We need to look at both. The root cause of getting your arm cut off in an accident may have been that you were speeding, but that doesn't mean you should look into your driving habits and ignore the blood spurting out of the tattered stump that used to be your arm, you want to take care of the larger and more urgent problem first, then you can look into root causes. It is fine to be concerned about US foreign policy in the middle east. More urgent is the terrorism taking place in and being exported from that region. Once that is taken care of, then we can spend all the time in the world reflecting on which governments in the middle east are bad and which are good, and develop our policies accordingly.
i see the point you're making, but are you including israeli terrorism as well? israel's former foreign minister under ehud barak shlomo ben-ami has said and written that israeli is guilty of terrorism and they're in region as well. another question, what if us foreign policy is causing terrorism? it would be easier, cheaper, and less dangerous to modify the policies the problem is that people are just concerned with what's going on now and none of this stuff happends in a vacuum....you need visionary leadership that can determine what will be the best as far as stability is concerned both long term and short term and bush and others have done an extremely poor job in this area going around and killing a bunch of suspected terrorists doesnt solve the problem because by doing that you could be creating many more and could actually be making the problem worse if you wanna solve the problem of terrorism then you attack the root causes, not the symptoms and you dont perpetuate the problem by invading and occupying iraq, a country that has no history of sponsoring what the us would consider terrorism...although, saddam has committed his fair share of atrocities, terrorism wasnt one of them
This is a false statement. Saddam did in fact sponsor exactly what the US would consider terrorism. He gave a small fortune to the families of suicide bombers in Palestine (like 10 times the annual per capita GDP in the West Bank and 20 times in Gaza). Saddam may not have had a connection to al Queda, but to say he did not sponsor terrorism is either dishonest or ignorant. If anything, Israel "has no history of sponsoring what the us would consider terrorism". Maybe you were just very confused on which country was which.
While you may not have ever said those specifically that is a that an inference that could be drawn considering that about 90% of your threads are critical of Islam on even some very obscure topics. I would also like to point out that I can't recall posters like Glynch or Batman Jones ever saying that they hated America yet that is a conclusion that you seem to draw regarding them based upon their posts. You seem to be asking for a consideration that you yourself don't give to posters who have an opposing viewpoint.
A great post and I salute you for your strong rebuke of terrorism and those who do it in your religion's name. Its sad that a small minority of Muslims have been able to give Islam a bad name and also that others have latched onto the actions of that small minority to smear Islam.
I would say you need to look at both. The problem is if you address only address the symptoms without the root causes then you will be doomed to continue to repeat yourself. At the same time how you address the symptoms also affects the root causes. So how you deal with an immediate problme could end up making things much worse down the long run.
Agreed. The key here is finding a balanced approach, but I will be the first to admit that it's an incredibly difficult position we're in as a nation.
I think an interesting point is that it appears that the community here has predetermined that the 'root cause' is 'western imperialism' etc. What if the root cause actually IS Islam? Whoa! Hold on there partners! I'm not saying it is - I'm saying it is a possibility and if we're trying to be objective and 'balanced' then it should at least be explored. It is certainly convienent to tie it all up in a little ball and say 'its US foreign policy that causes terrorism' but isn't it possible that such a view is a huge oversimplification and/or wrong?
It's not possible unless you or others back up the claim that Islam specifically condones and encourages the targeting of civilians. I have in the past given clear evidence (bot textual and historical) to the contrary, so unless hard evidence could be provided it's a false assertion with no factual basis.
with all due respect, your statement is false....saddam, while guilty of many things, has never sponsored what the us would consider terrorism i dont think providing money to families of those who have already engaged in suicide operations meet the definition of sponsoring terrorism as far as israel, their own foreign minister under ehud barak, shlomo ben-ami, admittied that israel is guilty of terrorism, you're not going to try and say he's incorrect are you? btw, i think if there is a solution to the palestinian-israeli conflict, no us military presence in the middle east, and no support for dictatorships that brutalize their people, then the problem of terrorim will be practically eliminated
I think there is plenty of historical evidence to tie Islam to terrorism. Considering any textual analysis would have to by definition be someone interpreting the meaning of a text, no 100% definitive answer can come from that - so ease off the delusions of grandeur pedal.
The problem with our proactive interference is that we're making the problem more complex and placing indefinite pressure on a problem that can't be quickly fixed. Most of our carrots stem from money, weapons, and legitimacy. We're legitimizing makeshift rulers who espouse the principles we support, who are then later on exposed as either incompetent or unfit. This would be fine under a democratic process, but transfers of authority aren't the norm in the region when it happens. So I think western imperialism is a major cause of what's wrong... at least one where we have direct control. Most of our reasonings for interference is based on regional instability and war, yet how much worse has South America fared based on the less intense scrutiny of the West? Our current policy is based upon the idea that things are much better because of us, yet the region has relatively the same players for the past 30 years.
Errrr! There's some historical evidence tying 'Muslims' (i.e. the professed followers of Islam) to some actions of terrorism. Not everything in Islam is 'up for interpretation', and in this case there's clear evidence that contradicts your silly claim. Islam instituted 'rules of engagement' on the battlefield before anyone did, and therein you can find complete prohibition on the killing of civilians. What is 'up for interpretation' is not as to whether or not terrorism is prohibited, rather the conversation is usually concerned with the target of the attack; case-in-point is the Israelis. Some Muslims differ on whether or not there is such a thing as an Israeli civilian, since some view all modern day Israel as a land occupied by an aggressor, and anyone who settles in it as a combatant or supporter of that occupation.
This is all the same argument. If I can define a civilian as a 'not civilian,' lol - then any 'prohibition' you point to is useless. So again it comes down to interpretation of the text - which as you point out is not definitive in any sense.
OTOH, would a policy of benign neglect do anything but entrench the current structure in the Middle East? I don't think you can meld the Cold War policies which were undeniably national interest focused with the current push from the administration to democratize the Middle East. There has been at least some verifiable result of this recent push in Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Kuwait. It is, of course, speculative, to assert that a greater voice in governance would solve some of the problems of a radicalized Islam. In the short term, at least, it may intensify it. But abandoning the region doesn't, IMO, have much chance of defusing the complex problems in the region.
Just because in your crazy worldview paying people to be suicide bombers is not sponsoring terrorism, that doesn't make it so. Saddam had a program in place whereby anyone who became a suicide bomber against Israel got a big chunk of change for their family. It isn't like after all the suicide bombings where over Saddam decided that he felt sorry for the innocent families left behind and wanted to take care of them after their misguided ******* children went of to blow up innocent people. He said beforehand, anybody that wants their family to live the good life, all you have to do is go kill some Israelis. To us rational adults, that is sponsoring terrorism, regardless of your opinion. Oh, here are the relevent definitions to help you out: sponsor - One that finances a project or an event carried out by another person or group terrorism - the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature I would say that he is welcome to his opinion. I don't think some other officials would agree (try asking Netanyahu or Sharon) nor do I think that one mans opinion makes something irrefutable fact. To be clear here: Paying people to be suicide bombers is irrefutably sponsoring terrorism. One guy saying his country committed acts of terror, not irrefutable evidence of terrorism. Fortunately for the people of Isreal, you are not in charge of the situation. They have come up with their own solution, and it is one that is much less likely to get them all killed. I predict that this wall idea will be a huge success.
Could you say that during the Cold War, we were one of the root causes of instability in the region (with Soviet authoritarianism and institutionalization of Islam as possible others)? Yes, the machine running now is much different than what started. I think the point of no return that lead to this current structure is when Israel became an unofficial nuclear power. Future conflicts had extermination on the table for both sides. Arab rivalries intensified into a race of prestige on who could match Israel's military, and thus furthered distrust and instability. However, our official stance is no different than before. We've always been in a position to influence and help the region, but over the prolonged years of instability, the ME has influenced us profoundly to the point where our policy is geared towards the status quo. We still maintain strong relations with Israel and still have open and closed channel relationships with our Cold War allies in the ME. We've been pouring billions into a ostensibly wealthy region for a long time. Perhaps the public is growing impatient to a process that takes several years (which some of the countries you listed have just begun after a long long time). Maybe those nationalistic Cold War policies under different pretenses are to blame for the impatience. I mean, the public sees we're dealing with the same players, and our faith in government has hit lows, yet the government still wants us to trust that they're changing their ways in the ME? The current admin has been commended for opening up the democratic process. It's very speculative, however, that we can force and guide the process to its entirety. Eventually, they'll have to do it themselves.
What you say about Saddam's payments are only part of the story. Saddam said before hand anyone who is a martyr to the Israeli occupation will have their family paid. The vast majority of martyrs in the conflict are not suicide bombers, but civilians killed by the Israelis. Their families received the same bonus. The problem is that Saddam and many others considered suicide bombers martyrs as well. The money was intended to help all martyr's families. Suicide bomber's families were only a small portion of those receiving funds. That doesn't make it good or ok, but it is slightly different than how it is often portrayed.
i still disagree. providing financial compensation to the families of people who engage in suicide operations after the fact is not sponsoring terrorism and this didn't go on for a very long time either....if this is the best example you can come up with, then you really have no argument vis-a-vis saddam and terrorism the people who engage in suicide operations are not doing it for money, despite what you may think, because they obviously dont see any of it, they're doing to hit israel where it hurts btw, suicide operations are just a by-product or symptom, the real problem or root cause is the illegal israeli occupation thats gone on since 1967 i do think israel has committed and sponsored acts of terrorism such as the bombing of a UN facility in Qana, Lebanon in 1996 and the Sabra and Shatila massacres as well i would definitely be more willing to trust somebody like shlomo ben-ami, who doesnt have blood on his hands and is much more rational than the individuals you mentioned one last thing, the wall is illegal, the international community and world court have said so, i would not have a problem with it if it was built on israeli land, but it's built and still being built on palestinian land, but like all walls, it will eventually crumble as well my solutions for reducing terrorism: 1 - a deal needs to be reached that provides israel with security and the palestinians with justice 2 - no us military presence in the middle east 3 - no support for illegitimate regimes that brutalize their people
Other martyrs were paid $10,000. Suicide bombers families were paid $25,000. That means that even if you ignore the $10,000 that they would get for dying in the Palestine/Israel conflict, they still got a $15,000 bonus for being terrorists. The GDP in the West Bank is $1,100 per capita. The average Palestinian brings home a lot less than that. $15,000 to a Palestinian is a lot of money. And the hits keep on coming. Paying people to commit acts of terrorism is not sponsoring terrorism? You could not be more rediculous. You might as well claim that shoe companies don't sponsor athletes because the athletes goal is to win a championship. The international community was either unwilling or unable to prevent terrorism against Israel. They have decided to solve their own problems. Why would they care what the international community that has left them alone against their enemies, and in fact consistantly sided with those enemies thinks wrt the legality of their solution. The wall creates the de facto border between Israel and Palestine, and I don't see it changing as long as Israel has nuclear weapons to defend her territory. They have created a solution that they could accept to 60 years of war. They can now claim the territory on their side of the wall (thus ending the occupation) at that point they are no longer an occupying power and are no longer responsible for the Palestinians. It was in many ways a genius piece of political strategy. Any other path to peace would have cost Israel too much to be feasable.
