- Joined
- Mar 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,536
- Reaction score
- 429
- Location
- Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan29.htmlFew 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."
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!
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: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 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: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.
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?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.
Do you know what Chicken Little used to say? "The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling!"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.
And you can prove this statement of "lesser of two evils" how exactly?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".
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: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 Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling!"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.
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: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.
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: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.
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: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.
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 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?"
I was going to go through every statement , but the above comment proves what it would be a waste of time.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.
26 X World Champs said:I just read a revealing piece by that flaming Liberal, Pat Buchanan.
I was being sarcastic......Pat's as right wing as they get and he even sees that the NEOCON agenda is pro-war for oil.IValueFreedom said:Since when was Pat Buchanan a modern day liberal?
Great rebuttal. Debating skills are an acquired talent, give it another shot?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.
Welcome to Debate Politics! :wcmIValueFreedom said:I see.
I don't know why I didn't catch that
Mr. Buchanan didn't say the things you're saying he said.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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?