.S. military onslaught. In short, the war is counterproductive."

"In the end, Rand concludes that the U.S. should rely much more on local military forces to police their own countries, and that this "means a light U.S. military footprint or none at all."
Dan Kovalik: Rand Corp -- War On Terrorism Is A Failure
 
Corroboration from across the pond ~


Author: Azeem Ibrahim, Research Fellow, International Security Program

This policy memo is based on Mr. Azeem Ibrahim's keynote speech to the Leaders' Summit on Security and Cohesion at Portcullis House, Westminster, London, on October 7, 2008.



The only way to beat terror long-term is to reduce the motivation to radicalize, and international and British trends will make it more urgent to do so

Summary

* Current counterterrorism policy has emphasized military action, imprisonment, cutting off terrorists' sources of finance, and denying them safe territory. These have had limited effectiveness, and recent trends indicate that they are only short-term solutions.
* The only long-term solution is to reduce Muslims' motivation to radicalize.
* Various trends over the next decades will make this more urgent. This policy memo identifies trends in four areas: the changing nature of terrorism itself, demographics, geostrategy, and the British domestic situation.
* Western governments have so far failed to reduce Muslims' motivation to radicalize in part because they lack credibility on the Muslim street, sometimes being regarded as a "contaminated brand."
* Governments can learn from a growing body of evidence how to effectively reduce Muslims' motivation to radicalize."
Reducing Terrorism over the Long Term - Harvard - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
 
We don't create terrorists. They are acting completely on their own volition.

Saying that the United States creates terrorists is as rediculous as saying that the United States created Nazis, or Bushidoists, or Communists.
 
apdst said:
We don't create terrorists. They are acting completely on their own volition.

Saying that the United States creates terrorists is as rediculous as saying that the United States created Nazis, or Bushidoists, or Communists.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your opinion. You will forgive me if I do not find it as credible as the sources I referenced above.
 
Catawba said:
Thanks for your opinion. You will forgive me if I do not find it as credible as the sources I referenced above.
Click to expand...
Speaking of credibility. Are you aware that the Rand Corporation offered a lot of miserable advice to U.S. officials during the Vietnam war? Why do you think they are more credible today?
 
ScummyD said:
Speaking of credibility. Are you aware that the Rand Corporation offered a lot of miserable advice to U.S. officials during the Vietnam war? Why do you think they are more credible today?
Click to expand...

The report I referenced is the most extensive research on terrorist groups to date, and today's Pentagon would have not commissioned their report if they were not credible. Additionally, their report findings are backed up by British Inquiries.

Where is your proof of apdst's credibility in discerning terrorists motives?
 
apdst said:
We don't create terrorists. They are acting completely on their own volition.

Saying that the United States creates terrorists is as rediculous as saying that the United States created Nazis, or Bushidoists, or Communists.
Click to expand...

it was technically russia that created AQ, but then america gave 'em weapons to fight the russians
 
spud_meister said:
it was technically russia that created AQ, but then america gave 'em weapons to fight the russians
Click to expand...

It's odd how you blame the victim of violence for supposedly creating the aggressors that attack them.
 
There is a difference between pointing out that some strategies have been ineffective in dealing with terrorism and claiming these strategies actually create terrorists.

Perhaps the distinction is too subtle for some, but to me it differentiates between those actually seeking to combat terrorism, and those only laying blame. Pointing out that a strategy is ineffective does not shift responsibility away from the actual terrorist, while laying blame on anything but the perpetrators of terrorism does.
 
Catawba said:
The report I referenced is the most extensive research on terrorist groups to date, and today's Pentagon would have not commissioned their report if they were not credible. Additionally, their report findings are backed up by British Inquiries.
Click to expand...
So you believe them because the Pentagon paid for their services and because of what "British Inquiries" have reported?

Where is your proof of apdst's credibility in discerning terrorists motives?
Click to expand...
This is a weird response to my questions. What is your motivation for asking this question? I don't see what relevance this has to the point at hand when I have not said anything about apdst.
 
Catawba said:
Thanks for your opinion. You will forgive me if I do not find it as credible as the sources I referenced above.
Click to expand...

Does he get lovely parting gifts? ..LOL :mrgreen:

You know Cat, you'll never get a right-winger to acknowledge the existence of blowback. These guys live, eat and breath interventionism. The fact that our actions have consequences is a foreign concept to them.
 
ScummyD said:
It's odd how you blame the victim of violence for supposedly creating the aggressors that attack them.
Click to expand...


We killed 100,000 Iraqi civilians in the first Gulf war before the terrorists killed 3,000 of our civilians. What goes around comes around.
 
"On 9/11, Afghanistan and the Swat Valley in Pakistan were peaceful."

What is meant be peaceful?
 
spud_meister said:
it was technically russia that created AQ, but then america gave 'em weapons to fight the russians
Click to expand...

Russia had nothing to do with the growth of numbers in terrorists world wide during our last 8 years of our failed "war on terror"!
 
Catawba said:
We killed 100,000 Iraqi civilians in the first Gulf war before the terrorists killed 3,000 of our civilians. What goes around comes around.
Click to expand...
Say what? Are you trying to say that because of American actions in the first Gulf War the WTC was attacked?
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
You know Cat, you'll never get a right-winger to acknowledge the existence of blowback. These guys live, eat and breath interventionism. The fact that our actions have consequences is a foreign concept to them.
Click to expand...
That's not true.
 
ScummyD said:
So you believe them because the Pentagon paid for their services and because of what "British Inquiries" have reported?


This is a weird response to my questions. What is your motivation for asking this question? I don't see what relevance this has to the point at hand when I have not said anything about apdst.
Click to expand...

I go with the most credible evidence. None more credible has been presented to date, including apdst's opinion.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
Does he get lovely parting gifts? ..LOL :mrgreen:

You know Cat, you'll never get a right-winger to acknowledge the existence of blowback. These guys live, eat and breath interventionism. The fact that our actions have consequences is a foreign concept to them.
Click to expand...

I know wabbit, but it gives me some small pleasure to let others see their position is not backed up by the facts.
 
Catawba said:
I go with the most credible evidence. None more credible has been presented to date, including apdst's opinion.
Click to expand...

I see. I was just curious.
 
ScummyD said:
Say what? Are you trying to say that because of American actions in the first Gulf War the WTC was attacked?
Click to expand...

That, together with our setting up military bases in holy their lands and our military support of Israel.

They've told us that is why they attacked us. They've made no secret of the reasons for their attack.
 
Catawba said:
That, together with our setting up military bases in holy their lands and our military support of Israel.

They've told us that is why they attacked us. They've made no secret of the reasons for their attack.
Click to expand...
They have also told us that they attack us because of our democratic culture.
 
ScummyD said:
They have also told us that they attack us because of our democratic culture.
Click to expand...

I did not see that in their Fatwa. Please reference your source for that claim.
 
Catawba said:
The recent terrorist attempt in the US and other attacks around the world should surprise no one.

"On 9/11, Afghanistan and the Swat Valley in Pakistan were peaceful. We ran Osama bin Laden into the Swat Valley and now have ended up shooting lethal missiles from drones into villages, killing civilians, turning a peaceful valley into chaos, and causing two million refugees to flee.
Click to expand...


Can you explain how shooting rockets into a few remote villages caused two million people to flee?

If I didn't know better, I'd think the author of that statement was a worthless liar.
 
Catawba said:
I did not see that in their Fatwa. Please reference your source for that claim.
Click to expand...
The evidence backing my comment can be found in numerous speeches and missives written and given by bin Laden and al-Zawahiri as cited in [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Al-Qaeda-Reader-Raymond-Ibrahim/dp/038551655X]The al Qaeda Reader[/ame].
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
Does he get lovely parting gifts? ..LOL :mrgreen:

You know Cat, you'll never get a right-winger to acknowledge the existence of blowback. These guys live, eat and breath interventionism. The fact that our actions have consequences is a foreign concept to them.
Click to expand...

I understand blow-back. I understand that in specific situations U.S. actions have the opposite desired effect, like the American caused rise of the the Shah which led to the undesired Islamic Revolution.

You see, these understandings don't lead me to draw large and bold conclusions about U.S. actions across a wide historical and geographical spectrum. It is hardly worth addressing someone that claims all U.S. actions "create" terrorists...

Now, I'll also understand that America's failure to act in the past has led to even more undesirable effects. Dare I bring up appeasement? Dare I bring up Kennedy's failure to deliver at the Bay of Pigs? Dare I bring up Afghanistan in the 1990s?








Let's imagine for a moment that the United States took the truely liberal direction of self-immolation, populism, and internationalism. Let's suppose that we really did close all American bases worldwide and no longer intervened in any shape, manner, or form in any worldwide conflicts, except maybe taking a humanitarian and purely "diplomatic" position... Do you really believe individuals like Osama Bin Laden would just disappear? Are your views really so diluted that you think Militant Islam would suddenly no longer have steam, adherents, and power? Do you really think that the Secular governments of the Arab world would not begin to erode. Yours is a fanciful illusion... a nice one, indeed. I'm afraid I'll have to stick with reality.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom