The general view, at least around here, seems to be that the war in Iraq will cause a mighty backlash of Islamist Terrorism against the U.S., Britain, and anyone else who joins the “coalition of the willing”. Is this the case? Is terrorism fueled solely by U.S. foreign policy? Or support for Israel? Or is it something even more basic than that, such as a desire for fundamental Islam to be the dominant way of life in the world?
I have no doubt that the bin Ladens of the world will use this war to recruit people to their cause, but have they had any trouble recruiting them before? Does agression inflame them more than weakness inspires them? I guess this gets down to the root causes of Islamist Terrorism, and since I can’t claim to have the answers as to what inspires that kind of fanatical action, I solicit your opinions.
Wow. Seriously? You don’t think ONE new terrorist will be created by any of this? You don’t think a SINGLE life will be lost that wouldn’t have been if not for the war? You don’t think ANY new dynamite will be added to the car bomb because of the actions taken in Iraq?
I don’t think even the Bush Administration pretends this…
This is kind of my point, or my question. It seems to be taken as Gospel that the war will engender more terrorist attacks. My thought has been that al-quaeda, at least, is emboldened by our lack of serious response to things like the bombing of the USS Cole. I realize that the invasion of Iraq is different from the Afghanistan operation, which seems to have had the effect of supressing terrorist operations.
Had it? There were plenty of attempted attacks. I don’t think it has suppressed terrorist operations in any way. The large scale attack of 9/11 was always an exception, and we’ve had plenty of small scale attacks since, several of which have been thwarted by good old law enforcement, not by military operations. If something happened, then that 9/11 sharpened the awareness of the danger certain people could eventually pose, leading to closer surveillance and thus higher probability to catch them before they succeed. But I don’t think Afghanistan supressed operations.
As for the current war, all that is necessary to look at the effect is watch the Arab, or even muslim street. Every Friday, there are protests of ever-increasing ferocity. Not just against the US, but against their own governments supporting the US. This easily has the potential to topple the less stable of them on a short-term basis, and the more stable on a long-term basis. The war is increasing the already prevalent trend of increased ethnic and religious conscience and eventually fanatism. There’ll be a point when certain governments will no longer be able to contain it. Right now, a lot of people are travelling to Iraq to help their Arab brethren defend their country against foreign invasion. Quite simply because they believe Arabs should stand together in this. And governments cooperating with the US do so at their own peril. Eventually, two things can happen: A violent overthrow a la Iran, or a democratic change where such is possible a la Algeria, in which the elections were subsequently annuled leading to civil war and fanatic terrorism.
The longer the US is in Afghanistan, the more violent such a change of government is going to be, and the more fanatic the new leaders are likely to be. Which is why many experts on the Middle East suggest that the US cease protecting some of these governments now, rather than making them pay for US support, potentially tolerating a moderately islamic party similar to the turkish ruling party now, rather than risking a more violent explosion leading to fanatic governments further down the road. It is usually more prudent to slowly vent a given pressure than trying to keep it contained to the point of explosion.
If you have witnessed the anger displayed by protesting muslims around the world every day over the last week, it will be clear that there is a high likelihood of increased terrorist activity.
Interviewed protesters were saying that they wanted to blow themselves up. Perhaps not all of them were caught up in the heat of the moment.
From an American perspective, I disagree. Part of our response to 9/11 has been to round up al-quaeda members and to imprison some of them at Guantanamo Bay. A few of their top operatives have been captured, and the rest have been forced to spend more time running than planning new operations. Most of this was accomplished in Afghanistan or Pakistan. In that respect, and in the very real respect that no new major terrorist attacks against American interests have occured, we have severely limited their ability to attack us.
I’m sure they did. But the question is whether or not this is something new, and more specifically, a result ot the war. There have been suicide bombers in the news for a long time.
My point is that I don’t think there’s anyone in the Arab world (whose capable of actually being a terrorist) that was on the fence about the US, even before the Iraq war was planned. You could argue that this action will incite them to violence, but I have to ask “what incited them before?” And hasn’t the current administration (that I oppose, BTW) been warning us of terrorists and have included that as part of their rationale for the war?
So it’s a ‘chicken or the egg’ thing. We go to war because they’re supporting and planning terrorist strikes, and they’re gonna be incited to terrorist strikes because we invaded. So, yeah, it could be one more log on that fire. But it was a big enough fire before this.
Didn’t it take Al-queda members years to plan the WTC attack? If a major attack is in the works, it will probably happen at a far later date. I highly doubt we have limited their ability to attack us - rather, I think that we may have just delayed their schemes for the time being.
But does the profession of hatred towards the U.S. on TV translate to strapping a bomb on one’s back and actually detonating it? I’ve seen lots of people who acted weird with a TV camera trained on them who wouldn’t behave the same way in “real life”.
Sorry, but the arguments you cite don’t hold up to that conclusion.
a)The fact that no attacks against American interests have occured does not indicate that such is based on a lack of ability. There was no major attack for quite a while before 9/11, and numerous attacks were attempted afterwards. A certain choice of targets has to be controlled for before a conclusion on ability can be drawn.
b)The key operatives in 9/11 were based not in the US, not in Afghanistan, but in Germany. Given that Germany is among the most successful law enforcement operations against Al Qaeda, already having convicted one operative, a stronger purge in Germany is a factor that has first to be controlled for before your analysis is valid.
Maybe, but if it is one MORE log on that fire, then the war is hardly conductive to CURBING terrorism, no?
There’s a reason why many other countries with a long experience fighting terrorism tend to use law enforcement nowadays, rather than the military, to curb it. Bloody Sunday has not helped curbing IRA activity.
Well, the fact that they haven’t hit us (except for all those Australian tourists in Bali- another indication that their supposed motives are toally bullshit) in 18 months would lead one to believe that they are at least on the run. But again, I’d like to see some discussion of whether or not the war itself will engender terrorism or not. Since bin Laden himself claims to hate Saddam’s guts, somebody explain this shit to me.
How are they on the run when they have in fact staged numerous attack (not just in Bali) in the meantime? The fact that they have not struck in the US so far does not indicate they have no intention on doing so.
Why is the Bali attack indication their supposed motives are totally bullshit?
Yes, Bin Laden says he hates Saddam. Saddam used to be secular. Bin Laden is a religious fanatic. However, precisely because he is a religious fanatic, unbelievers invading a muslim country is the far greater offense.
a) I’ll give you, because you’re right. Um, b) I have no idea what you’re talking about, though It seems you’re just trying to give major props to your German Brothas, so I’ll give you that one , too.
International relations and all.
It’s just that I keep being told that their attacks are in response to American foreign policy. So what do a bunch of Australian tourists in Bali have to do with that?
Mohammed Atta and several of his colleagues studied in Hamburg, Germany, for several years. They were, during that time, observed by German intelligence, but not enough was found to justify action against them (not the least due to a lack of information exchange on an international level). Likewise, a colleague of theirs recently convicted trafficked the funds for the operation. Theirs was a key cell in the operation, and it has been rooted out, and the stance towards islamist radicals has become much more proactive and ‘aggressive’ -not just in Germany, but in numerous other European countries and numerous operatives have been arrested by law enforcement throughout Europe, many while they were planning attacks, both on European targets but frequently on US interests.
