Originally posted by whack:
Talking about conspiracy and terrorist attacks as pretext for war, did WW1 start off that way? History does repeat itself.
Some argued that the revolutionary Black Hand society (backed by the Serbian military), assassinated Duke Ferdinand, the heir to the Austrian throne, in Serbia. The Serbs knew that Russia would be forced to come to their aid once the Austrians started rattling their swords. And look what happened
well true, but the situation now is not as straightforward as that time. no state is actually bound by treaty to go to war for anyone else's sake now and u can't actually pin the blame on a specific country.
they seem to be trying to do that with iraq, but i really don't think that the world would be a better place once saddam hussein is removed.
terrorist now is transnational. its not just countries supporting maniacs to further their interests, but terrorists acquiring their own substantial resources to exert influence in people and nations in a manner that would've been impossible 100 years ago.
so while it might seem that
someone might be supporting terrorism, we gotta bear in mind that they may not be the only ones and that terrorists are well capable of supporting themselves without the backing of states as well...
many people have been saying that the root of the problem is not the taliban, al q or osama, but the perception that the USA is oppressing and exploiting muslims.
there is certainly the perception that sg is no friend of islam to many people... so i think the JI would be just as willing to work alone with or without any support from foreign gov'ts. its just too easy to pin the blame on a country cos its right there, but terrorism is not just a tangible organisational entity; it is a psychological tendency.
but i still think that the JI was was strangled while still in its infancy. we give them too much credit if we think that they got
so close... objectively speaking, they never stood a chance.[/i]