'War on terror' fuels the rise in terrorism

[Halibut]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5375064.stm

 

I wonder what those of us who were shouting so loudly that foreign policy has no bearing on the threat of terrorism will say in response to the news item linked to above? Seems fairly self evident to me really.

[LordChaverly]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5375064.stm

 

I wonder what those of us who were shouting so loudly that foreign policy has no bearing on the threat of terrorism will say in response to the news item linked to above? Seems fairly self evident to me really.

 

But it does not follow that the terrorists are somehow justified in their responses to US foreign policy in the Middle East and elsewhere. I am not saying that you believe that they are, but this argument is central to apologias for 7/7 and other outrages. It is a deeply flawed argument, because it lets the terrorists off the moral hook and enables them to put forward a rationale allowing them to avoid direct responsibility for their actions.

[Halibut]

But it does not follow that the terrorists are somehow justified in their responses to US foreign policy in the Middle East and elsewhere. I am not saying that you believe that they are, but this argument is central to apologias for 7/7 and other outrages. It is a deeply flawed arguement, because it lets the terrorists off the moral hook and enables them to put forward a rationale allowing them to avoid direct responsibility for their actions.

 

Indeed it doesn't follow that the terrorists are justified in their actions LordC - and you're right in taking the view that I don't believe this to be the case. I do believe however, that we wouldn't be seeing the same degree of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism had Bush not invaded and occupied Iraq.

[Bartfarst]

Is then the way ahead not to support actions against countries that support terrorism?

France tried this by objecting to recent operations - but it's still on the AQ hit list.

[Gadgetgirl]

France are now a legitimate target for the radicals as they are seen as weak...

[Halibut]

Is then the way ahead not to support actions against countries that support terrorism?

France tried this by objecting to recent operations - but it's still on the AQ hit list.

 

It might be on the hit list but I don't recall any recent terrorist outrages on French soil. I think that it's perfectly possible to indicate dissaproval of countries that support terrorism through other means than military intervention.

[Bartfarst]

It might be on the hit list but I don't recall any recent terrorist outrages on French soil. I think that it's perfectly possible to indicate dissaproval of countries that support terrorism through other means than military intervention.

Yes. Perhaps we could send them a strongly worded letter asking them to stop funding terrorism and permitting training camps to be established on their soil.

 

That should do the trick. Or will it? For goodness' sake, we're dealing with people whose cultures, thanks to their nasty primitive religion, have stagnated for 500 years.

 

You can't negotiate with mindless imbeciles - but you can vaporise them.

[angle20]

I do believe however, that we wouldn't be seeing the same degree of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism had Bush not invaded and occupied Iraq.

I agree, Halibut. The "war on terror" has become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

There are few domestic repercussions for the USA which has a relatively small (and integrated) Muslim population. For Britain, with its large Pakistani population, or other European countries with their Moroccan/Algerian populations, there is significant domestic fall-out, however.

[Bartfarst]

I agree, Halibut. The "war on terror" has become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

There are few domestic repercussions for the USA which has a relatively small (and integrated) Muslim population. For Britain, with its large Pakistani population, or other European countries with their Moroccan/Algerian populations, there is significant domestic fall-out, however.

Which we should address, severely.

[Fareast]

Also, as a principle, countries have to think seriously how they react to terrorism or threats of terrorism.

 

If a country determines its foreign policy on whether it might or might not cause acts of terrorism, then effectively, the terrorists are, to a great extent deciding what that policy is. Is that what we want?

 

If, in the future, there's a conflict or near-war between a Muslim and a non-Muslim country, regardless of the rights or wrongs on each side, do we have to support the Muslim country, simply because we are frightened of terrorism?

 

If that's the case, then we may as well not bother doing anything internationally in case it causes the U.K.problems. The Lion turned into a mouse!

 

I noticed that when the Americans were bombing the Serbs, principally because they were butchering Muslims in the Balkans, the Muslims, world-wide, seemed quite happy with that.I guess we'll just have to be very careful what countries we help from now on, if any.