Terrorism is a direct result of foreign policy.
Debate Rounds (3)
The War on Terror and the Bush Doctrine only serve to further exacerbate anti-western sentiment, and actually create terror - rather than inhibit it.
I think the best analogy for the War on Terror is 'cutting a worm in half', because the worm's halves are just going to grow into two more worms who both detest the thing which tried to destroy it.
Osama Bin Laden clearly stated that he did not organize the 9/11 attacks for the glory of Allah; he did it because he was present in Beirut, Lebanon, in 1982, when Israel troops used American weapons and bombs to level the entire city. It was at this point when he declared vengeance on Israel and America. Part of the destruction of Beirut was the demolition of Beirut's main towers - hence the focus of Osama's attack on America's main towers.
President Obama has inherited one of the messiest situations in foreign policy in a long time. Decades of America's support for despotism, economic repression, Israel, and war has been laid in Obama's lap. This can be a pivotal moment for American foreign relations, if we denounce our former actions, provide economic and politic support for the people seeking democracy, and pull our corporate sanctions on their oil.
The War on Terror is counterintuitive and a paradox.
1. American Foreign Policy is the driving force behind terrorism (general)
--> The motive is actually to distrct the public for Islamic leader short comings and thus the U.S. is the scapegoat
Barry Rubin, Council on Foreign Relations:
For years now, anti-Americanism has served as a means of last resort by which failed political systems and movements in the Middle East try to improve their standing. The United States is blamed for much that is bad in the Arab world, and it is used as an excuse for political and social oppression and economic stagnation. By assigning responsibility for their own shortcomings to Washington, Arab leaders distract their subjects' attention from the internal weaknesses that are their real problems. And thus rather than pushing for greater privatization, equality for women, democracy, civil society, freedom of speech, due process of law, or other similar developments sorely needed in the Arab world, the public focuses instead on hating the United States. The reason for the prevalence of Arab anti-Americanism, then, is that it has been such a useful tool for radical rulers, revolutionary movements, and even moderate regimes to build domestic support and pursue regional goals with no significant costs. Indeed, as a strategy, anti-Americanism seems to offer something for everyone. For radical Islamists, anti-Americanism has been a way to muster popular favor despite the fact that all attempts (other than in Iran) to stage a theocratic revolution have been rejected by the masses and hence failed. The Islamists have turned instead to fostering xenophobia, trans forming their battle from one among Muslims into a struggle between Muslims as a whole and heathens who purportedly hate Islam and seek to destroy Muslims.
--> Past American Foreign policy has helped, not hurt Arab nations
In 1973, the United States rescued Egypt at the end of the Arab Israeli War by forcing a cease-fire on Israel. Washington then became Cairo's patron in the 198os, providing it with massive arms supplies and aid while asking for little in return. The United States also saved Yasir Arafat from Israel in Beirut in 1982, when Washington arranged safe passage for the Palestinian leader and pressed Tunisia to give him sanctuary. Washington's support for Arafat and his Palestine Liberation Organization overlooked a history of Palestinian terrorism and anti-Americanism as well as the PLO 's alignment with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. In the 1990s, moreover, despite the Palestinians' backing of Iraq during the Gulf War, the United States became the Palestinians' sponsor in the peace process with Israel, pushing for an agreement that would create a Palestinian state with its capital in east Jerusalem. Over the years, the United States has also spent blood and treasure saving Muslims in Afghanistan from the Soviets; in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from Iraq; and in Bosnia and Kosovo from Yugoslavia. It has supported Muslim Pakistan against India and Muslim Turkey against Greece. Washington has courted Damascus, even tacitly accepting Syria's control over Lebanon. The United States supported Arab Iraq against Persian Iran during the Iran-Iraq War and also refrained from overthrowing Saddam Hussein after pushing him out of Kuwait in 1991. For decades, the United States kept its forces out of the Persian Gulf to avoid offending Arabs and Muslims there. They entered, in fact, only when invited in to protect Arab oil tankers against Iran and to save Kuwait from Iraq. In Somalia, where no vital U.S. interests were at stake, the United States engaged in a humanitarian effort to help a Muslim people suffering from anarchy and murderous warlords. The overall tally, in fact, is staggering: during the last half-century, in 11 of 12 major conflicts between Muslims and non-Muslims, Muslims and secular forces, or Arabs and non-Arabs, the United States has sided with the former group.'
2. War on Terror and Bush Doctrine => terrorism
--> No warrants at all
--> Bringing fight to muslim nations decreases terrorism because we can systmatically elimiate them as they come
--> Bush doctine solves since it helps promulgate democracy in the middle east. Human Rights watch tells us that in Afghanistan and Iraq education and human rights have been made readily avaiable and have bene protected. This will help mitigate many root causes of people turning to terrorism
3. 9/11 as response to Israel
--> How can we believe what a person who organized one of the deadliest attacks against the U.S., and who clearly doesnt have sympathy for human life
--> Cross-apply the evidence from Rubin. Osama was just trying to rally people to his cause while masking his true intentions
1. Your first rebuttal point is literally the exact inverse of the truth. Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and many other "terrorist organizations" started out as nationalist resistance movements fighting against Western Imperialism, Israel, and corrupt American puppet despots. How do you expect the people of the Middle East to feel when the guns, bombs, and tear gas being used against them are labeled, "Made in USA"? Religion, specifically Islam, is merely the rallying call used by the "terrorist organizations" to garner support and enthusiasm for their political resistance/retaliation causes. Osama Bin Laden is not a dumb man. He knows what gets the people fired up, and he exploits this fact to fuel his higher goals.
The fact that you are quoting Barry Rubin, Director of Global Research and International Affairs for ISRAEL(!!!!), is honestly just humorous. You are quoting a man who is representing another one of the primary causes for Middle Eastern anti-American sentiment; of course he will shift the focus of the issue to something which doesn't criminalize his own country. Do you know what America's and Israel's nicknames are in the Middle East?... "The Great Satan and The Little Satan", respectively. In their eyes, Israel is an illegitimate, terrorist, and genocidal nation. Israel's military is, by all realistic consideration, America's military - seeing as how we fund it at a rate of $3 billion a year. Hezbollah was a direct result of Israel's invasion of South Lebanon in 1982. They were a Lebanese Nationalist Defense Organization, whose sole original goal was to expel Israeli (American) troops from their country; Israel invaded a sovereign nation, and not a single thing was said in the UN. Hezbollah's focus has obviously shifted to bigger and different goals, but nonetheless, it is an absolute proven fact they started as a nationalist resistance militia group.
How, may I ask, is anti-Americanism a last resort scapegoat? Especially considering that the majority of Middle Eastern despots are also on our pay-role. A few examples are (were): Egypt's Mubarak, The Saudi Princes, Jordan's King, Pakistan's "official leaders", and obviously now Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't know which leaders you are referring to that are upset with their current position, seeing as how they all possess billions in foreign assets. It was just revealed that Gadaffi of Libya had over $40 billion worth of assets frozen around the world. The Anti-American and Anti-Despotism cries comes from the people, who crave and desire economic, political, and social freedom. American officials love complacency in these poor & deprived people, because as long as our puppet despot is in power, we can still ensure our oil contracts.
I honestly have no idea what the point of your second quotation was, besides furthering my argument. Do you not notice the overarching theme there? We support a country for a few years when it serves our geopolitical/economic goals, but turn on them when our interests shift. How do you think that makes the average citizen feel?... Confused and angry as hell would be my best guess. And to clarify, the US did not "rescue Egypt" at the end of the 1973 War. Read a book covering the topic, and you will clearly see that Egypt had defended and pushed forward on the Gaza front. They did not need rescuing. What America did was essentially bribe both sides to stop: $3 billion to Egypt, $4 billion to Israel. That is all we have ever done; bribe and manipulate. And the Palestinian "peace brokering" was nothing more than a facade, and a cheap one at that. The talks changed absolutely nothing. The West Bank and the Gaza Strip are still virtual prisons for the Palestinians. East Jerusalem is no more integrated.
To look at recent conflicts in the Middle East. We went to Afghanistan to fight Al Qaeda, when it was fully apparent that 13 out of the 15 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, and massive funding came from Pakistan. Also, we invaded Iraq on the inane excuse of WMD's and overthrowing a ruthless dictator; yet we turn a blind eye to genocide in Libya. America essentially plays "Whack-o-Mole" in the Middle East, and hopefully these recent uprisings in the Middle East of SECULAR, young, and educated people will establish democracy and freedom which can't be bought by America.
2. Thank you for the amazing insight of "No warrants at all". Actually, look at charts of terrorist attacks by year, and you will see an obvious cause-effect relationship between American intervention in the Middle East, and terrorism. Bringing the fight to Arab nations does nothing but further exacerbate the problem. The longer you suppress something, the larger the retaliation will be. You cannot directly fight terrorism because terrorism does not have borders. You stop terrorism by actual allowing democracies to flourish, instead of supporting dictators. If a country is satisfied economically, socially, and politically, then terrorism is not allowed to grow. Terrorism grows from desperate and dire situations, where inaction equals inevitable death.
Iraq and Afghanistan have no semblance of infrastructure to speak of, so I am not sure what you are talking about here. American troops destroyed any and all energy infrastructure, police infrastructure, education infrastructure, medical infrastructure, and civil infrastructure. Also, if you would look at official US documents, 60% of deaths in Iraq have been of civilians. 60 percent! How many more innocent people can die, while still warranting the "saving of the people" by overthrowing a dictator? Also, since US occupation in Afghanistan, the opium and heroine trades/addictions have surged unabated. Fighting drugs was one of the main points of the Taliban, but we killed all of them...
3. 100% false again. First off, you can believe a man who had nothing to gain or lose from his comments, which came when he feared imminent death in a cave. If we're going to use your argument; how can we believe anything Bush said, because he organized one of the deadliest attacks against the Middle East, and clearly doesn't have sympathy for human life. 3,000 people died in the 9/11 attacks and a subsequent 4,000-5,000 more soldiers. 100,000 people (at the very minimum) have died in Iraq. 50,000 people (at the very minimum) have died in Afghanistan. A vast majority being civilians. Israeli-American troops have killed an estimated 200,000 (at least) Palestinians, Lebanese, Egyptians, and Saudi Arabians over the last few decades. And how about the tens of thousands of Palestinian prisoners still being held? And how about the daily murders by Israeli soldiers against Palestinians trapped in their own country? I don't mean to belittle the atrocity of 9/11, but the numbers speak for themselves.
Please tell me what you think Osama's "hidden true intentions" are. He clearly does not wish to form an Islamic Caliphate, which is so clearly propagated on Fox News. Terrorist groups purposes may become distorted or corrupted, but I don't think it is questionable that virtually all terrorist groups started out of necessity & nationalist resistance movements. What were American's fighting against Britain considered during the Revolutionary War? Terrorists? Or Heroes?
I implore you to try and see a different perspective, other than the Western mentality which you are so obviously indoctrinated with.
And I have still yet to see a real, tangible counter-argument from you. What do you feel is the driving force behind terrorism? How do you propose we fight terrorism (circling the middle-east, country to country, fighting border-less enemies is impossible)? What are the true factors and goals driving the terrorists?
Please, do not quote an Israeli intelligence officer in your next rebuttal. That's like quoting the CIA. How about BBC, Russia Today, AlJazeera?
He says its the inverse of the truth
--> He misrepresents history. Nationalist movements were started to fight during the Cold-War but the national movements lost their oirignal roots and turned to radical Islam. This can be seen with Al Qaeda. There are two primary motivators: (1) due to failures of theocratic movements, radical groups need to have a scapegoat as Rubin points out. (2) people who join terror organizations do so because of a calling to jihad. The first point can be further warranted by evidence from George Friedman, CEO of STRATFOR. In his book "America's Secret War," he points out that radical movements have been started because of a desire for theocratic regimes and/or a caliphate. After this failed to secular or monarchical regimes, radical groups have formed in opposition.
"Religion, specifically Islam, is merely the rallying call used by the "terrorist organizations" to garner support and enthusiasm for their political resistance/retaliation causes."
--> (Turn) Remember, the resolution is dealing with actual terrorism. If not for the cause of religion, these groups would not have the ability to pursue acts of terrorism, since underlings are necessary to succfessuly carry out attacks.
--> He gives minimal warrants
--> He ignores his actual credentials (wikipedia)is a professor at the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) in Herzliya, Israel, the "director of the Israel-based Global Research in International Affairs Center" (GLORIA) of the IDC, and a senior fellow at the Interdisciplinary Center's International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism. He is also Research Director of the IDC's Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy, and Strategy; the editor of the journal Turkish Studies; the editor of The Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA); a member of the editorial board of Middle East Quarterly
--> Just because he works in Isreal doesnt indict his credentials
2. Israel Bad
--> Again, little actual warrants
-->He claims a nickname for the U.S. and Israel
--> The reason Israel is hated is because: (1) its a jewish state and (2) took over Palestine. But George Friedman makes the point that even if the U.S. disowns Israel, terrorism will still exist because of the ideology of Wahabism and/or radical islam.
Hezbollah created because of Israel
--> Council on Foriegn Relations writes: Hezbollah was founded in 1982 in response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, and subsumed members of the 1980s coalition of groups known as Islamic Jihad. It drew inspiration from the Iranian Revolution, received training from Iran's Revolutionary Guards and funds from Tehran.
--> His analysis would be true if: (1) the current leaders who started the resistance movement were still in power and (2) the primary goal was the same. Since these two facts arent true, we cannot claim that foreign policy started the TERRORIST movement.
3. U.S. pays regimes in the middle east
--> He misses again the analysis from the last speech that these regimes use anti-americanism the same way radical islamists do. As a way to draw attention from opression and rights violations, they claim the U.S. is evil. Remember, news is censored, so most in these countries do not know the ties between these countries and the U.S. Ignorance in this case mitigates my opponents point. It is in the favor of these regimes to get U.S. aid to fight theocratic movements, which would exacerbate terrorism, and then lame the U.S. to deter from recognition of oppression.
4. Rubin 2 Evidence
He said Egypt didnt need rescuing
--> At this time, yes they did. They might have gained some push ack, but b the end of the war Israel was pretty much entering the homeland borders of Egypt. The U.S. told each side to stop. This rescued Egypt.
He says we fail with Israeli-Palestinian talks
-> It was beause of U.S. intervention that a palestinian capital was established and more land granted to them. If it wasnt for the U.S. Israel would do whatever they want.
EXTEND these parts of the Rubin evidence which went unresponded to:
ashington's support for Arafat and his Palestine Liberation Organization overlooked a history of Palestinian terrorism and anti-Americanism as well as the PLO 's alignment with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. In the 1990s, moreover, despite the Palestinians' backing of Iraq during the Gulf War, the United States became the Palestinians' sponsor in the peace process with Israel, pushing for an agreement that would create a Palestinian state with its capital in east Jerusalem. Over the years, the United States has also spent blood and treasure saving Muslims in Afghanistan from the Soviets; in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from Iraq; and in Bosnia and Kosovo from Yugoslavia. It has supported Muslim Pakistan against India and Muslim Turkey against Greece. Washington has courted Damascus, even tacitly accepting Syria's control over Lebanon. The United States supported Arab Iraq against Persian Iran during the Iran-Iraq War and also refrained from overthrowing Saddam Hussein after pushing him out of Kuwait in 1991. For decades, the United States kept its forces out of the Persian Gulf to avoid offending Arabs and Muslims there...the overall tally, in fact, is staggering: during the last half-century, in 11 of 12 major conflicts between Muslims and non-Muslims, Muslims and secular forces, or Arabs and non-Arabs, the United States has sided with the former group.'
This turns the entirety of the AC. Foreign policy has helped
5. Internal Revolutions
--> He is relying on internal unrest and not U.S. aid to help overthrow regimes.
--> LEts look at Iran. The resistance movement was crushed
--> Now, Libyan revolutionaries are recieiving aid from the U.S. after they called for our assitance.
--> Egypt was successful because of conscrption into the military which made the military sympathetic to the resistance, but this is not the case in most Muslim nations
6. Iraq war bad
--> We removed a brutal dictator who provided his citizens no rights
--> We removed a dictatorwho had a genocide against Kurds
--> He did have WMDs, biological and chemical.
7. We being there exacerbates terrorism
--> My argument was that we have mitigated all attempts to have successful terrorist attacks against the U.S.
--> Since Al Qaeda was pushed into the FATA region they lack the capabilites now to successfully perform a terroist attack.
--> Bergen from the NYU Center for Security Studies finds that due to multiple wars occuring within the middle east, and the push back of Al Qaeda, terrorism against the U.S. will ultimately fail. LAck of supplies and sleeper cells panicked.
--> We might exacerbate insurgency ust by the nature of war, but "terrorism" refers to terrorist attacks against the US homeland or Europe,etc. He does not link in.
Afghanistan War and Iraq War Bad
--> He ignores the human watch evidence which indicates human rights and education has flourished in these countries after U.S. intervention and oversight
8. People die
--> I outweigh, if we did not intervene Saddam and the Taliban would still be butchering and violating human rights within their own country. Since we have been involved, we can now have democracies which will not violate human rights
Intellectual_Perplexion forfeited this round.
Good debate (for what it was)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: As Con said, Pro relied upon unsupported assertions.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.