Terrorism: Cause And Effect

[P.K.]

Exactly right.

 

Al Queda was formed originally to support the Muhajadin fighting the Russians in Afghanistan. Osama is something of a hero in the area not only because of his wartime exploits but also for his civil engineering projects.

 

After invading Iran and using WMD to make up for their lack of fighting manpower Saddam Hussein then invaded his other neighbour, Kuwait. For a time it looked like the Western Powers were not going to do anything about it either. Eventually Margaret Thatcher met with Bush Senior and if the rumours are true managed to get him to commit the USA to leading a coalition to kick Saddam out. Basically without US firepower and logistical support an operation like that was not going to be possible.

 

The House of Saud, presumably fearing they were next, invited them in to guard their borders leading eventually to a counter-offensive. This absolutely outraged Mr Osama. Not only had the Saudis let the infidels walk all over the holiest land in Islam but once in it was likely they would not be leaving. At that defining moment Al Queda turned all it's attention to the Coalition and in particular the chief protagonist and leader - the USA. After that 9-11 was always going to take place as was Bali, Madrid, London etc etc.

 

When the conflict started I noticed from the pictures of the bombing that they were taking down the bridges ie they weren't going all the way. Saddam knew it too. With Saddam out of Kuwait along comes Bush W and 9-11 and T.W.A.T. as it is known. First Al-Queda and the Taleban out of Afghanistan. Then Saddam out of Iraq but unfortunately too late as his WMD research has forced his previously invaded neighbours to take the same route - Iran is now going nuclear with a hardline religious leader, very bad news indeed.

 

So sorry all of you No WMD Found Blair-bashers, if there is any one UK politician to blame for the London bombing it is Margaret Thatcher. But if Saddam hadn't been kicked out of Kuwait and finally dealt with I don't know what sort of world we would be living in right now. One thing is for sure, Islamic Extremist terrorism is here to stay. Thanks Saddam.

[Pip]

Interestingly enough teh expression "he who wins writes the history books". Can anyone honestly say that had Germany won WW2 that Hitler would have been as vilified as he has been?? OR is it more likely he would have been made into a living God? The same is applicable to both Washington and Jefferson, both of whom were made into AMERICAN patriots but British Traitors.... not particulalry hard to get your noodle around.

As for Bin Laden... well that individual was in fact trained by the CIA. The USA made it a tool of Foreign policy to support domestic insurgencies that would either A) put a regime favourable to them into power or B ) place pressure on teh soviet union... In Bin Laden's case he was trained by the CIA in order to help put pressure on teh occupying power, which in this case was the Soviets.. Afghanistan became the Soviet Vietnam... THe reason for doing this was to actually drain the Soviets military power and give the US a political advantage. If the USSR was less able to invade or fight, it would thus make it easier for the US to strong arm teh Soviets into consessions.. From 1979 onwards saw the decline in teh power of the Soviet union is this a conincidence that they were in a retracted insurgency? There are other examples of this particular method of foreign policy, with examples in Angola and Mozambique in the 70's. Examples where after teh failure of direct US intervention teh US decided to switch to a more indirect method of confronting issues that did not sit right in teh whole scheme of US foreign policy. But more importantly, Bin Laden was actually FINANCED by teh Americans...

 

 

AS for the School of the Americas, that is in fact a CIA run operation used to train people in Insurgency tactics. The place that people can send their officers too for training is actually teh US Army War College in Carlile Pennsylvania, a surprisingly nice looking barracks. I was fortunate enough to visit for a conference on insurgency (I am not a member of the armed forces just a mere student), and I will post an article by an ASTOUNDING man who tracked Bin Laden under CLinton and for a while under Bush and was on Panorama last week, the brief he gave is OUTSTANDING, unbelievable, but I suggest you read that for an interesting perspective... THis is all his work and is an exceptional article, a bit long but worth a read.

 

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/conf/stra...l3-Scheurer.pdf

 

As for Iran... after teh Contra affair in 1979 when teh Iranians took over the US embassy both in London and in Iraq and took hostages, this kinda upset the yanks, and from that point forward the US decided to back Iraq and when teh Iran Iraq war rolled around Bush snr actually SUPPORTED Saddam Hussein against teh Iranians...

 

Terrorism is about leverage. An organisation such as Al Queda can bring a far greater amount of leverage by using terrorism. For example, there is no way that Al Queda could beat teh US in a conventional war (or Britain for that matter), teh US would simply stamp on them. Just like if you wieght 8 stone wet and a 16 stone giant picks a fight with you, do you hit him in teh mummy daddy button or do you fight fair? More to the point do you fight to survive or do you fight to win? This is not a justification of terrorism as a legitimate tool, one must understand WHY its used before you can combat it... However, the use of terrorism is an attempt to level teh playing field in an attempt by Al Queda at achieving its own goals. It doesnt make that ethical, nor does it necessarily mean that they will get what they want, but who doesnt know of Al Queda? Who doesnt knwo that they hate Western influence....

 

 

And as for who to blame this one on... well you can put it down to Colonialism, we have been on the sh*t list since we took over from the Ottomans in administrering the middle EAst, both in Iraq, and Saudi Arabia (Lawrence of Arabia) as well as Iran... We have been on their list for a long time..

 

ps if there are any misspelled words, its because I cant type as fast as I think, but I think you get the gist of it...

[Jonty]

Slightly strange replies, though in the right area.

 

I think you will find that it was John Major who was in charge at the time of the first Gulf War, and was involved in the negotiations prior to that, where Bush Senior and he played cat and mouse with Saddam - not Mrs. Thatcher.

 

Iraq and Saddam had NOTHING to do with Islamic fundamentalism, or the drive to get the infidel out of Saudi Arabia. Iraq was a secular country, whose foreign minister was a Christian. Bin Laden despised that regime and Saddam.

 

Finally, prior to the second Gulf War, Britain was at NO risk at all from attack by fundamentalists. It was known prior to 11/9, and after, that thousands of young British Islamists had been to training camps in Afghanistan, but they were NO threat to Britain, because they were keeping their base 'safe' for future operations abroad and in Afghanistan.

 

It was only after Britain was involved in the invasion of Iraq that the picture changed, and the 'local' potential terrorists had the justfication to direct their venom to a new target, and did not mind crapping in their own nest. There has been a battle between the security services and them for the last two years. This is the first slip up.

[VinnieK]

Finally, prior to the second Gulf War, Britain was at NO risk at all from attack by fundamentalists.

 

Not according to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: Here

[mollag]

Is it just me or is there a reluctance in the media to link these horrific acts to the policies we are pursuing with america, C Kennedy caused anger no less by sort of hinting that it may be the case.

 

Is it a tabooo topic?

[Rog]

Is it just me or is there a reluctance in the media to link these horrific acts to the policies we are pursuing with america, C Kennedy caused anger no less by sort of hinting that it may be the case.

 

Is it a tabooo topic?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

We are engaged in a war that was not started by the West.

 

It is a war that was started 1300 years ago but really kicked in some 1100 years ago and up till now and with the ease of transport and communications had been mostly localised.

[Pip]

Is it just me or is there a reluctance in the media to link these horrific acts to the policies we are pursuing with america, C Kennedy caused anger no less by sort of hinting that it may be the case.

 

Is it a tabooo topic?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

It is a bit taboo, but its abotu justification... the media doesnt want to make the link because that would make it look like the attacks are justified..... which is an awful thing to do.. It is a bit like suggesting that British Troops simply rounded up some Iraqis and then shot them. Now while some Iraqis might have been a bit humiliated, they werent killed and no amount of humiliation public or private really justifies killing people... let me just cry because some dude was photographed naked... oh wait we do that all the time.... so killing people for "atrocities" in IRaq is just BS.. I dont think you can compare teh killing of innocent people in Madrid and London, when had the europeans NOT been invovled with teh war effort, there would have been far MORE innocent blood spilt... so yeah.. ur right...

[mollag]

Yo pip

 

Wasnt thinking about the abuse thing, not nice but yeah not the end of the world. I was thinking of the whole ball game, invasion and occupation together, Im not even commenting on the rights and wrongs of that but more is it right that the possible link between invasion and london bombs should be taboo?

I mean it could be that its just bad taste or is there a underlying reluctance.

 

PS i aint looking to justify these attacks just find the root cause.

[Blixo]

If we are going to refer to the media can we at least refer to them in the proper context, they are the 'The Corporate Media' after all this was one of the major (& unpublicised) achievements of the Thatcher Government.

 

Rog.. What a piece of work eh!.. Tell me Rog.... How did yer mate Netanyahu (he was yet another scrounge/blackmail mission for the der fatherland) get a forewarning of the attack??

 

Qui bono? That’s what you have to ask yourself?

 

What really disgusts me about his whole affair is when the loss of life is equated to the loss of Portfolio value.

[Rog]

Rog.. What a piece of work eh!.. Tell me Rog.... How did yer mate Netanyahu (he was yet another scrounge/blackmail mission for the der fatherland) get a forewarning of the attack??

 

Qui bono? That’s what you have to ask yourself?

 

What really disgusts me about his whole affair is when the loss of life is equated to the loss of Portfolio value.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What I read was that the Met called and warned that they had been given a tip off that there was to be an attack.

[ButterflyMaiden]

This thread seems to have strayed a little but I feel bound to respond to Vinnie.

 

The first part of this statement seems rather strange, as it seems to condone the violent resentment of those of a fundamental religious disposition, and value their feelings higher than those of the broad majority of their fellow nationals.  Time and time again, numerous polls in Muslim countries have shown a steady increase in the enthusiasm of the majority of inhabitants for values of the open society such as a free press and democratic rule.  The second part of the statement seems, if you will forgive me, just plain bizarre.  How does a shift from a political society to civil society establish boundaries to human behaviour?

Actually, Vinnie, and notwithstanding any problems in interpreting my extremely brief post .. I was accurately summarising Gramsci's ideas. (Brevity isnt always a virtue ..but I couldnt really post a 10,000 word essay!)

 

The strength of those feelings is evident on the web sites I have looked at this week in search of an explanation for various acts of terrorism.

This is hardly an unbiased or comprehensive source though is it?

It wasnt meant to be ..I would have thought that was self evident

 

Firstly, you appear unsure of what globalisation actually is, and how it is connected with democracy.

interesting observation. My Phd was based on Globalisation and American Hegemony. I am still trying to understand the dynamics of Globalisation and hope to have new work ready for early next year. But thanks for the critical appraisal anyhow.

 

If anything, democracy represents more of a gamble for both globalisation and the U.S. hegemony than simply cultivating good relationships with despotic regimes cold war style.

Its the result which is important to the US. Witness support of Saudi regime. Nevertheless US rhetoric makes much of implanting democracy. I did think I had made the point that the actual policy has little to do with freedom... obviously not enough flesh in my post again.

 

Criticism of Globalisation is fine, but to seek to link it with international terrorism, rather than demonstrating a link, is pretty cheap.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I really dont think I have offered any criticism of globalisation. I have suggested there may be a causal link between Globalisation,American hegemony in the context of globalisation, and the terrible events we have seen in various places.

 

Hope this clarifies things a little Vinnie

[ButterflyMaiden]

A little stung by Vinnie's criticism that I was taking a cheap shot (!!! not) ...

 

One of the problems in understanding globalisation is that of finding a definition.

 

Economic liberals, for example, hold a distinctly different view of globalisation than Marxists do.

 

In addition, Globalisation is not limited to the Economic domain (sorry Vinnie).

 

It has consequences for the social, cultural, political and economic domains.

 

Globalisation is a dynamic. It is a dynamic of interlocking processes.

 

If we track the dynamic we can arrive at a definition....

 

Globalisation is the compression of time and space.

 

We can also via empirical observation note the effects of globalisation ...

 

Vinnie has provided us with some of the effects already but there are many more for example ..

 

It has led to new forms of production and industrial organisation.

 

It has accelerated the growth of the (Marxist) proletariat on a global scale.

 

It has led to major geographical displacements of human beings.

 

It has given impetus to the process of urbanisation.

 

The autonomy of nation states has been eroded by the emergence of a whole array of international regimes and organisations which exist solely to manage transnational interactions and collective policy problems, and by the expansion of the scope of international laws.

 

It has led to environmental problems.

 

It has produced a new form of imperialism, cultural imperialism and a growing interpenetration of the same.

 

I have deliberately not provided reference sources to support the above as my main concern is to link the dynamic with disaffection and possibly extreme acts. I am, however, more than happy to discuss the dynamic of Globalisation with anyone who may be interested.

How then does this all tie together ?

First of all there is a veritable mountain of evidence to support my view that there may be a link between Globalisation, US hegemony and acts of terror. Rather than lengthen an already long post I include a link to a short paper (Manchester Metropolitan) which makes the point rather well.

Globalisation

Regarding Gramsci's views on political society, civil society and democracy, there are numerous contradictory works and it is certainly the case that the Manchester paper makes no mention of his analysis while managing to arrive at similar conclusions.

In summary, although the original post was brief in the extreme, I refute Vinnie's assertion I was taking a cheap shot at what is .. a very serious subject

[P.K.]

I find it interesting that whenever terrorism gets a mention all sorts immediately spout time and time again the old news that the USA supported the resistance against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan AND THAT INCLUDES BIN LADEN!!!!! Well shock horror probe. What else did you expect?

 

The School of the Ameriacs is probably supported by the CIA and run by the US military. It teaches how to fight back against insurgency. If you learn from your mistakes after Vietnam the US must be the world expert. So you teach your neighbours how to fight against rebellions. Makes sense to me if you want to have the right kind of buffer zones. What else did you expect? Oh sure, try and make capital out of defending your borders and you never know those who are intellectually challenged may even believe you...

I think you will find that it was John Major who was in charge at the time of the first Gulf War, and was involved in the negotiations prior to that, where Bush Senior and he played cat and mouse with Saddam -  not Mrs. Thatcher..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Major was PM during the first Gulf War but it was Thatcher who actually got Bush Senior to do something about the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait before she was removed.

 

Finally, prior to the second Gulf War, Britain was at NO risk at all from attack by fundamentalists.    It was known prior to 11/9, and after,  that thousands of young British Islamists had been to training camps in Afghanistan, but they were NO threat to Britain, because they were keeping their base 'safe' for future operations abroad and in Afghanistan.

 

It was only after Britain was involved in the invasion of Iraq that the picture changed, and the 'local' potential terrorists had the justfication to direct their venom to a new target, and did not mind crapping in their own nest.  There has been a battle between the security services and them for the last two years.    This is the first slip up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Rubbish, IMHO of course. As soon as UK troops entered Saudi for the first effort we were just as much on the menu as 9-11. Which took place before the second invasion of Iraq as I am sure we all remember. Here's a little challenge, find out the date that Muslim Extremists first tried to blow up the Twin Towers? Feb 1993 is the right answer. Quite a bit before the last Iraq effort I would of said. As to all the "Iraq Factor" bleeding hearts Iraq is currently all about Muslims killing Muslims in that sorry country. So the extremists currently quote Palestine as the raison d'etre. Not that they need an excuse that is.

 

Blame whatever you like and it won't make one jot of difference to the reality. The minority exremists see it as a clash of cultures. Unfortunately not something negotiation can fix. Welcome to the real world....

[ButterflyMaiden]

The minority exremists see it as a clash of cultures. Unfortunately not something negotiation can fix. Welcome to the real world....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That Sir, is exactly on the button

[mollag]

I find it interesting that whenever terrorism gets a mention all sorts immediately spout time and time again the old news that the USA supported the resistance against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan AND THAT INCLUDES BIN LADEN!!!!! Well shock horror probe. What else did you expect?

 

 

Wether it be old news or new what i do not expect is for our leaders to condem acts of terrorism on the one hand whilst supporting, training for and promoting terrorim on the other. Terrorism is wrong full stop and as a first step to eradicating it we must stop supporting it ourselves.