Why terrorists attack America

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Have to disagree on this one. I think Osama at least expected as one of the contingencies that the US would retaliate- that's why he had Masood, leader of the Northern Alliance, assassinated on September 9th, 2001- two days before 9/11.

I think he assumed that the US would get bogged down the same way the Russians did- remember, this is where his experience of war came from.

I must confess that, while I believed the Americans could overthrow the Taliban, I (along with many others) was expecting it to be a much harder slog; I think that this was what bin Laden was hoping for.

No - he has repeatedly stated that we would turn and run - like we did in Somalia. He has constanly brought up that we don't like bloodshed and we will not fight. This is a new experience for him.

EDIT - and he was expecting us to get bogged down. But he also expected that we would just abondon the cause and let him go. As I said in threads 2 years ago - he woke a sleeping lion.

His scenarios were that that either the US would restrict it's retaliation, as it had in the case of the bombings of the Embassies and the Cole(for the reasons you point out ) , or the Americans would get stuck in a messy guerilla warfare that would serve as a recruiting ground for Jihadists, just as it had against the Soviets.

What retaliations? Clinton was a "by the polls" president. He started going after bin Ladin - then stopped because world opinion was against it. Al Qaeda looked at Somalia and saw how we turned tail and ran. As I said - he has repeatedly brought this up. recently there was the message discovered on it's way to bin Ladin - stating that the bombings against American soldiers aren't scaring us out of Iraq as planned. They then switched to Iraqi civilian targets soon after.

Bin Ladin thought we were weak - that we would not fight back, that we would not take the fight to them and wherever they are and stick with it. Until they are eliminated - we can not stop.

[GrayMouser]

And I still don't get where this idea that the Europeans ( and those pseudo-Euroweenies, the Canadians) are 'appeasers' in the War on Terror comes from.

After 9/11, and for the first time in its history (ironically) NATO invoked Article 5

What is Article 5?
The decision:
On 12 September, NATO decided that, if it is determined that the attack against the United States was directed from abroad, it shall be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.

This is the first time in the Alliance's history that Article 5 has been invoked.

Article 5 of the Washington Treaty:
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

NATO's Strategic Concept recognises the risks to the Alliance posed by terrorism.


What does Article 5 mean?
Article 5 is at the basis of a fundamental principle of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. It provides that if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked.

This is the principle of collective defence.


Article 5 and the case of the terrorist attacks against the United States:
The United States has been the object of brutal terrorist attacks. It immediately consulted with the other members of the Alliance. The Alliance determined that the US had been the object of an armed attack. The Alliance therefore agreed that if it was determined that this attack was directed from abroad, it would be regarded as covered by Article 5. NATO Secretary General, Lord Robertson, subsequently informed the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the Alliance's decision.

(note: it was subsequently so determined, and the invoking of Article 5 was confirmed.)

That the USA decided NOT to take advantage of this was a very bad blunder on their part, IMHO- but at least NATO offered, and help was accepted on an ad hoc basis. French, German and Canadian troops are still on active duty in Afghanistan (you're welcome).

European security services and courts have been very active in the hunt against al-Qaeda and related groups.

As far as I can see, the ONLY reason for making this complaint against the Europeans was their refusal to join in the totally unconnected-to-the-war-on-Terror campaign against Iraq.

The point made by "Old Europe"- and completely vindicated by post-war evidence- was that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda; and that the war in Iraq was a diversion of pressure away from the terrorists, which gave them a breathing space to re-group.

Whether this assessment is correct or not has nothing to do with the moral fibre of the Europeans or their opposition to terrorism- but the message seems to be that anyone who disagrees with Bush on anything is an appeaser.

Sorry, I don't have that much faith in his judgment- and to short-circuit the automatic accusations of anti-Americanism, that's an opinion with which a lot of Americans agree.

[Valandil]

No offense intended to anyone, but this is getting tiresome... think I'll go 'talk Tolkien' for awhile, if any of you want to join me!

And... if nobody saw it, I tried to answer the original question as best I could while being succinct... second to last post of page 4.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
And I still don't get where this idea that the Europeans ( and those pseudo-Euroweenies, the Canadians) are 'appeasers' in the War on Terror comes from.

After 9/11, and for the first time in its history (ironically) NATO invoked Article 5

yeah - that was then. Now we're just supposed to move on - as people on this very forum have stated. if we just leave the terrorists alone - and give them what they want - they won't attack. This was even stated on French news - when they were shocked that even though they are against the iraq war - they received a threat from Al Qaeda last week.

(note: it was subsequently so determined, and the invoking of Article 5 was confirmed.)

That the USA decided NOT to take advantage of this was a very bad blunder on their part, IMHO- but at least NATO offered, and help was accepted on an ad hoc basis. French, German and Canadian troops are still on active duty in Afghanistan (you're welcome).

Yes - i know they are. But they don't look at this as a war. They look at this as capturing one man.

European security services and courts have been very active in the hunt against al-Qaeda and related groups.

As far as I can see, the ONLY reason for making this complaint against the Europeans was their refusal to join in the totally unconnected-to-the-war-on-Terror campaign against Iraq.

I don't see how that is unconnected. if we don't bring democracy and freedom to the Middle East - we will be constantly in a defensive position. Hussein had to go. I don't care that they didn't want to be involved in the fight - but the difference is how they view the war on terror. Look at how Americans describe it as a war - but Europeans don't.

The point made by "Old Europe"- and completely vindicated by post-war evidence- was that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda; and that the war in Iraq was a diversion of pressure away from the terrorists, which gave them a breathing space to re-group.

Bush never said there was a connection - that was the media. Bush several times said there wasn't a direct connection.

As for the breathing space to re-group - I completely disagree. We continued to fight in Afganistan just as during World War II we fought against Germany and Japan simulateously. If we can't do two things like that at the same time - there is a serious problem. Especially since Al Qaeda is worldwide.

Whether this assessment is correct or not has nothing to do with the moral fibre of the Europeans or their opposition to terrorism- but the message seems to be that anyone who disagrees with Bush on anything is an appeaser.

I disagree. The fact is - lets see if they are still fighting terrorism after bin Ladin is killed or captured. As I said - there are already people saying that the US should "just get over it" already.

Sorry, I don't have that much faith in his judgment- and to short-circuit the automatic accusations of anti-Americanism, that's an opinion with which a lot of Americans agree.

There are a lot of evidence in the anti-americanism which has nothing to do with Iraq or with Bush. It was there long before Bush - it was also there during Reagan's adminstration when he was increasing nuclear weapons in Germany. Anti-Americanism is nothing new.

[Sween]

Right lets get this stright once and for all. heres a question for you. How do you stop terrorism?

Answer: you simply cannot allways stop it. in the same way you cannot allways stop someone killing someone or doing something that they shouldnt. Now the problem with terroism is its choice. People chose to do this and apart from worrking as hard can to find out what plans there is and stopping them.

Now how do you increase terrorism? Ahhh this is even easier firstly invade a country and cause millions to go homeless or have there houses destroyed. Also the loss of life of loved ones. sure you will kill a few terrorists but you are gonna turn a lot of people against you as well and onto there side.

Second you could attack another country unsatbalizing that and p***ing a whole load of those people off.

Thirdly you could strut round like you can do whatever the hell you want in many ways supporting what the terrorist think of you and making people think they have a point.

This thread has one merit and intresting point which has been little discussed why do they do this. A chance to get inside there mind which is what needs to be done. A terrorist to me is like a school bully can cause suffering but only if his or her peers let him we are not the terrorist peers the people in countrys life afganistan, saudi arabia etc etc and the real fight and the best way to end it surely lies with getting them on side

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sween
Right lets get this stright once and for all. heres a question for you. How do you stop terrorism?

Answer: you simply cannot allways stop it. in the same way you cannot allways stop someone killing someone or doing something that they shouldnt. Now the problem with terroism is its choice. People chose to do this and apart from worrking as hard can to find out what plans there is and stopping them.

Now how do you increase terrorism? Ahhh this is even easier firstly invade a country and cause millions to go homeless or have there houses destroyed. Also the loss of life of loved ones. sure you will kill a few terrorists but you are gonna turn a lot of people against you as well and onto there side.

So then if that;s the case - why aren't the IRAQI'S the one attacking us? Which they aren't even attacking us - they are attacking innocent iraqis. See this is where your reasoning falls apart. The iraqis are working with us to rebuild their country - but outside forces have come in to try to disrupt this.

Second you could attack another country unsatbalizing that and p***ing a whole load of those people off.

maybe you should educate yourself and look at the INTERNATIONAL poll which was taken on how iraqis feel before spewing this nonsense. I posted it several pages back - you obviosly chose to ignore it.

Thirdly you could strut round like you can do whatever the hell you want in many ways supporting what the terrorist think of you and making people think they have a point.

Or you could take a stand against them instead of wimp asses like Europe (12 years of endless UN resolutions anyone). You know what - WHO is attacking us? Is it a bunch of new terrorist groups? Are iraqi's attacking us? You spew out a bunch of stuff - and it's not even based in fact. Your solution is to do nothing.

This thread has one merit and intresting point which has been little discussed why do they do this. A chance to get inside there mind which is what needs to be done. A terrorist to me is like a school bully can cause suffering but only if his or her peers let him we are not the terrorist peers the people in countrys life afganistan, saudi arabia etc etc and the real fight and the best way to end it surely lies with getting them on side

"Getting them on side?"

[Sween]

Yes geting them on side. Your a fine example JD i mean i wish i could articular this better and not be so personal but you a very good reflection of how your country is een by the world. You do seem to be a complete w****r no offence ment of course

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sween
Yes geting them on side. Your a fine example JD i mean i wish i could articular this better and not be so personal but you a very good reflection of how your country is een by the world. You do seem to be a complete w****r no offence ment of course

That's because I stick up for my opinions. You'd have no problems with me if I was on your side though.

I don't care that you think that - or that you flamed me. But of course you don't know me - so it doesn't really matter what you think - just like you have never been to the US. So the only thing you know is the filtered media you get from your own country.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Let me just say that I have delibrately avoided commenting in this thread, because my comments would be unsuitable as a moderator. However, I have no problem moderating this thread. So this is the way it is:

I find this to be an interesting but loaded topic and I have seen entirely too much flaming, and flame baiting from the participants. Here's what we will do about that: Starting with the next post, any more flaming, or flame baiting will result in the immediate closure of this thread without any further warnings. If you can not discuss this topic without controlling your tempers, then do not post, otherwise, remain civil. The next person that violates Entmoot posting policies will be PMd and possibly banned. IS THAT CLEAR?

[jerseydevil]

man - now it's quiet.

[Fat middle]

LOL

[Sister Golden Hair]

Hey people, I didn't say to SHUT UP!!!

[Valandil]

maybe we need an official 'flame thread' - where you can go to give it or get it!

[Sween]

I went to the pub !

I have been to the US went to florida on holiday im sure it doesnt reflect the rest of the US it was full of quite charming people but then again they were proabably all tourists

'ohhhhhhhh relight my fire..................' got to love Take That

[Lizra]

Shoot...I "think" I can talk politics without personal attacks and flame baiting. Hope so.

I'm seeing two lines of thought here. One (Hawks) view the Al Qaida, angry/fundalmentalist Muslim terrorist threat as a successful, well heeled and organized group that will not stop till it accomplishes it's goals ( the downfall of free western style civilization) unless immediate, all-out war (military, diplomatic, financial ) is actively engaged in, by all countries of the world, NOW. After recent events, (9-11) this side sees "not joining" in the war effort tantamount to aiding the terrorists. The atrocities of 9-11 and the recent bombings in Spain are their proof. The Hawks seek to greatly reduce terroism by flat out eliminating the Al Qaida terrorist group that has taken credit for the recent mass murders.


Another line of thought seems to see the all out war approach as faning the flames of the fire....pouring fresh gasoline on an already raging blaze, and playing into the hands of the terrorists. They (Doves) see diplomatic and finacial strategies as the best (and sufficient) weapons. In the Doves eyes, militarty options seem to give credibilty to the terrorists, and invite the global escalation of death and destruction. This group feels that terroism can never be eliminated because of the nature of it (one angry guy, one bomb...too easy) and to try to fight "fire with fire" is reckless suicide.

Since I'm sitting the fence.....I would welcome any "polite" fleshing out and/or corrections in my perhaps naive attempt to understand this situation. Just state your corrections and do not insult my intelligence or flame me (or others who have sided with one side or another) please. Or just ignore this whole post, if you want

[brownjenkins]

you put that very well lizra... i think the first step to a solution will be a willingness on both sides (hawks and doves) to admit that the solution is probably somewhere in the middle

you have to address terrorist threats directly as they come up... sometimes with force... that said, the US could do an awful lot more promote democracy around the world... too often we turn our eyes from countries that we see as allies (pakistan, israel, saudi arabia)... allowing them to act in ways which we then condemn in others

there is also a lot to be said for spreading economic prosperity... i we truely helped other nations to succeed economically the terrorist groups would have a lot less ammo to use against us

[Lizra]

Good points.....but do you think there is time to take this "positive style" approach (and what would be the best "start" at this angle) .....or has the situation gotten to a "do or die" point at this time, (whether we like it or not ) as the Hawks seem to suggest?

[Insidious Rex]

well we need to be doing both things at this point. its just silly to suggest not having a military approach because there are terrorist groups who are only interested in killing. We need to prevent them killing of course. but the most important aspect of this is the long term goal of education and turning others in the world to our favor. that is actually the harder job because it requires a LOT more effert then blowing things up. its always easy to brake stuff. its never easy to carefully build a house of cards so that it doesnt fall apart at the slightest breeze. we need to have both things going on in parallel and not one at the expense of the other. as annoying as the phrase "winning the hearts and minds" is its really ultimately what needs to be done. we (americans) need to totally alter our thinking on how we approach dealing with other nations in my opinion. we also need to keep in mind that so much damage has been done already that this is a LONG long term project and we cant expect fantastic results over night. It will take a generation or two. at least...

Im not too worried about the rest of the world hating us. As long as we dont go out of our way to continue to alienate other nations and thumb our noses at them then this will fade eventualy. these things tend to be cyclical. If you think about it its a little ironic that a country like germany and a country like france are in harmony in their opposition to american foreign policy. think about who was on whos side just 60 years before this. Things change dramitically in a life time. in 20 years even. take it easy you doomsayers that scream that this is the end of the world as we know it every time political winds shift. things will be ok. but it IS important we get our priorities straight and handle situations with a long term approach that is to everyones benefit. and not from the point of view of well we are going to attack countries and root out terrorism and if everyone hates us too bad. thats a terribly short sighted way of going about things.

[brownjenkins]

i agree... going into iraq and basically bringing in only alliance partners to do the rebuilding as opposed to hiring iraqis and other locals is just one example of not thinking longterm... and throwing fuel on the fire

[Earniel]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
i agree... going into iraq and basically bringing in only alliance partners to do the rebuilding as opposed to hiring iraqis and other locals is just one example of not thinking longterm... and throwing fuel on the fire

As far as I know it doesn't stop at making a profit out of rebuilding Iraq. A professor of my sister's university was practically laughed at at the American Embassy when he asked to be permitted to reopen a archeological excavation in Iraq on which the university had been working for years. They had had to stop the digging in the first gulf war because of safety.

He was told that only nations that had been allies to America in this war were allowed to set up excavation projects in Iraq.