Exploring Causes for Terrorist Attacks on US

[ksle82]

"freedom and way of life"

I kept hearing this comment from bush and the republican party frequently:
The terrorists attacked us (9/11, uss cole, etc) because they "hated our freedom and our way of life"

I don't think "they" hated and attacked us because of our "freedom" and "way of life" unless it effected "their way of life". So what did we do to them that made them hated us so much? I think one of the reasons is our support for israel but what else?

 

[Astronuc]

they "hated our freedom and our way of life"

was pure propaganda, although bin Laden and some fundamentalist disapprove of what they consider "Western decadence".

bin Laden is opposed to the Saudi government and the control of the Saud family, which is supported by the US. bin Laden also objected to the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, i.e. he objected to the presence of infidels in his holy land. Of course, he objects to the US support of Israel.

 

[kyleb]

What some consider "our freedom" is our ability as a nation to conduct international affairs, inclusive of the fact that our collective might is often misused by a minority of opportunists for their benefit and at the expense of countless others around the globe. That expression of so-called "freedom" is quite simply a part of our way of life; although that holds true for some of us much less than others.

 

[russ_watters]

Bin Laden's open letter to America: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html

Bin Laden states as his reason for attacking us that we attacked Islam first:

As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:

(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

But then his demands start off far broader:

(Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam [live an Islamic way of life]...

(2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you [his take on our way of life]...

(3) What we call you to thirdly is to take an honest stance with yourselves - and I doubt you will do so - to discover that you are a nation without principles or manners, and that the values and principles to you are something which you merely demand from others, not that which you yourself must adhere to. [again, his take on our way of life]

So it would be correct to say he hates us primarily because of perceived attacks on Islam, but as you can clearly see, his goals are not merely to stop that, but to go much further: "destroying our way of life" is a paraphrase of his first 3 goals.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Does Osamah Bin Laden state that he wants to destroy our way of life? can Islam and western philosophy mix, do you know any people who are Islamic and yet mix comfortably with western values and their own, I do I work with stacks of them every day. Even if Osamah does want to destroy our values and our way of life, he's right in one way we are lies and cheats to ourselves and others, and our political machinations are more transparent than they used to be, this something we should get used to before the government considers trying to lie to it's people again. Once bitten twice shy.

We all know Osmah Bin laden is a nut and no one agrees with his methodology, at least no one who isn't radicalised, but if you have ever listened to his speeches, in some areas he has a point. Did the US not attack Libya in a time of peace between the countries, causing the deaths of many civillians, from a sneak attack? I distinctly remember Osamah citing this as an act of terror and demanding to know how this is different from using bombs to kill civillians? Whilst I can see that there is a difference of deliberately targetting civillians you can see why he's p'd off, or perhaps you can't, if you think Israels bombing runs are justified you probably wouldn't care about civillians that much. Again this is how these acts are perceived whether this is true or not, and where does this logic lead them? I'll leave it up to your imagination.

PS: I don't think Osamah is stupid enough to believe he can destroy our way of life, his primary goals are to rid the Middle East of western influence, and frankly although I abhor his methods I don't consider that such a bad thing any more.

 

[kyleb]

here is a CBC report that not only shows how our influence effects people in the Middle East on a personal level, but also explains why we generally don't hear about such things:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tW1-_JmXQt0

 

[Mickey]

here is a CBC report that not only shows how our influence effects people in the Middle East on a personal level, but also explains why we generally don't hear about such things:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tW1-_JmXQt0

What in that video shows how our influence affects people in the Middle East? We don't command the Israeli military.

 

[kyleb]

We empower the Israeli military, and we do a lot more than that as well.

 

[dansydney]

I think a lot has to do with funding Israel and selling them weapons and jet fuel etc. I seem to recall seeing older videos where terrorists weren't angry so much at America itself, but wanted America to stay out of Israel and the middle east and let them deal with themselves. I think that is a good idea as since Americas been helping Israel and had any sort of diplomatic or military presence in Israel the situation has probably been worse off. The cold war seems to live on through Israel and the middle east. The arab nations gettin a lot of weaponry from Russian and Israel getting a lot of weaponry from America. Lives lost for nothing.

 

[russ_watters]

Does Osamah Bin Laden state that he wants to destroy our way of life?

He doesn't explicitly state he wants to destroy it altogether, he just lists certain specific and general components of it he wants to destroy which add up to pretty much everything that western life is.

...can Islam and western philosophy mix...

Irrelevant question (yet ironically leading exactly to the point): I'm not Islamic, so to mix Islamic and western philosophy, I'd need to give up my christian-western way of life.

...do you know any people who are Islamic and yet mix comfortably with western values and their own, I do I work with stacks of them every day.

I don' t know any personally, but in the US anyway, the Islam people practice bears little resemblance to what Bin Laden is talking about. So that's not relevant either.

We all know Osmah Bin laden is a nut and no one agrees with his methodology, at least no one who isn't radicalised...

That's a pretty useless thing to say - you define Bin Laden as a radical and then say no one except radicals agree with him. Duh.

Whatever you think about the popular opinions in the Middle East and whether the governing bodies such as the Hamas controlled PA would also be considered radical is also not relevant: this OP was about Bin Laden.

...but if you have ever listened to his speeches, in some areas he has a point.

Not everything Hitler said was completely off the wall either. So what?

Did the US not attack Libya in a time of peace between the countries, causing the deaths of many civillians, from a sneak attack?

I'm not sure to what you are referring, but my guess would be to this:

1986 - US bombs Libyan military facilities, residential areas of Tripoli and Benghazi, killing 101 people, and Gaddafi's house, killing his adopted daughter. USsays raids were in response to alleged Libyan involvement in bombing of Berlin disco frequented by US military personnel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/africa/1398437.stm

Libya at that time was openly hostile to the West and conducting state sponsored terrorist acts. No, I don't consider that a "time of peace between the countries".

I distinctly remember Osamah citing this as an act of terror and demanding to know how this is different from using bombs to kill civillians? Whilst I can see that there is a difference of deliberately targetting civillians you can see why he's p'd off, or perhaps you can't...

Everyone has reasons for being pissed-off. Hitler did. The kids at Columbine did. So what? They are still murderers and he's still a terrorist.

... if you think Israels bombing runs are justified you probably wouldn't care about civillians that much.

That bears no resemblance to my actual opinion and you know it.

Again this is how these acts are perceived whether this is true or not, and where does this logic lead them? I'll leave it up to your imagination.

The world understands perfectly well where Bin Laden gets his perceptions and how his logic works. So what? Are you suggesting we should make a serious effort to appease him or reason with him?

 

[kyleb]

You can respect where a person legitimately has a point, regardless of if you are able to reason with that person or not. Also, the relationship between Christians and Islamic teachings is relevant to this topic as such commonality can lead to mutual understanding.

 

[russ_watters]

You can respect where a person legitimately has a point, regardless of if you are able to reason with that person or not.

So what? How is that helpful here?

Also, the relationship between Christians and Islamic teachings is relevant to this topic as such commonality can lead to mutual understanding.

How so? Bin Laden does not want "mutual understanding".

 

[Pythagorean]

So what? How is that helpful here?

Because if you acknowledge their good points, then you can work it into diminishing their bad points to come to a compromise. Just because we're already at war doesn't mean all chances of an agreement have been lost. Militairy Muscle can (and will be) used to help force an agreement. It's very plausible to defeat an enemy, still respect some of their views (and even honor them) while removing their hamrful intentions, even if they're reluctant, at least you're reducing the possibility of vengeance, in which case you've only paused the war.

Unfortunately, our administration is just as stubborn as any middle eastern 'administration', and they don't want any of their supporters (us) getting any ideas that Osama 'may have a point in one aspect'. They want our total support in 'annihilating those bastard evil-doers that brought us 9/11".

 

[edward]

I think that in general Middle Easterners have a distrust for outsiders. Historically, like for the last two thousand years or so, They have gone through a series of invasions, and occupations. The last series of occupations only ended after WWII.

The USA has supported a number of, kings, princes, potentates, dictators (have I missed any?), for the last sixty years. These leaders have often not been kind to their own citizens, especially the lower classes.

When we throw their religion and theocratic governance and laws into this we really have a political/cultural difference. We say we want to spread democracy to the Middle east, but I doubt that the average Islamic has any idea what democracy even means.

We have had thousands of Islamics, especially the wealthier ones, come here to receive their education. They didn't return home and start expounding on the advantages of a democratic government. What makes us think we can accomplish democracy at gun point?

Somehow we have to establish a relationship based on trust and not oil.
Which brings another point to mind. In another thirty years or so when most of the oil from the middle east is gone, will we still be the great supporters of Israel that we are now?

 

[Mickey]

We empower the Israeli military, and we do a lot more than that as well.

That doesn't mean we're responsible for an Israeli soldier's decisions on the ground.

 

[edward]

That doesn't mean we're responsible for an Israeli soldier's decisions on the ground.

The problem is that we get the blame for in anyway in the eyes of the Islamics.

 

[devious_]

We say we want to spread democracy to the Middle east, but I doubt that the average Islamic has any idea what democracy even means.

First of all, a person who practices Islam is called a Muslim (read with a soft "s"), not an Islamic.

Secondly, democracy has existed in Islam centuries before it appeared in the Modern European civilizations (and obviously before America even existed). Read about "shura" for example.

Now, the problem isn't that Muslims do not understand democracy, nor is it that they do not want it. Quite the contrary in fact: a lot of Arabs would love to rid themselves of their current leaders and reconstruct their governments. This won't happen, however, if America keeps force its ideology on the Arab people, simply because the average folk do not trust it and in fact consider them an enemy. So, if you look at it from their perspective, what they see is an attempt to control the Arab world through a new series of puppet governments under false pretenses of new freedoms and whatnot -- just like their fellow British did a few decades ago.

Just wanted to clarify.

 

[pcorbett]

Secondly, democracy has existed in Islam centuries before it appeared in the Modern European civilizations (and obviously before America even existed). Read about "shura" for example.

The Romans innovated republican governance over large territory which persisted even under imperator rule. How is Islamic feudalism a step or more towards democracy compared to that?

Now, the problem isn't that Muslims do not understand democracy, nor is it that they do not want it. Quite the contrary in fact: a lot of Arabs would love to rid themselves of their current leaders and reconstruct their governments. This won't happen, however, if America keeps force its ideology on the Arab people, simply because the average folk do not trust it and in fact consider them an enemy.

If you believe that, then pity Islamic culture, for it is sick and delusional.

 

[Evo]

Culture and advances in the middle east appear to have come to a screeching halt with the introduction of the Islamic faith.

 

[Mickey]

Culture and advances in the middle east appear to have come to a screeching halt with the introduction of the Islamic faith.

They're credited with a number of inventions and advances in astronomy, mathematics, and medecine. But, yeah, there was a definite deterioration.

 

[kyleb]

That doesn't mean we're responsible for an Israeli soldier's decisions on the ground.

Of course not, but it does mean that we are responsible for continuing to support Israel as they have been making such decisions for the past six decades.

 

[pcorbett]

They're credited with a number of inventions and advances in astronomy, mathematics, and medecine. But, yeah, there was a definite deterioration.

Name one such invention.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Name one such invention.

Optics were thought to be invented in the Middle East, spy glasses for example, remember the film Robin hood, Aziz uses one in that it's a comedy moment when robin thinks the horses are about to run him over, Azis also refers to Robins people as barbaric and is amazed at the lack of refinement. In fact during the time of the Crusades there was a technological golden age for the Arab world, it was considered more advanced than Europe and it's arts and culture were unparalleled, and this was not just muslims saying this, but the European barbarians also.

I have asked why they gradually seemed to abandon technology in favour of religion, it seemed to be slow will to devotion rather than science? But it's really not that clear.

 

[Mickey]

Name one such invention.

Algebra.

I have asked why they gradually seemed to abandon technology in favour of religion, it seemed to be slow will to devotion rather than science? But it's really not that clear.

Yeah, I don't understand it either. I haven't been able to find a historical study on it.

My guess is that science finally died in the ME around the time of Saladin's declaration of jihad against Christian Europe. Islamic conquests before that time were not considered jihads, owing to the fact that the religions of the conquered were still tolerated. Saladin changed the muslim mindset, making war and the protection of Palestine part of Islamic identity, reducing the importance of understanding the world.

After Europe reconquered its lost territory in Spain and elsewhere, it picked up enough knowledge from the muslims (and their preserved Greek texts) to have a Renaissance. Then, when Europe had the technology, it chose to create big sailing ships to get to the far east, instead of going through the ME, cutting down on the ME's interaction with the explosion of intellectualism in the west, and the rest is history.

 

[dansydney]

Of course were not responsible for an Israeli soldiers decision on the ground but we did put the gun in his hand

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Libya at that time was openly hostile to the West and conducting state sponsored terrorist acts. No, I don't consider that a "time of peace between the countries". Everyone has reasons for being pissed-off. Hitler did. The kids at Columbine did. So what?

Like it, your logic is flawed I said you weren't at war you said you were? Which is it? It was a sneak attack admit it, morally abhorent indsicriminate killing of civillians in a colossal screw up by intelligence agents. I often find those who perpetrate evil acts willing to go to great lengths to defend them, do you even believe what you said? Using crappy Hitler analogies doesn't fly as cogent argument either, and the Columbine analogy is even weaker? Godwyns law was made for jibes like that, or rather to prevent people from using them in unrealistic examples of similarity.

As to the other points I think you've basically warped everything I said so as you didn't respond to those points I can't respond to your responses, sorry.

 

[devious_]

Culture and advances in the middle east appear to have come to a screeching halt with the introduction of the Islamic faith.

No. The rise of Islam united the nomadic tribes of the Middle East and helped forge an empire wealthy with culture and science. There were universities, libraries, mosques, markets and flourished cities. Ever heard of Islamic architecture, art, calligraphy? Muslim scholars and scientists brought about advances in medicine, mathematics, astronomy, philosophy, engineering, architecture, literature and even commerce and trade.

The constant invasions were what caused the "screeching halt." Most notable are the Mongol invasion and the European Crusades. Even to this day, the Middle East is still being invaded and attacked.

 

[daveb]

Name one such invention.

How about the number zero? There are numerous contributions to math alone, as shown by this site.
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/980422/1998042208.html"

 

[russ_watters]

Because if you acknowledge their good points, then you can work it into diminishing their bad points to come to a compromise. Just because we're already at war doesn't mean all chances of an agreement have been lost.

One more time: Is a compromise feasible here?

You guys are all saying the same thing (props to you, though, for having the courage to explicitly state that the point would be to find a compromse rather than just backhanding it) but ignoring the fact that Bin Laden does not want and will not accept a compromise. All this crap about understanding his position and seeing if he has a point is just mental masturbation. It is utterly useless/pointless.

 

[russ_watters]

...a lot of Arabs would love to rid themselves of their current leaders and reconstruct their governments. This won't happen, however, if America keeps force its ideology on the Arab people, simply because the average folk do not trust it and in fact consider them an enemy.

So... Arabs want deomcracy, but reject it because we want them to be democratic? I'm not saying you're wrong, but isn't that a little rediculous?

 

[russ_watters]

Like it, your logic is flawed I said you weren't at war you said you were? Which is it?

You are aware that your previous post is still here for everyone to read, right? Those are not the words you used before.

It was a sneak attack admit it, morally abhorent indsicriminate killing of civillians in a colossal screw up by intelligence agents.

What a wholly rediculous summation/assessment of what happened.

I often find those who perpetrate evil acts willing to go to great lengths to defend them, do you even believe what you said?

On that, I agree.

Using crappy Hitler analogies doesn't fly as cogent argument either, and the Columbine analogy is even weaker? Godwyns law was made for jibes like that, or rather to prevent people from using them in unrealistic examples of similarity.

Godwyn's law is indeed for unrealistic examples of similarity. The similarity here is blatantly obvious: you are highlighting reasonable opinions of a murderer while ignoring the murder in a veiled attempt to blame the murder on the victim. If that is a reasonable thing to do, it should be able to be extended to other people who commit murder.

Apply your standards evenly or change them.

As to the other points I think you've basically warped everything I said so as you didn't respond to those points I can't respond to your responses, sorry.

That's ok, I'm more interested in pointing out such rediculousness and attempts at deception for other people to see than arguing the rediculousness with you anyway. I realize that when these things are pointed out you will be unable to justify the deceptions/contradictions.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Russ you took everything I said and turned it into a personal attack, as if I intimiated you personally felt that way then you twisted everything into some sort of Osamah loving excercise.

Just to clarify my position hopefully so that I don't have it rewritten by any more skilled novelists and libellers.

Does Osamah Bin Laden state that he wants to destroy our way of life? can Islam and western philosophy mix, do you know any people who are Islamic and yet mix comfortably with western values and their own, I do I work with stacks of them every day.

Self explanitory but apparently a platform for you to tell us that in fact Osamah has explicitly stated that he wants to destroy the west.

We all know Osmah Bin laden is a nut and no one agrees with his methodology, at least no one who isn't radicalised, but if you have ever listened to his speeches, in some areas he has a point. Did the US not attack Libya in a time of peace between the countries, causing the deaths of many civillians, from a sneak attack?

Yep the only part of the text you actually responded to without twisting it all to hell. And yes if you attack someone by surprise when your not at war it is a sneak attack. It was a low day for the US and it's one of the fundamental reasons Osamah gives for forming Al Queada.

I distinctly remember Osamah citing this as an act of terror and demanding to know how this is different from using bombs to kill civillians? Whilst I can see that there is a difference of deliberately targetting civillians you can see why he's p'd off, or perhaps you can't, if you think Israels bombing runs are justified you probably wouldn't care about civillians that much. Again this is how these acts are perceived whether this is true or not, and where does this logic lead them? I'll leave it up to your imagination.

Let me reiterate I think the guys a nut and don't condone anything he does ever. And stop accusing everyone else of being moderate towards him or encouraging understanding, no ones said that yet, you seem to be writing this thread as if it's your own personal novel, please stick to commenting on what people say and stop trying to read in all this garbage about what you think they meant, if you don't know what they meant ask, it's considered civilised to request information when your unsure, it's not considered civil to bend other peoples staments to suit your own argument. That's just dishonest

PS: I don't think Osamah is stupid enough to believe he can destroy our way of life, his primary goals are to rid the Middle East of western influence, and frankly although I abhor his methods I don't consider that such a bad thing any more.

He isn't but if you read your text you seem to think it's a viable threat? OK if you like you can respond to what I really meant instead of all the perceived slights and rubbish about Hitler, which yes is still a crap analogy how ever much you want to pad it, I'm afraid. Yes Osamah is like Hitler in that he wanted to er... annex the Reichland and Invade Poland

I'm sorry but your just making it up as you go along, it's very annoying.

 

[devious_]

So... Arabs want deomcracy, but reject it because we want them to be democratic? I'm not saying you're wrong, but isn't that a little rediculous?

They reject the constant American/Western interference, not democracy.

 

[Bystander]

They reject the constant American/Western interference, not democracy.

Nothing is ever their fault, is it. They've been making a mess of the ME for five times longer than the U. S. has been a country. It's their mess --- this endless whining about "Now, look what you did," every time their silly religion and silly "cultural traditions" get them into hot water is getting veerrryyyy ollddd.

 

[Yonoz]

here is a CBC report that not only shows how our influence effects people in the Middle East on a personal level, but also explains why we generally don't hear about such things:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tW1-_JmXQt0

FYI the translation in that video does not match the Hebrew captions of the soldiers' words. At other times there are displays of dubious translation work and intonation that conveys a meaning different from the soldiers' words. When the Palestinian talks to the officer, the officer clearly displays urgency and will to help him - the narrator gives the Palestinian's version of the events, implying a deliberate delay.
The report does not show critical arguments. For example, the reason soldiers need to move through walls in refugee camps is because the narrow streets were entirely boobytrapped. In one incident 13 soldiers died when moving in a narrow courtyad. Soldiers with all those weapons and equipment on them typically would not bother breaking down walls with a 5kg hammer just to abuse the inhabitants, just like they don't unnecessarily play around with explosives. The original Channel 2 report showed the briefing, uncovered by the CBC report. I would think the contents of the briefing would be crucial in examining such a case.
The Channel 2 report displayed a terrible tragedy. The CBC reports conveys the deliberate detonation of the door - a very dangerous thing, it is done only by trained engineers - with intention to harm to apartment's dwellers. Had the soldiers wished to simply kill someone, they would not bother coming in the room. This happened during an attempted arrest in one of the most dangerous refugee camps - during almost all of these arrests there is lethal resistance in the form of sniping and close quarters fire by targets that don't really mind dying, and the soldiers have to hold both an unknown inner area and an outer perimeter in the form of narrow zig-zag alleyways. It is a very difficult situation and sometimes bad decisions are made, my friend participated in an arrest where his friend was killed by an unsurprised fugitive right in front of him, there is also a dog unit that typically loses a dog every few arrests due to weapons fire.

The occupation brings much injustice. There are bad Israelis and good Israelis. There are soldiers with disregard for lives, and there are commanders that would rather risk the target's family members more than their soldiers. But it's my opinion that the report is a populist spin of a disturbing report on a tragedy - not a conspiracy. Noone is stupid enough to send a TV crew to the mission and briefings if they thought the arrest will end anywhere near the way it unfolded.
There are other stories such as this, ask yourself why you do not hear about them: including some by http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/pageoneplus/corrections.html" , it seems.