|
| quote: | Originally posted by biznology
Okay, lets start from the top...
The 'root cause' of al-Qaeda is not the 'destruction of Israel', because Israel still exists.
This may be a goal of theirs, but 'destruction' isnt a cause for their formation. You are probably using the word 'cause' differently that I am, but as to why the terrorism started and continues has more to do with the oil and construction wealth among its leaders- as well as the growth in popularity of more fundamentalist Islam, specifically out of Saudi schools.
as for your preaching the desires of Osama himself, i think goals of toppling Western power and influence come well before the overhaul of Saudi govt. a Taliban-like regime would be nice in his quest, but he still gets his riches from his countrymen regardless.
|
Huh? So if the destruction of Israel was a root cuase it wouldn't exist?
Edit: Ahhh ok I understand now ... you're arguing semantics. Ok well to clarify my position, the root cause for most middle east terrorist groups is the plight of the palestinians which had engendered hatred for israel ... blah blah blah ... their objective is to destroy israel. Happy? 
It may not be the fundamental 'cause' for Al-Qaeda's creation but it most certainly is for Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. As for Osama's goals with Al-Qaeda, think about it ... he's not a stupid man, he must know that he can do very little to actually hurt the US or Europe. So what are his actual objectives?
Osama bin Laden may not be winning his war with America, but it's far from clear that he's losing. That's not simply because he remains at large while reports of his spokesmen threatening new terror outrages have become a media staple. It's because an important measure of Bin Laden's strategic success or failure is the extent to which his worldview is embraced, or repudiated, on the Arab street. The fundamental strategic objective of al-Qaeda's terrorism is to channel the widespread anti-American anger in the Muslim world into the overthrow of pro-Western rulers, and their replacement by radical Islamist regimes. Whether the targets of its attacks are in the U.S. or Europe or the Middle East, their purpose is to fuel Islamic revolutions in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Arab and Muslim world.
http://www.time.com/time/world/arti...,300503,00.html
| quote: |
before the strong Jewish lobby...
so you mean to say that only recently Jewish interests have become of importance within the US govt? i highly doubt that.
lets assume your assumption is correct, and our support of the founding of the state of Israel after WW2 was nothing but out of the goodness of our hearts. that may have been the case, but today we are pumping way more money, military and support into that tiny strip of desert than we ever have been in the past. the Jewish lobby of today does have something to do with that. im not a conspiracy theorist, because thats the truth.
as for the cold war, explain that, because we had more influence in Turkey during the cold war than in Israel, its a much more strategic country to Europe and the West and it was compeletly ignored after the fall of the USSR.
|
No I'm saying that Jewish interests have ALWAYS been important to the US government even before the strong Jewish lobby today. I don't deny the fact that the Jewish lobby is VERY strong in the US, I'm merely stating that our support for Israel cannot ONLY be explained with the simple statement that it's because of the Jewish lobby. There is a history of support and public sympathy for the existence of Israel post WW2.
Although technically part of the middle east, turkey is not really a part of the middle east in the sense of where the oil is. Additionally, with much of the middle east turning towards becoming pro-Soviet, Israel became much more of a priority in cold war politics. Once again, yes the jewish lobby has an influence but the relationship is much deeper.
The turning point came in 1962. Israel had attempted previously to persuade the US of its potential strategic value against the Soviet Union, and the USSR's support of Egypt and Syria were perhaps instrumental in Kennedy's decision to start directly selling arms to Israel for the first time. When Israel emerged victorious from the 1967 War with its neighbours, the US notably did not force it to withdraw from its newly occupied territories. By this stage America had come to see Israel's military supremacy in the region as beneficial to US interests, and this view was strengthened by Israel's promise of assistance should Hussein of Jordan have fallen to extremists identified with the USSR in their 1970 rising. Although successful efforts were made thereafter to maintain relationships with some Arabs, from then on Israel's special relationship with America was secure, as were its own borders. What made Israel unique among the proxies involved in the Cold War was the extent of its influence over one of the super powers. This allowed it to receive sufficient support even when it was not in that power's interests to give it. Although capitalist and democratic, Israel was more interested in its own expansion and survival (which it considered connected) than in fighting the Cold War. By 1967, the Cold War had become another asset to Israel, and this ensured its support from America, while Israel's influence in the US freed it from the degree of control other proxies were subjected to, as witnessed in its willingness to provoke the Soviet Union.
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~pvteac...papers/06b.html
| quote: |
First of all, race doesnt exist. i think you are assuming that a religious or ethnic conflict is the same as a race based one, but outside of the US race based conflict isnt usually an issue.
if you are going to believe in racism tho, you also cant assume you arent racist. that, on the other hand, is a long sociological arguement i dont wanna cover. just drop the racism word in your discussion and you cant be as misconstrued...
|
Very well, I'll simply say instead that you were mistaken in your assumptions that I believe all palestinians are terrorists.
| quote: |
again, 'cause' here is being mistaken i think.
of course the existence of Palestinians does not equate the existence of terrorists...
you claim that security -against terrorism- is the problem here. is it not all together possible that the lack of security the Palestinians feel is what has led to increased terrorism? when you have a tiny country, which in your eyes is occupying what was 50 years ago your land, financed by world superpowers, i dont think that security is holding the process back. i think its the Palestinians who feel insecure- albeit only a few that choose terrorism as the *supposed* solution.
if the PLO has no control, they cant speak- as simple as that. that doesnt mean the Palestinians should be ignored, or that their cause isnt valid tho-
|
Well of course the existence of Palestinians does not equate the existence of terrorists ... I was referring to the existence of the Palestinian plight.
But speaking in the present day, I think that the issue of security is a huge part of the peace processes falling apart. The lack of control of the PLO is resulting in Israel taking things into its own hands to curb attacks against it. Then as the cycle of violence spirals out of control the peace process flies out the window. Nobody said anything about ignoring the palestinian cause.
| quote: |
ok, now look who is talking out of their ass...(please try to be a little more mature here)
|
Look buddy, I'm not going to do a whole tit-for-tat thing here but reading back, you were the one that brought up the whole talking out of the ass thing. So lets both be mature and drop it .
| quote: |
again, like i said. its not a racial issue. ethnic, religious yes- not 2 different 'species' of humans fighting one another.
all i was saying is that when you have a superpower-supported country bulldozing homes with US equipment- hell yah youre gonna feel threatened. palestinians use Kalishnakovs because they are dirt cheap. travel to the Balkans, less than 10 USD could get you an ak there. the israelis are using top of the line equipment- aks are ww2 tech.
so irael desires security from suicide bombings- how in the world would crushing homes help their cause? would it eliminate terrorists or create them? i think the answer is simple.
i understand your desire for terrorism to move out of the picture- but that will only be the case when both sides feel trusted as equals by the world and by each other. killing terrorists is like chopping up the broom in Fantasia- you just get more in the aftermath- not less| |
Ok ok religious-ism or whatever not racism ... the concept of hatred is still the same.
I'm not saying that the Israeli approach to counter-terrorism is the correct way. I'm merely stating that even if both sides trust each other as equals, the terrorism will not stop. In most situations their demands are ridiculous, and as such force must be used. Especially with regards to resolving the Israeli/Palestinian issue, the terrorism must be stopped in order for both sides to come to an agreement to eliminate the root causes of why terrorism has arisen. I don't think the Israelis should step in and do it all themselves. The answer is for the PLO themselves to consolidate their authority over these groups.
Edit: Sharon has just formally accepted the road map to peace. Now that both sides have accepted the conditions to achieve peace who wants to take bets that there's going to be a terrorist attack in an attempt to derail the peace process?
___________________
Retro ...
Last edited by occrider on May-23-2003 at 16:08
|
. Thus part of the problem isn't simply the humanitarian conditions of the people they supposedly fight for. They have their own idealogical objectives that they wish to put in place through the use of force since they can't achieve it through politically peaceful means. 
