Buchanan - "Why are they killing us?"
 

hxxp://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45259

*yawn*

Irrelevant man with irrelevant ideas.

Personally - this is a big "duh" for me. But, I guess my question is - why did this start? The author says in the 70's and 80's we had no issues. Therefore, was it Iraq's invasion of Kuwait that started this whole mess?

I found it very interesting. It leaves a couple questions unanswered (like why?), but its empirical observation is fascinating.

dola - the Arabs want us out of the Middle East, but that just isn't going to happen due to our relations with Israel. Bin Laden often speaks of the American military in his homeland (Saudi Arabia?) - but are we really going to leave there as well?

The "solution" for these suicide bombers is to chase the democracies out and then wipe Israel off the map. Sorry, there's no way in hell we're letting that happen.

Pat Buchanan is an isolationist. Which, as amdaily points out, makes him and his arguments irrelevant in my mind.

That's the problem. To prevent further attacks we need to bring ALL of the troops home from the Middle East, and stop our 100% support of Israel. The USA is not Israel.


Yeah, they hate all democracies, just like the "hate our freedom" huh? Can I have some Freedom Fries with that?

He's a conservative, not some radical who wants to colonize the Middle East. A much truer conservative than the clowns running the show right now.

I only mentioned they wanted democracies out because it was in the article YOU posted. "[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."

Thanks for the sarcasm and the end of intelligent discussion.

Focusing on Pat reporting it misses the key observations. The conclusions he draws are nonsense (since the war is not just about stopping suicide bombers), but the study he discusses is very interesting.

It shows faith is not the element (as I had assumed) that makes suicide bombing a viable strategy).

It shows that suicide bombing is a very unique, particular strategy deployed in very particular circumstances. I would be very interested to see why occupation is a unique driving force (is it just sheer desparation)?

It shows that suicide bombing is not endemic in the post-modern war era. In fact, the suicide bombing stops when the occupation ends.

The study really helps in understanding suicide bombing which is an important issue in discussing terrorism. Suicide bombers are thought to be undeterrable and fit outside of the traditional view of foreign policy. The study cited helps to fill the gap on why suicide bombers act the way they do.

I don't think the study says that, though. It says suicide bombings occur because of occupations. That is not the same thing as saying ALL attacks occur because of occupations. And that is why Buchanan's conclusions are divorced from the study.

It just so happens that it's democracies that are attempting to place military forces in these countries. The bombings would happen whether the countries were democracies or not.

Agreed, John - and a good point. People may mistake this article as terrorist ANYTHING when he is only speaking of suicide bombings. It would be interesting to find out what percentage of casualties are caused by this type as opposed to improvised device, etc.

Over where? We certainly were not in Iraq and Afghanistan at that time. Because we had troops in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait with the approval and support of their governments?

The only way to stop this terrorism in the short term is to abandon the Middle East and Israel entirely. As CraigSca said, not happening.

The quickest way to get peace in the region would be for Muslim leadership in the region to start condemning these attacks in Iraq, which are far more focused against other Muslims than against the Americans there. They're running car bombs into groups of children for crying out loud. But I guess since they're the minority Muslims, it's okay to bomb them as well.

Ahh religion, so good in theory, so bad in practice.

But support of the people? Weren't 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers from Saudi Arabia?


Unfortunately. It's a shame that the US people (and their protection) on the whole are not the main concern of the US government.


Here's some interesting thoughts. Iranian cleric says actions are horrible, not Islam...

hxxp://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=9141

Exactly. The groups of people that are falling victim to these suicide bombers seem to be by and large innocent civilians (fellow Muslims!) trying to live their lives. If the attacks were targeted solely against military targets, at least the victims in that case would be armed combatants, not just innocent civilians.

You're right, anytime there's a suicide bomber, the government must IMMEDIATELY cater to their demands. Ridiculous.

How is this article a refute to the Iraq war?
If we accept everything in the study as fact, if we withdraw entirely from the middle east the bombings will stop, then we still have a long term problem. Under this scenario there is no way that the middle eastern countries will evolve into states that are compatible with the rest of the world. Our withdrawal would lead to radical Islamic leaders in every nation in the region, a region that will still share borders with vulnerable democracies. Who will be the next Israel that we have to sacrifice in the name of world peace? India, Greece?
While the democratic experiment in Iraq is certainly not going smoothly, do we have any other choice?

I'm all for more level support between Israel and Palestine, but we're not going to leave Israel to fend entirely for themselves.

And in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, what can I say, we need their oil. It's vital for our economic interests at this time whether we like it or not. Of course there are people in Saudi Arabia who don't want us there, but there are plenty who do.

I'm all for a more moderated presence in the Middle East, but isolationism is not the way to go.

Didn't say that. However, maybe it would be prudent to look at the causes of this stuff rather than just taking a reactionary stance and :gasp: creating more terrorists.

Our foreign policy would be a good place to start.

Was there a problem getting their oil before? Why not use our nations minds to develop alternatives - so we can stop depending on SA so heavily?

I was under the impression that a lot of the current violence in Iraq is due to the fact that many within each muslim group do not want democracy. They want to completely control the state. Now that Saddam is gone they want an all-out civil war and these attacks are their attempts to ignite this war.

Exactly, for thousands of years politics in the middle east has been a zero sum game. You don't change that mindset overnight.

I don't think you want my oil.

I found this to be quite interesting, actually. My guess it that the logic is that if you're being occupied then your life is not under your own control anyways, so why not use it to try and drive out the invaders: "See, I can control something I do" mentality.

SI

Not to quote or refute you directly, more as just a reference, but its not like suicide bombings suddenly happened in the 70's anyway. Look at the Japanese Kamikazee pilots in WWII. I think thats very similar to a suicide bomb. Its not like people in the 70's had a revolutionary idea of "I'd rather blow myself up than live under these fools," this is something thats just happened for a while. I'm sure if we really tried, we could come up with similar things that go farther back than that.

True. It's just in my mind, I had kindof separated the two by military versus civilian. Tho, I suppose if you're a suicide bomber, you have some sort of militia-like backing to you so it's not altogether different.

SI

No argument there, we need to be working on the alternatives to reduce our dependency.

Do people honestly believe that if the US left the middle east completely that suicide bombings and terrorism attacks would stop?

Heck, it would be viewed as a massive victory for terrorists and give them even more incentive for brutal behavior and even loftier goals against the US.

Regardless of how we got in this situation, there's no "peaceful" manner with which it can be resolved. The sooner people realize that, the quicker we (as a country) can start actually dealing with this problem on a serious level.

I'm curious Arlie - are you actually of the belief that the problems are not of the American's own creation, at some level ? Or it is just the evil Arabs and the puritan Americans ? Look at lebanon and hizbollah for example - Israel pulled out, and Hezbollah attacks virtually stopped, because their beef (not Palestine) was the sensless slaughter that had led the Israeli's to Lebanon in the first place. Its very convenient for you to make an arguement that hasn't been alleged, but the idea that America's intervention and support for many a unpopular leader when convenient (hell, the Iranian revolution has the CIA to blame, for continually prop up the Shah's brutal regime) is in no way responsible for their current conundrum is woefully jingoistic. When you have society less concerned with individual indentities and with a longer term view (something that I don't particularly agree with, but understand) ,you can expect different methodologies.

Thumbs up for that last post, Crapshoot. The US has done some very shady things in the MidEast that helped lead up to this. Now that doesn't mean it is all our fault, but we have a share in the problem (especially in Iran... now that one might be mostly our fault).

Dola, I should say, I don't start with the belief that America's intentions are somehow evil, or that it is somehow out to kill all Arabs or destroy Islam. Like everyone else, America is a semi-pragmatic player acting to insure what it percieves as its interests- more realpolitik and Keenan Doctrine than Occidentalism. Its sheer power however makes it a target not because they "hate its freedom" (and seriously, no halfway intelligent conservative believes that- its the domain of the Coulter's, not the Goldbergs) but because of the role it occupies. My problem is with the idiots who insist that America is alone in acting with a moral sense of authority above political pragmatism.

Although I agree with the fact that at this point, there is no longer a 'peaceful' manner to resolve things. But, I just want to ask, what other loftier goals would these terrorists have other than to drive American meddling out of the Middle East? World Domination? I certainly don't think so.

I think that they don't bomb America because they envy America's freedom... that's always been a Bush bullshit line "They hate freedom blahblahblah.". They bomb America because it's their way to get back at what America has done to them in their own lands, to their families, to their way of life. I actually think that most of the casualties in the middle east are civilian, rather than military... and that includes all sides... and I think that these terrorirst bombers are looking to bring that sense of fear to the civilian population in America.

They react just the same way as we would react. You kill some of ours, we'll kill some of yours. You bring the war to our home turf? Then we'll bring it to yours.

I didn't say the problems were not partly created by the US - I was simply citing the situation as it is right now.

And it's very convenient for you to put words in my mouth. The actions of Carter, Reagan and Bush I have certainly helped increase the disdain against the US by the Middle East. I don't recall refuting that idea in my prior post - perhaps you can cite where I did?

My point was simply that the mess we have in the Middle East right now (regardless of how it was caused) is not going to change by the signing of a few treaties or pull out of American troops. There needs to be a significant shift in the minds of many countries for this threat of terrorism to change. And shift is doubtful to occur without aggressive actions by the US. Now, not all that aggressive action involves military deployment, but the threat of military action will almost certainly be needed in many cases.

Spite against the US? Hoping to scare the US against ever coming back into the middle east again? Religious fanatacism?

That's just three off the top of my head. I'm sure there are numerous additional reasons out there as well.

That may be, but given this generation of hate that has popped up in the middle east, what makes you think they will ever get enough US blood to stop? The only way to stop these people is to kill them or lock them up.

Again, that me be. But it's fairly irrelevant at this point. If someone was trying to kill you because your brother killed their brother, would you stop and try to talk sense into them? Or, would you deal with threat?

That's the spot we are in right now - like it or not. Sitting here and acting as if there is any other way to end this outside of atleast the threat of force is silly. And while looking back and criticising Carter for arming Afghanistan or Reagan for arming Iraq may make us "understand their anger", it doesn't change the current situation much.

This is a topic worth discussing. Ultimately I think it's about power - the extremist mullahs that have taken effective control of much of the middle east don't want to give up that power; in order to retain that power, they need to keep the people as devoted as possible to their extremist religious views. This goes hand in hand with restrictive education. An educated populace is one that is more likely to start asking hard questions about how things are being run in their country. It also goes hand in hand with taking an isolationist stance away from the West - the more the populace comes into contact with the West and their ideals of open societies, free elections and much greater prosperity, the less they are satisfied with their current situation.

While I think power is the reason, religion and culture are the means used to keep their power - so long as they can train their populace to believe in their extremist views and play on cultural differences, the easier it is to rally the people to view the West as a threat to their societies.

I don't think "they" hate us for our freedom so much as they have been trained to fear the West and our culture as a threat to what they consider the true path of how their God wants them to live their lives.

I've never been to any of these countries, so I am by no means an expert. But the impression I've received from the media (my only outlet, since I have no first-hand experience) is that modern gadgets are very popular in countries like Iran. So...it's not uncommon to see students in Iran walking around with headphones and an iPod. Are these the very things that threaten their society? Isn't this ultimately a losing battle for the isolationists?

Isolationism is a constant battle for those that attempt to practice it. The outside world will always be out there beckoning to those that are willing to listen.

While I disagreed with the decision to invade Iraq, that was based more on the timing, the lack of a unified front by the Western powers (and thus support through the hard part of rebuilding the country) and a fear that our plan for post-invasion was woefully lacking. The idea behind the invasion (tossing aside the trumped-up excuses of WMD's and ties to Al Qaeda) was really about liberating Iraq from a dangerous dictator and remaking the country as an open democracy to serve as both an ideal and a threat to the rest of the rogue middle eastern regimes, and I belive that ideal is a good one.

I think invasion and subsequent nation-building should always be a last resort, but we shouldn't shy away from trying to engage this part of the world and bring them in the fold of functioning, relatively open governments and economies that are open to the rest of the world. Doing so will have the benefit of making them far less likely to be spawning points for terrorism.

Well said, regardless of all the reasons we went to war, this is the reason I support the war. This part of the world has always been like this, and has been a backwater of the world for the last 600 years. If we left everything as the status quo, we would still have all the radicals creating more terrorists.

What I find to be funny, is that 20 years ago, where was the US in the Middle East? Was it because we supported Israel? Yes. Were we occupying any countries then? Not really. We had bases in Bahrain, Diego Garcia, Saudi, etc., but they weren't bombing us before that.

I agree that the Mullahs are threatened by the West. Why else would they not teach their own people and children about technology? Because that would weaken their hold on power.

Didn't 9/11, the attacks on US embassies in Africa, the attack on the USS Cole, and the first attack on the WTC all occur before we occupied Iraq? His premise that if we leave Iraq the bombings stop seems pretty ludricrous when you consider the attacks all began long before we posted troops in Iraq.

The article is not talking about Al-Quida (or however it's spelled). Only about the suicide bombings that are occuring in Iraq and have been since the war "ended".

I don't see them as mutually exclusive.

The article is talking about suicide bombing and why it's used as a tactic. Some people imply that suicide bombing is inherently linked to religious fanaticism. The article is saying that history shows that it's not. It's a tactic used by people against an occupying force. Right now, to many people, we are an occupying force, thus the exponentially increasing accounts of suicide bombings against our forces IN IRAQ. It also says that the suicide bombings would pretty much disappear over night IN IRAQ if we left just like they did in Lebanon.

You said: "His premise that if we leave Iraq the bombings stop seems pretty ludricrous when you consider the attacks all began long before we posted troops in Iraq."

That wasn't his premise. His premise is not ALL terrorism would stop, his premise is that if we left Iraq, suicide bombings IN IRAQ would stop.

"Didn't 9/11, the attacks on US embassies in Africa, the attack on the USS Cole, and the first attack on the WTC"

And just for future reference, the attacks on the US embassies in Africa and the first attack on the WTC were not suicide bombings.

That's debatable since many of the suicide targets have been Iraqi security people not near the US military. If it was simply an attack against the outsiders, why attack your own people?

Well, first off, I was just correcting Leo on his misunderstanding of what the author's premise was. Not necissarily saying it was correct.

And now to what you said, (and this is all just specualtion), one reason could be they see the securtiy force as a tool of the US military and a strike against them is a strike against the US. Of course, we both know that's not true, but this isn't about truth, it's about the perception of the people carrying out the attacks.

Another is basically they may feel that if they attack the Iraqi security force, it could scare the US out of Iraq, which is their primary goal. So even though the attacks aren't against the US, they think the reaction to the attacks will be withdrawal of the US troops and that they will acheive their goal.

And yet...the attacks against the Iraqi security forces only cause us to delay the eventual withdrawal.

No one said these people were bright. ;)

But the attacks on the USS Cole and 9/11 were. Sorry, but pulling out of Iraq does not end suicide attacks, it only changes the paradigm.

And BTW, lest we forget the suicide bombing attack on the Northern Alliance leader just days before 9/11 that had absolutely nothing to do with occupying forces but was a pre-conceived attack in synch with 9/11 planned to subvert our attempts to use the Northern Alliance against the Taliban and al Qaeda, which BTW failed miserably.

Let's go back to al Qaeda fundamentals here. After the Soviets left Afghanistan they did not back off. In fact they directly benefited and aided the Taliban overthrowing a non-occupying force to put in a fundamentalist Islamic regime in Afghanistan and anyone thinking they won't do the same the second we pull out of Iraq is very, very naive.

It's really the same ball game in Iraq, just different players. Instead of the Taliban they have the Sunnis and Baathists. Soon as we leave, all hell breaks loose with the ultimate objective of a repressive, radical, anti-western regime.

He's not saying withdrawing will end suicide attacks everywhere. JUST IN IRAQ.

Withdrawing would encourage this type attack. But not simply for use as an everyday tactic. The reason we've been attacked in the past is because we have military stationed in several middle eastern countries. These people want us out. Thus the suicide attacks on us.

The article is talking about the exponential increase in suicide attack (again) IN IRAQ. It's not talking about anything else. If we pulled out of Iraq, the suicide bombings would stop in Iraq. Yeah, they would probably encourage the act more. BUT, the reason the act would occur more would be because we are still in the Middle East.


From the article: "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."

95% != All. The leader of the Northenr Alliance was a very protected man. Using suicide bombers was probably the only way to get to him. (well, one "suicide bombed" him, the other was shot trying to escape. Makes you wonder if one was escaping, maybe it wasn't supposed to be a suicide bombing and just a normal bombing)


All of this is completely irrelevant to the point of the article.

I have to agree with Craig. If their goal is to get the US out, their best course of action would be to lay low for 6-12 months and wait for US to start troop withdrawls. By attacking Iraqi forces, they are simply delaying the pullback of US troops. It seems to me the only logical reason for these suicide bombings is to try and terrorize the Iraqi people and prevent them from starting a new, self-sustaining government. And, it would appear that goal would still exist if the US was not in Iraq at all right now.