Support NeoGAF

[Guileless]

PPPS I think the most disingenuous part of Dr. Rice's statement is that 9/11 happened when we weren't in Afghanistan or Iraq. When she knows damn well that most of the assholes who did that were Saudi, and that yes, we were in Saudi Arabia at the time.

Yes, we had a few thousand troops in Saudi Arabia, at the invitation of the government, to deter another Viking-style raping and pillaging by Saddam. Now they're gone. I guess that means all Saudi terrorism should have stopped right? Before you say it--I know, the Saudi government is illegimate, we are wrong to support it, and that support fuels terrorism. So do you want the US to impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia or invade to accomplish regime change? Which option will do the least to piss off the religious fanatics so they will quit trying to blow us up?

 

[APF]

1. What part of the rest of the interview tells us why she said that at that time.

The part before that.

2. Is this something exclusive to the interview or is this information readily seen by casual watching of the Bush administration?

Huh?

3. So, why do you think she said it?

She was asked about the inevitability of another attack. She gave her response, and Lehrer offered as an "additional element" to her answer, the idea that the US is creating terrorists. Rice replied that she disagreed with the assumptions behind that idea, and explained why.

 

[videogamer]

Yes, we had a few thousand troops in Saudi Arabia, at the invitation of the government, to deter another Viking-style raping and pillaging by Saddam.

The Saudi government does not equal its people.

Now they're gone. I guess that means all Saudi terrorism should have stopped right?

Your guess right? The poster was poking into how Rice omitted Saudi Arabia in her list of countries.

So do you want the US to impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia or invade to accomplish regime change? Which option will do the least to piss off the religious fanatics so they will quit trying to blow us up?

Well, one thing is already underway. We're paying more for their gas, just like Osama wanted.

The part before that.

Which part of it? She broaches on several topics. Is it the innocent children part?

Huh?

Do I need to see the entire interview to know it? Or can I just watch the administration and make a good guess at why she said it?

She was asked about the inevitability of another attack. She gave her response, and Lehrer offered as an "additional element" to her answer, the idea that the US is creating terrorists. Rice replied that she disagreed with the assumptions behind that idea, and explained why.

Does this context somehow alter what she said? Most Americans expect a terrorist attack to happen here anyways, and many are aware of the idea that American actions may create new terrorists.

 

[Deku]

Does anyone actually think London would still have been bombed had they not strongly helped America with their "war on terrorism"?

Or Spain for that matter?.

Sure. Turkey was bombed, twice, even though is was against the invasion and had elected a more Islamic president.

The operations would be different not doubt, but the terrorist attacks would continue.

As for helping America on the 'war on terrorism' what's the reason not to help it? Europe is fighting a war on terrorism of its own. Iraq aside, the creeping equivalence of people trying to bunch in the 'war on terror' and 'afghanistan' with Iraq so they can sit back and discredit the whole package is really disconcerting.

Whatever you may think about Iraq has nothing to do with what the war on terror is about. Afghanistan was a cesspool of islamic extremism and a base for Al Qaueda, even Europe recognizes that. What you're arguing in effect is the head in the sand effect and peace mongering taken to its extremes. The 'we don't like to get bombed so we'll just shut out the world' argument is dangerous.

 

[APF]

Does this context somehow alter what she said? Most Americans expect a terrorist attack to happen here anyways, and many are aware of the idea that American actions may create new terrorists.

You're arguing in circles.

[EDIT: actually I have no idea what you're arguing, to tell the truth. It has nothing to do with anything I'm saying.]

 

[Deku]

Does this context somehow alter what she said? Most Americans expect a terrorist attack to happen here anyways, and many are aware of the idea that American actions may create new terrorists.

By the same logic one could argue that American's declaration of War on Japan after Pearl Harbour open it to new attacks and America should isntead yield to Japan. The reason most people in the US expect there will be another terror attack is that it has already been attacked at least twice. WTC 1 in the 1990s and WTC 2 in 2001. Also the failed millenium plot. Those were well before the official war on terror started.

 

[videogamer]

You're arguing in circles.

How so?

By the same logic one could argue that American's declaration of War on Japan after Pearl Harbour open it to new attacks and America should isntead yield to Japan.

How is that? I said nothing about my own views in the part you quoted.

The reason most people in the US expect there will be another terror attack is that it has already been attacked at least twice. WTC 1 in the 1990s and WTC 2 in 2001. Also the failed millenium plot. Those were well before the official war on terror started.

Why do you bring that up?

Whatever you may think about Iraq has nothing to do with what the war on terror is about.

If new terrorists are made in Iraq, then doesn't Iraq get included in teh "War on Terror"?

Afghanistan was a cesspool of islamic extremism and a base for Al Qaueda, even Europe recognizes that. What you're arguing in effect is the head in the sand effect and peace mongering taken to its extremes. The 'we don't like to get bombed so we'll just shut out the world' argument is dangerous.

I think he's focusing on Iraq and the the more recent parts of the "War on Terror" such as Guantanamo.

 

[Deku]

How is that? I said anything about my own views in the part you quoted.

Why do you bring that up?

Why not? Given the short nature of people's memory and the ability to conveniently forget facts, I thought it was relevant to bring this up.

If new terrorists are made in Iraq, then doesn't Iraq get included in teh "War on Terror"?

But Iraq is not the war on terror its only one part. Earth is in the Solar System but Earth is not the Solar System. By the same token, you're a member of GAF, but you're not GAF in its entirety. Surely even you could see this logic before trying to ask an obvious question like that.

I think he's focusing on Iraq and the the more recent parts of the "War on Terror" such as Guantanamo.

Actually I don't think so. That's a cheap trick anyways. The. "oh I say red, but I really meant pink" it's a way to get out of weak arguments and redefine the scope of the argument as the discussion develops to cover one's ass.

'war on terror' would be taken by most to include everything. He could easily have said 'war on iraq' if he really want to talk about iraq but he chose not to.

Edit: my point was the equivalence of some posters of the war on terror to Iraq and attempting to discredit the entire package. That's dangerous. It's really that simple, no need to guess intentions of posters.

 

[videogamer]

But Iraq is not the war on terror its only one part. Earth is in the Solar System but Earth is not the Solar System. By the same token, you're a member of GAF, but you're not GAF in its entirety. Surely even you could see this logic before trying to ask an obvious question like that.

1. I never said that Iraq (and Guantanamo) were the war on terrorism.
2. Yes, it's one part, but it's an important part. It's where much of the military expenditures are spent. It's where most of the world attention is held. It's where many of the people, Americans and others, die because of terrorist attacks. That's why Iraq now holds a special place in the War on Terror.

Actually I don't think so. That's a cheap trick anyways. The. "oh I say red, but I really meant pink" it's a way to get out of weak arguments and redefine the scope of the argument as the discussion develops to cover one's ass. 'war on terror' would be taken by most to include everything. He could easily have said 'war on iraq' if he really want to talk about iraq but he chose not to.

Same as above, Iraq is an important part of the "War on Terror". Really now, how often does Afganistan get on the front page compared to Iraq? Also, much of the media and the government continue to clump them together. Iraq is being melding into the War on Terror. They help to determine how people are going to see things. Iraq right now isn't isolated away from the "War on Terror".

Edit: my point was the equivalence of some posters of the war on terror to Iraq and attempting to discredit the entire package. That's dangerous. It's really that simple, no need to guess intentions of posters.

Then we'll wait to see if he wants to clear things up.

I edited the first quote. There was a typo. And oh, btw, I caught the personal attack you edited out. I didn't say anything about Bin Laden. But somehow you figured out a way to connect us together. Whee!

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

I see. So you will also be sympathetic with people who say "I told you so" the next time a doctor is assassinated by a fundamentalist fucktard, because it's obvious he wouldn't have died if it weren't for our abortion policy?

Who would they be saying "I told you so" to, though? To be analogous to the terrorist discussion here, it'd be some group claiming "Our abortion policy will stop abortion-related assassinations."

Whatever you may think about Iraq has nothing to do with what the war on terror is about.

I'd agree with you there in principle. However, the government that popularized the war on terror has considered Iraq to be at the center of it and allocated the vast majority of money, people, and attention accordingly.

my point was the equivalence of some posters of the war on terror to Iraq and attempting to discredit the entire package. That's dangerous.

As you have said, Iraq is not the entirety of the war on terror. But crediting or discrediting the entire war on terror without considering Iraq is like judging GAF only by the mods, or considering how people act in the solar system aside from those on Earth. If one thinks the war in Iraq is a mess, it'd be hard to think the war on terror is going swell. If one think the war in Iraq is going swell, it'd be hard to think the war on terror is a mess.

 

[APF]

Who would they be saying "I told you so" to, though? To be analogous to the terrorist discussion here, it'd be some group claiming "Our abortion policy will stop abortion-related assassinations."

You've lost me. It would be analogous to people saying there wouldn't be "abortion-related assassinations" if there were no abortions, and other people saying, "WTF are you talking about? Control your fucking psychopaths, then we can talk about abortion policy."

 

[GhaleonEB]

Uh, did I miss something?

That first bit you quoted is exactly the kinda thing we need. It's totally true and I don't see the problem with it?

Yes, you missed something.

 

[Vinzer Deling]

Rice makes a perfectly good point.

The apologizing for terroism has to stop. It's getting old, it's easy to do, and its intellectually lazy to just blame the west and close the book.

I'm not saying the west can be excused for the things it has done wrong, but apologizing for terrorists is pretty much the same propaganda rationalization the Japanese government used to sell its war to my grandparents.

#1 The west are imperialists enslaving Asians
#2 We as Asians must kick out the British and American oppressors and free the people of Asia
#3 The attack on Pearl Harbor and invasion of East Asia is an act Self-defense

Of course killing 'inferior Asians' is just collateral damage and the fact that not all Asians agree with the fact that the Japanese opressors will replace the Americans and the English is easily ignored.

off topic..

You must have missed the entire chapter on Perry's boat trip, China's humilitation at the hand of the western powers and the subsequent colonization of a large chunk of Asia. You have no idea what it was like back in those days when everyone really believed in the Yellow Peril. Japan didn't enjoy a respected status among the nations of the world.

These inferior asians were also part of Japanese policy of assimilation. The construction of heavy industry, infrastructure and universal education.

 

[Shinobi]

I see. So you will also be sympathetic with people who say "I told you so" the next time a doctor is assassinated by a fundamentalist fucktard, because it's obvious he wouldn't have died if it weren't for our abortion policy?

Since I don't agree with abortion anyway, why don't you tell me?

Afghanistan was a cesspool of islamic extremism and a base for Al Qaueda, even Europe recognizes that. What you're arguing in effect is the head in the sand effect and peace mongering taken to its extremes. The 'we don't like to get bombed so we'll just shut out the world' argument is dangerous.

And how did going into Iraq help the situation in Afghanistan?

 

[Flynn]

We should be apologizing for Al Qaada since we're the one that financed and trained them.

 

[APF]

Since I don't agree with abortion anyway, why don't you tell me?

How can I tell you what your reaction will be? You're you, you tell me. Why be argumentative without offering a counter-argument, or explanation, or at least addressing the comparison?

We should be apologizing for Al Qaada since we're the one that financed and trained them.

AQ didn't exist until after the Soviet occupation; bin Laden wasn't a fighter during those times as much as he was a Mujahideen administrator who later built on that operational experience to create a terrorist (as opposed to militant; focusing on non-military targets) organization philosophically based on a radical Islamic imperialism, providing logistical/etc support for Islamist causes across the world, directly targeting Arab governments (particularly secular and Western-supported ones), and an "America first" approach to the overall conflict with the West.

 

[Deku]

The mujahadeen included Northern Alliance fighters in Afghanistan. It wasn't so much an organized force but an alliance of local and foreign arab fighters fighting the soviets.

 

[goomba]

Iraq is the most controversal US led activity of the "war on terrorism", and was the cause of most of the protests. There were large protests in London!.

Spain pulled support of the "war on terrorism" after their train bombings, and havent had any trouble since.

 

[Deku]

Spain pulled support of the "war on terrorism" after their train bombings, and havent had any trouble since.

Not true, they actually arrested and stopped a second wave of attacks after the socialist president came to power.

 

[Shinobi]

How can I tell you what your reaction will be? You're you, you tell me. Why be argumentative without offering a counter-argument, or explanation, or at least addressing the comparison?

Heh, can't say I'm big on the comparison...probably because I take the abortion thing a bit more personally then most.

What I say about that is pretty simple...protest abortion all you want, but killing anyone in aid of the cause is hypocritical bullshit, on top of being wrong.

 

[B-B-Bomba!]

*Reads first five or six posts*


Wow, here's my afternoon sorted ...


*Continues reading posts*

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

You've lost me.

My point was that "I told you so." would be fairly applied only in cases where someone was right in predicting something others denied would happen. I don't know of any group that is pro-choice on the basis that it will prevent doctor assassinations, so I don't see how the comparison makes sense. Now if dead fetus souls start haunting the living, THERE'S an "I told you so." abortion situation.

 

[APF]

My point was that "I told you so." would be fairly applied only in cases where someone was right in predicting something others denied would happen. I don't know of any group that is pro-choice on the basis that it will prevent doctor assassinations, so I don't see how the comparison makes sense. Now if dead fetus souls start haunting the living, THERE'S an "I told you so." abortion situation.

I think you're just rejecting my analogy because you don't want to acknowledge what I am suggesting, or you're arguing against a different point than I am discussing. If you don't feel what I say applies to you, why are you defensively attacking me for saying it?

As I said before, if it is valid to say that foreign terrorist attacks are caused by foreign policy, it is equally valid to say that domestic terrorist attacks are caused by domestic policy. If it is valid to "reexamine foreign policy" in light of foreign terrorist attacks, it is valid to "reexamine domestic policy" in light of domestic terrorist attacks. If it is valid to assert the necessity of selective foreign policy changes which happen to be inline with those of the culprits in the case of foreign terrorist attacks, it is valid to assert the necessity of selective domestic policy changes which happen to be inline with those of the culprits in the case of domestic terrorist attacks. When it comes to domestic terrorism, the analysis of terrorists' motives is focused on examining where society failed; to examine how the anti-social behavior was allowed to grow unchecked, to manifest itself violently. However for foreign terrorism, the analysis of terrorists' motives is focused on how the victim's policies can be modified to rectify the grievances of those terrorists. In order to do that, one must not just agree with the grievances of the terrorists, but more importantly have no problem voicing that agreement on the bodies of the innocent dead those terrorists murdered in order to advance their cause. Policy is used as an excuse for the violence; it's not the cause. People who say the policy is the cause are offering excuses for terrorism.

 

[videogamer]

People who say the policy is the cause are offering excuses for terrorism.

Excuse:
1. To explain (a fault or an offense) in the hope of being forgiven or understood: He arrived late and excused his tardiness in a flimsy manner.
2. To apologize for (oneself) for an act that could cause offense: She excused herself for being late.
2. 1. To grant pardon to; forgive: We quickly excused the latecomer.
2. To make allowance for; overlook: Readers must excuse the author's youth and inexperience. See Synonyms at forgive.
3. To serve as justification for: Brilliance does not excuse bad manners.
4. To free, as from an obligation or duty; exempt: In my state, physicians and lawyers are excused from jury duty.
5. To give permission to leave; release: The child ate quickly and asked to be excused.

Is anyone really asking for the terrorists to be forgiven? How many people are actually apologizing for the terrorists? Who is saying that the terrorists are "just, right, valid, or free of blame"?

What definition of excuse are you using?

 

[whytemyke]

As I said before, if it is valid to say that foreign terrorist attacks are caused by foreign policy, it is equally valid to say that domestic terrorist attacks are caused by domestic policy. If it is valid to "reexamine foreign policy" in light of foreign terrorist attacks, it is valid to "reexamine domestic policy" in light of domestic terrorist attacks. If it is valid to assert the necessity of selective foreign policy changes which happen to be inline with those of the culprits in the case of foreign terrorist attacks, it is valid to assert the necessity of selective domestic policy changes which happen to be inline with those of the culprits in the case of domestic terrorist attacks. When it comes to domestic terrorism, the analysis of terrorists' motives is focused on examining where society failed; to examine how the anti-social behavior was allowed to grow unchecked, to manifest itself violently. However for foreign terrorism, the analysis of terrorists' motives is focused on how the victim's policies can be modified to rectify the grievances of those terrorists. In order to do that, one must not just agree with the grievances of the terrorists, but more importantly have no problem voicing that agreement on the bodies of the innocent dead those terrorists murdered in order to advance their cause. Policy is used as an excuse for the violence; it's not the cause. People who say the policy is the cause are offering excuses for terrorism.

Well, understand that learning the cause of terrorism and offering an excuse for it are two different things. I mean, if you were fighting cancer, would you only want to kill the cancer already growing, or would you also like to find a vaccine which would keep it from growing in the first place?

 

[MC Safety]

Well, understand that learning the cause of terrorism and offering an excuse for it are two different things. I mean, if you were fighting cancer, would you only want to kill the cancer already growing, or would you also like to find a vaccine which would keep it from growing in the first place?

I think cancer sufferers would be very much satisfied with having the cancer killed.

 

[fart]

cancer isn't a thing you can kill. you've exercised exactly the same kind of simplistic reduction. the origin and cause of cancerous cells is way too complicated to expect to be able to excise all the cells in some growth and never have to deal with it again. sometimes that will work but often it won't. cancer is just as complicated a thing as diplomacy, and to deny that is metaphorically as dangerous as ignoring the scope of modern oncology in cancer treatment.

 

[MC Safety]

cancer isn't a thing you can kill. you've exercised exactly the same kind of simplistic reduction. the origin and cause of cancerous cells is way too complicated to expect to be able to excise all the cells in some growth and never have to deal with it again. sometimes that will work but often it won't. cancer is just as complicated a thing as diplomacy, and to deny that is metaphorically as dangerous as ignoring the scope of modern oncology in cancer treatment.

I wasn't the one who likened terrorism to cancer.

And as someone who has experienced something similiar to (but not exactly) cancer, I can tell you about being serum-negative and antibody free. You can be as contrary as you want, but sometimes it is possible to kill the beast, or as close to it as it gets.

 

[whytemyke]

cancer isn't a thing you can kill. you've exercised exactly the same kind of simplistic reduction. the origin and cause of cancerous cells is way too complicated to expect to be able to excise all the cells in some growth and never have to deal with it again. sometimes that will work but often it won't. cancer is just as complicated a thing as diplomacy, and to deny that is metaphorically as dangerous as ignoring the scope of modern oncology in cancer treatment.

Actually my simplisted reduction has served a great point, as you've already demonstrated: Cancer can't be killed. Neither can terrorism... you cannot kill an ideology. All terrorism is, is a poor-mans form of war. This is why superpower politics doesn't involve terrorist measures... they don't have to when you can involve F16s, smart-bombs and Aircraft carriers.

Everyone here thinks that terrorism is some new phenomena, it seems, but there's zero difference between 9/11 and the attacks carried out by Stalin or Hitler in the mid-twentieth century, the Black Hand in Serbia in the early twentieth century, by farmers' revolts against property owners in New York in the 1850s or even Shermans march to the ocean during the American Civil War, through the conquistadors, to the Romans, the greeks and the Egyptians. All are designed to instigate fear among the population so as to stimulte an antigrowth in support for any specific government policy, whether it's intervention or support, among the followers of the regime. The more 'popular' your attack is, meaning the bigger and brighter it is (a la 9/11, a VERY successful terrorist attack), the more fear you stimulate into the people of the country, and the bigger blow you usually deal against the government. This is the standard paradigm of terror-war, and you MUST understand this in order to even begin to discuss terrorism. War at any scale is just varying forms of terrorism, and the US government is just as guilty as anyone else, and if you disagree, ask the families of the 100,000 japs killed in hiroshima and nagasaki who's only crime was to live in the wrong neighborhood.

It fuckin sucks when the chickens come home to roost, I fully agree. But who are we to sit and use terror tactics then bitch once they're used against us? Nobody deserves to die by war, and to die by a terror attack is even worse, whether they're Americans or anyone else, so I believe it to be a bit hypocritical of us, as a nation, to sit and judge other 'terror' groups and label them as evil when ultimately we live and thrive under the most successful one of the bunch. I'm not complaining, cuz I enjoy living 'safely' for the most part, but let's be honest here and call a spade a spade.

So now we're up to discussing terrorism as a form of war. This is where the cancer comparison comes in and if one has to dumb it down, this is probably the best way to do so. Terrorism cannot be 'killed', contrary to White House opinion, no easier than you can kill democracy or religion. Only way to really do it is to not only eliminate the entire people, but eliminate everyone who knew about it. This was much easier to do 1500 years ago than it is today. So we take, as a nation, a half-sided approach to stopping terrorism. We kill the host. We kill the areas that host it, much as cheimotherapy would do to a cancer patient, and hope that it doesn't spread. Yet there is always the risk of it popping up, even though we may have it in remission... just like cancer. The only way to truly 'stop' terrorism, for good, is to find a cure for it.

As it is, most terrorist attacks aren't caused by rich people with jobs and happy lives. These people that are killing others are doing it out of a cultural backlash grown by poverty. Even bin Laden tried talking out his problems, but nobody listened, so he resorted to war... just as the United States did with Iraq. We used our own bombs, he used our own planes. While the means are different, the overall theme of conflict and refusal by one or both parties to solve the conflict, is still exactly the same. Granted, 9/11 can't go unpunished and OBL should probably be crucified in Times Square, right outside the MTV studio, just for effect. But that is war.

Thinking beyond OBL, Americans and westerners alike have got to understand what's causing this terrorism (poverty), and as long as we have politicians attacking each other, their constituents and their allies by saying they're 'apologizing' for the terrorists, the problems will never be solved. How many people from Egypt or Jordan were on those flights? This isn't by any means universal but does work a majority of the time.

 

[Mandark]

1) Condi Rice was somehow misquoted. No she wasn't. That's the full quote, which means the same thing inside the interview as it means excerpted. Jim Lehrer brings up the argument that US policy is creating a net increase in terrorists rather than a net decrease. Rice responds by saying this is "making excuses" for the terrorists. She's saying exactly what she's being criticized for saying.

2) Terrorist attacks are used to support previously held beliefs. Of course they are, just like other public, violent events. When gun control and violent media were cited by various people after Columbine, it was the exact same dynamic. The war in Iraq is the result of an existing idea which got more momentum after a terrorist attack.

Just because someone held a belief before a terrorist attack does not mean that the idea is wrong, or irrelevant to the discussion. To say that an argument should stand without a reference to terrorism is to say that terrorism should not be discussed.

3) Terrorism as abortion clinic bombing. Bad analogy. The idea is not to listen to terrorist demands and acquiesce to them. The idea is to study instances of terrorism and determine what makes them more or less likely to happen. This is what people like Robert Pape are trying to do, and they should be listened to. An objective study on abortion-clinic violence, and why it's declined, should also be welcome. Moral judgments are not practical solutions.

4) Terrorism as cancer. "We got rid of the cancer, and we'll test you every 3 months and hope like heck it doesn't come back," is pretty good. "We got rid of the cancer, plus we figured which toxin/DNA/whatever caused it in the first place and got rid of that, too," is much, much better.

5) Guileless' question. Short answer: be more like Canada. Slightly longer answer: Don't base troops in foreign countries whose populations don't want it, unless vital to national security. Don't write blank checks to client states. Use the military for protecting the country and deterring invasion.

The point is that Dr. Rice was trying to debunk the argument (Iraq and other foreign policy decisions are increasing the number of terrorists) by saying that there were terrorists before US involvement in Iraq. She ignores US involvement in the region that was explicitly used by Bin Laden in his propaganda to lure in new recruits. She knows about this. She's being disingenuous.

You can argue that US foreign policy has been the least worse of several choices, that the benefits outweigh the fodder for terrorists, that compromises had to be made, etc. But this is not what she does. She asserts that US foreign policy does not create blowback in the form of terrorism, and that people who believe this are "making excuses" for the terrorists.

Now that I've answered your question, care to put up, shut up, or explain why the thread was flawed?

 

[fart]

the comment was directed toward disco stu. i think your analogy is slightly flawed, but i see your point (obviously).

 

[maharg]

Do you agree that if we were to give in to the terrorists demands (say, withdraw from Iraq) then all we do is strengthen their position and give them free reign to dictate how we run our lives (simpy put, if they have a problem with any other policy in the future, they'll start blowing up buses, planes, trains knowing that we've set a precedent and there's a good chance we'll give in)?

You would perhaps do better to use a different example. I'm not sure it's fair to equate the Iraq invasion with "how we run our lives." War and occupation is the international equivelent of killing someone. Sometimes it may be justified (which is itself an ideological question), but it is by no means a normal act of someone simply living their life. Not that I think withdrawing from Iraq at this point is even remotely viable -- it's not. The milk is on the floor and someone needs to clean it up.

If they were blowing up busses because George Bush decided to drill for oil in Alaska, I'd be right there agreeing with you, but so far I'm not sure there have been a lot of Middle Eastern terrorists protesting US domestic policy.

*Sigh*

Can we at least admit that even if, they have reasons, that they can still be fvcked up? Hitler, Milosevic, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, etc., had their reasons.
That doesn't make them any less evil or justified in their actions.

You know, it's interesting that after WWII, the Allies were wise enough to realize that they shared some responsibility for the economic conditions in the German Weimar Republic that created such a nice breeding ground for fascism and antisemitism. West Germany was included in reconstruction plans and, despite the mark of being essentially the originating country of two world wars in one century, Germany is now doing pretty well for itself. This was not tacit approval nor reward for Naziism, but an attempt to prevent it from rising again. It probably would have with another Treaty of Versailles.

They made new mistakes, of course, but at least then we seemed capable of learning from some our mistakes.

 

[Shinobi]

Actually my simplisted reduction has served a great point, as you've already demonstrated: Cancer can't be killed. Neither can terrorism... you cannot kill an ideology. All terrorism is, is a poor-mans form of war. This is why superpower politics doesn't involve terrorist measures... they don't have to when you can involve F16s, smart-bombs and Aircraft carriers.

Everyone here thinks that terrorism is some new phenomena, it seems, but there's zero difference between 9/11 and the attacks carried out by Stalin or Hitler in the mid-twentieth century, the Black Hand in Serbia in the early twentieth century, by farmers' revolts against property owners in New York in the 1850s or even Shermans march to the ocean during the American Civil War, through the conquistadors, to the Romans, the greeks and the Egyptians. All are designed to instigate fear among the population so as to stimulte an antigrowth in support for any specific government policy, whether it's intervention or support, among the followers of the regime. The more 'popular' your attack is, meaning the bigger and brighter it is (a la 9/11, a VERY successful terrorist attack), the more fear you stimulate into the people of the country, and the bigger blow you usually deal against the government. This is the standard paradigm of terror-war, and you MUST understand this in order to even begin to discuss terrorism. War at any scale is just varying forms of terrorism, and the US government is just as guilty as anyone else, and if you disagree, ask the families of the 100,000 japs killed in hiroshima and nagasaki who's only crime was to live in the wrong neighborhood.

It fuckin sucks when the chickens come home to roost, I fully agree. But who are we to sit and use terror tactics then bitch once they're used against us? Nobody deserves to die by war, and to die by a terror attack is even worse, whether they're Americans or anyone else, so I believe it to be a bit hypocritical of us, as a nation, to sit and judge other 'terror' groups and label them as evil when ultimately we live and thrive under the most successful one of the bunch. I'm not complaining, cuz I enjoy living 'safely' for the most part, but let's be honest here and call a spade a spade.

So now we're up to discussing terrorism as a form of war. This is where the cancer comparison comes in and if one has to dumb it down, this is probably the best way to do so. Terrorism cannot be 'killed', contrary to White House opinion, no easier than you can kill democracy or religion. Only way to really do it is to not only eliminate the entire people, but eliminate everyone who knew about it. This was much easier to do 1500 years ago than it is today. So we take, as a nation, a half-sided approach to stopping terrorism. We kill the host. We kill the areas that host it, much as cheimotherapy would do to a cancer patient, and hope that it doesn't spread. Yet there is always the risk of it popping up, even though we may have it in remission... just like cancer. The only way to truly 'stop' terrorism, for good, is to find a cure for it.

As it is, most terrorist attacks aren't caused by rich people with jobs and happy lives. These people that are killing others are doing it out of a cultural backlash grown by poverty. Even bin Laden tried talking out his problems, but nobody listened, so he resorted to war... just as the United States did with Iraq. We used our own bombs, he used our own planes. While the means are different, the overall theme of conflict and refusal by one or both parties to solve the conflict, is still exactly the same. Granted, 9/11 can't go unpunished and OBL should probably be crucified in Times Square, right outside the MTV studio, just for effect. But that is war.

Thinking beyond OBL, Americans and westerners alike have got to understand what's causing this terrorism (poverty), and as long as we have politicians attacking each other, their constituents and their allies by saying they're 'apologizing' for the terrorists, the problems will never be solved. How many people from Egypt or Jordan were on those flights? This isn't by any means universal but does work a majority of the time.

 

[APF]

Is anyone really asking for the terrorists to be forgiven? How many people are actually apologizing for the terrorists? Who is saying that the terrorists are "just, right, valid, or free of blame"?

What definition of excuse are you using?

How many gazillion times do I have to say the same exact thing, over and over again in this thread, only to have some dumbfuck pluck a single line out of a complicated, nuanced paragraph--or series of paragraphs--and react as though that is the only thing I ever said?

People who suggest that terrorism is a natural or inevitable reaction to American foreign policy are apologizing for, or excusing, the actions of those terrorists by placing the impetus not on the people performing the act, but on the victims of those acts. This is wrong; at the very least it gives terrorists rhetorical cover from which to perpetrate their crimes. At the worst it legitimates them.

Well, understand that learning the cause of terrorism and offering an excuse for it are two different things.

Well exactly. But it's easier, I guess, for people to offer the excuses and not analyze the cause. But even suggesting that there is a "cause" of terrorism is begging the question IMO. The logical "cause" of using terrorist tactics may well be because these are non-state actors who are working within hostile (to them) nations, and these are cheap, effective acts they can perform in order to advance their agenda. This is different than trying to analyze their grievances and deciding to restructure society or policy in order to fulfill their desires.

1) Condi Rice was somehow misquoted. No she wasn't.

No one said she was misquoted.

2) Terrorist attacks are used to support previously held beliefs. Of course they are, just like other public, violent events. When gun control and violent media were cited by various people after Columbine, it was the exact same dynamic. The war in Iraq is the result of an existing idea which got more momentum after a terrorist attack.

Just because someone held a belief before a terrorist attack does not mean that the idea is wrong, or irrelevant to the discussion. To say that an argument should stand without a reference to terrorism is to say that terrorism should not be discussed.

Again, you miss my point entirely.

3) Terrorism as abortion clinic bombing. Bad analogy.

They're both terrorist attacks. Perfect 1:1 analogy. We don't revisit abortion policy in this country (US) when terrorists attack abortion clinics or assassinate doctors. In fact, the opposite occurs: it delegitimates the cause those terrorists were supposedly fighting for, even among their erstwhile supporters.

 

[HokieJoe]

Britain probably should have been attacked back then too, since the West is viewed as, well, bad... with the US as the head Satan.

That's implicit to my argument, but thanks for clarifying my point.

I don't think he's talking in immunity, but chances of having a terrorist attack. Being involved in Iraq helps. Relatively porous borders help. Negative image with terrorists help. Seriously, do you expect Vietnam or North Korea to be attacked by terrorists (Muslim fundamentalist kind) anytime soon?

No, I don't expect Vietnam and N.Korea to be attacked. There are many reasons for this, but I don't think it's an analogous situation to the US or Britain. To begin with, neither of those countries would care what world opinion, or it's own citizen's think about how they respond to terrorists. IOW, they'd just shoot and wouldn't give a shite about "asking questions" later.

The same dynamic basically applies to China. Even with a large Muslim population, poverty, etc., you don't see suicide bombers targeting them. I'm sure the reasons for this are varied; but I think it's safe to conclude that one factor would include fear. Fear of what the Chinese government would actually do in response to such an attack.

 

[Guileless]

As it is, most terrorist attacks aren't caused by rich people with jobs and happy lives. .

bin Laden was a freaking Saudi millionaire. Mohammed Atta was the son of a lawyer and had an urban planning degree from a university in Germany. The London bombers was the children of succesful immigrants who by all accounts lived normal, ostensibly happy lives. From Fareed Zakaria's last column in Newsweek:

"Suicide bombing cannot be explained by poverty and disadvantage. The London bombers were not the wretched of the earth. They came from working-class but comfortable backgrounds, living in one of the world's most prosperous countries. For all the talk of their being marginalized, none were living in hellish ghettos. Britain today does a decent job of assimilating its immigrants, certainly better than any other European country. If anyone had cause for rage, it was not the bombers but their parents. Muslim migrants from Pakistan (in three cases), they arrived in Britain in less multicultural times. They were dirt-poor and probably ostracized and persecuted. And yet they did not become murderers; they started fish-and-chips shops."

Zakaria goes on to address foreign policy:
"Nor can foreign policy really explain such rage. The invasion of Iraq clearly has greatly enraged many Muslims, radicalizing some deeply. But can a disagreement over foreign policy really make a Briton like Germaine Lindsay, who had never even visited Iraq, kiss his pregnant wife and child goodbye and go out and blow himself and others up? There is something deeper at work here. Last week Egypt, which sent no troops to Iraq and condemned the invasion, was targeted. Turkey and Indonesia—which are both opponents of the war—have also been attacked. (Besides, the demands keep changing. Osama bin Laden's primary one was that American troops leave Saudi Arabia, which they have done. Bin Laden seems not to have noticed."

mandark, your answer (be more like Canada) is very simplistic. Again, the troops in Saudi Arabia were there at the request of the government and anyone smart enough to realize that they didn't want to end up like Kuwait. The only people who objected were religious radicals who think it's some kind of mortal sin for infidels to be in the Islamic Holy Land. Do you see the problem of basing your foreign policy on the delicate sensibilities of relgious zealots?

maharg, please enlighten us as to the conditions in Germany the Allies "caused" resulting in National Socialism.

 

[Deku]

Suicide bombing cannot be explained by poverty and disadvantage.

Well that's being disingenous. A lot of people in the muslim world are unhappy, about the poverty and thier place in the world. Corrupt, self-serving autocrats that rule them is partly to blame. The fact that they are often powerless, or too busy trying to make enough to survive doesn't mean terrorism can't be explained by poverty and disadvantage.

It is usually the middle class that makes change possible. They are well off enough to have time and money to make change happen, but not entrenched enough in the upper classes to be too vested in the system.

On the same token, the run of the mill 'poverty and oppression' creates terrorists is also simplistic and shallow. Essentially, Zakaria is arguing against a poorly rationalized soundbyte from the left and the terrorist apologist camp. I make a distinction here since many on the left don't apologize for terrorists but use the same argument, while apologists also use the argument. They are not one in the same, but they are not mututally exclusive either.

A better question to answer, is to is question whether these well educated middle class Arabs who turn to terroism as their weapon to bring change is justified, or whether if its even productive.

 

[APF]

"Suicide bombing cannot be explained by poverty and disadvantage. The London bombers were not the wretched of the earth. They came from working-class but comfortable backgrounds, living in one of the world's most prosperous countries. For all the talk of their being marginalized, none were living in hellish ghettos. Britain today does a decent job of assimilating its immigrants, certainly better than any other European country. If anyone had cause for rage, it was not the bombers but their parents. Muslim migrants from Pakistan (in three cases), they arrived in Britain in less multicultural times. They were dirt-poor and probably ostracized and persecuted. And yet they did not become murderers; they started fish-and-chips shops."

This jibes well with what I have read, not just of terrorists who have attacked Western targets, but also of Palestinian suicide bombers who attack Israeli targets. More often than not it is ideologically-impressionable, educated and restless youths who do the actual attacks, guided by a cynical, wealthy criminal underground who push them through a cultural-brainwashing and recruiting process that can last less than a day from the time they think, "I wish I could do something about those guys," to being snatched-up and thrust out on the street with bombs strapped to their waist. [Sounds like a familiar recruiting pattern I guess, but in this case it's really real, rather than just sorta real]. The heavy lifting of activism of all types tends to be done by an energetic young and educated middle class, people who have the time and ability to do that sort of thing. How many genuinely poor people have the ability to fly back-and-forth to study in Pakistan (or Afghanistan) for a summer retreat? Much of the time, it's idealistic young folks who take up the causes of people who "can't help themselves," which is cool if we're talking about running a soup kitchen, but disastrous if we're talking about terrorist bombings.

That's why, again, it's most important to address the cultural blind-eyes which allow these organizations to survive in their midst, moreso than allowing our foreign/etc policies be dictated by whomever can point a gun at our heads. Unless, of course, you feel that terrorism is justified, in which case it's not credible for you to get offended by people suggesting you're apologizing or excusing their actions. How do you avoid that "trap?" How about by not implying something that is disgusting? Saying, "I always feared that the invasion of Iraq would be used as a big recruiting-point for extremist organizations, and make it all the more difficult for moderates to counter their message," is a lot different than saying, "I told you that invading Iraq would cause more terrorist attacks, so I don't know what you're all upset about; you're just reaping what you've sewn."

 

[videogamer]

How many gazillion times do I have to say the same exact thing, over and over again in this thread, only to have some dumbfuck pluck a single line out of a complicated, nuanced paragraph--or series of paragraphs--and react as though that is the only thing I ever said?

You do know that people don't type everything they've thought of, right?

People who suggest that terrorism is a natural or inevitable reaction to American foreign policy are apologizing for, or excusing, the actions of those terrorists by placing the impetus not on the people performing the act, but on the victims of those acts.

These people "who suggest that terrorism is a natural or inevitable reaction to American policy"... are they the ones you mentioned earlier as wanting to re-examine American foreign policy? Even if they aren't the same group, saying that terrorism is a reaction doesn't mean that they are trying to defend it or that it is ok.

apologizing:
1. To make excuse for or regretful acknowledgment of a fault or offense.
2. To make a formal defense or justification in speech or writing.

No, I don't expect Vietnam and N.Korea to be attacked. There are many reasons for this, but I don't think it's an analogous situation to the US or Britain. To begin with, neither of those countries would care what world opinion, or it's own citizen's think about how they respond to terrorists. IOW, they'd just shoot and wouldn't give a shite about "asking questions" later.

The same dynamic basically applies to China. Even with a large Muslim population, poverty, etc., you don't see suicide bombers targeting them. I'm sure the reasons for this are varied; but I think it's safe to conclude that one factor would include fear. Fear of what the Chinese government would actually do in response to such an attack.

Gee, then the terrorists must have forgotten that fear when they launched attacks in Russia, Saudi Arabia, or Egypt.

 

[LoGradeChili]

Suppose they are all mostly well educated and they are most certainly well funded. What choices did they make leading up to Sept. 11th? (assume that they have a clean slate before Sept. 11th, that there haven't be any previous terrorist attacks)

They say to each other, "Hey, you know they're doing something that we really don't agree with and we have to do something about it because we've got the resources and time.

"Our choices are:
A) Raise awareness and take our problem to the UN, to the world media, and let people see how injustice is being done to us.
B) Go to a city where many different people live and work and kill a whole crap-load of them.
C) Do nothing.

"Well, it's obvious that the easiest and best way to help our oppressed brothers is bomb the richest country in the world and kill thousands of people. Then they'll really, really want to help us to solve this problem."

Honestly, you cannot reach out a helping hand to person with a knife who's trying to stab you. I'm definitely not an expert and I'm not claiming to be speaking facts here, but it's my belief that these people were raised to embrace war/battle/killing/raiding with open arms. Muslim history has many, many glorified battles that are taught to children. They've been doing this for a very long, long time too. But only now that the world is so completely dependent upon oil that these people rich with funds raised from oil wealthy people can they do a lot more damage then they've been doing.

Growing up in the US, the only wars that have been glorified for me are the Revolutionary War (we fought for our independence and freedom), the Civil War (we fought to keep this country whole and true to it's founding principles), World War 2, and Korean War (We fought to help people against a hateful leader [not really true for the Pacific war, but Japan was doing some pretty heinous things]). Even the Gulf War could be identified as a was that has done good.

I don't really agree with what's going on with America's occupation, but the least it'll do is in the long run it'll create an environment for people to grow up and be taught with a world wide perspective on things, a tolerant perspective. Children will be taught the story behind this war. That the people of America were attacked, many of them died, and the war was brought to the middle east against the former government, *not against the _people_ of Iraq*. I think a child would see this, perhaps, as goodwill. A lot of people would say that the US invaded and took control of government, which is true. But to the individual person in Iraq, this has done more good (assuming the terrorist attacks end) than harm.

But, the fundamental problem with the world is that there are simply too many people...

 

[DarienA]

And they want to kill in the name of a perverted ideology that really is not Islam, but they somehow want to claim that mantle, to say that this is about some kind of grievance.

This sentence is spot f'n on... Islam does not condone terrorism. Unfortunately folks who don't take the time to really look in to the religion probably think it does because of how terrorist attacks are portrayed via news reports and by the terrorists themselves(claiming Allah has shown them this way, etc., etc.). Islam is a beautiful religion that unfortunatly has been painted to be quite ugly....

 

[APF]

You do know that people don't type everything they've thought of, right?

Then why do you just pluck a single sentence out of my posts, rather than address the entirety of what I'm saying? Your questions have been asked and answered continually, which you'd realize if you actually wanted to understand where I was coming from. Oh wait I know; you're angry because I don't like sites like MediaMatters, and now you're doing that to me. Whatever.

apologizing:
2. To make a formal defense or justification in speech or writing.

jus·ti·fy (jŭs'tə-fī')
1. To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid: justified each budgetary expense as necessary; anger that is justified by the circumstances.
2. To declare free of blame; absolve.
3. To free (a human) of the guilt and penalty attached to grievous sin. Used of God.

just (jŭst)
1. Honorable and fair in one's dealings and actions: a just ruler. See synonyms at fair.
2. Consistent with what is morally right; righteous: a just cause.
3. Properly due or merited: just deserts.
4. Law. Valid within the law; lawful: just claims.
5. Suitable or proper in nature; fitting: a just touch of solemnity.
6. Based on fact or sound reason; well-founded: a just appraisal.

 

[videogamer]

Then why do you just pluck a single sentence out of my posts, rather than address the entirety of what I'm saying?

Uh because I don't have as much of a problem with the rest of the post?

Your questions have been asked and answered continually in my posts, which you'd realize if you actually wanted to understand where I was coming from.

Uh you don't have access to my thought process... so you wouldn't know whether or not I tried to understand your posts. Well you're wrong.

Oh wait I know; you're angry because I don't like sites like MediaMatters, and now you're doing that to me. Whatever.

Again, you don't know me, but somehow you are able to make up facts about me.

 

[APF]

Uh because I don't have as much of a problem with the rest of the post?
[...]
Uh you don't have access to my thought process... so you wouldn't know whether or not I tried to understand your posts. Well you're wrong.
[...]
Again, you don't know me, but somehow you are able to make up facts about me.

Yet you still haven't addressed anything I've been saying, and to reiterate my point your questions have been asked and answered. So how is what you're doing not trolling...?

 

[Zaptruder]

... you know what the world should wage a war on? Ignorance.

We should expend every effort possible, and not stop until ignorance is wiped off the face of the earth...

anyway, carry on.

 

[Shinobi]

How about by not implying something that is disgusting? Saying, "I always feared that the invasion of Iraq would be used as a big recruiting-point for extremist organizations, and make it all the more difficult for moderates to counter their message," is a lot different than saying, "I told you that invading Iraq would cause more terrorist attacks, so I don't know what you're all upset about; you're just reaping what you've sewn."

So don't say that, even when it's true? Okay!

I don't really agree with what's going on with America's occupation, but the least it'll do is in the long run it'll create an environment for people to grow up and be taught with a world wide perspective on things, a tolerant perspective.

That's a little hard to swallow when the very same war was launched in the face of tolerance...

 

[APF]

So don't say that, even when it's true? Okay!

You can say whatever you want, honey. It's a free country.

 

[Azih]

The purpose of that study is to focus on the failures of society in "creating" the terrorist: neglectful parenting; media violence; inadequate gun control; secularism. We don't use it as a means to put-forward the terrorist's agenda. We don't say, "maybe we should reexamine our abortion policies;" or, "maybe the White Supremacist had a point about going back to Africa;" or, "maybe we should restructure society to give psychopaths a national platform from which to speak-and-act, so they don't indulge their insanity By Other Means."

I'm going to dispute this.

The only reason your point stands is because you're picking domestic terrorist actions from groups who disagree with domestic policies that American society to varying degrees has decided to adopt (white supremaists etc) in which case the greviance is judged to be incompatible with the kind of society that Americans want no matter how much study is put into the terrorist motives.

But in the case of the millitant and violent black liberation movement (Malcom-X, Black Panthers etc.) for example, the 'terrorist' agenda was by and large adopted by American society at large and the millitancy disapperaed. Of course Martin Luther King and the non violent struggle had more to do with that, but the point is that in this case at least "maybe we should reexamine segregation" actually happened and society *was* in fact restructured. A similar thing happened again with the L.A race riots after Rodney King trial in the aftermath of which racism and corruption in the L.A.P.dD was spotlighted and condemmned. Once again violence led to an examination of *why* the violence occured.

The response to terrorism of any stripe *should* be to look at the grievances that caused them. If the cause is legitimate then you resolve them and try to figure out why the issues festered for long enough to cause the violence, if it isn't then you head to millitary resolution. If (as is routinely the case) the greviances are an unholy tangle of legitmiate and illegitamate then you do both. Condi here has made it impossible to do the former while the rest of her administration is going gung ho on the latter. That's a recipie for pure ugly.

gain, the troops in Saudi Arabia were there at the request of the government and anyone smart enough to realize that they didn't want to end up like Kuwait.

*cough*

On 11 September 1990 Bush addressed a joint session of Congress, saying: “Within 3 days, 120,000 Iraqi troops with 850 tanks had poured into Kuwait and moved south to threaten Saudi Arabia. (Satellite photos proved this statement false.)

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=7164

But ignoring that.

The only people who objected were religious radicals who think it's some kind of mortal sin for infidels to be in the Islamic Holy Land

Friend you don't know anything about the reaction to the American troops in Saudi. I should know. I was there at the freaking time.

 

[fart]

You can say whatever you want, honey. It's a free country.

what are you, 12?

 

[videogamer]

Yet you still haven't addressed anything I've been saying, and to reiterate my point your questions have been asked and answered.

So how is what you're doing not trolling...?

Uh because I found parts of your posts I disagree with? But hey, you are the guy that's making up stuff.

Then why do you just pluck a single sentence out of my posts, rather than address the entirety of what I'm saying?

Answered

How many gazillion times do I have to say the same exact thing, over and over again in this thread, only to have some dumbfuck pluck a single line out of a complicated, nuanced paragraph--or series of paragraphs--and react as though that is the only thing I ever said?

Answered

What did I miss?

Is anyone really asking for the terrorists to be forgiven? How many people are actually apologizing for the terrorists? Who is saying that the terrorists are "just, right, valid, or free of blame"?

What definition of excuse are you using?

Uh, it seems like you really didn't answer those questions. Or maybe I missed them. Either way, you can clear things up.