If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Why America is a terrorist target
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Reason 1:
Terrorism at the start of the second 20th century coincided with the growth of the USA as a world power. Terrorists at the time were mostly left-wing/anarchist/anti-imperialist. The start of the Vietnam War, which was viewed as a war of national liberation against France and later capitalist neo-imperial policies controlling South Vietnam equated national liberation movements with hostility to the USA.
Reason 2:
Revolutionary movements felt that if they could show the US complicity in the military dictatorships that were propped up in the 60s and 70s in South America that they would gain popular support. This was based on the Cuban Revolution and led to the bloody uprisings, kidnappings and assassinations during the period in South America.
Reason 3:
Israel. After the Arab defeat in 1967, the seizure of the West Bank and Gaza strip led to the foundation of the PLO. The PFLP faction imitated South American revolutionaries, first against Israel then against any nation that dealt with it, including the USA which was becoming Israel's chief ally and weapons supplier. Of course, this was a two edged sword as many of the Palestinian groups were Marxist and so attacked Arab dictatorships with equal fervour.
Reason 4
NATO membership. This was used as an excuse by leftist groups in Europe for attacks on US targets, as the USA was the cheif power in NATO. Baader-Meinhof and the Red Brigades were the two most obvious for this, though there were others. There was also overspill from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, though most of this was not directed at explicitly US targets.
Reason 5:
State sponsored terror. Terrorism after the Iranian Revolution came to be used as a tool of foreign policy. Iran sought to export the Revolution all along the Shia crescent, which the USA opposed, not at least because of Reagan's election and "proactive" stance on terrorism (as the hostage crisis propelled him to office). When the USA intervened in the Lebanon, part of the Shia Crescent, Iran's proxies in the Hezbollah attacked the military forces there to stop them backing Israel and the conservative Christian factions in the country.
They also attacked embassies in neutrals, such as Kuwait, as an extension of the policy to push America from the crescent. Kidnappings were also instigated by Iran to gain the release of its personnel from US custody, as well as stop interference in Iraq (the reasoning behind Buckley's death) and to release Shiite prisoners from Israeli jails. All calculated to further Iranian interests, with a religious overtone. As the Hezbollah had success with its methods, it inspired others, such as Palestinian groups to also kidnap Americans to obtain the release of their people in jail.
Reason 6:
Religious terrorism, the Gulf War and Afghanistan. Postwar sanctions against Iraq perpetuated that conflict, mobilising anti-American sentiment. Iraq did try a limited terrorist campaign against the USA and Britain, but this mostly fell apart with the capture of Carlos the Jackal by the French. Saddam did not trust Islamic terrorists and so sought out ideological leftists like Carlos and his contacts for attacks. Iran continued to use terrorism as a tool of foreign policy openly, until the Khobar tower attacks implicated them. Along with a newer, less radical leadership, their guilt in the matter caused them to lessen greately their use of this strategy in the future, though they still maintain links to such groups.
The neglect of Afghanistan after the fighting allowed for the most vicious groups, notably the Taliban, to take control of the country. Many Arab fighters returned home, radicalised, extremly experienced in fighting and with a grudge against their despotic, apostate leaders at home. They came to similar conclusions as the South Americans in the 60s, that the USA was supporting corrupt regimes in the Middle East (such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia etc) that were not of the True Faith.
Links between groups also proliferated. Because of the immense wealth of Bin Laden, many groups signed alliances and merged with his, such as Islamic Jihad in Egypt. Needless to say, the increased manpower was indoctrinated in Bin Laden's ideology, which included his fatwa against American interests and America. His strategy was based on attacking the USA to cause the dictatorships in the Middle East crumble and bring about Islamic states.
Conclusion: US global interventionism and poor choice of allies has been the main reason for terrorist attacks on the USA and its interests. The precedents of the Lebanon and Somalia lead terrorists of the present to believe they can force a US withdrawl from the Middle East. Attacks do not happen unless there is a belief they will have an effect on policy, the raison d'etre of terrorism.
Terrorism at the start of the second 20th century coincided with the growth of the USA as a world power. Terrorists at the time were mostly left-wing/anarchist/anti-imperialist. The start of the Vietnam War, which was viewed as a war of national liberation against France and later capitalist neo-imperial policies controlling South Vietnam equated national liberation movements with hostility to the USA.
Reason 2:
Revolutionary movements felt that if they could show the US complicity in the military dictatorships that were propped up in the 60s and 70s in South America that they would gain popular support. This was based on the Cuban Revolution and led to the bloody uprisings, kidnappings and assassinations during the period in South America.
Reason 3:
Israel. After the Arab defeat in 1967, the seizure of the West Bank and Gaza strip led to the foundation of the PLO. The PFLP faction imitated South American revolutionaries, first against Israel then against any nation that dealt with it, including the USA which was becoming Israel's chief ally and weapons supplier. Of course, this was a two edged sword as many of the Palestinian groups were Marxist and so attacked Arab dictatorships with equal fervour.
Reason 4
NATO membership. This was used as an excuse by leftist groups in Europe for attacks on US targets, as the USA was the cheif power in NATO. Baader-Meinhof and the Red Brigades were the two most obvious for this, though there were others. There was also overspill from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, though most of this was not directed at explicitly US targets.
Reason 5:
State sponsored terror. Terrorism after the Iranian Revolution came to be used as a tool of foreign policy. Iran sought to export the Revolution all along the Shia crescent, which the USA opposed, not at least because of Reagan's election and "proactive" stance on terrorism (as the hostage crisis propelled him to office). When the USA intervened in the Lebanon, part of the Shia Crescent, Iran's proxies in the Hezbollah attacked the military forces there to stop them backing Israel and the conservative Christian factions in the country.
They also attacked embassies in neutrals, such as Kuwait, as an extension of the policy to push America from the crescent. Kidnappings were also instigated by Iran to gain the release of its personnel from US custody, as well as stop interference in Iraq (the reasoning behind Buckley's death) and to release Shiite prisoners from Israeli jails. All calculated to further Iranian interests, with a religious overtone. As the Hezbollah had success with its methods, it inspired others, such as Palestinian groups to also kidnap Americans to obtain the release of their people in jail.
Reason 6:
Religious terrorism, the Gulf War and Afghanistan. Postwar sanctions against Iraq perpetuated that conflict, mobilising anti-American sentiment. Iraq did try a limited terrorist campaign against the USA and Britain, but this mostly fell apart with the capture of Carlos the Jackal by the French. Saddam did not trust Islamic terrorists and so sought out ideological leftists like Carlos and his contacts for attacks. Iran continued to use terrorism as a tool of foreign policy openly, until the Khobar tower attacks implicated them. Along with a newer, less radical leadership, their guilt in the matter caused them to lessen greately their use of this strategy in the future, though they still maintain links to such groups.
The neglect of Afghanistan after the fighting allowed for the most vicious groups, notably the Taliban, to take control of the country. Many Arab fighters returned home, radicalised, extremly experienced in fighting and with a grudge against their despotic, apostate leaders at home. They came to similar conclusions as the South Americans in the 60s, that the USA was supporting corrupt regimes in the Middle East (such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia etc) that were not of the True Faith.
Links between groups also proliferated. Because of the immense wealth of Bin Laden, many groups signed alliances and merged with his, such as Islamic Jihad in Egypt. Needless to say, the increased manpower was indoctrinated in Bin Laden's ideology, which included his fatwa against American interests and America. His strategy was based on attacking the USA to cause the dictatorships in the Middle East crumble and bring about Islamic states.
Conclusion: US global interventionism and poor choice of allies has been the main reason for terrorist attacks on the USA and its interests. The precedents of the Lebanon and Somalia lead terrorists of the present to believe they can force a US withdrawl from the Middle East. Attacks do not happen unless there is a belief they will have an effect on policy, the raison d'etre of terrorism.
0
Comments
That's one of the ways you can work out it's an inside job. Terrorists don't just blow shit up at random because "they hate our way of life", they have demands to go along with it.
What were Timothy McVeigh's demands? Or the London nail bomber's?
I believe that Mr. McVeigh was a very severe form of "patriot" although that's just from memory. Any websearch comes up with many kinds of "he was a patsy" theory.
"Gay's out".
Well, I had a go, and it's astonishing how many dead links this subject throws at you. There are a number of interviews etc but the views expressed in them aren't all that radical, frankly. I can't seem to locate any demands directly related to 9/11 or even an admission from him that he did it either.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm
He's made stacks of speeches since around 1994 or so - there's usually a few clearly-defined demands amongst the religious waffle, mostly to do with getting infidels off Muslim lands.
His biggest problem pre-2001 seemed to be the presence of American bases on holy land in Saudi Arabia, these are now gone. A lot of his rhetoric seems to show he wants a holy war between Islam and the West. If his motive behind 9/11 was to provoke the West into war with Islam, he must feel like he's succeeded beyond his wildest dreams.
Taking the IRA - if there only demand was better treatment for Catholics they're best tactic would have been to continue with the civil rights movement (with perhaps the odd bit of stone throwing), but they're main demand was a united Ireland - something no British Government was going to do without the support of the majority of Northern Ireland. Almost by default the IRA was forced into violence, as it gave them a limited chance of achieving their objectives, where they had no choice by peaceful routes.
A great line :hyper:
As for this thread, I think that the world hates America because we're so jealous of their freedom. There's absolutely no other plausable explanation. Just the other day I went to the shops to buy milk and apples and felt utter rage and envy at how much of a prisoner I felt in my own country and how happy and free Americans are in comparison. I was that close to burning a US flag, I tell you. That damn close.
The thing is, they do it so badly, i mean, if your going to intervene in another nation, at least go full on with it! Seize the government, execute the dissidents, surpress all insurgency against your occupation with brutal swift measures, with no fear of sacrificing innocents. That is how great Empires were successful. America tries to do it and be the "good guys" at the same time, which will never work.
As for Bin Laden's reasons for 9/11, well, his goal is a long-term strategy, using terrorist action to de-stabalise and eventually destory the US economy forcing the nation inwards upon itself to consolidate, meaning a withdrawl from Islamic nations.
The only verified direct interview with Bin Laden conducted for a Pakistani newpaper immediately after the 911 attacks had Bin Laden categorically denying any involvement in the planning or execution of the attacks.
NOT the signature of a radical agenda-oriented terrorist mastermind.
People buy assertions at face value without the slightest concept of how easily our own psyops boys can fabricate these shams.
And of course, it is hapy to let Israel illegally occupy land and aquire nukes - but, should someone else try to get any weapons with damage potential - bloody hell! They must be mad or evil!
The US governments are cunts, really. They have a habit of picking bad leaders who get them hated well.
Correct. The strategy of attacking the "far enemy" so that apostate regimes in the Middle East can be overthrown. Sensible idea. If they keep attacking the oil lines they might just succeed, too....
Reason 7 -
It's full of Americans
Statisically speaking, it had to happen at least once....
Foreign Policy students should be able to discern that simple truth. Those that are able to reject the CNN sanitised propaganda which merely seeks to reinforce the "far enemy" myth at any rate.
Empire getting bogged down, people starting to question what is really going on and who the real criminal "masterminds are? Send out a few of our psycopathic intelligence operatives to plant some bombs and then call Al Jazeera with the now well rehearsed anonymous "we are Al Qaeda, we did this" claim. Let the univestigative media do the rest of the work spreading it to livingrooms of Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public far and wide.
Paradigm reinforced in the minds of a sufficient majority for another year or so while we carry on imposing our will by force on those weaker than ourselves.
But it just seems highly unliely that anyone who is educated can say, not one single act of terrorism that comes from an islamic extremist group, actually does, and it all the work of USA and other western nations intelligence agencies. I mean, come on, the intelligence agencies are hardly that good at keeping black ops quiet. Except in American movies.
Appreciating that our own western intelligence agencies' histories, despite the odd few ops which have gone sour and been exposed, are far more effective at remaining no more than "suspected" (by linkage to known agendas being sought by Western powers at periodic intervals throughout the past century, most notably so in the Middle East, Latin America and key regions of Africa).
The idea that their monstrous budgets are spent on bumbling buffoons is little more than convenient PR to keep our publics incredulous at the thought that we should be scutinising their activities too carefully, especially in the present context of the WoT.
Even where people have turned up evidence of outright criminality or terrorist activities (i.e. the near monopoly on international drug trafficking by the CIA and its foreign partners which funnels hundreds of billions of dollars through our western economies), even to the extent that volumes have been published on it, nothing in that regard has amounted to mass convictions or cessation of their activities. The fact that they have the means and the links to manipulate and censor much from mainstream populist "news" keeps the bulk of their activities "black" as intended.
Sorry, subject, the signature of their false flag terrorism and the timings with which, most certainly, events in the US and Europe at least have occurred in accord with recognisable downturns of public opinion and/or planned new policy rollouts, leads me - from my experience in following policy devlopments - to conclude the psy op boys are thriving just fine.
(I know, it scares me too)
By the way, what or who is that your work for? I am curious becauseyou say you work in the field of foreign policy and i find the topic fascinating but am not sure who employs with in it these days.
For a young person starting out, I would suggest perhaps sending out prospect letters to research insititutes, political think tanks, NGO's and such. Brussels, for all it is villified in the UK press and media, is a nexus for the international community and a good place to look for opportunities.
Try keeping tabs on The European Voice job section as well.
Alternatively, have you considered going for a Masters Degree? The College of Europe in Bruges is where many of my British associates have qualified themselves for work in foreign affairs.
But thanks for the information, i will have a look into it.
A foreign language or two would be a excellent leg up on your competitiors as well.
Personally, I wouldnt be a stockbroker for the life of me, too great a sell out to corporate malfeasance for my taste. Good luck to you though whatever you decide.
The World Trade Centre bombing in 1993.
The Khobar Towers bombing in 1996.
The bombing of the American embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in 1998.
The London Tube bombings in 2005.
None of these things were the work of Islamic terrorists?
Thats true. I'm currently doing an MA in IR myself, and learning Russian (for business venture reasons).
However, you are very wrong on Al-Qaeda. There is good grounds for evidence that they have subsumed other Islamic groups. Like Egyptian Islamic Jihad, who undertook the first WTC bombings in America.
What has changed in terms of the terrorist paradigm is that AQ have a different structure to its terrorist cells, not the simple pyramid scheme that is the classic Marxist cell group. Al-Qaeda uses a structure that has only been seen in the last 1000 years among two other groups. One of those was the Assassins. The Assassin "hierarchy" was based on a circular, not pyramid model. Its hard to explain, but there are differing levels of what being "in" AQ means. You have the true AQ, Bin Laden and his immediate cronies. Thats the centre cell, the command for the group. Further out, the next circle, you have the financiers and high level fidayeen, the terrorist masterminds who usually are trained in explosives, assassination or another "speciality". Then you have the third circle, the ordinary fighters and propagandists. Finally, you have the "lone wolf" issue, of uncoordinated attacks perpetuated under the AQ name against American targets, based on the AQ strategy, but not directed or called for by them.
The lone wolf issue has been a big one since 2003. What with AQ central cell scattered among the mountains of tribal Pakistan, its hard to keep track. However, their lower level operatives, the "terrorist masterminds", have taken to posting information on the net about how they plan their attacks and what they seek to do. Some Muslim in Spain or the UK can easily download these and understand what AQ's modus operandi is. Its not hard to download bomb making materials either. Paladin Press have plenty of books on how to do it, for example, with innocent enough sounding names. Both Madrid and London happened this way. The war has decentralized, gone open source, which its circular structure allows far more easily than the other method.
In all probability, AQ Centre Cell havent carried out an attack since 2002. While having to run from the Pakistani army and US forces on the other side of the border, they have little chance of establishing a base. I suppose they have access to communications through their friends at Pakistani Intelligence, but they would be cautious about using it. However, they have affiliates and allies (some who existed before they did, again EIJ) and a whole load of sympathisers who will use the AQ name which became infamous after 9/11. In the sense that AQ is an organization that has directed and sponsored all these attacks, they do not exist, that is true. However, there is a group called AQ, it was founded by Bin Laden, and it is a well connected, wealthy terrorist organization. The tactics have changed due to necessity and the demands of 4th Generational warfare, which actually favour their current structure, if it can be called that.