http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/faq/faq2.htm#when What is the main cause of all the trouble in Northern Ireland? Is religion a big part of it? The conflict in Northern Ireland is usually explained in terms of the different constitutional aspirations of the two main sections of the community in the region. Many Catholics consider themselves to be Irish and are Nationalist in political outlook, that is, they would like to see the whole (nation) island of Ireland reunited (and independent of Britain). Most Protestants consider themselves to be British and are Unionist in political outlook, that is, they want Northern Ireland to remain part of the (union of the) United Kingdom (UK) of Britain (England, Scotland, and Wales) and Northern Ireland. The correspondence between religion, culture, and political outlook is the result of a historical accident. During the 'plantation of Ulster' in the early 17th century the Scottish and English settlers, who moved to the north-east of Ireland to take ownership of confiscated lands, were Protestant and had strong cultural ties with England and Scotland. The native Irish who were forced from their land were Catholic and culturally Irish. Although religion WAS NOT the determining factor in the conflict between the people living in the region, it has a special significance as it was used as a marker to distinguish and discriminate between sections of the community. As a consequence of the plantation Protestants acquired land and wealth. Various pieces of legislation were introduced to reduce the status of Catholics. The inequalities between the two sections of the population persisted to the late 1960s and were the main cause of the civil rights movement that eventually led to the re-emergence of violent conflict.
It is not about poverty. We don't have people from Malawi or Bhutan or Cuba launching terrorist attacks on the west. Most terrorism (as opposed to gangsterism) is driven by intractable political conflict. Usually this is about land claims, or ethnicity/religion ("blood and belonging"). The NI conflict was about age-old disputes arising from British rule over Ireland, with those disputes having aligned along religious/sectarian lines. The Israel/Palestine conflict is very similar. How do you settle such a conflict when two groups have competing claims for the same territory? In the case of the Middle East, Bin Laden has been quite clear about his motives, and they are shared by most radical muslim terrorists: i) they object to US support for Israel and the policy in the occupied territories ii) they object to the US stationing its forces in holy lands of the Middle East In both cases they feel wronged - I imagine most Americans would not appreciate having Saudi Arabian military bases on US soil. Equally, there would be significant conflict if native Americans demanded that descendants of the original white settlers packed up and went back home to Europe. Now that is obviously a one-sided view, but it is a strongly held one on the Muslim side - even amongst moderates. That is the "root cause", not poverty. We don't get attacked by Bhutan or Malawi because they do not feel that we have occupied their territories or supported someone they consider an enemy. The question then is can this conflict be resolved? The options are to either compromise to try to address the causes of hostility, or to deter terrorism using carrot and stick approaches. Compromise should only be done where it is morally acceptable. When core values are at stake, conflict is the only possible outcome. So although there is scope for minor compromise in the Middle East (bases could be stationed in less sensitive countries, US could persuade Israel to compromise somewhat in the occupied territories), there are intractable disagreements over core beliefs that simply cannot be resolved. Clearly it would not be acceptable to US values to abandon Israel - it is the only democracy in the region, and by far the freest society, so it deserves support on those grounds. However, some kind of palestine settlement could go a long way to defusing tensions. Equally, stationing troops in the Middle East is thought necessary due to US strategic interests - support for Israel, regional stability, and oil. Compromise only makes sense if you think neither of those interests is important (which is why the left is so keen on compromise in this case). Overall I think the radical Muslims are onto a loser, because the US is far more powerful and is simply not prepared to compromise those interests for a bunch of terrorists. If they pursued peaceful negotiation and protest, they may have got somewhere. But thanks to Bin Laden they are now f*cked.
Cutten- Those two points made by Bin Laden were just spin (in my opinion). I also think he must be considered separate from most muslims, most muslim terrorist and terrorists in Isreal. Those points proffered by Bin Laden were cited so that he was could not be called a ego manical butcher who wanted to and did kill americans so he could be a hero and nail lots of muslim chicks. He was a former soldier looking for a fight. His is the worst type of human being.
cdbern!!! simple question really... hmmm resent events....Well let's see now.. _we go over there uninvited and attack/invade _rain cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells ( over 600 tons and counting) _kill dozens of thousands of innocent children men and women (conservative numbers) _take control/steal of their only valuable resource (oil) _destroy infrastructure and poison their habitat with radioactive/toxic munitions that maybe impossible to clean up. I WILL ASK ALL WHO READ THIS TO SIT BACK FOR A SECOND, THINK AND ANSWER All the surviving parents brothers sisters children of the unjustly and unnecessary dead victims of this fraud for war...All these people......(news flash, yes they are people, flesh and blood) WHAT kind of feelings should they harbor towards us? How many true terrorists have we created????? For a moment put yourself in their position and answer the question. Someone comes from half the globe away and rains terror and death on your family, with a fraud for an excuse..what would you do? How would YOU feel? Dumps depleted uranium that would effect the survivors for generations to come. HOW WOULD YOU FEEL???? WHAT WOULD YOU DO???
Nolan With all due respect the points you raised is exactly what I want to avoid bantering about. The question wasn't whether the war is right or wrong, but rather what is it that is behind terrorism. Some want to blame religion, some politics. But is there more to it? I offered a point of view put forth by Friedman who basically feels lack of jobs and opportunity was driving young people to become terrorists. Cutten presented another point of view i.e a backlash from America's support of Israel. We could take opposing sides about politics, religion, the war, etc, all night long and never reach an understanding. The only thing that comes from that little exercise is high blood pressure and hard feelings. Clearly, seldom is there any one thing causes the problem. Who knows, maybe its a gene glitch IF its a lack of opportunity (which admittedly I'm not so sure of), then that is an issue that could be addressed. IF its politics, that'll take a bit longer. IF its religion, there's only one thing that will solve the problem and I suspect its far beyond the scope of anyone here. Think outside the box.
Nolan, I hate to break this to you, but the nation of Islam and Christianity have been fighting each other for thousands of years. Their hatred towards us did not start last year. Do you understand this? Please think about this for a second OK. And certainly the arab world was not to excited about us helping Israel become a Jewish state in 1947. And they have not been too thrilled about our financial and military support of Israel the last half century. Get a clue man.
Don't you think that attacking and killing innocent without provocation, is a "root cause" for retaliation? slap the label of terrorist and there you have it Crude maybe, but goes to the heart of the problem. OBL and his mujahadeen(sp), while they were funded by us they were "freedom fighters", and "terrorists" for the commies. I mentioned no politics. War WAS/IS the action that goes to cause a reaction. Sure there other issues, but with war we are talking MAJOR disruption of life there. The point was not if the war was unjust, but its effect as another "root cause" in creating new and true terrorists there However; if I misunderstood what you were looking for, in terms of discussion, I'll stand aside.
Nolan for christ sake man, the middle east has been at constant war for 2000 years brother. It has been non stop violence since the old testament of the bible. The people that live there don't know what peace is, they don't understand it. You act like we just went over there and disrupted their daily routine and now they are pissed off. Come on man. We have to get to peace over there and we need to do it one country at a time. Either we create peace in the middle east or we will have a major nuclear holocaust between the east and the west that will take care of all of our problems.