• 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!

The Deceptive Debate Over What Causes Terrorism Against the West

Has anyone ever claimed that Western intervention has not encouraged Islamic terrorism in any way? That what the West has done is a factor does not mean it is to blame or even that it's majorly important to terrorism. Saying that Western intervention causes Islamic terrorism is like saying that the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand caused WWI. It's not wrong, but it ignores pretty much all ideological and political context.

If we're going to narrow the discussion down to terrorist attacks against the West, it should be noted that 9/11 occurred in the context of Clinton's relatively hands-off approach to the Middle East and that the Algerian Armed Islamic Group (GIA) committed multiple terrorist attacks in France in the 1990s despite minimal French involvement in the Algerian Civil War. If we broaden it to the affected regions, it's obvious that Western intervention explains very little. The ideology and behavior of groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS can be traced back to at least the 18th century, and most of ISIS' choices of targets (other Syrian rebels, Yazidis, Syrian Kurds) are unrelated to whatever injustices that the United States and Europe have perpetrated.

Most importantly, we know why terrorists attack us because they say why they attack us. Even though "they hate our freedoms" is a simplistic slogan, it does have a kernel of truth to it: jihadists view Western society as decadent and are fundamentally opposed to free speech and free worship. Greenwald brings up the Hebdo massacre; it's absurd to argue that Western intervention is a major contributing factor to an attack on an antiwar, borderline anarchist publication when the group that organized the attack outright stated that the issue was blasphemous cartoons. The infantilizing comes into play when people ignore terrorists' declared motivations for terrorism and decide that their own pet peeve is what's really to blame.
 
Gardener said:
What a profoundly stupid article. I can't imagine anybody with even an average IQ falling for it.

The attempts to reduce a complex social phenomenon to such a simple-minded variable may appeal to those who cannot grasp anything that is not utterly simplistic, but if western involvement in other countries produces terrorism, why isn't it as common arising from those who are not Islamic?

Any attempt to to simplify this issue that fails to take into account the notion of Jihad or the culture of the terrorists is simply an attempt to appeal to children and acts as nothing but propaganda rather than serious analysis.
Click to expand...

Maybe because the territories we are destabilizing are predominately Muslim territories? Just a thought?
 
Deception is the cornerstone of the Global War On Terror. Propaganda rules, and the GWOT is a fraud of epic proportions.
 
Beaudreaux said:
What's deceptive is when anyone says that they know what causes terrorism against the west, because what follows is always a political screed - regardless of whether it's from the right or left.

Each person that chooses to commit terror does so for THEIR reasons, which vary widely.
Click to expand...
Very well said. Too often the individual perpetrators' reasons for terror acts are ignored and instead used as political fodder. You can persuade a person to commit an act but in the end each act is a decision made by the person executing it.
 
Last edited:
Gardener said:
Which was highlighted in this childish article.
Click to expand...
So it the report also childish?


oh, no, I read it. It was yellow journalism at its worst
Click to expand...

This at no point fits the definition of "yellow journalism"

, raving about people "viciously maligning" Corbyn if they criticized the fact he considers blatant terrorists to be his close friends and waxing hysterically about "self-defending jingoistic westerners" applied to any who do not share his sympathies as he repeats Islamic terrorist talking points as if they were pearls of pure wisdom.
Click to expand...
:applaud You're really proving one of the points of the article.

This is just another in a long line of anti-western
Click to expand...
"Anti-western"? :roll:

yellow journalists going on and on with their hackneyed "blowback" idiocy,
Click to expand...
Are you seriously insinuating that there are no blowbacks from wars?

all with nary a mention that other cultures do not produce terror in anything close to the same fashion as Islamic.
Click to expand...
Again, what article did you read?
"Obviously, none of this is to say that Western interference in that part of the world is the only cause of anti-Western “terrorism,” nor is it to say that it’s the principal cause in every case, nor is to deny that religious extremism plays some role. Most people need some type of fervor to be willing to risk their lives and kill other people: It can be nationalism, xenophobia, societal pressures, hatred of religion, or religious convictions. "

The reason is obvious to those who are not children requiring simple-minded excuses
Click to expand...
What is simple minded about this? There are multiple variables in play here....

-- it is because other cultures do not have Jihad as their central purpose.
Click to expand...
So after all your criticism, and not understanding the article, the reason terror has increased and why middle eastern terrorist organizations attack many western states is because of "jihad", and the violent interpretation of "jihad"?... Yes, jihad is what they claim to be waging against the west, the question is what variables lead these people to turn to this "jihad" against the west, why they did it, and why are they targeting the west?.....

Now, I realize you have nothing remotely similar to a scientific background as all you do is promote any opinion piece you encounter from extreme leftist sources,
Click to expand...
:roll: Is something wrong posting an "opinion piece" written by an critically acclaimed award winning investigative journalist and columnist?

but there is a little notion called scientific method.
Click to expand...
Does scientific method include dismissing something simply because you disagree with the conclusion/premise? Or how about dismissing something because you claim it is a "extreme leftist source", even though Greenwald is more of a civil libertarian who has really not exposed any other views than to protect civil liberties...
 
Gardener said:
Scientific method consists of advancing a hypothesis, testing that hypothesis, and having that hypothesis confirmed no matter who is conducting it. This is not a scientific lab, of course, but the hypothesis here is that Western involvement in other countries produces terrorism.
Click to expand...
It is one of the variables.... "the argument is that they are engaged in a decision-making process— a very expected and predictable one — whereby they conclude that violence against the West is justified as a result of Western violence against predominantly Muslim countries. To believe that is not to deny that terrorists possess agency; it’s to attribute agency to them. The whole point of the argument is that they are not forced or compelled or acting out of reflex; the point is that they have decided that the only valid and effective response to Western attacks on and interference in Muslim societies is to attack back.. By pointing out the causal connection between U.S. violence and the decision to bring violence to the West, one is not denying that the attackers lack agency, nor is one claiming they are “forced” by the West to do this, nor is one “infantilizing” them.. to point out that some human beings will decide — using their rational and reasoning faculties and adult decision-making capabilities — that violence is justified and even necessary against those who continually impose violence and aggression on others"

Do you deny this? Do you deny that western violence against predominantly Muslim countries is a variable in these individuals decision making process to join these terrorist ranks and commit "jihad" against their enemies?

With that in mind, we would expect to see worldwide terrorism arising from other cultures in equal measure to those producing these Jihadists.
Click to expand...
"The Institute for Economics and Peace has compiled its annual Global Terrorism Index and looked at the figures from 2000 to the end of 2014. It found terrorism is rising dramatically and private citizens are increasingly the targets." Globally, terrorism is on the rise - but little of it occurs in Western countries - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)


Even young children should be able to figure out that if it only produces terrorism in one specific instance and not in any others, that it is the CULTURE producing the terrorism that is more responsible for the terrorism than the western involvement.
Click to expand...
And you fit perfectly in to the articles conclusion: "It’s understandable that self-loving tribalistic Westerners want to completely absolve themselves and their own violent societies of having any role in the terrorist violence they love to denounce. That’s the nature of the tribalistic instinct in humans: My tribe is not at fault; it’s the other tribe to which we’re superior that is to blame. But blatantly distorting the debate this way — by ludicrously depicting recognition of this decision-making process and causal chain as a denial of agency or autonomy — is not an acceptable (or effective) way to achieve that."
 
The British, USA, Russia, France, and United nations are largely responsible for the ongoing upheaval.

1953: By deposing Mohammad Mosaddeq from office. (Iran) (CIA) (British)

1948: Ben Gurion declaring the State of Isreal, while the British backed out of Palestine after cowardly handing over the responsibility to the United Nations.

1915-1917: British and Russia breaking up the Ottoman empire and carving out pieces to hand out to their favorite dictators.

That's just my take. Feel free to correct me.
 
Funny how only person to mention 1953 was O'Malley in last years democratic presidential debate.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Are you denying the variable(s) presented in the article?

"The claim is absurd: a total reversal of reality and a deliberate distortion of the argument. That some Muslims attack the West in retaliation for Western violence (and external imposition of tyranny) aimed at Muslims is so well-established that it’s barely debatable. Even the 2004 task force report commissioned by the Rumsfeld Pentagon on the causes of terrorism decisively concluded this was the case:
Click to expand...

And by far the largest victim of their terror is theor own people.

ISIS kills more in Syria and Iraq then anywhere else. MNLF-MILF kills more Philippinos then any other group. The list simply goes on and on and on.

They oppose anybody who does not support them, it is that simple. Trying to put some kind of elaborate justification on such actions are simply behond my comprehension.

I suppose that the drug dealers in Mexico are doing the same thing, right? They are not selling drugs for a profit, they are striking out against the oppressors to the North.

Yes, the claims are absurd. Not much unlike the claims of Nazi Germany.

But there will always be apologists for any group, no matter how vile it is.
 
RetiredUSN said:
1953: By deposing Mohammad Mosaddeq from office. (Iran) (CIA) (British)
Click to expand...

That one always puzzled me. Mohammad Mosaddeq was indeed the Prime Minister of Iraq, but he was not the Head of State. When the Iranian Parlaiment refused to grant him more powers, he tried to go around them. At that point the Shah stepped in, and he resigned. And after his resignation he helped to promote revolts in Iran in opposition to the Shah, and he appointed him as Prime Minister yet again.

He then forced through an Emergency Powers act for 6 months. During this time he repressed dissent, pulled in all financial and diplomatic powers to himself, and then got the emergency powers act extended for another 12 months. Finally (with the help of the US and UK) the Shah used his own Constitutional power to overthrow his own Prime Minister, returning the power he had taken to himself and Parlaiment (which is where it belonged to Constitutionally).

Yes, he was deposed. Yes, the UK and US helped. However, it was done Constitutionally. The PM served for the Shah, and his office rested at his approval. And the Shah had been trying to get rid of him for over a year. The goal of his own party was the eventual overthrow of the Kingdom and to create a Socialist Republic. So why people try to make it out as if the US stepped in and overthrew "the Government" is beyond me. That is a childish interpretation, since the Government (the Constitutional Monarchy of the Shah) was the same before as it was afterwards.
 
Oozlefinch said:
That one always puzzled me. Mohammad Mosaddeq was indeed the Prime Minister of Iraq, but he was not the Head of State. When the Iranian Parlaiment refused to grant him more powers, he tried to go around them. At that point the Shah stepped in, and he resigned. And after his resignation he helped to promote revolts in Iran in opposition to the Shah, and he appointed him as Prime Minister yet again.

He then forced through an Emergency Powers act for 6 months. During this time he repressed dissent, pulled in all financial and diplomatic powers to himself, and then got the emergency powers act extended for another 12 months. Finally (with the help of the US and UK) the Shah used his own Constitutional power to overthrow his own Prime Minister, returning the power he had taken to himself and Parlaiment (which is where it belonged to Constitutionally).

Yes, he was deposed. Yes, the UK and US helped. However, it was done Constitutionally. The PM served for the Shah, and his office rested at his approval. And the Shah had been trying to get rid of him for over a year. The goal of his own party was the eventual overthrow of the Kingdom and to create a Socialist Republic. So why people try to make it out as if the US stepped in and overthrew "the Government" is beyond me. That is a childish interpretation, since the Government (the Constitutional Monarchy of the Shah) was the same before as it was afterwards.
Click to expand...

I agree that nobody was clean in this situation. But it goes to show how the new form of Iranian government can often use that piece of history for propaganda to fuel the hatred of it's citizens against the west..... and probably rightfully so. We should have had no business in their affairs.
 
Oozlefinch said:
And by far the largest victim of their terror is theor own people.
Click to expand...
Noone is not saying that...

They oppose anybody who does not support them, it is that simple. Trying to put some kind of elaborate justification on such actions are simply behond my comprehension.
Click to expand...
Its not a justification....

I suppose that the drug dealers in Mexico are doing the same thing, right? They are not selling drugs for a profit, they are striking out against the oppressors to the North.
Click to expand...
No. Stop trying to build silly straw men that are just flat out silly.

Yes, the claims are absurd. Not much unlike the claims of Nazi Germany.
Click to expand...
Nazis? Huh?

But there will always be apologists for any group, no matter how vile it is.
Click to expand...
This isnt an article that can be described as putting forward an "apologist" position...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom