Monday, August 29th 2005
What’s New
The second article of Kerry Eskenas’ two-part series is now available:
I noticed how careful Israeli soldiers are during their anti-terror operations. Israeli soldiers will risk their own lives to avoid killing even one civilian. Mistakes do happen when defending Israel, but innocent people are never deliberately targeted. Israel is—and must be, because of the scrutiny of the world community—more careful than any other country to gather accurate intelligence and to clear out the area of civilians using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). These UAVs spot terrorists from miles above before any attack commences. The Jerusalem Undercover Unit is highly trained to kill only the terrorist—and only out of defense would they shoot anyone else on the scene.
It doesn’t matter. Why should we be spending money helping any other country when we have all of our own problems in this country to deal with, including illegal immigration.
Comment by Fresh Prince — 8/29/2005 @ 9:40 pm
Well, Fresh Prince, did it ever occur to you that what happens in other parts of the world can affect us here at home? The U.S. can learn a lot from Israel’s experience in dealing with terrorism so that we can improve our own homeland security. Sure, illegal immigration is one of many problems that we have in our country, but that doesn’t mean that we should ignore the rest of the world. From what I’ve learned in history classes, the extreme isolationist philosophy that you’ve brought up here was shown not to be in the U.S.’s best interests in the previous century (for example, WWII).
Comment by Kerry — 8/29/2005 @ 10:48 pm
You can’t compare this to World War II; they’re two separate cases. The reason al Qaeda was formed in the first place was because of our support for Israel and the fact that we have military bases in the holy city of Mecca in Saudi Arabia.
Do you honestly think these terrorists hate us because they hate our freedom or because we have troops in their country?
Comment by Fresh Prince — 8/30/2005 @ 7:02 am
I am not saying that the situation is the same as it was for WWII, but my point is that the isolationist policy of the U.S. before we entered WWII was not the best policy, and I don’t think it’s the best policy today when dealing with terrorism either. Ignoring the rest of the world and therefore enabling terrorists to create havens out of Middle Eastern states would ultimately undermine our own homeland security. To answer your question, I believe terrorists hate us for ideological reasons, as I said in my article. But it’s irrelevant that you believe differently, because we are not talking about causes of terrorism– we are talking about how to best deal with terrorism. That is a completely different question, and isolationism is not the answer.
Comment by Kerry — 8/30/2005 @ 9:22 am
No, no, no you’re missing the point. Sine the CAUSE of terrorism is something we’re doing (having a presence in the Middle East) understanding why they hate us will help us determine the best solution.
Think about it. Suicide bombings are driven by one objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. Take Lebanon, Iraq, Isarel, Chechnya, and Kashmir - Every major suicide terrorist campaign. In nearly all of these incidents, the goal of the bombings was to tell 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 the Middle East.
Until the war, Iraq NEVER had a suicide attack in its history. Since the 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. Operation Iraqi Freedom has stimulated suicide terrorists and has given suicide terrorism a new lease on life.”
We’re fighitng this war the wrong way - We’re not eradicating terrorism; we’re engendering hatred and creating terrorists. Since suicide bombings are primarily a response to foreign occupation, it’s only likely to increase the number of suicide bombings over here.
What the White House has proposed - a neoconservative World War III by invading Islamic countries, democratizing them, and continuing to support Israel, is like grabbing a beehive and trying to kill the bees inside with your own hands. No matter how hard you try, you’re inevitably going to get stung. It is the presence of U.S. troops in Israel and the Middle East that is the root of suicide terrorism.
So altogether, Dr. Bush’s cure for terrorism is the cause of the disease. The longer we stay in Iraq and the longer we support Israel, the greater the number of suicide attacks we can expect. The sooner we STOP, the sooner terrorism over there and over here will end. Until, we leave the Middle East, we can only expect terrorism to continue.
Comment by Fresh Prince — 8/30/2005 @ 10:05 am
What you’re suggesting is that, in response to terror attacks, we should withdraw our troops. If the U.S. did this, the terrorists would have succeeded in their mission. Of course terror attacks wouldn’t happen if our troops weren’t in the region and Israel didn’t exist. The entire point of their attacks is to impose their ideology on everyone. I understand what you’re saying but I completely disagree with you. In order to solve the problem, you want the U.S. to let the terrorists win. That certainly would eliminate terrorist attacks, but that is the worst solution I’ve ever heard. You think that by withdrawing our troops and letting terrorists survive in that region, the problem would be isolated there and would never affect us on our homeland. However, their extremist ideology calls ultimately for a world ruled by Islamic law. So, don’t think that they’d stop once they conquered the Middle East.
Comment by Kerry — 8/30/2005 @ 11:28 am
I think his point, as well as the opinion of many others, is that we create terrorists by our presence ‘over there’. It’s not a matter of ‘letting them win’, it’s a matter of what’s in our best interest in terms of future terror attacks. Just because their interest (getting us to leave) happens to be in our best interest as well does not mean we should consider our best interest wrong and abandon it. It’s chauvantistic and pigheaded to only think about making sure they don’t get what they want and forget about what is in our best interest.
Comment by cw — 8/30/2005 @ 11:45 am
Also, the claim that terrorists wanting to conquer America is hardly substantiated by evidence…at least not to the point that we can say with a great deal of certainty that they hate ‘what we do’ rather than ‘who we are’. Terrorists may rely on the emotional response of individuals in desperate situations, but they are hardly insane to the point where they try to take on a task beyond their means.
Comment by cw — 8/30/2005 @ 11:58 am
Kerry has just taken the bait of neo-con fearmongering. People in the middle east have been painted as primitive savages: some are just barbarians and the rest need to be westernized and brought to our ways. Either way the view demands for something to be done over there. Well, the stiff resistance showed that we are not wanted. The point was already made that there is actually more terrorism now; they want the occupation out (and so should we).
Comment by HB — 8/30/2005 @ 12:14 pm
cw and fprince,
what about the series of terrorist attacks in Turkey a while back? (as far as your theory that only countries that are tampering with the holy lands, etc are attacked)
for the record, turkey’s parliament wouldnt even vote to allow US forces to base in Turkey for our assault on Iraq (and there are countless other countries in the area/ central asia that allowed us to use bases.
I guess you could make the argument that “western” symbols were attacked, but there are probably western symbols in every country on earth, and still mostly turkish citizens were killed.
still, that’s only one example, and I agree that their main reason for terror is likely not that they hate our freedom. But I think it’s larger than our military presence in the holy lands, I’d write more but have to get back to work.
Comment by thomas — 8/30/2005 @ 1:43 pm
Fresh, if the United states had your attitude then we would have lost the Cold War (let alone how WW II would have turned out). With no Marshall plan, Europe would have continued to starve and Western Europe would have become Soviet puppet states. In general, any allies we had would gradually leave us as they realized that we would not support them when they actually needed it.
And if we had not supported Israel in the past, there would have been a second holocaust as the Egyptian and Syrian (and other) armies slaughtered anyone they could find in Israel. Israel is also incidentally, about the only democracy in the Middle East, a strong US friend and ally, and stopped Saddam Hussein from building nuclear weapons in the 1970s.
As for Iraqi suicide bombers, you seem to have forgotten that Saddam was funding them in Israel, and building units of them in Iraq.
American troops and Israel have nothing to do with Al Qaeda attempting to assassinate the pope in the 1990s.
Lastly, in the last few years, in Lebanon, Morocco, and Indonesia, support for Bin Laden and suicide bombings has dropped markedly, while support for democracies has grown.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/14/AR2005071401030_2.html
Support for “violence against civilians in defense of Islam” in Lebanon has fallen from 73% to 39%, Morocco from 40% to 13%, and Indonesia from 27% to 15%.
Support for Bin Laden has fallen from 58% to 35% in Indoensia, 49% to 26% in Morocco, and from 14% to only 2% in Lebanon.
Support for their own county being a democracy is at 77% in Indonesia, and 83% in both Morocco and Lebanon.
CW, terrorists are quite willing to take on the United States. Since we invariably retreated and barely responded in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, to terrorist attacks, it only emboldened them
to continue. Bin Laden made comments to the effect that they had defeated the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and the United States would be easier.
Comment by Michael C. Mikulis — 8/30/2005 @ 1:47 pm
Thomas, you prove our point. The terrorist attacks in Turkey were right outside the British consulate in Istanbul and an important British-owned bank.
Comment by cw — 8/30/2005 @ 3:36 pm
MCM:
“Take on the United States” meaning what exactly? Take over the United States? That’s what Kerry’s implying, and what I’m refuting. Taking on the Soviet Union (as you mentioned) meant evicting their troops from Muslim land…not taking over the Soviet Union. Bin Laden’s comments reaffirm my point exactly: their interest is primarily to get us out of the Middle East, “taking over” the US is not within their abilities. But I’ll assume you just misread mine and Kerry’s earlier comments.
Comment by cw — 8/30/2005 @ 3:52 pm
cw, just because it’s not within their abilities to take over the U.S. right now doesn’t mean that it won’t be in the future if we decide to let them thrive in the Middle East. Why do you think they’d limit themselves to the Middle East if they had the capability of taking over the West? They hate Western values and feel that our culture is a threat to the survival of theirs. Just because they claim that their attacks are a response to economic or political injustice doesn’t mean that these aren’t distractions from an underlying ideological mission. On my trip, I heard plenty of speakers saying that most Muslims in the region realize that currently the world situation doesn’t allow Islamic law to be instated everywhere. However, many believe that ultimately conditions will change and, when that occurs, Islamic law will come to dominate the world.
Comment by Kerry — 8/30/2005 @ 5:12 pm
Kerry, you’re suggesting that somewhere down the line in the distant future that may be their plan. I don’t disagree with you, but the same could be said for many groups, not just terrorists.
But let me address the suggestion in the context of anyone hoping to “take over the world”.
Isolationist policy–more appropriately called “non-interventionist”–means staying out of other regions when it’s not beneficial for our own survival and in our best interest. (Keep in mind that creating enemies is not in our best interest.) Regional powers, however, would be responsible to keeping down expansionist moves by ambitious forces. That doesn’t mean that we won’t fight out of self defense if we’re attacked by an expansionist force. But you have to know the scope of the battle.
Comment by cw — 8/31/2005 @ 9:30 am
CW, even if we stopped supporting Israel, had never supported Israel, and pulled out any US presence from the Middle East (this includes economic and embassies), the terrorists would still want to attack the United States. Our existence itself is a challenge to them since the United States shows the world how succesful a people can be when they don’t try to live in the 8th century. Spain pulled out of Iraq being promised by Al Qaeda that they would stop attacking Spain in return, and Spain’s retreat only emboldened the terrorists to launch additional attacks.
Al Qaeda is insane enough to take on a task far beyond their means. They decided to have a war with the most powerful nation in the world. Like the fascists in the 1930s and 1940s, they think the United States as a democracy is too weak to have the will to fight.
Isolationism means staying out of other regions period, whether it is in your interest or not. Ultimately, a country never gets involved in a region unless it is in its own best interests, even if it’s just to help friends and allies.
Lastly, you mentioned that in terms of having a long term plan for taking over the world, “the same could be said for many groups”. Who? China is getting powerful, but I don’t think they’re interested in world domination. Putin just wants to reestablish the Soviet Union with their satellite states again.
Comment by Michael C. Mikulis — 8/31/2005 @ 11:15 am
Oh please, do you actually believe they hate us because they hate freedom and democracy?
Comment by Fresh Prince — 8/31/2005 @ 12:27 pm
Yes. More precisely, they view the United States as an immoral society. Alot of them fear that our succesful political and economic systems will influence their young people and is thus a threat to their own society. Also, many regimes in the Middle East (like Egypt and Saudi Arabia) stay in power by blaming all of their problems on the United States.
Comment by Michael C. Mikulis — 8/31/2005 @ 2:24 pm
That’s not what the former President of Malaysia, (a Muslim) Mahathir Mohammed said:
http://www.malaysia-today.net/Blog-e/2004_12_07_MT_BI_archive.htm
You guys really need to understand the root of the cause before making these kinds of statements …
Comment by Fresh Prince — 8/31/2005 @ 3:17 pm
Umm…Kevin, did you go join the LaRouchites or something over the summer? I seriously can’t believe you are saying these things.
Is this actually you?
Comment by Morbo — 8/31/2005 @ 3:22 pm
No but I joined the Pat Buchanan-ites.
http://www.theamericancause.org
Comment by Fresh Prince — 8/31/2005 @ 5:54 pm
And I would cite this column by Mr Buchanan which pertains to this topic:
http://www.theamericancause.org/a-pjb-050713-kill.htm
Comment by Fresh Prince — 8/31/2005 @ 5:58 pm
I looked at that article, Fresh Prince. “Islamic fundamentalism is not as closely associated with suicide terrorism as many people think”– just because there have been suicide bombings not related to jihadism doesn’t mean that there isn’t an jihadist movement that the United States is specifically targeting. The War on Terror is a war against the Islamic fundamentalism that the U.S. encountered on 9/11 and for that reason the claim in the article that “the aim of suicide bombers is not to advance Islamism in a war of civilizations” is simply incorrect. The aim of those suicide bombers that we are specifically against IS to advance Islamism in a war of civilizations. A major problem that the U.S. is dealing with is the fact that there is state-sponsored terrorism. Of course terrorists want to drive the U.S. and other democratic nations out of “their” countries– because terrorists want to be the ones controlling the governments. The claim in the article that the Iraq War has “created” terrorists is flawed in my opinion– do you really think that all of the terrorists appearing now in Iraq are native Iraqis? Terrorists view Iraq for what it currently is– an unstable region that could succumb to their control if they fight hard enough for it. If the U.S. wins in Iraq, that would be a major blow to terrorists who would now have another democracy, besides Israel, in their midst. If the U.S. withdraws from Iraq without leaving a stable regime behind, terrorists will have another venue through which they could commit even more horrendous attacks against the Western world. And yes, they do hate freedom and they do hate Western values. I completely agree with Michael who posted that Islamic extremists feel threatened because Western nations are so successful. The article says that “suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation and not Islamic fundamentalism.” But suicide terror is a relatively recent phenomenon– why did Palestinians not resort to suicide attacks when they were occupied by Muslim countries such as Jordan? They began this only after Israel, a Jewish democracy, became the occupying country. In other words, I agree with you that suicide bombers want to get rid of foreign occupation. But what I’m saying is that they want to get rid of that type of foreign occupation that is non-Muslim and that crushes their ability to commit terror attacks against the West.
Comment by Kerry — 8/31/2005 @ 7:05 pm
Adolf Hitler doesnt hate freedom at all. he just hates what the western democracies *do*
how dare they defend poland and czechslovakia! if we just let him take the sudetenland, he’d leave us alone!
the soviet communists dont hate freedom! they hate what we *do*
if we just let them continue to aid communist overthrows around the world, in latin america and else where, theyll leave us alone! seriously, how dare we build a nuclear arsenal? if we just stopped building our arms, theyd stop. right?
this form of logic doesnt work guys! we have historical reasons to believe that. if we stop aiding israel, the only democracy in the middle east, is that preferable? do we want fewer democracies in the world? and besides, the US gives more aid to the palestinians than anyone else. the reason we dont give them more is the lack of transperancy, a trait commonly associated with … democracy!!!! if al queada really were pissed at us because of these actions, then their persception is quite misguided to say the least. if they really wanted whats best for muslims around the world, why not start with building palestinian infastructure, among other things.
Comment by ben chapman — 9/1/2005 @ 9:43 am
Of course, the US knows what’s best for everyone? Right? The US government that is.
After this little failed crusade we will find ourselves with more enemies, hopelessly in debt and our soldiers fighting with chineese-made M16.
How disasterous must the fall be to break through the hubris of today’s neo-cons?
Comment by HB — 9/1/2005 @ 11:45 am
I’d appreciate it if those who repeatedly claim that “terrorists terrorize us because they hate our freedom!” would provide some sort of evidence, especially since proving their motivation is not self-evident by their actions. Thus far I haven’t seen substance presented, aside from Kerry’s anecdotal non-proof. Actual evidence, I’m afraid, suggests al-Qaeda terrorism to be a response to US (and now coalition) actions rather than jealously or hatred of political freedoms.
Ben Chapman, you’ve inadvertantly stepped backwards into a minefield. While your attempt at bringing up parallels is obviously weak, you point out how narrow-sighted people can be in this debate. So here’s your history lesson: Adolf Hitler and the Soviets did hate a lot of what the US and the West did.
You’re supposedly a history expert (at least that’s what your Patriot column would like us to believe). How did the Nazi regime rise to power in Germany? Don’t look dumb and reject the key importance of the war burden from the First World War.
And the Soviets? Remember how the Soviets came to power after the Bolsheviks claim that Russia had been dragged into a Western war?
This isn’t to claim any of them are correct. My point is that underlying motivations are important. Don’t deceive yourself.
Comment by cw — 9/1/2005 @ 12:51 pm
Hovannes,
I attended a few Congressional hearing this summer, and although I don’t have the evidence on me, quite a few witnesses in hearing regarding Israel showed videos of Imams and Clerics, subtitled, who say with no compunction that Israel and America are evil and must be destroyed since we are sinful. There was an exchange between an Imam and one of his parishoners where the Mulsim man asked “What happens when we kick America out of our lands?” The Imam responded “Then we move into theirs and continue Allah’s work.”
Palestinians TV routinely shows propaganda films showing Jews controlling the world and America as a land of filth and moral depravation. None of these images had anything to do with Saudi lands or an incursoin into Iraq. These were all films from before 9/11, in fact.
These people don’t exactly hide the fact that they hate us. They are incdeibly open about it. Read http://www.memri.org sometimes.
Comment by Morbo — 9/1/2005 @ 2:27 pm
And Hovannes, who cares about the techincal root cause that creates the hate? Bolsheviks ordered all their people to liquidate the Kulaks. Now, Lenin himself surely had political reasons for this, but the majority of Bolsheviks simply hated the Kulaks since they were oppressors and stealing from the people. There was no rational way for the Kulaks to save themselves.
Same with Jews and Hitler. Hate is self-perpetuating.
Comment by Morbo — 9/1/2005 @ 2:29 pm
what does WWI have to do with the ideology of the nazi regime? true it led to the popularity of it and enabled the nazi party to win a significant enough portion of seats in the reichstag (enough to essentially stage a coup and eliminate all other parties) but what does WWI have to do with a lack of political freedoms? you can want to rebuild infastructure and put an end to hyperinflation, sure. but hating jews? come now!
and as for the communists, i know youve read the communist manifesto. thats their ideology. did they practice it? well not really, we both know that from gregors class (ie, all “communist” nations were very nationalisitic, and had huge state bureaucracies as opposed to the stateless society marx envisioned) but they still believed in world wide revolution, and to that end, funded communist overthrows around the world. but the manifesto’s prescription of world revolution was written in 1848, before WWII or the cold war. how can US actions have effected that?
ideology matters. their causes do too, of course. but come on. adolf hitler was crazy. stalin was crazy. communism is a boogus ideology. and i would contend that osama bin laden is a mad man, and instead of isolating ourselves (you could make the argument of appeasement) we should treat extremist islam as we treated nazism and communism, as an evil to be confronted. should we reward terrorism? if we stop aid to israel, we do. if we pull out of iraq, we would. and whats to stop them from asking for more after that? and a little more? and a little more? its happened before, thats the point of my little history anaolgies. we gave hitler the sudetenland. he wanted more. we showed weakness in the bay of pigs. the soviets put nukes in cuba. our actions do matter, hovannes, you are right. but id rather our actions be of strength, not weakness.
was going after hitler to defend poland a worth while cause? would it have been a worth while cause to disarm him in 1935, after he violated the treaty of versaille? wanting to end reperation payments is one thing. nazism is completely another, and hitler used WWI to manipulate the masses for support of his cause. i would argue that bin laden is doing the same today over israel.
at what point, hovannes, would you say enough is enough and finally say that the extremist are asking for too much, that altering our actions in the face of terrorism and evil is not an option? i dont mean this to criticize or attack you, im just curious. you know i respect you and your opinions.
Comment by ben chapman — 9/2/2005 @ 10:38 am