Western Foriegn Policy is not to Blame for Terror Attacks

a reply to: Grambler

But perhaps justifying isn't the right word; how about belittling the responsibility of the real people responsible, the terrorists

I see this on the boards as well. Most but not all the time those people are
more about defending the innocent muslims but while doing so fail to condemn the
guilty ones. And then there are the out right terrorists defenders. Those people
just want to see chaos .

a reply to: Grambler

This is giving them the means to attack, but not the motive.

Depends. Some people are highly motivated with a splendid monthly salary alone, mercenaries for example.

My OP is addressing the claim that basically the US has it coming for bombing the terrorists countries. Yet it turns out, most of the attacks are from people the US has funded, not ones we have bombed.

Hence, the idea that these terrorists are all attacking because of interventions bombings is not the case.

Newsflash: the CIASIS get's crap done without military interventions, too!
What's your point? Do you have a point?

And again, you have totally changed the subject for the second time. How can you say these groups don't exists as an organized group, and then post about the US funding them?

Read more carefully, did I really say that? Don't think so, no.

My point was pretty straightforward: without international funding most of them would be non-existent, simple as that.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Grambler

Firstly I disagree with you and secondly can you point out anyone that has justified terrorism and or terrorists?

Pointing out the reason it has become such a large problem is hardly justification ....

There are many people that make this argument. Ward Churchill comes to mind, and many other academia types.

But perhaps justifying isn't the right word; how about belittling the responsibility of the real people responsible, the terrorists.

I can live with that, ultimately Personal responsibility is paramount.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Grambler



Depends. Some people are highly motivated with a splendid monthly salary alone, mercenaries for example.

Ah got it.

You think the terrorists that have attacked the west are mercenaries. Yep, you are delusional.

My point was pretty straightforward: without international funding most of them would be non-existent, simple as that.

But wait. Your movie says they don't exist as an organized group. So again, which is it?

But certainly international funding from all sources that fund them is a problem.

The West and its Israeli proxy have an obvious influence on Islamic history.

By eliminating and suppressing secular politics we created empty space.

A space culturally filled by the religious nutcases.

Mossadeq in Iran is a good example.

Wahabisim itself is a cultural reaction against "modern" ideas.

Secular politics did not develop or deliver progress.

The widespread failure of middle eastern society is the result.

The Soviets played their own game.

The made money and trouble at any opportunity.

Cultural Marxism is not a natural phenomenon.

It took care and feeding to develop.

We wanted a "strong Germany" between us and Stalin.

That backfired badly but gave us Israel.

Another tool to make trouble for the Arabs with Russian "advisors"

Lots and lots of questionable policy.

Very little good faith.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
How many Islamic terror attacks happened in the EU before 9/11?

That's a nonsense. You need to look beyond the simplicity that informs your world-view.

Islamic terrorism is connected with the apparently religious focus of these groups, and that is a recent phenomenon in the current guise. There has been quite a few incidents of terrorism carried out by Muslims across Europe prior to the 11 September atrocities. Terrorism has also impacted places where Muslims do not predominate e.g. in African countries and India etc...

Only in the last few decades has travel and migration allowed for Muslims to spread out from their own countries, thus the opportunity for Islamic terrorism has risen. The internet has also been an enabler for the dissemination of so called "radicalisation".

Regardless, across the Muslim world different denominations - notably Sunni and Shiite - have been terrorising each other for centuries, including under the recent umbrella of dictatorships. There is a reason why there was such widespread bloodletting when the dictator Saddam Hussain was removed, as each denomination decided to settle scores - the oppressed and the oppressor.

ISIS has made a point of persecuting anyone different (e.g. Muslim, Kurd, Christian), and the terrible stories of widespread rape and abuse of Yazidis women and girls is proof of this. However, this brutality and intolerance has been going on for ages across the Muslim world so is not unusual e.g. Christians and Jews, whose populations have crashed across the Muslim world.

originally posted by: Grambler
So you are really claiming there was not one terror attack in the EU prior to 9-11?

1985 El Descanso bombing.en.wikipedia.org...

That actually argues completely against your op claim. The US invaded Lebanon a couple years before in direct conflict with that same group that then went on to bomb American troops. So yeah, American foreign policy directly caused that attack.

It's like you're saying, "I fell asleep with a lit cigarette, but that didn't cause my house to burn down because houses have been burning down since before cigarettes existed." Jihadi terrorism existed long before the US did, but terrorist attacks on the west were nearly nonexistent before US imperialism. It plays a massive role.

I also don't think that muslims attack Europe because of foreign policies.
However it doesn't help that they hate our guts either. Could it be a 'noble' excuse to say they do these terror attacks for their people, when in fact it is an excuse?

I looked a lot into the history of islam and it takes more than just one link, but I haven't got the energy to do a whole thread.
Needless to say islam's goal is and has always been world domination.

This has started looooooooooooong before anyone ever bombed Syria. I am talking hundreds and thousands of years.
Here is a lovely timeline of islamic warfare and Europe:

www.thelatinlibrary.com...

Here is islamic spread in moving pictures:





Furthermore it makes no sense as OP already said about a hundred times, to oppress and kill their own people as they did in Raqqa. Those killings and oppressions were solely religious in nature.
Women were stopped if they weren't covered up properly, gay people were thrown of buildings, etc You can't tell me that this was a reaction to western bombings???

As I said, I have the feeling that 'some' [maybe one or two] terrorists may be doing their deeds because they want to revenge any foreign politics. However those would be the few intelligent ones. The rest are doing it for no other reason than power under the guise of their religion.

I feel that those here that completely ignore the fact that islam is not a religion as we know it but a reason for warfare, have just not enough insight.

You see it all through westernised eyes and use our way of thinking and project it on, what can only be called barbarians.
They don't think like us!
Those abroad are actually mostly uneducated and have no real ideas about foreign policy, yet they have a very good idea about the koran.

You can say that they are noble freedom fighters but you HAVE to also acknowledge islam's goals in general. If you don't, you are leaving out a vital fact. Which in my opinion is deliberate ignorance in order to further your ideas that 'the west is bad' and islam is lovely and peaceful.

Which is simply speaking propaganda for terrorism.

Hi,

While I understand your argument and you do bring up many other factors that contribute to the fuelling and motivations of terrorism, Western intervention most definitely does play a role.

Whilst not the sole contributor, it certainly radicalises people who see their quality of life diminished by real or perceived actions from by the West.

Furthermore, Islam is not confined to a single nation, therefore actions affecting Muslims in Iraq, for example, can help lead to the radicalisation of Muslims in other parts of the world, whether elsewhere in the Middle East or even by Muslims in the West.

There is so much more to this, but the TLDR version is; most experts (see Laquer, Nacos, etc., pick your favourite political scientist) agree that Western interventionist policies play (or at least played) a role in the proliferation of modern terrorism. In the field of Terrorism Studies, this is considered, virtually self-evident.

a reply to: BombDefined

In the field of Terrorism Studies, this is considered, virtually self-evident.

You'll have a hard time convincing the xenophobes on ATS, that they don't peddle clueless islamophobia. Even if that is precisely what they do. And in case you make a good point, they'll twist words in utter denial of a more productive conversation. It's kinda funny, actually.

Furthermore, Islam is not confined to a single nation, therefore actions affecting Muslims in Iraq, for example, can help lead to the radicalisation of Muslims in other parts of the world, whether elsewhere in the Middle East or even by Muslims in the West.

And then there's the lack of perspective and the growing frustration of the youth in poor countries, which have been exploited by the west for decades. Hence one could argue there are economic reasons as well, besides from any religious motivations or the loss of loved ones.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: Grambler

But I will be damned if I am going to ignore facts and act like this somehow justifies terror attacks on the western world.

Problem is you're creating a strawman to argue against...

Nobody says these attacks are "justified"...
Just that you cannot ignore the reality of what invasion has done to these people.


Your other point about attackers not coming from these countries means nothing.

The UK wasn't attacked on 9/11...
But we damn sure jumped into action alongside the US for a lovely bit of revenge, didn't we.

We lost quite a few citizens in the 9/11 attacks.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
How many Islamic terror attacks happened in the EU before 9/11?

That's a nonsense. You need to look beyond the simplicity that informs your world-view.

Islamic terrorism is connected with the apparently religious focus of these groups, and that is a recent phenomenon in the current guise. There has been quite a few incidents of terrorism carried out by Muslims across Europe prior to the 11 September atrocities. Terrorism has also impacted places where Muslims do not predominate e.g. in African countries and India etc...

Only in the last few decades has travel and migration allowed for Muslims to spread out from their own countries, thus the opportunity for Islamic terrorism has risen. The internet has also been an enabler for the dissemination of so called "radicalisation".

Regardless, across the Muslim world different denominations - notably Sunni and Shiite - have been terrorising each other for centuries, including under the recent umbrella of dictatorships. There is a reason why there was such widespread bloodletting when the dictator Saddam Hussain was removed, as each denomination decided to settle scores - the oppressed and the oppressor.

ISIS has made a point of persecuting anyone different (e.g. Muslim, Kurd, Christian), and the terrible stories of widespread rape and abuse of Yazidis women and girls is proof of this. However, this brutality and intolerance has been going on for ages across the Muslim world so is not unusual e.g. Christians and Jews, whose populations have crashed across the Muslim world.

When you attack another persons world view with your own it can be somewhat flawed.

I could now argue this has far less to do with religion, ethnicity than it has to do with economics.

The cold hard truth is money, or lack there of it is the actual cause of hell on earth. But hey don't let me tell you how to think .

8.11.2017

Since this North Korea "matter" heated up again, there haven't been any noteworthy terrorist attacks in the Western World, have there? I think the fight against ISIS is working, too.

Western foreign policy is the only thing to blame for terrorist attacks in the EU. That's because the EU has been supporting terrorism for much longer than any other Arab country. Terrorist armies trained by EU special forces and others, often within the territory of the EU itself is the ultimate reason of terrorist attacks, such as the latest ones in Finland and Spain.
The solution to this problem is the withdrawal of EU-NATO forces from Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and the total liberation of Syria from western backed terrorists. Moreover a full declaration of defeat of NATO is necessary for the sake of restructuring the military and intelligence of EU countries coupled with severe changes in immigration policies with shut down of the border with Africa.