# How can the US fight moral support for terrorism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 1, 2005, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-us-fight-moral-support-for-terrorism/328934 "2005-11-01T17:44:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![groman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/73ab20/32.png) [@groman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/groman)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-us-fight-moral-support-for-terrorism/328934/21 "2005-11-02T00:30:47Z")
> [@Wesley Clark](#): > > they really are evil people. Bin Ladin supported the govs of Saudi Arabia (before he was kicked out), Sudan and Afghanistan, all of which are deeply evil governments. He also wants to return to an age of no human rights, civil rights, political rights, womens rights, minority rights, etc. where people are tortured and murdered for minor infractions. I guess we differ in our definitions of evil. I define evil as “morally corrupt”, and as a moral relativist, I do not consider devout followers of any religion evil. We cannot isolate actions of men in another part of the world, mentally tranpsose them over here, decide that we don’t like them and declare them evil. Remember, civil rights is OUR idea, that WE came up with as a society, and WE have managed to make it OUR social norm. So while not agreeing with civil rights in OUR society is evil, not agreeing with civil rights or not accepting them in general does not make one automatically evil - that would be a very hypocritical approach. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-us-fight-moral-support-for-terrorism/328934/22 "2005-11-02T00:51:05Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Out of curiousity, how long do you think that the US has been vilified in the Arab world, and what do you believe caused it? > > I remind you that during the Suez Canal crisis, the US was the hero to many Arab people. Many older, moderate Arabs still bring up Suez in hopes that there can be reconciliation between the US and Arabs. > > Extending beyond the Arab world, the country that has perhaps the most disturbing anti-American protests, Iran, has a youth that has overwhelmingly turned their back on the radicalism of the 1980s and actually embrace the US in roughly the same way that Soviet youth in the '80s coveted American culture. > > If you write off all the people of the Middle East as simply violent anti-American extremists, there will never be any hope of promoting pro-Americanism. Since the 1940s. It was most likely caused by a variety of things. The Arabs having to come to grips with them going from being a world power in the middle ages to being a third world collection of nations who are used as a gas station by the west Them losing their identity in westernization, losing their governments, religion, culture. US support for Israel, which is another side of their feelings of being invaded militarily and culturally US troops in Saudi Arabia in gulf war I The fact that the US is the biggest western superpower, making us a good target for frustrations over loss of muslim dominance in cultural, scientific, military and social influence since the US now has a big role in these things. I don’t write off all mid-east muslims as violent antiamericans. But I do believe that about 40% support terrorism against civilians in the US and Israel by supporting Bin Ladin. When you consider that it didn’t become ‘wrong’ to intentionally target civilians in the eyes of western society until the 1970s though it is not a horrible difference between us. However to assume that ‘only the extremists’ support terrorism is wrong. People in the muslim world on issues of Israel & the US are probably not much different than the US on its views of the Iraq war, tons of people support the military conflict and tons do not. > **[Support for Bin Laden, Violence Down Among Muslims, Poll Says](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/14/AR2005071401030_2.html)** " The proportion that expressed confidence in the al Qaeda leader dropped from almost half to about a quarter in Morocco, and from 58 percent to 37 percent in Indonesia. Bin Laden’s standing went up slightly in Pakistan, to 51 percent, and in Jordan, to 60 percent." Support is going down, but Indonesia and Pakistan house about 1/3 of the world’s muslim populations so their views count alot. I don’t feel that two countries that represent 30% of the world’s Islamic population giving 37% (down from 58%, George Bush was only elected by 51% of the vote and now has an approval rating in the 30% range for comparison) and 50% levels of confidence in terrorists consists of ‘a handful of radicals’ as I have seen terrorism supporters written off as. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-us-fight-moral-support-for-terrorism/328934/23 "2005-11-02T00:54:50Z")
> [@groman](#): > > I guess we differ in our definitions of evil. I define evil as “morally corrupt”, and as a moral relativist, I do not consider devout followers of any religion evil. We cannot isolate actions of men in another part of the world, mentally tranpsose them over here, decide that we don’t like them and declare them evil. Remember, civil rights is OUR idea, that WE came up with as a society, and WE have managed to make it OUR social norm. So while not agreeing with civil rights in OUR society is evil, not agreeing with civil rights or not accepting them in general does not make one automatically evil - that would be a very hypocritical approach. A distaste for pain is universal though. Human rights are meant to address issues like pain and dignity. There are probably no countries where people go to the ballot box and vote ‘yes’ on rape rooms and using family members as leverage to control political dissident. You probably will not find large groups of people that enjoys having their freedom curtailed, being tortured, being forced to believe things they don’t want to believe (political and religious) when they are exposed to a world that is free of torture and where people have freedoms and are protected from each other. I’m a moral relavist as well, however nobody wants to be tortured. But if Bin Ladin were in charge people would be tortured. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-us-fight-moral-support-for-terrorism/328934/24 "2005-11-02T00:59:11Z")
And I don’t believe civil rights are necessarily our idea. My understanding is that muslim countries offered more protection for Jews than Catholic countries did in the middle ages. Civil rights are just the recognition that people have diginity and worth, and deserve not to be harassed, controlled or abused. I don’t feel that this is a morally variable position but is rather a genetically ingrained position because all over the world people fight for freedom and human/civil rights (at least those who lack them fight for them, those who dislike the groups do not). They fight for them in fascist countries, communist countries, islamic fundamentalist regimes, Ba’athist regimes, military dictatorships, leftist dictatorships, etc. ---
**Author:** ![groman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/73ab20/32.png) [@groman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/groman)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-us-fight-moral-support-for-terrorism/328934/25 "2005-11-02T01:14:46Z")
> [@Wesley Clark](#): > > Civil rights are just the recognition that people have diginity and worth, and deserve not to be harassed, controlled or abused. I don’t feel that this is a morally variable position but is rather a genetically ingrained position because all over the world people fight for freedom and human/civil rights (at least those who lack them fight for them, those who dislike the groups do not). They fight for them in fascist countries, communist countries, islamic fundamentalist regimes, Ba’athist regimes, military dictatorships, leftist dictatorships, etc. Yes, but how far you’re willing to go IS relative. For example the Texan law that says that you can use deadly force to protect your property probably seems utterly ludicrous to most europeans. As far as I know, if somebody steals your TV and runs away with it you can pursue and shoot them in the back of the head completely legally in Texas (correct me if I’m wrong, I’m neither a lawyer nor a Texan). That’s a civil right to be secure in your person and property. We also believe in the civil right to have privacy, however Britain installed millions of CCTV cameras on public streets and that doesn’t seem to be considered evil over there by the majority. In the US, at least 10 years ago, that wouldn’t have been reasonable and would cause major civil dissent and outlash. Torture is a very vague concept. Of course there’s physical torture, but there’s also mental. The extremes of torture are obvious to everybody, but any kind of a consistent application of force is a form of torture, be it being beaten, electroshocked or cut open without anesthetic, ostracized by your peers, imprisoned, stifled, harassed, exhiled, limited in mobility, speed or religion - whatever. We owe it to other cultures to decide for themselves what level of civil rights they feel they want for themselves and what degrees of torture they are willing to tolerate to get there. ---
**Author:** ![groman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/73ab20/32.png) [@groman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/groman)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-us-fight-moral-support-for-terrorism/328934/26 "2005-11-02T01:16:42Z")
Err, I meant “speech” not “speed” above, even though I consider speed limits a rather obscene abuse of governmental power I wouldn’t go ahead and call them torture. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-us-fight-moral-support-for-terrorism/328934/27 "2005-11-02T04:33:26Z")
> [@groman](#): > > Thieves have something to gain by gaining entry to your house explicitly. Terrorism happens because of political and religious goals. They want to instill fear, chaos, to be recognized, famous, aknowledged. They want to gain power and momentum, they want retaliation so they can further their agenda, whatever. They most likely do not want to just kill a bunch of random people for the sake of killing a bunch of random people. If all a terrorist act accomplishes is kills a bunch of random people with no aftereffects whatsoever And terrorists seem to think they have something to gain by crashing jetliners. Forgetting terrorists, there are plenty of valid reasons to screen people for weapons on an airplain. > [@groman](#): > > No, not they do not. It just filters out a few idiots who did not think through what they are doing well enough. Logically, effective security measures are not feasible without a major disruption for everybody or a bunch of secret methods. A waste of time, IMO. Your reasoning is that since security isn’t 100% foolproof there shouldn’t be any? > [@groman](#): > > In fact, Bin Laden’s supporters are promoting guerrilla military action against what they see as a military and cultural invasion. Not an ethically wrong position. Just because we’re on this side and they are on that is a historical crapshoot. There’s nothing fundamentally different between the people themselves and I can easily see the situation reversed with us strapping dynamite to extremist baptists trying to blow up Petra or whatever. (By us I’m of course referring to some extremist subset of wester population, not you or me in particular) Since you are a moral reletivist, would you agree that we would be morally justified to do whatever it takes to protect ourselves? ---
**Author:** ![Raja\_Raja\_Chola](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e480ec/32.png) [@Raja\_Raja\_Chola](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raja_Raja_Chola)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-us-fight-moral-support-for-terrorism/328934/28 "2005-11-02T04:47:20Z")
I remember reading an article (no cite) some years back that the people of Haiti were still using wells that were built by US Marines in the early part of the last century. It occurs to me that, unlike presumably the tsunami relief, a portion of our foreign aid either winds up being siphoned away by corrupt governments or burdening the people who live there with unbearable international debt. I think that we should shift our government based foreign aid programs to infrastructure creation. Not grand-scale projects, but simple infrastructure items such as roads, wells, etc. Perhaps some large scale projects such as power, water, and sewage systems. The US would bid out the contracts to US companies who would then go over and construct. The infrastructure would be there for the people, and would survive until the corrupt government, hopefully, eventually gives way to a better one. No debt or loans to burden the people. It would give the US good PR in these countries, plus the money spent would largely remain in the US economy. A double win. Furthermore, better infrastructure would attract foreign investment. Now, of course, the things we build would be prime targets for terrorists. But if Al-Queda decides to blow up a well in a village just because it was built by Americans, I have a feeling that the villagers may not take to kindly to Al-Queda’s actions. It’s one idea anyway. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-us-fight-moral-support-for-terrorism/328934/29 "2005-11-02T06:52:51Z")
I don’t think a pro-american middle east is something you can work for directly. The fuel for Arab Islamic fundamentalism, and the terror it in turn spawns, is shame, anger, and frustration at Arab backwardness. What once was the world’s leading civilization is now one that produces little of import in any field; what wealth they have is based on natural resources, not any achievements of their own. Moreover, most Arabs are governed by inept and/or oppressive regimes. Conspiracy theories and fundamentalism are comforting things; people do not abandon them until they start to have some sense of self-confidence. When people in that part of the world start feeling like they, as individuals and as nations, are growing and developing and have a future, reactionary ideas lose their allure. Now how to get that ball rolling … that’s the tricky part. And it’s not on you can easily work for directly, since many of the things you might want to do to “help” – e.g. send money – do not contribute to building Arab self-esteem. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-us-fight-moral-support-for-terrorism/328934/30 "2005-11-02T15:23:42Z")
> [@Raja Raja Chola](#): > > I remember reading an article (no cite) some years back that the people of Haiti were still using wells that were built by US Marines in the early part of the last century. > > It occurs to me that, unlike presumably the tsunami relief, a portion of our foreign aid either winds up being siphoned away by corrupt governments or burdening the people who live there with unbearable international debt. > > I think that we should shift our government based foreign aid programs to infrastructure creation. Not grand-scale projects, but simple infrastructure items such as roads, wells, etc. Perhaps some large scale projects such as power, water, and sewage systems. > > The US would bid out the contracts to US companies who would then go over and construct. The infrastructure would be there for the people, and would survive until the corrupt government, hopefully, eventually gives way to a better one. No debt or loans to burden the people. It would give the US good PR in these countries, plus the money spent would largely remain in the US economy. A double win. Furthermore, better infrastructure would attract foreign investment. > > Now, of course, the things we build would be prime targets for terrorists. But if Al-Queda decides to blow up a well in a village just because it was built by Americans, I have a feeling that the villagers may not take to kindly to Al-Queda’s actions. > > It’s one idea anyway. Yeah, that is a good plan. It turned the Iraqis against Al Qaeda. Finding ways to improve employment, human rights and representative government (behind the scenes as blatant attempts to do this will come across as ‘imperialism’) but improve infrastructure in an obvious way so that if it is destroyed the terrorists are blamed, combined with attempts to provide disaster relief could help. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-us-fight-moral-support-for-terrorism/328934.md?page=1)