Now, of course, today we have 150,000 troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and we are more in control of the Arabian Peninsula than ever before.
The evidence shows that the presence of American troops is clearly the pivotal factor driving suicide terrorism.
TAC: Does al-Qaeda have the capacity to launch attacks on the United States, or are they too tied down in Iraq? Or have they made a strategic decision not to attack the United States, and if so, why?
RP: Al-Qaeda appears to have made a deliberate decision not to attack the United States in the short term. We know this not only from the pattern of their attacks but because we have an actual al-Qaeda planning document found by Norwegian intelligence. The document says that al-Qaeda should not try to attack the continent of the United States in the short term but instead should focus its energies on hitting America?s allies in order to try to split the coalition.
What the document then goes on to do is analyze whether they should hit Britain, Poland, or Spain. It concludes that they should hit Spain just before the March 2004 elections because, and I am quoting almost verbatim: Spain could not withstand two, maximum three, blows before withdrawing from the coalition, and then others would fall like dominoes.
That is exactly what happened. Six months after the document was produced, al-Qaeda attacked Spain in Madrid. That caused Spain to withdraw from the coalition. Others have followed. So al-Qaeda certainly has demonstrated the capacity to attack and in fact they have done over 15 suicide-terrorist attacks since 2002, more than all the years before 9/11 combined. Al-Qaeda is not weaker now. Al-Qaeda is stronger.
Originally posted by: homercles337
@ syzygy, did you not read the article? I get the idea you just clipped pieces you disagreed with. Pretty stupid, IMHO, given that its really informative.
RP: The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are 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 the incidents?has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw.
TAC: That would seem to run contrary to a view that one heard during the American election campaign, put forth by people who favor Bush?s policy. That is, we need to fight the terrorists over there, so we don?t have to fight them here.
RP: Since suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation and not Islamic fundamentalism, the use of heavy military force to transform Muslim societies over there, if you would, is only likely to increase the number of suicide terrorists coming at us.
Since 1990, the United States has stationed tens of thousands of ground troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and that is the main mobilization appeal of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. People who make the argument that it is a good thing to have them attacking us over there are missing that suicide terrorism is not a supply-limited phenomenon where there are just a few hundred around the world willing to do it because they are religious fanatics. It is a demand-driven phenomenon. That is, it is driven by the presence of foreign forces on the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. The operation in Iraq has stimulated suicide terrorism and has given suicide terrorism a new lease on life.
Originally posted by: syzygy
Originally posted by: homercles337
@ syzygy, did you not read the article? I get the idea you just clipped pieces you disagreed with. Pretty stupid, IMHO, given that its really informative.
yes, i 'clipped' PIECES from the article i disagreed with, as anyone would to point out false premises that underlie
the wrongheaded conclusion drawn by the author. there are other 'pieces' i could highlight to undercut the article
further.
he claims that al-qaeda has 'strategic objectives'. brilliant ! so what and no kidding ! but looking at their methods
and the resultant carnage should also inspire a little doubt (and moral revulsion) about the subject's 'grip on reality',
no ?
so you don't like the soldiers in your backyard; so you don't care that your gov't is friendly towards us; so you
don't care for the long term ramifications, whatever they may be, excusing your paranoia . . . and that still would
not justify suicide bombings. placing the loci on american military presence, the terrorist's strategic aims, and their
justifications, turns your attention away from the logic and claims made by osama, zawahiri, et al. thats nuts.
What the author fails to account for are the significant religious fundamentalist undertones that tend to define terrorist organizations.The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are 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 the incidents?has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw.
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
What the author fails to account for are the significant religious fundamentalist undertones that tend to define terrorist organizations.The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are 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 the incidents?has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw.
Osama, in many of his statements, makes reference to Islamic folklore, heroes and history...he often evokes the name of Allah, and defines his operations as a "jihad" against the west...suicide bombers are praised and celebrated as martyrs.
Of course terrorist attacks serve a clear strategic objective, and in some, but not all cases, those objectives include combating an occupational force...however, the author fails to address the fact that the common bond, recruiting tool and propganda machine that fuels these terrorist organizations is very much rooted in Islamic fundamentalism.
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
What the author fails to account for are the significant religious fundamentalist undertones that tend to define terrorist organizations.The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are 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 the incidents?has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw.
Osama, in many of his statements, makes reference to Islamic folklore, heroes and history...he often evokes the name of Allah, and defines his operations as a "jihad" against the west...suicide bombers are praised and celebrated as martyrs.
Of course terrorist attacks serve a clear strategic objective, and in some, but not all cases, those objectives include combating an occupational force...however, the author fails to address the fact that the common bond, recruiting tool and propganda machine that fuels these terrorist organizations is very much rooted in Islamic fundamentalism.
Yes, it seems he isn't putting 2 and 2 together. Of course there's strategic, political purposes... yet the methods and justification arise out of a barbaric culture that's dominated by a perverted religion. You cannot separate the two... they are consequences and corollaries of EACH OTHER.
So in your opinion, which is more to blame for suicide terrorist attacks -- the religion of the attackers or the occupation that they are reacting to?Originally posted by: cwjerome
Yes, it seems he isn't putting 2 and 2 together. Of course there's strategic, political purposes... yet the methods and justification arise out of a barbaric culture that's dominated by a perverted religion. You cannot separate the two... they are consequences and corollaries of EACH OTHER.
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So in your opinion, which is more to blame for suicide terrorist attacks -- the religion of the attackers or the occupation that they are reacting to?Originally posted by: cwjerome
Yes, it seems he isn't putting 2 and 2 together. Of course there's strategic, political purposes... yet the methods and justification arise out of a barbaric culture that's dominated by a perverted religion. You cannot separate the two... they are consequences and corollaries of EACH OTHER.
Not really. Check this out from the OP's linked article:Originally posted by: raildogg
most of them are religiously motivated. that speaks for itself
So now tell me what the primary factor is for these increased suicide terror attacks in Iraq.Another point in this regard is Iraq itself. Before our invasion, Iraq never had a suicide-terrorist attack in its history. Never. 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 that the United States has stationed 150,000 combat troops in Iraq, suicide terrorism has doubled.
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So in your opinion, which is more to blame for suicide terrorist attacks -- the religion of the attackers or the occupation that they are reacting to?Originally posted by: cwjerome
Yes, it seems he isn't putting 2 and 2 together. Of course there's strategic, political purposes... yet the methods and justification arise out of a barbaric culture that's dominated by a perverted religion. You cannot separate the two... they are consequences and corollaries of EACH OTHER.
I'm simply using Iraq as the most recent example.Originally posted by: raildogg
So suicide terrorist attacks are only limited to Iraq now?
are we forgetting other conflicts?
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Not really. Check this out from the OP's linked article:Originally posted by: raildogg
most of them are religiously motivated. that speaks for itself
So now tell me what the primary factor is for these increased suicide terror attacks in Iraq.Another point in this regard is Iraq itself. Before our invasion, Iraq never had a suicide-terrorist attack in its history. Never. 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 that the United States has stationed 150,000 combat troops in Iraq, suicide terrorism has doubled.
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So in your opinion, which is more to blame for suicide terrorist attacks -- the religion of the attackers or the occupation that they are reacting to?Originally posted by: cwjerome
Yes, it seems he isn't putting 2 and 2 together. Of course there's strategic, political purposes... yet the methods and justification arise out of a barbaric culture that's dominated by a perverted religion. You cannot separate the two... they are consequences and corollaries of EACH OTHER.
Anyone who reads it and dismisses it is a non-thinking automaton
Another point in this regard is Iraq itself. Before our invasion, Iraq never had a suicide-terrorist attack in its history. Never