• 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!

Would radical Muslims leave the U.S. alone if....

If we completely left the Muslim countries, would they make peace with the U.S.?

  • Total voters
    47
Some people pretend this is something that has just happened in the past decade. It isn't. Terrorists from Muslim nations have been attacking the west, and the US in particular, since the 1970's. It's difficult to find such a list of purely Muslim attacks without using an obviously biased source such as The Religion of Peace or CDI. I found this on Information Please: Terrorist Attacks in the U.S. or Against Americans — Infoplease.com

1979
Nov. 4, Tehran, Iran: Iranian radical students seized the U.S. embassy, taking 66 hostages. 14 were later released. The remaining 52 were freed after 444 days on the day of President Reagan's inauguration.
1982–1991
Lebanon: Thirty US and other Western hostages kidnapped in Lebanon by Hezbollah. Some were killed, some died in captivity, and some were eventually released. Terry Anderson was held for 2,454 days.
1983
April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
Oct. 23, Beirut, Lebanon: Shiite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 marines. Minutes later a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut.
Dec. 12, Kuwait City, Kuwait: Shiite truck bombers attacked the U.S. embassy and other targets, killing 5 and injuring 80.
1984
Sept. 20, east Beirut, Lebanon: truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. embassy annex, killing 24, including 2 U.S. military.
Dec. 3, Beirut, Lebanon: Kuwait Airways Flight 221, from Kuwait to Pakistan, hijacked and diverted to Tehran. 2 Americans killed.
1985
April 12, Madrid, Spain: Bombing at restaurant frequented by U.S. soldiers, killed 18 Spaniards and injured 82.
June 14, Beirut, Lebanon: TWA Flight 847 en route from Athens to Rome hijacked to Beirut by Hezbollah terrorists and held for 17 days. A U.S. Navy diver executed.
Oct. 7, Mediterranean Sea: gunmen attack Italian cruise ship, Achille Lauro. One U.S. tourist killed. Hijacking linked to Libya.
Dec. 18, Rome, Italy, and Vienna, Austria: airports in Rome and Vienna were bombed, killing 20 people, 5 of whom were Americans. Bombing linked to Libya.
1986
April 2, Athens, Greece:A bomb exploded aboard TWA flight 840 en route from Rome to Athens, killing 4 Americans and injuring 9.
April 5, West Berlin, Germany: Libyans bombed a disco frequented by U.S. servicemen, killing 2 and injuring hundreds.
1988
Dec. 21, Lockerbie, Scotland: N.Y.-bound Pan-Am Boeing 747 exploded in flight from a terrorist bomb and crashed into Scottish village, killing all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground. Passengers included 35 Syracuse University students and many U.S. military personnel. Libya formally admitted responsibility 15 years later (Aug. 2003) and offered $2.7 billion compensation to victims' families.
1993
Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.
1995
April 19, Oklahoma City: car bomb exploded outside federal office building, collapsing wall and floors. 168 people were killed, including 19 children and 1 person who died in rescue effort. Over 220 buildings sustained damage. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols later convicted in the antigovernment plot to avenge the Branch Davidian standoff in Waco, Tex., exactly 2 years earlier. (See Miscellaneous Disasters.)
Nov. 13, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: car bomb exploded at U.S. military headquarters, killing 5 U.S. military servicemen.
1996
June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. 13 Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001.
1998
Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. 4 men connected with al-Qaeda 2 of whom had received training at al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who remained at large.
2000
Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. 17 sailors killed. Linked to Osama bin Laden, or members of al-Qaeda terrorist network.
2001
Sept. 11, New York City, Arlington, Va., and Shanksville, Pa.: hijackers crashed 2 commercial jets into twin towers of World Trade Center; 2 more hijacked jets were crashed into the Pentagon and a field in rural Pa. Total dead and missing numbered 2,9921: 2,749 in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon, 40 in Pa., and 19 hijackers. Islamic al-Qaeda terrorist group blamed. (See September 11, 2001: Timeline of Terrorism.)
2002
June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb explodes outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.
2003 1
May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers kill 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.
2004
May 29–31, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American.
June 11–19, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.
Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.
2005
Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan: suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.
2006
Sept. 13, Damascus, Syria: an attack by four gunman on the American embassy is foiled.
2007
Jan. 12, Athens, Greece: the U.S. embassy is fired on by an anti-tank missile causing damage but no injuries.
Dec. 11, Algeria: more than 60 people are killed, including 11 United Nations staff members, when Al Qaeda terrorists detonate two car bombs near Algeria's Constitutional Council and the United Nations offices.
2008
May 26, Iraq: a suicide bomber on a motorcycle kills six U.S. soldiers and wounds 18 others in Tarmiya.
June 24, Iraq: a suicide bomber kills at least 20 people, including three U.S. Marines, at a meeting between sheiks and Americans in Karmah, a town west of Baghdad.
June 12, Afghanistan: four American servicemen are killed when a roadside bomb explodes near a U.S. military vehicle in Farah Province.
July 13, Afghanistan: nine U.S.soldiers and at least 15 NATO troops die when Taliban militants boldly attack an American base in Kunar Province, which borders Pakistan. It's the most deadly against U.S. troops in three years.
Aug. 18 and 19, Afghanistan: as many as 15 suicide bombers backed by about 30 militants attack a U.S. military base, Camp Salerno, in Bamiyan. Fighting between U.S. troops and members of the Taliban rages overnight. No U.S. troops are killed.
Sept. 16, Yemen: a car bomb and a rocket strike the U.S. embassy in Yemen as staff arrived to work, killing 16 people, including 4 civilians. At least 25 suspected al-Qaeda militants are arrested for the attack.
Nov. 26, India: in a series of attacks on several of Mumbai's landmarks and commercial hubs that are popular with Americans and other foreign tourists, including at least two five-star hotels, a hospital, a train station, and a cinema. About 300 people are wounded and nearly 190 people die, including at least 5 Americans.
2009
Feb. 9, Iraq: a suicide bomber kills four American soldiers and their Iraqi translator near a police checkpoint.
April 10, Iraq: a suicide attack kills five American soldiers and two Iraqi policemen.
June 1, Little Rock, Arkansas: Abdulhakim Muhammed, a Muslim convert from Memphis, Tennessee, is charged with shooting two soldiers outside a military recruiting center. One is killed and the other is wounded. In a January 2010 letter to the judge hearing his case, Muhammed asked to change his plea from not guilty to guilty, claimed ties to al-Qaeda, and called the shooting a jihadi attack "to fight those who wage war on Islam and Muslims."
Dec. 25: A Nigerian man on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit attempted to ignite an explosive device hidden in his underwear. The explosive device that failed to detonate was a mixture of powder and liquid that did not alert security personnel in the airport. The alleged bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, told officials later that he was directed by the terrorist group Al Qaeda. The suspect was already on the government's watch list when he attempted the bombing; his father, a respected Nigerian banker, had told the U.S. government that he was worried about his son's increased extremism.
Dec. 30, Iraq: a suicide bomber kills eight Americans civilians, seven of them CIA agents, at a base in Afghanistan. It's the deadliest attack on the agency since 9/11. The attacker is reportedly a double agent from Jordan who was acting on behalf of al-Qaeda.
2010
May 2, New York City: After discovering a bomb in a smoking vehicle parked in Times Square, authorities arrest Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani who recently became a naturalized U.S. citizen, and charge him with attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction and several other federal charges. American officials later announce that the Pakistani Taliban likely played a role in the bomb plot, including training Shahzad.
Click to expand...

Since islamic terror attacks started long before the US had a physical military presence in any muslim country, I think we can safely presume that if all of our troops were removed from the soil of every muslim nation immediately, the attacks would indeed continue.

Muslims are not homogeneous. They are angry at us for different reasons. Iran was pissed about our support for the Shah... and Iraq. Libya was pissed at us because he's an effing lunatic, as we now see. A lot of the ME is pissed at us because we won't let them wipe out Israel. Iraq and Afghanistan are mad at us because we invaded and occupied their countries... duh.

Too many problems to be solved with a single solution.
 
Last edited:
Possible/Likely

They have a set of political conditions that contribute to it. Russia had thousands of attacks in the 17-1800s for example.
 
Redress said:
Did you miss the terrorists arrested in Michigan who planned to kill cops and bomb their funerals? Guess what, they where a radical christian group. That is only one example. Christians and muslims are nothing but two religions with very similar beliefs and the same drawing of radicals.
Click to expand...

When the radical Christians are involved in 16 of the 20 major world's conflicts, or whatever it is, like the radical Muslims are, then I will give your argument a second thought.
 
Yes, in the west we have the advantage of governments that assume secularism, though the proponents of their wars... are likely christian by culture or faith, and also radical.
 
Since islamic terror attacks started long before the US had a physical military presence in any muslim country, I think we can safely presume that if all of our troops were removed from the soil of every muslim nation immediately, the attacks would indeed continue.
Click to expand...

The U.S. first got involved in Iran in 1954 when it overthrew their government to install a friendly puppet who gave us access to oil. The hostage taking in 1979 happened 25 years later when people got fed up and had a revolution against said dictator. The only attack on American's by Muslims you can find before we got involved in middle eastern affairs was the Barbary pirates in 1801. One can argue the merit of leaving or not, but don't get the facts wrong.
 
DiAnna said:
Some people pretend this is something that has just happened in the past decade. It isn't. Terrorists from Muslim nations have been attacking the west, and the US in particular, since the 1970's. It's difficult to find such a list of purely Muslim attacks without using an obviously biased source such as The Religion of Peace or CDI. I found this on Information Please: Terrorist Attacks in the U.S. or Against Americans — Infoplease.com

Since islamic terror attacks started long before the US had a physical military presence in any muslim country, I think we can safely presume that if all of our troops were removed from the soil of every muslim nation immediately, the attacks would indeed continue.
Click to expand...

That's horribly false.

The U.S. and the Middle East - US-Mideast History since 1945

Truman Administration, 1945-1952.

American troops were stationed in Iran during World War II to help transfer military supplies to the Soviet Union and protect Iranian oil. British and Soviet troops were also on Iranian soil. After the war, Stalin withdrew his troops only when Harry Truman protested their continued presence through the United Nations, and possibly threatened to use force to boot them out.

American duplicity in the Middle East was born: While opposing Soviet influence in Iran, Truman solidified America’s relationship with Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi, in power since 1941, and brought Turkey into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), making it clear to the Soviet Union that the Middle East would be a cold war hot zone.

Truman accepted the 1947 United Nations partition plan of Palestine, granting 57 percent of the land to Israel and 43 percent to Palestine, and personally lobbied for its success. The plan lost support from U.N. member nations, especially as hostilities between Jews and Palestinians multiplied in 1948, and Arabs lost more land or fled. Truman recognized the State of Israel 11 minutes after its creation, on May 14, 1948.
Eisenhower Administration, 1953-1960

Three major events marked Dwight Eisenhower’s Middle East policy. In 1953, Eisenhower ordered the CIA to depose Mohammed Mossadegh, the popular, elected leader of the Iranian parliament and an ardent nationalist who opposed British and American influence in Iran. The coup severely tarnished America’s reputation among Iranians, who lost trust in American claims of protecting democracy.

In 1956, when Israel, Britain and France attacked Egypt when Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal, a furious Eisenhower not only refused to join the hostilities; he ended the war.

Two years later, as nationalist forces roiled the Middle East and threatened to topple Lebanon’s Christian-led government, Eisenhower ordered the first landing of U.S. troops in Beirut to protect the regime. The deployment, lasting just three months, ended a brief civil war in Lebanon.
Kennedy Administrations, 1961-1963

John Kennedy was supposedly uninvolved in the Middle East. But as Warren Bass argued in “Support Any Friend: Kennedy's Middle East and the Making of the U.S.-Israel Alliance,” John Kennedy tried to develop a special relationship with Israel while diffusing the effects of his predecessors’ cold war policies regarding Arab regimes.

Kennedy increased economic aid toward the region and worked to reduce its polarization between Soviet and American spheres. While the friendship with Israel was solidified during his tenure, Kennedy’s abbreviated administration, while briefly inspiring the Arab public, largely failed to mollify Arab leaders.

The Johnson Administration, 1963-1968

Lyndon Johnson was absorbed by his Great Society programs at home and the Vietnam War abroad. The Middle East burst back onto the American foreign-policy radar with the Six Day War of 1967, when Israel, after rising tension and threats from all sides, preempted what it characterized as an impending attack from Egypt, Syria and Jordan.

Israel occupied the Gaza Strip, the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank and Syria’s Golan Heights. Israel threatened to go further. The Soviet Union threatened armed attack if it did. Johnson put the U.S. Navy’s Mediterranean Sixth Fleet on alert, but also compelled Israel to agree to a cease-fire on June 10, 1967.
Click to expand...

U.S. military intervention in the Middle East is not something that started up in the last few decades. It's only intensified in the last few decades. As I argued already, the majority of animosity in the Middle Eastern world does not actually stem from having a military presence there. That only intensifies it. It starts off mostly from our meddling in their affairs. The presence of our military there just helps them give some substance to their rhetoric.
 
Redress said:
Nothing has worked with radical christians yet, so I don't know what would work with radical muslims.
Click to expand...

The title of this thread is "If we completely left the Muslim countries, would they make peace with the U.S.?"

Please explain which Christian countries the US is located in that the Radical Christians of said country are not at peace with the US?

Or is this your attempt at a diversion to draw attention away from the subject at hand. Please stay on topic.
 
Redress said:
And see, what I see is making excuses. Both religions attract a radical element. Both radical elements can be violent. Both try and demonize the other.
Click to expand...

What I see are your sophomoric attempts at drawing moral equivalency between two things that are wilddly different in terms of prevalence, as well as magnitude.


Have you considered actually thinking about it instead of just indulging in this silly knee-jerk to toque apologetics?
 
Originally Posted by Redress
And see, what I see is making excuses. Both religions attract a radical element. Both radical elements can be violent. Both try and demonize the other.
Click to expand...

There are "radical" everything. Are radical tree huggers taht commit terrorist actions and destroy bulldoze equipement also comparable to radical terrorist Muslims beheading people? If so, you got something... if not, then you ain't got nothin'.
 
I voted other and can explain my position best with an analogy. If you don't poke a stick into a beehive are you more or less likely to get stung? Yeah, you may get an occasional bee sting if you don't poke the hive, but your chances of getting stung are much less if you don't poke it.
 
Last edited:
of course not. but non intervention would have a major positive impact in recruitment efforts of current radical Muslims.
 
ARealConservative said:
of course not. but non intervention would have a major positive impact in recruitment efforts of current radical Muslims.
Click to expand...

I am confused by the apparent conflict between your position against non-intervention in the ME and your libertarian handle.
 
Catawba said:
I am confused by the apparent conflict between your position against non-intervention in the ME and your libertarian handle.
Click to expand...

we can't undue the damage we have done. the question was asked, will a change in our foreign policy be enough to make peace with those already radicalized.

and the answer is no.

but non-intervention is still the best long term course of action to take, because it will prevent them from growing their ranks as easily as they now do.
 
It would take more than just giving those countries their sovereignty to appease them. We would have to end our alliance with Israel including foreign aid. There are extremists who will go after us as long as we do not have Sharia Law. However, if we left Muslim countries alone, we probably would not be a top priority for them and I imagine they would have serious problems fighting amongst themselves. We just happen to be a common enemy at the moment.
 
ARealConservative said:
we can't undue the damage we have done. the question was asked, will a change in our foreign policy be enough to make peace with those already radicalized.

and the answer is no.

but non-intervention is still the best long term course of action to take, because it will prevent them from growing their ranks as easily as they now do.
Click to expand...

I misunderstood you, my apologies. :sun
 
Terrorists (and dictators for that matter) of any stripe all rely on a common element which is propaganda whether it be true or not. Our military in their countries and our cluster**** policy in their region makes recruiting people an easy task for them. Returning to a non-interventionist foreign policy and leaving these people to their own affairs makes their propaganda less and less believable for future recruitment.
 
spud_meister said:
They've hated Australia since 1915. :(
Click to expand...
and now they hate Aussies even more for being part of the western alliance and their role in the war against terrorism. hence the Bali bombings where they killed 202 people including 88 Australians. worst single attack on Australian civilians ever.

Amrozi and that smile, just pure evil. hard to erase that from your mind.
 
Serenity said:
and now they hate Aussies even more for being part of the western alliance and their role in the war against terrorism. hence the Bali bombings where they killed 202 people including 88 Australians. worst single attack on Australian civilians ever.

Amrozi and that smile, just pure evil. hard to erase that from your mind.
Click to expand...

They also don't like Australia's support for largely-Catholic Timor Leste... radicals in JI would like northern tropical Australia to be a part of their Islamic superstate which would include Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, southern Philippines, southern Thailand, and Timor Leste...
 
Mellie said:
I've heard people say that radical Muslims are only angry at us because our soldiers are in the Middle East disrupting their countries.

Do you believe if we completely left all Muslim countries, the radical Muslims would make peace with the U.S. and not plan to terrorize us anymore (e.g. 9/11/2001)?
Click to expand...

As Hatuey pointed out - it's more to do with US policies and how they are percieved there. I also think it's about what you do with those forces. Hence my feelings that Robert Gates and Obama are making a huge mistake mentioning the US forces available in Italy and nearer to Libya. Fine if you have them there and need them to go into action - but publicly mentioning them when many involved in the overthrow of Mubarak threw him out because he was a US stooge is not a clever thing.

Any new Libyan govt should not look like the result of US intervention. To the question asked - no, you won't get peace if you remove your soldiers. That's not saying they should stay - what I think is that US policy is not going down well there and you have bridges to build if you wish to retain influence in the long term.
 
Firstly, I don't think "radical" muslims will ever "Make peace" with the U.S.

Second, until we cease to support the right of Israel to exist (which, frankly, not doing so isn't "remaining neutral" in my mind) I don't think we're going to see them completely leaving us alone.

Third, even if we did that, I think we'd still have random incidents but not nearly the frequency or scope that we would see otherwise.

Fourth, the above situations wouldn't cause a significant increase in them "leaving us alone" for at least a few decades at this point imho. The animosity and views are deep inset. Us fully pulling out, and especially if we just stopped supporting Israel, would be a sign of weakness on our part and success on their part in their eyes. I think that would do little but actually fuel further attacks and issues for a decade or so before we'd start to see a significant down tick as lack of new blood angry at the U.S. is available.

Fifth, I think that the primary reason they wouldn't look our way as much after that point is they'd be too busy fighting amongst themselves as is common of them. I think if there weren't as many sects that hated each other then non-muslims would become a more often target of the violence, but I'm not sure we'll get to that kind of point soon especially if we removed ourselves from the middle east.

With that said however, it would still likely be harmful to us, as it'd likely have some interesting effects on the price of gas.

Finally, I will point out that prior to 1948 we didn't exactly have a ton of interests in the Middle East nor were the majority of Middle Easterners equipped with the necessary technology to simply and easily plan and execute attacks on the West. While I'm sure the establishment of Israel significantly fueled that fire, I think the current situations would've still came about, if perhaps a bit less severe or quite as quick, as the ability to communicate and travel became easier.

The better question perhaps would be if we had never been involved in the middle east would they leave us alone. But then, if that was the question, we'd have to look at all the ramifications of us not being involved in the middle east as well with regards to Israel, the spread of communism, and other such things and how those would've affected the world as well. However, since we HAVE been acting in the middle east, a full pull out of action of any kind there would result in my mind in the opposite of leaving us alone....a significant ramp up for a relatively short time period (decade or so) before it slowly beginning to tral off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom