Foreign Occupation, Not Religion, Is the Cause of Terrorism

[demobabe]

A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION
by Jack Burgess

Anthony Cordesman, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, is of the opinion that Congress imposing benchmarks contingent upon troop withdrawal would have little effect. Benchmarks and timetables are unrealistic, he holds, since Iraq has no central goverment nor rule of law. Iraq, he insists, needs our presence to give them time to work out compromises.

Yet, Cordesman fails to consider how the presence of foreign troops in Iraq and other Arab countries affects Arab psychology. Already in Iraq they are protesting our presence, and screaming for "Yankees to go home."

Previous studies have, indeed, shown that the presence of American troops on the Arabian peninsula was pivotal in bringing about the attacks on the Trade Centers on 9/11. Robert Pape, at the University of Chicago, reporting data acquired through interviews and demographic studies, pointed to the virtual secular origin of terrorism. Ninety-five percent of suicide bombers were found to be intent only on driving out foreign forces from their homeland. Their main goal was in ridding their territories of foreigners, and not, as is commonly believed, of eliminating all non-Muslims from the world.

More here: http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/986

[demobabe]

1. kick

:kick:

[and-justice-for-all]

2. I do not think I can fully agree to that title..

..Religion gives them the 'reason' and the 'okay' to conduct acts of Terrorism. The same goes for those who blow up abortion clinics and kill the doctors, religion is the 'excuse' to conduct for such atrocities.

The Foreign occupation aspect is a fuel to the already buring fire, it does not help to resolve nor prevent acts of 'religious' terrorism.

Both Foreign occupation and Religion are contributers to Terrorism.

[demobabe]

5. The article may be oversimplified

But I do know that Iraq wasn't a terrorist threat to the US before we invaded. Now it's a breeding ground for terrorists.

[and-justice-for-all]

13. Your statement is correct..nt

[Jade Fox]

14. The response is to the occupation....

and religion gives the rebellion a patina of moral righteousness.

Many terrorists have had no religious agenda, and under equitable circumstances different religions have co-existed peacefully.

I basically agree with the author: Claiming that religion as the basis for Terrorist activity is a red herring.

[Selatius]

3. I would go a step further. I would say the problem is American foreign policy.

Military occupations are a subset of American foreign policy. When you tell the CIA to go into a country and overthrow its democratically elected government or you openly do business with dictatorships who terrorize their own country, you may be benefiting yourself financially in the process or benefiting friends on Wall Street, but you are winning no friends with the common people.

[demobabe]

6. yes, this is very true. n/t

[AnOhioan]

4. Kick and Rec

Thanks for posting this...it needs to be said, time and time again.

[riderinthestorm]

7. I don't totally agree. Think Timothy McVeigh and/or Eric Rudolph

or Ted Kacynski in our own country. In many, many instances overseas the reason IS religious.

The Madrid and London bombings had a specific religious overtone.

This seems a convenient essay blaming the US for all the world's ills when there are a lot of other more complex reasons for terrorist attacks including a multitude of religious biases which underpin a great deal of the violence.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

8. Ted Kaczynski had religious reasons?

I thought he was just plain weird and used a warped version of environmentalism as his excuse for mailing bombs to people.

[riderinthestorm]

9. No, he didn't have religious reasons OR foreign occupation reasons.

To simply paint terrorism as a product of ONE thing is too simplistic was my point.

Frankly I see a lot of terrorism as mental illness twisted by that persons' handlers.

[camero]

10. McViegh and Rudolph were both political terrorists

McViegh was a member of a white supremacist group before his act and Rudolph was a right-wing anti-abortionist. No religion involved in either example.

[riderinthestorm]

11. Yes, that was my badly made point. They were NOT protesting foreign occupation

their terrorism wasn't based upon foreign occupation (or even religion).

To simplify terrorism as the OP has done is just disingeniuous. There are many different reasons terrorists strike.

In the US, terrorism doesn't seem to revolve around foreign occupation or religion.

[camero]

12. McViegh was

He was protesting the Gov't's sieges at Waco and Ruby Ridge which were considered gov't occupation of private land.

In the ME sadly, the occupation has been going on for so long we don't realize how long it's been there. Religion is just the extra incentive to fight. The honey that makes the medicine go down easier.

[Vexatious Ape]

21. Rudolph was a Christian nut-case

It was his religious belief that made him so anti choice. He was inspired by "god" to kill.

[demobabe]

15. kick

:kick:

[dave_p]

16. It's politics

Antipathy to a foreign military presence is political. The adoption of religious claims by political movements reflects political underdevelopment. Jihadism is a substitute for the radical politics stifled in much of the Muslim world by western client regimes. Politics is the problem, and politics is the solution: a healthy, dynamic and independent political evolution provides an alternative to the abuse of religious belief for partisan ends. But it takes time. And it doesn't work as an import.

[conspirator]

17. If I invade ur house and you want to blow the shit out of me. Is that politics. No.

It's a basic instinct: territory.
When the americans fought against english occupation, was that underdeveloped politics?

[dave_p]

18. Hmm, and Yes

Sovereignty is politics. National sovereignty takes territorial form, so the two are intertwined.

"When the americans fought against english occupation, was that underdeveloped politics"

Yes. Colonial status clearly limited political development. And the hysteria about imagined Hanoverian absolutism was hardly the stuff of reasoned analysis.

[Odin2005]

19. It's a mix of several things

Religious fanaticism, hatred of US foreign policy, the occupation of Palestine, and a culture based on tribalisitic "honor" and "saving face"

[Vexatious Ape]

20. What a fucking load.

Yes American foreign policy is bad and terribly upsetting to Arabs but to say that religion is not the origin of terrorism is balderdash. All you need to do is listen to their rhetoric. The main offense to Muslim sensibility's was military bases on "holy lands". I wouldn't want foreign army's in my backyard either but I wouldn't kill myself over it. If we look back on all the horrible things we've done as a nation to other country's the worst has to be the South East Asia. We killed them by the millions, yet there's no hate/revenge movement going on with those folks. Look at what we did in Central America during the 80's. We armed right wing terror cells there that killed thousands upon thousands of innocent people, yet they aren't flying airplanes into our buildings here--they're building our buildings here. No, sorry these terrorists are deranged by religious faith.

[camero]

22. Maybe the leadership

But most of the Arab street just wants us out of there.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

26. It is important to remember...

...that Islamic extremism existed well before the United States placed bases in Saudi Arabia and has plenty to do with their hatred of modernity in general, and their delusional quest to reestablish the Caliphate. We could pull all of our troops out of the Middle East tomorrow, and they'd still go on blowing shit up. We are tertiary to their primary goal.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

23. Then how do you explain the Muslim Brotherhood's attacks in Egypt? n/t

[HardRocker05]

24. not exactly; the "foreign occupiers" will be the target until they are gone, then they will turn on

turn on other arabs/muslims who are judged to be 'not real muslims,' 'false rulers,' etc. bottom line is that people who subscribe to the very religious ideology of purity tests and easy justification of violence will always find someone to make war with. that certainly applies to right wing fundies here in america, but folks, you are kidding yourself if you don't understand the nature of middle eastern society and it's interpretation of religion- it does not allow for peaceful coexistance with any person or group that is deemed not to be a member of their klan.

[Vexatious Ape]

25. Couldn't agree more.

I think that blind adherence to the ideal of multiculturalism--tolerating the intolerant--is just as bad as right wingers holding patriotism over morality, as in sticking their heads in the sand and waving the flag while we bomb the shit out of 3rd world villages and cities.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. Terrorism is a tactic of the weak to overcome the strong.

In Iraq, as in many other countries, "terrorism" is not caused by anything other than as a means of achieving their goals, whatever they may be, and rooted in whatever causes. The American military uses bombing, artillery, infantry, and terror, to achieve it's goals. Likewise, the "resistance", Jihadists, sectarian militias, use of terror.

"The Terrorists" is equivalent to using "The Artillerymen" or "The Pilots" to identify a group or movement.

The National Liberation Front in Vietnam, The African National Congress in South Africa, the KKK and IWW, in the United States, all used the tactic of terrorism.