DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: emindead on September 12, 2011, 09:36:03 PM
-
Ten years ago we all witnessed how two airplanes crashed into the WTC, a plane crashed into the Pentagon and how some brave citizens crashed flight 93 into an open field in Pennsylvania (whose target was the White House). This is what we saw.
The question then arises: why these attacks took place?
A vague answer soon appeared: "they hate us because our freedom." Intelligent citizens world-wide don't believe this is the answer.
A similar answer emerged: "Muslims are fundamentalists and are intolerant of other peoples religions and their way of living." Again, this answer didn't seem to go the core.
Surprisingly, by watching Bowling for Columbine many years ago I learned that Osama Bin Laden was an ally of the US in the 80s when the government wanted the Taliban to kick the communists out of Afghanistan. It worked. Then the US overstayed their welcome and rode their tanks across desserts where people who actually live there considered sacred. Now this sounds more plausible.
We all agree that the attacks on US soil were terrorist attacks and as brutal as you can get. However, were these attacks provoked by the careless foreign policy of the United States? Did Goliath provoked David? Let's, please, just focus on the bold question and write our opinions specifically on this.
-
Provoke, not provoked. Sorry.
And yes, to more of an extent than some people think, and less than others think.
-
Yes. American didn't know when to book, and it got its ass handed to it because of it.
-
When you specifically ask if US Foreign Policy led to the 9/11 attacks, I say its certainly a major factor. We did something for them to want to kill us. But I think when you move to the general terrorist attack anywhere in the 'Western' world, then I would quickly say the reason becomes religious or freedom related.
Hell, maybe its a combination of all these things, plus a general hatred for the infidel. ???
-
We did not directly or intentionally provoke them, but clearly risky decisions were made and we ultimately had some of those decisions end poorly for us. Bin Laden first declared war in 1996, and he was never shy of telling us what his gripes were, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that he never said it's because of our freedoms. We established a military presence in countries where we were not supported by the people. We desecrated holy ground in the eyes of many Muslims. Our foreign policy has supported Israel well before and since 9/11. And in general we have intervened in matters that many would say we had no right to intervene in. Many will come up for justifications for these actions, and debates could be had on every single one. But at the end of the day every decisions came with a certain amount of risk. I am in no way justifying what happened on 9/11, but I find that one of the extra tragedies to come from the event was our inability to learn from it. Obviously patriotism ran strong after the event, but I think it did so to a point that it clouded our judgement, just as such events always have. Look at decisions that were made in the year or two after that have completely lost support since. I fully agreed going into Afghanistan to decimate Al-Quida as much as we reasonably could. However we went well beyond that. We doubled down on failed foreign policy and now are in an impossible war for safety in which we are asked to sacrifice many of the basic liberties and values that we are said to be fighting to protect.
Bin Laden's goal with his attacks weren't to crush America, he did not expect to beat us militarily. His stated goal was to draw America into war in Afghanistan and the middle east in order to deplete our resources and drive us towards bankruptcy. Well, he certainly got his wish. Some still say our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are still justified, and that the money should still be spent there. I believe that it's tough to admit that big mistakes were made and go back on prior decisions, but I hope that foreign policy does take a large shift soon.
-
Yes. The presence we made of ourselves in the ME over the preceding decades was too much, and we had done too much to attempt to force our ways there. They were clearly sick of it quite some time before 9/11. Factoring in the radical cults who detest western civilization, there's no doubt that something would of went down at some point. And 9/11 was that point.
-
Yes, isn't it even a stated reasons for why they happened? Obviously, there are other very important and necessary factors, but our foreign policy was an essential catalyst to 9/11.
It's basic human nature. We are the oppressor in the middle east, by virtue of where we stand in the power pyramid, and to expect anything other than retaliation is stupid. On the same note, our policy sense is only making the situation worse, and we have just breed a whole new generation of people who have reasons to hold a grudge against America.
-
We did not directly or intentionally provoke them, but clearly risky decisions were made and we ultimately had some of those decisions end poorly for us. Bin Laden first declared war in 1996, and he was never shy of telling us what his gripes were, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that he never said it's because of our freedoms. We established a military presence in countries where we were not supported by the people. We desecrated holy ground in the eyes of many Muslims. Our foreign policy has supported Israel well before and since 9/11. And in general we have intervened in matters that many would say we had no right to intervene in. Many will come up for justifications for these actions, and debates could be had on every single one. But at the end of the day every decisions came with a certain amount of risk. I am in no way justifying what happened on 9/11, but I find that one of the extra tragedies to come from the event was our inability to learn from it. Obviously patriotism ran strong after the event, but I think it did so to a point that it clouded our judgement, just as such events always have. Look at decisions that were made in the year or two after that have completely lost support since. I fully agreed going into Afghanistan to decimate Al-Quida as much as we reasonably could. However we went well beyond that. We doubled down on failed foreign policy and now are in an impossible war for safety in which we are asked to sacrifice many of the basic liberties and values that we are said to be fighting to protect.
Bin Laden's goal with his attacks weren't to crush America, he did not expect to beat us militarily. His stated goal was to draw America into war in Afghanistan and the middle east in order to deplete our resources and drive us towards bankruptcy. Well, he certainly got his wish. Some still say our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are still justified, and that the money should still be spent there. I believe that it's tough to admit that big mistakes were made and go back on prior decisions, but I hope that foreign policy does take a large shift soon.
This exactly.
-
I think Nick's pretty correct in his assessment. It's hard to deny that we're dealing with significant blowback. However, you run that risk through action or inaction. Sometimes you're just not going to win, and insofar as pissing off the lunatic element, sometimes you're not going to avoid it. If it weren't Bin Laden, it could just as easily been some other asshole with some other list of grievances; merit is irrelevant.
Let's also keep in mind that Bin Laden isn't necessarily the most reliable source of intel regarding his intentions. For one thing, there's a difference between the official story, the story you use to motivate your followers, and the story that really speaks to you. Furthermore, I'm sure he was fairly pissed off about our presence in the Holy Land, but I think there was probably more to it than that. It seems to me that the guy was, for lack of a better term, a natural born mujahideen, and he was going to follow his path, regardless of the who or why.
So in short, yes our foreign policy played a part in the attacks, but it probably didn't make any difference one way or the other.
-
Furthermore, I'm sure he was fairly pissed off about our presence in the Holy Land, but I think there was probably more to it than that. It seems to me that the guy was, for lack of a better term, a natural born mujahideen, and he was going to follow his path, regardless of the who or why.
Well, he was part of the Royal Family, ya? I guess my point is, when you say it's more about our presence in the Holy Land, do you mean specifically that it has religious merit, or the fact that we're meddling in their daily affairs? I honestly think religion has a secondary role in it all, it's a justification for anger than the source of anger.
-
Part of the royal family? I thought he was just from an important and wealthy family. Either way, I'm not sure how much any of those arguments mattered to him. Maybe he was seething about it for religious or secular reasons. Maybe he just hated America and gathered up all of the excuses he could conjure up.
My inclination is the same as yours, which is that is religion was probably not as important to him as he let on, though.
-
I could very easily be wrong about the Royal family thing, I just thought he was related in some fashion, or is it just his connections to the royal family? Either way, a family of power in Saudi Arabia, so he was able to witness first hand the influence American had.
Ya, there will always be loose hinges, but loose hinges can't form massive international organizations fighting oppression. There's plenty of crazy people shouting inane shit out on plenty of street corners across America, but no one's listening. This isn't something like the recent Oslo bombing and shooting.
-
Picking up from the other thread:
Right, although I think that's a problem that can't be simply waved away. Considering the large role we did have in the world (and still do, in spite of recent troubles), we really can't afford to be ignorant of the extent of our reach and the consequences thereof (it seems a little too obvious to point out that that is, after all, how we ended up in this mess in the first place).
I agree that nobody should be ignorant of the role we play in things, but I still maintain that we can't avoid playing some role, and how it'll turn out is beyond anyone's guess. If Star Trek's taught us anything , it's that you can really only predict consequences out to an extremely short distance, and because of that, blowback will always be.
A few months ago I was advocating defending Benghazi. I can't really argue with the position that we shouldn't be spending money to step in. I think it's a fairly heartless stance, but checkbooks don't lie. However, I disputed the notion that we shouldn't go because of the blowback that we've caused and will continue to create. If the consequences 5 years down the pike are impossible to predict, with the potential outcome going with or against you, then the right move is the one that makes since at the time. Trying to predict the future is a waste of time and resources.
-
its called 'THE JIHAD'... it is ingrained into to muslim culture.. only a fool would think otherwise.
Read Robert Spencer.
and the WTC was attacked before.. and people were killed... we all knew it was coming..the maddrasses every Friday all over are churning out the needed martyers to attack the infidels all over the world..this is as stupid as saying that "the problem with Israel is about land" .... another total joke, its not about land, its about destruction of infidels and taking over all land and subjugation of Christians and Jews.... look at Egypt today..its going down the drain, not that it was wonderful before, the Copts still be burned from their churches and live in ghettos, Jews? Pulllleeeze.. not allowed any rights or the right to even live period..
we can never do anything to stop it, it has nothing to do with the USA or our policy, they just want us all to be gone, so any policy of enlightenment is not wanted. look at Turkey, its about to explode, there are no moderate Arab countries, sadly.. The Monarchies can not control their masses and the extremist are winning..period.
Arab Spring.. pffffffffffffttttttttt... Good luck with that..
PS: please just read my posts and Do NOT bait me or try to get me into a quoted argument to back this or that up.. what I am saying is 100% true, I will not go down some juvenile acedemic wankfest here on punctuation or that "my sources are no good"... laughable stuff to me... My sources are called well known facts.
read my posts or dont. Thank You..
-
...
I was going to start wanking all over you with my juvenile academics (like sourcing outlandish claims!), but decided there wouldn't be a point.
-
only a fool would think otherwise.
The Monarchies can not control their masses and the extremist are winning..period.
Arab Spring.. pffffffffffffttttttttt... Good luck with that..
PS: please just read my posts and Do NOT bait me or try to get me into a quoted argument to back this or that up.. what I am saying is 100% true, I will not go down some juvenile acedemic wankfest here on punctuation or that "my sources are no good"... laughable stuff to me... My sources are called well known facts.
You can either learn to constructively add to this discussion, or you can stay out of it, the choice is yours. There will be none of this crap about you know the way it is and everyone else is wrong, period. If you only want to have a debate with yourself do it in your own head, not in this thread.
-
yeah epicview you really brought that on yourself.
-
only a fool would think otherwise.
The Monarchies can not control their masses and the extremist are winning..period.
Arab Spring.. pffffffffffffttttttttt... Good luck with that..
PS: please just read my posts and Do NOT bait me or try to get me into a quoted argument to back this or that up.. what I am saying is 100% true, I will not go down some juvenile acedemic wankfest here on punctuation or that "my sources are no good"... laughable stuff to me... My sources are called well known facts.
You can either learn to constructively add to this discussion, or you can stay out of it, the choice is yours. There will be none of this crap about you know the way it is and everyone else is wrong, period. If you only want to have a debate with yourself do it in your own head, not in this thread.
Huh? does anyone wathcing history think the Monarchies can hold back their masses? we see it all over? Libya, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria,.. etc.. again 'Only a FOOL would think otherwise!!!"... is that outragous??? no.... Turkey is going to go up soon.. so is Jordan.. this is basic stuff in the papers today..and on the topic!!! The USA is just another domino they want to topple with the stealth Jihad and the violent Jihad..both tools they use..again, it has nothing to do with our policy. we are simple infidels..The hosting countries dance with the extremists hoping to stay out of the path of destruction and pont them to hate the West, the USA and of course.. the dreaded Israel..LOL..
-
Turkey isn't a monarchy. It's a secular republic.
-
We did not directly or intentionally provoke them, but clearly risky decisions were made and we ultimately had some of those decisions end poorly for us. Bin Laden first declared war in 1996, and he was never shy of telling us what his gripes were, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that he never said it's because of our freedoms. We established a military presence in countries where we were not supported by the people. We desecrated holy ground in the eyes of many Muslims. Our foreign policy has supported Israel well before and since 9/11. And in general we have intervened in matters that many would say we had no right to intervene in. Many will come up for justifications for these actions, and debates could be had on every single one. But at the end of the day every decisions came with a certain amount of risk. I am in no way justifying what happened on 9/11, but I find that one of the extra tragedies to come from the event was our inability to learn from it. Obviously patriotism ran strong after the event, but I think it did so to a point that it clouded our judgement, just as such events always have. Look at decisions that were made in the year or two after that have completely lost support since. I fully agreed going into Afghanistan to decimate Al-Quida as much as we reasonably could. However we went well beyond that. We doubled down on failed foreign policy and now are in an impossible war for safety in which we are asked to sacrifice many of the basic liberties and values that we are said to be fighting to protect.
Bin Laden's goal with his attacks weren't to crush America, he did not expect to beat us militarily. His stated goal was to draw America into war in Afghanistan and the middle east in order to deplete our resources and drive us towards bankruptcy. Well, he certainly got his wish. Some still say our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are still justified, and that the money should still be spent there. I believe that it's tough to admit that big mistakes were made and go back on prior decisions, but I hope that foreign policy does take a large shift soon.
I would support this point of view pretty much 100%. As I understand it, another source of Osama's (besides being an ally of Israel) is that he felt the U.S. had pretty much abandoned the Mujahdeen (sp?) in the 80's where we had been supporting the then cold war era freedom fighter's against the occupying Soviet Union. I think that Osama fet the U.S. should have been more directly involved against the Soviets and when we pulled support in the way of weapons and CIA/"Advisor" based training of the Mujahadeen, he turned on America. I heard this on a NBC news special back in the day shortly after 9/11/01
-
only a fool would think otherwise.
The Monarchies can not control their masses and the extremist are winning..period.
Arab Spring.. pffffffffffffttttttttt... Good luck with that..
PS: please just read my posts and Do NOT bait me or try to get me into a quoted argument to back this or that up.. what I am saying is 100% true, I will not go down some juvenile acedemic wankfest here on punctuation or that "my sources are no good"... laughable stuff to me... My sources are called well known facts.
You can either learn to constructively add to this discussion, or you can stay out of it, the choice is yours. There will be none of this crap about you know the way it is and everyone else is wrong, period. If you only want to have a debate with yourself do it in your own head, not in this thread.
Huh? does anyone wathcing history think the Monarchies can hold back their masses? we see it all over? Libya, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria,.. etc.. again 'Only a FOOL would think otherwise!!!"... is that outragous??? no.... Turkey is going to go up soon.. so is Jordan.. this is basic stuff in the papers today..and on the topic!!! The USA is just another domino they want to topple with the stealth Jihad and the violent Jihad..both tools they use..again, it has nothing to do with our policy. we are simple infidels..The hosting counties dance with the extremists hoping to stay out of the path of destruction...
Tyrants are losing control for sure, but I'm not sure what lines you are trying to draw to extremists. For the most parts these uprisings are populist and freedom based movements, and I would say they have been fueled not by religion, but against what is state sponsored religious doctrines in many cases.
-
Nick.. sadly they are not, they start as so called"freedom movements" but.. Egypt is falling deeper and deeper to the Muslim extremists ..the Muslim Botherhood and relations with Israel and the religious minorities like the Copts are being destroyed. Erdogan is going there to puff out his chest hoping to not be next
actually Egypt is destroyed.. business is dead there.. no Co will rebuild..it is going to spiral downward..but thats another subject..
most here know that this is a very passionate subject for me...hence why I dont post much anymore
-
I'm in too much of a good mood just got back from picking up ADTOE and I wanna strike myself with a million stone for looking into this thread even though I noticed this ^ posted in here.
Aside from boiling my blood and ears from the offense as usual; it's a lying fear mongering bigot, that's all it is. Twisting the truth into uglier versions of it and I'm content and happy now I can live with it cause I've seen and met Americans who are nothing like it. But it can still ruin my day. I left the laptop when I saw the posts so I wouldn't reply right away and get banned. Live in your scary fuckin tea party imagination as much as you like, I can see you're having a blast feeling you know things that others don't :lol . I was gonna quote every piece of shit line and reply to it but it's so unworthy, especially on this day.
-
Yes. Meddling in the middle east for 50 years caused crazy Muslim extremists to hate us. Absolutely.
I don't see Muslim extremists attacking other free (for the most part) countries like Switzerland, Canada, and Poland. These three countries have strong, Western influences, but I don't see them meddling and getting attacked as a result. Women and gays have rights in these countries and are not stoned and beheaded.
Installing democracies may have good intentions (sometimes), but policing the world is a mistake we can't afford to pay for anymore.
They don't hate us for our freedom. They hate us because we have a history of MEDDLING.
https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver
-
This is clearly a very passionate issue for various members.
Please post cautiously.
-
I'm in too much of a good mood just got back from picking up ADTOE and I wanna strike myself with a million stone for looking into this thread even though I noticed this ^ posted in here.
Aside from boiling my blood and ears from the offense as usual; it's a lying fear mongering bigot, that's all it is. Twisting the truth into uglier versions of it and I'm content and happy now I can live with it cause I've seen and met Americans who are nothing like it. But it can still ruin my day. I left the laptop when I saw the posts so I wouldn't reply right away and get banned. Live in your scary fuckin tea party imagination as much as you like, I can see you're having a blast feeling you know things that others don't :lol . I was gonna quote every piece of shit line and reply to it but it's so unworthy, especially on this day.
:sad:
-
Oh did I offend you? I must've called you and your beliefs violent and evil at some point.. I'm such a fuckin dick, I so should be banned.
-
This is only going to escalate into a closed thread.
Move on.
-
Here's something that I've tried to ponder. If the US suddenly renounced all of it's interventionist ways, and adopted a policy of strict isolationism, would we cease to be a target? Personally, I don't think so. I think our policies certainly foster resentment, but I also think that there are many other factors. We are a target if for no other reason than our status. If it's not propping up Israel or installing puppet governments, it's going to be our rampant consumerism, our hogging of natural resources or some other quality. Just as likely, it's going to be the exceptionalism we're discussing in the other thread.
Just because we stop providing justifications doesn't mean we'll stop being hated for any number of reasons.
-
Here's something that I've tried to ponder. If the US suddenly renounced all of it's interventionist ways, and adopted a policy of strict isolationism, would we cease to be a target? Personally, I don't think so. I think our policies certainly foster resentment, but I also think that there are many other factors. We are a target if for no other reason than our status. If it's not propping up Israel or installing puppet governments, it's going to be our rampant consumerism, our hogging of natural resources or some other quality. Just as likely, it's going to be the exceptionalism we're discussing in the other thread.
Just because we stop providing justifications doesn't mean we'll stop being hated for any number of reasons.
We would not become a target if you state your policy clearly for the world to hear, i.e. if you attack us, we will retaliate in ways you cannot imagine. Don't screw with us.
Peace through trade. :)
-
Here's something that I've tried to ponder. If the US suddenly renounced all of it's interventionist ways, and adopted a policy of strict isolationism, would we cease to be a target? Personally, I don't think so. I think our policies certainly foster resentment, but I also think that there are many other factors. We are a target if for no other reason than our status. If it's not propping up Israel or installing puppet governments, it's going to be our rampant consumerism, our hogging of natural resources or some other quality. Just as likely, it's going to be the exceptionalism we're discussing in the other thread.
Just because we stop providing justifications doesn't mean we'll stop being hated for any number of reasons.
I think isolationism would be impossible for the US... Unless we somehow managed to produce everyhing in house and supply all that we need to sustain us energy wise. As long as we do business with the rest of the planet, we will have enemies. And, as long as we keep depending on the Saudis for oil, we can never really fully retaliate to anyone over there, regardless of the damage done to us.
-
I never bought in to the "they hate us because of our freedoms" argument as motivation for 9/11. it makes for good PR, but I find it hard to believe bin Laden is celebrating in hell just knowing that we now have to take off our shoes at the airport.
I was also wondering if the spooks and goons at the DoD and NSA have some sort of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) plan for the post Cold War world. It also helped that the US and the USSR pretty much knew what the other was capable of.
-
I never bought in to the "they hate us because of our freedoms" argument as motivation for 9/11. it makes for good PR, but I find it hard to believe bin Laden is celebrating in hell just knowing that we now have to take off our shoes at the airport.
I was also wondering if the spooks and goons at the DoD and NSA have some sort of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) plan for the post Cold War world. It also helped that the US and the USSR pretty much knew what the other was capable of.
I was watching a show on the smithsonian channel last night about 9/11. It wasn't about the attacks or the people affected. It was all dedicated to the stuff going on behind the scenes with air force one and Bush's staff. A big point it made was how no real plans were in place for that kind of event. The most current stuff (for the most part) was how we'd deal with attacks during the cold war, and events that could happen today and if they were carried out as they would have been during the cold war. It went on to say that the books have been rewritten and procedures redesigned from scratch. I don't know how reliable that is, but I would e amazed if that weren't the case.
-
Here's something that I've tried to ponder. If the US suddenly renounced all of it's interventionist ways, and adopted a policy of strict isolationism, would we cease to be a target? Personally, I don't think so. I think our policies certainly foster resentment, but I also think that there are many other factors. We are a target if for no other reason than our status. If it's not propping up Israel or installing puppet governments, it's going to be our rampant consumerism, our hogging of natural resources or some other quality. Just as likely, it's going to be the exceptionalism we're discussing in the other thread.
Just because we stop providing justifications doesn't mean we'll stop being hated for any number of reasons.
I think isolationism would be impossible for the US... Unless we somehow managed to produce everyhing in house and supply all that we need to sustain us energy wise. As long as we do business with the rest of the planet, we will have enemies. And, as long as we keep depending on the Saudis for oil, we can never really fully retaliate to anyone over there, regardless of the damage done to us.
I agree that it's not possible, but that's not relevant to my hypothetical scenario, and therefore the question at hand. We're discussing whether or not our foreign policy provoked the attacks, and I'm questioning whether or not people think we would cease being targets if we adopted the most isolationist policies imaginable.
-
Here's something that I've tried to ponder. If the US suddenly renounced all of it's interventionist ways, and adopted a policy of strict isolationism, would we cease to be a target? Personally, I don't think so. I think our policies certainly foster resentment, but I also think that there are many other factors. We are a target if for no other reason than our status. If it's not propping up Israel or installing puppet governments, it's going to be our rampant consumerism, our hogging of natural resources or some other quality. Just as likely, it's going to be the exceptionalism we're discussing in the other thread.
Interesting question. I am sure there are those in Sandland that will hate the US regardless, and of course attacking the Infidel is a sure way to ensure your place in paradise. But if those with power and money over there are comfy enough without us in their hair (or turbans), I am not sure they would go to the trouble to scare up the resources and plans for any terrorist attacks just because we have cheap blue jeans and let our women walk around in public with short skirts.
-
Here's something that I've tried to ponder. If the US suddenly renounced all of it's interventionist ways, and adopted a policy of strict isolationism, would we cease to be a target? Personally, I don't think so. I think our policies certainly foster resentment, but I also think that there are many other factors. We are a target if for no other reason than our status. If it's not propping up Israel or installing puppet governments, it's going to be our rampant consumerism, our hogging of natural resources or some other quality. Just as likely, it's going to be the exceptionalism we're discussing in the other thread.
Just because we stop providing justifications doesn't mean we'll stop being hated for any number of reasons.
I think isolationism would be impossible for the US... Unless we somehow managed to produce everyhing in house and supply all that we need to sustain us energy wise. As long as we do business with the rest of the planet, we will have enemies. And, as long as we keep depending on the Saudis for oil, we can never really fully retaliate to anyone over there, regardless of the damage done to us.
I agree that it's not possible, but that's not relevant to my hypothetical scenario, and therefore the question at hand. We're discussing whether or not our foreign policy provoked the attacks, and I'm questioning whether or not people think we would cease being targets if we adopted the most isolationist policies imaginable.
Cease being targets completely? Impossible to say with certainty, but FAR less than we are now. I don't think anything like 9/11 would have been carried out just because we have Budweiser and women in the workplace. There are many much more culturally/socially liberal countries out there that don't face the magnitude of foreign threats we do.
Bear in mind the US actually had a pretty good reputation in the middle east prior to the 1950s or so.
-
Here's something that I've tried to ponder. If the US suddenly renounced all of it's interventionist ways, and adopted a policy of strict isolationism, would we cease to be a target? Personally, I don't think so. I think our policies certainly foster resentment, but I also think that there are many other factors. We are a target if for no other reason than our status. If it's not propping up Israel or installing puppet governments, it's going to be our rampant consumerism, our hogging of natural resources or some other quality. Just as likely, it's going to be the exceptionalism we're discussing in the other thread.
Would it stop right away? Hell no, but it's the only way to stop a perpetual cycle of hatred and violence. I think Praxis is wrong to say that we have to say we'll fight back if attacked - as much as I would love to - history has shown through Ghandi and MLK that the only way to break the cycle is non-violence. If terrorists did attack us, and we basically just fucking ignored the thing, then terrorism wouldn't work, and it would quickly fade away. It's psychological, and it's effective.
Do you honestly think Arabs would sit around all day thinking about how evil America is and how they want to destroy us? I'm sorry, but people everywhere are going to think about what's in their daily lives, what they have contact with, their job, what they're going to eat, who they want to fuck. When you're country is run by a US-propped up dictator, and when you have relatives and loved ones who die as a result of US invasions, and US policies, it gives someone a reason to think about how much they hate America. We give them reasons to hate us, and they hate us, and pointing out that this is a natural outcome doesn't mean that the outcome is necessary.
Also, we couldn't hog the natural resources like we do without our military and our intervention in the area.
-
This video explains the situation pretty well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NJLzfscMrg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NJLzfscMrg)
Of course US foreign policy had to do with it. Going back all the way to stuff like the 1953 coup of Iran, when the Kermit Roosevelt-led CIA installed the Shah. This was also backed by Britain. Why? Because their democratically elected leader wanted to nationalize the oil resources in Iran, and with British oil companies futures being uncertain the governments stepped in. Of course, such actions create blowback. This has happened all over the world with the US. Guatemala (1954 coup orchestrated by CIA), propping up the Saudi house, propping up Mubarak in Egypt - plus all the money thrown at Israel.
It's no wonder there is hatred towards the US and the western world. What you see in countries like Venezuela, anti-Americanism, is actually a result of decades of terrible interventionist foreign policy (it may also have contributed to the hate of capitalism and free enterprise in South America, which supposedly is what the US stands in their eyes).
This is also the obvious reason why there are terrorists aiming to destroy the US. They couldn't care less if there was freedom in the US, women in the workplace and stuff like that. It's because the US has a history of intervention and regardless of motive, it's seen as invasive - this has stirred up the hate towards the US and indeed the western community as a whole.
Do you honestly think Arabs would sit around all day thinking about how evil America is and how they want to destroy us? I'm sorry, but people everywhere are going to think about what's in their daily lives, what they have contact with, their job, what they're going to eat, who they want to fuck. When you're country is run by a US-propped up dictator, and when you have relatives and loved ones who die as a result of US invasions, and US policies, it gives someone a reason to think about how much they hate America. We give them reasons to hate us, and they hate us, and pointing out that this is a natural outcome doesn't mean that the outcome is necessary.
Also this. Glad you said that.
-
Do you honestly think Arabs would sit around all day thinking about how evil America is and how they want to destroy us? I'm sorry, but people everywhere are going to think about what's in their daily lives, what they have contact with, their job, what they're going to eat, who they want to fuck. When you're country is run by a US-propped up dictator, and when you have relatives and loved ones who die as a result of US invasions, and US policies, it gives someone a reason to think about how much they hate America. We give them reasons to hate us, and they hate us, and pointing out that this is a natural outcome doesn't mean that the outcome is necessary.
Think about all of the people clamoring to run off and explode themselves for Allah, though. They're doing it based on principle rather than as a result of our actions. I suspect that a helluva lot of the people fighting against us have never been directly affected by us. They're doing it because they're young, stupid and idealistic, and those qualities aren't going away.
-
Do you honestly think Arabs would sit around all day thinking about how evil America is and how they want to destroy us? I'm sorry, but people everywhere are going to think about what's in their daily lives, what they have contact with, their job, what they're going to eat, who they want to fuck. When you're country is run by a US-propped up dictator, and when you have relatives and loved ones who die as a result of US invasions, and US policies, it gives someone a reason to think about how much they hate America. We give them reasons to hate us, and they hate us, and pointing out that this is a natural outcome doesn't mean that the outcome is necessary.
Think about all of the people clamoring to run off and explode themselves for Allah, though. They're doing it based on principle rather than as a result of our actions. I suspect that a helluva lot of the people fighting against us have never been directly affected by us. They're doing it because they're young, stupid and idealistic, and those qualities aren't going away.
No, those qualities aren't going away, but the way they are expressed would change. Are young, stupid and idealistic Muslims any different then young, stupid and idealistic Christians? No, not really. There will always be teen angst, but to think that this means there will always be people in the Middle East who will literally blow themselves up to get a few of us is just plain absurd. Also, those people are taken up into a cause by a leader, in this case Osama, whom it seems unlikely would have had a problem with America if it wasn't for our meddling in Saudi Arabian affairs. Perhaps the same young people would do some bad things in their own area, but they would have no reason to have problems with America. Maybe they'd go rob the local convenience store, or blow up someone they have a problem with - but they would not target America. You're pragmatism seems too far-reaching in this case, you're right to point out that the human emotions would not change, but the venting of those human emotions would.
It's ridiculous to think that people would have such hatred for no reason. Even if someone isn't directly affected by our actions, our actions and our meddling influences and penetrates the entire culture and media. When kids grow up, US is talked about as the great evil, and so kids grow up believing that kind of thing. Without our meddling, there would NOT be the impetus or the catalyst for the vitriolic hatred some people have for us, nor the organized fight against our imperialism. If I go punch a punk kid in the face, that's going to start a fight. What you would be doing is looking at the punk after I punched him in the face, and said that his emotions are natural, so that it's inconceivable that no matter if I punched him in the face or not, he would be angry at me.
Think about all of the people clamoring to run off and explode themselves for Allah, though.
Specifically regarding this, look at the reasons they give. Jihad's imply a sense of a lesser power fighting off a greater power, like David fighting of Goliath. In every case, when people go off and explode themselves for Allah, they're doing it because of some form of repression, some form of a Goliath, and they're David.
-
Here's something that I've tried to ponder. If the US suddenly renounced all of it's interventionist ways, and adopted a policy of strict isolationism, would we cease to be a target? Personally, I don't think so. I think our policies certainly foster resentment, but I also think that there are many other factors. We are a target if for no other reason than our status. If it's not propping up Israel or installing puppet governments, it's going to be our rampant consumerism, our hogging of natural resources or some other quality. Just as likely, it's going to be the exceptionalism we're discussing in the other thread.
Just because we stop providing justifications doesn't mean we'll stop being hated for any number of reasons.
Of course we will never be completely secure, but it would go a long way towards protecting American lives and money I believe. We have the largest and best military on earth, by far, and we can make it clear that an attack on America or its vital interests would result in severe action. If we actually live by those policies it would practically kill any serious threats to America. Sure, there will be other reasons to hate America, most likely other nations continuing to use the US as a scapegoat or such, but without solid and local reasons to hate America I don't think you could motivate people to accomplish something like 9/11.
At the end of the day what choice do we have? American Empire, especially since WWII has clearly weakened our image in the eyes of the world I think, and at the same time it has taken a large toll on our resources. If places ask for our help in non-military ways and the American people are willing to give it (as in many African countries where we feed and help prevent disease amongst millions), then go for it. But from a military standpoint we need to cut the bleeding that's slowly killing America and let the rest of the world handle themselves for awhile.
-
This video explains the situation pretty well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NJLzfscMrg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NJLzfscMrg)
Of course US foreign policy had to do with it. Going back all the way to stuff like the 1953 coup of Iran, when the Kermit Roosevelt-led CIA installed the Shah. This was also backed by Britain. Why? Because their democratically elected leader wanted to nationalize the oil resources in Iran, and with British oil companies futures being uncertain the governments stepped in. Of course, such actions create blowback. This has happened all over the world with the US. Guatemala (1954 coup orchestrated by CIA), propping up the Saudi house, propping up Mubarak in Egypt - plus all the money thrown at Israel.
It's no wonder there is hatred towards the US and the western world. What you see in countries like Venezuela, anti-Americanism, is actually a result of decades of terrible interventionist foreign policy (it may also have contributed to the hate of capitalism and free enterprise in South America, which supposedly is what the US stands in their eyes).
This is also the obvious reason why there are terrorists aiming to destroy the US. They couldn't care less if there was freedom in the US, women in the workplace and stuff like that. It's because the US has a history of intervention and regardless of motive, it's seen as invasive - this has stirred up the hate towards the US and indeed the western community as a whole.
From all the great answers we've got here, I think this response is the most accurate I've read. (I can't see the video right now, I'm just basing on what it was said in the post)
-
Think about all of the people clamoring to run off and explode themselves for Allah, though. They're doing it based on principle rather than as a result of our actions. I suspect that a helluva lot of the people fighting against us have never been directly affected by us. They're doing it because they're young, stupid and idealistic, and those qualities aren't going away.
That is true, and there will always be violent and fanatical individuals, but what counts is the environment those individuals are in. In an environment where the United States is just another country really far away that you get braindead blockbuster movies from, any attempt by those fanatical individuals will be met by the social surroundings with "dude, shut the fuck up". However, if the US is a country that people blame a lot of bad things on, those fanaticals hit fertile soil.
That's the subtlety Bush never understood in my opinion. Terrorism is like a brushfire; you can't keep the flames from flaring up unless you lower the ambient temperature.
rumborak
-
It just seems to me that there will always be resentment as long as we're doing better than them. I suppose if we completely lose super-power status, then the Chinese might become the beneficiary of world-wide resentment, but as long as we're one of the top countries (in their eyes, at least), people will still be bitter about it.
-
In my judgment, social envy is just not strong enough to create those feelings. For the longest time there was exactly that situation where there was not a lot of resentment towards the US but a good amount of social envy. The result: Lots of immigrants. People try to move to where it's better, not destroy it.
rumborak
-
its called 'THE JIHAD'... it is ingrained into to muslim culture.. only a fool would think otherwise.
I know this was a while back, but I just had to say this. The Jihad that tells people to kill nonbelievers is a misinterpretation of Jihad.
-
its called 'THE JIHAD'... it is ingrained into to muslim culture.. only a fool would think otherwise.
I know this was a while back, but I just had to say this. The Jihad that tells people to kill nonbelievers is a misinterpretation of Jihad.
This.
I know it's a terrible analogy, but it' like claiming that killing abortion doctors is ingrained into christian culture.
-
In my judgment, social envy is just not strong enough to create those feelings. For the longest time there was exactly that situation where there was not a lot of resentment towards the US but a good amount of social envy. The result: Lots of immigrants. People try to move to where it's better, not destroy it.
rumborak
Social envy combined with distortion of facts due to the influence of a few bad apples is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't social envy a major component in one of the more unpleasant eras of your country's history?
-
France imposed massive reparation costs on Germany after WWI. That is, according to Versailles, Germany would have bled close to anemia for 20 years or so. I think that's a very different league. And even then still, it still took a lot of side factors (the desire of a significant portion of the population to return to a king for example) to facilitate WWII.
rumborak
-
Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway? I realize that we're talking apples and oranges here, but my point is that what you've labeled social envy is a massive component of Nationalism, and that's exactly the sort of thing that turns the envious into killers.
-
We don't boarder the Middle East. Right now, Sunni's may be fighting Shi'ites, but there wouldn't be some huge attack on America.