The Deceptive Debate Over What Causes Terrorism Against the West

[TheDemSocialist]

I want to focus instead on one specific argument that has arisen as part of Corbyn’s cabinet “re-shuffling” because it has application far beyond Her Majesty’s realm. One of the shadow ministers replaced yesterday by Corbyn is a total mediocrity and non-entity named Pat McFadden. He claims (plausibly enough) that he was replaced by Corbyn because of remarks he made in the House of Commons after the Paris attack, which the British media and public widely viewed as disparaging Corbyn as a terrorist apologist for recognizing the role played by Western foreign policy in terror attacks. (Can you fathom the audacity of a Party leader not wanting ministers who malign him as an ISIS apologist?)
Other Labour MPs resigning from their positions today in protest of McFadden’s dismissal have expressly defended the substance of McFadden’s remarks about terrorism; one of them, Stephen Doughty, tweeted this today, with the key excerpt of McFadden’s statement about terrorism:


This claim — like the two ousted shadow ministers themselves — is so commonplace as to be a cliché. One hears this all the time from self-defending jingoistic Westerners who insist that their tribe in no way plays any causal role in what it calls terrorist violence. They insist that those who posit a causal link between endless Western violence in the Muslim world and return violence aimed at the West are “infantilizing the terrorists and treating them like children” by suggesting that terrorists lack autonomy and the capacity for choice, and are forced by the West to engage in terrorism. They bizarrely claim — as McFadden did before being fired — that to recognize this causal link is to deny that terrorists have agency and to instead believe that their actions are controlled by the West. One hears this claim constantly.
The claim is absurd: a total reversal of reality and a deliberate distortion of the argument. That some Muslims attack the West in retaliation for Western violence (and external imposition of tyranny) aimed at Muslims is so well-established that it’s barely debatable. Even the 2004 task force report commissioned by the Rumsfeld Pentagon on the causes of terrorism decisively concluded this was the case:

Read more @: The Deceptive Debate Over What Causes Terrorism Against the West

What is often ignored, war breeds terrorism. Why does ISIS attack who it attacks? How does it select its targets to use terrorism against? Its not complete irrationality.... And why do many people become radicalized? A key variable almost all of the time is they were radicalized by western violence in their countries... Is this the only variable? Nope. But often times its one of the key variables. Often times when this is pointed out, they are quickly labeled "terrorist sympathizers".

 

[Crovax]

Read more @: The Deceptive Debate Over What Causes Terrorism Against the West

What is often ignored, war breeds terrorism. Why does ISIS attack who it attacks? How does it select its targets to use terrorism against? Its not complete irrationality.... And why do many people become radicalized? A key variable almost all of the time is they were radicalized by western violence in their countries... Is this the only variable? Nope. But often times its one of the key variables. Often times when this is pointed out, they are quickly labeled "terrorist sympathizers". [/FONT][/COLOR]

Where are all the German, Japanese and Korean terrorist from the wars and subsequent occupations on those countries? Islam breeds terrorism and it has since Muhammad died.

 

[Beaudreaux]

What's deceptive is when anyone says that they know what causes terrorism against the west, because what follows is always a political screed - regardless of whether it's from the right or left.

Each person that chooses to commit terror does so for THEIR reasons, which vary widely.

 

[Gardener]

What a profoundly stupid article. I can't imagine anybody with even an average IQ falling for it.

The attempts to reduce a complex social phenomenon to such a simple-minded variable may appeal to those who cannot grasp anything that is not utterly simplistic, but if western involvement in other countries produces terrorism, why isn't it as common arising from those who are not Islamic?

Any attempt to to simplify this issue that fails to take into account the notion of Jihad or the culture of the terrorists is simply an attempt to appeal to children and acts as nothing but propaganda rather than serious analysis.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Where are all the German, Japanese and Korean terrorist from the wars and subsequent occupations on those countries?

Are you denying the variable(s) presented in the article?

"The claim is absurd: a total reversal of reality and a deliberate distortion of the argument. That some Muslims attack the West in retaliation for Western violence (and external imposition of tyranny) aimed at Muslims is so well-established that it’s barely debatable. Even the 2004 task force report commissioned by the Rumsfeld Pentagon on the causes of terrorism decisively concluded this was the case:

Islam breeds terrorism and it has since Muhammad died.

Any religion can be a variable in terrorism and the article recognizes that.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

What a profoundly stupid article. I can't imagine anybody with even an average IQ falling for it.

Hmmmmmmmmmm

The attempts to reduce a complex social phenomenon to such a simple-minded variable

You must of read a different article because it in no way does that and even states in the article that its stupid to reduce this to one variable...
"Obviously, none of this is to say that Western interference in that part of the world is the only cause of anti-Western “terrorism,” nor is it to say that it’s the principal cause in every case, nor is to deny that religious extremism plays some role. Most people need some type of fervor to be willing to risk their lives and kill other people: It can be nationalism, xenophobia, societal pressures, hatred of religion, or religious convictions. But typically, such dogmatic fervor is necessary but not sufficient to commit such violence; one still needs a cause for the targets one selects."

 

[Gardener]

Hmmmmmmmmmm


You must of read a different article because it in no way does that and even states in the article that its stupid to reduce this to one variable...
"Obviously, none of this is to say that Western interference in that part of the world is the only cause of anti-Western “terrorism,” nor is it to say that it’s the principal cause in every case, nor is to deny that religious extremism plays some role. Most people need some type of fervor to be willing to risk their lives and kill other people: It can be nationalism, xenophobia, societal pressures, hatred of religion, or religious convictions. But typically, such dogmatic fervor is necessary but not sufficient to commit such violence; one still needs a cause for the targets one selects."

The stupid article flat out stated that we are not hated for our freedoms yet Bin Laden's letters to America was replete with such hatred.

Leftist ideologues who are sympathetic to the Islamist agenda always overlook that. Talk about dogmatism!

 

[TheDemSocialist]

The stupid article flat out stated that we are not hated for our freedoms yet Bin Laden's letters to America was replete with such hatred.

:roll: That was actually the Pentagon report commissioned by Rumsfeld in 2004.. http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA428770.pdf

Leftist ideologues who are sympathetic to the Islamist agenda always overlook that. Talk about dogmatism!

Good god :roll: I have a feeling you still have not read the article

 

[OrphanSlug]

The real deception is the suggestion that terrorism against the west is all because of one reason.

 

[Fletch]

Read more @: The Deceptive Debate Over What Causes Terrorism Against the West

What is often ignored, war breeds terrorism. Why does ISIS attack who it attacks? How does it select its targets to use terrorism against? Its not complete irrationality.... And why do many people become radicalized? A key variable almost all of the time is they were radicalized by western violence in their countries... Is this the only variable? Nope. But often times its one of the key variables. Often times when this is pointed out, they are quickly labeled "terrorist sympathizers". [/FONT][/COLOR]

If terrorism is a result of Western aggression (meaning its our fault :roll the why are the vast, vast majority of the victims of terrorism other Muslims?

 

[TheDemSocialist]

If terrorism is a result of Western aggression (meaning its our fault :roll

Its saying it is a variable but not the only variable. I mean this shouldn't be that controversial...

the why are the vast, vast majority of the victims of terrorism other Muslims?

Well this is in regards to violence against the west. And I guess to answer your question to why most victims of Islamic-terror are muslims is because thats where they are from and are involved in a civil war there...

 

[TheDemSocialist]

The real deception is the suggestion that terrorism against the west is all because of one reason.

No-one is doing that here nor is the article...

 

[OrphanSlug]

No-one is doing that here nor is the article...

Actually, it more or less is. An argument to dismiss the position of others and reduce it down to western interventionism and violence. I am not saying that is not involved, but I refuse to get on the political grandstanding bandwagon of running around with a greater interest in dismissing others for political reasoning than actually dealing with terrorism against the west from the host of reasons for it.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Actually, it more or less is.

No its not. Just read the article

An argument to dismiss the position of others

Its not doing that either

and reduce it down to western interventionism and violence.

Nor does it reduce it to only those two variable

I am not saying that is not involved, but I refuse to get on the political grandstanding bandwagon of running around with a greater interest in dismissing others for political reasoning than actually dealing with terrorism against the west from the host of reasons for it.

1.)Its not doing that
2.)Its bringing it up because of a recent event of what happened in the UK when a member of parliament resigned and when he did said Jeremy Corbyn was a terrorist sympathizer because Corbyn often brings up the variable of Western Interventionism has a way that leads to support for terrorism. That is what sparked the interest to write the story.

 

[OrphanSlug]

No its not. Just read the article

Its not doing that either

Nor does it reduce it to only those two variable

1.)Its not doing that
2.)Its bringing it up because of a recent event of what happened in the UK when a member of parliament resigned and when he did said Jeremy Corbyn was a terrorist sympathizer because Corbyn often brings up the variable of Western Interventionism has a way that leads to support for terrorism. That is what sparked the interest to write the story.

You don't get to have this both ways.

Either the article eliminates the arguments it does not agree with as reason for terrorism against the west or not. Which is it?

 

[TheDemSocialist]

You don't get to have this both ways.

What are you talking about? What two ways was their an option to "choose"?

Either the article eliminates the arguments it does not agree with as reason for terrorism against the west or not. Which is it?

Ummm.. :doh Dear god. This is not that hard to understand the premise of the article.
The article is about terrorism, what causes people to join terrorist organizations like ISIS, and why terrorists attack certain countries and not others. It goes into multiple variables, it states that there are many variables in play here, it recognizes them, such as religious extremism, xenophobia, societal pressures, hatred of religion, religious convictions, etc. But then it recognizes one variable that is often not brought up, or if brought up political opponents will call the individual recognizes this variable a "terrorist sympathizer", the variable that western interventionism also leads to extremism and terrorism and these groups mainly target the countries of the west involved in this intervention against them... Why is this variable brought up here in the article? Well because a recent event that happened in the UK...

I mean this is not really a hard premise to grasp... Its not hard to understand the conclusion/point. I mean just read the last 2 paragraphs. Sums it up pretty well..

"By pointing out the causal connection between U.S. violence and the decision to bring violence to the West, one is not denying that the attackers lack agency, nor is one claiming they are “forced” by the West to do this, nor is one “infantilizing” them. To recognize this causation is to do exactly the opposite: to point out that some human beings will decide — using their rational and reasoning faculties and adult decision-making capabilities — that violence is justified and even necessary against those who continually impose violence and aggression on others (and, for the logically impaired, see the update here on explaining — yet again — that causation is not the same as justification).

It’s understandable that self-loving tribalistic Westerners want to completely absolve themselves and their own violent societies of having any role in the terrorist violence they love to denounce. That’s the nature of the tribalistic instinct in humans: My tribe is not at fault; it’s the other tribe to which we’re superior that is to blame. But blatantly distorting the debate this way — by ludicrously depicting recognition of this decision-making process and causal chain as a denial of agency or autonomy — is not an acceptable (or effective) way to achieve that."


I mean its essentially accepted as fact that interventionism and war in the middle east is a variable which has lead to an increase in radical islamic terrorism (Also cited in the article)....

So your argument of somehow making this some sort of ultimate variable and somehow trying to make this some sort of "either or" argument is pretty silly and just doesnt make sense.

 

[Gardener]

:roll: That was actually the Pentagon report commissioned by Rumsfeld in 2004.. http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA428770.pdf

Which was highlighted in this childish article.

Good god :roll: I have a feeling you still have not read the article

oh, no, I read it. It was yellow journalism at its worst, raving about people "viciously maligning" Corbyn if they criticized the fact he considers blatant terrorists to be his close friends and waxing hysterically about "self-defending jingoistic westerners" applied to any who do not share his sympathies as he repeats Islamic terrorist talking points as if they were pearls of pure wisdom.

This is just another in a long line of anti-western yellow journalists going on and on with their hackneyed "blowback" idiocy, all with nary a mention that other cultures do not produce terror in anything close to the same fashion as Islamic. The reason is obvious to those who are not children requiring simple-minded excuses -- it is because other cultures do not have Jihad as their central purpose.


Now, I realize you have nothing remotely similar to a scientific background as all you do is promote any opinion piece you encounter from extreme leftist sources, but there is a little notion called scientific method. Scientific method consists of advancing a hypothesis, testing that hypothesis, and having that hypothesis confirmed no matter who is conducting it. This is not a scientific lab, of course, but the hypothesis here is that Western involvement in other countries produces terrorism. With that in mind, we would expect to see worldwide terrorism arising from other cultures in equal measure to those producing these Jihadists.

Even young children should be able to figure out that if it only produces terrorism in one specific instance and not in any others, that it is the CULTURE producing the terrorism that is more responsible for the terrorism than the western involvement.

 

[Gardener]

You don't get to have this both ways.

Either the article eliminates the arguments it does not agree with as reason for terrorism against the west or not. Which is it?

Speaking of both ways, the article went on about drone strikes, apparently unaware of the relationship between cause and effect.

To accept that the cause of 911 or prior Arab terrorism lies in events that occurred decades afterwards takes a very special kind of faith, don't you think?

 

[faithful_servant]

Read more @: The Deceptive Debate Over What Causes Terrorism Against the West

What is often ignored, war breeds terrorism. Why does ISIS attack who it attacks? How does it select its targets to use terrorism against? Its not complete irrationality.... And why do many people become radicalized? A key variable almost all of the time is they were radicalized by western violence in their countries... Is this the only variable? Nope. But often times its one of the key variables. Often times when this is pointed out, they are quickly labeled "terrorist sympathizers". [/FONT][/COLOR]

So Muslim v. Muslim terrorism is caused by Muslim v. Muslim wars???

 

[faithful_servant]

Are you denying the variable(s) presented in the article?

"The claim is absurd: a total reversal of reality and a deliberate distortion of the argument. That some Muslims attack the West in retaliation for Western violence (and external imposition of tyranny) aimed at Muslims is so well-established that it’s barely debatable. Even the 2004 task force report commissioned by the Rumsfeld Pentagon on the causes of terrorism decisively concluded this was the case:

Any religion can be a variable in terrorism and the article recognizes that.

Please explain how the majority of Muslim terror attacks are Muslim v. Muslim. Is ISIS responding to Iraq's war on them??

 

[akrunner88]

Where are all the German, Japanese and Korean terrorist from the wars and subsequent occupations on those countries? Islam breeds terrorism and it has since Muhammad died.

Germany and Japan have excellent economies that provide the masses with economic mobility, one of the things lacking in most of the Middle East.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Please explain how the majority of Muslim terror attacks are Muslim v. Muslim. Is ISIS responding to Iraq's war on them??

Yes... They are directly fighting each other...

 

[TheDemSocialist]

So Muslim v. Muslim terrorism is caused by Muslim v. Muslim wars???

Do you not understand that we are involved in this war, and we have been directly involved militarily in the Iraq region for about 13+ years now?

 

[faithful_servant]

Do you not understand that we are involved in this war, and we have been directly involved militarily in the Iraq region for about 13+ years now?

So Muslims are attacking Muslims because we stepped in and stopped the worst gov't on the planet from further slaughtering it's citizens, attacking other nations and supporting terrorists?? That's what's causing Muslims to attack other Muslims???

 

[kjwins]

Still rings true today.

I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed, without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today – my own government.”


― Martin Luther King Jr.