no actually im blaming the decision to go to war and those who took it for not providing proper security for the people they are now controlling. so yes im blaming bush and company for not providing security for those who they invaded. and frankly i think the international laws would also put the responsibility on the US govt.
This would be an example of an "apologist". Thanks for the data, insane man. You fell right into that one. Great thread.
yes lets only use international law when it can be twisted to somehow justify illegal occupation of a soverign people. but whenever it kinda makes us responsible...lets use labels like traitor, troops hater, apologist, terrorist sympathizer...instead of having any constructive debate about these issues. typical.
Did I say I directly blame the US for the deaths in Iraq caused by the terrorists? Maybe indirectly.. I was talking about those directly killed by US bombings and raids. I knew you were going to use YOUR favorite excuses : collateral damage & best efforts to protect civilians
I do not believe that looking at history and determining root cause constitutes apologizing for terrorism. I do not believe that criticizing US foreign policy constitutes apologizing for terrorism. I do believe that the Iraq war (and current US foreign policy as a whole) is misguided. I do believe that these actions are actively increasing terrorist sympathy and recruitment in the middle east. I do believe that the vast majority of Americans are in fear, and support these policies out of cowardly patriotism, hoping that the issue will just dissappear. I don't blame them for this, but I refuse to acknowledge this mindset as a legitimate excuse to attack other nations, or dissidents at home. I also belive that those who accuse others of "apologizing for terrorists" are afraid to evaluate root cause, and are therefore afraid to admit mistakes. They support the Bush mantra of "with us or against us", and ignore its anti-democratic rhetoric. They close their eyes to the hypocrisy of accusing others of "apologizing for terrorism" while they support an unnecessary war and continually apologize for a corrupt administration that squandered a golden opportunity to raise the US reputation across the world. I am angry that they would accuse those who disagree of being anti-american, when the essance of american values is contained in our right to free speech. And I am disgusted that Americans are playing politics like a team sport, and not realizing that blind loyalty is the domain of facism.
A thought that never changes Remains a stupid lie It's never been quite the same No hearing or breathing No movement, no colors Just silence Rise and fall of shame A search that shall remain We asked you what you'd seen You said you didn't care Sound formed in a vacuum May seem a waste of time It's always been just the same No hearing or breathing No movement no lyrics Just nothing The sign that leads the way The path we can not take You've caught me at a bad time So why don't you piss off
hehe.. TJ has stomach for THE WAR AND THE LIES AND THE TREASON that came with it but can't stomach the very brief paragraph I just said which is basically the truth...
Trying to figure out the root causes is in fact necessary to combatting terrorism. Policies such as war that don't proceed from this are bound to ineffective.
It is fine to figure out the root cause of terrorism. In doing so, that does not mean that we must change our policies to eliminate those causes. Just because the US stationing troops in the Mid East leads to terrorist attacks, that does not mean that we should not station troops in the Mid East. Find all of the root causes you want, but policy decisions should be based on what the US thinks is the right thing to do, not the terrorists.
Agreed. Unfortunately, the Bush apologists consistently paint anyone looking for these root causes as somehow being in league with the terrorists. We should not set policy solely on the basis of these causes, but we should take them into account when we make policy. IMO, the root causes of 9/11 (troops in the ME, US handling of Afghanistan after the USSR left, etc.) were too widespread for us to have done much about them in advance. However, we should keep in mind that the actions we take and the policies we make will affect people's opinions of us, possibly leading to future consequences. While 9/11's root causes were not easily mitigated, does anyone dispute that 7/7 and the attacks in Madrid may not have happened if we had not invaded Iraq? Those attacks are consequences that could and should have been avoided by not invading a soverign nation based on fraudulent "intelligence." Again, that is not to say that this administration is morally responsible for those attacks (that responsibility is borne entirely by the terrorists), just that they created a situation that ended up being a root cause of said attacks.
Ending Suicide Terrorism by Rep. Ron Paul More than half of the American people now believe that the Iraqi war has made the U.S. less safe. This is a dramatic shift in sentiment from two years ago. Early support for the war reflected a hope for a safer America, and it was thought to be an appropriate response to the 9/11 attacks. The argument was that the enemy attacked us because of our freedom, our prosperity, and our way of life. It was further argued that it was important to engage the potential terrorists over there rather than here. Many bought this argument and supported the war. That is now changing. It is virtually impossible to stop determined suicide bombers. Understanding why they sacrifice themselves is crucial to ending what appears to be senseless and irrational. But there is an explanation. I, like many, have assumed that the driving force behind the suicide attacks was Islamic fundamentalism. Promise of instant entry into paradise as a reward for killing infidels seemed to explain the suicides, a concept that is foreign to our way of thinking. The world's expert on suicide terrorism has convinced me to rethink this simplistic explanation, that terrorism is merely an expression of religious extremism and resentment of a foreign culture. Robert Pape, author of Dying to Win, explains the strategic logic of suicide terrorism. Pape has collected a database of every suicide terrorist attack between 1980 and 2004, all 462 of them. His conclusions are enlightening and crucial to our understanding the true motivation behind the attacks against Western nations by Islamic terrorists. After his exhaustive study, Pape comes to some very important conclusions. Religious beliefs are less important than supposed. For instance, the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist secular group, are the world's leader in suicide terrorism . The largest Islamic fundamentalist countries have not been responsible for any suicide terrorist attack. None have come from Iran or the Sudan. Until the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iraq never had a suicide terrorist attack in all of its history. Between 1995 and 2004, the al-Qaeda years, two-thirds of all attacks came from countries where the U.S. had troops stationed. Iraq's suicide missions today are carried out by Iraqi Sunnis and Saudis. Recall, 15 of the 19 participants in the 9/11 attacks were Saudis. The clincher is this: the strongest motivation, according to Pape, is not religion but rather a desire "to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory the terrorists view as their homeland." The best news is that if stopping suicide terrorism is a goal we seek, a solution is available to us. Cease the occupation of foreign lands, and the suicide missions will cease. Between 1982 and 1986, there were 41 suicide terrorist attacks in Lebanon. Once the U.S., the French, and Israel withdrew their forces from Lebanon, there were no more attacks. The reason the attacks stop, according to Pape, is that the Osama bin Ladens of the world no longer can inspire potential suicide terrorists despite their continued fanatical religious beliefs. Pape is convinced after his extensive research that the longer and more extensive the occupation of Muslim territories, the greater the chance of more 9/11-type attacks on the U.S. He is convinced that the terrorists strategically are holding off hitting the U.S. at the present time in an effort to break up the coalition by hitting our European allies. He claims it is just a matter of time if our policies do not change. It is time for us to consider a strategic reassessment of our policy of foreign interventionism, occupation, and nation-building. It is in our national interest and in the interest of world peace to do so. http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=6712
How in Texas can you have a congressional district that is not gun-ho? Did Tom DeLay do it on purpose?
Ron Paul is a GOP maverick. Probably the biggest one in the country. He is a Libertarian and if I remember correctly actually ran for president as a Libertarian. His constituents seem to respect his moral integrity and honesty. I disagree with him on many economic issues.
And he is a Republican representive too. What he says seems very logical to me. How would someone in the US feel if an alian race from space came and said to us you are so backward and we know a much better system of government which we will setup for you (for your own good). I am sure everyone in this country will go ya we are going to give them flowers because they will improve our lives.
Maybe some people would appreciate a change in government especially if our government killed millions of innocent civilians. ( I use millions to adjust for the population difference between Iraq and the US)
pape's study is fascinating. also though i disagree a bit with this sageman's study is interesting too. at least they both go in deeper than to assume 'they hate us because of our freedom' garbage that this administration spews. secondly before we start praising ron paul lets be mindful of the fact that this fellow also wants us to leave the UN and end the EPA and all that other good stuff. lets not get too gung ho here. pat buchanan has great quotes here and there too. 'they are here because we are there' was a recent one.
everyone should just understand that every hegemon that ever existed had to act as an imperial nation in order to survive...and the U.S is doing just that...i feel its only natural that they act like so as well....if people could understand this we would have peace.
This is true. However, when the policies themselves are wrong we have the happy situation in which we can do what is right and at the same time reduce the root causes of terrorism. Invading Iraq, attempting to set up a government we approve of and helping the Israelis gain more permanent territory on the West Bank are wrong. I know all the talking points, spin etc. Bottom line they are wrong and not in the interest of the folks living there or the American people. Note I do not consider the extreme ideology of the militaristic neocns to be what "what the US thinks is the right thing to do". Being a loyal Republican does not make it right just because they have temporarily captured the White House and the current GOP. To try to address one red herring, just because we start addressing the root causes of terrorism does not mean we do not try to prevent current terrorism or track down those who commit it. We just realize that this is merely a necessary bandaid. This is especailly true as done by the neocons (excessive civilian deaths from bombing , invasions, occupations, abuses of detainees etc. ). Their overreaction, often times atempting to use the response to terrorism to advance their goals of world domination often just succees in creatring more terrorists than they neutralize.
