Here is a good blog post on the silliness of our people in charge of our Foreign Policy (See Below my comments). Until we actually start looking at "why" of why the terrorist attack us, we will never have a chance to actually rid the world of people that would like to do us harm. And before people start saying, "oh that Crosley is nuts, he actually blames us for people the attacks of terrorism." Thats not my belief at all. I do believe our foreign policy drives more and more people to attack us, but that never excuses the actions of the people who do it. The US constantly interfering in other countries affairs ALWAYS develops a hatred to us by a group in that country (Even in countries that like us like Germany and Japan). Then the question really should become if you believe this is, Can the USA ever rid the entire world of ALL these extremist groups? Can we kill them all? I think just about everyone would agree this is impossible, both financially and realistically.
How did the Afgan rebels beats the Soviets? They outlasted them, they hid out in the hills in the caves, occasionally hitting the "enemy" all the while telling the countries people that they (USSR) was trying to take over their country. They won over the hearts of their own people, and pretty much bankrupted the USSR till they had to leave, give up the fight. And who gave them these ideas on how to win? WE DID the United States. Now they are doing the same thing against us, but now they are even more spread out, in many different countries and not nearly as organized. So each time we hit a village with an airstrike, they lose a few people, but gain in many more ways. There is almost always collateral damage, innocents are killed. That wins the hearts of the locals and probably actually generates more "terrorists" than were killed in the strike. Not to mention the Trillions of dollars that are spent on the "war."
But like I said my philosophy doesnt excuse the the terror the terrorist causes. But what it does is give understand as to why they are doing it. A similar example is when you see a father/mother kill someone who may have hurt their child. You can totally understand where the anger came from to do such an act, but that certainly doesnt excuse the parents actions in killing.
That’s Evidence for What?!
January 7, 2010by Gene Callahan
I certainly don’t mean to try to decide the “root causes of terrorism” in a blog post, but I just read an “analysis” of this issue that’s so bad that, well, gosh darn it, I had to take up my pen (keyboard) and write (type).
The article in question was written by Rich Lowry over at National Review, and is called “The Death of a Theory.” What is the theory that has been decisively falsified by recent events?
“Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab couldn’t ignite the bomb in his underwear on Flight 253 on Christmas Day. All he managed to blow up was a worldview. His failed attempt put paid to the notion that terrorism is the byproduct of a few, specific U.S. policies and of our image abroad.”
Ah, so, we are going to find out that Mutallab confessed to officials, “No, there is no U.S. policy that prompted me to do this — I just hate America!”
So it’s a bit of a surprise when, just a little later, Lowry tells us, “In taking responsibility for Abdul Mutallab’s attempted attack, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) claimed it was in retaliation for a U.S.-sponsored strike against its leadership in Yemen.”
So, wait… the group responsible says this was “the byproduct of a few, specific U.S. policies”?! Ah, but Lowry also mentioned Nidal Malik Hasan, the murderer at Fort Hood. So it must be Hasan who provides this killer new evidence that these attacks are unconnected to U. S. foreign policy, right? Not so fast: “Hasan reportedly was disappointed that Obama stayed in Afghanistan.” Huh? The perpetrator of this attack, too, says it was motivated by a specific U.S. policy? And these claims refute the idea that specific U.S. policies contribute to terrorism?
Now, I don’t contend for a second that these claims by the terrorists in question prove that Lowry is mistaken in his view that the terrorists “just hate America.” No, clearly they could be lying. But I find it absolutely bizarre to see these cases put forward as proof that the people who think U.S. foreign policy may play a role in terrorist attacks are wrong! Lowry apparently is basing his case on the fact that these are new complaints about U.S. foreign policy: “For years, we were told that the Iraq War was al-Qaeda’s best recruiting tool. Now, new recruiting tools are at hand.”
Of what possible relevance to the debate here is the newness of these “recruiting tools”? It’s as if someone tried to prove that smoking doesn’t cause lung cancer by pointing to the fact that even people who smoke new brands of cigarettes, that weren’t even out when the latest studies were done, also get cancer!
Well, for Lowry, the relevance seems to be, “if it’s not one thing, it will just be something else,” as he continues: “If we pull our troops from Afghanistan, they’ll object to our missile strikes in Pakistan.” Well, OK, but can’t one see how shooting missiles into a heavily populated country might be found objectionable, at least by some extremists? This seems another, specific U.S. policy that might be cause trouble.
“If we stop the missile strikes, they’ll object to our training of foreign militaries.” Once again, at least if these are “foreign militaries” crushing the opposition at the behest of some petty Arab tyrant, then one can understand possible objections.
“If we stop that, they’ll object that we have the temerity to maintain a blue-water navy.” Whoa, wait just a second! Lowry has seemingly attempted to lull us to sleep with some things terrorists are likely to really object to, before trying to slip his Trojan Horse past us. “A blue-water navy”? Has anyone, ever, heard a single terrorist claim something like, “I go to Allah now to decommission the blue-water navy of the great Satan”? No? No, I didn’t think so.
I guess the goal of the piece is to get these things all muddled, so the reader ends up shaking his head and saying, “Man, those terrorists won’t quit until we give up our navy.”
As I have stressed, Lowry may well be right: These terrorists may well be lying to us, and have the real goal of seeing our “suicidal abdication.” But this “killer” new evidence Lowry presents offers not an iota of support for that view; if this is the best Lowry can offer, then maybe it’s Lowry who can’t give up his “operating theory of terrorism, no matter how tattered.”
I certainly don’t mean to try to decide the “root causes of terrorism” in a blog post, but I just read an “analysis” of this issue that’s so bad that, well, gosh darn it, I had to take up my pen (keyboard) and write (type).
The article in question was written by Rich Lowry over at National Review, and is called “The Death of a Theory.” What is the theory that has been decisively falsified by recent events?
“Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab couldn’t ignite the bomb in his underwear on Flight 253 on Christmas Day. All he managed to blow up was a worldview. His failed attempt put paid to the notion that terrorism is the byproduct of a few, specific U.S. policies and of our image abroad.”
Ah, so, we are going to find out that Mutallab confessed to officials, “No, there is no U.S. policy that prompted me to do this — I just hate America!”
So it’s a bit of a surprise when, just a little later, Lowry tells us, “In taking responsibility for Abdul Mutallab’s attempted attack, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) claimed it was in retaliation for a U.S.-sponsored strike against its leadership in Yemen.”
So, wait… the group responsible says this was “the byproduct of a few, specific U.S. policies”?! Ah, but Lowry also mentioned Nidal Malik Hasan, the murderer at Fort Hood. So it must be Hasan who provides this killer new evidence that these attacks are unconnected to U. S. foreign policy, right? Not so fast: “Hasan reportedly was disappointed that Obama stayed in Afghanistan.” Huh? The perpetrator of this attack, too, says it was motivated by a specific U.S. policy? And these claims refute the idea that specific U.S. policies contribute to terrorism?
Now, I don’t contend for a second that these claims by the terrorists in question prove that Lowry is mistaken in his view that the terrorists “just hate America.” No, clearly they could be lying. But I find it absolutely bizarre to see these cases put forward as proof that the people who think U.S. foreign policy may play a role in terrorist attacks are wrong! Lowry apparently is basing his case on the fact that these are new complaints about U.S. foreign policy: “For years, we were told that the Iraq War was al-Qaeda’s best recruiting tool. Now, new recruiting tools are at hand.”
Of what possible relevance to the debate here is the newness of these “recruiting tools”? It’s as if someone tried to prove that smoking doesn’t cause lung cancer by pointing to the fact that even people who smoke new brands of cigarettes, that weren’t even out when the latest studies were done, also get cancer!
Well, for Lowry, the relevance seems to be, “if it’s not one thing, it will just be something else,” as he continues: “If we pull our troops from Afghanistan, they’ll object to our missile strikes in Pakistan.” Well, OK, but can’t one see how shooting missiles into a heavily populated country might be found objectionable, at least by some extremists? This seems another, specific U.S. policy that might be cause trouble.
“If we stop the missile strikes, they’ll object to our training of foreign militaries.” Once again, at least if these are “foreign militaries” crushing the opposition at the behest of some petty Arab tyrant, then one can understand possible objections.
“If we stop that, they’ll object that we have the temerity to maintain a blue-water navy.” Whoa, wait just a second! Lowry has seemingly attempted to lull us to sleep with some things terrorists are likely to really object to, before trying to slip his Trojan Horse past us. “A blue-water navy”? Has anyone, ever, heard a single terrorist claim something like, “I go to Allah now to decommission the blue-water navy of the great Satan”? No? No, I didn’t think so.
I guess the goal of the piece is to get these things all muddled, so the reader ends up shaking his head and saying, “Man, those terrorists won’t quit until we give up our navy.”
As I have stressed, Lowry may well be right: These terrorists may well be lying to us, and have the real goal of seeing our “suicidal abdication.” But this “killer” new evidence Lowry presents offers not an iota of support for that view; if this is the best Lowry can offer, then maybe it’s Lowry who can’t give up his “operating theory of terrorism, no matter how tattered.”
No comments:
Post a Comment