Is Foreign Intervention the Greatest cause for Terrorism?

Post Reply New Topic

This is something I am beginning to worry about, is Western foreign intervention the greatest cause for all these terror attacks we are seeing?

I am not a dove, or dislike intervention. I think the US did a great job in Kosovo, its just that their needs to be a point of balance between hawkish and dovish policies in which we engage when we need to but don't destabilize the world.

But this is something I am increasingly feeling as though it is the case. Their is a heavy correlation between foreign intervention in Europe and terror attacks. For instance Francois Hollande prior to the terror attacks engaged in bombings in bombings in Syria and sent arms to the Kurds in Syria. Both of which could have been interpreted as an act of aggression by some of the Muslim population of France. In fact prior to the November attacks the terrorists specifically wrote this as being what they were upset about.

This is not saying that the actions of these people were justified but the extra wave of animosity from seeing the French government intervene could have led to this.

The same goes for during the 80s. When France was aiding Israel in the Lebanon, their was a huge wave of terror attacks in their country. All of which were almost exclusively perpetrated by anti Israeli Lebanese groups.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism ... France.svg

I think it all comes down to Israel. The world has not been able to recover from its creation.

The Islamic world is pissed that Israel was created in what it considered its territory. The West, particularly the U.S., supports Israel and so the Islamic world resents them.

The main cause of terrorism is foreign intervention.

And the main cause of foreign intervention is....terrorism.

And the main cause of terrorism is foreign intervention.

And the main cause of....

I used to be a total non-interventionist. I've softened my position more recently. I think that we should rationally make foreign policy decisions on a case-by-case basis.

Of course, we will never have a rational foreign policy plan until the US government becomes truly democratic. If we are going to make the US government truly democratic, corporate lobbying must end. America's foreign policy is currently run by Haliburton and the big oil lobbyists. That's why it makes no sense from a national defense perspective or a "liberation" perspective.

No, America's foreign policy is currently run by AIPAC. That's why it makes no sense from a national defense perspective or a "liberation" perspective.

Trump's presidential campaign suggested he might turn things towards a slightly saner direction, but now it looks like it's just back to business as usual.

Islam says to convert or kill all non believers. The extremist follow this to the letter.

They do and will come to us to convert or kill us. They don't need anymore reason to do so other then allah says it's their duty to.

That is why they want to kill Jews they are non believers. It being close by makes it easier. Jews were there for thousands not and thousands of years. They have just as much right to be there as muslims. Mind you they also kill other muslims who don't follow their specific beliefs and are such non believers to be converted or killed. I believe the Islamic religion was created to justify conquest and murder to build Muhammad's empire. At it core it's about violence and murder. I dont know if it's possible or how to move Isalam from that path.

I'd rather fight them over there then here that is for sure. We'd probably have a lot more terror attacks if we didn't.

Following your logic what was their reason for 9/11 attacks and all the attacks prior to it? Cause we supported them to kick soviets out? Should we let soviets keep Afghan. In my opinion honesty maybe. What would world been today if Afghan had been under Russia's military control for 10-20 years. We certainly wouldn't have had iqita or isis.

Well if so then I believe we'd see a LOT more of this in the rest of the world.

My first theory is that many of the cultural values are parallel to that of the West (despite not seeming so at first) and that historically when the west was under foreign threat there was always a desire to push back, or fight against, any outsiders. Though you DO see this everywhere, there is a much greater religious connotation in the Abrahamic world (Abrahamic being Greater Europe, the Mid east, NA, and CA), as opposed to, say, civilizations of the East Asia or West Africa. The Middle East is simply doing what the Franks did when confronted with the Umayyad caliphate, and are attempting to do what the Crusaders did when trying to occupy the Levant. Who knows, perhaps the Middle East will reach a state like that of Modern Europe when the petroleum reserves run out and there is nothing valuable left, then they'd be left to build up their economies other ways, and foreign nations would stop intervening in their affairs.

If not the above, then I believe it is because significant radicalization has taken hold of the minds of the population and there is a highly effective and dangerous process of indoctrination that takes place in the minds of the victims (the populations of these countries subject to rule by terrorist entities), causing them to defect into a darker, morality-lacking state of mind. You can see this in many places around the world. Currently in North Korea, a large amount of state funded education is noticeable, influencing the opinions and ideologies of North Korean students. Similarly, this was also visible in WWII Germany, Japan, Italy, and even some Axis aligned or occupied nations. I believe the populations of failed states and terrorist havens have fallen prey to either a single individual, or a group of individuals, who characteristically resemble Antisocial Personality Disorder, having no understanding of empathy or any moral foundation, who continue to cause damage for the majority who just want to survive (Or reach salvation in paradise, supposedly). The population has to pay for the immorality of the few at the top, another words.