Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Why do THEY hate US?

Why do THEY hate US?
Thread Tools
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2004, 02:33 AM
 
Consider these posts as my way of introducing you to yourself.

Proud "SMACKDOWN!!" and "Golden Troll" Award Winner.
     
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Torrance by day, Pasadena by night
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2004, 05:04 AM
 
Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0927/p1s1-wogi.html
Interesting read, but why not go back to the time frame when the article was written, right after 9/11 and ask yourself (assuming you're an american) if you gave a flying f*ck about about anyone but America after those a-holes did what they did. Anything written in that article holds zero weight as far as what THEY think of us after what happened in NYC and Washington on 9/11. I know that the majority of muslims are not fanatical murderers, but bin laden has made it difficult to almost impossible for non-muslim westerners to trust muslims.

You gotta tame the beast before you let it out of its cage.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2004, 06:14 AM
 
The support for osama in the backwards muslim world is significant, and any exchange of words with those types is wasted, and their grievances, opinions etc. are 100% irrelevant. Any negotiations should be through the barrel of a gun. Al-Qaeda and it's followers will be destroyed and that is non-negotiable. We're busy fighting a war here, not trying to suck up to a bunch of fanatical people who hate us anyhow. There is a huge problem in their messed up religion, and they need to sort that crap out. The dark ages ended a long time ago. For every single day that passes, I am becoming less and less tolerant towards the religion of peace™, and it's not just me I bet.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2004, 06:54 AM
 
Originally posted by PacHead:
The support for osama in the backwards muslim world is significant, and any exchange of words with those types is wasted, and their grievances, opinions etc. are 100% irrelevant. Any negotiations should be through the barrel of a gun. Al-Qaeda and it's followers will be destroyed and that is non-negotiable. We're busy fighting a war here, not trying to suck up to a bunch of fanatical people who hate us anyhow. There is a huge problem in their messed up religion, and they need to sort that crap out. The dark ages ended a long time ago. For every single day that passes, I am becoming less and less tolerant towards the religion of peace™, and it's not just me I bet.
Blessed are the peacemakers.
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: NOT America!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2004, 08:29 AM
 
Originally posted by PacHead:
The support for osama in the backwards muslim world is significant, and any exchange of words with those types is wasted, and their grievances, opinions etc. are 100% irrelevant. Any negotiations should be through the barrel of a gun. Al-Qaeda and it's followers will be destroyed and that is non-negotiable. We're busy fighting a war here, not trying to suck up to a bunch of fanatical people who hate us anyhow. There is a huge problem in their messed up religion, and they need to sort that crap out. The dark ages ended a long time ago. For every single day that passes, I am becoming less and less tolerant towards the religion of peace™, and it's not just me I bet.
These people are Americans. Don't expect anything meaningful or... uh... normalcy...
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2004, 08:47 AM
 
Originally posted by PacHead:
The support for osama in the backwards muslim world is significant, and any exchange of words with those types is wasted, and their grievances, opinions etc. are 100% irrelevant. Any negotiations should be through the barrel of a gun. Al-Qaeda and it's followers will be destroyed and that is non-negotiable. We're busy fighting a war here, not trying to suck up to a bunch of fanatical people who hate us anyhow. There is a huge problem in their messed up religion, and they need to sort that crap out. The dark ages ended a long time ago. For every single day that passes, I am becoming less and less tolerant towards the religion of peace™, and it's not just me I bet.

...and the view from the trailer park crowd is in! Back to you Bob.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Working. What about you?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2004, 09:49 AM
 
LOVE that sig, aberdeenwriter!

Great article too.



     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mt. Ararat, chillin' with Noah in the Ark's broken hull.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2004, 10:05 AM
 
Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
Blessed are the peacemakers.
They're blessed because their dead bodies have been consecrated by the holy men. The men who whack the terrorists and keep the free world safe are mostly alive because they still have plenty of work to do.

All-seeing and all-knowing since 2000 B.C.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2004, 10:25 AM
 
Isn't that article kinda old?
Put it in the post-9/11 perspective.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2004, 11:37 AM
 
"WHY RADICAL MUSLIMS HATE YOU"

http://www.probe.org/docs/rad-muslims.html
Consider these posts as my way of introducing you to yourself.

Proud "SMACKDOWN!!" and "Golden Troll" Award Winner.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2004, 11:43 AM
 
Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
LOVE that sig, aberdeenwriter!

Great article too.



LOL!

Thanks Cody Dawg!

I credited YOU for it on the "Muslims are the main perpetrators of violence" thread. Why don't I give you credit in the sig? Would it be ok with you?

Consider these posts as my way of introducing you to yourself.

Proud "SMACKDOWN!!" and "Golden Troll" Award Winner.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2004, 12:07 PM
 
—————————————————————————————
ATTACK ON AMERICA: AN ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVE
Professor Ali Khan
Washburn University School of Law
JURIST Guest Columnist

9/17/01

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew29.htm

"Once the grief has subsided and the pain is a little more bearable, Americans are most likely to ask: “Why did they do it? ” There will be plenty of answers. Some will suggest that Islam breeds terrorism. Some will defend Islam but criticize fundamentalism. Some will doubt whether the terrorists were “real Muslims at heart.” Others will focus on the clash of civilizations. Still others will argue that ‘they hate us for what we stand for.” No one answer can fully capture the motives and the context that might have prompted the September Calamity. In this short commentary, I would like to provide a few insights into the phenomenon of Islamic terrorism."


Here's another article wrtten shortly after 9/11...

"Eleven things to Know About the Middle East and Arabs"

http://www.mpfweb.org/91101_zunes.html

11. How have most Middle Eastern governments reacted to the September 11 terrorist attacks and their aftermath?

Virtually every government and the vast majority of their populations reacted with the same horror and revulsion as did people in the United States, Europe and elsewhere. Despite scenes shown repeatedly on U.S. television of some Palestinians celebrating the attacks, the vast majorityof Palestinians also shared in the world's condemnation.

If the United States, in conjunction with local governments, limits its military response to commando-style operations against suspected terrorist cells, the U.S. should receive the cooperation and support of most Middle Eastern countries. If the response is more widespread, based more on retaliation than self-defense, and ends up killing large numbers of Muslim civilians, it could create a major anti-American reaction which would increase support for the terrorists and lessen the likelihood for the needed cooperation to break up the Al-Qaeda network, which operates in several Middle Eastern countries.

While few Middle Easterners support bin Laden's methods, the principal concerns expressed in his manifestoes -- the U.S.'s wrongful support for Israel and for Arab dictatorships, the disruptive presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia and the humanitarian impact of the sanctions on Iraq -- are widely supported. Ultimately, a greater understanding of the Middle East and the concerns of its governments and peoples are necessary before the United States can feel secure from an angry backlash from the region.
Consider these posts as my way of introducing you to yourself.

Proud "SMACKDOWN!!" and "Golden Troll" Award Winner.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2004, 12:10 PM
 
Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Isn't that article kinda old?
Put it in the post-9/11 perspective.
What would have changed since 9/11?
Consider these posts as my way of introducing you to yourself.

Proud "SMACKDOWN!!" and "Golden Troll" Award Winner.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2004, 12:14 PM
 
Originally posted by The Oracle:
They're blessed because their dead bodies have been consecrated by the holy men. The men who whack the terrorists and keep the free world safe are mostly alive because they still have plenty of work to do.
Are you arguing that people who continue working past age 65 or get involved in a hobby, live longer? I have seen that study also.
Consider these posts as my way of introducing you to yourself.

Proud "SMACKDOWN!!" and "Golden Troll" Award Winner.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2004, 01:42 PM
 
Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
What would have changed since 9/11?
Well, this article was written in that September while pretty much everyone was still in a state of shock.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2004, 02:38 PM
 
Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Well, this article was written in that September while pretty much everyone was still in a state of shock.
True. The article states: "And voices across the Muslim world are warning that if America doesn't wage its war on terrorism in a way that the Muslim world considers just, America risks creating even greater animosity."

If you are saying the level of violence and hate directed at the US has increased since 9/11, you are right.

If you are looking for something which explains why they hate us TODAY, it tells me that you nor many Americans "get it."

This is not meant as a personal attack on you, but some of the reasons for their hate were made clear in that article and not much has changed. Except we have created more terrorists.

You have probably heard people say, 'The US got what they deserved.' I don't agree with that expression. But I do suggest we should look at our own actions and performance for an answer.

A football team that keeps getting beaten because of penalties can rail at the officials, they can increase their own offense and defense. But if they ALSO worked on eliminating penalties, they'd have even MORE success.

I think President Bush's plan to catch or kill the terrorists, squash their havens and eliminate the terror schools is necessary.

Once we change our foreign policy, we'll be doing everything we have to do to win.
Consider these posts as my way of introducing you to yourself.

Proud "SMACKDOWN!!" and "Golden Troll" Award Winner.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2004, 02:41 PM
 
Once we change our foreign policy to appease the terrorists, there will be more demands made by terrorists - because their threats will then become effective at changing our foreign policy.

If your demand is met with satisfaction, you'll make another demand.

If your demand is met with rockets from Apache gunships, then you stop making demands because you're dead.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2004, 02:48 PM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Once we change our foreign policy to appease the terrorists, there will be more demands made by terrorists - because their threats will then become effective at changing our foreign policy.

If your demand is met with satisfaction, you'll make another demand.

If your demand is met with rockets from Apache gunships, then you stop making demands because you're dead.
Whateeeeeever.

Just keep up the good work
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2004, 02:54 PM
 
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2004, 03:19 PM
 
Originally posted by PacHead:
The support for osama in the backwards muslim world is significant, and any exchange of words with those types is wasted, and their grievances, opinions etc. are 100% irrelevant. Any negotiations should be through the barrel of a gun. Al-Qaeda and it's followers will be destroyed and that is non-negotiable. We're busy fighting a war here, not trying to suck up to a bunch of fanatical people who hate us anyhow. There is a huge problem in their messed up religion, and they need to sort that crap out. The dark ages ended a long time ago. For every single day that passes, I am becoming less and less tolerant towards the religion of peace™, and it's not just me I bet.
Quoting myself, here...

"A football team that keeps getting beaten because of penalties can rail at the officials, they can increase their own offense and defense. But if they ALSO worked on eliminating penalties, they'd have even MORE success."

Yup, let's go get em. Let's strengthen our homeland security. But let's also look at what we're doing to help perpetuate terrorism.

Do you think we don't have anything to do with causing terrorism?

Quoting from a neo-con source,

"While few Middle Easterners support bin Laden's methods, the principal concerns expressed in his manifestoes -- the U.S.'s wrongful support for Israel and for Arab dictatorships, the disruptive presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia and the humanitarian impact of the sanctions on Iraq -- are widely supported. Ultimately, a greater understanding of the Middle East and the concerns of its governments and peoples are necessary before the United States can feel secure from an angry backlash from the region."

I'm NOT saying we shouldn't support Israel. Far from it!

I have ALWAYS been in favor of our healthy and continued support for Israel. (BTW, how many of us know that US financial aid didn't really get going until 1967? Before that, France had been Israels' main benefactor.)

BUT...

Could we look at how our support helps perpetuate terrorism?
Could we question our support for Arab dictatorships - which is FAR from our stated goals of promoting freedom and democracy!
Could we be sensitive to how American troops in Saudi Arabia is considered a "disruptive presence?"

Yes.

Would that be a wasted effort? 100% irrelevent? Sucking up?

Pac Head, I am becoming more and more convinced you will see a different perspective, one day. It's clear to me, based on your willingness to keep addressing the subject, that you are committed to grow in this area, (and using your own words) "and it's not just me I bet."
Consider these posts as my way of introducing you to yourself.

Proud "SMACKDOWN!!" and "Golden Troll" Award Winner.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2004, 03:22 PM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Once we change our foreign policy to appease the terrorists, there will be more demands made by terrorists - because their threats will then become effective at changing our foreign policy.

If your demand is met with satisfaction, you'll make another demand.

If your demand is met with rockets from Apache gunships, then you stop making demands because you're dead.
How about a debate?

Just you and me?
---------------------------------------------------------------
After reading the article posted by Zimphire:
http://www.policyreview.org/AUG02/harris.html

You will understand why I no longer feel the need to debate you, Spliffdaddy.

I withdraw the challenge.
( Last edited by aberdeenwriter; Sep 19, 2004 at 05:24 PM. )
Consider these posts as my way of introducing you to yourself.

Proud "SMACKDOWN!!" and "Golden Troll" Award Winner.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2004, 03:46 PM
 
     
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2004, 04:04 PM
 
Originally posted by Nicko:
...and the view from the trailer park crowd is in! Back to you Bob.
Nope, that is the view from a person who has never ever set foot in any trailer park. That is the view of a person who has read tons on the subject, and that is my conclusion.

Childish replies, and silly attempts at insults/putdowns only reflect upon your own complete lack of knowledge regarding the subject.

You may now crawl back into your mud hut.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2004, 04:06 PM
 
Originally posted by gerbnl:
ADD is a serious matter, not to be taken lightly. I suggest you get it looked into soon.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2004, 04:10 PM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Once we change our foreign policy to appease the terrorists, there will be more demands made by terrorists - because their threats will then become effective at changing our foreign policy.

If your demand is met with satisfaction, you'll make another demand.

If your demand is met with rockets from Apache gunships, then you stop making demands because you're dead.
You are right.

Appeasing America gave no results so far.
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2004, 04:18 PM
 
Originally posted by angaq0k:
You are right.

Appeasing America gave no results so far.
Who is appeasing ? The people who have been waging war and killing Americans for decades ? You call this appeasement ?

You might want to look up appeasement in the dictionary, since you obviously don't know the true meaning.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2004, 05:19 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
http://www.policyreview.org/AUG02/harris.html
Words seem inadequate to describe the impact of this article.

Zimphire, I thank you for bringing it to our attention.

WITHOUT A DOUBT, THIS ARTICLE GIVES THE BEST EXPLANATION FOR 9/11 AND ISLAMIC TERRORISM I HAVE EVER READ.

In view of this information I am amending my views presented in previous posts regarding the reasons for terrorism.

Furthermore, I am now firmly convinced that George W. Bush clearly represents America's best choice to be President for the next four years.

I will be voting for President Bush on Nov. 2.

Again, Zimphire, much thanks!
( Last edited by aberdeenwriter; Sep 19, 2004 at 05:34 PM. )
Consider these posts as my way of introducing you to yourself.

Proud "SMACKDOWN!!" and "Golden Troll" Award Winner.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2004, 05:21 PM
 
You are a strange guy aberdeenwriter
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2004, 05:26 PM
 
Originally posted by voodoo:
You are a strange guy aberdeenwriter
voodoo, did you read the article Zimphire posted?

http://www.policyreview.org/AUG02/harris.html
Consider these posts as my way of introducing you to yourself.

Proud "SMACKDOWN!!" and "Golden Troll" Award Winner.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2004, 05:45 PM
 
Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
voodoo, did you read the article Zimphire posted?

http://www.policyreview.org/AUG02/harris.html
Yes actually I did.

It was uh not very convincing to me. It touted that whatever we (the US) has done 9/11 was worse so thinking about why doesn't matter. Childish, naive and pathetic.

Your wrong was worse than mine so I'll fight you back and not think about what I did wrong.

I don't subscribe to such things, mostly because it goes against my alignment and religion. Fighting back isn't out of the question and I think it was justified against Afghanistan who would not release OBL - the criminal terrorist that had to be caught. Except not anymore of course (according to Bush).

It is all too juvinile and shallow (like that Montezuma vs. Cortéz comparison in the beginning which is an analogy that has nothing to do with 911)

I can appreciate that you want to be turned to Bush for whatever reason, but I didn't make my decision lightly. I have thought long and hard and I see many good things about Bush but I see more bad. Mind you I'm only looking at things from an outside perspective. Glancing at the domestic failures of Bush there wouldn't be a shadow of doubt in my mind that he had to go and go now if I lived and worked in the US.

Anyway the article was not very convincing unless you wanted to buy the argument that the past doesn't matter because what they did was worse than what we did. That is something I'm not prepared to do.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2004, 06:37 PM
 
Originally posted by voodoo:
Yes actually I did.

It was uh not very convincing to me. It touted that whatever we (the US) has done 9/11 was worse so thinking about why doesn't matter. Childish, naive and pathetic.

Your wrong was worse than mine so I'll fight you back and not think about what I did wrong.

I don't subscribe to such things, mostly because it goes against my alignment and religion. Fighting back isn't out of the question and I think it was justified against Afghanistan who would not release OBL - the criminal terrorist that had to be caught. Except not anymore of course (according to Bush).

It is all too juvinile and shallow (like that Montezuma vs. Cortéz comparison in the beginning which is an analogy that has nothing to do with 911)

I can appreciate that you want to be turned to Bush for whatever reason, but I didn't make my decision lightly. I have thought long and hard and I see many good things about Bush but I see more bad. Mind you I'm only looking at things from an outside perspective. Glancing at the domestic failures of Bush there wouldn't be a shadow of doubt in my mind that he had to go and go now if I lived and worked in the US.

Anyway the article was not very convincing unless you wanted to buy the argument that the past doesn't matter because what they did was worse than what we did. That is something I'm not prepared to do.
voodoo,

I appreciate your point of view, having enjoyed that same perspective for almost seven months.

After reading the essay, contrary to your impression, I was left with the conclusion there is nothing we can do to rid ourselves of the worldwide epidemic of terrorism except treat it as we would a medical epidemic.

You aggressively eliminate it.

My bottom line hope for the next 4 years is peace and security.

The Bush Administration hasn't been perfect. No administration ever is. And despite a list of real or imagined flaws and missteps, he has 4 years experience, which gives hope for a second term.

Also, I don't think the Kerry camp has the same committment to what I now see as VITAL in the WOT -- a dogged, thoroughly aggressive approach to wiping out the terrorism.

No, I don't like many of the things Bush has done or not done. Yes, I still feel his Administration has manipulated us, but here we are now. Where do we go from here?

If Kerry were to better spell out his WOT plan and it made me feel as comfortable as Bush's he might get my vote.

With Bush, I may have to hold my nose when I vote, but I trust, by doing so, I'll still have a nose to hold in 2008.

I'm sorry you weren't able to glean from the essay the truths that are SO mind blowing to me!

I recognize your intelligence and perhaps you already knew this stuff.

Consider these posts as my way of introducing you to yourself.

Proud "SMACKDOWN!!" and "Golden Troll" Award Winner.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2004, 06:49 PM
 
A lot of people really dislike that article. It hits too close to the mark. And it doesn't blame America for all of it!

It explains the thought process behind a lot of "protesters" as well.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Placerville, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2004, 07:32 PM
 
     
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2004, 07:54 PM
 
Originally posted by deedar:
Another perspective.
That was good. I had never heard of Zakaria, so I read some of his other articles. Good stuff.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2004, 01:25 AM
 
Originally posted by deedar:
Another perspective.
Interesting highlight from this article (which it seems dates from 10-15-2001. juging by the URL).

'Al Qaeda is not more powerful than the combined force of many determined governments. The world is indeed uniting around American leadership, and perhaps we will see the emergence, for a while, of a new global community and consensus, which could bring progress in many other areas of international life.'

Man, have things changed since that 'crusade' in Iraq.....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2004, 02:25 AM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
A lot of people really dislike that article. It hits too close to the mark. And it doesn't blame America for all of it!

It explains the thought process behind a lot of "protesters" as well.
I can't thank you enough for bringing it to us!

Why would someone dislike something that enlightens them???

That's one of the things I liked about Kerry. New information brought about new understandings and he responded/voted accordingly.

Anyway, it's a brilliant essay.
Consider these posts as my way of introducing you to yourself.

Proud "SMACKDOWN!!" and "Golden Troll" Award Winner.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Placerville, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2004, 02:43 AM
 
Originally posted by villalobos:
Interesting highlight from this article (which it seems dates from 10-15-2001. juging by the URL).

'Al Qaeda is not more powerful than the combined force of many determined governments. The world is indeed uniting around American leadership, and perhaps we will see the emergence, for a while, of a new global community and consensus, which could bring progress in many other areas of international life.'

Man, have things changed since that 'crusade' in Iraq.....

They sure have, haven't they....
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2004, 03:43 AM
 
Not in the way you are projecting of course deedar.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2004, 07:22 AM
 
Reading minds eh Zimp
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2004, 07:28 AM
 
People who aren't afraid, paranoid, insecure, full of hate, xenophobic and ready to honestly do something constructive exist in the US. Their general tendancy will be to vote for Kerry. The others, those who want to believe in endless terrorism they'll vote Bush.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2004, 08:04 AM
 
I've been thinking about this, and I'm not entirely sure that bin Laden and his ilk actually hate the US. On the contrary, I almost find myself wondering if they like us, and hate themselves for it, so they lash out.

No, really; think about it. It is often said that the most vehement homophobes tend to actually be gay themselves, and lash out as a form of denial. This certainly doesn't hold true for all, but it does for enough that the stereotype has at least a little validity. It's a matter of public record that in the months before 9/11, the hijackers indulged in strip clubs, booze, and many other things forbidden by Islam but easily-available here. This smacks of hypocrisy in a lot of ways, because whatever bin Laden has to say about the foreign policy of the US, he also has many condemning words for its culture as well.

American culture is, for good or for ill (and probably both if the truth be known), extremely seductive. That's the whole root of the "McWorld" phenomenon at the center of its own anti-US backlash. For all this talk of "cultural imperialism", the US doesn't actually force its culture on anyone: other people (and peoples) partake of it because they want it, on some level or other. Even those who decry its faults -of which there are many, don't get me wrong- tend to be steeped in the stuff, and the louder the outcry the more "decadence" is often found.

Is it hypocritical? I suppose so. But either way, it's worth noting that the hijackers were fully immersed in many of the seediest aspects of American culture, aspects which even most Americans aren't terribly proud of. Perhaps 9/11 is the most extreme form of what happens when someone finds themselves loving something in spite of themselves? If this is true, does it make any difference, and if so, what? I'm not interested in finding a "root cause", as I believe such a thing to be irrelevant in the face of killing innocents. Nevertheless, it would be an interesting phenomenon to examine.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2004, 08:28 AM
 
Originally posted by Millennium:
I've been thinking about this, and I'm not entirely sure that bin Laden and his ilk actually hate the US. On the contrary, I almost find myself wondering if they like us, and hate themselves for it, so they lash out.

No, really; think about it. It is often said that the most vehement homophobes tend to actually be gay themselves, and lash out as a form of denial. This certainly doesn't hold true for all, but it does for enough that the stereotype has at least a little validity. It's a matter of public record that in the months before 9/11, the hijackers indulged in strip clubs, booze, and many other things forbidden by Islam but easily-available here. This smacks of hypocrisy in a lot of ways, because whatever bin Laden has to say about the foreign policy of the US, he also has many condemning words for its culture as well.

American culture is, for good or for ill (and probably both if the truth be known), extremely seductive. That's the whole root of the "McWorld" phenomenon at the center of its own anti-US backlash. For all this talk of "cultural imperialism", the US doesn't actually force its culture on anyone: other people (and peoples) partake of it because they want it, on some level or other. Even those who decry its faults -of which there are many, don't get me wrong- tend to be steeped in the stuff, and the louder the outcry the more "decadence" is often found.

Is it hypocritical? I suppose so. But either way, it's worth noting that the hijackers were fully immersed in many of the seediest aspects of American culture, aspects which even most Americans aren't terribly proud of. Perhaps 9/11 is the most extreme form of what happens when someone finds themselves loving something in spite of themselves? If this is true, does it make any difference, and if so, what? I'm not interested in finding a "root cause", as I believe such a thing to be irrelevant in the face of killing innocents. Nevertheless, it would be an interesting phenomenon to examine.
Very good thoughts Millennium! I hadn't thought about it this way and you raise very good points. I respect it very much when people sit down and think for themselves instead of letting op-eds rule their opinions.

The world needs more people like that.

I haven't reached a conclusion as to why 'they hate us' and perhaps that is because they don't actually hate us as much as they hate themselves for being tempted by the western culture. OBL is from a rich Saudi family so he was raised under heavy influence of western culture. Maybe he hated (I think he's dead see) himself for liking it too much.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2004, 08:50 AM
 
Originally posted by Millennium:
I've been thinking about this, and I'm not entirely sure that bin Laden and his ilk actually hate the US. On the contrary, I almost find myself wondering if they like us, and hate themselves for it, so they lash out.

No, really; think about it. It is often said that the most vehement homophobes tend to actually be gay themselves, and lash out as a form of denial. This certainly doesn't hold true for all, but it does for enough that the stereotype has at least a little validity. It's a matter of public record that in the months before 9/11, the hijackers indulged in strip clubs, booze, and many other things forbidden by Islam but easily-available here. This smacks of hypocrisy in a lot of ways, because whatever bin Laden has to say about the foreign policy of the US, he also has many condemning words for its culture as well.

American culture is, for good or for ill (and probably both if the truth be known), extremely seductive. That's the whole root of the "McWorld" phenomenon at the center of its own anti-US backlash. For all this talk of "cultural imperialism", the US doesn't actually force its culture on anyone: other people (and peoples) partake of it because they want it, on some level or other. Even those who decry its faults -of which there are many, don't get me wrong- tend to be steeped in the stuff, and the louder the outcry the more "decadence" is often found.

Is it hypocritical? I suppose so. But either way, it's worth noting that the hijackers were fully immersed in many of the seediest aspects of American culture, aspects which even most Americans aren't terribly proud of. Perhaps 9/11 is the most extreme form of what happens when someone finds themselves loving something in spite of themselves? If this is true, does it make any difference, and if so, what? I'm not interested in finding a "root cause", as I believe such a thing to be irrelevant in the face of killing innocents. Nevertheless, it would be an interesting phenomenon to examine.
VERY interesting observation. There's much to it that rings true.

In relation to Lee Harris' contention that there is an Islamic terrorist fantasy ideology, I can imagine the 9/11 jackoffs going out to a strip club and boozing it up the night before, then getting up that terrible morning and saying to themselves, "well, it's time to play dungeons and dragons," then going off into infamy and oblivion.

Such a duality can't easily exist in someone without a modicum of intelligence and education...the more simple minded terrorist would either bail out of their terrorist mission and try to live the seductive good life here in the "Great Satan" or they'd forego the decadent temptations during the planning and build up and remain true to their "ideal."

Yeah, Milennium, that love/hate thing makes sense if OBL & Co.
wanted to remove the temptation so he could more easily stay true to his evil, misguided belief.

Minor point: The US doesn't force our culture on anyone, we leave that to our big American multi-national corporations.

Extension of that point to make another minor point: In the Zen Jihad (Hitler/Bush) thread, there's a mention of USMC icon, Gen. Smedly Butler saying that wars were rackets (or something to that effect) because every war he fought was, ultimately, to make it safe for US corporations to expand their business interests in the contested lands.
Consider these posts as my way of introducing you to yourself.

Proud "SMACKDOWN!!" and "Golden Troll" Award Winner.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2004, 10:56 AM
 
Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
After reading the essay, contrary to your impression, I was left with the conclusion there is nothing we can do to rid ourselves of the worldwide epidemic of terrorism except treat it as we would a medical epidemic.

You aggressively eliminate it.

My bottom line hope for the next 4 years is peace and security.

The Bush Administration hasn't been perfect. No administration ever is. And despite a list of real or imagined flaws and missteps, he has 4 years experience, which gives hope for a second term.

Also, I don't think the Kerry camp has the same committment to what I now see as VITAL in the WOT -- a dogged, thoroughly aggressive approach to wiping out the terrorism.
A few things on this.

1) Who do you see as the terrorists that have to be eliminated?
2) How will you know when they have been beaten?
3) Why is George Bush better qualified despite the mistakes you acknowledge to deal with terrorism than Kerry is?

If you really want to know about facing terrorism, you shouldn't be reading essays written by neoconservative academics like Kagan or by guys like Harris who come from countries that have only just started thinking about terrorism. The rest of the world has been dealing with terrorism for centuries. Have a look at a random set of examples and you will see that all countries go through the same cycle of violence. The initial reaction is to use violence against the terrorists. This normally starts with increasingly brutal police action followed by military action. No one wins in this phase. Lots of terrorists die, lots of civilians die, people spend lots of time being scared. Then finally, someone proposes negotiation with the terrorists or starts addressing their concerns mero motu. Gradually the support base of the terrorists is diminished until it is only a few fundamentalists who still support it. They are forced to negotiate because their support base become so small that they have no room to manouever. Eventually they disappear into the political spectrum. That's the way it always works.

Look at South Africa. The apartheid government with the blessing of the United States and the United Kingdom, took the violence to the ANC, PAC and SACP terrorists for 30 years and it got them nowhere. They slaughtered "terrorists" in Angola, Botswana and Zimbabwe, they oppressed and jailed ANC members in the country, they installed metal detectors in every shopping centre, prevented blacks from being on the streets in towns after dark and still the attacks continued. In Northern Ireland, no amount of brutality applied by the English could stop the IRA's attacks. On the other end of the scale look at Chechnya or Palestine were unbridalled overwhelming force has done nothing to quell the terrorist threat. In Palestine it's been going on for 50 years and the Israelis are no closer to beating terrorism than they ever were. If you look at a graph of number of suicide bombers and transpose over that a negotiation timetable, you'll see that when the Israelis were negotiating honestly with the Palstinians (just before Rabin's assassination), terrorist attacks were at an all time low. And when the military was most brutal, the response was most brutal. Today, female law students are prepared to strap explosives to themselves. You can't stop that sort of groundswell even if you live in the kind of security paradigm that Israel has. Somewhere in between the two extremes are the Basque terrorists, ETA. ETA used to have quite a broad support base. Violence applied by Spain and France only increased their support. It was only when Spain started recognising some of their demands that the ETA base was weakened. They now have a Basque Parliament for example and recently when ETA was accused of responsibility for the Madrid bombings Basques took to the streets in their droves to protest. They increasingly turn in the radicals and ETA is becoming increasingly part of the mainstream political process.

And those are relatively big groups we're talking about. Eliminating Una Bomber type terrorism is almost entirely impossible.Some nutjob with a bag of fertiliser is always going to be able to blow up government buildings. Crazy people with access to anthrax are always going to be able to mail it to all and sundry.

You can fragment big organisations like Al Qaeda by attacking them and certainly there is a role for violence in dealing with terrorists. But what you cannot afford to do is to be so brutal as to increase the base support for the organisation. You must be seen to be addressing some of the more legitimate demands. If you don't, you lose the moral high ground and you validate the terrorists' cause at least for that part of the community that they appeal to. George Bush's binary logic has had this effect. His refusal to see problems as anything but black and white, good vs evil dichotomies, has increased the terrorist threat to the US. Invading Iraq unilaterally was the worst possible thing he could have done in terms of inspiring terrorism. At a time when OBL's ideas had the most currency, Bush validated the criticism by interfering in another Arab country, deposing a regime, selling off state-owned assets illegally, torturing the people etc. Post 9/11 was the worst possible time to go about building the New American Century through conquest of the ME. The kind of "terrorism" you face now in Iraq cannot be vanquished because it comes from a place where violence applied to the problem will have precisely the opposite effect to that intended. Just as it does in Chechnya or Palestine.

What really surprises me is that you acknowledge that Bush has made mistakes but you think he has learned from them and will fix them in his next 4 years. For three years all he has done is make mistakes, try to block attempts to reform systems for dealing with terrorism and make more mistakes. Why do you think he'll suddenly turn it around now? What evidence you have of Bush learning from his mistakes and changin? I thought Kerry was the flip flopper. What happened to accountability? If bad Presidents get one term to learn from their mistakes and a second to make good on them, what's the point of having one four year term? Third, Bush was not elected on the basis of his ability to handle terrorism. It wasn't an issue in 2000. And by your own admission Bush ignored terrorism for the first 9 months of his presidency. Now everyone has a plan for dealing with terrorism. Do you not think Kerry is infinitely better prepared to deal with terrorism than Bush was on 9/10/2001? If Bush got you this far in 4 years, why don't you think Kerry can get you further? I just think too many people accept the nationalism and flag waving of the Republicans and think that Bush is your man for dealing with terrorists. Bush's record doesn't back that up.
( Last edited by Troll; Sep 20, 2004 at 11:04 AM. )
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2004, 11:01 AM
 
"Then finally, someone proposes negotiation with the terrorists or starts addressing their concerns mero motu. Gradually the support base of the terrorists is diminished until it is only a few fundamentalists who still support it. They are forced to negotiate because their support base become so small that they have no room to manouever. Eventually they disappear into the political spectrum. That's the way it always works."

^This is what's called 'appeasement'.

If "that's the way it always works", then why haven't terrorists been eliminated?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2004, 11:13 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
"Then finally, someone proposes negotiation with the terrorists or starts addressing their concerns mero motu. Gradually the support base of the terrorists is diminished until it is only a few fundamentalists who still support it. They are forced to negotiate because their support base become so small that they have no room to manouever. Eventually they disappear into the political spectrum. That's the way it always works."

^This is what's called 'appeasement'.

If "that's the way it always works", then why haven't terrorists been eliminated?
It's not appeasement because you are trying to convert the people that aren't yet violent. I don't care actually what you want to call it anyway. When you can show me a case where terrorists were beaten through violence, then you might have empirical evidence that Bush's strategy as presented in that essay will work. The point is that you don't have to deal with all of the terrorists demands, but you have to deal with enough that you stem the groundswell. When OBL stands up and says, "Look at how the Americans oppress and kill our people. We are going make them pay," a few people will say, "He has a point. Let's join Al Qaeda." When you unilaterally and illegally invade an Arab country and start killing and torturing their people and doing the sorts of thing the US is doing in Iraq, a lot more people start saying, "Sh1t, OBL has a point. They're coming to get us. We'd better resist." And they go off and join groups opposed to the US or develop weapons to counter the US.

If Bush tells his people, "Look, we are going to get the people responsible for this, but ONLY the people responsible for this," then he will have support from a large portion of the people the terrorists are appealing to. They will be more likely to help him than to help the terrorists. They will be less likely to become terrorists themselves.

This does work. The terrorists in South Africa have been eliminated. The IRA has largely disappeared. As I said, terrorism generally cannot be eliminated because we can't eliminate all of the psychopaths with bags of fertiliser or with a rifle in Washington. But we can address the big guys by wiping out their support base. That is done militarily and through addressing the problem at the root. You have to use military force far more carefully than Bush has.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2004, 11:48 AM
 
OK, let me see if I understand what you said....


Answering the demands of terrorists is not appeasement. It's something else. Although the definition remains intact either way.

If I were to take a school hostage and demand that a government change their policy or I'd kill everybody - then I earn the same sort of attention as a *real* elected leader of a nation?

YAY. Instead of just one vote, I can really make difference!

Sorry, there should be no concessions and no agreements with people (terrorists) who cheat to gain an advantage. They can ask again later when they become legitimate leaders of legitimate nations. If terrorists had widespread support for their agenda, they'd hold a position of legitimate governmental power over a nation. Right?

anyways,

So you're suggesting that we 'fix' all the things that 'breed' new terrorists - right?

I'm sure Americans will embrace their new Islamic government as they cast away the old capitalist 'Zionist' one in a bold effort to stop terrorism.

Im guessing if we stop being 'Western' then Bin Laden would simply find another reason we needed to die.

dmmt my keyboard batteris are deadand lettrs dont always wor. so ill finish this later.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2004, 12:00 PM
 
This is not meant as a personal attack on you, but some of the reasons for their hate were made clear in that article and not much has changed. Except we have created more terrorists.
We've not "created" more terrorists Aberdeen. We've stirred existing ones to action. When you support actions that are viewed as trying to eliminate a hive of bees, the bees will become stirred to action and begin stinging. You're not creating more bees by removing the hive, rather you are stirring the bees up. You may view this as a bad thing. I do not. US foreign policy is doing it on our time, not theirs. I urge you to really take a well-rounded read behind the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over the years. The "Zionist" has been demonized and anyone that supports the Zionist has been demonized as well. Has the US done everything right? No, but we still offer the lion-share of charity abroad. Problem is, that aide has not been allowed to reach the needy and our efforts to change the hearts and minds of the starving have been absorbed by dictatorial regimes who need dependents and oppression to thrust their agenda. Let's look at the history of Al Qaeda for a more educated view of why we're hated by the uneducated extremist Muslim community, but first-why do I say uneducated? Islam may not be the bastion of peace we've been taught to believe, but they're certainly not conducting their Jihad in accordance with doctrine. Instead of reading for themselves, they are being indoctinated. Sounds like man's historical bastardization of Christian doctrine to impose ideals upon another through fear and violence. Thankfully, we've been enlightened and empowered to educate ourselves and religious persecution is no longer prevalent in our society. That is not the case abroad unfortunately.

About the inception of Al Qaeda; The organization's primary goal is the overthrow of what it sees as the corrupt and heretical governments of Muslim states, and their replacement with the rule of Sharia (Islamic law). Does this allow for freedom of religion? Nope. Al-Qaida is intensely anti-Western, and views the United States in particular as the prime enemy of Islam. Why? Because we support any faction interested in propogating democracy. Democratic societies are more peaceful societies. Democratic societies embrace freedom of religion. It's no surprise to me why we're hated so vehemently. Bin Ladin has issued three "fatwahs" or religious rulings calling upon Muslims to take up arms against the United States. (see Bin Ladin’s Declaration of War).
Attempts to radicalize existing Islamic groups and create Islamic groups where none exist.
Advocates destruction of the United States, which is seen as the chief obstacle to reform in Muslim societies. Why? Freedom of religion. An option of choosing a religion other than Islam.
Supports terrorism in Afghanistan, Algeria, Bosnia, Chechnya, Eritera, Kosova, Pakistan, Somalia, Tajikistan and Yemen.
In February 1998, bin Ladin announced the formation of an umbrella organization called “The Islamic World Front for the struggle against the Jews and the Crusaders” Seems to me, Clinton was the president at the time and one of his primary focuses was making peace between the Israeli and the Palestinian. Sharon endured much scrutiny for bending so greatly in those attempts at peace yet failed anyway. Hmm, that was so effective it "caused" Bin Laden to augment his efforts of Jihad in 1998 and begin planning the 9/11 attacks. If it's not a religious dictatorship in the name of Allah and Islam, it's not acceptable. They will not stop fighting. In the interest of true peace, they must be eliminated.

You have probably heard people say, 'The US got what they deserved.' I don't agree with that expression. But I do suggest we should look at our own actions and performance for an answer.
We are heavily involved in propogating democracy. Democratic societies are more peaceful societies. Extremist Muslim societies are not. They do not embrace freedom for women. They do not embrace individual successes that afford the lay-person with power and influence. They do not embrace freedom of religion and worship. They do not embrace peace. They embrace Jihad. We can discuss the injustices of US foreign policy and we can discuss the injustices of human-nature in general. Not mutually exclusive BTW. In my view, these are already "known" (while many speculate) aspects of the history of man and will only serve to dissuade us from the daunting task of propogating democracy. Lamenting on one own's injustices only serves to weaken our resolve. It may seem "one-sided" to you. I call it focused. That said, there is no shortage of "nay-saying" and questioning of foreign policy here in the States. We live in a democratic society of checks and balances. Our media questions our motives. Our politicians question our motives. In fact, I've heard unprecedented, ad hominem attacks on Bush that fly in the face of respect for the Commander in Chief. Who is propogating violence? Look also to those who indict our own actions and performances for nothing more than a political leg up. We've got US senators calling our President a liar. This is unbelievable to me. If you don't see Bush undergoing scrutiny the likes of which no President to date has had to endure, you're not looking very hard.

In light of self-evaluation Aberdeen, I'm a little curious why you'd quote this individual;

Butler became a prominent political figure and was one of America’s important leaders of the liberal movement of the 1930s._ Butler advocated military isolationism and was against American involvement in World War II.

Though Butler was not a member of the American Communist Party he did give speeches at Communist Party meetings in the 1930s

I believe this is the sole reason why we do not allow men of this rank to hold less than a college education nowadays. That said, Butler was a remarkable man, truly decorated rightly, and his statements while painful are quite true, but only half the story. You see, capitalism lies at the core of democracy. Free market is thrust for democracy. We did not want to "own" these nations, we want to influence democracy within them for the betterment of Wall Street, them, You, and me. Regardless of what a few folks at the NYSE want, there are other reasons for war and these wars were supported by the majority of Americans not for banking institutions, but the larger picture. Propogating democracy. Democracies are more peaceful, productive societies. You may disagree with US foreign policy and believe financiers lie at the heart of the matter. I believe you are throwing the baby out with the bath-water and allowing nay-sayers to perhaps weaken your resolve.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2004, 01:42 PM
 
Originally posted by ebuddy:
We've not "created" more terrorists Aberdeen. We've stirred existing ones to action. When you support actions that are viewed as trying to eliminate a hive of bees, the bees will become stirred to action and begin stinging.
What actions has Bush taken to eliminate terrorists, where are these latent terrorists you talk about? Afghanistan is the only action I can think of that Bush has taken to address terrorism other than domestic steps which I doubt have had any effect on creating terrorists.

The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. The US didn't go into Iraq to get rid of terrorists or to topple a government that supported terrorism. But the invasion of Iraq has motivated thousands of Iraqis to become terrorists has it not? For the moment they are staying in Iraq but would you be surprised if the Insurgency attacked the US at home ... if they had the means?

The US Army says that 95% of the people they have captured for being involved in the Insurgency are Iraqis. You're saying those people that are out there setting IED's for passing GI's are latent terrorists that have been stirred to action. Is that what you're trying to say? Let me ask you this - if Iraq had invaded the US last year and you were now being occupied by Saddam Hussein do you not think some of your fellow Americans (you perhaps) would be motivated to fight back. Would you say those people were latent terrorists? On that argument the French Resistance were latent terrorists stirred to become terrorists by the German occupation of France.

Clearly there are a certain number of terrorists that are psychopaths. Just as a certain number of soldiers in the US Army are psychopaths, notably a bunch that worked at Abu Ghraib. But the vast majority are people doing what they think is right. What I'm saying is that you have to minimise the number of people that think that killing American civilians is right. You do this by persuading people that violence is not the answer and that Americans are not as bad as Al Qaeda portrays them. You persuade people that it's Al Qaeda that are wrong. You don't persuade Arabs that Al Qaeda have it all wrong by unilaterally invading Iraq.

As for your synopsis of Al Qaeda, one of their criticisms is that the US supports governments like Saudi Arabia's that deny freedoms to Arabs. You make out as if the US goes around the world giving freedom and democracy to everyone. That couldn't be further from the truth. US foreign policy in more cases than not involves anti-dmocratic behaviour. The US is far more interested in entrenching its own interests than it is in propagating democracy. Look at what happened at the Polytechnic in Athens (Sept 17 Movement), look at Israel (where's the democracy in Palestine), look at Saudi Arabia, look at Pakistan. Heck, look at Al Qaeda - the US funded the creation of Al Qaeda. OBL is the US's frankenstein.

But that's really irrelevant because my point is not that Al Qaeda makes reasonable demands or has reasonable ideals. You are stuck in a conflict mould, portraying some kind of apocalyptic clash between Islam and "us". As if Al Qaeda represents all of Islam! You have this us vs them mentality that casts all Arabs as terrorists that want to take your way of life away from you. The truth is that Arabs just want to be let be. Most of them aren't interested in getting back at the US. At all levels there is increasing resistance to US interference in ME affairs and US failure to act fairly with regard to Palestinians. Al Qaeda is the sharp end of the response. No one is suggesting that their ideas dominate. Somewhere between their ideas and those who promulgate a Western way of life in the ME, there's a mass of people that we can work with. The trick in preventing terrorism is to pull those people away from the sharp end and to keep knocking the sharp end flat through military action. You can't persuade the mass in the middle to support you when you're bombing them, disturbing their countries or threatening too. And in the case of Islam, you need to be aware that their capacity for empathy is far greater than ours. The Islamic family transcends borders. What you do to Iraqis affects Syrians far more deeply than the treatment of Austrians might affect Americans.

So far what has happened is that US foreign policy is driving more and more people towards the sharp end. What the US is doing on the ground fits in far more closely with Al Qaeda's description of the US as an aggressive, invasive Arab basher. It doesn't fit in with the description you offer of the US as a harbinger of peace, freedom and democracy. IMHO, the US should have started with Palestine and Israel not with Iraq. They neeeded to buy some currency for the Iraq mission by coming down a little harder on Israel. As things stand, they've gone backwards on Palestine and backwards by invading Iraq. That means more terrorists, less allies in the ME.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2004, 01:50 PM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
OK, let me see if I understand what you said....


Answering the demands of terrorists is not appeasement. It's something else. Although the definition remains intact either way.

If I were to take a school hostage and demand that a government change their policy or I'd kill everybody - then I earn the same sort of attention as a *real* elected leader of a nation?

YAY. Instead of just one vote, I can really make difference!

Sorry, there should be no concessions and no agreements with people (terrorists) who cheat to gain an advantage. They can ask again later when they become legitimate leaders of legitimate nations. If terrorists had widespread support for their agenda, they'd hold a position of legitimate governmental power over a nation. Right?

anyways,

So you're suggesting that we 'fix' all the things that 'breed' new terrorists - right?

I'm sure Americans will embrace their new Islamic government as they cast away the old capitalist 'Zionist' one in a bold effort to stop terrorism.

Im guessing if we stop being 'Western' then Bin Laden would simply find another reason we needed to die.

dmmt my keyboard batteris are deadand lettrs dont always wor. so ill finish this later.
You can only appease someone that is already violent. What I'm talking about is nipping the violence in the bud. I'm not suggesting that we turn OBL around to our way of thinking. I'm suggesting that we remove the appeal of his message, that we minimise the number of recruits his message appeals to and that we take OBL himself out. Which leaves us with fewer psychopaths to kill. Look at any terrorist threat we've ever faced. Violent response to it inevitably breeds more terrorism. Look at Iraq. Facing the "terrorists" there is like hitting a fungus. Every time you split it you have more fungus to face. The way to reduce the number of terrorists in Iraq is to start dealing with some of the legitimiate demands. Even Simey's Kagan and Kristol suggest that the US government has been too slow in creating stability in Iraq and turning over power to Iraqis. If they had other outlets for their views, they quite possibly wouldn't need to bomb.

Your argument is so theoretical though. Show me an historical precedent for beating terrorism through violence?
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:47 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2