How to create more Terrorists in 2 easy steps

[n2doc]

[graham4anything]

1. As opposed to what? Letting the terrorists terrorize their own lands without anyone stopping it?

That is what the USA did allowing Hitler to go on for years, only until Japan did it to us, giving an excuse.
But 10s of millions died.

Seems the above cartoon is backwards.

The terrorists and bad people would exist even more without our involvvement.
Hitler proved it.

[n2doc]

2. Way to go all Godwin on this thread!

http://idiotsview.blogspot.com/2009/11/hitler-argument.html

I have a general rule – whoever brings up Hitler in an argument automatically loses. It’s also a pretty good indication that the Hitler user has a weak argument. It’s generally a cheap shot. It’s lazy and it almost always backfires.

[graham4anything]

3. Except that it is true. An inconvienient fact, and I am Jewish.

Why disown history?

The common fallacy is that without the US involvement the world is 100% perfect.

No, more people would die, just different ones.

Because the terrorists over there are bad people.

Here, we have like last week, fameseekinghaters of everything, which has nothing to do with terrorism and I don't consider those 2 organized terror. So the title doesn't fit anything but an angle.

They were only terror in the sense that what they did terrorized the Boston/NY area.
But they were not international and didn't do anything Bonnie and Clyde didn't do or the killer of John Lennon and Mr. Trayvon Martin didn't do.
Fame seeking haters who enjoyed killing which they did, acting as if real life were a bad as usual Quentin Tarentino Movie.

To have less US people like the 2, have no guns.

[n2doc]

4. Anyone can claim anything on the net

But you have shown me you more than likely live under a metaphorical bridge. Anyone who equates Hitler with a bunch of religious zealots living in medieval conditions in the middle east is too far gone to have a meaningful conversation with. Perhaps you should sign up in the Army and fight this threat to the entire world. bye.

[sabrina 1]

6. Hitler declared war on the US. Has any of the countries we are droning, their Governments,

declared war on the US?

[msongs]

7. yeah those little kids obama has killed are all terrorists nt

[quaker bill]

5. since you went there

Which came first, the terrorist or the drone?

Logic considered in historical context, it is easier to blame terrorists for the drive to create and use drones, than it is to blame drones for the existence of terrorists.

To the extent we "create" them, we were doing just fine decades ago.

[Dragonfli]

8. I don't get how fighting terrorism by behaving like terrorists is a good way to end terrorism

Last edited Sun Apr 28, 2013, 02:15 AM - Edit history (1)

So which came first:

The use of the double tap strategy by the US to target first responders or the use of the same tactic by other terrorists? It may be easier to blame terrorists for the drive to create and use drones but then even by your own logic it is easy to blame such strikes for the drive that will create more people using terror to extract revenge for our drone tactics. Or do you believe it isn't a terrorist tactic when used against funny sounding brown people, their neighbors and even their children.


A 2007 report from the US department of homeland security christened the term "double tap" to refer to what it said was "a favorite tactic of Hamas: a device is set off, and when police and other first responders arrive, a second, larger device is set off to inflict more casualties and spread panic." Similarly, the US justice department has highlighted this tactic in its prosecutions of some of the nation's most notorious domestic terrorists. Eric Rudolph, convicted of bombing gay nightclubs and abortion clinics, was said to have "targeted federal agents by placing second bombs nearby set to detonate after police arrived to investigate the first explosion".

It has been documented that this terrorist tactic has been embraced by President Obama.

Obama has adopted the “double tap” tactic by using second drone attacks to kill the first responders to the first drone attacks. Funerals for the victims of the first drone attack have also been the target of second drone attacks. These second attacks have caused the deaths of between 282 and 535 civilians, and at least 60 children. An incomplete number because my notes reference a year old tally

How does terrorising and killing so many civilians and children not create more radicalised angry people that may seek vengeance through terrorism? Is it because one in 50 of the dead may be a terrorist if the intel and identification are all infallible and the parents children and relatives of the civilians killed will somehow be just fine with their losses because of that? (unlikely that the intel is that good so it is more likely one out of a much larger number)

[quaker bill]

9. Since nuance does not seem your strength

At no point in my post did I indicate that I support the use of these tactics. It is nice to know that you have sorted the source and solution to all violent conflict in the middle east and feel empowered to preach about it.

The interesting thing about deadly conflict is that it self perpetuates and escalates on its own, once the killing starts. At some point down the line it gets difficult to discern what started it, created it, or sustains it.

It is comfortable to believe that if we stop shooting, they will reciprocate. There is unfortunately very little evidence for this. This alone does not justify violent action, but is does indicate that the unilateral end of violence is not peace and indeed may not even be the end of violence.

You may think one tactic is more proficient at "creating" terrorists than another. The simple facts are that to the extent we "create" terrorists, we were quite good at it decades before the first drone flew. Unless you combine it with a radical rethink of 50 years of destructive foreign policy, grounding the drones will make little difference.

[Dragonfli]

10. We misunderstood each other, I am well aware that our policies

have for decades provoked many in the middle east. We have a long history of meddling in their affairs and choosing to back regimes that the people under them despised and thus have made enemies of those that despised them; usually for reasons centered on profits of various businesses and/or control we felt we needed over whomever was in power. We have backed everyone from our puppet Shaw in Iran to Saddam Hussein, we still turn a blind eye to extremes by some rulers that we openly and publicly condemn when displayed by others, Saudi Arabia comes to mind (they are open and proud Muslim extremists) as they use State Law to enforce what the Taliban seeks to impose with our disapproval, come to think of it, we once supported the same taliban and armed the shit out of them. Strangely Saudi Nationals were responsible for 911 and Saudis continue to fund more terrorism wherever possible (individuals rather than the state possibly, but with tacit approval of the Royals) yet we do not attack or the nation or target anyone within their borders. We basically fuck up everything we touch over there and all of these things described and many others have led to the radicalization of those that became, and will become terrorists.

What I misunderstood about you was that you don't specifically support drone attacks or specifically dismiss our terrorist attacks, an understandable misunderstanding due to THE OP YOU RESPONDED TO. I will say that you do appear quite comfortable with such tactics as your response did not address the points I made about or even acknowledge how they in fact do create terrorists as the cartoon suggests.

I am now further enlightened regarding your opinions but I am saddened that you do not appear to understand that what we do by our CURRENT policies throws yet more gasoline on a fire started long ago. I tried to get you to understand that killing civilians for whatever purpose, be it by "shock and awe" tactics or double tap and signature strikes significantly amplifies radicalization and justifies to civilian populations almost anything done in the name of revenge, I simply used the most current such policies as examples (that were in fact the subject of the op).

I believe that you do not understand this because you believe "The interesting thing about deadly conflict is that it self perpetuates and escalates on its own, once the killing starts.". I consider that a show of a lack of understanding. We are actively helping to escalate it, it is NOT self perpetuating, but rather perpetuated in this case by decisions made by radicalized people that use terrorism and current actions that inspire their hatred (by using state sponsored terrorism in some cases). An eye for an leads to an epidemic of blindness, it is not spontaneous or merely self perpetuating but rather by conscious and deliberate actions by the parties involved. The blindness epidemics are not caused by the nature of blindness itself

"It is comfortable to believe that if we stop shooting, they will reciprocate." many will if someone begins to break the cycle. No sane person by the way thinks that a unilateral end of violence will solve the problem, certainly not ME but an end to terror tactics on our part will end a great deal of it.

My main disagreement with you is that you believe that grounding the drones will make little difference, I feel it would make a really large difference. We do agree that we must combine it with a radical rethink of 50 years of destructive foreign policy however.

I also think it isn't difficult to discern what started it (our insistence on interference did), created it (50 years of destructive foreign policy did), or sustains it (both the radicalised and we who insist on continuing to radicalize them).

The end of a cycle of violence must begin somewhere no matter how long that road is, the US doesn't get to decide what terrorists will do, the US does get to decide if it uses terrorist tactics that throw huge amounts of gasoline around an inferno tho, a good start would be for us to stop using tactics that kill and terrorize civilian populations, a start we could begin tomorrow.


(as a side note I owe you a rather large apology for the motor oil comment, I was mistaken in my belief you condoned those tactics, I will edit them out, I mention it here for any that don't check my edit as they deserve to know I owe you that apology and why. I am very sorry, I was way out of line and you did not deserve it)

[quaker bill]

12. I do not get

where you are finding the sense of my "comfort" about anything going in the ME, from anything I have actually written. I am not comfortable about any of it.

Everything we do to oppose terrorists arguably creates more of them. Drones were not flying in the ME before 9/11. My reading indicates that Al-Queda got its start during the USS Missouri (a WWII destroyer with 16" guns) bombardment of Lebanon. They reportedly organized around blowing up the Marine barracks there in opposition to this plain old 1940's style attack.

You argue that drones are more effective at making terrorists, but it is pretty clear that we have plenty of other means at our disposal. It only took 19 terrorists to start two wars. Can we become so effective at not "creating" terrorists that there will not be 19 of them? I would approve of this effort, were it undertaken. I do not know the size and shape of it, and I am quite sure you don't either, but I am sure that grounding drones will only be a small component.

It is hard to tell from the lack of reporting, but as best as I can tell, the drones are not flying in Iraq. The violence there continues. True, they are generally not shooting at us, because we are not there, however they weren't shooting at us before the invasion.

The Carnegie Endowment for Peace suggests things are far less simple than you propose, in their writing of "Peaceful Prevention of Deadly Conflict". I think they come closer to having a grip on things.

[Dragonfli]

18. I never said that ending the use of our terror tactics was a simple solution to preventing conflict.

I did strongly suggest that ending those tactics would slow the growth of revenge fueled further conflict by reducing the radicalization of civilians caused by terrorizing and killing them.
When did I claim it was THE simple answer to ending conflict? I was clearly discussing a first step that would slow the addition of newly created terrorists and nothing more

"killing civilians for whatever purpose, be it by "shock and awe" tactics or double tap and signature strikes significantly amplifies radicalization and justifies to civilian populations almost anything done in the name of revenge" ..."The end of a cycle of violence must begin somewhere no matter how long that road is, the US doesn't get to decide what terrorists will do, the US does get to decide if it uses terrorist tactics that throw huge amounts of gasoline around an inferno tho, a good start would be for us to stop using tactics that kill and terrorize civilian populations, a start we could begin tomorrow."

I also clearly agreed "that we must combine it with a radical rethink of 50 years of destructive foreign policy"

Where I am finding the sense of your "comfort" about drone tactics is in statements like this

Everything we do to oppose terrorists arguably creates more of them. Drones were not flying in the ME before 9/11. My reading indicates that Al-Queda got its start during the USS Missouri (a WWII destroyer with 16" guns) bombardment of Lebanon. They reportedly organized around blowing up the Marine barracks there in opposition to this plain old 1940's style attack.

You may think one tactic is more proficient at "creating" terrorists than another. The simple facts are that to the extent we "create" terrorists, we were quite good at it decades before the first drone flew.

I inferred from those statements and others that you appear to think that tactics which terrorize and kill civilians on a regular basis, including, but not limited to, one made famous by hamas are no more harmful than tactics that do not employ terrorist techniques.
It just looks like you are as comfortable with them as you are with conventional tactics, I find them repugnant as using them makes us no better than terrorists ourselves. I suppose it could be that you find all conventional tactics just as repugnant as terrorism, but that thought just didn't make any sense to me, I apologize if I misinterpreted those statements and others like them.

Terrorist tactics appear far more effective at rallying civilians against one, as should be evident by our reaction towards terrorist tactics that are used against us.

It seems we will have to agree to disagree regarding those tactics relative equality to other tactics and factors.

[Carolina]

13. "we were doing just fine decades ago"

Yeah before US started meddling in the affairs of other nations:

Look at the violent history of the US and the violence it has wreaked in the Middle East and South America, especially since the 1950s.

In 1953 the US/CIA overthrew Mohammed Mosaddegh, the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran. Why? Because he wanted to nationalize Iran’s oil, i.e. use Iran’s natural resource for the benefit of Iranian people. However, British Petroleum (yes, the same BP that continues to despoil the Gulf of Mexico) and the US/CIA said no way. So, there was US/CIA coup in which the Shah of Iran was installed because he would do the bidding of BP and the US, meaning the Iranians would only get 20% benefit from their land’s natural oil resources. There was a reason Khomeini ousted the Shah and rebels overtook the US embassy in 1979. There is a reason they hate the US, and wouldn't we feel the same if the situation were reversed?! But all the general American populace knows is the post 1979 history.

But it doesn’t stop there.

From 1980-1988, Iran and Iraq were at war. The US was still mad at Iran for ousting the Shah, etc. so it therefore armed Iraq and was cozy with Saddam Hussein, another US puppet… until he wasn’t. The US gave Iraq those chemical weapons which the Bush/Cheney regime morphed into a lie-filled crisis in 2003, manipulatively linking Iraq with 9/11 despite the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers (plus mastermind bin Laden) were Saudi Arabian while the other 4 were from Yemen, Egypt and United Arab Emirates (home of Dubai and Halliburton!). In short, Iraq which had been under miserable UN sanctions since the first Bush/Gulf War (1991), was a totally innocent victim of the US war machine, and little Bush’s Shock & Awe campaign was a massive act of terrorism. But they hate us for our freedoms…

Speaking of bin Laden, when the Russians invaded Afghanistan in 1980, the US/CIA trained the Mujahideen to overthrow a “mighty power.” Among those warriors was none other than Osama bin Laden! He was our specially trained go to guy. The Mujahideen, the Taliban and Al-Queda are all linked. Needless to say, the Russians left Afghanistan “defeated” because they had wasted billions there. Sound familiar? It was money, not Reagan, that tore down [that] wall; and look where the US is… still (since 10/7/2001) mired in a wasteful war in Afghanistan with the only things to show for it being: death, destruction, destabilization and DEBT.

To go further back, the US had no real Middle East problem until the establishment of Israel in 1948. Until then, that land was Palestine. But the Palestinians have been treated as the Native Americans were treated in this nation and further abused, as settlers in their own land, by Israel’s government which acts against them much as the Nazis treated the Jews during WWII. Yet the US turns a blind eye, gives Israel military and financial aid (your tax dollars at work) no matter what Israel does… including killing American citizens like Rachel Corie or Furkan Dogan. Look them up. Israel thumbs its nose at the UN in a way no Arab nation would dare, and what does the US do? Sanctions? Invasio? No way. Rather, it’s whatever you say/want, Mr. Netanyahu? Our politicians bend over backward to aid and abet Israel. Just look at AIPAC’s power.

But it doesn’t stop there!

The US supported Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, another ruthless dictator until last year’s Arab/Egyptian spring. The US installed Pinochet in Chile, after ousting Allende. The major US export is weapons, and now we have drones which as Glenn Greenwald wrote in The Guardian:

“… the vast majority of Americans have no clue that bombing one target and then targeting rescuers with "double-tap" attacks is precisely what the US now does with its drone program and other forms of militarism. If most Americans knew their government and military were doing this, would they react the same way as they did to Boston’s attack... Whatever rage you're feeling toward the perpetrator of this Boston attack, that's the rage -- in sustained form -- that people across the world feel toward the US for killing innocent people in their countries. Whatever sadness you feel for Boston's victims, the same level of sadness is warranted for the innocent people whose lives are ended by American bombs. However profound a loss you recognize the parents and family members of these victims to have suffered, that's the same loss experienced by victims of US violence... The administration says: "When multiple (explosive) devices go off that's an act of terrorism." If that’s what terrorism is, that encompasses what the US does in the world on a very regular basis.”

I could go on and on, but the problem this nation has is a lack of perspective coupled with ignorance and violence. A violent nation begets more violence and the US is good at violence. Look at the fanatics in the US Congress and in state houses across this country as well as the truly ignorant/uninformed or willfully ignorant Americans who swallow corporatized infotainment as fact, demonize anyone who is not a white Christian, value only money and worship GUNS.

Or read Chalmers Johnson Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire

[treestar]

11. Lame

That's like not blaming terrorists at all. They did exist first, they did 911.

Whatever the US has done, none of it justifies 911.

[Carolina]

14. Oh really?

Nothing justifies what they did? What justifies what we have done?

Let me repeat what I wrote above and provide for you a much needed review of the violent history of the US, particularly the violence it has wreaked in the Middle East and South America, especially since the 1950s.

In 1953 the US/CIA overthrew Mohammed Mosaddegh, the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran. Why? Because he wanted to nationalize Iran’s oil, i.e. use Iran’s natural resource for the benefit of Iranian people. However, British Petroleum (yes, the same BP that continues to despoil the Gulf of Mexico) and the US/CIA said no way. So, there was US/CIA coup in which the Shah of Iran was installed because he would do the bidding of BP and the US, meaning the Iranians would only get 20% benefit from their land’s natural oil resources. There was a reason Khomeini ousted the Shah and rebels overtook the US embassy in 1979. There is a reason they hate the US, and wouldn't we feel the same if the situation were reversed?! But all the general American populace knows is the post 1979 history.

But it doesn’t stop there.

From 1980-1988, Iran and Iraq were at war. The US was still mad at Iran for ousting the Shah, etc. so it therefore armed Iraq and was cozy with Saddam Hussein, another US puppet… until he wasn’t. The US gave Iraq those chemical weapons which the Bush/Cheney regime morphed into a lie-filled crisis in 2003, manipulatively linking Iraq with 9/11 despite the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers (plus mastermind bin Laden) were Saudi Arabian while the other 4 were from Yemen, Egypt and United Arab Emirates (home of Dubai and Halliburton!). In short, Iraq which had been under miserable UN sanctions since the first Bush/Gulf War (1991), was a totally innocent victim of the US war machine, and little Bush’s Shock & Awe campaign was a massive act of terrorism. But they hate us for our freedoms…

Speaking of bin Laden, when the Russians invaded Afghanistan in 1980, the US/CIA trained the Mujahideen to overthrow a “mighty power.” Among those warriors was none other than Osama bin Laden! He was our specially trained go to guy. The Mujahideen, the Taliban and Al-Queda are all linked. Needless to say, the Russians left Afghanistan “defeated” because they had wasted billions there. Sound familiar? It was money, not Reagan, that [tore] down wall; and look where the US is… still (since 10/7/2001) mired in a wasteful war in Afghanistan with the only things to show for it being: death, destruction, destabilization and DEBT.

To go further back, the US had no real Middle East problem until the establishment of Israel in 1948. Until then, that land was Palestine. But the Palestinians have been treated as the Native Americans were treated in this nation and further abused, as settlers in their own land, by Israel’s government which acts against them much as the Nazis treated the Jews during WWII. Yet the US turns a blind eye, gives Israel military and financial aid (your tax dollars at work) no matter what Israel does… including killing American citizens like Rachel Corie or Furkan Dogan. Look them up. Israel thumbs its nose at the UN in a way no Arab nation would dare, and what does the US do? Sanctions? Invasio? No way. Rather, it’s whatever you say/want, Mr. Netanyahu? Our politicians bend over backward to aid and abet Israel. Just look at AIPAC’s power.

But it doesn’t stop there!

The US supported Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, another ruthless dictator until last year’s Arab/Egyptian spring. The US installed Pinochet in Chile, after ousting Allende. The major US export is weapons, and now we have drones which as Glenn Greenwald wrote in The Guardian:

“… the vast majority of Americans have no clue that bombing one target and then targeting rescuers with "double-tap" attacks is precisely what the US now does with its drone program and other forms of militarism. If most Americans knew their government and military were doing this, would they react the same way as they did to Boston’s attack... Whatever rage you're feeling toward the perpetrator of this Boston attack, that's the rage -- in sustained form -- that people across the world feel toward the US for killing innocent people in their countries. Whatever sadness you feel for Boston's victims, the same level of sadness is warranted for the innocent people whose lives are ended by American bombs. However profound a loss you recognize the parents and family members of these victims to have suffered, that's the same loss experienced by victims of US violence... The administration says: "When multiple (explosive) devices go off that's an act of terrorism." If that’s what terrorism is, that encompasses what the US does in the world on a very regular basis.”
I could go on and on, but the problem this nation has is a lack of perspective coupled with ignorance which your post reflects. A violent nation begets more violence and the US is good at violence. Look at the fanatics in the US Congress and in state houses across this country as well as the truly ignorant/uninformed or willfully ignorant Americans who swallow corporatized infotainment as fact, demonize anyone who is not a white Christian, value only money and worship GUNS.

Or read Chalmers Johnson Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire

[treestar]

16. None of that justifies 911 or Boston

You're starting in 1953?

[Carolina]

17. Of course I'm starting

in 1953. History matters, hatreds simmer and violence is all too often the result.

If you cannot see how US history, actually starting in 1948, has had an affect on terrorism today -- meaning 9/11 ("bin Laden determined to strike...&quot and Boston and beyond -- then you're part of the problem. If you truly read what I wrote in its entirety, I pointed out how coups, invasions and now drones are all part of the behavior of the US against others.

It is knowledge of history and perspective that will easily connect dots for you:
1948
1953
1967
1991
2003

They are all connected and 9/11 as well Boston are forms of blowback.

Don't get me wrong, I have no sympathy with the terrorists and my heart goes out to the victims. But I can understand how those innocents who have been systematically terrorized by US action(s) would want revenge. And yes, the US history of violence begets violence which is what we have seen in recent events.

[Carolina]

15. Yes, you're right

Drones along with:

Desert Storm
Shock & Awe
Israel (right or wrong)
Covert CIA ops (the Shah, etc)

You reap what you sow and sadly, this nation is quite good at sowing violence