Western Foriegn Policy is not to Blame for Terror Attacks

it's just a mild coincidence that extremists aren't terrorizing Japan, Portugal, Iceland, Jamaica, Brazil, Austria, Uzbekistan, Mongolia, etc... they target the west or western values just because.... or for the 'lulz'...

next thread, where do the terrorists get the weapons they do to terrorize their own countries... not the west.. because you know those arms factories all over the Middle East deserts are to blame....

next thread, Trump admin sells another cache of weapons to a nation labeled 'very bad' a week prior....

and let's clump boko harem, a political territorial terror group in a specific place with oh, 911or people who plow into Christmas shopping centers....

originally posted by: odzeandennz


it's just a mild coincidence that extremists aren't terrorizing Japan, Portugal, Iceland, Jamaica, Brazil, Austria, Uzbekistan, Mongolia, etc... they target the west or western values just because.... or for the 'lulz'...

next thread, where do the terrorists get the weapons they do to terrorize their own countries... not the west.. because you know those arms factories all over the Middle East deserts are to blame....

next thread, Trump admin sells another cache of weapons to a nation labeled 'very bad' a week prior....

and let's clump boko harem, a political territorial terror group in a specific place with oh, 911or people who plow into Christmas shopping centers....

Maybe they aren't targeting countries like that more because..... they haven't been allowed in those countries!

Why isn't a country like say Israel targeted more? Why do countries like France get attacked much more than the US?

They are targeting Assad, right? When did Assad bomb Iraq? If its just about Us foreign policy, why attack Assad?

And maybe you missed where I said the US has done terrible things, and has funded Isis and other in some countries. That can give them means to attack, but this thread is about the motivation.

Are you claiming that Trump selling weapons to terrorists somehow infuriates the terrorists to then attack the west?

And Boko Haram shouldn't be included why? Are they not an Islamic terror group? Oh I get it, we are only allowed to discuss Islamic terror from countries the US ha bombed, because to do otherwise destroys your narrative.

Where is the Monroe Doctrine when you need it? the US was pretty much happy being isolated until being dragged into WWI and had its hand forced in WWII.

a reply to: Grambler

Only it turns out Isis takes their beliefs staight from the Koran.

That's up to debate, one could argue that the IRA was inspired by christianity as well.

You fail to demonstrate why "radical Islamism as a massive, sinister organisation" isn't anything more than a common delusion. How's the weapons deal with Saudi Arabia going btw? Useful idiots anyone?

a reply to: Grambler

Your disclaimer...

I am against regime change wars, as my post history proves.

Then disassociate from International Terrorism sponsored by the West, just_like_that.

This does not however show that terrorist are somehow legitimate and have a good reason for their actions.

Regime Changes are the source of Global Terrorism.

a reply to: Grambler

Why isn't a country like say Israel targeted more? Why do countries like France get attacked much more than the US?

Because Israel is also a sponsor of terrorist activity. All you have to do is look at how they treat Palestinians, then how they supply Insurgents fighting in Syria, treat their wounded, and directly bomb the Legitimate gubment in Damascus, outright.

Th reason France gets attacked more than the uS is the Atlantic and Pacfic Ocean "Moats". Europe and the middle East are connected by land.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Grambler

Only it turns out Isis takes their beliefs staight from the Koran.

That's up to debate, one could argue that the IRA was inspired by christianity as well.

You fail to demonstrate why "radical Islamism as a massive, sinister organisation" isn't anything more than a common delusion. How's the weapons deal with Saudi Arabia going btw? Useful idiots anyone?

Again, why do you assume I was for that weapons deal.

On thread after thread here I have criticized that.

Define massive and organized. You yourself admitted on the other thread that the US financed Al Nursa in Syria. But i guess that is not massive enough for you?

Who are the rebels fighting Assad? Who are the rebels that took over Libya? Was Gaddaffi lying too when he said it was radical Islamic groups?

Oh that Gaddafi, lying to help the US keep up their ruse while the US was financing his death!

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Grambler



Regime Changes are the source of Global Terrorism.

Prove it.

I outlined my case in the OP.

Is Boko Haram part of global terrorism? How did regime change affect them?

Why do Isis lie about what their motives are?

Unfortunately while the original post contains some truths; it's more about putting across a preconceived and rigidly dogmatic idea than attempting to understand the situation in any meaningful way.

Nobody is ever gonna boil down massively complex geopolitical issues into a single post, or even an entire thread. To pretend otherwise is just fast food for the mentally lazy.

a reply to: Grambler

Is Boko Haram part of global terrorism? How did regime change affect them?

Why do Isis lie about what their motives are?

Anti religious persecution complex, much?

Evils of Islam. If I heard you complaining about which religion western troops practice, at all, I might say you were an equal opportunity bigot.

As is though, you do everyone great disservice focusing on one religion to the exclusion of all others. Not only but completely ignore the real aggressive wars waged unjustly against sovereign country after country, under false pretenses.

originally posted by: MagnaCarta2015
Unfortunately while the original post contains some truths; it's more about putting across a preconceived and rigidly dogmatic idea than attempting to understand the situation in any meaningful way.

Nobody is ever gonna boil down massively complex geopolitical issues into a single post, or even an entire thread. To pretend otherwise is just fast food for the mentally lazy.

Nor do I claim to boil it down to one post. But whats the alternative, to never post on the subject?

I would admit that my post was a preconceived notion. And guess what, so is your post. Or did you just start typing with no notion and then words came out?

How was I dogmatic? That to me would seem to apply if my post was "Rah rah rah! The US does no wrong!!" But I am admitting to many faults with the US and Europe, and am disgusted by their regime change wars.

However, there are those criticizing this post that are basically simplistically saying the US is always evil, and there actions are to blame for all terrorism.

Surely you would criticize them as well?

And I notice you pretend to have answers in your posts.

For example, on a very similar issue on another thread, you sought to explain how young people can be radicalized in one post.

How mentally lazy of you.

originally posted by: MagnaCarta2015
Unfortunately while the original post contains some truths; it's more about putting across a preconceived and rigidly dogmatic idea than attempting to understand the situation in any meaningful way.

Nobody is ever gonna boil down massively complex geopolitical issues into a single post, or even an entire thread. To pretend otherwise is just fast food for the mentally lazy.

Actually it is easy to boil down, easier then people think. Start a disagreement on religious grounds, taking advantage of old rivalries, add guns, and stir.

a reply to: Grambler

Cultural Marxism exists almost entirely as a right-wing rhetorical construct used by "virtue signaling" right-wingers and having little to nothing to do with the reality.

How did you manage to not mention Saudi Arabia or Wahhabism even once? Perhaps because you're trying to lump all Islamic terrorist groups together to fit your argument?

Not all Islamic terrorists are the same and there's no single cause behind Islamic terrorism. Hell, there's rarely a single cause for anything in the real world. It's as absurd to believe that Western intervention has played no role in fomenting and enabling Islamic terrorism as it is to believe that it is the singular cause.

Would you lump the IRA, Christian Identity nuts like Eric Rudolph and the Lord's Resistance Army together because they all have some sort of Christian affiliation? Of course not because that would be ridiculous. Even within the same group, individuals don't necessarily have the same motivation for participating. Then you have sympathizers with their own motivations and state actors who sometimes tolerate, enable or even provide substantial support for terrorists groups for their own vastly arrayed reasons.

Your argument fails for the same reason communism fails. For the same reason libertarians of the Chicago School are deluded — trying to reduce the complexity of human behavior to a point where it doesn't come anywhere near to accurately describing reality.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Grambler

Is Boko Haram part of global terrorism? How did regime change affect them?

Why do Isis lie about what their motives are?

Anti religious persecution complex, much?

Evils of Islam. If I heard you complaining about which religion western troops practice, at all, I might say you were an equal opportunity bigot.

As is though, you do everyone great disservice focusing on one religion to the exclusion of all others. Not only but completely ignore the real aggressive wars waged unjustly against sovereign country after country, under false pretenses.

I don't ignore aggressive wars. this thread is about terrorism, Islam has a big part in that. No where did I say all muslims are bad or anything of the sort. Idenity politics pusher like you are the ones that linkl any discussion of radial Islam to all Muslims.

On other threads, I decry those wars. You just are a cultural marxist that hates the US, and so you have to blame them for being evil in every thread, which you do, no matter what the topic.

When you discuss bad wars, why do you never mention third world countries that engage in wars? Oh thats right because thats not the issue you are discussing at the time.

And further more, its rich being accused of being a bigot by a person who cheers for the removal of white people from a country merely based on their skin color.

a reply to: Grambler

This thread topic like your content, is disingenuous.

Western foreign policy IS Global Terrorism.

a reply to: Grambler

Yeah I would criticise anyone who thinks this can be resolved with one simple answer. To solely blame it on the west is ludicrous but foreign policy certainly plays a part in it.

In the post you're referring to I put across one potential cause of radicalisation, not every cause, nor did I pretend it was. Obviously never having been radicalised it's a bit difficult for me to fully understand the ins and outs of it and empathise. Is that mentally lazy? Maybe. I'm not above it myself.

I don't pretend to have any answers. I have ideas and things I feel I understand from my perspective. Do I have the time and patience to outline them in a topic this complicated? No.

a reply to: Grambler

yourself admitted on the other thread that the US financed Al Nursa in Syria. But i guess that is not massive enough for you?

Define "the west is not to blame" again?
No. Yes. D'Oh!

Anyway. Peanuts?

Operation Cyclone was one of the longest and most expensive covert CIA operations ever undertaken;[2] funding began with $20–$30 million per year in 1980 and rose to $630 million per year in 1987.[1] Funding continued after 1989 as the mujahideen battled the forces of Mohammad Najibullah's PDPA during the civil war in Afghanistan (1989–1992).

Operation Cyclone

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler

Cultural Marxism exists almost entirely as a right-wing rhetorical construct used by "virtue signaling" right-wingers and having little to nothing to do with the reality.

You are wrong. Groups like BLM prove this, as do other idenity politic pushing people. It could be a whole thread, but as you can see on this very thread, we have people saying the US is oppressors, therefore the terrorists must be oppressed.

How did you manage to not mention Saudi Arabia or Wahhabism even once? Perhaps because you're trying to lump all Islamic terrorist groups together to fit your argument?

I guess because this thread was not designed to be fully comprehensive. SA fits exactly in to what I am saying. Many of the people that attack the west (like on 9-11) are from SA. Did we bomb SA? So then bhow does the "Terror is because we bomb countries"

Not all Islamic terrorists are the same and there's no single cause behind Islamic terrorism. Hell, there's rarely a single cause for anything in the real world. It's as absurd to believe that Western intervention has played no role in fomenting and enabling Islamic terrorism as it is to believe that it is the singular cause.

Of course they bare not all the same. I never said there was a single cause, in fact I am arguing against the idea that you see being displayed by others here that the US is the cause for all of this terror. I said Bin Laden blamed western policies, including stopping genocide in East Timor. Isis claims foreign policy is not the reason, and they want a national caliphate.

And yes, intervention most certainly has played a role. For example arming terrorists. And as I mentioned in a previous post, someone who lost there family through bombing may be more likely to radicalize. But I am tired of people, like you see on this thread, just saying the west is evil, and they have it coming. That is a gross oversimplification.

Would you lump the IRA, Christian Identity nuts like Eric Rudolph and the Lord's Resistance Army together because they all have some sort of Christian affiliation? Of course not because that would be ridiculous. Even within the same group, individuals don't necessarily have the same motivation for participating. Then you have sympathizers with their own motivations and state actors who sometimes tolerate, enable or even provide substantial support for terrorists groups for their own vastly arrayed reasons.

To pretend that Islam haas nothing to do with this terror is a joke and being intentionally obtuse.

Your argument fails for the same reason communism fails. For the same reason libertarians of the Chicago School are deluded — trying to reduce the complexity of human behavior to a point where it doesn't come anywhere near to accurately describing reality.

I am not trying to oversimplify anything. My argument was against the oversimplification that its all the wests fault. Of course there are cpomplex reasons for these things. But the problem is Radical Islamic terror, and much of their beliefs and motivatuons come from their religion. To admit this is not to discredit other reasons, but this is the thread that ties them all together.

If you don't believe that, then why is the vast majority of terrorism carried out by people that identify as Islamic?

We would have no problem saying the vast amount of rapes are committed by men, therefore there may be something about being a man that contributes to it. No one would say "You are just oversimplifying it!" They might say that this is true, but its more complex, which I think you are right to do and I agree with.

But my thread is not claiming to be the end all be all; I am saying only two things

1. Its not so simple as its the US fault and I am tired of people implying that,

2. and I am tired of that argument being used to deflect blame for the real people responisble, the radical islamic terrorists.

originally posted by: MagnaCarta2015
a reply to: Grambler

Yeah I would criticise anyone who thinks this can be resolved with one simple answer. To solely blame it on the west is ludicrous but foreign policy certainly plays a part in it.

In the post you're referring to I put across one potential cause of radicalisation, not every cause, nor did I pretend it was. Obviously never having been radicalised it's a bit difficult for me to fully understand the ins and outs of it and empathise. Is that mentally lazy? Maybe. I'm not above it myself.

I don't pretend to have any answers. I have ideas and things I feel I understand from my perspective. Do I have the time and patience to outline them in a topic this complicated? No.

I don't believe my thread claimed to be the end all be all. I set out an argument, that its all the US fault, and I gave reasons why that wasn't true, and I said to blame the real culprits, the radical Islamic terrorists.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Grambler

yourself admitted on the other thread that the US financed Al Nursa in Syria. But i guess that is not massive enough for you?

Define "the west is not to blame" again?
No. Yes. D'Oh!

Anyway. Peanuts?

Operation Cyclone was one of the longest and most expensive covert CIA operations ever undertaken;[2] funding began with $20–$30 million per year in 1980 and rose to $630 million per year in 1987.[1] Funding continued after 1989 as the mujahideen battled the forces of Mohammad Najibullah's PDPA during the civil war in Afghanistan (1989–1992).

Operation Cyclone

What part of this are you not understanding? Again, I am in total agreement, as I have been for years on ATS, that the US in financing terrorists in countries like Libya and its unreal.

This is giving them the means to attack, but not the motive.

My OP is addressing the claim that basically the US has it coming for bombing the terrorists countries. Yet it turns out, most of the attacks are from people the US has funded, not ones we have bombed.

Hence, the idea that these terrorists are all attacking because of interventions bombings is not the case.

And again, you have totally changed the subject for the second time. How can you say these groups don't exists as an organized group, and then post about the US funding them?