They were mistaken for Americans? If I remember correctly, the perpetrator apologized, after his arrest, for hitting Australians.
[onion]
No, you’re wrong.
No. It is.
I disagree.
[/onion]
Agreed, but I don’t believe this war will curb terrorism.
I take your point that law enforcement has been instrumental in supressing al-quaeda worldwide, but I also think that the perceived weak response of the U.S. to previous terrorist attacks, i.e. Mogadishu, the first WTC attack, the Embassy bombings, the Cole, led to an invigorated and puffed-up al-quaeda that we deal with today. I also think the Afghanistan operation has supressed them to the point where they are having much more difficulty planning and carrying out attacks.
I think it’s a big factor. They ain’t burning those Bush effigies because they like the guy.
That’s a big factor too.
I think that’s an oversimplification. They want Islam to be the dominant way of life in the world in the same way that we want Christianity to be the dominant way of life. The conflict with Isreal and U.S. support for Isreal are much more immediate factors.
I don’t want to sounda alamist, but I would think that if bin Laden had an unlimited supply of suicide bombers at his fingertips, we could expect A LOT more terrorist attacks than we’ve had (or at least a lot more attempts). And I just can’t see how this war is possibly going to improve that situation.
These suicide bombers are extremists, but I don’t think you can go so far as to say they are all completely ga-ga crazy to the point that they are just arbitrarily committing acts of terrorism for no particular reason. The obvious cause is their perception (whether right or wrong) of Isreal’s expansionist policy, and U.S. support for it.
There are two schools of thought:
-
Terrorisim is caused by mostly valid objections to US, Israel and other western misconduct. The war constitutes more misconduct, so it will inflame terrorism.
-
Terrorist complaints about the US, Israel, and other western conduct are mostly invalid. They are not the real reason for terrorism. Strong responses will discourage terrorism.
I go with #2 (as do most conservatives.)
Note that we have not applied reasoning #1 to domestic terrorism against blacks, e.g., by racists in the KKK. E.g., Hate Crime Laws have been debated on this Board. However, no opponent has argued that severe punishment of violent racist acts will inflame the Ku Klux Klan and create new racists. That would be ludicrous. Nor has similar reasoning been applied to those who violently attack abortion doctors and abortion clinics.
Even if you think the terrorists have valid complaints against the west, a good case can be made that this war will ultimately be good for the Iraqi people – that they will be so much better off with Saddam gone that it’s worth the suffering now. If and when this proves to the case, then the war should should make potential terrorists feel more grateful to the west. OTOH tyrants who rule Arab states would be personally threatened by an example of improved governance in Iraq, so it’s no surprise that they oppose the war and encourage their people to do so.
**
You wanted to say US conservatives, no?
Apples and oranges, since the measures in question were NOT taken by the targets of the hatred of these groups.
This is not a good case, since it postulates a)similar perspectives by the Arab public and the western world. b)a better Iraq without Saddam, and it c)ignores that the Arab governments are not encouraging their people to oppose the war, but rather vice versa, are being pressured by the street to cease their tolerance for the war and actually oppose it.
This is a woefully simplistic false dichotomy. Not only that, but it is rather disingenuous to tack on that final sentence in point 2. It does not necessarily follow from the previous two sentences. Try this as a theory:
- Terrorist complaints about the US, Israel, and other western conduct are mostly invalid. They are not the real reason for terrorism. Strong responses will encourage terrorism.
or more plausibly:
- Many of the reasons for the existence of terror groups are rooted in an invalid interpretation of US, Israel, and other western countries’ conduct; however some are rooted in the valid objections of the peoples whom the terrorists claim to represent. History shows that in many cases, military responses to terrorism tend to encourage recruitment to terrorism.
The OP asked specifically about the war in Iraq. Which terrorist act is it a response to? Unless you buy Bush’s argument about preventing Iraqi WMDs from falling into terrorists’ hands (which nobody on this thread has mentioned or defended so far), I don’t see how it can act as deterrent to terrorism. If anything, it shows how quickly the US can forget about the war against terrorism (i.e. the one in Afghanistan) and move on to the next war.
A cursory reading of the history of the last century in the Middle East ought to correct that misconception, but the short response is that the West, primarily the US and the UK, have long interfered in the region, to the detriment of its people and nations. British colonialism, Western-imposed regimes, American anti-Soviet manipulation, unrelenting and one-sided US support of Israel, and all the way up to the present problem, mean that the Arabs have more than one grievance with the West and the US in particular. Some grievances are insubstantial, yes, but not all of them by any means.
Please don’t resort to the “they just hate us and that’s all there is to it” simplistic rubbish. Besides, December seems to be taking that road and that is a bad sign for your position.
You may read further on this extremely good thread started by Collounsbury, particularly in the first few pages:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=172697
Iraq was simply not a significant producer of terrorism OR a threat of same. The argument that one day Iraq might launch a terrorist attack against Americans barely deserves mention, however, should you want to look it up, it has been discussed several times on these boards in the last month. These constant references to possible attacks and imminent threats, coupled with efforts to keep the wounds of 9/11 open are simply scare-mongering – of course it is [sub]dimly[/sub] possible at some stage in the future for something like that to happen.
You touch on an important point though, and that is propaganda. Bush and his cronies make it a point to mention the word “terror” (or, in the case of Bush, “terrr”) every time they publicly mention Iraq, and if they can throw in Al Qaeda, even better. Only every now and then do some of the administration explicitly claim that there are links between AQ and Saddam Hussein, and usually they do so broadly and in passing, so as to leave behind the lingering association of the dictator with the terrorist group. That’s enough for the majority of uninformed people, who wouldn’t bother reading up on the actual evidence instead of taking the administration’s word for it.
The only reasonable grounds for concern-- not necessarily worry or fear – is that Iraq may in the future provide AQ with some materials (which it is not yet established that Iraq even possesses) to conduct a terrorist attack against Americans.
There is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was planning or supporting terrorist strikes. 9/11 had, at least thus far, nothing to do with Iraq, nor did any other major terrorist attack that I can think of from the last years. According to Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein is an “infidel” running an “infidel regime” – these are considerable insults in Arabic, enough to tell you the two are not exactly friendly.
Positing that war is necessary to liberate/disarm Iraq, there’s a smart way to do things and then there’s the Dubya way, which rather predictably involves the use of crippling stupidity. The smart way, which both Colin Powell and Tony Blair were pushing for, would have been to move against Iraq after forming a broad coalition that involved other Arab states and was sanctioned by the UN, or if not directly sanctioned that at least had the support of a number of important and relevant (to the region) representative members.
Which might well have been possible, even likely, had Bush not spent the last years in office hard at work pissing off the leaders and populations of the world entire. Bush had the kind of domestic and global support advantage that no other leader, I think, has ever experienced: the unifying tragedy of 9/11. A moderately educated, fairly intelligent, statesman with medium- and long-term vision would have made good use of that political capital to shore up support, cement alliances and friendships, and start paving the way for a pre-emptive war, in essence an unprovoked act of aggression and a very serious step indeed. Instead, Bush chose to spend a year and a half rattling his cannon, issuing threats and insults, signalling to every leader friendly to him that he has more important things to think about than their issues, and displaying a shockingly naive unilateralism in a variety of forums. He tried to make a case for war, relying more on bluster and repeated assertions than on evidence or the influence of friendly nations, and he (predictably) failed.
Then he turned around and, in a colossal exhibition of stupidity for the benefit of those few who didn’t yet think him a cretin, told the UN that it was going to be his way with or without the rest of the world. This while he was seeking the very support of the UN, mind you. “Give me, or else”.
Visible result: an illegitimate war of aggression driven by a leader who has a hidden agenda (be it oil, or conquest, or whatever, the point here is not the actual fact but what masses think it is). The war lacks UN support, meaning people in the region are inflamed beyond belief even though everyone realizes what kind of evil dictator Saddam is. Imperialist and colonial powers who, it is remembered, have done abundant damage to Arabs in the past are once again meddling in the region and attacking Arabs and Muslims. And so forth, refer to Collounsbury’s thread for more details on the perceptions and reactions engendered by this war.
It may have been a big fire before, as you say, but Bush just poured napalm on it and shooed away the firefighters. This is a serious problem the effects of which will linger long after the war is won. The radicals that are being formed by this conflict right now across the entire Arab and Muslim worlds won’t go away as soon as the fighting stops. They’ll be engaged in efforts against Americans, they’ll be spreading their hateful propaganda (including broadcasting), recruiting, training, raising funds, travelling, setting up networks and cells, and so forth – while the ability of ME governments to combat terrorism and radicalism has been slashed by the popular opposition to the war. Someone in another thread said that this war was a propaganda coup for Al Qaeda, or something to that effect. Absolutely, sadly, correct.
As an aside, on theonion.com you’ll see a great caption on the right side: “New Bomb Capable Of Creating 1,500 New Terrorists In Single Blast”. Good satire, recommended.
The above deserves emphasis. I must add though that the suggestion (not put forward by the poster quoted above) that the present war is a military response to terrorism is downright idiotic. Iraq had not committed any acts of terrorism against the US at all, and was not connected to any that we know of. That so many people are spewing this terrorism rubbish is evidence of the success of the administration’s propaganda conflating Iraq with the war on terror.
I think terrorism is fueled by both US foreign policy and their stance on Israel. Here’s an excerpt of an article on this site:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/2901495.stm
“The Americans thought they were going to be greeted by celebrations and ululating women as they walked into Basra,”
“But what they don’t realise is that people hate and fear them even more than they may hate or fear Saddam Hussein.”
Candidates for liberation
The reason for this fear and hatred, Khalid says, stems from the perception that Washington gives unqualified support for Israel, a country known here for gross human rights violations of Palestinians, threatening its neighbours and possessing weapons of mass destruction.
“These are exactly the things the Americans and British accuse Saddam Hussein of doing - so why don’t they go to Palestine and liberate the Palestinian people from Israeli occupation, instead of ‘liberating’ Iraq - from an Iraqi leader?”
Fact is, they never asked the Americans to come and liberate them. I have yet to see dancing people in the streets in the liberated area’s.
And the way the US is behaving, i’d say it the current US administration that wants to be the dominant way of life in the world.
These folks weren’t doing that 3 weeks ago?
Sure they were. It’s just now there’s going to be a whole load more cannon fodder for them to use.
Yeah thats it. The complaints are invalid. Of course. There IS no real reason for terrorism.
You are either:
-
A humanities student writing a thesis on the responses elicited on a message board using intentionally provocative and contrary elenctic.
-
FITH
Lets view it from the obverse side. Can it help/hinder efforts to prevent terrorist attacks?
After 9/11, America was the focus of an astonishing outpouring of sympathy. (I’m especially mindful of such scenes as a German candlelight vigil, with one wearing a shirt saying Ich bin ein Americaner…that sort of thing). We have quite thoroughly pissed that away.
Ferreting out vermin that flit from country to country requires maximum international cooperation, dogged intelligence gathering and relentless, patient surviellance. Not the sort of thing that can be accomplished by massive military power. Quite the opposite.
Even if we had not encouraged the development of further terrorists. we have hindered our own efforts to frustrate what terrorism already exists. We need the sympathy and cooperation of other nations, especially Islamic nations. Our contempt for thier opinions can hardly been said to further our cause.
Ah, well. At least we have forced Saddam to pay for the attack on Pearl Harbor.
antechinus: december isn’t #1 on your list. And you can’t say #2 in GD. 
We do need their cooperation, but sympathy is not the only motivator, nor is it the strongest one. A more long-lasting way to encourage cooperation would be demonstrating that we take the situation very seriously.
Let them hate, so long as they fear?
Nah, “Oderint dum metuant” sounds much more imperial.