What if terrorism is a product of occupation by foreign troops?

[DealMonkey]

Let's briefly examine three major terrorist groups:

1.) The IRA -- a major terrorist group which began operations in the 20s as a direct result of British rulership over and constant meddling in Ireland's affairs, including splitting Ireland into two territories, etc.

2.) PLO (and other Palestinian terrorist orgs) -- formed as a direct result of Israel's occupation of Palestinian lands.

3.) al Qaeda -- whose main goal is the overthrow of the corrupt and heretical governments of Muslim states which are supported and propped up by a meddling U.S. with cash and military aid. Additionally the U.S. occupied the holy land (Saudi Arabia) with thousands of troops and military equipment and conducted military operations frequently in the region.

So given that terrorism seems to be a product of occupation/foreign meddling, is there something the U.S. should/could be doing? I know it's politically difficult, but what if all occupation ended tomorrow? Would it knock the legs out from under terrorist orgs? Would it end terrorism as we know it?

Thoughts?

 

[linkgoron]

I believe that those groups may have started because of occupation and all that, but changed their goals. al Qaeda- they want to destroy US and western world(not just occupaton). Palestinians- want Israel destroyed (not just getting out of lands occupied after 67).

 

[rsd]

Umm what most Americans don't realize or forget is that this muslim extremists have been around for a while. The Muslim Brotherhood or whatever is called started in Egypt and was intent on overthrowing the gov't until they severely cracked down. I don't know the exact dates but this is going back up to 30 years if I'm not mistaken. I don't see how you can blame foreign occupation. Sure Egypt gets a lot of money from the U.S., but the gov't there isn't exactly ideal either.

 

[Moonbeam]

I would just have to go 'Oh, duh".

 

[crooked22]

Due to occupation? Nah... Rumor has it that *they just hate our way of living and our freedom*... that sounds more poetic, so Ill stick to that "truth".

God forbid that they are just merely retaliating against the people responsible to put their governors in check... what is a democracy anyways?

Has muslim extremism attacked in England before?

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I would just have to go 'Oh, duh".

Well said.

I'm sure the rednecks and repubs will have their own theories.

 

[Infohawk]

The conflicts pushing this terrorism is caused by occupation. However, terrorism is a method. Terrorism is a method that stems from desperation. Even when you have no other way to confront a superior power, you can still resort to terror.

And I don't think i's just occupation. I think US support of Israel alone is probably enough to trigger animosity.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Terrorism, as either a tactical policy of combatitive engagement or a strategic level approach to achieve political or military objectives, is an extension of unconventional warfare.

Warfare shifts every 100 years or so, largely depending on the progression of technology, and the tactics and strategies implemented to either counter or implement use of said technologies.

The trenches of WW1 were an unanticipated outcome for armies accustomed to 19th century rank and file warfare, brought about by improvements to small arms, machine guns, artillery and the introduction of military aviation...essentially creating the transition from 19th century "Napoleonic Warfare" to 20th century conventional warfare.

Terrorism is a result of groups, political, nationalistic or otherwise, that find themselves outmatched technologically and perhaps numerically for a conventional war...it is an unconventional form of warfare that these groups have found to be quite effective against foes they cannot possibly face on the battlefield...the unfortunate outcome of such tactics is that they tend to target innocent civilians as opposed to legitimate military or government targets.

The western hemisphere has dominated global affairs for over two centuries, from the imperialism of western Europe to the Cold War dominance of the United States and the Soviet Union...terrorism is the result of this dominance, although occupation by foreign troops is not necessarily a prerequisite for terrorist acts.

The difficulty with terrorism is that terrorist groups are not sovereign nations, nor easily identified or labeled groups...it is an ideology, one founded or based on a variety of ethnic, religious or cultural frustrations...the double edged sword of terrorism is that you cannot fight an ideology through conventional means, but at the same time, a sovereign nation cannot simply brush off or otherwise ignore terrorist acts on their own soil.

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: rsd
Umm what most Americans don't realize or forget is that this muslim extremists have been around for a while. The Muslim Brotherhood or whatever is called started in Egypt and was intent on overthrowing the gov't until they severely cracked down. I don't know the exact dates but this is going back up to 30 years if I'm not mistaken. I don't see how you can blame foreign occupation. Sure Egypt gets a lot of money from the U.S., but the gov't there isn't exactly ideal either.

Uh.. you should read more about the Muslim Brotherhood. It wasn't a terrorist organization for most of its life and was supported by the CIA at various times. They mainly participated in rebellions and assassinations.

I was reading the wiki article on them and this part was f***ing amazing:

On October 26, 1954, Muslim Brother Mahmoud Abd al Latif failed in an attempt to assassinate Gamal Abdel Nasser. At close range, Mahmoud shot eight times at Nasser as he was delivering a speech. All shots missed and Nasser continued speaking without pause, delivering a fiery and instantly legendary oration: "Let them kill Nasser. What is Nasser but one among many? My fellow countrymen, stay where you are. I am not dead, I am alive, and even if I die all of you is Gamal Abdel Nasser." Nasser outlawed the Brotherhood and over 4000 of its members were imprisoned, including Sayyid Qutb, who later became the most influential intellectual in the group and wrote highly influential books while in prison. More members moved to Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Syria.

Nasser is the man.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

I guess if someone wants to pick and choose their terorists groups to fit their assertion, the case could be made that occupation by foreign troops is the cause.

Unfortunately, your assertion fails to account for numerous other terror groups that don't fit into your claim.

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I guess if someone wants to pick and choose their terorists groups to fit their assertion, the case could be made that occupation by foreign troops is the cause.

Unfortunately, your assertion fails to account for numerous other terror groups that don't fit into your claim.

Gonna name a few?

 

[rsd]

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: rsd
Umm what most Americans don't realize or forget is that this muslim extremists have been around for a while. The Muslim Brotherhood or whatever is called started in Egypt and was intent on overthrowing the gov't until they severely cracked down. I don't know the exact dates but this is going back up to 30 years if I'm not mistaken. I don't see how you can blame foreign occupation. Sure Egypt gets a lot of money from the U.S., but the gov't there isn't exactly ideal either.

Uh.. you should read more about the Muslim Brotherhood. It wasn't a terrorist organization for most of its life and was supported by the CIA at various times. They mainly participated in rebellions and assassinations.

I was reading the wiki article on them and this part was f***ing amazing:

On October 26, 1954, Muslim Brother Mahmoud Abd al Latif failed in an attempt to assassinate Gamal Abdel Nasser. At close range, Mahmoud shot eight times at Nasser as he was delivering a speech. All shots missed and Nasser continued speaking without pause, delivering a fiery and instantly legendary oration: "Let them kill Nasser. What is Nasser but one among many? My fellow countrymen, stay where you are. I am not dead, I am alive, and even if I die all of you is Gamal Abdel Nasser." Nasser outlawed the Brotherhood and over 4000 of its members were imprisoned, including Sayyid Qutb, who later became the most influential intellectual in the group and wrote highly influential books while in prison. More members moved to Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Syria.

Nasser is the man.

Fair enough! I probably should read up on that history more, but it still seems to be something originated internally (for the most part) not due to foreign occupation as the OP suggested.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I guess if someone wants to pick and choose their terorists groups to fit their assertion, the case could be made that occupation by foreign troops is the cause.

Unfortunately, your assertion fails to account for numerous other terror groups that don't fit into your claim.

Well, I simply picked three of the larger, more well-known terror orgs. By all means, list some that don't jive w/ my hypothesis and tell us why.

 

[Infohawk]

It would be a stretch to say that McVeigh and some other European terrorists were concerned about occupations. To that extent, tlc is right.

The key point though is that a lot of terrorists actually have reasons for doing what they do. (For those who have trouble reading, me saying that have reasons is not the same thing as excusing their behavior). Muslim terrorism is not about taking over the world, it's about responding to perceived wrongs in the only remaining way.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I guess if someone wants to pick and choose their terorists groups to fit their assertion, the case could be made that occupation by foreign troops is the cause.

Unfortunately, your assertion fails to account for numerous other terror groups that don't fit into your claim.

Gonna name a few?

Sure.

For one, the IRA. The IRA did not come about due to the foreign occupation of troops. Ireland and Britian were united for years before they came about. The old IRA were often assisted by the British Military as well and fought against the RIC. Most of the real initial fear of the IRA was being "Ruled by Rome."

Then there's the Jangaweed in Sudan, Abu Sayyaf in the Phillipines, the GIA in Algeria, the ETA in Spain, the JRA in Japan, Islamic Jihad in Egypt, the PKK in Turkey, the MEK in Iran, FARC in Columbia.

Need more?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I guess if someone wants to pick and choose their terorists groups to fit their assertion, the case could be made that occupation by foreign troops is the cause.

Unfortunately, your assertion fails to account for numerous other terror groups that don't fit into your claim.

Gonna name a few?

Red Brigade
The group in Germany
Timor
Mindano
Indonesea

any many others.

It is more that political/economic differences breed greed/frustration of a few. Then some agitators are able to feed off and aggrevate the situation until the situation flares into open conflict that satifies the ego of the troublemakers.

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I guess if someone wants to pick and choose their terorists groups to fit their assertion, the case could be made that occupation by foreign troops is the cause.

Unfortunately, your assertion fails to account for numerous other terror groups that don't fit into your claim.

Gonna name a few?

Sure.

For one, the IRA. The IRA did not come about due to the foreign occupation of troops. Ireland and Britian were united for years before they came about. The old IRA were often assisted by the British Military as well and fought against the RIC. Most of the real initial fear of the IRA was being "Ruled by Rome."

Then there's the Jangaweed in Sudan, Abu Sayyaf in the Phillipines, the GIA in Algeria, the ETA in Spain, the JRA in Japan, Islamic Jihad in Egypt, the PKK in Turkey, the MEK in Iran, FARC in Columbia.

Need more?

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper


Red Brigade
The group in Germany
Timor
Mindano
Indonesea

any many others.

It is more that political/economic differences breed greed/frustration of a few. Then some agitators are able to feed off and aggrevate the situation until the situation flares into open conflict that satifies the ego of the troublemakers.

I always remember the Shinning Path in Peru for some reason. Although they are a rebel group they use terrorism as one of their tactics.

Experts say the groups arose in response to Peru?s entrenched system of race- and class-based discrimination, which has deeply impoverished most of the country's population, especially citizens of indigenous descent.

Text

 

[DealMonkey]

That's very true. Sometimes terrorism is a product of internal conflicts within a country and/or region. The two terror orgs the U.S. is most concerned about at the moment (AQ, and the various Palestinian orgs) are driven primarily by rage over foreign occupation and foreign meddling.

Perhaps I tried to over-simplify things a bit. Groups like AQ and Abu Sayyaf are also interested in creating Islamic States and by extension a hatred of Western-style influence on Muslim cultures. I guess to an extent, this falls into the "foreign meddling" issue. The ETA has similar goals, creating a seperate socialist state for the Basque people.

Obviously, the causes for terrorism are complex.

 

[Stunt]

Dealmonkey:
While I somewhat agree with your theory of occupation being a primary cause of terrorism, but what you fail to address is that the territory in all the examples you give is disputed. Therefore the two parties involved both feel they are justified in their 'ownership' of the region.

If the "terrorists" occupied the disputed territory, you will create terrorists on the other side, reversing land claims will have a directly negative effect. Who is honestly in the position to say who Taiwan, Kashmir, Chechnya, Israel, etc belongs to?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I guess to an extent, this falls into the "foreign meddling" issue. The ETA has similar goals, creating a seperate socialist state for the Basque people.

Yeah. And it is interesting to note that some of the more successful (popular?) groups have territorial claims / territorial integrity at their heart.

 

[Rapidskies]

If the US had never even set foot in the middle east extremist muslims would still hate us. They hate anything that doesn't follow there belief system, ie non-muslims. If we had never gotten involved in the middle east the enemy would be much more organized and powerful than they are now and we would have seen more 9/11's. I would rather see a battle on there land than in the US. Extremists might not like us interfering in middle east politics but they hate us because we are non-muslims.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Rapidskies
If the US had never even set foot in the middle east extremist muslims would still hate us. They hate anything that doesn't follow there belief system, ie non-muslims. If we had never gotten involved in the middle east the enemy would be much more organized and powerful than they are now and we would have seen more 9/11's. I would rather see a battle on there land than in the US. Extremists might not like us interfering in middle east politics but they hate us because we are non-muslims.

Could the same not be said if you make non-muslims = non-chritians?
If it is a religious war as you state above, it takes two to fight, and by fighting on their land, you indeed are the agressor.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Rapidskies
If the US had never even set foot in the middle east extremist muslims would still hate us. They hate anything that doesn't follow there belief system, ie non-muslims. If we had never gotten involved in the middle east the enemy would be much more organized and powerful than they are now and we would have seen more 9/11's. I would rather see a battle on there land than in the US. Extremists might not like us interfering in middle east politics but they hate us because we are non-muslims.

Could the same not be said if you make non-muslims = non-chritians?
If it is a religious war as you state above, it takes two to fight, and by fighting on their land, you indeed are the agressor.

Name the last Christian who blew themselves up in a group of civilian men, women, and children.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: joshsquall
Name the last Christian who blew themselves up in a group of civilian men, women, and children.

I don't know if he was christian, but he certainly wasn't muslim: Timothy McVeigh.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Rapidskies
If the US had never even set foot in the middle east extremist muslims would still hate us. They hate anything that doesn't follow there belief system, ie non-muslims. If we had never gotten involved in the middle east the enemy would be much more organized and powerful than they are now and we would have seen more 9/11's. I would rather see a battle on there land than in the US. Extremists might not like us interfering in middle east politics but they hate us because we are non-muslims.

Could the same not be said if you make non-muslims = non-chritians?
If it is a religious war as you state above, it takes two to fight, and by fighting on their land, you indeed are the agressor.

Name the last Christian who blew themselves up in a group of civilian men, women, and children.

OK City bombing?
IRA?