Why terrorists attack America

[Fenir_LacDanan]

America has, throughout the past century, actively attempted to subvert numerous independent Governments across the globe.

When ever a nation does not tow the line, or fit in with American views on politics, America, through direct and indirect action, installs more friendly governments, destabilized old Governments, and on rare occasions, assassinates leaders (or tries).

Countries like Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba, Haiti, Panama, Vietnam, Palestine, and many others have all suffered this.

Countries that actively or otherwise support terrorists, defy American pressure or intervention, and generally hate their guts: Iran, Afghanistan, Cuba, Haiti, Panama, Vietnam, Palestine, and so on.

So, using 1st form Math’s, lets see if there is a correlation, shall we?

This is for any American to consider:

Well I know that it a foreign power (Ohhh, lets say England) tried to control my life and inhibit my freedom (say in the 13 colonies around 1776) I'd reach for my musket, or AK47, to fight to defend my liberty. Why?

Because it's wrong to try to influence or subvert other people liberty!

Do you wonder why terrorists constantly attack America and their interests? Why do they want to hit you?

Because, at the risk of going back to the 1st form again, you hit them first.

[Valandil]

Welcome to Entmoot, Fenir_LacDanan,

You're probably not the only one around here to think so, though I tend to think there's a lot of oversimplification to what you have stated.

Meanwhile though, feel free to keep sharing your opinions. (and don't be surprised if some are willing to argue the point! ) And get on over to the 'New Members - Introduce Yourselves Here' (or whatever the exact name is) thread and tell us whatever you'd like about yourself.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

there are precedents for this sort of thing throughout history, i will give an example:

in the middle ages, france was a fashionable area
england (and particularly Wessex) wanted a nice new colony
england invades france
france fights back
hence - hundred years war

trust me, this is no new thing, Fenir_LacDanan

[Valandil]

What I think now is that you BOTH need a lot of work on your history!

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally posted by Valandil
What I think now is that you BOTH need a lot of work on your history!

i am an a-level history student
and an a-level archaeology student
and an as-level classical civilisation student

[The Gaffer]

One thing that's missing from your imperialist hypothesis is the anti-semitism which goes hand-in-hand with many of the recent attacks on America. Because America supports Israel, they are particularly loathed by extremists like Al-Qaida and Islamic Jihad.

Now, I'm someone who sympathises with the Palestinians, and a free and independent Palestine is the only viable solution in the long term.

However, you also have people who believe that Israel should not exist, and will do anything to wipe it out. You cannot allow these people to triumph.

Sadly, current policies, IMO, will strengthen the position of these extremists rather than weaken it.

[Insidious Rex]

ok before Jersey starts having a coronary and all civil dialogue is lost....

those 19 hijackers didnt attack the US because they felt oppressed. They did it because they were brain washed zealots completely out of touch with reality. Period. Now talking about why some countries diskile america is a WHOLE different thing. When you start binding the two together you completely undermine your whole point. I would suggest noting the difference for the sake of your credibility.

[Tessar]

Welcome to entmoot, I think .

Most people choose a slightly less... inflamatory topic for a first post, but welcome all the same .

[Tessar]

Oh, and nice sig by the way. 'Fortune Favors the Bold', unless I'm very mistaken?

[Katie of the Golden Wood]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
One thing that's missing from your imperialist hypothesis is the anti-semitism which goes hand-in-hand with many of the recent attacks on America. Because America supports Israel, they are particularly loathed by extremists like Al-Qaida and Islamic Jihad.

Now, I'm someone who sympathises with the Palestinians, and a free and independent Palestine is the only viable solution in the long term.

However, you also have people who believe that Israel should not exist, and will do anything to wipe it out. You cannot allow these people to triumph.

Sadly, current policies, IMO, will strengthen the position of these extremists rather than weaken it.

Very true. I wrote a research paper on the Israeli Palestinian Conflict last year in my history class and it really affected the way I look at things and the way it permeates all world affairs. I don't think you can say "an independent Palestine" or "an independent Israel" is the only solution, because either way you'll have backlashes all over the world. Give the Palestinians there own state and the Israelis will fight back. It isn't only an Islamic thing, though at this point in history it is the most common. Most religions at some point in time were persecuted, and all fought back in different ways. Islamic suicide bombing as a tactic is, in my opinion, inhumane and ineffective. But it is the current problem and I don't think you can get rid of it by just granting them their own state. Its been ingrained deeply now as a tactic for fighting back. As you can see in Iraq its a spreading tactic for people trying to get what they want.

Katie

[Draken]

Originally posted by Last Child of Ungoliant
i am an a-level history student
and an a-level archaeology student
and an as-level classical civilisation student

Well then you really should know that the claim to lands in France was entirely down to the Norman monarchy attempting to retain their original lands there, NOT down to your bizarre theory of expansionism from Wessex! At the time of the Norman invasion the Normans controlled Normandy (obviously) and quickly took control of Brittany. The conquest added England to the portfolio, followed by Aquitaine (by alliance I think). So you did NOT have an aggressive Wessex, you had a Western European mini-empire covering England and Western France. Because the ruler of that mini-Empire was now a King, he did not feel obliged to recognise the French crown's claim for overall rule over Normandy, Brittany and Aquitaine. The Hundred Years War was about the line of monarchs that followed the invasion trying to retain control over what they saw as their "homeland" - even after they had become increasingly Anglicised, to the extent that they eventually even spoke English rather than French.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

in response to draken, yes i do already know all this,
but i wasn't going to get into royal history of western europe during the middle ages, as it was not relevant to the
'you hit me, i'll hit you' arguement

[Sister Golden Hair]

NOTE- This thread has the potential to become loaded. Watch your tempers and choose your words wisely. Any flaming or country bashing will result in immediate closure of this thread.

[Earniel]

Originally posted by Last Child of Ungoliant
i am an a-level history student
and an a-level archaeology student
and an as-level classical civilisation student

You have archeology in highschool? I've been clearly born in the wrong country then.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally posted by Eärniel
You have archeology in highschool? I've been clearly born in the wrong country then.

no, not high school, this is college which comes between school and university

[Beor]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
NOTE- This thread has the potential to become loaded. Watch your tempers and choose your words wisely. Any flaming or country bashing will result in immediate closure of this thread.

Which is why I have said nothing on the subject.

[Khamûl]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
NOTE- This thread has the potential to become loaded. Watch your tempers and choose your words wisely. Any flaming or country bashing will result in immediate closure of this thread.

Wow, you took the words right out of my mouth. I was going to issue a warning and that first sentence is exactly what I was going to put. Weird. But it can't be said enough.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Fenir_LacDanan
America has, throughout the past century, actively attempted to subvert numerous independent Governments across the globe.

When ever a nation does not tow the line, or fit in with American views on politics, America, through direct and indirect action, installs more friendly governments, destabilized old Governments, and on rare occasions, assassinates leaders (or tries).

Countries like Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba, Haiti, Panama, Vietnam, Palestine, and many others have all suffered this.

Countries that actively or otherwise support terrorists, defy American pressure or intervention, and generally hate their guts: Iran, Afghanistan, Cuba, Haiti, Panama, Vietnam, Palestine, and so on.

9/11 hijackers: 15 Saudis, 2 from Arab Emirates, 1 Lebanese, 1 Egyptian.

No Iraqis, Iranians, Afghanis, Cubans, Vietnamese, Haitians, Panamanians, or Palestinians.

Looking at your list of America- haters:

Panama: Supports terrorists? News to me; AFAIK they don't have any particular grudge against Americans since they got the Canal back, and most of them were quite happy to see the back of Noriega.

Haiti: wasn't it just a few years ago that American troops were restoring the rightly elected leader of Haiti to his post? (Unfortunately, he turned out to be not such a democratic angel.)
The major complaint of most Haitians against America is that they don't get the same landing rights as Cubans.

Cuba: defies American pressure- check; hates America- since there's no free opinion there it's hard to tell. I suspect most Cubans would welcome friendly relations while fiercely supporting their independence- have to wait till Fidel cashes in to see.
Terrorism? while a few of the more extremist neocons have suggested it, the CIA strongly slapped down Under-secretary Bolton when he wanted to make the totally bogus case before Congress that Cuba had a biological weapons program.

Vietnam: yep, strongly resisted America before, but now welcomes American investment with open arms- the current major source of conflict is the USA slapping anti-dumping tariffs on Vietnamese catfish and shrimp.

Afghanistan: Wasn't it the Soviet Union that invaded and overthrew the legitimate government? And yes, the Taliban supported bin Laden, but not many in Afghanistan have fond memories of them.

Iraq: Kurds strongly support American presence, Sunnis don't like losing their position on top of the heap, Shiites want them to leave, but happy to get rid of Saddam.
And wasn't it Britain that created Iraq, tried to crush a rebellion (including the first use of air-borne poison gas) and installed an alien puppet monarchy? Since the overthrow of King Faisal the USA hasn't had much control over Iraq, which was one of the Soviet Union's staunchest allies.

Iran: well, here's a country that fits the profile- or did, twenty-five years ago. The CIA (along with Britain) certainly was the major player in the overthrow of Mossadeq in 1953, which led to Khomeini's Islamic Revolution in 1979.
Since then, the hostility of the Iranian public to the Great Satan has largely shifted to hatred of the Ayatollahs, as witness recent events.

With the exception of Afghanistan under the Taliban, none of the countries you mentioned has been actively involved in anti-US terrorism, though some have supported anti-Israel terrorism.

(Oooops, also except Saddam trying to assassinate Bush snr., though I think that was more personal. )

[hectorberlioz]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
ok before Jersey starts having a coronary and all civil dialogue is lost....

what Jersey do you speak of?
there is noe Jersey here...

[azalea]

Originally posted by Fenir_LacDanan

Because it's wrong to try to influence or subvert other people liberty!

Which is exactly why I supported the removal of the Taliban in Afghnaistan. Their treatment of women was horrendous. I didn't necessarily think it was our job to do it, but I just pray that the new leadership there will have a better human rights policy. Humanity being what it is, I don't have much hope.

Sorry to bring this flame-bait topic back to the top, but I just had to say this. I won't say anything else, because it would end up sounding like a flame.

(It's nice to see the mooters were keeping this nice and civil to this point, though. )