Class is discussing "radical Jihadists"

[EtherGK]

basically the topic we are going to write an essay on is to evaluate an argument.  The teacher asks for how we're supposed to deal with the Radical Jihadists that are worshippers of death and want bomb us, one girls argument said to just kill 'em all, by bombing or the sort.  I need help because I need to evaluate the pros and cons of her argument and I am completely blank of opinion because I don't know anything.

I mean if they're trying to kill us we should kill them back too right?  Or is there another solution?
Help is appreciated

^hope that made sense

[The Wiseman]

basically the topic we are going to write an essay on is to evaluate an argument.  The teacher asks for how we're supposed to deal with the Radical Jihadists that are worshippers of death and want bomb us, one girls argument said to just kill 'em all, by bombing or the sort.  I need help because I need to evaluate the pros and cons of her argument and I am completely blank of opinion because I don't know anything.

I mean if they're trying to kill us we should kill them back too right?  Or is there another solution?
Help is appreciated

^hope that made sense

Well there's a lot of problems with this assertion, especially the assumptions of the argument that are taken for granted. I'll give you a couple simple and easy to understand arguments against these militaristic and nationalist claims.

1) Jihadi anger towards the United States is not directed at supposed "freedoms" or material wealth but at U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and throughout the world. U.S. support for Israel and autocratic regimes throughout the Middle East in particular.

2) Bring up the fact that U.S. originally backed the mujahideen in Afghanistan giving them the means to rise. If "terrorism" is seen as "blowback" then it shows that the solution is a serious overturning of U.S. foreign policy to "quell the anger".

3) Terrorism is taken as a subjective term nowadays but it has a clear and objective meaning. Its refers to the intended murder of innocent civilians for political purpose. If this definition is understood than it can be seen that the U.S. engages in "state terrorism". Obviously far more dangerous than individuals strapped with bombs. "Terrorists" don't use car bombs because they are somewhat "morally lesser" than the U.S. military, they would much rather have the U.S. air forces. Occupying militaries are the terrorist organizations of the wealthy.

4) Show that the U.S. "war on terror" is a "war of terror" not based on reactive countering of jihadis but of further constructing U.S. transnational corporate hegemony over the resources of the Middle East, Central Asia, and Africa.

5) Nobody gives Cuba or Nicaragua the right to bomb the United States for its state-sponsored terrorism that have killed far more than 9/11. If we were to uphold universal principle, than Cuba and Nicaragua have the right to drop bombs onto Washington D.C. as of tomorrow.

6) If we were to go after "jihadists" than that would suggests violating the sovereignty of states that harbored or contained them. Violent aggression against states accused of "harboring terrorists" was the policy behind the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan but at the same time the U.S. harbors terrorists like Luis Posada. Posada is part of the CIA-backed paramilitary arm of the Cuban exiles, responsible for blowing up a Cuban airplane killing 73 people inside. Not only does the U.S. not convict him but refuses to return him to Venezuela or Cuba for conviction. Do Venezuela and Cuba have the right to bomb the U.S. and impose regime change?

7) Most of the victims of U.S. foreign policy have not been armed combatants, they are not armed combatants, and they will not be armed combatants. Innocents civilians comprise an overwhelming majority of victims of U.S. imperialism.

8 ) The socioeconomic situations of many Third World nations are the breeding ground for violence and anger directed at the West, especially considering Western imperialism and neocolonialism continues to foster conditions of extreme poverty and starvation.

I hope that some of these arguments are of use to you. They should be more then enough to counter that girl's irrational and simple statements.

[EtherGK]

Okay let me get this clear

Well there's a lot of problems with this assertion, especially the assumptions of the argument that are taken for granted. I'll give you a couple simple and easy to understand arguments against these militaristic and nationalist claims.

1) Jihadi anger towards the United States is not directed at supposed "freedoms" or material wealth but at U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and throughout the world. U.S. support for Israel and autocratic regimes throughout the Middle East in particular.

So that means that Jihadi anger is not primarily influenced by religion?  Jihadi anger is aimed primarily at the U.S. government then?

2) Bring up the fact that U.S. originally backed the mujahideen in Afghanistan giving them the means to rise. If "terrorism" is seen as "blowback" then it shows that the solution is a serious overturning of U.S. foreign policy to "quell the anger".

3) Terrorism is taken as a subjective term nowadays but it has a clear and objective meaning. Its refers to the intended murder of innocent civilians for political purpose. If this definition is understood than it can be seen that the U.S. engages in "state terrorism". Obviously far more dangerous than individuals strapped with bombs. "Terrorists" don't use car bombs because they are somewhat "morally lesser" than the U.S. military, they would much rather have the U.S. air forces. Occupying militaries are the terrorist organizations of the wealthy.

Please clarify for me, does that mean the U.S. is imposing a more dangerous form of terrorism themselves?

4) Show that the U.S. "war on terror" is a "war of terror" not based on reactive countering of jihadis but of further constructing U.S. transnational corporate hegemony over the resources of the Middle East, Central Asia, and Africa.

5) Nobody gives Cuba or Nicaragua the right to bomb the United States for its state-sponsored terrorism that have killed far more than 9/11. If we were to uphold universal principle, than Cuba and Nicaragua have the right to drop bombs onto Washington D.C. as of tomorrow.

What have the U.S. done that killed so many?

6) If we were to go after "jihadists" than that would suggests violating the sovereignty of states that harbored or contained them. Violent aggression against states accused of "harboring terrorists" was the policy behind the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan but at the same time the U.S. harbors terrorists like Luis Posada. Posada is part of the CIA-backed paramilitary arm of the Cuban exiles, responsible for blowing up a Cuban airplane killing 73 people inside. Not only does the U.S. not convict him but refuses to return him to Venezuela or Cuba for conviction. Do Venezuela and Cuba have the right to bomb the U.S. and impose regime change?

7) Most of the victims of U.S. foreign policy have not been armed combatants, they are not armed combatants, and they will not be armed combatants. Innocents civilians comprise an overwhelming majority of victims of U.S. imperialism.

8 ) The socioeconomic situations of many Third World nations are the breeding ground for violence and anger directed at the West, especially considering Western imperialism and neocolonialism continues to foster conditions of extreme poverty and starvation.

I hope that some of these arguments are of use to you. They should be more then enough to counter that girl's irrational and simple statements.

Thanks very much, these are more than enough to counter her statements, however I still have a few questions.  Mainly this, does this mean that anger towards the West is not inbred in their beliefs?  And that hatred originated from the U.S. foreign policy?

[The Wiseman]

Okay let me get this clear

So that means that Jihadi anger is not primarily influenced by religion?  Jihadi anger is aimed primarily at the U.S. government then?

A mix of both would be correct but Jihadists represent a very small minority of the Arab population. Osama Bin Laden clearly states that the Twin Tower attacks were retaliation for U.S. support for Israel. Because of "U.S. democracy" he believes the U.S. population is responsible for our government's foreign policy. He's unaware that the U.S. is hardly a democracy at all and people have little control or inquiry into U.S. foreign policy.
But a majority of Arabs direct anger at the U.S. with a belief in Arab nationalism and independence that is violated by U.S. imperialism in the Middle East. Feudal and autocratic regimes throughout the Middle East continue to hold power due to U.S. support and the Israeli occupation has been able to sustain itself through U.S. support.

Please clarify for me, does that mean the U.S. is imposing a more dangerous form of terrorism themselves?

If we are to take the literal definition of terrorism seriously than yes.

What have the U.S. done that killed so many?

You can start off with U.S. backing Saddam in the 1980s, providing him with chemical weapons and other forms of military support against Iran. We played both sides of the Iran-Iraq war though, over 1 million people died. You can talk about the first Gulf War where over 200,000 died from U.S. military aggression and deliberate destruction of Iraq's infrastructure. You can talk about sanctions in Iraq from 1991-2003 that killed over 1.5 million people, including 500,000 children. You can talk about the current invasion and occupation of Iraq that has killed over 1.2 million people. You can talk about the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan that initially killed 5,000 and has killed tens of thousands ever since. Or you can talk about us "drawing the Soviets" into their own "Vietnam" in the late 70s and 80s, backing the muhajideen in Afghanistan in a war that killed 1.5 million people.

That is just a small list of large scale events in the Middle East, you can include the invasion and occupation of Vietnam that killed 4 million people; the bombing of Cambodia that killed 1 million people; the U.S.-backed Guatemalan genocide that killed 200,000 people; etc. I can go on all day.

I highly recommend my U.S. global imperialism dossier.

Thanks very much, these are more than enough to counter her statements, however I still have a few questions.  Mainly this, does this mean that anger towards the West is not inbred in their beliefs?  And that hatred originated from the U.S. foreign policy?

Correct. After World War II there was general good will throughout the world for the U.S., except in Latin America and east Asia, since then its genocidal and imperialist foreign policy has left nothing but contempt. Not to say that U.S. imperialism before then was any better, including bloody occupations and interventions in almost every Latin American nation plus the Phillipines and China. Not to mention Western neocolonial economic policy that has sustained extreme poverty and exploitation in the Third World.

For more on neoliberal economics I suggest my personal website: deadpress.tk

http://www.immortal-technique.com/forum/index.php/topic,1185.0.html

^^^A bunch of good lists on U.S. interventionists.

[piercehawkeye45]

Okay let me get this clear

So that means that Jihadi anger is not primarily influenced by religion?  Jihadi anger is aimed primarily at the U.S. government then?

Yes, associating terrorism soley with Jihad would be flawed, many Hindus, atheists, and members of other non-Islamic religions have taken part of suicide terrorism to accomplish the goal of ridding a foreign democracy that practices another religion from a homeland that feels threatened in one way or another by the occupying democracy.

Thanks very much, these are more than enough to counter her statements, however I still have a few questions.  Mainly this, does this mean that anger towards the West is not inbred in their beliefs?  And that hatred originated from the U.S. foreign policy?

Yes. Al Qaeda has mentioned many times that the reason for their "war on the west" is because of US occupation of Islamic lands (look into the reasons why the Mujahaeen fought the Soviets in Afghanistan for a better understanding), and our support of Israel. Both issues have to do with Western culture threatening the wellbeing of Islamic culture and very little to do with Western culture itself. If the Soviets came up on top after the Cold War instead of the West, it would be very likely that 9/11 would have happened to Moscow instead of New York.

For more information on the intentions of suicide terrorism, read this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Dying-Win-Strategic-Suicide-Terrorism/dp/1400063175

[San Patricio]

I wish I had this teacher, not because I agree with her, but just so I could fuck up her ultra nationalistic and militaristic views towards this whole blood lust we got going on with the middle east

[EtherGK]

This was a lot of help and really opened my eyes about things, last thing I want is maybe some recommended books on this subject because I really would want to learn more.  Thanks for the book suggestion piercehawkeye45, I'll definetly get that.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120450617910806563.html
^That's the article our teacher said handed out, and we were supposed to annotate and write a response essay to it, which also sparked the debate

[Jihad]

"Dershowitz?!!" Are you fucking kidding me? That name sounds just a little bit... should I even say it?

[fLow]

Alan Dershowitz is quite a prominent figure advocating US and Israel foreign policy. He's been involved with debates vs Chomsky and Finkelstein. You are being asked to evaluate a biased argument.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-1899267555870962994&q=dershowitz&total=173&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

[Godfather of Soul]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Finkelstein#Criticism_of_Alan_Dershowitz.27s_The_Case_for_Israel

http://www.democracynow.org/2005/12/23/noam_chomsky_v_alan_dershowitz_a

watch him be dismantled...chomsky deals specifically with what your discussing.

[fLow]

Dershowitz is just a liar and thinks too simple. Look when he uses a conversation with Clinton as proof of a point. Fucking idiot.

[kittenslayer]

Dershowitz says "anti-Israel is anti-semitism".  You guys have been told