Which do you agree with regarding terrorist attacks?

[SpeedRacer 1]

one of kelpdiver's posts got me thinking. Which statement do you agree with most?

1) They're trying to attack us here because we're over there.

2) We need to attack them over there so that they don't attack us here.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[likearock 2]

Quote

one of kelpdiver's posts got me thinking. Which statement do you agree with most?

1) They're trying to attack us here because we're over there.

2) We need to attack them over there so that they don't attack us here.

Or 3) It's more difficult for them to attack us here so, if we weren't over there, we'd be attacked less overall.

[Lindsey 0]

I don't think anybody's trying ALL that hard to attack us at all. BUT I think that because we're over there, they like us less and want to hurt us more.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[kschilk 0]

Neither. They attack us here, only because they want what we have here, over there....they're just not willing to work for it. Oil is a "western" thing as are computers, telephones and automobiles but even the most extreme of them, won't get up offa' any of it. Seriously....we probably shoulda' left Hitler alone.

"T'was ever thus."

[happythoughts 0]

Because of the internet, tv, and international travel, they are aware of the outside world and its culture. That is the threat.

Being there inflames the situation, but leaving will not end it. Tv, radio, and the internet will continue to send that cultural message.

Women who are driving cars, being independent, wearing non-traditional clothing, and getting educations. These are just a few examples.

Alcohol, promiscuity, and a myriad of Western lifestyle issues.

The Arabs and Israelis have battled each other for centuries. It is the existence of the other that is the problem.

Now, with world wide travel, US culture is next door.

As long as the US exists, it will be a moral issue to them.

[Lindsey 0]

US culture is next door

They wear nontraditional clothing in France too. And those independent Italian women are also allowed to drive cars. Russian women are getting educations too.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

US culture is next door

They wear nontraditional clothing in France too. And those independent Italian women are also allowed to drive cars. Russian women are getting educations too.

We must be talking about different stuff.

I was addressing this question.

Quote

Which do you agree with regarding terrorist attacks?

1) They're trying to attack us here because we're over there.

France, Italy, and Russia haven't been trying to send terrorists to attack US interests domestically and abroad. So, I'm not sure what your answer means.

I was speaking about Muslims from the Middle East who attacked the WTC twice, the USS Cole, two US embassies in Africa, and a variety of other attempts.

US culture is viewed (probably correctly) as destructive to the Islamic fundamentalist culture.

My answer is, essentially, that they are not attacking the US because we are there. They are attacking the US because it exists.

[Lindsey 0]

US culture is viewed (probably correctly) as destructive to the Islamic fundamentalist culture.

My answer is, essentially, that they are not attacking the US because we are there. They are attacking the US because it exists.

I understood your point, I think. You mentioned that in the US, women don't dress traditionally, women are educated and drive cars. There are obviously other things, too, that we do in the US that some Middle-easterners might be opposed to. But people throughout most of the world do these same things. So, my point is.....what's different about the US? Heck, we're much more uptight than the French as far as clothing goes. Ya' don't get arrested for showing your tits in France. Might it be that we do things like, say, attack people without cause????? I'm sure it's more than that....but it's also more than the simple things we do that folks from Iraq might not like.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

I don't think anybody's trying ALL that hard to attack us at all. BUT I think that because we're over there, they like us less and want to hurt us more.

linz

I think you are wrong in that people are not trying hard to attack us here.

Not to belittle your opinion, but I don't think you would like what the outcome of ceasing to interdict terrorist activities both here, and abroad.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

So, my point is.....what's different about the US? Heck, we're much more uptight than the French as far as clothing goes. Ya' don't get arrested for showing your tits in France.

True. I see your point. If all these countries have the same, or greater, cultural conflict, why the US?

The US has been a supporter of Israel in the ME for years. I am sure that is irritating. However, it was the French and British who re-divided up most of the ME.

Also, the French did go through a bad period during the 70s with Carlos (The Jackal) being paid to blow up a variety of targets.

Over the years, French engineers have developed a closer relationship with Iraq over the years. The Osiraq reactor and building during the Oil For Food program.

Italy had years of terrorism with homegrown European groups. Eventually, they realized that arresting terrorists means that more terrorists would take hostages to free them.

There was a lot of friction during the Achille Lauro incident.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Neither. They attack us here, only because they want what we have here, over there....they're just not willing to work for it. Oil is a "western" thing as are computers, telephones and automobiles but even the most extreme of them, won't get up offa' any of it. Seriously....we probably shoulda' left Hitler alone.

I think what many people overlook is that, traditionally, with western ways comes commercialization. All too often, with that commercialization comes a loss of local culture. It's far too easy to forget from our perspective that that loss of local culture is often undesirable.

I don't think the majority of people in the M.E. are afraid of modernization (e.g. computers, internet, etc.) as they are loss of their culture. They don't want to become another United States. They like their own identity.

If we are going to invest in their economies, we need to invest in their businesses, and let them run those businesses their way, not import our businesses over there in an attempt to get them to do things our way.

If we are going to invest in their governments, we have to let them do things their way; we can't dictate to them how things are going to be done. No sacrifice or contribution we make will make any difference if we don't let them own the process themselves, successes and failures alike.

We Americans all too often think of middle eastern peoples as barbaric and uncivilized, which is far from the truth. The depth of culture is much greater than our own.

To believe that they want there what we have here is short sided and naive. They want what they have, just a modern version of it. What they don't want is their rich culture to be lost in that modernization. American business is always eager to tap into new markets. If they wanted what we have, they could get the ball rolling with a phone call, without any need for violence.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 3,111]

>but I don't think you would like what the outcome of ceasing to
>interdict terrorist activities both here, and abroad.

Nor would we like the effects of others interdicting our occupational tendencies.

We are made safer by our efforts to interdict terrorist activities here, and made less safe by our occupation of Iraq. A wise choice might be to concentrate on preventing terrorist attacks, rather than taking actions that could well give rise to them.

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

Quote

I don't think anybody's trying ALL that hard to attack us at all. BUT I think that because we're over there, they like us less and want to hurt us more.

linz

I think you are wrong in that people are not trying hard to attack us here.

Not to belittle your opinion, but I don't think you would like what the outcome of ceasing to interdict terrorist activities both here, and abroad.

I can buy that....except I think we're only making things worse for ourselves, as far as people wanting to attack us, by being in Iraq.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

I can buy that....except I think we're only making things worse for ourselves, as far as people wanting to attack us, by being in Iraq.

9/11 happened before the US went to Iraq.

There was a laundry list of terrorist attacks before that.

While being in Iraq may not improve anything, it was pretty bad before.

Sept 11, 2001

Oct. 12, 2000 - USS Cole

Aug. 7, 1998 - Terrorist bombs destroy the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. In Nairobi, 12 Americans are among the 291 killed.

June 21, 1998 - RPG attack near the U.S. embassy in Beirut.

June 25, 1996 - Fuel truck bomb outside a USAF base in Saudi Arabia. 19 killed.

Nov. 13, 1995 - Car bomb Saudi Arabia.

Feb. 1993 - WTC attack 1.

[skysmurf2 0]

Do people in the US, honestly believe that the entire Middle East is burka clad, electronically deprived, and bereft of women drivers, etc???

Its mind boggling...

I think most prominent (influence and media attention) nations will attract vitriol. The vitriol can and will result in acts of terror -- how the nation then chooses to respond may or may not exacerbate the situation -- but prominent nations will attract attempts to garner attention (i.e. terrorist attacks) because the media reaction will spread their word (posively or negtively) across the world.

The Iraq war only offers further justification to the individuals planning attacks but attacks would happen regardless. Attacking America, Iraq war or not, gets them the most attention.

I am quite curious -- has the number of terrorist attacks (by non-US persons) increased since the war? Would Americans count the almost daily attacks (or attempts) on non-Iraqi persons in Iraq -- terrorist attacks or war casualties?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

US culture is viewed (probably correctly) as destructive to the Islamic fundamentalist culture.

My answer is, essentially, that they are not attacking the US because we are there. They are attacking the US because it exists.

I understood your point, I think. You mentioned that in the US, women don't dress traditionally, women are educated and drive cars. There are obviously other things, too, that we do in the US that some Middle-easterners might be opposed to. But people throughout most of the world do these same things. So, my point is.....what's different about the US?

I tend to agree with his thesis. It's not just the US, it's Western Civilization and they certainly are attacking more than just the Americans. One reason Europe is upset with the US stirring up the pot is that they are more likely to experience these attacks in the first place.

The US is the lead figure of the West, in particular in that its people live considerable well than the vast majority of those in these oil rich nations. Only a couple countries there are thinking to the future, the rest of buying lots of palaces and rolls royces. These power elite need an external demon to keep their poor distracted. But it's hard to do that when they can see a version of reality via tv, web, phone, etc.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

We Americans all too often think of middle eastern peoples as barbaric and uncivilized, which is far from the truth. The depth of culture is much greater than our own.

You appear to measure depth by age. Many of us measure it by quality.

The Middle East and its ancient culture missed the bus a half millenium back (if we're generous and include the Moors) and haven't progressed much since. Women have no rights, can be killed by their husbands. Sawing off the heads of live reporters is considered acceptable. Suicide bombing is not only a necessary approach, but a glorified one.

3 centuries of American culture has gone a lot further.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

one of kelpdiver's posts got me thinking. Which statement do you agree with most?

1) They're trying to attack us here because we're over there.

2) We need to attack them over there so that they don't attack us here.

This is the false dicotomy being put forth, with each side arguing one plank. But it's possible for both to be equally false, or equally true, rather than an either choice.

[champu 1]

Quote

I think what many people overlook is that, traditionally, with western ways comes commercialization. All too often, with that commercialization comes a loss of local culture. It's far too easy to forget from our perspective that that loss of local culture is often undesirable.

I don't think the majority of people in the M.E. are afraid of modernization (e.g. computers, internet, etc.) as they are loss of their culture. They don't want to become another United States. They like their own identity.

This is true, and it's cause for a lot of general disgust for the United States in many countries, not just middle eastern nations. I guess I can empathize with that, there's a lot of things about American "culture" that disgust me.

But I think saying that that's what organizations like Al-Qaeda, Jemaah Islamiyah, and Abu Sayyaf have set out to put an end to is giving them too much credit. I believe they've intentionally defined their goals such that they can't be met reasonably, and their resulting plan is carrying out what you can only describe as random attacks on the interests of states that have developed diplomatic or economic ties to peoples that they've grown to hate for other reasons.

We're just dopey bystanders.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

You appear to measure depth by age. Many of us measure it by quality.

Actually, I just try to refrain from assuming that my culture is superior simply because it's mine. There are lots of great things about American culture. There's also lots of things that are not worthy of pride.

Quote

The Middle East and its ancient culture missed the bus a half millenium back (if we're generous and include the Moors) and haven't progressed much since. Women have no rights, can be killed by their husbands. Sawing off the heads of live reporters is considered acceptable. Suicide bombing is not only a necessary approach, but a glorified one.

And the US imprisons more of its citizens, both in absolute terms and per capita, than any other nation in the world, a very significant portion of which have committed victimless crimes. Should we judge American culture solely by its dark sides? I don't think so. Nor do I believe we should judge middle eastern cultures solely by its dark side. In neither case is the dark side all that exists.

Quote

3 centuries of American culture has gone a lot further.

Has it? Are you referring to the American slaughter of indigenous peoples? Or perhaps our (more than a) century of slavery? Maybe you refer to politicians publicly supporting segregation? Perhaps you might be referring to our epidemic of obesity? Are you referring to our abundance of random violence in our schools? Maybe you're referring to how we brag about our democratic republic while most citizens are too lazy to bother going to the polls. Do you mean our excessive use of fossil fuels? Perhaps you're referring to our ~50 percent divorce rate?

Of course America is not all bad. There's a lot of great things about this country. But I don't wear the rose colored glasses necessary to believe it is all great. Like any other culture, including those in the middle east, ours has its good points and its bad points.

I suppose if one only acknowledges the good things about the US, and the bad things about other cultures then it's easy to take the moral high road. Personally, I try to look at things a little more objectively.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

But I think saying that that's what organizations like Al-Qaeda, Jemaah Islamiyah, and Abu Sayyaf have set out to put an end to is giving them too much credit. I believe they've intentionally defined their goals such that they can't be met reasonably, and their resulting plan is carrying out what you can only describe as random attacks on the interests of states that have developed diplomatic or economic ties to peoples that they've grown to hate for other reasons.

I don't believe such organizations are representative of Middle Eastern culture, any more than the KKK, Timothy McVeigh or Ted Kaczynski are representative of American culture. If we blame the actions of extremism on an entire culture, we should not be surprised if we are judged the same illogical way.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Of course America is not all bad. There's a lot of great things about this country. But I don't wear the rose colored glasses necessary to believe it is all great. Like any other culture, including those in the middle east, ours has its good points and its bad points.

This sounds like schools today - "we're all winners!"

I'll take America versus Saudi Arabia anyday, on any criteria.

[skysmurf2 0]

On any criteria...? So, you'd back America vs KSA if the issue at hand was -- no. of sand grains or religious impact???

I think its fairly narrow minded to: one equate KSA with the entire ME and two: to assume its a them vs us issue. Personally, I've spent a fair amount of time in both and choose neither... then again thats neither here nor there as the issue at hand is: did America's invasion (well actually Coalition forces' invasion) of Iraq increase the no. of terrorist attacks against the US.

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

But I think saying that that's what organizations like Al-Qaeda, Jemaah Islamiyah, and Abu Sayyaf have set out to put an end to is giving them too much credit. I believe they've intentionally defined their goals such that they can't be met reasonably, and their resulting plan is carrying out what you can only describe as random attacks on the interests of states that have developed diplomatic or economic ties to peoples that they've grown to hate for other reasons.

I don't believe such organizations are representative of Middle Eastern culture, any more than the KKK, Timothy McVeigh or Ted Kaczynski are representative of American culture. If we blame the actions of extremism on an entire culture, we should not be surprised if we are judged the same illogical way.

Your analogy is bogus for the following reason. The U.S. doesn't have scores of religious and educational institutions that celebrate McVeigh, Kaczynski and their underlying philosophy. In the Middle East, by contrast, there are a great many mosques and madrassas that do just that for their extremists. Their extremism is much more integrated into the overall culture than ours.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

This sounds like schools today - "we're all winners!"

Hey, they're your rose colored glasses.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!