I am of two minds when it comes to Muslim Terrorism.

[KlatooBNikto]

On the one hand, the evidence is overwhelming that such terrorists have operated in countries like India and Israel creating havoc with lives and property for more than fifty years.An additional factor in my thinking is that when terrorists would commit acts of violence in India or Israel, they would be guaranteed asylum in neighboring countries like Pakistan or Syria.Countries like Libya and Saudi Arabia were always eager to provide the financing for the terrorists expeditions and the training of future terrorists through their schools called Madrassas.

The terrorists who committed their acts of violence were totally imbued with their missions to liquidate the infidels ( Jews and Hindus) and no amount of savagery was enough in dealing with these heathens.More true believers could be recruited against India or Israel in countries as far away as Chechnya or Bosnia for these terror expeditions.

That side of my thinking says that,yes, the Muslim threat to countries like India or Israel were real and had created a monumental problem for them.

The other side of this story for me started when we entered the picture against Muslim terrorism. I think the entire premise of the PNAC was to make the U.S. enter the fight on the side of countries like Israel or India against Islam.This is why I am suspicious of the pseudo event 9/11.To me the very fact a sophisticated operation involving four planes against targets in one of the most heavily guarded aerial territory lends credence to the idea that 19 unsophisticated and untrained terrorists could not have carried out what they have been reported to have done. So, yes, I do believe that our aim was to end Muslim Terrorism but Bush, in seeking to counter that threat, has created a myth that is becoming harder to sustain each passing day.Even the invasion of Iraq now makes sense to me only if we realize that Bush wants to send a message to the entire Muslim world that "Big Daddy Uncle Sam is going to come and get your mama and there is nothing you ragheads can do about it".

End of my morning rant.Time for some coffee.

[ck4829]

1. Read up on 'Operation Cyclone'

It's a CIA operation that allowed the training of Islamic terrorists in those same exact Madrassas you mentioned.

[LynnTheDem]

2. But only 1 mind on terrorism by other than Muslim?

And "more than 50 years"? Terrorism has been a fact of life since humankind first crawled out of the swamp.

What were Christians during the Spanish Inquisition? During the Crusades? What is Israel when their gunships open fire on Palestinian crowds? What was America's "shock and awe" on Iraq? It's all terrorism.

Terrorism is terrorism. A crime. And if America would do a little less of it, we would have a little less of it in the world.

I hear what you're saying, though. I really don't think bush gives a single damn about any kind of terrorism, other than how he can best use it one way and another to his own advantage.

[stellanoir]

3. agree with you Lynn, as usual. . .

but your post reminded me of a very succinct quotation I heard on the radio around the time of Peter Ustinov's passing. I think it was around this time last year.

He had said very simply, "War is the terrorism of the rich. Terrorism is the war of the poor."

All violence is truly terrorizing for sure.

[LynnTheDem]

6. Wow...

that is THE QUOTE regarding terrorism.

"War is the terrorism of the rich. Terrorism is the war of the poor."

Geeez that says it all, doesn't it. Thanks for posting that!

[stellanoir]

11. LOL I always read and enjoy your posts. . .

but can recognize another whose strong suit isn't necessarily brevity. That's why I thought you'd enjoy that one.

Ustinov never lacked rambling eloquence either. That's why that zinger caught my full attention.

[LynnTheDem]

14. Opposite problem; my strong suit IS brevity.

As my first inclination in reply to idiots (mostly rightwingnut morans) is to simply post:

"Oh for f*ck's sake use a wee portion of the brain God gave you, you incredibly stupid little git."

In my trying NOT to post that, I lose the brevity. :D :D :D

[stellanoir]

15. whoops my mistake and

gotchya

[LynnTheDem]

17. I do wish we were allowed to just go with the brevity posts on DU

when dealing with the aforementioned rightwingnut morans.

LOL! :D :D :D

[Deja Q]

5. 'his own advantage'. Terrorism ain't the only ago-old -ism...

That's all what politicians do anyway; set things up to make things better for themselves and those who help them.

Like terrorism, narcissism is also age-old. So is prostitution, but that's another story.

[LynnTheDem]

8. That they do. And they lie. And the media is supposed to be our watchdog.

2 outta 3.

[rogerashton]

9. Terrorism is modern

Of course, it depends on definition of terms. But the major use of the term has evolved.

It was first used for state violence against citizens in the French Revolution. By the end of the 19th century, however, the "terrorist party" in Eastern Europe established the modern usage: violent attacks by civilians (not state agents) against civilians for political motives.

Originating with constitutional democrats (and anarchists) who opposed absolute monarchy, this tactic was adopted by anticolonial activists in the twentieth century (after WWII in Africa, perhaps earlier in India) and was adopted from them by Muslim activists. It also returned to the European and US left from the same source during the confused 60's and 70's. To be fair, terrorism in this sense was also used to a limited degree by Fascists and Nazi's before WWII. (Most of their violence was conducted as state agents, and thus was worse in many ways than terrorism). The US right seems to have adopted terrorist methods from that source.

I believe that it is best to use the term in that narrow sense, because broadening it assists the present US Duncipality in using the "War on Terra" to justify any damn thing it is pleased to do.

[LynnTheDem]

16. Terrorism is not modern. You're talking about the origin of the word, not

the act. The word "terror" itself comes from the French, coined by Maximillian Robespierre during the Reign of Terror following the French Revolution of the late 18th century. Robespierre believed that terror was justified to root out those opposed to their rule.

But the act of terrorism can be traced back to early recorded history;

A couple of early terrorist groups were The Zealots, Jewish men who would attack Roman and Greek authorities in broad daylight, in front of large groups of spectators, to send a message to the ruling body that they were not wanted there.

Assassins, a group of fanatical Muslims who would murder leaders and others who deviated from the strict Muslim law, terrorized the Middle East in the 11th century.

Thugees, an Indian cult thought responsible for over a million deaths over a millennium of terror.

The name is "modern"; the act is ancient.

[rogerashton]

22. I am talking about politics.

The broad usage is political, and assists those who want to brand all anticorporatist demonstrators as "terrorists."

And by the way (on edit) Thugs -- that's the proper name -- did not have political objectives. Their victims were human sacrifices. Thuggee is the name of their cult (a mother-goddess cult, oddly enough. Mother is a bad mother in this case.) And the Assassins were the agents of a monarch -- state agents -- the KGB of their time. Different THINGS. I'm not sure about zealots, but my guess would be that they were more like the assassins.

[Cuban_Liberal]

4. Re: 'unsophisticated' terrorists.

One need not be James Bond in order to carry out extremely deadly acts of terror. How 'sophisticated' was Timothy McVey's truck bomb, and his parking it in front a large governent office building? It wasn't, yet he killed 168 people. How 'sophisticated' were the bombs in Madrid which killed over 200? Not very.

Hijacking a plane isn't a terribly sophistcated act, and just because it was 4 planes rather than one doesn't make it four times as 'sophisticated'. Keeping one in the air and executing some basic turns isn't incredibly difficult, either.

I don't believe in either LIHOP or MIHOP; frankly, a bunch of terrorists got lucky and our governent's response was headed up by a brain-dead, drunken former fratboy and cokehead. Mix all those together, and you don't need sophistication.

[Deja Q]

7. LIHOP is feasable, but not incontrovertible. And in 1993,

terrorists got lucky with the WTC as well. But yet none of them seemed to commit further attacks until 2000, which were FOILED.

Was Sept 11, 2001 really a hapless day for America? Especially when 19 of the 20 easily slipped through the cracks. NINETEEN?! (the 20th was obviously a congenital dunderhead; you don't go around asking "I want to learn how to fly a plane. Not how to land it, but just fly it." :eyes: Quite frankly, I'm shocked HE got captured and locked up, it seems some people WERE on the ball and gave a damn about peoples' lives.)

OTOH, if a college kid a couple of years later could secretly waltz into an airport and sneak into the back area to write a big note saying "Whoopsie!", it's just possible that LIHOP really is unfounded.

But then, Italy and other countries did warn the US about Bin Laden wanting to attack. When was it again, august 2001? How come nobody paid attention? I'd be scrambling around like Chicken Little on crack. But on the other hand, could somebody in the CIA or whatever department be depressed or did not like *?

So, yeah, LIHOP is a possiblity. But there are too many related issues that potentially discount it.

[KlatooBNikto]

12. You do need sophistication if you want to go off course and navigate

a plane through the skyscrapers of midtown Manhattan and aim at the WTC towers. Especially when you don't know the first thing about navigation and you are not in communication with the controllers.

[Cuban_Liberal]

13. Not much sophistication, actually.

It was a crystal-clear day, and there weren't many skyscrapers to be avoided at the height they were flying.

[fujiyama]

10. You have some interesting points

Islamist terrorism is a threat to the world and it's the result of both legitimate greivances and a warped fanatic religious mentality.

India and Israel are interesting examples that you've chosen to use but both have pecularities that must be mentioned.

India, it must be noted, has a significant Muslim population, which for the most part lives peacefully with the rest of the population. It is true that India's secularism was threatened by the BJP in recent years, but the party is out of power now. The Muslim minority in India participates in the democratic framework there. There is discrimination (and at times violence against them), but for the most part they live peacefully with their Hindu neighbors.

As for Kashmir, which is really what is at the center of the crisis between Pakistan and India, it is unlikely to be given up by India, regardless of the party in power there. The de facto border will probably stay at the line of control, as it is at present. Pakistan knows there is little chance of gaining control of this territory, but they figure they can bleed India through the use of state sponsored terrorism.

The Kashmiris have been caught in this shitstorm and have been the victims of both the terrorist groups and the Indian security forces, which have at times been guilty of various human rights abuses themselves.

Israel on the other hand, faces another crisis. How can it claim to be a democracy, while it occupies thousands of people? The threat of terrorism against Israel is largely located within the WB. Unlike in India's case, where the terrorism threat is mostly by Pakistanis and other groups, not Kashmiris themselves. Unfortunately the RW administration in Israel is unwilling to sit down to a comprehensive peace proposal, and the RW administration here simply doesn't care. The far right fundies also are dead set against any peace proposals, because they view the occupied territories as biblical land, and are unwilling to see them turned over.

In both cases, we can see that the groups have legitimate greivances, but the use of terrorist tactics will be unlikely to bring about the change desired. As we have seen it will often bring about a backlash.

I do however disagree about the neoconservatives motives, who have little interest in the well being of India or any other country for that matter. While Israel is a true interest for them (partly cultural - some have ties to the country, partly military, and partly religious), India is not quite as high on their radar. India may be seen a potential counterwight to China in neocons' eyes, and lip service is given to its democratic institutuions and its middle class (which is useful for US corporations), but in reality this administration has backed Pakistan in numerous ways - billions of dollars in debt relief and military aid are two such ways. Democracies are often difficult to deal with as seen by foggy botoms, and a puppet dictatorship is often seen as more flexible.

The neocons' plans are that of total US hegemony, through military and corporate power. India, while certainly not a global power yet, is however a regional power, and has the potential to be a global power. This proves to be a problem in some ways for the US dominance in the region.

9/11 was a significant event though in many ways. Before this, the US was fast on track to having closer relations with India. Soon after the administration changed course, believing (imo foolishly) that Pakistan would be a key to defeating terrorism. I knew this war was lost before it even started, when they called Pakistan and Saudi Arabia "allies" in the war on terrorism.

One thing that I find interesting is the reaction of many Americans (usually RWers) here in the US. They believe as though 9/11 was the only terrorist attack in the history of the world and that gives the US the right to attack any nation that it percieves as a threat (real or imaginary). Iraq is a symptom of this ignorance and paranoia.

Unfortunately the "clash of civilizations" is I think, more a self fulfilling prophesy, because the Christian right here, along with the Islamist fundamentalists abroad have bought into it.

[hue]

19. Agree with your response!

Yes our neoconservative ruling clique is only weakening our country with its zeal for control. We are aligning ourselves with those who play us for their own benefit.
Much of the mid east conflict is polorized between India and China as the real power brokers dualing for their up and coming positions. It is known that China had a hand in supporting radical militants in outlying districts in Pakistan and used Pakistan against India and western minded cultures. (I know I should support this with writing on this topic but don't have time now.)
I think those who actually covet control welcome religious fundamentalists because they offer a population that is willing to die for any cause as long as it has their "team's" label on it. Thus Bush & Co. will play up to them as they are easily used.

[fujiyama]

20. Yes China has imperialist motives, like

the US.

They have used Pakistan for many years as a proxy against India. After all, they helped Pakistan build their nuclear program. India is China's major regional rival, economically and militarily.

It would also not surprise me that China has had a part in supporting terrorist attacks that have taken place.

BTW welcome to DU!

[hue]

21. Thanks fuji!

I read once a letter from a young man who had fled Pakistan due to pressure from Chinese occupiers who fund madrases in outlying regions of Pakistan. He claimed the Chinese support the polarized fundamentalist indoctrination against western/democratic thought. When I have time I'll look for that or other sources of info--but got to get ready to go to a wedding now!
Am glad someone here has a greater overview of political maneuvering here.

[Heidi]

18. Why just "Muslim" terrorism?

Terrorists come in all religions, nationalities, shapes, sizes and colors. However, many white, Christian Americans are conditioned to think otherwise.

[bicentennial_baby]

23. Read "Terror in the Mind of God"

by Mark Jurgenmeyer...Then you can learn about the rainbow of religious terrorism: Islamic, Xtian, Jewish, Sikh, Hindu, Millenial Cults, etc. When we focus on one subset of the growing trend of religiously motivated terror, we miss the entire point.