Is political terrorism against America and other western nations justified?

[barts]

In every nation where we now have terrorism, we had first assaulted them. America is under attack only because it is on the attack. It’s no wonder they hate us. Imagine how we would feel if a foreign country were doing this to us. We’d be fighting back any way we could.

This paragraph forms the thesis of William T. Hathaway's article, America Is under Attack!, in Dissident Voice. Hathaway is an adjunct professor of American studies at the University of Oldenburg in Germany.

In terms of terrorist acts against Americans and American interests is Hathaway right? Is America an aggressor nation that has no one but itself to blame for the terrorist threat that no dominates its Zeitgeist?

I think Hathaway is essentially correct, and that until America stands down and becomes a nation of peace, its people will never enjoy the security of the citizens of nations that don't make war to serve their meanest of national interests with utter disregard for the hopes, aspirations, and lives of other peoples.

[Dan74]

I don't support terrorism and I don't place all blame on the US for terrorist attacks, BUT I think that terrorist attacks are done in reaction to US imperialism.

[Jack]

Ever since America became dependent on the Saudi oil fields and pledged it's unilateral support for the state of Israel we've for all intents and purposes taken sides in every conflict in the Middle East. Our support for Arabia is almost completely economic while our support for Israel is largely motivated by religious tradition and politics. Our intervention into the political struggles of Iraq and Afganistan seem to offer no benefit (except to those delusional enough to believe we can succeed at eliminating terrorism) while creating unnecessary risks for both our military and citizenry. We have no contingency plans for these conflicts, no exit plan, no idea of how we'll deal with whatever comes after we leave, if we ever do. We risk bankrupting our nation financing these military campaigns with no means of recouping our losses or any idea how we'll recover what we've spent. The final insult is that most of the technological advances developed during these police actions are being used to monitor and surveille our own citizens in this country.

Not only do I see no benefit in continuing our presence in the Middle East, I don't think the federal government does either. We're still there because of bad commitments made on spurious intelligence and the unspoken realization that if we brought home all our troops now our unemployment rates would skyrocket and our medical facilities would be overrun. We are achieving nothing besides getting our people killed and maimed and destroying our economy. Oh, and creating more excuses for terrorism every day we remain.

[Thanatos]

Perhaps, but it isn't very useful. We've dropped thousands of bombs for every one bomb the "terrorists" have even thought about setting off in the United States. They can't beat us, and trying will only make the United States increasingly berserk and paranoid. The nation seems to be calming down at the moment so the least useful thing they could do would be a major attack.

[minorwork]

Isn't the OP's premise something like I've been hearing Ron Paul state? Might be you'd want to modify your position.

[BobbyO]

This paragraph forms the thesis of William T. Hathaway's article, America Is under Attack!, in Dissident Voice. Hathaway is an adjunct professor of American studies at the University of Oldenburg in Germany.

In terms of terrorist acts against Americans and American interests is Hathaway right? Is America an aggressor nation that has no one but itself to blame for the terrorist threat that no dominates its Zeitgeist?

I think Hathaway is essentially correct, and that until America stands down and becomes a nation of peace, its people will never enjoy the security of the citizens of nations that don't make war to serve their meanest of national interests with utter disregard for the hopes, aspirations, and lives of other peoples.

No, he is not right.
Obviously, a "solution" to the problem is not to be found in looking toward a party of discredited socialism.
Look- these type of arguments completely tend to treat the moslems, the Arabs, as children... as people who who have no real interest and desires in the world. They are also supremely silly: Are we truly to believe that the Osama Bin Ladens of the world are upset because in 1953 the USA supported the overthrow of a quasi-Stalinist Iranian?

[barts]

No, he is not right.
Obviously, a "solution" to the problem is not to be found in looking toward a party of discredited socialism.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make here.

Look- these type of arguments completely tend to treat the moslems, the Arabs, as children... as people who who have no real interest and desires in the world. They are also supremely silly: Are we truly to believe that the Osama Bin Ladens of the world are upset because in 1953 the USA supported the overthrow of a quasi-Stalinist Iranian?

The Palestinians are upset about what happened in 1948. The Americans still have a blockade against Cuba because of events that occurred in 1959.

So, yes, you should believe that the "the Osama Bin Ladens of the world are upset because in 1953 the USA supported the overthrow of a quasi-Stalinist Iranian?", by which I assume you mean the democratically elected government of Mohammad Mosaddegh that

introduced a wide range of social and political reforms but is most notable for its nationalization of the Iranian oil industry, which had been under British control since 1913 through the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC/AIOC) (later British Petroleum or BP).

Mosaddegh was removed from power in a coup on 19 August 1953, organised and carried out by the United States CIA at the request of the British MI6 which chose Iranian General Fazlollah Zahedi to succeed Mosaddegh.

The coup is sometimes known as the TPAJAX Project after its CIA cryptonym, however, in Iran it is referred to as the 28 Mordad 1332 coup, after its date on the Iranian calendar, which is incorrect as the Operation's proper name was TPAjax (TP standing for Tudeh Party of Iran the Russian backed communist party of Iran).

So much for the much vaunted American respect for democracy. The fact is many, perhaps even most, of America's "enemies" were created by America's disregard for the rights and aspirations of others, and its brutal wars on them.

[BobbyO]

I have no idea what point you're trying to make here.



The Palestinians are upset about what happened in 1948. The Americans still have a blockade against Cuba because of events that occurred in 1959.

So, yes, you should believe that the "the Osama Bin Ladens of the world are upset because in 1953 the USA supported the overthrow of a quasi-Stalinist Iranian?", by which I assume you mean the democratically elected government of Mohammad Mosaddegh that



So much for the much vaunted American respect for democracy. The fact is many, perhaps even most, of America's "enemies" were created by America's disregard for the rights and aspirations of others, and its brutal wars on them.

Yeah-- Bin laden dreamt of a caliphate to get revenge on the USA. I fail to see why credit is not given to such people that they desire something- and that which the USA stands in its way. That is the cause of the "Death to America" chants. The ayatollahs are not upset about Mossadegh, they are upset because the USA blocks their efforts. Stop treating non-westerners like children.

[Dan74]

No, he is not right.
Obviously, a "solution" to the problem is not to be found in looking toward a party of discredited socialism.
Look- these type of arguments completely tend to treat the moslems, the Arabs, as children... as people who who have no real interest and desires in the world. They are also supremely silly: Are we truly to believe that the Osama Bin Ladens of the world are upset because in 1953 the USA supported the overthrow of a quasi-Stalinist Iranian?

How the hell was Mosaddegh's government "Quasi-Stalinist"? Even if it was, the USA didn't help bring it down because of that. They only wanted Iranian oil.

[Senor Hoint]

Are we really to believe that Hitler was pissed off about what happened to Germany in 1918? The terrorist organizations would not exist (or perhaps, would exist in different form) if the West hadn't been playing the game of imperialism so well since World War II.

[Thanatos]

Isn't the OP's premise something like I've been hearing Ron Paul state? Might be you'd want to modify your position.

A stuck clock is right twice a day. Though I hate Ron Paul the same way I hate poison ivy and smooth jazz, if not even more, the gist of his foreign policy is correct. I think it's really more about isolationism and apathy towards the rest of the world for him and his libertarians.

[Darklordabc]

Are we really to believe that Hitler was pissed off about what happened to Germany in 1918? The terrorist organizations would not exist (or perhaps, would exist in different form) if the West hadn't been playing the game of imperialism so well since World War II.

So much for the much vaunted American respect for democracy. The fact is many, perhaps even most, of America's "enemies" were created by America's disregard for the rights and aspirations of others, and its brutal wars on them.

So if America adopted a non-interventionist policy, Radical Islam and its desire for world domination, would magically disappear?