Skip to main content

This will be a very brief diary.

An Al-Qaeda affiliate, known as Boko Haram, has attacked yet another school in Nigeria. I know there are people who try to assure us that there is no reason to fear harm from terrorists, but I do not believe there is a good factual basis for such an assertion.

This diary is not about whether or not there exists a confederation between Boko Haram and Al-Qaeda. I believe Boko Haram is now part of the Al-Qaeda franchise.

This is not a diary about drones, torture or the long history of CIA misdeeds. I merely wish to question the notion that paranoia, not real incidents, is the driving force behind the United States' policies concerning terrorism. I believe there are good reasons beyond dueling statistics why we are not in a position where we can act only reactively.

More after the orange thang.

The children at the Government Secondary School in Mamudo in northeast Nigeria were slaughtered using a combination of bullets and fire. Yes, fire. Many young children were burned alive.

According to The Telegraph:

At the regional morgue, Musa Hassan, 15, recalled the horror of listening to the death cries of his fellow pupils.

“We were sleeping when we heard gunshots. When I woke up, someone was pointing a gun at me,” said 15-year-old Musa. He put his arm up in instinctive self-defence, and suffered a gunshot that blew off all four fingers on his right hand.

He said the gunmen came armed with jerry cans of fuel that they used to set light to the school’s administrative block and one of the hostels.

“They burned the children alive,” he said, horror showing in his wide eyes.

There are some 28-42 said to be dead but hundreds more are still missing and unaccounted for.

This is an ongoing and brutal insurgency that has created a refuge crisis in the neighboring countries of Chad, Niger and Cameroon.

This attack is not the first:

An estimated 10,000 pupils have been forced out of state schooling by the groups’ hit-and-run attacks, which have intensified since the start of the seven-week-old military offensive.

Suspected Islamist militants opened fire on a school in Maiduguri last month, killing nine students, and a similar attack on a school in the city of Damaturu killed seven just days earlier.

.

I understand there are multiple hotspots commanding attention around the world at the moment, but I do think that Nigeria is important to U.S. interests and to the stability of that part of the continent. I highlight this latest incident to refute the notion that terror strikes are rare and the death toll from them less than the frequency of death from lightning strikes.

Now that we had the sad incident in Boston, as well as similar incidents in Paris and London, I would suggest that we are not close to being able to ignore what remains of the al-Qaeda franchise.

We certainly need to stop pushing the meme that terrorism< lightning strikes unless we are saying not to count children in foreign countries burned to death because they are receiving a western-styled education.

Here is the report that is frequently cited to question whether terrorism is a real threat or not. Note how only U.S. citizens are counted. I also question the ability to accurately collect reliable data on incidents of terror. If women, children, men in a small town or village have their hands hacked off, or are raped, or kidnapped by raiders or mercenaries would we know or count it?

By the way:here are the stats for death by lightning strike.

I believe we are no longer in a pre 9/11 world. The days of sitting by and watching countries fail and people subjugated by jihadists are over. If we learned nothing from our too-long occupation of Afghanistan it should be not to wait until the s**t hits our fan.

I do not believe that there is any amount of data, evidence, or "proof", that is going to dissuade some people from agendas that have nothing to do with formulating U.S. terror policies and response.

Wow, ok, apparently some folks are hug-up on the nature of the relationship between Boko Haram and Al-Qaeda. I fail to see how that matters to these dead  Nigerian children and their teachers, or to whether or not a destabilized Nigeria is germane to U.S. terror policy and , but I will add some links in hopes that they will help cotribute to the discussion and address the concerns of those who have been kind enough to leave comments.

I have also reworked the first sentence i hopes that it will help the conversation not lose focus of dead children, their teachers, and thousands of refugees.

I have already given a link to The Telegraph above, but just a cursory google turned up some other links:

From Vanguard.

From the BBC.

From Time.

There are many more links detailing the relationship so do not be shy about checking out these reports. If there are issues with the reporting or labeling I'm sure those concerned with help us in understanding them and let me express my appreciation upfront.

Edit:Disagreement about whether or not the United States should maintain only a reactive stance towards terrorist groups is welcomed. That is the point of the diary. Personal attacks on me or those wanting to comment on the point of the diary are not welcomed.

I have included examples of comments that I believe are off-topic and do not exhibit the civility we should all strive to maintain:

 

your knowledge of international terrorism is... (8+ / 0-)

Recommended by:
    ukit, PhilJD, xxdr zombiexx, BigAlinWashSt, corvo, chuckvw, TJ, quill

limited.  Best not try to use incidents you don't understand to further your agenda it hurts your agenda.

I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

by jbou on Sat Jul 06, 2013 at 05:39:56 PM CDT

[ Reply to This | Recommend Hide ]

and

 

Please . . . get with the program . . . (6+ / 0-)

Recommended by:
    BigAlinWashSt, jbou, PhilJD, chuckvw, corvo, ask

Al-Qaeda is our ally in Syria . . . we give them guns and "humanitarian" aid (some CIA direct, but mostly through our Saudi intermediary) to do pretty much the same things.

Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

by Deward Hastings on Sat Jul 06, 2013 at 05:33:42 PM CDT

[ Reply to This | Recommend Hide ]

If you came here to take pot-shots, please stop and leave. I do not want that for this diary.
Poll

Death from terror attacks are:

37%12 votes
0%0 votes
3%1 votes
40%13 votes
12%4 votes
6%2 votes

| 32 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (15+ / 0-)

    The politicians may be bought, and the system corrupt, but it is our duty to fix these things.

    by sebastianguy99 on Sat Jul 06, 2013 at 03:03:19 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for sharing that info (8+ / 0-)

    I have a relative who is with the foreign service, and was assigned to Nigeria not long ago. Scary stuff. And you are correct terrorist acts in general, including from AlQaeda specifically, have a greater impact than just on US soil.  I think, though, that the discussion should not so much be whether it's an issue or not, but what protective measures and responses are appropriate. (while realizing that in much blog debate people do go for black/white binary pronouncements, and can make it sound like they think we should shut down the entire intelligence system and buy lottery tickets since we'd have a better chance of winning the jackpot than getting blown up)

    (BTW - your last sentence is incomplete)

    “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

    by Catte Nappe on Sat Jul 06, 2013 at 03:15:51 PM PDT

  •  An injustice to one is an injustice to all (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PhilJD, chuckvw, CroneWit, ukit, TracieLynn, kyril

    but not every injustice is terrorism and not much of it is best handled by military intervention.

    BTW, you have come nowhere near refuting that terrorism has a higher injury frequency than lightning strikes.  

    He who would trade liberty for security deserves great customer service.

    by Publius2008 on Sat Jul 06, 2013 at 03:22:14 PM PDT

    •  Looks like the diarist has made a leap... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      quill, CroneWit, terrypinder, mookins

      ...from a US commander's claim alleging an aim of coordination:

      General Carter Ham, head of the US military's Africa Command, said there were signs that Boko Haram in Nigeria, al-Shabab in Somalia and al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb were sharing money and explosive materials and training fighters together.

      "Each of those three organisations is by itself a dangerous and worrisome threat," Ham told an African Centre for Strategic Studies seminar in Washington. "What really concerns me is the indications that the three organisations are seeking to co-ordinate and synchronise their efforts – in other words, to establish a co-operative effort amongst the three most violent organisations ... And I think that's a real problem for us and for African security in general."

      Last month, the US classified three of the alleged leaders of Boko Haram, an fundamentalist Islamic sect based in remote north-east Nigeria, as "foreign terrorists", but it declined to blacklist the organisation to avoid boosting the group's profile internationally.

      Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), an affiliate of al-Qaeda based in North Africa, is mainly a criminal organisation operating in the Sahel region. It kidnaps westerners for ransom and fuels Africa's drug trade, according to intelligence officials.

      Not content to accept the official US line that three distinct organizations might be training side-by-side with a potential to coordinate, he's saying two of them are one.  And leaving out that AQIM is not exactly what American readers are familiar with as the Al Qaeda of Bin Laden.
    •  I'm not sure what you mean by "become one", but (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Catte Nappe, sewaneepat, Be Skeptical

      ...here is but one report of how they have become part of the al-Qaeda franchise. There are others detailing their cooperative relationship.

      That said, even if they were a separate jihadist group, that would not change my point. I do not think we do ourselves any good if we believe al-Qaeda is the only terrorist group to monitor.

      The politicians may be bought, and the system corrupt, but it is our duty to fix these things.

      by sebastianguy99 on Sat Jul 06, 2013 at 04:02:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Boko Haram seems limited to Nigeria (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        quill, CroneWit, mookins

        There's been significant violence over the last couple decades between Christians and Muslims in Nigeria. I don't think it does that conflict any justice to say it's Al Qaeda.

        •  I have added more links to the diary. (0+ / 0-)

          I believe there is enough evidence to support the notion that the two groups are not separate and distinct. It looks like major media outlets also see that strong connection.

          Thanks for your contribution Terry.

          The politicians may be bought, and the system corrupt, but it is our duty to fix these things.

          by sebastianguy99 on Sat Jul 06, 2013 at 04:21:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm happy to contribute but I still say this is a (0+ / 0-)

            huge leap.

            •  With respecct, I disagree. (0+ / 0-)

              And I also believe this is ancillary to my premise that it is not wise for the United States to take only a reactive position in regards to the threat of terrorism

              The politicians may be bought, and the system corrupt, but it is our duty to fix these things.

              by sebastianguy99 on Sat Jul 06, 2013 at 04:53:24 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  also, this is a common tactic (0+ / 0-)

            for Boko Haram going back decades. This is very weak.

            •  Then write a complete comment and stop coming (0+ / 0-)

              ...off like I should know what you know and think upfront. Make your case already. I am not afraid to further educate myself.

              But you can keep the pithy superior attitude as I know you are better than that.

              The politicians may be bought, and the system corrupt, but it is our duty to fix these things.

              by sebastianguy99 on Sat Jul 06, 2013 at 04:57:34 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  ah. the hardball game. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ukit, coquiero, mookins

                Okay. Fine.

                We can go to the Kano Riots of 1953 to set the stage. There's long been a rift in Nigeria between north and south.  Muslim and Christian too and this is called the Nigerian Sharia Conflict. it is 60 years old. The rift between North and South is quite pronounced in Nigeria. Your diary doesn't even mention that.

                Then we can go to the violence that began when the northern states, where Muslims make a slight majority, instituted sharia. That was in the late 90s. A common tactic then as now was to attack schools, churches, mosques. yes, little kids.

                Then there's Boko Haram, which never was part or is currently part of Al Qaeda. They are a locally grown protest-turned-terror-criminal group that only attacks within Nigeria.  One of the laziest things in the last few years has been to call every Islamist group a franchise of Al Qaeda, from the events in Mali last year to Libya to this. Muslim Brotherhood is Islamist. They're certainly not Al Qaeda. I guess it keeps the money rolling into security.

                And then there's the fact that Nigeria is both a functioning and fairly strong federal democracy and a nation of 170 million people. There's also the fact that Boko Haram got very violent after the central government cracked down on them (and cracked down hard) in 2009. Since then they've, just like others have in the past, attacked all sorts of civillian targets, including churches, mosques they dislike, government facilities, and schools. The following link is to but a sample. The central government is about to crack down again since a state of emergency has been declared, and probably hard, and probably in an ugly fashion.

                I offer this link to the class, and the below blockquoted below.

                Some observers, struggling to come to grips with the dramatic growth in both the sophistication and frequency of attacks, have begun to suspect the influences of external groups bent on opening a new front in the Global War on Terror. In August 2011, General Carter Ham, the head of the U.S. military's Africa Command, claimed Boko Haram was collaborating with the Algeria-based Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. And a report published by the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence in November 2011 suggested that Boko Haram may have also forged links with Somalia’s Al-Shabab.

                Others counter that while there is some anecdotal evidence of contact between Boko Haram and AQIM, the latter's primary objective has always remained the overthrow of the government in Algeria and there is no proof of operational coordination. They point out that links to Al-Shabab—currently tied up at home simultaneously battling Ethiopian, Kenyan, and African Union troops—are even more tenuous.

                Though Muhammad Yusuf advocated the establishment of an Islamic state in Nigeria, his grievances were always deeply rooted in the local politics of Boko Haram's native Borno State. Some northern dignitaries argue that the group is hardly more ambitious today.

                Now all of the above I found in just a very cursory search. This is internal to Nigeria's politics. This is not international terrorism. The evidence for it is weak. But then you wouldn't have had the lurid headline for your diary.

                Back to my point: not every Islamist group is a frachise of Al Qaeda. This point had to be driven home during the recent unrest in Mali (not Al Qaeda related---I followed it from the very beginning) and elsewhere in Africa. That there are facets of several Western governments claiming this really has me concerned. It's a view that's exceptionally ignorant of internal politics--something our intelligence and diplomatic services are supposed to be on top of.

                Lastly, the coda you've tacked on to the end of your diary is beneath you. Everyone knows you don't get to have your own personal echo chamber here at daily kos. It is an interesting diary, and I think the diary would be better served by removing it.

                •  Thanks for your judgment Terry, but I would never (0+ / 0-)

                  ...come at you the way you've stepped to me but ok , you did.

                  I did nothing that should have aggrieved you but asked that you clue me in on what I was missing. I gave your concern enough respect to revise the diary. Apparently that wasn't enough for you. Well if you had written the above comment in the first place we could have been talking about it rather than doing this shade dance.

                  And I do have the right and duty to keep the peace in my diary.I will run mine the way I see fit and that means giving specific examples of comments and behavior that is not going to be welcomed. And so far it has worked and I am most appreciative.

                  You run your diaries the way you see fit and you can keep the condescension. There was no reason at all to let it get to this point.

                  Thank you for the information and I hope y'all have a blessed weekend.

                  The politicians may be bought, and the system corrupt, but it is our duty to fix these things.

                  by sebastianguy99 on Sat Jul 06, 2013 at 06:27:49 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

  •  We don't need to spend our lives (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mookins

    worrying about terrorism. As long as we have an intelligence apparatus full of professional who spend THEIR lives worrying about terrorism, the rest of us can go about our business. But if we were to stand down our defenses, there would be a whole lot to worry about.

  •  Boko Haram is an Islamist Jihadist group but (8+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jbou, PhilJD, chuckvw, corvo, quill, slatsg, terrypinder, ukit

    there's no proof it's affiliated with Al Qaeda that I've found.  And what U.S. interests in Nigeria are you talking about?  All of ours or some corporate interests? Are corporate interests our interests?  
    Plus, I think those statistics are regarding the chances of getting killed.  What do the actions in Nigeria have to do with our chances of getting killed here in this country?  

    "America is the Terror State. The Global War OF Terror is a diabolical instrument of Worldwide conquest."

    by BigAlinWashSt on Sat Jul 06, 2013 at 03:33:32 PM PDT

    •  Added some links to those that say otherwise. (0+ / 0-)

      Hopefully those sources will address your concerns.

      I certainly feel comfortable in asserting that there is a very strong and operational affiliation.

      The politicians may be bought, and the system corrupt, but it is our duty to fix these things.

      by sebastianguy99 on Sat Jul 06, 2013 at 04:23:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Please . . . get with the program . . . (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BigAlinWashSt, jbou, PhilJD, chuckvw, corvo, ask

    Al-Qaeda is our ally in Syria . . . we give them guns and "humanitarian" aid (some CIA direct, but mostly through our Saudi intermediary) to do pretty much the same things.

    Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

    by Deward Hastings on Sat Jul 06, 2013 at 03:33:42 PM PDT

  •  I see your point... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sebastianguy99

    ... and fundamentalist terrorism obviously is a far greater and sometimes even daily problem for people in some countries.  They obviously don't have the luxury of being sheltered like we in western countries do.

    However, although Boko Haram has ties to Al Qaeda, it is not Al Qaeda, so your diary title is far from perfect.

    "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

    by Lawrence on Sat Jul 06, 2013 at 03:39:36 PM PDT

  •  your knowledge of international terrorism is... (12+ / 0-)

    limited.  Best not try to use incidents you don't understand to further your agenda it hurts your agenda.

    I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

    by jbou on Sat Jul 06, 2013 at 03:39:56 PM PDT

  •  I'm reminded of Al Queda's killing 70+ Ugandans (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    doc2, cfm, Sky Net, sebastianguy99, WakeUpNeo

    that had gathered together to watch a 2010 World Cup match on in a big screen theatre.

    Sometimes I get the feeling that when people cite Al Queda's attacks on the US (attacks on World Trade Center, USS Cole, Fort Hood, Pentagon, Capitol Dome, etc), that some Americans think that we had it coming because of our horrible imperialism (according to those Americans that maintain that line of thought).  But when one points out AQ's attacks on other countries, like Nigeria, Uganda, etc, then those Americans have nothing to say, since they can't blame evil US policy for those attacks.  They are forced to face the possibility that AQ might simply be an evil radical element and being "nice" wouldn't stop their attacks on the US or around the world.

    •  Or it could be (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wayoutinthestix, quill, ukit, ask

      that Al Qaeda has different reasons for attacks in different countries.  No one act of "being nice" may stop its attacks in all countries, but it may stop attacks in those countries corresponding to the act of "being nice" in question.

      This much said, some of our methods of fighting terrorism have been remarkably counterproductive, to put it mildly.

      Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

      by corvo on Sat Jul 06, 2013 at 03:54:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What justification is there for (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sebastianguy99

        intentionally trying to kill hundreds of people that had gathered together to enjoy watching the World Cup on a big screen in a theatre setting, successfully killing 74 of them, injuring 70 others?

        What is the horrible Ugandan, Ethiopian, Somali policy that serves as the justification for AQ's attack in that case?

        I submit that there is no Ugandan, Ethiopian, or Somali policy that justified that attack, and that AQ is simply an evil bunch of radical extremists that see no need for justifications for their attacks.  Oh, they may have their reasons in their own mind, but no justifications that anyone outside of AQ should pay heed to or seek to appease.

        •  oh, about the same justification (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ukit, ancblu
          What justification is there for (0+ / 0-)

          intentionally trying to kill hundreds of people that had gathered together to enjoy watching the World Cup on a big screen in a theatre setting, successfully killing 74 of them, injuring 70 others?

          as there is for Hellfire missiling a wedding party, i.e., none.

          Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

          by corvo on Sat Jul 06, 2013 at 06:34:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Sorry, but the Bushian "they hate us for our (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CroneWit

      freedomz" theory is just silly. Of course Al-Qaeda's attacks on America are politically motivated. They say so themselves, for one thing.

      And as a general rule, suicide terrorism is almost always politically motivated:

      New research provides strong evidence that suicide terrorism such as that of 9/11 is particularly sensitive to foreign military occupation, and not Islamic fundamentalism or any ideology independent of this crucial circumstance. Although this pattern began to emerge in the 1980s and 1990s, a wealth of new data presents a powerful picture.

      More than 95 percent of all suicide attacks are in response to foreign occupation, according to extensive research that we conducted at the University of Chicago's Project on Security and Terrorism, where we examined every one of the over 2,200 suicide attacks across the world from 1980 to the present day. As the United States has occupied Afghanistan and Iraq, which have a combined population of about 60 million, total suicide attacks worldwide have risen dramatically -- from about 300 from 1980 to 2003, to 1,800 from 2004 to 2009. Further, over 90 percent of suicide attacks worldwide are now anti-American. The vast majority of suicide terrorists hail from the local region threatened by foreign troops, which is why 90 percent of suicide attackers in Afghanistan are Afghans.

      Or ask the former chief of the CIA's Osama bin Laden unit:
      "The fundamental flaw in our thinking about Bin Laden is that 'Muslims hate and attack us for what we are and think, rather than what we do.' Muslims are bothered by our modernity, democracy, and sexuality, but they are rarely spurred to action unless American forces encroach on their lands. It's American foreign policy that enrages Osama and al-Qaeda, not American culture and society."
      •  Strawman argument, nice. (4+ / 0-)

        I never said anything about "they hate us for our freedoms".

        Now let me address your stated reasons for AQ's many attacks on the US over the years.  They blame US foreign occupation, but the US troops are in those areas with permission of the governments in question.  Therefore AQ has no justification for its attacks.  Oh, they have reasons for attacks, but no justifications.  We should leave those countries only if those countries' governments request it or if we want to leave for our own reasons; AQ has no standing to make demands on that score.  Therefore their attacks on that basis are unjustified, as are attempts to blame US policy for AQ's atrocities.

        Now, if you can, please cite AQ's justifications for attacks on Uganda, Ethiopia, Somalia, Morocco, Mali, Yemen, Spain, UK, Japan, Singapore, Indonesia, Australia, Malaysia, Kenya, Nigeria, Sudan, etc.  Most of those attacks have no relation to US policy, so it can't be just that the US is evil.

        Wait, is it that ALL of them evil like the US?
        Please...
        Maybe it's AQ (gasp) who is in the wrong rather than everybody else.

        •  "US troops are in those areas with permission (0+ / 0-)

          of the governments"

          Hmmm, I didn't realize we were given permission to invade Iraq. It's also worth pointing out that troop presence is far from the only U.S. foreign policy that leads to blowback - support of dictatorial regimes, overthrowing governments, and atrocities against civilians have all been mentioned as well.

          I'll leave you to decide whether that's all somehow justifiable. But even if you think it is, it's kind of beside the point. Justification is subjective, and I'm simply pointing out the motivations behind these groups.

          As for the list of attacks you mentioned - well yes, chances are they all have political motivations behind them. Although it's a questionable how many have actually been carried out by Al-Qaeda (Japan, for instance, does not seem to be a target, nor would you really expect it to be).

          There's a lot of debate over to what extent Al-Qaeda really exists as a cohesive group, and to what extent it's just an umbrella term used to describe violent Islamic fundamentalist groups in different countries, which may have different motivations.

          Anyway, the point was not Al-Qaeda is good and the U.S. bad, or that everything Al-Qaeda does in any country is motivated by U.S. imperialism. But simply that when groups like Al-Qaeda target countries halfway around the world like the U.S., it is almost always because of our own actions overseas. And I don't think that should be so controversial or hard to understand.

      •  You're completely missing the point. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sky Net

        Which is: just because the U.S does in fact do X, Y, Z wrong to provoke them DOES NOT MEAN they aren't still psychotic religious extremists who essentially wanna burn the world down to build their idea of a paradise.

        And you know what? They DO, despite all the legit reasons we give them to hate us, also hate us for certain irrational reasons like........not treating women like slaves. Or not outlawing "blasphemy". Or not punishing homosexuality with death. Or drinking alcohol. Etc.

        You gotta remember that Sayyid Qutb is Al Qaeda's hero. You ever read some of his writings?

        Go read the section of "The America I Have Seen" where he writes about witnessing a Arkansas Church Square Dance and freaks the fuck out like it was a Saturnalia Orgy.

        Go ahead, its short and under "A HOT NIGHT AT THE CHURCH":

        http://www.bandung2.co.uk/...

        "Qutb also was appalled by America's love of jazz, football, boxing and wrestling."

        Another writing I'll never forget is Jill Carroll's memoir of her time in captivity. Specifically the part where she watched all the insurgents wives prepare dinner, wait for the husbands to finish.....and eat the scraps they left behind.

        Surely you didn't think the CHRISTIAN right had a monopoly on hate and misogyny, right?

        "See? I'm not a racist! I have a black friend!"

        by TheHalfrican on Sat Jul 06, 2013 at 06:25:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree, they are religious extremists (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ancblu

          and I'm familiar with Sayyid Qutb, but do you really think U.S. foreign policy isn't the motivating force behind them attacking us?

          Michael Scheuer's quote at the end of my post addressed this:

          Muslims are bothered by our modernity, democracy, and sexuality, but they are rarely spurred to action unless American forces encroach on their lands.
          or as Bin Laden said:
          let him explain to us why we don't strike for example - Sweden?
          Not that I enjoy quoting Bin Laden, but why don't they attack Sweden, or New Zealand, or Switzerland if religion and culture is the primary motivation?

          There are dozens of Western liberal democracies to choose from, and yet it's the U.S. and the U.K. - the countries most associated with Middle East interventionism and most recently the Iraq War - that are under threat.

          •  2010 Stockholm bombings. (0+ / 0-)
            why don't they attack Sweden, or New Zealand, or Switzerland
            They're getting around to it. Hell, they banned Minarets in Switzerland. That makes the Ground Zero Mosque nontroversy look like Islamophobic peanuts in my book.

            Again, I'm not at all disputing that we've given them a truckload of Casus Belli at this point....but it takes 2 to tango.

            "See? I'm not a racist! I have a black friend!"

            by TheHalfrican on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 12:07:31 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  this is galling...... (0+ / 0-)

    In the same way that the Mexican cartel going into drug treatment centers and killing innocent people is galling; what both have in common is a distorted sense of propriety and order in terms of their operating ethos.  Both act with what they perceive as a moral authority; the difference is that those influenced by religion get to claim some sort of high ground by virtue of their chosen texts.  Until such actions are not tolerated on any level by any sect (including Teabangelicals), we're screwed.......

    'snakes have a mortal fear of.........tile'

    by OneCharmingBastard on Sat Jul 06, 2013 at 04:09:45 PM PDT

  •  It's Terrorism IN AMERICA That Is the Very Low (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ukit, CroneWit, TheHalfrican

    threat.

    I haven't heard anyone asserting that terrorism is almost no threat everywhere.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sat Jul 06, 2013 at 04:23:09 PM PDT

  •  You expect your house (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Roadbed Guy, ukit, kyril

    to be attacked by Boko Haram?  So we should sacrifice the tattered emnants of our 4th Amendment rights because Nigerians with machetes are about to row their canoes across the Atlantic Ocean coming after you?

    Have you checked your house for communists, yet?  Little Red Chinese, billions of them, right under your bed, man!!  Do you know that by the US rules imposed in Afghanistan, the "Werewolves" of "Red Dawn" would be "illegal combatants" and subject to indefinite imprisonment with no hope of ever being released?

    "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" ~Dr. Samuel Johnson

    by ActivistGuy on Sat Jul 06, 2013 at 05:56:34 PM PDT

    •  Actually I know that's not it (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ukit, kyril

      You know Boko Haram isn't coming for any of us.  Yet you still demand that all of us sacrifice the tattered remains of our 4th Amendment rights.  Why?  I know exactly why.  Because a Democratic president wants it.

      I doubt you'd be in such a hurry, and so militantly demanding we sacrifice what's left of our rights if Dick Cheney or some other likely suspect with an R after his name was demanding it?  So why are you in such a fury to abandon those rights just because a powerful person with a "D" after his name demands it?  There's never been a clearer example of the rule of hegemony I frequently discuss here.  Hegemony means all possible ruling parties serve the same masters and have the same ends--though often different means.  In this case there is no difference.  Bush-Cheney (R) tried to scare you into sacrificing your freedom, and you didn't bite.  The other hand of hegemony Obama-Biden then clapped for you to submit, and because they had Ds after their name you jump to do their bidding.  Even if you for some reason trust the powerful people with Ds after their name, give up your freedoms, give total authority to the officers of state now, and soon enough those with Rs after their banes will sit officially in the seats of power, including the ones you want to give them now, and you won't have any rights to refuse or resist, because you gladly handed them over to rulers with Ds after their names.   Don't blame them then, you'll have been the one that nade that arrangement, for all of us.  I guess you expect we'd be supposed to thank you for that situation.  Guess what?  Not gonna go the way you'd like.  Always hold defiantly onto whatever scrap of rights or power the bigshots accidentally leave us.  It's the only protection we have from the people that actually endanger us, unlike Boko Haram.

      "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" ~Dr. Samuel Johnson

      by ActivistGuy on Sat Jul 06, 2013 at 06:33:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  No one really seems to care that (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ukit, kyril, coquiero

    civil wars in dysfunctional African states have killed (quite literally) millions of people over the past few years.

    At least until this diary, which has found a way to brand them "terrorism."  However to link it to anything that has anything to do with the USA is a freakin' huge leap (other than that many of the weapons come from us . . . ).

    This diary almost seems like a sign of desperation, a cry for help, or something like that.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site