Will the US isolate itself

[Shin-Gua]

I can’t believe the number of people who believe:

1. That the US president is elected by a majority of the popular vote! WRONG! The president is elected by the Electorial College system. Before someone begins bashing President Bush they ought to understand thjis system and the reasons why it was instituted. (BTW I did NOT vote for Bush)

2. That a College/University degree means a person is educated and has powers of reasoning thereby! WRONG! It means that the person earning the degree could give the rote responses the professor expected.

3. That Islamic nationalism is something new and caused by US policy! WRONG! Perhaps these people should study Islamic history before running off at the mouth about something they obviously know nothing about.

4. That the US is chock full of gun toting rednecks and cowboys running around shooting up everything in sight. WRONG! Most US gun owners are responsible law abiding citizens. I do agree that there are a lot more guns in the US than, say, in Europe, but personal gun ownership is a bedrock right of US citizens (no matter what the liberals say) that enabled the US to win independence from a government that didn’t give a rats ass about the right of US residents to be at least equal with the residents in the homeland of that government.

5. The way things are going in the World, the US citizens right to own and bear arms may be the last resort against dominance by AK-47 toting terrorists.

[butcher_boy]

[quote=“Shin-Gua”]I can’t believe the number of people who believe:

5. The way things are going in the World, the US citizens right to own and bear arms may be the last resort against dominance by AK-47 toting terrorists.[/quote]

Couldn’t agree more, what idiots

(PS maybe you should read through your rant before pressing submit)

[Shin-Gua]

What makes you think they are idiots?

[butcher_boy]

@Shin-Gua

What makes you think they are idiots?

I was agreeing with the sentiment that your

[quote=“Shin-Gua”]I can’t believe the number of people who believe:[/quote] implied. Should I have read into it a different implication?

[imyourbiggestfan]

@Freakin' Amazing

US being 2/3 of the EU’s percentage means nothing once compared to the rest of the world, they’re both horrible.

Wrong. In fact. The US look pretty good compared to most countries. EU looks decent enough, too. It so happens that, on average, the highest tariffs tend to be found in underdeveloped nations.

Agricultural subsidies are horrible in both places - but more so in the EU than the US.

[rooftop]

Magnificent Tigerman,

Do you believe that the CIA funded, armed, trained and cultivated mujahadeen across central Asia and the Middle East in order to build up an army to oust the Russians from Afghanistan?

Do you believe that retreating colonial powers (i.e. England for one) arbitrarily divided former colonies along ethnic/religious (i.e. selective & arbitrary) lines that led to an increase in tension between groups (see Partition of India & Pakistan for an illustrative example) and territories? Do you believe that these colonial powers, using the ‘divide-and-rule’ idea also gave unequal benefits to members of different ethnic/religious groups that sowed the seeds of religious and ethnic hatred found across the region today?

If you do, then I imagine you’ll give some credence to the idea that colonial powers historically, and the US in recent history have contributed greatly to the kind of instability and religious zealotry currently seen in parts of South and Central Asia and most of the Middle East.

If you don’t, well then I can understand your complete disregard of the idea.

I don’t like the notion that all of the responsibility for the world’s ills lie at America’s doorstep. I don’t like the idea that if it weren’t for the United States, the world would be filled with happy, peaceful people all just trying to get along. And, I think that is simplistic, bullshit America-bashing.

But, I do think that any serious discussion of terrorism and its roots does need to take into account the colonial hangover and covert CIA/U.S. operations that did nuch to create the current state of affairs.

[Tigerman]

[quote=“rooftop”]Magnificent Tigerman,

Do you believe that the CIA funded, armed, trained and cultivated mujahadeen across central Asia and the Middle East in order to build up an army to oust the Russians from Afghanistan?[/quote]

I believe that the CIA funded, armed, and maybe trained mujahadeen in Pakistan in order to resist the Soviets in Afghanistan as part of the US overall effort to win the Cold War.

@rooftop

Do you believe that retreating colonial powers (i.e. England for one) arbitrarily divided former colonies along ethnic/religious (i.e. selective & arbitrary) lines that led to an increase in tension between groups (see Partition of India & Pakistan for an illustrative example) and territories?

In many cases, yes.

@rooftop

Do you believe that these colonial powers, using the ‘divide-and-rule’ idea also gave unequal benefits to members of different ethnic/religious groups that sowed the seeds of religious and ethnic hatred found across the region today?

Not necessarily.

@rooftop

If you do, then I imagine you’ll give some credence to the idea that colonial powers historically, and the US in recent history have contributed greatly to the kind of instability and religious zealotry currently seen in parts of South and Central Asia and most of the Middle East.

I do not believe that the US is responsible for the instability or religious zealotry in those regions, and I do not think the colonial European powers are primarily to blame for this either. The movements are old and are generally not state-backed.

@rooftop

I don’t like the notion that all of the responsibility for the world’s ills lie at America’s doorstep. I don’t like the idea that if it weren’t for the United States, the world would be filled with happy, peaceful people all just trying to get along. And, I think that is simplistic, bullshit America-bashing.

Agreed.

@rooftop

But, I do think that any serious discussion of terrorism and its roots does need to take into account the colonial hangover and covert CIA/U.S. operations that did much to create the current state of affairs.

I don’t see how US actions can be blamed as anywhere near the primary reason for the current state of affairs. But, I am willing to read what you might have to say re the subject.

[rooftop]

[quote=“The Magnificent Tigerman”]
I believe that the CIA funded, armed, and maybe trained mujahadeen in Pakistan in order to resist the Soviets in Afghanistan as part of the US overall effort to win the Cold War.[/quote]

I think you are correct.

How this connects to present-day terrorism is this:

The CIA began a program in 1979 with the express purpose that you’ve outlined above. The candidates were those who answered a call to a holy war or ‘jihad’ against a foreign/oppresive power (the Soviets). As soon as the Soviets invaded, there was an insurrection. The CIA along with the ISI in Pakistan selected the group most likely to pose a threat to the Soviets and began to train them. Realizing that religious fundamentalism is a wonderful tool to exploit, the two agencies worked together to start a recruiting drive on religious terms. So, they recruited radical Islamic fundamentalists, including Osama bin Laden to fight agaisnt the infidels occupying holy Islamic soil.

With funds, arms and training that began during the Carter administration and continued during the Reagan years, they trained a highly skilled army well-versed in the tactics of terrorism. Some writers have noted that the CIA did not create the fundamentalists (an important point because it is not the US’s fault that they exist) but instead developped a network through which these fundamentalists or mujahadeen were able to meet, and militarize. The two agencies also included religious propaganda in the training - effectively fanning the flames of religious fanaticism.

Once the Soviet ‘infidels’ were driven from Afghanistan, the mujahadeen army did not disband with congratulatory pats on the back. Instead, they looked for other infidels on Islamic soil. Guess who they found? With the US heavily involved in Saudi Arabia and Israel, they became the next infidel-enemy-number-one.

Along with a greater knowledge of warfare, and even greater fanatacism as a result of a massive coming-together of fundamentalists from across Central Asia and the Middle East, came greater exchanges of ideas - peasant farmers meeting scholars, for example - and an awareness of international politics, and the effects of the West’s (but particularly the United States with respect to influence, power and scale) foreign policy.

So, no the blame does not lie solely with the U.S./CIA, but as a result of ten years of training, they have produced a terrible army. Now, that army sees them as the target in this very un-Islamic holy war.

[quote=“maginificent tigerman”]
I do not believe that the US is responsible for the instability or religious zealotry in those regions, and I do not think the colonial European powers are primarily to blame for this either.[/quote]

To be sure, the religious fundamentalism was there already, but the divisions, unequal treatment, and in the case of the mujahadeen, training has contributed greatly to the instability and religious zealotry.

@magnificent tigerman

The movements are old and are generally not state-backed.

As far as Partition, which happened in 1947, it is 57 years old. There are still people alive who remember that. It is only a few generations ago. Think of how the Holocaust shapes current Jewish identity, or Israel policy and that ended two years before Partition. The mujahadeen/CIA stuff is 15 years old.

“not-state backed” not sure which state you mean.

As I wrote above, I don’t think the U.S./CIA created religious fundamentalism, but I do think that the recruitment, training and arming of fundamentalists made them into a force that they never were before.
Osama bin Laden and the leaders of al Qaeda have grown politically savvy as well and know how to use propaganda, mobilize massive groups of people and use highly-selective interpretations of the Quran to fire up religious fanaticism in their recruits.

@the magnificent tigerman

but I am willing to read what you might have to say re the subject.

Thanks. Aside from a bit of an anti-Canadian leaning, you are among the more reasonable posters in this forum.

To be honest, I don’t think that my post here has given the definitive last-word on how the US’s efforts with the mujahadeen in the 70’s/80’s has led to the state of terrorism we have in the world today. I think I’ve raised some points and hope you question me on them or that others will join in as well. There is a crucial connection (in my view) between these things so, without the aim of demonizing America, but instead of understanding the context of today’s world events, it would be interesting to explore it.

yours,

rooftop

[fred_smith]

Wouldn’t you agree that the Russians are the ones most responsible for anything that occured in Afghanistan and by virtue of this logic the French for the rise of Hitler? Just checking and how come I am not one of the more reasonable members of this forum?

[Tigerman]

@rooftop

Once the Soviet ‘infidels’ were driven from Afghanistan, the mujahadeen army did not disband with congratulatory pats on the back. Instead, they looked for other infidels on Islamic soil. Guess who they found? With the US heavily involved in Saudi Arabia and Israel, they became the next infidel-enemy-number-one.

That’s not the way I remember it. As I remember, as soon as the Soviets were driven out of Afghanistan, the religious fundamentalists broke into factions and began fighting among themselves.

@the magnificent tigerman

but I am willing to read what you might have to say re the subject.

@rooftop

Thanks. Aside from a bit of an anti-Canadian leaning, you are among the more reasonable posters in this forum.

Aprreciate your kind words. However, I have no problems with Canada. I have no interest in those US vs Canada threads.

@rooftop

To be honest, I don’t think that my post here has given the definitive last-word on how the US’s efforts with the mujahadeen in the 70’s/80’s has led to the state of terrorism we have in the world today. I think I’ve raised some points and hope you question me on them or that others will join in as well. There is a crucial connection (in my view) between these things so, without the aim of demonizing America, but instead of understanding the context of today’s world events, it would be interesting to explore it.

I’ll address your other points later today, hopefully.

[Shin-Gua]

Rooftop:
A good post that raises some interesting ideas. :bravo:

[rooftop]

[quote=“The Magnificent Tigerman”]

That’s not the way I remember it. As I remember, as soon as the Soviets were driven out of Afghanistan, the religious fundamentalists broke into factions and began fighting among themselves. [/quote]

Yes, you are correct. I over-simplified the situation. The mujahadeen did not then, and they do not now operate as one monlithic force with one will.
So, it is true that they broke into factions, the strongest survivng factions eventually turned their attention to the new imperial threat*

*(I’m using this language to approximate the views of the mujahadeen who did funnel their atacks towards the US).

@"the Magnificent Tigerman

I’ll address your other points later today, hopefully.

Ok, cool.

Fred Smith: By bringing forth the connection between the US/CIA and modern day terrorism, I in no way meant to exonerate the Soviets and their invansion of Afghanistan.

[imyourbiggestfan]

@rooftop

Once the Soviet ‘infidels’ were driven from Afghanistan, the mujahadeen army did not disband with congratulatory pats on the back. Instead, they looked for other infidels on Islamic soil. Guess who they found? With the US heavily involved in Saudi Arabia and Israel, they became the next infidel-enemy-number-one.

Well, the logical conclusion here then is that the aims of the mujahedeen (“expel infidels”, i.e., at first, Soviets) predated the support of the CIA. Since these same aims (“expel infidels”) are cited as the reason for their subsequent attacks on the US and its interests, one can hardly claim that CIA involvement incited these terrorist groups any more than the Soviet invasion did.

The role of the CIA was less in creating these groups than in sustaining them at a time when they could have been perceived as nationalist forces reacting to foreign invasion. Subsequently, their attacks on US interests have been focussed outside their own borders on the civillians of other sovereign states.

One might reasonably argue therefore that the character of these groups changed.

[rooftop]

[quote=“imyourbiggestfan”]
Well, the logical conclusion here then is that the aims of the mujahedeen (“expel infidels”, i.e., at first, Soviets) predated the support of the CIA. Since these same aims (“expel infidels”) are cited as the reason for their subsequent attacks on the US and its interests, one can hardly claim that CIA involvement incited these terrorist groups any more than the Soviet invasion did.[/quote]

My post a page or so back addresses this.

I think I was pretty clear in saying I don’t think the CIA (along with ISI in Pakistan) created the mujahadeen, or created sentiments against infidels.

I did say that by bringing together fundamentalists from across Central & South Asia and the Middle East and training them in warfare & propaganda, arming them and funding them, they made them into a force they never were before.