Terrorism? Global War On Terror?

[AK]

Of course, we are in opposition to both, but when we say that wars in Iraq, etc. are brutal wars for oil and greed, how do we justify this when there are in fact extremist groups operating in the war zones? We're certainly not gonna go and support Al Qaeda or the Taliban but then what stance do we have? How can we justify our position against this war to patriotic people of all sorts when terrorists are real and they do attack civillians - although not so much of a threat as the media would have us believe :confused:

[Os Cangaceiros]

How did the extremist groups come into existance in the first place? Were there a bunch of people hanging out in the Middle East one day, looking at a map and suddenly deciding that they hate the United States and Westerners?

The methods and tactics of groups like Al-Qaeda can not and should not be justified; they can only be explained within a context, just like everything else in this world. Explaining Islamic fundamentalism as a byproduct of pure hate and envy is a lot easier than looking back to CIA-aided suppression of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, though, I suppose...

[CartCollector]

Were there a bunch of people hanging out in the Middle East one day, looking at a map and suddenly deciding that they hate the United States and Westerners?No, they were looking at our laws, not a map. They hate us for our freedom, you know.

Seriously though, religion at the very least influences Middle Eastern terrorism, if not causes it. Bin Laden was related to the Saudi royal family and could have had loads of cash if he wanted, but decided to live a poor life in the mountains, fighting a holy war. Why did he do so? Is it because the US screwed him in some way?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Of course, we are in opposition to both, but when we say that wars in Iraq, etc. are brutal wars for oil and greed, how do we justify this when there are in fact extremist groups operating in the war zones? We're certainly not gonna go and support Al Qaeda or the Taliban but then what stance do we have? How can we justify our position against this war to patriotic people of all sorts when terrorists are real and they do attack civillians - although not so much of a threat as the media would have us believe :confused:

These groups arise out of western imperialism they do not come out of nowhere. A war on terror escalates terrorism. I know this isn't something that can persuade nationalists but if you are speaking to an American you can point to Reagan meeting with Saddam Hussein, the argument of going to invade Iraq being that he was a dictator although the US have no problem installing dictators in the Americas when ever they see fit. You can also point to Bin Laden working for the CIA.

[Argument]

I think the leaders of the terrorists crave power. They get a sense of power when they manage to brainwash and control young men. The terrorist are manipulated by men in power, but also fueled by rage. I don't think it's justified, but it's understandable. After all, they have been oppressed for a long time by the Western World, by Europe, by the United States, by Israel.

The "War Against Terrorism" is a way to control the people. Look at all the laws the governments of the Western World have established! Look at all the surveillance cameras, all the restrictions, all the controls of different kinds. They use our fear to gain more power for themselves. Yes, sure they occasionally manage to stop a terrorist attack, but overall, I think we're moving towards a totalitarian and perhaps a fascist society, at least in Sweden... And the US... And the UK... And Italy... And French... Anyway, you get my point.

[AK]

Essentially, what I'm looking for is a rebuttal for the arguement of "If we pull out now, then the terrorists win!".

[CartCollector]

"We" (our rulers) lost when "we" invaded the countries. So if we pull out now, our rulers are just making what happened a long time ago official. Terrorism is like trolling- the only way to win is to not play the game.


You can also point to Bin Laden working for the CIA.Wait, what evidence is there for this?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Wait, what evidence is there for this?

Bin Laden headed the Maktab al-Khidamar - the MAK - which directed money, arms and soldiers into the Afghan war. The MAK was nurtured by Pakistan's state security services, Inter-Services Intelligence Agency - ISI - which was the CIA's primary link towards conducting the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

[Ismail]

Essentially, what I'm looking for is a rebuttal for the arguement of "If we pull out now, then the terrorists win!".They do "win." It's like saying "If we pull out from Vietnam, the Vietcong/North wins!" in the 1960's or 70's. It's up to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq what government they wish to have, not the policy makers of Washington, who before 2001 were funding the Northern Alliance warlords in Afghanistan to fight against the Taliban.

Remove the "TALIBAN GONNA GO TO AMERICA AND SLIT YOUR THROAT EN MASSE" propaganda and the entire "OH GOD WE MUST STAY" argument crumbles.