• 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!

"Islamic Terrorism" - Dependent or Independent?

Is "Islamic Terrorism" Dependent on or Independent of U.S. Foreign Policy?

  • Dependent. Such terrorism would likely not exist if U.S. foreign policy were different.

    Votes: 19 51.4%

  • Independent. Islamic terrorism would exist at current levels regardless.

    Votes: 18 48.6%
  • Total voters
    37
Agnapostate said:
EDIT: I'm not necessarily asking what would happen if foreign policy approaches were changed now. Try to answer as though responding to the question of whether such terrorism would have been initiated in the first place if certain foreign policy had never existed in the first place.
Click to expand...

In the 1940s a man named Sayyid Qutb visited the U.S. He went on to author a books criticizing and demonizing the American culture. The Muslim Brotherhood, of which most terrorist are members or "former" members of, hold his teachings as truly inspirational and insightful as to what the enemy of Allah is.

Now, let's consider something. When Israel was created, it was the Russians that voiced the loudest for its creation. And it was the Russians that went on to supply the Israelis the very weapons that saved them from the Arab onslaught through Checkoslovakia. The U.S. wanted Israel created with the understanding that no weapons were to flood the region. Yet, Sayyid Qutb chose America to be that demon on earth with expressed writings on our culture.

When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, who was there to save Muslims? When Muslims were being tormented and abused in Kuwait by other Muslims, who was there to save them? When Muslims were being slaughtered and starved to death by other Muslims in Somalia, who organized the international community? When nobody cared at all about the slaughter of Muslims in Bosnia, who was there to save them? Aren't the freest and most successful Muslims on the planet in the U.S.? Was it America that oppressed hundreds of Muslims in the Caucasus or was it the Soviets? Did America prescribe religious oppression throughout the ME? If Bin LAden's true pronblem is the existence of the House of Saud, it may be helpful to some to acknowledge that Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan were never colonized by Europeans. In other words, left to their own devices, they create their own failure.


These terrorists use anything to legitimize their hatreds and resentments towards the U.S. But no Arab cares about the Shah of Iran and no Shia cares about Saudi Arabia. The Bashir's go unnoticed just as long as they slaughter non-Arabs and the terrorist organizations that slaughter non Sunni players are cheered for behind closed doors. The absolute worst enemy a Muslim ever had was another Muslim. Hell even Jordanians and Syrians managed to slaughter far more Palestinians than Israelis managed to kill in 60 years of conflict. It wasn't even America that ended the caliphate in the 1920s. Mulsim Turks did this all by themselves.

Ultimately it all goes back to the American culture and what the sources of these organizations hold dear to their heart. Qutb chose America to represent all that is evil in this world. Exaggerated justifications merely give the world an earthly "understanding."
 
It would be the ultimate fantasy of the jingoists who support interventionist political regimes for only barbaric and irrational fanatics to rise in opposition to those regimes regardless of the foreign policy they engage in, but I'd appreciate more direct response to the aforementioned evidence of an obvious connection between AQ plotting and Israeli governmental action instead of abstract ruminations that unsurprisingly overlook the terrorism of figures like Begin, Shamir, and Sharon.
 
Laila said:
Only fools think the foreign policy of countries do not cause consequences and reactions and in many ways a backlash.

US and many countries in Europe, especially UK in particular has ****ed around with the Middle East as if it is its own little playground to muck around with.
Click to expand...


YET, the grand daddy of them all has gone without recognition. Any reason why the Soviets can get away with oppressing and brutalizing hundreds of millions of Muslims in the Caucasus? Or get away with no reprisals over Afghanistan? Or for having a history of aggression against Iran?

Was it the Russians who rushed to rescue Muslims in Bosnia? Or Kuwait? Or Somalia? Is it the Russians that strive to bring peace between Israelis and Palestinians decade after decade? Was it the Russians that backed the French and the British out of the Suez Canal War?

The simple notion that American foriegn policy (which is entirely exaggerated) has more to do with our enemy targetting us than our culture (which is what their religious leaders continually point out) is stupid.
 
Agnapostate said:
Would the phenomenon commonly referred to as "Islamic terrorism" continue to be directed against U.S. targets at existing levels regardless of U.S. political regimes' foreign policy and support of the Israeli government due to an inherent hatred of civil rights/liberties, religious pluralism and relative secularism, and political freedoms on the part of certain Muslims?

EDIT: I'm not necessarily asking what would happen if foreign policy approaches were changed now. Try to answer as though responding to the question of whether such terrorism would have been initiated in the first place if certain foreign policy had never existed in the first place.
Click to expand...

The Rand Corporation has determined that terrorism has grown worldwide due to our foreign policy. That goes along with common sense - If you kill people and blow up peoples countries that never attacked us, it does nothing but provide fuel for the terrorist's recruiting efforts.

They have no need to create propaganda against us. We create our own enemies.
 
Agnapostate said:
Would the phenomenon commonly referred to as "Islamic terrorism" continue to be directed against U.S. targets at existing levels regardless of U.S. political regimes' foreign policy and support of the Israeli government due to an inherent hatred of civil rights/liberties, religious pluralism and relative secularism, and political freedoms on the part of certain Muslims?

EDIT: I'm not necessarily asking what would happen if foreign policy approaches were changed now. Try to answer as though responding to the question of whether such terrorism would have been initiated in the first place if certain foreign policy had never existed in the first place.
Click to expand...

I am amused by the notion that terrorism could be the result of US policy based on the historic FACTS.

Now perhaps if you claimed that the UN's creation of the State of Israel sparked much of the terrorism we are seeing in the Middle East; you might be getting luke warm.

But then, in order to believe that we would also have to discard history and pretend that terrorism only began in the 1940's. This of course would require the willful suspension of common sense and the historic past.
 
Truth Detector said:
Now perhaps if you claimed that the UN's creation of the State of Israel sparked much of the terrorism we are seeing in the Middle East; you might be getting luke warm.
Click to expand...

That would be incorrect, as the Irgun's activities predated the creation of Israel. However, I'm looking for a response to this post:

Agnapostate said:
There exists a common misconception that "Islamic terrorism" exists solely to punish the U.S. for its secularism and liberal democratic "values," but it seems more accurate to note that a more likely motive is anger regarding specific perceived encroachments by U.S. political regimes in terms of support for the Israeli government. I've previously commented on the perspective offered in Osama bin Laden's first fatwa (I'm aware that he does not have the authority to issue fatwas), Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places. Issued in 1996, it identified the Al-Aqsa Mosque as an Islamic holy site that was allegedly being defiled by Israeli sovereignty over the area. Moreover, the reality of his intent was covered in Marc Perelman's Bin Laden Aimed To Link Plot to Israel.

In an interim staff report released last week, the presidential commission investigating the September 11, 2001, attacks shed new light on the role of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in Al Qaeda’s worldview.

The disclosures seem to weaken Israeli claims that the issue was only a secondary priority for Osama bin Laden, and they could rekindle the debate about whether U.S. support for Israel is hindering national security.

In a 20-page report titled “Outline of the 9-11 Plot,” the commission, which is to issue a final report at the end of July, describes bin Laden’s willingness to time the attacks against America with two visits by Prime Minister Sharon, one in Jerusalem and one in Washington.

The report claims that Khalid Sheikh Mohamed, or KSM, the alleged mastermind of the attacks who was arrested in March 2003 in Pakistan, told his U.S. captors that bin Laden “wanted to punish the United States for supporting Israel.”

This is why, according to KSM, bin Laden asked him to conduct the attacks “as early as mid-2000” in response to the outcry prompted by the visit of then-opposition leader Sharon to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, the report states. Even though the Al Qaeda hijackers had barely arrived in the United States to take flight lessons, the Saudi renegade allegedly argued that it would be enough if they smashed planes to the ground without hitting specific targets. The report claims that KSM talked him out of the plan.

Bin Laden, however, reportedly asked him again a year later to hasten the preparations of the plot when he learned that Sharon, now prime minister, would visit the White House in June or July 2001, according to the report.

Once again KSM convinced him to wait, and the group eventually settled on September 11 after further debates about targets and timing, debunking the assumption that the details of the operation were planned long in advance.

In addition to bin Laden’s reported interest in linking the attacks to Israel, the report also sheds light on the worldview of Al Qaeda operatives and its sympathizers.

It noted that Mohammed Atta, the Egyptian ringleader of the plot, chose the second week of September to ensure that Congress, “the perceived source of U.S. policy in support of Israel” would be in session. Atta, who lived in Germany with several other hijackers, “denounced what he described as a global Jewish movement centered in New York City which, he claimed, controlled the financial world and the media.”

In a chilling detail, the report also mentions that KSM indicated that Mullah Omar, the former Taliban leader in Afghanistan, “opposed [Al Qaeda’s plan to attack] the United States for ideological reasons but permitted attacks against Jewish targets.”

“Bin Laden, on the other hand, reportedly argued that attacks against the United States needed to be carried out immediately to support the insurgency in the Israeli-occupied territories and to protest the presence of U.S. military forces in Saudi Arabia,” according to the report.
Click to expand...

Moreover, he wished to accelerate the attacks twice, both in response to what he considered "provocative" actions by Sharon. I wouldn't claim that he didn't oppose Western "decadence," but his opposition would not have been characterized by such a violent backlash had he not regarded the existence of financial and military support as an imposition of that decadence. As has been previously noted, he did not choose to attack the significantly more "decadent" Sweden or the Netherlands, for instance.

This reality is certainly confirmed by opinion polling of the Arab populace on the matter. Zogby International's Impressions of America 2004: A Six-Nation Survey (go to page 90), summarizes this well, noting that "[w]hen asked whether their overall attitude toward the US was shaped by their feelings about American values or US policies, in all six countries, an overwhelming percentage of respondents indicated that policy played a more important role."
Click to expand...

Feel free to provide one. :)
 
Agnapostate said:
That would be incorrect, as the Irgun's activities predated the creation of Israel. However, I'm looking for a response to this post:

Feel free to provide one. :)
Click to expand...

I find the purpose of your point elusive; I expressed exactly what you are expressing, that it is the Israeli question and the creation of the State of Israel that has much more to do with ME terrorism than anything the US has done.

I pay little or no attention to the statements and claims made by someone like Osama Bin Laden or an organization like Al Qaeda whose sole existence requires lies, distortions and violence to survive, other than to take their threats serious, as they would make whatever farcical claims they can to support their murderous agenda that is based on lies.

So help me out and try to express clearly what your point is or how your comments differ that much from mine?
 
Truth Detector said:
I find the purpose of your point elusive; I expressed exactly what you are expressing, that it is the Israeli question and the creation of the State of Israel that has much more to do with ME terrorism than anything the US has done.
Click to expand...

Incorrect; I was referring to specific action on the part of that regime (try to pay attention and note OBL's desire to accelerate the timetable in response to Sharon's actions). Your commentary is therefore of little relevance. :shrug:
 
Laila said:
Only fools think the foreign policy of countries do not cause consequences and reactions and in many ways a backlash.

US and many countries in Europe, especially UK in particular has ****ed around with the Middle East as if it is its own little playground to muck around with.
Click to expand...

And the ME has ****ed around in the West, the East, the North and the South, but I don't see Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Zoroastrian, etc etc waging holy war against Muslims do you? This is not about the foreign policy of the west it is about the foreign policy of Islamist supremacist expansionist imperialist and their goal to bring the entire world of dar al-Harb into the fold of dar al-Islam through offensive Jihad.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Everything not only might, but DOES react to anything and everything else. And if you consider rationality in terms of predictability, then I simply don't know what to say other than this line of thought is obviously false. One not being able to predict another's reaction in no way makes the other's reaction irrational.
Click to expand...
Irrationality is measured by logic and logic alone.
While predictability does not imply on rationality, irrationality implies on unpredictability by logic acceptance.

Now I feel like Agna with all of those big words thrown around.
 
Kandahar said:
Are you saying that the goal of some ragtag pirates on the Barbary Coast - which stole cargo from ships - was "expansionism through offensive jihad"?
Click to expand...

They certainly justified their raids through religious context namely the example of Mohammad. And they weren't rag tag, it was state sponsored terrorism supported by their local governments.

“t was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave,” -- Ambassador John Adams reporting on the response of Ambassador from Tripoli Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja over the question of why these unprovoked attacks were being perpetrated on U.S. shipping
 
Agnapostate said:
That would be incorrect, as the Irgun's activities predated the creation of Israel.
Click to expand...
Correct, and Palestinian-Arab terrorism has predated Irgun by over a decade. (1921)
 
Kandahar said:
What do common criminals have to do with Islamic terrorism? Is Jeffrey Dahmer an example of Christian terrorism? :confused:
Click to expand...

The Barbary Pirates cited divine right for their unprovoked attacks against U.S. shipping just as modern terrorists do today. They attack us because we are infidels it's as simple as that.
 
Agent Ferris said:
They certainly justified their raids through religious context namely the example of Mohammad. And they weren't rag tag, it was state sponsored terrorism supported by their local governments.

“t was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave,” -- Ambassador John Adams reporting on the response of Ambassador from Tripoli Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja over the question of why these unprovoked attacks were being perpetrated on U.S. shipping
Click to expand...


And the Bible was used to justify slavery. So what? There is a difference between using religion to justify one's actions, and being motivated by one's religion.

Agent Ferris said:
The Barbary Pirates cited divine right for their unprovoked attacks against U.S. shipping just as modern terrorists do today. They attack us because we are infidels it's as simple as that.
Click to expand...

No, they attacked American ships because they wanted the cargo.
 
Agent Ferris said:
They attack us because we are infidels it's as simple as that.
Click to expand...

They attack us because they use the US as a convenient scapegoat knowing how gullible the UN and Libruls throughout the globe are which provides cover for their murderous ways which do nothing to serve God or Allah but merely serve the purposes of self promoting thugs who rely on the willing denial of the world and the ignorance of their followers to sustain their megalomaniacal self important image.
 
Agnapostate said:
I'm surprised to see the way that reefedjib voted. He's the most candid jingoist on the forum and possibly the most extreme.
Click to expand...

The most extreme? Really?

You did talk me into realizing that I was a jingoist. :) It doesn't mean I don't care for the welfare of people around the world. That's very much in my personal interest and our countries interest. That is why I am quite proud about all of the good things we do in the world, like $15 billion dollars to Africa or the tsunami relief in Indonesia. I honestly don't know what to do about Africa, though.

Our pushing of western values, into traditionalist societies, causes a severe cultural backlash. Terrorism is no surprise.

How were you able to see how I voted?
 
Last edited:
The poll is public, by intent. I'm not surprised to see most of the votes go the way they did, with most people voting exactly as I knew they would.

Rational moral agents, ultimately, are not divided on the basis of nationality. The average U.S. citizen possesses no greater sensory capacities and consequent ability to suffer than the Kenyan or Mongolian citizen does, and equivalent suffering imposed on either is consequently of equivalent value.
 
Agnapostate said:
The poll is public, by intent. I'm not surprised to see most of the votes go the way they did, with most people voting exactly as I knew they would.
Click to expand...

Ok, I found it. You click on the number of votes.

So mine surprised you. There was a lot of truth to bin Laden's words to the west which is why his message resonates with so many people from the Islamic world. He's a brilliant man.

Agnapostate said:
Rational moral agents, ultimately, are not divided on the basis of nationality. The average U.S. citizen possesses no greater sensory capacities and consequent ability to suffer than the Kenyan or Mongolian citizen does, and equivalent suffering imposed on either is consequently of equivalent value.
Click to expand...

What's a moral agent? What does that mean?

I do see your point and I agree with it to a degree. But where do you feel nationality fits in? Because I am frankly proud of a lot of what my country does in the world. I'll grant you that there is a lot we have done for which there is no reason to feel proud: bombing Iraq back to the stone age in Gulf War 1, installing dictators in Latin America... But on balance, I feel we are a positive force in the world. I think pushing our values is a good thing, even though there is resistance to it.
 
reefedjib said:
What's a moral agent? What does that mean?
Click to expand...

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_agency]Moral agency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

The capacity for moral agency necessitates that beings that possess it will also possess sufficient capacities to experience a substantial amount of happiness and suffering caused by numerous external stimuli.

reefedjib said:
I do see your point and I agree with it to a degree. But where do you feel nationality fits in? Because I am frankly proud of a lot of what my country does in the world. I'll grant you that there is a lot we have done for which there is no reason to feel proud: bombing Iraq back to the stone age in Gulf War 1, installing dictators in Latin America... But on balance, I feel we are a positive force in the world. I think pushing our values is a good thing, even though there is resistance to it.
Click to expand...

"We"? The nationalist conflates the political regime and the nation-state as a whole, but neither you nor I have had any influence on the formation of U.S. foreign policy. I know that I haven't, and if you had, all other American countries would be transformed into U.S. states at this point. Most U.S. influence has been negative; there are relatively libertarian domestic conditions for us but decidedly authoritarian international conditions fostered by U.S. influence, as evidenced by the anti-democratic removal of the likes of Mossadeq, Arbenz, and Allende. There's no benefit in pushing those "values." As cliched as it is...seriously, read some Chomsky.
 
Agnapostate said:
There's no benefit in pushing those "values." As cliched as it is...seriously, read some Chomsky.
Click to expand...

Good ole Noam Chomsky; you have to be one of the very few who even pay attention to this intellectual moron.

One of my favorite things to watch is intellectuals attempting to make sense of the real world while living in a fantasy world of their own making. While Noam is so busy criticizing US policy, he conveniently, but hardly surprising, ignores the policies of terrorists, despots, dictators and communists.

There is a reason he has been shunned; because his views are radical and basically pretty damned naive and stupid. Maybe you should just read some books instead of filling up on a diet of anti-American pabulum that illustrates why you have such warped views about the REAL world?
 
Thanks for the link.

But where do you feel nationality fits in?

"We"? The nationalist conflates the political regime and the nation-state as a whole, but neither you nor I have had any influence on the formation of U.S. foreign policy. I know that I haven't
Click to expand...

We did. We voted our say in putting politicians into office. Beyond that I didn't have anything to do with it.

But tell me who does decide to do these negative things which I recognize we have done? Is it the State Dept, CIA, or is it ultimately the President? Congress?

and if you had, all other American countries would be transformed into U.S. states at this point.
Click to expand...

Not true! I am not an expansionist, although I would like to see PR become a state.

Most U.S. influence has been negative
Click to expand...
I disagree.

there are relatively libertarian domestic conditions for us but decidedly authoritarian international conditions fostered by U.S. influence, as evidenced by the anti-democratic removal of the likes of Mossadeq, Arbenz, and Allende. There's no benefit in pushing those "values." As cliched as it is
Click to expand...

I'll counter that by listing Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Columbia, Nicaragua, Honduras, Britain, France, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Austria, Italy, Eastern Europe, China, Indonesia, Phillapines, S. Korea, Japan, Australia, Canada.

...seriously, read some Chomsky.
Click to expand...

I wish I could but at this time I have 12 books queued up. I just got "Just and Unjust Wars" by Walzer and I am popping that to the top.
 
Apocalypse said:
Irrationality is measured by logic and logic alone.
While predictability does not imply on rationality, irrationality implies on unpredictability by logic acceptance.

Now I feel like Agna with all of those big words thrown around.
Click to expand...

One can be predictably unpredictable by logical conclusion as well... to the rest, I agree.
 
As for me Independent, I don't match idea about Islamic Terrorism,only a little, which make me believe that they're independent...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom