[Split] (Ed) 9/11 in perspective

[fuelair]

Perhaps not that particular point. But I find that placing things in perspective helps.


Let me say again that I never intended to say that.
However, I think it could quite easily be argued that:
1) the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq could have been fought in a way that would have caused many fewer civilian casualties;
2) there is no connection between Iraq and 9/11, so it is rather questionable that a war should have been started there at all, as a response to 9/11.

But I would be getting too political, I guess.

And 1) but, they actually should have been done in a way that would have killed many more (but resulted in fewer American deaths - and it doesn't bother me that it was partially revenge

 

[Ziggurat]

However, I think it could quite easily be argued that:
1) the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq could have been fought in a way that would have caused many fewer civilian casualties;

It can easily be CLAIMED that this is true, but I have yet to see anyone put forward a serious argument to that effect, and you haven't done so. Quite the reverse, in fact: for example, I recall predictions regarding Afghanistan that civilian casualties would be significantly HIGHER than they turned out to be, with some (Noam Chomsky, for example) claiming that our invasion would trigger a famine that would constitute genocide. And there were also predictions of massive refugee crises and cholera epidemics in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion, but neither of those scenarios happened either. The civilian casualties in BOTH Iraq and Afghanistan have been, by historical standards, EXTREMELY low. And that's because great care was indeed taken to make this so. The American military tries harder than any military in history to limit civilian casualties, while our enemies make every effort to increase those casualties even on their own side. But you're not really interested in that inconvenient little detail, or the ACTUAL record of what happend, are you?

 

[peptoabysmal]

That's a lot of people. Anyway, the question was, whether this number was on the rise. That number says nothing about that.

But this (from the same article) does:

For which reason? Why would things be different in Britain than elsewhere?


Let's go with that last statement. It fits the article I quoted rather well. Why would it be contrary to my statement? If the imams see the war as a reason to step up their recruiting efforts, and use the war as an argument, and are because of that argument more succesful in recruiting than before... is it then not true, through this chain of cause and effect, that extremism is on the rise?

First, my apologies for not replying sooner. I'm usually only on for a few hours in the evening and I don't always get back to posts / replies.

I wasn't saying Britain would be different, just that it was a small sample. The bigger the data set, the more accurate the results. A small sample is not good in any scientific perspective, but extremely unreliable when dealing with a human behavior issue.

Now, think about what you are asserting. War causes religious extremism.
Did this happen in other wars before? Is there any historical data to support this idea? Or is it just that war with Muslims increases religious extremism? Wouldn't that just indicate a predisposition to religious extremism more than anything?

How about this war? Any data to show how many were already religious extremists just waiting around for a target to focus on? How many are being recruited daily? ... monthly? ... yearly? compared to what? Have other factors such as social circumstances in Britain been ruled out?

If you want to say that you feel that the war is causing a rise in religious extremism, that is a perfectly valid point of view or opinion. If you want me to accept it as a fact, you have a long way to go.

The relationship between war and religious extremism was what I was responding to before and is unrelated to recruiting efforts for a war, except that it just so happens that this particular enemy uses religious extremism as a recruiting tool. We are involved in a global war and the other side is recruiting. Well, duh.

Just to be crystal clear: I have not yet seen any evidence that war increases religious extremism. You might have it backwards. It may be that religious extremism increases war!

 

[brumsen]

It can easily be CLAIMED that this is true, but I have yet to see anyone put forward a serious argument to that effect, and you haven't done so.

Please explain what is not serious about this.

Quite the reverse, in fact: for example, I recall predictions regarding Afghanistan that civilian casualties would be significantly HIGHER than they turned out to be, with some (Noam Chomsky, for example) claiming that our invasion would trigger a famine that would constitute genocide. And there were also predictions of massive refugee crises and cholera epidemics in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion, but neither of those scenarios happened either.

The fact that worse predictions were made says nothing about whether numbers of casualties could have been lower than they were.

The American military tries harder than any military in history to limit civilian casualties, while our enemies make every effort to increase those casualties even on their own side.

They start more wars as well.

But you're not really interested in that inconvenient little detail, or the ACTUAL record of what happend, are you?

You are just making assumptions about me. No help to the discussion here.

 

[brumsen]

I wasn't saying Britain would be different, just that it was a small sample. The bigger the data set, the more accurate the results. A small sample is not good in any scientific perspective, but extremely unreliable when dealing with a human behavior issue.

I could see that it would be useful to make a distinction between what happens in European countries and countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan and certain African countries. For Europe, I would stick with Britain as a useful sample.

War causes religious extremism.
Did this happen in other wars before? Is there any historical data to support this idea? Or is it just that war with Muslims increases religious extremism? Wouldn't that just indicate a predisposition to religious extremism more than anything?

I'd be interested in historical data to the contrary. Do you know of any?
For now it just sounds as if you want to establish the last hypothesis here as a fact. Seems to me like the cart before the horse.

You might have it backwards. It may be that religious extremism increases war!

It certainly does. Ever heard of vicious circles?

How many are being recruited daily? ... monthly? ... yearly? compared to what? Have other factors such as social circumstances in Britain been ruled out?

The 'compared to what' point is of course serious. I'm not sure how to respond to it.

The relationship between war and religious extremism was what I was responding to before and is unrelated to recruiting efforts for a war, except that it just so happens that this particular enemy uses religious extremism as a recruiting tool. We are involved in a global war and the other side is recruiting. Well, duh.

My assertion was that there is evidence that the recruiting is more successful as a result of the war. That is not unrelated to the question whether religious extremism is on the rise as a result of these wars.
Just to be clear: this is not about recruitment of terrorists among those already versed in religious extremism - it is about gullible young adults being recruited for religious extremism.

 

[Ziggurat]

Please explain what is not serious about this.

Well, to start with, just look at the very first quote:

What causes the documented high level of civilian casualties -- 3,000 - 3,400 [October 7, 2001 thru March 2002] civilian deaths -- in the U.S. air war upon Afghanistan? The explanation is the apparent willingness of U.S. military strategists to fire missiles into and drop bombs upon, heavily populated areas of Afghanistan.

It starts off with an assumption, and goes downhill from there. Is 3,400 civilian deaths a "high level of civilian casualties" for an invasion and overthrow of the government of a country of 25 million people? By historical standards, it's VERY low. Now, it becomes a SEPARATE question if you want to ask if the civilian casualties could have been further reduced significantly, but if you're starting off with the premise that they're high, well, you're simply wrong.

Whoever wrote this is also pathetically and transparently ignorant of military issues. Further down, it says,

A U.S. officer aboard the US aircraft carrier, Carl Vinson, described the use of 2,000 lb cluster bombs dropped by B-52 bombers: "A 2,000 lb. bomb, no matter where you drop it, is a significant emotional event for anyone within a square mile."

That is not a very good description of the effects of cluster bombs, nor are most cluster bombs of the 2,000 lb class (in fact, I haven't found any: the ones I did find were around 800-1,000 lbs). Instead, it sounds a whole lot more like the officer was talking about conventional 2,000 lb bombs, which create very impressive (and large) blasts, and the ignorant journalist confused the issue. But either way, the quote is essentially meaningless, because it tells us nothing about where the bombs WERE dropped. It is used to imply that the bombs were dropped randomly or haphazardly ("no matter where you drop it"), but of course, we can't actually conclude anything of the sort.

The fact that worse predictions were made says nothing about whether numbers of casualties could have been lower than they were.

That is true. But any analysis which doesn't recognize that starting point (and your link most certainly doesn't) is not a serious analysis.

They start more wars as well.

Not really. It only looks that way because we FINISH more wars. But generally, we get involved after conflicts have already started. WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam, Gulf War 1, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan.

There's an old saying that if all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. And it's often used to disparage the US regarding our willingness to use military force. But there's a corrolary to that: if you don't have a hammer, nothing looks like a nail. Most of Europe doesn't have a hammer. Belgium most certainly doesn't have a hammer. It's no surprise that nothing looks like a nail to you, and that you don't understand why we would ever use our hammer.

 

[peptoabysmal]

Originally Posted by brumsen
My assertion was that there is evidence that the recruiting is more successful as a result of the war. That is not unrelated to the question whether religious extremism is on the rise as a result of these wars.
Just to be clear: this is not about recruitment of terrorists among those already versed in religious extremism - it is about gullible young adults being recruited for religious extremism.

The article says:

Most of the Al-Qaeda recruits tend to be loners “attracted to university clubs based on ethnicity or religion” because of “disillusionment with their current existence”. British-based terrorists are made up of different ethnic groups, according to the documents.

This would indicate that the reason they turn to religious extremism is due to social factors, not war.

The article mentions war as a cause for turning to terrorism:

The Iraq war is identified by the dossier as a key cause of young Britons turning to terrorism. The analysis says: “It seems that a particularly strong cause of disillusionment among Muslims, including young Muslims, is a perceived ‘double standard’ in the foreign policy of western governments, in particular Britain and the US.

According to the article, first they are attracted to religious extremism by social factors and then are motivated to carry out terrorist activities by the war.

Terrorism and religious extremism and not simultaneously equal. First the subject must be motivated into religious extremism, then motivated into a terrorist act or willingness to carry oout a terrorist act.

There is some indication in the article that there is no course of action that cannot be used as a "recruiting tool.":

“The perception is that passive ‘oppression’, as demonstrated in British foreign policy, eg non-action on Kashmir and Chechnya, has given way to ‘active oppression’. The war on terror, and in Iraq and Afghanistan, are all seen by a section of British Muslims as having been acts against Islam.”

So, non-action is "passive oppression" and action is "active oppression."

This article was specific to Britain. To address the point of the Britain example indicating a global cause and effect:
To prove cause and effect, first; effect must follow cause. Religious extremism was "on the rise" before 9/11. This article from 2000 talks about religious extremism being on the rise again.

 

[brumsen]

I'm afraid that, if we keep with this article, I must say that you're distorting what it says.

This would indicate that the reason they turn to religious extremism is due to social factors, not war.

Not really; look at the two quotes you gave side by side. The disillusionment is caused by the double standard in foreign policy.

There is some indication in the article that there is no course of action that cannot be used as a "recruiting tool.":

So, non-action is "passive oppression" and action is "active oppression."

No. By disregarding the paragraph just preceding it, you alter the meaning of the article. It is argued that because passive oppression has changed into active oppression, youths are turning to extremism.

To prove cause and effect, first; effect must follow cause. Religious extremism was "on the rise" before 9/11. This article from 2000 talks about religious extremism being on the rise again.

Fair enough. But I didn't say it wasn't on the rise before 9/11 and all that. I was implying that it had been on the rise more strongly. That certainly is what the British report seems to be saying.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

And i believe that proves my point.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Please explain what is not serious about this.
They (the American military) start more wars as well.

The American military has never started a war. Please check the American decision process in undertaking war, or other military actions.

DR

 

[brumsen]

The American military has never started a war. Please check the American decision process in undertaking war, or other military actions.

DR

Best joke I've heard for some time....

 

[Darth Rotor]

Best joke I've heard for some time....

More the fool you. Restated for emphasis, the American military does not start wars. American politicians do: with out their decisions and orders, the war doesn't start. Please know what you are talking about, as it elevates the discussion to an acceptable level.

Thanks in advance.

DR

 

[brumsen]

American politicians do: with out their decisions and orders, the war doesn't start.

Ah. Is that what you mean. Sure.

ETA: So I should have phrased my point thus:
Even though perhaps the American military tries harder than any military in history to limit civilian casualties, they are ordered to start more wars than any other military as well.

Uh-huh. Well, that doesn't really change the essence of what I was trying to convey.

 

[Ziggurat]

Even though perhaps the American military tries harder than any military in history to limit civilian casualties, they are ordered to start more wars than any other military as well.

Can you name the wars you think we've started since WWII? Let's get specific, so we can evaluate the two contradicting claims.

 

[RandFan]

...American military...are ordered to start more wars than any other military...

Looks like a claim to me. Can you demonstrate this?

 

[brumsen]

Can you name the wars you think we've started since WWII? Let's get specific, so we can evaluate the two contradicting claims.

OK;

Vietnam war (I realise it's open to debate as to who started)
Bay of Pigs invasion
Grenada invasion
Panama invasion
Afghanistan / Enduring Freedom
Iraq 2003-

 

[RandFan]

OK;

Vietnam war (I realise it's open to debate as to who started)
Bay of Pigs invasion
Grenada invasion
Panama invasion
Afghanistan / Enduring Freedom
Iraq 2003-

Define "war". How many such incursions were the Soviets involved in during the same time period?

 

[Ziggurat]

OK;

Vietnam war (I realise it's open to debate as to who started)

But it's NOT open to debate that WE started it. It was going on before we arrived, when the French were still there, for example (ever hear of Dien Bien Phu?). It CONTINUED after we arrived, and you can even argue that we shouldn't have been there/prolonged the conflict/made it worse/whatever, but we most certainly didn't start it.

Bay of Pigs invasion

Not much of a war. The US military also didn't really get involved, despite promises to that effect.

Grenada invasion

Nope. We stepping in after a bloody coup (in other words, a civil war), but we didn't start that fight.

Panama invasion

I'll give you that one. And oh, what a terrible war it was, let me tell you.

Afghanistan / Enduring Freedom

Most definitely NOT. Al Qaeda declared war on us, quite publicly. They were true to their word, and hit us multiple times. We finally struck back decisively, but THEY started that war, not us. We just decided we wanted to finish it.

Iraq 2003-

That kind of depends: I think of Gulf War 2 as a continuation of Gulf War 1 (which never ended in a peace treaty, but only a cease-fire with terms Iraq never complied with). But I'll let you have this one, since an argument can be made that it's effectively a new war. In which case you've got 2. 2 wars we started since WWII. Not really that impressive a record of starting wars, if you ask me. There are probably several African countries which can claim better track records than that.

 

[brumsen]

Ah. I see. Your starting point is that if there was already fighting in an area before the US military got involved, then it does not count as a war started by the US.

On this basis you contest my interpretation of the Vietnam war, and the Grenada invasion.

And then there's Afghanistan. Yes, al Qaeda publicly declared war. But who were attacked? The regime of Afghanistan. Most definitely a war started by the US.

So leaving the bay of pigs for the moment, I count 5.
What country would top that? Anyone care to make a list?

 

[Ziggurat]

Ah. I see. Your starting point is that if there was already fighting in an area before the US military got involved, then it does not count as a war started by the US.

Well of course. If you DON'T agree with that definition then you need to propose an alternative standard, and explain why this standard (which counts wars which started before US troops arrived) doesn't involve the Korean War, Bosnia/Kosovo, etc.

On this basis you contest my interpretation of the Vietnam war, and the Grenada invasion.

Yes, I do. And you haven't provided a counterargument or an alternative definition for a war started by the US.

And then there's Afghanistan. Yes, al Qaeda publicly declared war. But who were attacked? The regime of Afghanistan. Most definitely a war started by the US.

Al Qaeda was being harbored by the Taliban. Our war with Al Qaeda became a war with the Taliban because the Taliban were offering them protection. So no, we didn't start it, they CHOSE to get involved, on the side of Al Qaeda, in a war that Al Qaeda started.

So leaving the bay of pigs for the moment, I count 5.
What country would top that? Anyone care to make a list?

You haven't justified why you're still counting 5.