Guileless said:
Here's what I think Mandark. Sorry for the length but I'm trying to be honest here.
The terrorists have come from a variety of countries (including the UK) and widely varying economic circumstances. They have attacked a wide variety of targets, from hotels and nightclubs to the Pentagon. They have attacked countries on four different continents, from the US itself to staunch opponents of American policy like Turkey to countries like Bali that aren't very important diplomatically. They have claimed a wide variety of causes, from Afghanistan to Palestine to troops in Saudi Arabia and even Somalia. Based on all of that information, you can come up with many different arguable "causes" of terrorism and nobody can definitively prove or disprove such a theory.
But there is a common thread that links all of the terrorists--Islamo-fascism. For that reason, I think that the radical ideology shared by all of the terrorists is the proximate cause of the terrorism. While other factors may contribute in some way, they are all a distanct second. And I do not think we should be concerned about what they think of our policy. In fact, we should pursue a policy that pisses them off. They are so wrong about everything that if they don't like it, then it's almost definitely the right thing to do.
I'm guessing you're thinking of some hypothetical quasi-jihadist who embraces the theory of radical Islamic fascism but isn't quite ready to do anything about it. Then he sees the news about Iraq one day, which puts him over the top and convinces him to commit suicide so that he can kill infidels. This person may exist, and Iraq may make him do this. There's no way to know this for sure, though it is obviously an attractive idea to people who don't like the policy or the people who make the policy.
But it is crazy to make long-term policy based on the short-term reactions of a hypothetical group that may not exist and can never be ascertained. If you assume, as the Bush Administration has, that the cause of terrorism is the perverted ideology they profess--which is incredibly retrograde and destructive to themselves regardless of whether they try to kill non-believers--then the goal should be to eliminate the ideology.
Now you can disagree with how to eliminate the ideology, but that is a separate discussion. The point I'm making is that what the terrorists believe is evil, and that those evil beliefs dictate their behavior. Nobody makes them believe those things. There are poor and oppressed people with foreign policy greviances everywhere (and indeed throughout history), but the vast majority of them do not blow themselves up so they can kill strangers in the name of God. The people that do this all believe in the same ideology, and they are all evil. That is why I agree with Rice.
You're wrong on all accounts bro.
Let me break it down.
The terrorists have come from a variety of countries (including the UK) and widely varying economic circumstances. They have attacked a wide variety of targets, from hotels and nightclubs to the Pentagon. They have attacked countries on four different continents, from the US itself to staunch opponents of American policy like Turkey to countries like Bali that aren't very important diplomatically. They have claimed a wide variety of causes, from Afghanistan to Palestine to troops in Saudi Arabia and even Somalia. Based on all of that information, you can come up with many different arguable "causes" of terrorism and nobody can definitively prove or disprove such a theory.
There
does exist a common motive. It is a reaction to percieved aggression/oppression from the "West". It is a reaction to percieved Imperialism. My proof? Their very words!
But there is a common thread that links all of the terrorists--Islamo-fascism. For that reason, I think that the radical ideology shared by all of the terrorists is the proximate cause of the terrorism. While other factors may contribute in some way, they are all a distanct second. And I do not think we should be concerned about what they think of our policy. In fact, we should pursue a policy that pisses them off. They are so wrong about everything that if they don't like it, then it's almost definitely the right thing to do.
Again, just like "Islamism", Islamo-facism is another term invented by Neo-Con think tanks (I guess in this case a radio personality) that has no definite meaning.
It is not the case that these people want an "Islamically ruled World" as Neo-Con's put it. It is not the case that they are fighting for their own personal interests. As you can see in the case of the London bombings, it was done for political reasons.
The basis for Justice exists in Islam. Muslims must fight for the poor and oppressed. Thus, terrorists liken themselves to these Mujahideen, in order to attempt to gain support.
THAT is why terrorism exists in the modern day Muslim world.
This whole concept of "Islamo-fascicm" is absolutely ridiculous. It doesn't explain what has happen, or what could happen in the future. It's not based on any academic research, and not on any research from credible terrorist expert.
I'm guessing you're thinking of some hypothetical quasi-jihadist who embraces the theory of radical Islamic fascism but isn't quite ready to do anything about it. Then he sees the news about Iraq one day, which puts him over the top and convinces him to commit suicide so that he can kill infidels. This person may exist, and Iraq may make him do this. There's no way to know this for sure, though it is obviously an attractive idea to people who don't like the policy or the people who make the policy.
But it is crazy to make long-term policy based on the short-term reactions of a hypothetical group that may not exist and can never be ascertained. If you assume, as the Bush Administration has, that the cause of terrorism is the perverted ideology they profess--which is incredibly retrograde and destructive to themselves regardless of whether they try to kill non-believers--then the goal should be to eliminate the ideology.
The goal of terrorists is to create terror and panic. This whole idea of "killing non-believers" is a completely western ideology, again, created by Christian fundamentalists and Neo-Cons. The RELIGIOUS justifications used by terrorists aren't the same made up quotes cited by Neo-Cons as the justifications for terrorism carried out by Muslims.
Now you can disagree with how to eliminate the ideology, but that is a separate discussion. The point I'm making is that what the terrorists believe is evil, and that those evil beliefs dictate their behavior. Nobody makes them believe those things. There are poor and oppressed people with foreign policy greviances everywhere (and indeed throughout history), but the vast majority of them do not blow themselves up so they can kill strangers in the name of God. The people that do this all believe in the same ideology, and they are all evil. That is why I agree with Rice.
What the terrorists believe is that "the ends justify the means". It is a wrong ideology, but it's an ideology that not only terrorists share, but many Americans would too. "Bomb them all and let God sort them out" has been a phrase many Americans have been using QUITE recently.
If you agree with Rice, then you miss the entire point of what Q & A means, or what the word "interview" entails. As I said, calling people evil if they commit an evil act makes sense, but it does nothing to address the problem. She also dismissed the root cause of terrorism, which is quite scary!