• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

They ARE Over Here because We ARE Over There

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I just read a revealing piece by that flaming Liberal, Pat Buchanan. Scary as this might sound, he makes some points that I actually agree with! He wrote:
Few Americans have given more thought to the motivation of suicide-bombers than Robert Pape, author of Dying to Win: The Logic of Suicide Terrorism. His book is drawn from an immense database on every suicide-bomb attack from 1980 to early 2004. Conclusion: The claim that 9-11 and the suicide-bombings in Iraq are done to advance some jihad by "Islamofascists" against the West is not only unsubstantiated, it is hollow.

"Islamic fundamentalism is not as closely associated with suicide terrorism as many people think," Pape tells The American Conservative in its July 18 issue. Indeed, the world's leader in suicide terror was the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka. This secular Marxist group "invented the famous suicide vest for their suicide assassination of Rajiv Ghandi in May 1991. The Palestinians got the idea of the vest from the Tamil Tigers."

But if the aim of suicide bombers is not to advance Islamism in a war of civilizations, what is its purpose? Pape's conclusion:

"(S)uicide-terrorist attacks are not so much driven by religion as by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide terrorist campaign – over 95 percent of all incidents – has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw."

The 9-11 terrorists were over here because we were over there. They are not trying to convert us. They are killing us to drive us out of their countries.

Before the U.S. invasion, says Pape, "Iraq never had a suicide attack in its history. Since our invasion, suicide terrorism has been escalating rapidly, with 20 attacks in 2003, 48 in 2004 and over 50 in just the first five months of 2005. Every year since the U.S. invasion, suicide terrorism has doubled. ... Far from making us safer against terrorism, the operation in Iraq has stimulated suicide terrorists and has given suicide terrorism a new lease on life."

Pape is saying that President Bush has got it backward: The Iraq war is not eradicating terrorism, it is creating terrorists.

The good news? "The history of the last 20 years" shows that once the troops of the occupying democracies "withdraw from the homeland of the terrorists, they often stop – and stop on a dime."

Between 1982 and 1986, there were 41 suicide-bomb attacks on U.S., French, and Israeli targets in Lebanon. When U.S. and French troops withdrew and Israel pulled back to a six-mile buffer zone, suicide-bombings virtually ceased. When the Israelis left Lebanon, the Lebanese suicide-bombers did not follow them to Tel Aviv.

"Since suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation and not Islamic fundamentalism," says Pape, "the use of heavy military force to transform Muslim societies ... is only likely to increase the number of suicide terrorists coming at us."
Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan29.html

So is the solution to continued violence in Iraq for the US to withdraw? Will the insurgency then end? According to past history in the region the answer is YES! Withdraw and the battles stop. Stay and the violence against America & its allies will continue, if not increase OVER HERE!
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
26 X World Champs said:
So is the solution to continued violence in Iraq for the US to withdraw? Will the insurgency then end? According to past history in the region the answer is YES! Withdraw and the battles stop. Stay and the violence against America & its allies will continue, if not increase OVER HERE!
One problem Pape doesn't point out...the ramifications of leaving.

As I've stated before, Western Europe and Asia gets the most out of the resources out of the Middle East. The SECOND foreign troops leave the Middle Eastern region, the leadership in almost, if not all, nations will be overthrown by the fundamentalists who believe in "Sharia law" and want to continue living in the 600s. They would stop making these resources, (Yes, mostly oil), available to the rest of modern society, which would result in the economic downfall of half of the world.

A)Every nation in the Middle East would turn into a Taliban-like theocracy. That's a couple hundred million women going back to burkas. Stoning and beheadings would be the status quo. How many MILLIONS will die if they open their mouths and speak their mind? The Middle East will become a prison.

B)Only the leaders, much like now, would feed off of the capitalism that is trade. The general public in the Middle East would not see a thing. Just like Iraq, the people wouldn't get the medical supplies and things needed to sustain themselves while the leaders would be building more & more palaces dedicated to "Allah" and themselves. But they don't like western society, so the faucets would be shut off to them. China, Indonesia, & India would be practically GIVEN the oil at incrdibly cheap prices,and that's even an "IF", which would in turn "up the price" in countries that would still deal with modern society. That would lead to a WORLDWIDE economic downfall. You think paying for healthcare now in the US is bad? Imagine people giving up on heathcare altogether when they have to pay $10 for a gallon of gas and hundreds, possibly thousands more to heat their homes. Businesses would go bankrupt and scores of jobs would be lost. That's just America...Imagine that as a global crisis.

C) Local & International transportation would stop. Airlines would go under. Transit systems would grind to a halt. There's more jobs gone. Just the cost of shipping products would be too much to continue. More jobs gone and wordwide supplies depleted. The wheels of economy would be brought to a standstill.

D)More deaths would occur as a result from all of this than what happens now. Unfortunately, this IS the lesser of two "evils".

It's real easy to sit there and say "People want us to go, so we should go".
But to have the world continue to grow, both technologically and economically, all parties must be willing to keep up with the program. The current leadership in the Middle East is, at least, willing to play the game. The current alternative would make the Black Plague look like a walk in the park. There would come a time when modern society would have to say "screw it" and just take over the whole region...That's a few million dead EASY...on both sides.

Modern society's "pact with the devil" has been made. God's cruel joke of having the world's most backward region control the world's most valued resources has hampered peace and stability. As you can see by my response, just leaving and letting a minority of extremists take over is an option that will be more devastating to the world than anything that is happening now.
The only other alternative is to rid the world of the ones who hold these views, and to make the Middle East more agreeable to the growth of the rest of the world.

That's why I believe GWB has the right idea. By "planting the seeds" of democracy in Iraq(and Afghanistan), the rest of the Middle Eastern people will also want a "voice". They will see freedoms never before realized.

Sure its tougher now. It always is in the beginning. But 20, 30, even 50 years from now, the idea of keeping the Middle East from growing will be wiped out and the humiliation and frustration force-fed to the public will be a thing of the past.

So just sit there and appease the extremists...."just get out of their land and everyone will hold hands in peace & love". Keep thinking that.

But your attitude is what make these terrorists believe that their ultimate goal of taking over the whole Middle East and destroying the gloabal economy can be acheived. If that ever happened, your great-great-grandkids will be asking "How did the past leaders of the world let it come to this?"
 
S

Showtyme

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/22/o...serland&emc=rss

By OLIVIER ROY
Published: July 22, 2005
Paris

WHILE yesterday's explosions on London's subway and bus lines were thankfully far less serious than those of two weeks ago, they will lead many to raise a troubling question: has Britain (and Spain as well) been "punished" by Al Qaeda for participating in the American-led military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan? While this is a reasonable line of thinking, it presupposes the answer to a broader and more pertinent question: Are the roots of Islamic terrorism in the Middle Eastern conflicts?


If the answer is yes, the solution is simple to formulate, although not to achieve: leave Afghanistan and Iraq, solve the Israel-Palestine conflict. But if the answer is no, as I suspect it is, we should look deeper into the radicalization of young, Westernized Muslims.

Conflicts in the Middle East have a tremendous impact on Muslim public opinion worldwide. In justifying its terrorist attacks by referring to Iraq, Al Qaeda is looking for popularity or at least legitimacy among Muslims. But many of the terrorist group's statements, actions and non-actions indicate that this is largely propaganda, and that Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine are hardly the motivating factors behind its global jihad.

First, let's consider the chronology. The Americans went to Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11, not before. Mohamed Atta and the other pilots were not driven by Iraq or Afghanistan. Were they then driven by the plight of the Palestinians? It seems unlikely. After all, the attack was plotted well before the second intifada began in September 2000, at a time of relative optimism in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

Another motivating factor, we are told, was the presence of "infidel" troops in Islam's holy lands. Yes, Osama Bin Laden was reported to be upset when the Saudi royal family allowed Western troops into the kingdom before the Persian Gulf war. But Mr. bin Laden was by that time a veteran fighter committed to global jihad.

He and the other members of the first generation of Al Qaeda left the Middle East to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980's. Except for the smallish Egyptian faction led by Ayman al-Zawahiri, now Mr. bin Laden's chief deputy, these militants were not involved in Middle Eastern politics. Abdullah Azzam, Mr. bin Laden's mentor, gave up supporting the Palestinian Liberation Organization long before his death in 1989 because he felt that to fight for a localized political cause was to forsake the real jihad, which he felt should be international and religious in character.

From the beginning, Al Qaeda's fighters were global jihadists, and their favored battlegrounds have been outside the Middle East: Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya and Kashmir. For them, every conflict is simply a part of the Western encroachment on the Muslim ummah, the worldwide community of believers.

Second, if the conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine are at the core of the radicalization, why are there virtually no Afghans, Iraqis or Palestinians among the terrorists? Rather, the bombers are mostly from the Arabian Peninsula, North Africa, Egypt and Pakistan - or they are Western-born converts to Islam. Why would a Pakistani or a Spaniard be more angry than an Afghan about American troops in Afghanistan? It is precisely because they do not care about Afghanistan as such, but see the United States involvement there as part of a global phenomenon of cultural domination.

What was true for the first generation of Al Qaeda is also relevant for the present generation: even if these young men are from Middle Eastern or South Asian families, they are for the most part Westernized Muslims living or even born in Europe who turn to radical Islam. Moreover, converts are to be found in almost every Qaeda cell: they did not turn fundamentalist because of Iraq, but because they felt excluded from Western society (this is especially true of the many converts from the Caribbean islands, both in Britain and France). "Born again" or converts, they are rebels looking for a cause. They find it in the dream of a virtual, universal ummah, the same way the ultraleftists of the 1970's (the Baader-Meinhof Gang, the Italian Red Brigades) cast their terrorist actions in the name of the "world proletariat" and "Revolution" without really caring about what would happen after.

It is also interesting to note that none of the Islamic terrorists captured so far had been active in any legitimate antiwar movements or even in organized political support for the people they claim to be fighting for. They don't distribute leaflets or collect money for hospitals and schools. They do not have a rational strategy to push for the interests of the Iraqi or Palestinian people.

Even their calls for the withdrawal of the European troops from Iraq ring false. After all, the Spanish police have foiled terrorist attempts in Madrid even since the government withdrew its forces. Western-based radicals strike where they are living, not where they are instructed to or where it will have the greatest political effect on behalf of their nominal causes.

The Western-based Islamic terrorists are not the militant vanguard of the Muslim community; they are a lost generation, unmoored from traditional societies and cultures, frustrated by a Western society that does not meet their expectations. And their vision of a global ummah is both a mirror of and a form of revenge against the globalization that has made them what they are.

Olivier Roy, a professor at the School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences, is the author of "Globalized Islam."
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
cnredd said:
The SECOND foreign troops leave the Middle Eastern region, the leadership in almost, if not all, nations will be overthrown by the fundamentalists who believe in "Sharia law" and want to continue living in the 600s. They would stop making these resources, (Yes, mostly oil), available to the rest of modern society, which would result in the economic downfall of half of the world.
What countries are you talking about? Since when is OPEC Western friendly? Your stated opinion just doesn't have any basis in fact, I'm sorry. The only country we have a "presence" in is Iraq. What other countries are you referring to?
cnredd said:
A)Every nation in the Middle East would turn into a Taliban-like theocracy. That's a couple hundred million women going back to burkas. Stoning and beheadings would be the status quo. How many MILLIONS will die if they open their mouths and speak their mind? The Middle East will become a prison.
What countries do you mean? You're making some very harsh claims without one fact or even one specific mention of the countries that would topple and lead to "millions" of deaths? I read this and felt like it reminded me of Republican "scare" tactics, usually born in untruths, that have no factual base and are meant to scare people into going along with their beliefs.
cnredd said:
But they don't like western society, so the faucets would be shut off to them. China, Indonesia, & India would be practically GIVEN the oil at incrdibly cheap prices,and that's even an "IF", which would in turn "up the price" in countries that would still deal with modern society. That would lead to a WORLDWIDE economic downfall.
With all due respect, what are you talking about? You make what I consider to be outrageous statements about the end of the world as we know it yet you fail to provide one shred of evidence to back up your doom and gloom theory?

Here's a bit of news for you...Indonesia is an oil producing country and a member of OPEC.....
cnredd said:
You think paying for healthcare now in the US is bad? Imagine people giving up on heathcare altogether when they have to pay $10 for a gallon of gas and hundreds, possibly thousands more to heat their homes. Businesses would go bankrupt and scores of jobs would be lost. That's just America...Imagine that as a global crisis.
Do you know what Chicken Little used to say? "The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling!"
cnredd said:
D)More deaths would occur as a result from all of this than what happens now. Unfortunately, this IS the lesser of two "evils".
And you can prove this statement of "lesser of two evils" how exactly?
cnredd said:
It's real easy to sit there and say "People want us to go, so we should go". But to have the world continue to grow, both technologically and economically, all parties must be willing to keep up with the program. The current leadership in the Middle East is, at least, willing to play the game.
What leadership is that, please? I just don't know who you're speaking about since you've not made mention of anyone or anything specific.
cnredd said:
The current alternative would make the Black Plague look like a walk in the park. There would come a time when modern society would have to say "screw it" and just take over the whole region...That's a few million dead EASY...on both sides.
"The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling!"
cnredd said:
Modern society's "pact with the devil" has been made. God's cruel joke of having the world's most backward region control the world's most valued resources has hampered peace and stability. As you can see by my response, just leaving and letting a minority of extremists take over is an option that will be more devastating to the world than anything that is happening now.
I completely and thoroughly disagree with your conclusions. As the original post points out what you're suggesting has never happened nor is it even in the realm of possibility.
cnredd said:
The only other alternative is to rid the world of the ones who hold these views, and to make the Middle East more agreeable to the growth of the rest of the world.
Exactly who do you want to get rid of now that Saddam is gone? Where does the war machine move to next? What right do we have to invade other sovereign nations? Until Karl Rove we never invaded anywhere FRIST. The disgusting NEOCON mentality to conquer the world through war is dispicable, and yes, very, very UNAMERICAN! It is evil, wrong and would make us no better than the evil dictators we supposedly want to topple.
cnredd said:
That's why I believe GWB has the right idea. By "planting the seeds" of democracy in Iraq(and Afghanistan), the rest of the Middle Eastern people will also want a "voice". They will see freedoms never before realized.
NEWSFLASH - We didn't invade Iraq to "plant" squat. We invaded to control their oil. There was nothing noble about our invasion, it was all bullshit to fool suckers in America who believe their President and their government. Rove and his evil bad doers used your trust to forward their real agenda for oil. The incredibly sick thing is that they did so at the outrageous cost of American lives and money, and we will all pay whenever the next attack on our soil happens.
cnredd said:
But your attitude is what make these terrorists believe that their ultimate goal of taking over the whole Middle East and destroying the gloabal economy can be acheived. If that ever happened, your great-great-grandkids will be asking "How did the past leaders of the world let it come to this?"
Prove your statements, PLEASE! Show me one shred of evidence that there's an evil plot to destroy the global economy? I think it is totally and completely untrue.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
26 X World Champs said:
NEWSFLASH - We didn't invade Iraq to "plant" squat. We invaded to control their oil. There was nothing noble about our invasion, it was all bullshit to fool suckers in America who believe their President and their government. Rove and his evil bad doers used your trust to forward their real agenda for oil. The incredibly sick thing is that they did so at the outrageous cost of American lives and money, and we will all pay whenever the next attack on our soil happens.
I was going to go through every statement , but the above comment proves what it would be a waste of time.

The Kool-Aid has been sipped. The liberal Borg has taken you over.
 

IValueFreedom

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
168
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
26 X World Champs said:
I just read a revealing piece by that flaming Liberal, Pat Buchanan.

Since when was Pat Buchanan a modern day liberal?
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
cnredd said:
I was going to go through every statement , but the above comment proves what it would be a waste of time.

The Kool-Aid has been sipped. The liberal Borg has taken you over.
Great rebuttal. Debating skills are an acquired talent, give it another shot?

Mr. Henky would poo-poo your point of view too....You made outlandish claims without stating even one fact, and when asked to provide proof to your outrageous claims you divert your response. The NEOCON methodology is something that you've picked up well. How about backing up your doom and gloom post with some facts? If you can't I must assume that you simply made it all up....as will most others in this community as in a debate one is supposed to provide FACTS to prove their points, you didn't provide even one fact....You did attack me personally though, thanks so much...
 

IValueFreedom

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
168
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I see.

I don't know why I didn't catch that ;)
 

FiremanRyan

Active member
Joined
Jun 24, 2005
Messages
283
Reaction score
1
Location
Chico, CA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Pat Buchanan spun that whole argument

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime

….Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled



im having a hard time find the words "terrorism" or "9/11" anywhere in that resultion. yet he likes to turn it into our sole reason for being there. why were in Iraq for the reasons stated and whether you think its right or wrong is a completely different discussion. but what youre saying is that if we left Afghanistan, terrorists from that country will stop targeting us? i doubt it. and why do most terrorists come from countries we dont even have a real presence in?
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
FiremanRyan said:
Pat Buchanan spun that whole argument
im having a hard time find the words "terrorism" or "9/11" anywhere in that resultion. yet he likes to turn it into our sole reason for being there. why were in Iraq for the reasons stated and whether you think its right or wrong is a completely different discussion.
Mr. Buchanan didn't say the things you're saying he said.
The quotes that seem to indicate this position weren't from Mr. Buchanan. They were from someone else.
"Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war," he said, in "a global war on terror."
"Many terrorists who kill ... on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of citizens in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania."
 

FiremanRyan

Active member
Joined
Jun 24, 2005
Messages
283
Reaction score
1
Location
Chico, CA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
whether he said it or not, the context he uses the quotations in reflect his personal beliefs.

and that bit you just posted, it adds to the underlaying theme of the original post that these terrorists are specifically targeting Americans. more Iraqi's have been killed "in the streets of Baghdad " at the hand of terrorists than coalition forces.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
FiremanRyan said:
whether he said it or not, the context he uses the quotations in reflect his personal beliefs.

and that bit you just posted, it adds to the underlaying theme of the original post that these terrorists are specifically targeting Americans. more Iraqi's have been killed "in the streets of Baghdad " at the hand of terrorists than coalition forces.
Don't you just love the libs?

For the last 10 years, everytime you put out an article from Pat Buchanan, the response was "Big deal...Pat Buchanan's an idiot...It doesn't matter what he says".

Then, when he writes something that is even remotely on the other side of the aisle, it becomes, "LOOK! Pat Buchanan said it....It MUST be true!"
 
Top Bottom