The problem with the "Gitmo Causes Terrorism" Argument

[Skeptic]

It is true that Gitmo and US fighting against the Taliban, etc., provokes the enemy -- Al Quaeda, Iran, numerous other Islamofascist groups and states -- into wanting to kill Americans.

But NOT fighting back ALSO provokes the enemy -- Al Quaeda, Iran, numerous other Islamofascist groups and states -- into wanting to kill Americans, too. Because it is seen as lack of resolve, proving to them that their ideal world (where infidels are killed for denying Islam, women for not covering their faces, and gays for existing) is coming, since the weak, corrupt west cannot even fight back.

 

[kerikiwi]

Why is Iran 'the enemy'?
What are the numerous Islamofascist states which want to kill Americans?

 

[The Fool]

Why is Iran 'the enemy'?
What are the numerous Islamofascist states which want to kill Americans?

leave him alone, he is a warmonger....can't stop himself.

 

[Praktik]

I disagree with the characterization of the OP.

Nowhere I have seen the formuation: "Gitmo causes terrorism"

I have seen though, "Gitmo feeds/fuels terrorism"

Which is kind of an important distinction.

And this is aside from the perverted morality that gitmo represents, just talking pragmatically here on the effects of Gitmo on terrorist recruitment.

 

[WildCat]

Before Gitmo opened in 2002 there was little Islamic terrorism.

And what little there was were false flag operations by the CIA/Mossad/NWO/Zionists etc.

/sarcasm

Gitmo is just the reason du jour, propaganda aimed at the useful idiots in the west.

 

[geni]

Before Gitmo opened in 2002 there was little Islamic terrorism.

And what little there was were false flag operations by the CIA/Mossad/NWO/Zionists etc.

/sarcasm

Gitmo is just the reason du jour, propaganda aimed at the useful idiots in the west.

Nope. Guantanamo Bay detention camp is fuel for propaganda aimed at recruitment across the islamic world.

 

[geni]

It is true that Gitmo and US fighting against the Taliban, etc., provokes the enemy -- Al Quaeda, Iran, numerous other Islamofascist groups and states -- into wanting to kill Americans.

But NOT fighting back ALSO provokes the enemy -- Al Quaeda, Iran, numerous other Islamofascist groups and states -- into wanting to kill Americans, too. Because it is seen as lack of resolve, proving to them that their ideal world (where infidels are killed for denying Islam, women for not covering their faces, and gays for existing) is coming, since the weak, corrupt west cannot even fight back.

Sigh. It's been accepted since at least WW1 that properganda is a valid tool in warfare. Guantanamo Bay detention camp is properganda negative for the US and one it would be sensible to remove.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Why is Iran 'the enemy'?

They have been politically at odds with the US for about three decades. They are an enemy, or at least not a friend yet.

As to "the enemy" Skeptic is an Israeli, so maybe he meant "the enemy" from an Israeli perspective.

What are the numerous Islamofascist states which want to kill Americans?

You seem to have a problem understanding that the playing field is not limited to states. See thread title. Terrorism. The current international playing field, and terrorism's being well enabled by advances in technology for the past thirty years, allows for a lot of extranational actors.

Welcome to the year 2009. Friends of the bride or friends of the groom?

DR

 

[Praktik]

Gitmo is just the reason du jour, propaganda aimed at the useful idiots in the west.

The interesting thing about the "useful idiots" line is that it can also be levied against people like Wildcat and Skeptic, who support Gitmo and gitmo like approaches to the detention of terrorist suspects.

Gitmo was a godsend to extremists and made their job much easier. I've posted direct evidence of that in a few threads over the past few weeks. A 2006 NIE said the invasion and occupation of Iraq "spawned a new generation of Islamic radicalism that has spread across the globe." Abu Ghraib, as we all know, was "gitmo-ized".

Underlying this support for Gitmo I assume, is an assumption that Gitmo-like procedures provide some sort of practical benefit in combatting terror - an assumption I don't share.

In any event, thought I'd point out that there is a mirror-image of the useful idiots line and that Skeptic and Wildcat and that camp don't have a monopoly on its use. From some perspectives, they are filling the very role they claim others are playing.

 

[tyr_13]

Having Gitmo vs 'not fighting back' is a clear false dichotomy.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

You seem to have a problem understanding that the playing field is not limited to states. See thread title. Terrorism. The current international playing field, and terrorism's being well enabled by advances in technology for the past thirty years, allows for a lot of extranational actors.

Maybe, but the OP did say

...numerous other Islamofascist groups and states...

So it would be nice to know which numerous Islamofascist states he meant

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Islamism, by all accounts, seems to be mostly motivated from the appeal of their ideology ("Sharia or death" shouted those arrested for the death of Sadat) rather than things like GITMO or human suffering at the hands of Western bombs.

However, GITMO allows the US to suffer enormously if they wish to promote a moral authority, and turn their allies and ordinary people off them.

 

[Bikewer]

It seems likely to me that the continued detention of various prisoners at Gitmo is a recruitment/propaganda tool for certain radicals, but it's hardly the only one.

Bin Laden's complaints about the West have been discussed at length, and have mostly to do with foriegn policy. Support for Israel, support for "un-Islamic" regimes that oppress their citizens, (Saudi, Kuwait, Egypt, etc), presence of Western troops in Islamic lands.... And so forth and so on.
All before there was any "Gitmo".
More currently the occupation of Afghanistan and the drone strikes against suspected terrorists in Pakistan and other locations....
One could likely go on and on mentioning things that Islamic radicals find annoying....

 

[Praktik]

Islamism, by all accounts, seems to be mostly motivated from the appeal of their ideology ("Sharia or death" shouted those arrested for the death of Sadat) rather than things like GITMO or human suffering at the hands of Western bombs.

However, GITMO allows the US to suffer enormously if they wish to promote a moral authority, and turn their allies and ordinary people off them.

Indeed, it would be silly to suggest that ALL terrorism is caused by Gitmo, or the occupations, or the installation of the Shah etc etc

There are unique features of the socio-cultural history of the region that are indigenous, or "home-made" factors leading to extremism.

In my view, perhaps the single largest driver there is quite simply the lack of democratic traditions. When portions of your polity feel powerless to effect any meaningful change to their benefit from within the political system then violence becomes more likely.

And even this represents the outcome of internal and external factors. Tribalism is not known for its democratic bent. But outside powers have for centuries also engaged in the setting up of client regimes in the ME and stymied democracy when the outcome was not likely to suit their needs.

 

[drkitten]

It is true that Gitmo and US fighting against the Taliban, etc., provokes the enemy -- Al Quaeda, Iran, numerous other Islamofascist groups and states -- into wanting to kill Americans.

But NOT fighting back ALSO provokes the enemy -- Al Quaeda, Iran, numerous other Islamofascist groups and states -- into wanting to kill Americans, too. Because it is seen as lack of resolve, proving to them that their ideal world (where infidels are killed for denying Islam, women for not covering their faces, and gays for existing) is coming, since the weak, corrupt west cannot even fight back.

False dichotomy.

You're assuming that the only possible responses to terrorism are either the full Bush doctrine with all its flaws or a Gandhi-esque total passivity.

 

[Darth Rotor]

So it would be nice to know which numerous Islamofascist states he meant

Fair enough, and I suspect Iran might be one such, being The Islamic Republic of Iran, and being run by an autocratic clique ... however, fascist is probably not the best descriptive ... unless you consider executing homosexuals for homosexual to be somewhat fascistic?

 

[Doubt]

Having Gitmo vs 'not fighting back' is a clear false dichotomy.

I agree.

The main problem of Gitmo is that it makes the US look like a bunch of hypocrites. We talk about equal protection under the law. Then when things became difficult, the Bush administration tried to create a new status for people we have problems with.

There are some very bad people at Gitmo. They should have either been put into the US criminal justice system or kept as POW's. There was no need to try and create a gray area to hold people indefinitely, which appears to be the original intention.

The other big problem is the interrogation methods used there also violated long standing principles of how we are supposed to treat captives. Tossing out the army manual and adopting techniques from escape and evasion training was pretty stupid. Those techniques were copied from North Korea and used there to elicit false confessions from US soldiers. They were not intended to get accurate information.

The abuses of Gtimo end up being used as propaganda to support the enemies of the US. To call Gitmo a cause of terrorism is not very useful for anyone. It is, however, a case of handing the enemy extra fuel they can use but don't really need to keep the fires of discontent burning.

 

[Praktik]

The abuses of Gtimo end up being used as propaganda to support the enemies of the US. To call Gitmo a cause of terrorism is not very useful for anyone. It is, however, a case of handing the enemy extra fuel they can use but don't really need to keep the fires of discontent burning.

Yes. On top of the questions of the practical effectiveness of torture and detainee policy generally, its more an issue of it being a useless and avoidable "freebie" given to the enemy.

 

[Brainster]

I agree.

The main problem of Gitmo is that it makes the US look like a bunch of hypocrites. We talk about equal protection under the law. Then when things became difficult, the Bush administration tried to create a new status for people we have problems with.

There are some very bad people at Gitmo. They should have either been put into the US criminal justice system or kept as POW's. There was no need to try and create a gray area to hold people indefinitely, which appears to be the original intention.

And yet, Obama disagrees with you on this issue, as did Bush. Indeed, the sole difference that I can see is that Obama's proposing to keep them indefinitely inside the United States.

 

[Praktik]

Yes. Obama is making mistakes too. Though indefenite detention is perhaps not as much of a galvanizer as torture was. Its more of a stark demonstration of the selective application of purported American "values".