Posted on Sep 20, 2014
Is America's foreign policy the root of terrorism?
2.21K
7
11
1
1
0
Since the end of WWII, America has attempted to lead the world to "Freedom." But, for what 'freedoms' have we really been fighting?
Iran: We supported a dictator, the Shaw, with weapons and money, so that "Big Oil" could extract the country's wealth, while ignoring the oppression of its people. When they revolted, we labeled them as 'evil' and have imposed blockades and sanctions ever since. We even protected the deposed Shaw and helped him steal his country's wealth. Why would the people now in power in Iran have anything but contempt for the U.S.?
Iraq: We supported Saddam Hussein's war against Iran, by giving him military weapons (and likely all the chemical weapons) to fight his war with Iran, which he used later to invade Kuwait and, ineffectively, attempted to fend off our attacks, twice, when we became displeased with his actions as a 'puppet' dictator.
Afghanistan: We supplied weapons and training to the Jihadists, who were fighting against the Russian invasion. When that war ended, they turned their attention to the U.S., why? (I'll take a guess below).
Saudi Arabia: We protect the Royal Family's power. It is a monarchy, not a democracy. They have the power to kidnap a 5 y.o. child off the street, marry her, and then begin a sex life with her at the age of 9 y.o., without ever informing the child's family. 'Royal' princes have done this, time and again. And, we protect their 'freedom' to do so.
So, what are the 'freedoms' we really fight for around the world? Our military has long been used for 70 years to wage war, not for the freedom of the people in the country with which we wage war, nor to protect American citizens' freedoms at home, but the freedom of American corporations to operate under the protection of whatever government we can put in power in that nation.
Since WWII, what war have we fought to protect America? Some might say, "Afghanistan, 2001-present." I disagree. After invading Afghanistan, our country was swept up in war so much, that it believed the lies of the Bush administration and we went to war in Iraq, AGAIN. The war in Afghanistan hasn't truly protected us, it has only fractured the group that attacked us on September 11, 2001. Has this made us safer? Or, did it spur the Benghazi attack? Also, according to the media pundits and world 'leaders,' ISIS is way more of a threat than Osama Bin Laden ever was? And, was it not the oppression of now ISIS supporters by the Syrian and Iraqi governments that created ISIS? If Saddam Hussein were still in power, would ISIS even exist?
Unless we plan on killing every person that may threaten us, we can not win the war on 'terror' with a bomb and a gun. But, I believe there is a solution.
It is time for America to STOP fighting wars to protect American corporate interests abroad. If MacDonalds, Mobile, Exxon, BP, Starbucks, KFC, Walmart, GM, Ford, GE, Apple, etc. etc. etc., want to do business in every country in the world, then they need to work with the governments of those countries themselves, not use the U.S. State department to broker the deals and the U.S. military to enforce it, or to keep 'puppet' governments in power, to protect these companies' interests.
"We don't negotiate with terrorists" has long been our motto. The reasons, I believe, is we don't want to give vindication to their true complaints, American corporate power over their sovereign nations, oppressing the peoples of those nations for the purpose of making American corporate shareholders wealthy.
Why do you think they attacked the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and, the intended target of The White House? I believe it is because they LIVE the connection of corporations and our war machines, which so many of us Americans refuse to see or acknowledge as the cause of the problems.
So, how do we really end this war on 'terror?' We STOP using our government to broker deals for corporate America. We STOP supporting 'puppet' regimes that protect "American interests abroad" (what are those interests, if not profit driven?). We support the U.N.'s peacekeeping efforts, wholeheartedly, to push democracy, human rights, and independence throughout the world. We put tax incentives in place to reward manufacturing, increased employment, and profit making at home and strong tax penalties for profits earned outside our border and even stronger penalties for keeping profits abroad, as opposed to the current policies of profits earned and kept outside our borders are free of taxation (this current policy only hurts our economy, two-fold).
But, hey, it's easier just to say 'they hate freedom,' label them all as 'evil' and blow 'em up, isn't it? Besides, we have more pressing issues to address at home, like: isn't Obama a Kenyan; abortion is murder; gays shouldn't marry; 'brown' children are invading our southern border; drugs are 'evil' and we must wage 'war' against them; prisons are for 'bad' people and we have a LOT of 'bad' people, now don't we; if you want better pay, get a better education; if you want a better education, you must mortgage your ass off, for decades, to get it. The list goes on and on and on.
Why to we spend trillions of taxpayer dollars on the F-35 and cut funding to the Department of Education? Why should we buy a thousand tanks the Pentagon doesn't want and cut medicare/medicaid? Why should we send Americans to fight for corporate 'freedoms' abroad, give those corporations tax breaks to move jobs overseas and then tell the unemployed and homeless, "Get a job!?!"
I've got an idea. Let's cut out the wars to defend corporate interests abroad and sending taxpayer money to the war machines' industries. Let's spend that money rebuilding America and the American dream. Let's invest in college grants and LOW/NO interest student loans. Let's give tax incentives to move production back to the U.S. and tax penalties for moving jobs out-of-country. Let's reduce America's dependency on oil, by giving tax incentives for very high MPG vehicles, sustainable/renewable energy production and 'off-grid' housing.
Please, join the conversation, varying opinions are welcome. I enjoy the discussion. But, please, can we keep it civil?
Or, just call this progressive a 'libtard' and enjoy your day.
Iran: We supported a dictator, the Shaw, with weapons and money, so that "Big Oil" could extract the country's wealth, while ignoring the oppression of its people. When they revolted, we labeled them as 'evil' and have imposed blockades and sanctions ever since. We even protected the deposed Shaw and helped him steal his country's wealth. Why would the people now in power in Iran have anything but contempt for the U.S.?
Iraq: We supported Saddam Hussein's war against Iran, by giving him military weapons (and likely all the chemical weapons) to fight his war with Iran, which he used later to invade Kuwait and, ineffectively, attempted to fend off our attacks, twice, when we became displeased with his actions as a 'puppet' dictator.
Afghanistan: We supplied weapons and training to the Jihadists, who were fighting against the Russian invasion. When that war ended, they turned their attention to the U.S., why? (I'll take a guess below).
Saudi Arabia: We protect the Royal Family's power. It is a monarchy, not a democracy. They have the power to kidnap a 5 y.o. child off the street, marry her, and then begin a sex life with her at the age of 9 y.o., without ever informing the child's family. 'Royal' princes have done this, time and again. And, we protect their 'freedom' to do so.
So, what are the 'freedoms' we really fight for around the world? Our military has long been used for 70 years to wage war, not for the freedom of the people in the country with which we wage war, nor to protect American citizens' freedoms at home, but the freedom of American corporations to operate under the protection of whatever government we can put in power in that nation.
Since WWII, what war have we fought to protect America? Some might say, "Afghanistan, 2001-present." I disagree. After invading Afghanistan, our country was swept up in war so much, that it believed the lies of the Bush administration and we went to war in Iraq, AGAIN. The war in Afghanistan hasn't truly protected us, it has only fractured the group that attacked us on September 11, 2001. Has this made us safer? Or, did it spur the Benghazi attack? Also, according to the media pundits and world 'leaders,' ISIS is way more of a threat than Osama Bin Laden ever was? And, was it not the oppression of now ISIS supporters by the Syrian and Iraqi governments that created ISIS? If Saddam Hussein were still in power, would ISIS even exist?
Unless we plan on killing every person that may threaten us, we can not win the war on 'terror' with a bomb and a gun. But, I believe there is a solution.
It is time for America to STOP fighting wars to protect American corporate interests abroad. If MacDonalds, Mobile, Exxon, BP, Starbucks, KFC, Walmart, GM, Ford, GE, Apple, etc. etc. etc., want to do business in every country in the world, then they need to work with the governments of those countries themselves, not use the U.S. State department to broker the deals and the U.S. military to enforce it, or to keep 'puppet' governments in power, to protect these companies' interests.
"We don't negotiate with terrorists" has long been our motto. The reasons, I believe, is we don't want to give vindication to their true complaints, American corporate power over their sovereign nations, oppressing the peoples of those nations for the purpose of making American corporate shareholders wealthy.
Why do you think they attacked the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and, the intended target of The White House? I believe it is because they LIVE the connection of corporations and our war machines, which so many of us Americans refuse to see or acknowledge as the cause of the problems.
So, how do we really end this war on 'terror?' We STOP using our government to broker deals for corporate America. We STOP supporting 'puppet' regimes that protect "American interests abroad" (what are those interests, if not profit driven?). We support the U.N.'s peacekeeping efforts, wholeheartedly, to push democracy, human rights, and independence throughout the world. We put tax incentives in place to reward manufacturing, increased employment, and profit making at home and strong tax penalties for profits earned outside our border and even stronger penalties for keeping profits abroad, as opposed to the current policies of profits earned and kept outside our borders are free of taxation (this current policy only hurts our economy, two-fold).
But, hey, it's easier just to say 'they hate freedom,' label them all as 'evil' and blow 'em up, isn't it? Besides, we have more pressing issues to address at home, like: isn't Obama a Kenyan; abortion is murder; gays shouldn't marry; 'brown' children are invading our southern border; drugs are 'evil' and we must wage 'war' against them; prisons are for 'bad' people and we have a LOT of 'bad' people, now don't we; if you want better pay, get a better education; if you want a better education, you must mortgage your ass off, for decades, to get it. The list goes on and on and on.
Why to we spend trillions of taxpayer dollars on the F-35 and cut funding to the Department of Education? Why should we buy a thousand tanks the Pentagon doesn't want and cut medicare/medicaid? Why should we send Americans to fight for corporate 'freedoms' abroad, give those corporations tax breaks to move jobs overseas and then tell the unemployed and homeless, "Get a job!?!"
I've got an idea. Let's cut out the wars to defend corporate interests abroad and sending taxpayer money to the war machines' industries. Let's spend that money rebuilding America and the American dream. Let's invest in college grants and LOW/NO interest student loans. Let's give tax incentives to move production back to the U.S. and tax penalties for moving jobs out-of-country. Let's reduce America's dependency on oil, by giving tax incentives for very high MPG vehicles, sustainable/renewable energy production and 'off-grid' housing.
Please, join the conversation, varying opinions are welcome. I enjoy the discussion. But, please, can we keep it civil?
Or, just call this progressive a 'libtard' and enjoy your day.
Posted in these groups: 
Taxes
Taxes
Edited 10 y ago
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 4
2
2
0
On a more serious note, I guess the premise is that it's our own fault we're being attacked by islamic extremists. Following that logic it's England's fault they've been attacked, France's fault for their getting attacked, Germany's fault, Nigeria's fault, Isreal's fault, Russia's fault, Christians' fault the world over, and who knows who else's fault for being attacked by islamic terrorists.
At what point does one admit that the common thread here is "islamic" terrorists? When do they become accountable for pursuing a tack that is the conversion, enslavement, or destruction of all infidels and apostates? How much more hatred would be "enough" hatred to motivate those attacks? Was it the fledgeling USA's fault that the Barbary Pirates attacked our ships and imprisoned our sailors? Was it Spain's fault that they were attacked by the Moors? Come on, man...Be brave enough to call it what it is...islam is at war with everyone who is not islamic, and has been since the time of mohammed.
At what point does one admit that the common thread here is "islamic" terrorists? When do they become accountable for pursuing a tack that is the conversion, enslavement, or destruction of all infidels and apostates? How much more hatred would be "enough" hatred to motivate those attacks? Was it the fledgeling USA's fault that the Barbary Pirates attacked our ships and imprisoned our sailors? Was it Spain's fault that they were attacked by the Moors? Come on, man...Be brave enough to call it what it is...islam is at war with everyone who is not islamic, and has been since the time of mohammed.
(2)
(0)
PO2 Eric Tucker
Do you believe Islam is to blame? Or, do you believe it possible that oppressed people, who have been taught violence as a means for solving issues, as America leads in this example, use Islam as a recruiting and controlling tool to use violence to fight back against those with power over them, in these depressed regions?
As a Jew, with many muslim friends, who have no desire to hurt or destroy me, I find it difficult to blame a religion, but rather see it as simply a tool extremist use to recruit and control others. Much the same as many have done with Christianity (Westboro Babtist Church being a current example). Do you believe Christianity to be the cause of their hate, or that those in power at Westboro Babtist Church use perverted teachings to manipulate and control those who are already prone to hate, from their previous life experiences?
As a Jew, with many muslim friends, who have no desire to hurt or destroy me, I find it difficult to blame a religion, but rather see it as simply a tool extremist use to recruit and control others. Much the same as many have done with Christianity (Westboro Babtist Church being a current example). Do you believe Christianity to be the cause of their hate, or that those in power at Westboro Babtist Church use perverted teachings to manipulate and control those who are already prone to hate, from their previous life experiences?
(0)
(0)
SFC Jeff L.
PO2 Eric Tucker: I don't believe Islam is to blame. That said, I think it is incredibly naive to deny that it plays a major part in their way of thinking. It's disingenuous to compare American use of force with islamic terrorists use of force. Case in point: ISIS is using force to intimidate, conquor, instill fear and terror, and re-establish a caliphate (their words). The US is not doing those things, but using force because you can't reason with unreasonable people.
As to your second assertion that people use Christianity to manipulate and control, I'm gonna call Shenanigans on you. You cite a small group of people comprised mainly of the Phelps family (I am actually from Topeka). The premise that people are using Christianity in the same way that people use Islam breaks down immediately when you examine the tools they use. Christians, not even the Phelps clan, do not espouse beliefs that the world must become Christian, or everyone who refuses should be enslaved or killed. Do I believe that Christianity teaches hate? No. Do I believe Islam teaches hate? I have to say that I do. There are plenty of stories, reports, examples of people attending "radicalized" mosques, plenty of examples from the Koran indicating that strict adherance to the scripture would require a muslim to act against non-believers. I said at the beginning I don't think Islam is to blame, and I don't. Still, with 1.6 Billion muslims in the world, if only 10% of them are radicalized you're still talking about 160 million active and potential terrorists and sympathizers out there. Besides, ask yourself when was the last time you saw a picture of a 10yr old Christian or Jew holding aloft a man's severed head? Or the last time you heard of a Christian or Jew beheading someone? I don't want to hear about this "Christianity is just as bad" or "America makes muslims hate" nonsense. It just doesn't hold water.
As to your second assertion that people use Christianity to manipulate and control, I'm gonna call Shenanigans on you. You cite a small group of people comprised mainly of the Phelps family (I am actually from Topeka). The premise that people are using Christianity in the same way that people use Islam breaks down immediately when you examine the tools they use. Christians, not even the Phelps clan, do not espouse beliefs that the world must become Christian, or everyone who refuses should be enslaved or killed. Do I believe that Christianity teaches hate? No. Do I believe Islam teaches hate? I have to say that I do. There are plenty of stories, reports, examples of people attending "radicalized" mosques, plenty of examples from the Koran indicating that strict adherance to the scripture would require a muslim to act against non-believers. I said at the beginning I don't think Islam is to blame, and I don't. Still, with 1.6 Billion muslims in the world, if only 10% of them are radicalized you're still talking about 160 million active and potential terrorists and sympathizers out there. Besides, ask yourself when was the last time you saw a picture of a 10yr old Christian or Jew holding aloft a man's severed head? Or the last time you heard of a Christian or Jew beheading someone? I don't want to hear about this "Christianity is just as bad" or "America makes muslims hate" nonsense. It just doesn't hold water.
(0)
(0)
PO2 Eric Tucker
I do know of KKK, Aryan Brotherhood, American Natzis, Skinheads, etc., who all use Christianity to justify hating and harming others. 'Lynchings' still occur in the U.S. Similarly, I can site many cases of Christians claiming that America is NOT a secular (therefore 'free') nation, but a Christian nation. And, because the words 'under G-d' were added to our Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950s, it has led to many refusing to say it, or even allow it's recitation in public schools. 'Christianity' may not teach hate, but many who hate, use Christianity to justify that hate.
I really enjoyed this video clip: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/09/30/hbos-bill-maher-accused-of-lack-of-religious-sophistication/. Rezla Aslan clearly addresses many of these misconceptions about Islam.
Judgements are easily handed out; Blame is easily assessed. However, resolving issues in a 'healthy' manner will not be accomplished by doing either of those. Empathizing with the other, as well as the self, rebuilds the connection needed to discuss strategies for addressing needs that ALL parties involved may agree upon. I believe ALL people have the same needs, many just don't know how to meet those needs in healthy, cooperative ways. Why? Because they are only taught violence and hate from an early age. This is not a 'Muslim' way, but an impoverished, uneducated, controlled, injured, fractured societal way of responding to pain; physical and emotional.
At least, that's my belief.
I really enjoyed this video clip: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/09/30/hbos-bill-maher-accused-of-lack-of-religious-sophistication/. Rezla Aslan clearly addresses many of these misconceptions about Islam.
Judgements are easily handed out; Blame is easily assessed. However, resolving issues in a 'healthy' manner will not be accomplished by doing either of those. Empathizing with the other, as well as the self, rebuilds the connection needed to discuss strategies for addressing needs that ALL parties involved may agree upon. I believe ALL people have the same needs, many just don't know how to meet those needs in healthy, cooperative ways. Why? Because they are only taught violence and hate from an early age. This is not a 'Muslim' way, but an impoverished, uneducated, controlled, injured, fractured societal way of responding to pain; physical and emotional.
At least, that's my belief.
HBO’s Bill Maher accused of lack of religious sophistication
Reza Aslan unloads on HBO comedian, not to mention two CNN hosts, in remarks on Islam.
(0)
(0)
SFC Jeff L.
It isn't about assessing blame or rushing to judgement. It's about calling it what it is. There may be some Christians who teach hate (I concede that you'll be able to find examples), but Christianity does not. I know there are muslims who really do teach peace and love, but there is evidence in their own scripture that the religion itself does. They are taught to strive against the disbelievers (the mildest point) and muhammad himself cursed all Christians and Jews. As far as resolving issues in a healthy way with people whose goal is your utter destruction it is an exercise in futility. What would that compromise look like? You can only kill 10K people and America will elect a closet muslim president? As to your original question - America has done more to lift people out of poverty, and to give people the world over an opportunity to experience the same liberty that we do here. Nothing is perfect, and there will always be inequality for various reasons. I'm not a "blame America first" kind of person. Our policies may well have contributed in some ways, it's hard to measure something like that unless you have exit polling at the terrorist training camps. I think the main reason is that muslims are taught to hate Christians, Jews, and any other non-believer and apostate. Too many of them take a literal interpretation of scripture and use that to justify murder and mayhem.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
You have valid points, I also agree that corporations are using politicians who in turn use the military to increase profits. It's also true that it seems like Islam is at war with all that ain't Islam. Since I've left the service, I've had the chance to make an Iraqi friend. He hates that place more than I did I think, He's also Muslim, he's told me time and again, those guys are just pieces of shit. If ever there was a group that we needed to smash it's Isis.... did I get the acronym right? Granted I wasn't alive back in WWII but they seem like another Nazi group to me.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I don't think that our foreign policy is the "root" of the problem, however, I do think we contribute to it. If you think about it, terrorism is still right here in the US. Part of the definition of terrorism is: The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear. Look at the gang activities...I call it domestic terrorism and that has nothing to do with our foreign policy
(1)
(0)
PO2 Eric Tucker
I believe that our domestic policies, which mimic our foreign policies, with respect to corporate greed, contributes greatly to gang violence. The 'war on drugs' creates a black market that provides a chance at a higher income, albeit illegal, that offers gangs an easier route to financial fruits, much as prohibition did for organized crime a century ago.
Removing the black market for drugs, may remove the 'territorial' issues that is a big cause of gang violence, seems to me would be a good start. Also, providing a meaningful education, with easier acces to post secondary education, would also appear to rob gangs of their biggest recruiting factors.
Do you think these would help reduce gang violence here at home?
Removing the black market for drugs, may remove the 'territorial' issues that is a big cause of gang violence, seems to me would be a good start. Also, providing a meaningful education, with easier acces to post secondary education, would also appear to rob gangs of their biggest recruiting factors.
Do you think these would help reduce gang violence here at home?
(0)
(0)
PO2 Rocky Kleeger
I don't think that it would reduce as greatly as you feel, however I do think that removing those factors would reduce gang violence
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google