Does America feed Islamic terrorism?

Question

it is an idea I always think of :
by the blind support to Israel in it's injust and aggression with arabs , and by the stupid American war on terrorism , USA only feeds terrorism by :
first : proving the terrorists main idea of : we (Muslims) are under a crusader war to eliminate islam , so we must kill and do whatever we want to defend Islam (jihad) , that idea of islamic groups wasn't accepted by most Muslims , but now it begin to be very accepted
second : it will bring many recruits to them , transferring millions of moderate Muslims into terrorists , as freedom fighters
so by that stupidity and unjust to muslims and Muslim countries, i believe that one day someone (group or individuals) will nuke America itself , or do something so nasty that no one will ever remember what 9/11 was

do you agree with me ?

here is a British article about a close idea to what am thinking of

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article1214522.ece

to jill : do you know that George Washington was considered terrorist by GB ?

am i terrorist? no i'm not , but you are making another millions of us terrorists

Answer 1

First of all I believe in factual information and less interested on knowing people's feeling specially when a question is asked in any website such as Y! Answer. because, I believe many people can mislead or influenced for the materials they read here. Thats, why, rather express my feelings, I like to show some facts, history which are real and already documented.(I am very bad in economizing words . Hope it will be ok for everyone)

Before, conclude that U.S. is feeding terrorism or not, I like to recall you to go back in the History.( Assuming all know or capable of finding information)
> U.S. was the supplier of weapons in Iraq in Saddam's age.
>U.S. was the creator of Osama Bin Laden to fight against Soviet Union.U.S. provides not only weapons but also give them some training too.
> U.S. is providing weapons to Israelis now.
FYI,
*U.S. dominates the arm sales in third world countries(source:www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/Lobe_US-Arms-Exports.htm) (What's for?the are in need for more arms,weapons than food?)
*The largest single arms buyer was Saudi Arabia, accounting for about $33.5 billion dollars worth of US weapons, followed by Israel ($18.8 billion),
*The USA has unwaveringly supplied weapons to the developing world on a prodigious scale. At the same time, it has been vociferous in its condemnation of state oppression and international aggression. Linkage of arms sales to foreign policy, at the heart of the Kissinger doctrine, remains unchallenged. Significantly, US arms exports to the Persian Gulf rocketed by 2500 percent from 1970 to 1976. In 1992, largely as an outcome of the first Gulf war, the USA contracted to meet half the Middle East’s need for weapons (Foreign Affairs, May-June 1994). Seven of the top weapons buyers in the world are in that region, including the single largest buyer, Saudi Arabia, which has the perfect mix of attributes: abundant oil money, ready sources of conflict (including Israel and the Palestinians), and leaders willing to start a fight at the least provocation.(http://www.globalcomplexity.org/Arms%20or%20Democracy.htm)(How comes U.S. selling its arms to saudi Arabia, third world countries this huge no. of arms?why??)
*U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Washington provided over $74 billion worth of weapons and military training to Middle Eastern nations during 1991-2000. (http://www.antiwar.com/ips/deen.php?articleid=3710)
*The United States is by far the largest exporter of weapons in the world, selling more weapons than the next 14 countries combined.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_trade)(how comes the greatest peace maker in the world selling weapons!!!)
*Rumsfeld, the present US Defence Secretary who was one of the leading architects for the most recent war on Iraq and ‘its weapons of mass destruction’, was sent by president Reagan to Baghdad as a special envoy in December 1983 to offer help to Iraq in its war against Iran. The Reagan administration allowed the Iraqis to buy a wide variety of 'dual use' equipment and materials from American suppliers. The "shopping list included...chemical-analysis equipment for the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC), and, most unsettling, numerous shipments of "bacteria/ fungi/ protozoa" to the IAEC (Newsweek 23 September 2002).(http://www.globalcomplexity.org/Arms%20or%20Democracy.htm)
I will request you to check all the link I have provided, and also check this sites-
http://www.firedupmissouri.com/node/1682
and, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29¬Found=true
I will like to share that was printed on washingpost-
"U.S. Shifts in Iran-Iraq War --
When the Iran-Iraq war began in September 1980, with an Iraqi attack across the Shatt al Arab waterway that leads to the Persian Gulf, the United States was a bystander. The United States did not have diplomatic relations with either Baghdad or Tehran. U.S. officials had almost as little sympathy for Hussein's dictatorial brand of Arab nationalism as for the Islamic fundamentalism espoused by Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. As long as the two countries fought their way to a stalemate, nobody in Washington was disposed to intervene.

By the summer of 1982, however, the strategic picture had changed dramatically. After its initial gains, Iraq was on the defensive, and Iranian troops had advanced to within a few miles of Basra, Iraq's second largest city. U.S. intelligence information suggested the Iranians might achieve a breakthrough on the Basra front, destabilizing Kuwait, the Gulf states, and even Saudi Arabia, thereby threatening U.S. oil supplies.

"You have to understand the geostrategic context, which was very different from where we are now," said Howard Teicher, a former National Security Council official, who worked on Iraqi policy during the Reagan administration. "Realpolitik dictated that we act to prevent the situation from getting worse."

To prevent an Iraqi collapse, the Reagan administration supplied battlefield intelligence on Iranian troop buildups to the Iraqis, sometimes through third parties such as Saudi Arabia. The U.S. tilt toward Iraq was enshrined in National Security Decision Directive 114 of Nov. 26, 1983, one of the few important Reagan era foreign policy decisions that still remains classified. According to former U.S. officials, the directive stated that the United States would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran.

The presidential directive was issued amid a flurry of reports that Iraqi forces were using chemical weapons in their attempts to hold back the Iranians. In principle, Washington was strongly opposed to chemical warfare, a practice outlawed by the 1925 Geneva Protocol. In practice, U.S. condemnation of Iraqi use of chemical weapons ranked relatively low on the scale of administration priorities, particularly compared with the all-important goal of preventing an Iranian victory.

Thus, on Nov. 1, 1983, a senior State Department official, Jonathan T. Howe, told Secretary of State George P. Shultz that intelligence reports showed that Iraqi troops were resorting to "almost daily use of CW" against the Iranians. But the Reagan administration had already committed itself to a large-scale diplomatic and political overture to Baghdad, culminating in several visits by the president's recently appointed special envoy to the Middle East, Donald H. Rumsfeld.

Secret talking points prepared for the first Rumsfeld visit to Baghdad enshrined some of the language from NSDD 114, including the statement that the United States would regard "any major reversal of Iraq's fortunes as a strategic defeat for the West." When Rumsfeld finally met with Hussein on Dec. 20, he told the Iraqi leader that Washington was ready for a resumption of full diplomatic relations, according to a State Department report of the conversation. Iraqi leaders later described themselves as "extremely pleased" with the Rumsfeld visit, which had "elevated U.S.-Iraqi relations to a new level."

In a September interview with CNN, Rumsfeld said he "cautioned" Hussein about the use of chemical weapons, a claim at odds with declassified State Department notes of his 90-minute meeting with the Iraqi leader. A Pentagon spokesman, Brian Whitman, now says that Rumsfeld raised the issue not with Hussein, but with Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz. The State Department notes show that he mentioned it largely in passing as one of several matters that "inhibited" U.S. efforts to assist Iraq.

Rumsfeld has also said he had "nothing to do" with helping Iraq in its war against Iran. Although former U.S. officials agree that Rumsfeld was not one of the architects of the Reagan administration's tilt toward Iraq -- he was a private citizen when he was appointed Middle East envoy -- the documents show that his visits to Baghdad led to closer U.S.-Iraqi cooperation on a wide variety of fronts. Washington was willing to resume diplomatic relations immediately, but Hussein insisted on delaying such a step until the following year.

As part of its opening to Baghdad, the Reagan administration removed Iraq from the State Department terrorism list in February 1982, despite heated objections from Congress. Without such a move, Teicher says, it would have been "impossible to take even the modest steps we were contemplating" to channel assistance to Baghdad. Iraq -- along with Syria, Libya and South Yemen -- was one of four original countries on the list, which was first drawn up in 1979.

Some former U.S. officials say that removing Iraq from the terrorism list provided an incentive to Hussein to expel the Palestinian guerrilla leader Abu Nidal from Baghdad in 1983. On the other hand, Iraq continued to play host to alleged terrorists throughout the '80s. The most notable was Abu Abbas, leader of the Palestine Liberation Front, who found refuge in Baghdad after being expelled from Tunis for masterminding the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro, which resulted in the killing of an elderly American tourist."
Now, As, the leader of the countries, in this case, saddam, is not 100% honest, and good person, this leaders of the countries become greedy and do unethical things,like killing people, doing wrong things. now, As we can see, the role of U.S. here is not bringing the peace, agreement, honesty in these countries, the role of U.S. here, as we can see from the facts is firing the situation and giveng punishment not only the one or two people who are actually guilty, but also destroying the whole nation.it can be said that" Using bomb and hi-fi weapons even unregistered weapons (that has the restriction to use in any war according to U.N.) to kill a mosquito like Saddam, Laden..
Now, Saddam is a bad man, but he was not bad to the U.S. even when he was attacking Kuweit. Now, research confirmed that that attack on war was also influenced by U.S. as U.S. was the first to told Iraq that some portion of Kuweit is actually owned by Iraq, as they are now saying that, historically Israel was owned the land they are live in today. Though Historically, RedIndiams owned the land of U.S., historically, many of the asians are not eligible to live in asian as many of them are not directly came from"Dravid" origin.Anyway, we are not fighting and not supporting war happened for this "histroy conflict" U.S. though did and continuing the act. Once upon a time, the victim was Kuweit, and Saddam was the committed, and this time, Lebanon is the victim, and Israel is committed, by reading the situation, isreal wont gonna face same fate as Saddam did, because, first of all, U.S. still has long way to go to remap the middle east according to their plan, (according to Condolezza Rice)
2nd, U.S. definitely wont gonna do anything .."anything" against Israel, becouase of several reasons(http://www.newzionist.com/categories/us-israel-relations/)
Now, I know people in the west dont like many things of the muslim world and describes those things as a act against humanism(well, muslim may feel the same things about west, but, they dont act thins aggrisively against this act..ofcourse, as If i wear long dress in U.S. many U.S. people will blame me, laugh at me, same things happens in muslim country if you were, bra and mini skirts, ask for wine, dance with others, behave nastily(though you think it is your freedom to talk and do anything, muslim world belives that it is something that spreads filthy mentality in the society.Thus, everyone has to respect others culture and beliefs. if you want to change these behavior, the beliefs, and stamp those act as a "act against humanism" , you possibily has to pay for this, As, you dont expect and dont tolerate any muslim or any person to blame your culture,your beliefs ,so do the muslims. If a muslims cant show respect to the western world they has to pay too.
But, the war against muslim is mostly because of not the conflict between 2 cultures, its because of money, taking political advantage.
As, already has shown how U.S. is spreading the weapons, arms market throughout the world, even in third world countries and extrimist countires, Now lets talk about the advantages U.S. is getting for this activity.
Middle east is very important for U.S.Middle east the largest resource center in the world. Oil is the most and most demanded resource that U.S. will always love to capture. Now, why middle east?beacuse, it is the easiest place to capture. Just begin a war ,and capture, thats all! Think can you capture, Europe this way?no, Europe is united, you cant break the relationship so easily there.China, yes probably, but, China is becoming powerful day by day in terms of their economy too. Middle east is the easiest place to start the capturing game.
No doubt, U.S. is feeding terrorism .example,Laden, Isreal govt, and army(yes, they are the terrorist according to the same defination you used for Islamic terrorist") etc. etc.
This creating, stopping terrorism can only be stopped if U.S ever consider the greater advantage of world humanity and peace and forgo its own selfish advantage(making money, capturing resources,land,spreading emperiorism, establish U.S. in different areas(cant say country after being captured, is iraq is now a country?dont think so)of the world.
This terrorist act cant be stopped unless U.S. people become aware of this act. Well, I'm not saying that the world will be ruin if U.S. dont forgo capturing other wealth, belief, but, yes, the world will be no longer a world that we all dream for, either there will be no more people left to cry for its own parents,children, own countries or there will be no people left to think like a human being.Instead either the people left in the world will be animal like human being, or the people left will be only for blaming its previous generation to present a horrified palce to live in.

Answer 2

You are right. And there is another important fact. I see that some people relate Hezbollah's defending with Al Qaeda attacks in 9/11, but there is no relation between them.

Al Qaeda is certainly a terrorist group. They don't have Islamic believes. It is why they are killing lots of people in Iraq daily. If they are Muslims why do they kill other Muslims and explode mosques in Iraq or Pakistan?

They have roots in Zionism and Israel itself. And are acting to ruin Islam. Did you know that the Jewish employees did not go to work on that day 9/11, guess why? even if the bombers were Arabs or even Muslims as the US said why don't we search who was after them (does anyone know that the governments uses ppl from other countries to spy for them and to execute certain operations.

I don't know whetrher you have seen the movie ""Fahrenheit 9/11" made by Michael Moore. You can find more facts about it over there :

http://www.fahrenheit911.com

And about Hezbollah :

Hezbollah isn't a terrorist group.They are defending their people. The soldiers they kidnapped were in retailition not preemptive. Israel has kidnapped thousands of lebanese and palestinians but you never hear about that. Hezbollah is a resistance movement that is heavily involved in rebuilding their communities.

Answer 3

There is another side to this feeding of terrorism.

I believe America breeds terroristic ideas, on a day to day basis, by discrimination, exploitation, oppression and suppression of peaceloving legal foreigners in a society that denies them equality and slights them at every opportunity as a lower class people. Does it mean every citizen or employer is doing it -NO. But the few who do it, psychologically motivate a few of those, who believe in jihad or religious extremism to turn to terrorism against America.

Does it mean everybody who went through negative attitude experiences, becomes a terrorist - NO. Most of them calmly and quietly bear the psychological hurt and move forward to the next phase of their life. But the few extremists, in my opinion, tend to become terrorists with vengeance.

I don't think that there is any easy solution to this because the solution involves changing the attitude of a good portion of the American citizens towards productive foreigners; but I believe it can be done through government intiated programs.

Answer 4

If Hindus unite and take political power Muslims will keep silent.And there will be no terrorism. Look at Gujarat. Now Muslms in Gujarat also prospered. When a fameous muslim( I don't remember who. I think he is from Vaghaf board or from a Muslim organisation) said this truth there was a hue and cry. So if Hindus stand stern there will be no terrorism. Even Muslims will prosper.

Answer 5

YES! And it is a proven fact! look at all of the weapons that are currently being used by all of the factions in the Arab and Islamic world today..............VERY FEW OF THEM came from China or Russia. Look at all of the current news clips from Iraq, Iran and now Lebanon and Israel.............the vehicles are all American as are the weapons: The US was built on war and has sustained itself by keeping conflicts going in the name of PEACE! Now there is a real oxy moron! FIGHTING FOR PEACE! All war does is force another Race or Culture into submission...........YOU WILL DO AS I SAY OR I WILL KILL YOU! BUSH said this 3 weeks ago to Iran when they did not want to stop with their Nuclear program......IF YOU DON'T STOP WE WILL HAVE TO BLAST YOU WITH OUR NUCLEAR WEAPONS!

Answer 6

No. Hatred by Mullahs and Imams feeds Islamic terrorism.

Answer 7

A terrorist is someone who hides behind women and children to kill. Using civilian homes to hide in.

A terrorist hi-jacks planes to kill innocent civilians.

A terrorist straps bombs to themselves and blows up innocent civilians in pizza parlors, cars, embassys etc.

A terrorist kidnapps two Israeli soldiers.

Your a moron if you think fuel is being added to the fire. Its time to wake up.

Answer 8

How is that possible since Mo terrorized people before America even existed?!

Answer 9

Agree .. they think that all muslims are terroists .
ISrael and the agreement of the USA GOVERNMENT

1948-Palestine- 250 child and women {Deir yasin}
1953-palestine-67 child and woman {kabia}
1982-palestine-3500 child and woman{sabra wa chatila}
1990-palestine-21 child and woman {al AKSA Mosque}
al khalil-24 people during PRAYING
1996-Lebanon -120 child and woman {KANA 1}
2006-Lebanon -60 child and woman {KANA 2}
2002-Palestine-hundreds of people ..!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

who is the terroist then ?????????????!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 10

Yes. If you want to characterize resistance to Jewish/American evil, cruel injustices as "terrorism"

Answer 11

You can find the answer in newspapers,on TV and on radio station.