[freeflight]

So this has now become a "We've always been at war with Islam!"? Is that kind of 1984esque discourse really helpful?

For some proper context, I really suggest reading this CS Monitor piece from back in 2001 [0].

Keen observers will quickly realize that pretty much everything written there has become reality over these past 17 years. It should also be noted that there's a certain irony to it when the "Christian Science Monitor" is peeved about your religious rhetoric being a bit too much on the extreme end.

This is something that seemingly passed by many US Americans like it never happened. But you can't declare yourself a "Christian nation" going on "crusades", hinging large parts of your popularity drive on this imagined "clash of the cultures", and then act all surprised and outraged when the opposite side also reacts with more radicalization.

Just looking at the trends for global terrorism for these past 2 decades [1], there's a very clear picture to be found there. Before 2002 countries like India, Colombia and Algeria topped the "terrorism charts".

But by 2003, as a response to the "War on Terror" started by the US, you already see Iraq and Afghanistan making their way up the list, steadily increasing in the number of attacks and fatalities until in 2005 they take the top.

Since then there's been little change, only Pakistan making their way up there some years, one might wonder why? [2]

But all three of these countries represent massive outliers and make up the vast majority of "Islamic terrorism", what do they all have in common?

9/11 was bad, no debate there. But the US's reaction to 9/11 was worse, it perfectly played into Osamas original intentions of starting a "culture clash", stigmatizing even moderate Islam in the Western world, making frustrated and discriminated moderates more likely to join his cause.

In that context, the US pretty much kicked a hornet's nest down the street and still keeps kicking it to this day. Yet many US Americans keep wondering where the angry hornets are coming from and "why they hate us so much".

[0] https://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html

[1] https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/globe/index.html

[2] http://drones.pitchinteractive.com/

[darawk]

> This is something that seemingly passed by many US Americans like it never happened. But you can't declare yourself a "Christian nation" going on "crusades", hinging large parts of your popularity drive on this imagined "clash of the cultures", and then act all surprised and outraged when the opposite side also reacts with more radicalization.

Hm? Which crusades are those?

> Just looking at the trends for global terrorism for these past 2 decades [1], there's a very clear picture to be found there. Before 2002 countries like India, Colombia and Algeria topped the "terrorism charts".

You mean countries that had civil wars going on in them? That seems practically tautological.

> But by 2003, as a response to the "War on Terror" started by the US, you already see Iraq and Afghanistan making their way up the list, steadily increasing in the number of attacks and fatalities until in 2005 they take the top.

You mean that terrorist attacks increased in places when they had foreign military bases in their country to target? What is that evidence of, exactly?

> But all three of these countries represent massive outliers and make up the vast majority of "Islamic terrorism", what do they all have in common?

Fundamentalist Islam and low economic development.

[hindsightbias]

The Christian Science Monitor, while founded by the founder of the Church of Christ does not really represent the Church or push its doctrines. It has historically been one of the least ideological and most objective news outlets for a couple of generations.

So there may be irony in the name, but not in their practices.

[freeflight]

That was more of a pun on the irony of name/situation, sorry just couldn't resist.

I've never researched their actual background, but over the years I've noticed their content to be usually of very good quality.

I suppose it's a good example of why one should never judge a book by its cover, or in this case, the content of a website by its domain name ;)

[cm2187]

What you are measuring is merely the state of chaos of the middle east post iraq war and arab spring.

If you look at the history of terrorism in Europe for instance, before the 70s it was mostly independentist mvts / de-colonisation related. 70s to early 80s was mostly far left terror attacks. Mid 80s state sponsored terrorism (Libya, Iran). 90s to now, islamist terrorism.

Islamists were blowing bombs in the metro in Paris in the 90s, and tried a 9/11 style plane attack on Paris in 1994 [1].

Islamism is a worldwide phenomenon, like communism in its time. If you go through every single muslim country from Marocco to Indonesia, the largest or second largest political party is an islamist party, or the islamists are in power, or they have been outlawed after taking too much power, or they are one of the major party to a civil war. Terrorism is a side effect of this rise in islamism, like the red brigades, RAF, etc were to communism.

So no, it’s not just a reaction to the war in Iraq.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_8969

[freeflight]

> Terrorism is a side effect of this rise in islamism, like the red brigades, RAF, etc were to communism.

And what allowed Islamism to rise and prosper like that over these past decades?

The power vacuum created by the removal of Saddam in an illegal invasion? The resulting unleashed sectarian violence?

You can't just switch around cause and effect like that and call it a day. To quote from the 2001 article:

> Moderate Muslim opinion could also easily be swayed against America, predicted Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, head of the Muslim Parliament in Britain, an umbrella group for Muslim organizations. "If they end up killing innocent civilians it will be very unfair," Dr. Siddiqui said. "The problems will arise if people see that justice has not been done."

Now, nearly 2 decades later, we have relentless and ML driven drone warfare [0], torture scandals [1], a US president who is not only condoning it but actively advocating for it. The blatant injustice is done out in the open to see for everybody [2], justified in haphazard "They do not have rights" ways to a point where a US president just declares a "Muslim ban", followed up with pointless legal shenanigans how "it totally isn't a Muslim ban, but a Muslim country ban!", like that's in any way better.

How can you look at all that and deny it contributed to the rise of Islamist sentiments? Don't you think it's kind of telling that you have to summon the good ol "they caught the communism" bug to still justify these US actions?

Is it really that difficult to take a step back and admit: "We've fucked up, we've been going about this the wrong way from the very beginning"? Is doubling down on this oppressive and destructive path really the only way forward from here?

[0] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/the-n...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisone...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp

[cm2187]

No the rise of islamism is anterior to the removal of Sadam Hussein. And it happened in every muslim country, including those that were not under a secular dictatorship (Marocco, Turkey, Maldives, etc). What is true is that the topping of secular dictatorships opened the way for islamists to take power or start a civil war. But what you are saying is effectively that muslim countries should be left under a dictatorship otherwise would vote for islamist parties?