“This is a question which requires a lot of thought and introspection.”
Well, no, it doesn’t. The use in your title of ‘any possible way’ means even the most unlikely things count. Given the war against Iraq under GHWB, a major cause of Islamic nettlement pops up. Didn’t take much thought and very little introspection.
We did in the same way those students caused Cho to kill them. ie, we exist.
You are talking about people who thought that a 1930s small town Colorado church social was decadent.
President Bush had it right. They hate our freedoms.
Today I held the hand of and kissed a man I was not related to, drove myself to the store, did not cover my hair and actually told men what to do at work.
These are all things that drive these terrorists nuts.
That I have the gall to do all those things and I am not hauled out and stoned to death just makes them quiver with rage. How dare I not conform to what they think is proper?
The big answer is Freedom and we don’t stone our women to death after they are raped
The recruitment is based on jealousy, envy, and a serious inferiority complex among much of the Muslim world. This is ultimately what leads them to "hate us" (tm/2001). I understand that you are saying we could have not done XYZ and XYZ was used to recruit, therefore, by doing XYZ we contributed to their attitudes.
This is wrong.
If we hadn't done XYZ, we would have done ABC. If we hadn't done ABC, it would have been DEF. We do these things because we are free, prosperous, and powerful. The only way to "not do" ANYTHING which "contributes" to their attitudes towards us would be to drastically, radically reduce our power, prosperity, and (therefore) freedom.
That's why I don't think "they hate us because we are free" to be such an inaccurate sentiment. Granted, when a guy like Giuliani says it, he probably is just reciting a nice sound-bite. However, I think that it's ultimately more accurate, and gets more to the heart of the matter, than to say "they hate us because we bombed Iraq in Operation Desert Fox in 1998" or whatever.
So that's my answer to your question: no.
If you say "no,' I ask for clear evidence to back you up.
You're asking for "clear evidence" to prove a negative answer to a question that is, by nature, philosophical and subjective ("did the U.S. contribute to Islamists' attitudes")? Ohhh-kay. Sorry no can do.
But to many of you here, it seems we were pure as the driven snow and 9/11 happened out of thin air and is totally inexplicable in terms of our own government's past actions and policies.
-we weren't "pure as the drive snow" (no nation, nor group of people, is, nor ever has been, so this is a silly standard)
-9/11 didn't happen out of thin air. it was planned and plotted for years, and yes, the psychos who did it did give us warning.
-9/11 is not "explicable" in terms of our government's past actions because that implies that by solely analyzing our government's past actions, you can make a good explanation (the root word of "explicable") as to why 9/11 occurred. But that is not correct! No true explanation of why 9/11 occurred would be a good explanation if it did not focus on the attackers themselves, in particular their psychologies and cultures.
So yes, 9/11 may be "explicable" in terms of our government's actions, but it would be a bad explanation. My beef with sentiments like that expressed by e.g. Ron Paul is not so much that Paul is "wrong" as that he is peddling a lousy explanation.
Add the witches' brew of Mohammedanism to an already-backwards culture and we have semi-literate people with hair-triggers who WANT to believe the worst about outsiders, Jew OR Gentile.
There, that wasn't so hard, was it? You see what the broad outlines of a good explanation look like?
Then give them even the least bit of fact to bite on and a nutcase like Osama can wind up with scores of thousands of wanna-bee martyrs. And WE fell into that trap.
I say it was not humanly possible for the U.S., at this point in time, given its position in the world, "not to fall into that trap". Because any sort of foreign policy we could have engaged in would contain grievance-fodder for people who are xenophobic and resentful enough. How the hell do you calibrate a foreign policy which pisses off ZERO crazy people?
If you disagree, please show me your "clear evidence" to the contrary! ;-)
When we took sides in their fratricidal civil wars.
Example..?
Even when we abandoned an "ally" and then allowed him into our country for medical treatment... one group took things one way, another took things THEIR way and now it seems we have the three main sects of that false religion after us.
Your point being... what? We shouldn't have "allowed" someone to come here to obtain medical treatment?
However, I am NOT a supporter of GOVERNMENT AID to Israel. Besides the very questionable constitutionality of it, the aid comes with, in my opinion, way too many strings which inhibit Israel from mounting a proper defense of herself when needed.
Why single out Israel? What about our GOVERNMENT AID to Egypt, which gets roughly the same amount? Is that ok?
If we choose to blindly follow dangerous or misguided or even evil policies and policy makers, we will wind up with NOTHING of the once-free nation handed off to us by the Founders.
Wow. I like how you started out this vanity trying to seem all even-handed and genuinely inquisitive, and I'm 3/4 through it and all of a sudden we're engaging in "evil policies".
Which policies might those be, may I ask? Lay your cards on the table.
I also have trouble with the name of this: The Global War on Terror. [terror being a tactic, blah blah blah]
Sigh. I'm so sick of this boring complaint. Call it whatever the hell you want for pete's sake. Can't you just do a mental find/replace whenever you hear/read "war on terror" and replace it by a terminology you like better? Wars don't really have "names", you know. There's no Official U.S. Commission On How To Name Wars. And it doesn't matter anyway what the "name" is. You're talking about semantics. It is what it is.
the semantics which get in the way of WINNING
No it doesn't. Semantics cannot do that. People who needlessly obsess on semantics might, however.
This is why I, along with others (including a presidential candidate who shall remain nameless), am convinced that we should have had a declaration by the Congress that specifically stated that a state of war exists between the United States and al-Qaeda, the Taliban and any nation which supports or harbors them.
We did, it was the War Powers Resolution which preceded the invasion of Afghanistan.
That way we would have mobilized our national resources, went on an actual WAR-footing and committed our country and our people and our resources to WINNING this thing
First of all it doesn't follow that, had war been declared in the semantical manner you wish, we would have "gone on WAR-footing" whatever that means exactly.
Second of all, it's not obvious why that would be necessary. We already invaded Afghanistan and displaced the Taliban. We didn't need to ration our nylon stockings (or whatever) to do it. So why would you want us to?
instead of having it now to be used as a political football by the Left and the chickenhawks on the right.
Wow! All the way from "thought and introspection" to "you're chickenhawks if you disagree with me"! Bravo, sir! well played!
So, in hindsight, COULD we have taken a different path years back that would NOT NECESSARILY have led to 9/11?
We can always take different paths in our foreign policy. And no such path "necessarily" leads to 9/11 or anything else.
However, I claim that, no matter what "path" we had taken, there would be jihadis out there now jealous of our prosperity and eager to murder Americans for honor and glory, and they would have perpetrated 9/11 or something like it sooner or later. If you disagree, please give your clear evidence to the contrary!!
Or are we as pure as the driven snow
Nice roomy, spacious excluded middle there. We are not "pure as the driven snow" (and it is a straw-man) but that does not prove your silly post to be correct.
Did the U.S. Contribute in ANY Possible Way to Islamists’ Attitudes Prior to 9/11?
Mr Jimmuh Cahter sure did!
High Volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel. or WOT [War on Terror]
----------------------------
This is a question which requires a lot of thought and introspection. I realize and understand that many of you are pure knee-jerk, but try. Did the United States and the Federal Government in ANY way contribute to 9/11?
As a knee-jerk freeper I'm disqualified, but someone may wish to weigh in on our culpability.
What do:
Somalia
The former Yugoslavia
Darfur
Kashmir
Ethiopia
Chechnya
Sudan
Indonesia
have in common?
Muslims with a gripe. Does the whole world need to look inward or should we just look to the Muslim world to see where the problem originates
And don’t forget their own infighting.
1) We defended the old Iran by not acknowledging the radical take over in 1979.
2) We defended Afghanistan by supporting the resistance
3) We defended Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (two Islamic States) from Iraq
4) We defended Kosovo and Croatia (two Islamic states) from Serbia. (Granted I never liked this one)
Here are a few examples of the United States protecting Islamic States. The argument is completely bogus.
IMHO there are a myriad of reasons why these Islamo-facists hate our country. Our decedent secular society is one reason. Our lack of moral control (as a nation - not as individuals), are obsession with everything “sex”, Hollywierd and the trash they spew forth, and many other examples all serve to threaten their very controlled distilled way of life and ideology. These “men” fear that our way of life will infect their culture and destroy their religious beliefs. That, IMHO, is a large part of why they hate Americans. There are other reasons, of course (Israel for one). But to me, this is a biggie. We do not practice what we constantly preach.
Of course not, our actions don't have consequences. /rudy
More than fifty years ago, Bishop Fulton Sheen referred to the madness of the Arabs. It had to do with the Jewish state but also to do with the continuous humiliation of the Arabs for no more than 200 years of western invasion and reduction of Muslim power. It began more than three hundred years ago with the failure of the last Turkish effort to take Paris, then 80 years later with the resurgence of Russian power into the Crimea, then the Invasion of Egypt by Napoleon, and his expulsion only to be repaced by growing British power not only there but in the whole of the eastern mediterranean. The Eastern Question began to grow with the waning of Turkish power before the rise of the Christian people in south east Europe and the fractioning of that power into modern Christian states. In desperation “reforming” Turkish Sultans sought to modernize the Empire, only to produce a European-like national Turkish movement in Anatolia, as the Turs fought the Greeks and Armenians and others for mastery in Anatolia itself. Then came the fall of the Ottoman Empire and its reduction to a national state under the leadership of the secularist Attaturk. To add to the humiliation, the Arab lands are occupied by Chrstian armies who suppposedly came to give the Arabs independence, and who then set up colonial states and, to add insult to injure create a Jewish homeland in “Palestine.” Yes, i would say the Muslims have “cause” but the only reason they hate us is because we have become the only western power capable of thwarting who they think is the will of God, which is a universal Muslim state. Are they justified in their anger? Well, yes. but so was Germany after the Great War. BUT in the end, no rational calculation could have allowed Germany to resume the same place that it occupied when Kaiser Bill came to the German throne. Likewise, we can only try in the Middle East to fight fire with fire. If the backfire we attempted in Iraq does not work, we are in for the fight of our lives.
I’m not saying we’ve done nothing wrong, but in the end it wouldn’t make much difference.
The Islamic leaders use us as an excuse to their people for everything that is wrong in the world.
They start teaching their children hate at an early age, using their religion as justification for killing and destroying.
So we may have contributed some to why Muslims hate the West so much, but nothing we could have done would have stopped it.
Islam teaches to hat and kill all non Muslims,and to conquer the world. How do you fight that?
Islam has looked upon us as infidels since the time of Thomas Jefferson, when they were attacking our shipping as ‘The Barbary Pirates’. They can give any excuses they want, the Crusades, our support for Israel, US soldiers in their ‘Holy Places’ but the fact is they look upon us as not worthy to exist because we don’t accept their cult.
The policy we should’ve had in effect to prevent terrorist attacks on the US like 9/11 would’ve been to seek out Islamic wackos like Osama bin Laden and whack them before they whack us.
By the way, it’s called we win, they lose.
bookmark for later
The US has been importing oil from the Middle East for a very long time and by doing so we have maintained decent relationships with the Saudis and their official government.
The problem lies deeper though. Internally in Saudi their social system was considered unjust. It is really hard core class warfare, and quite heavily reliant on socialist ideals. In Saudi though those problems were personified. The rich got really rich and if you were born a sheep herder you stayed a sheep herder. It was almost a caste system by default.
What has happend over time is the roots of revolution took place and the House of Saud is viewed as corrupt and evil by some of those within.
In reality there are in some minds a justification for that thought because social injustice has been extremely prevelant.
Basically the Saudi system isn't pristine. There is torture and pretty much there are many who never have any hope to move up in society.
Hence, bin Laden preaches his version of justice and equity which has a populist ring to it. Then he goes radical. The Saudi government feared/fears him because he wanted to lead an inssurrection.
This group though saw part of the problem in their own country, internally, as being an external influence. AKA The US.
This group saw the US as propping up a regime that they don't like and that they want to overthrow.
The US was trying to have a balancing act. We didn't interfere in Saudi internal affairs, but we also maintained strong relations with them. We sent A LOT of money, and have helped stabilize the country at times.
For the group that views them as a whole rotten apple, they attach the US with their internal struggle and in order to fix whats at home they have to 'fix' the US.
Hence almost all the hijackers were Saudis and the intense hatred of the US by them. With that group bin laden is a popular populist who is fighting for the little man for a more equitable system of justice.
You can see how he can become popular when you are talking about a country with a social system (historically) that has operated like Saudi Arabia.
The real fix?
1. Pressure the Saudis to make a better system in house. Which, that, I know is going on now.
2. Iraq isn't just about Iraq. A lot of those sentiments in Saudi were not exclusive to Saudi. Hence our invasion into Iraq is geared overall at changing the tone.
If we succeed, and a lot of people want it to succeed, then you take away the ideological weapons that these extreme groups use to recruit.
Success being defined as having a relatively stable country where the average joe can go to work get a job and support his family. If he wants to go to college and make more money, give him the chance. That is very basic stuff, but historically its been denied.
If you were the wrong religion, or the wrong family, too bad for you.
Right now, the violence in Iraq is a fight for the survival of extremeism. If we succeed in stablizing a major Middle Eastern country then the extremeist can no longer point to their CORE tools of thought.
If we succeed, they go extinct. Hence they are fighting for their lives.
As for the US contribution, we were viewed as sustaining a corrupt system in their country.
In other words we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we did intervene and meddle in every nit picking thing then we are even more condemned. If we operate at arms length (as we did) we are viewed as the core of their social problem.
Those who want to examine the ‘root causes’ of Bin Laden and Islamist attacks on America and the West look to the attackers’ own words and conclude that US foreign intervention was the precipitating cause (see Ron Paul in the latest Republican debate).
An examination of those same words reveal three things.
ONE that Bin Laden tremendously distorts US actions. This manipulative distortion means that acts that we take will always be used by them to justify violence. Even when we have not acted they invent conspiracies and blame us. For the latest of these concocted justifications which were used to incite violence see the Koran flushing incident and Danish cartoon publication. A free civilization such as ours can not, will not and should not change itself to appease those who are looking for excuses to attack us.
TWO, Bin Laden finds Koranic provocation for attacking us and abdicating treaties and peaceful co-existence even when the life of a single Muslim is affected. [”He (Allah’s Blessings and Salutations be upon him) considered the treaty with Bani Qainuqa’ void because one of their Jews publicly hurt one Muslim woman, one single woman, at the market.”]
THREE, Bin Laden repeatedly and at length cites our weakness, our lack of determination, our fear as his greatest provocation. IOW he knows he can win.
...........................
DECLARATION OF WAR AGAINST THE AMERICANS OCCUPYING THE LAND OF THE TWO HOLY PLACES (1996)
“A few days ago the news agencies had reported that the Defence Secretary of the Crusading Americans had said that the explosions at Riyadh and Al-Khobar had taught him one lesson: that is not to withdraw when attacked by cowardly terrorists.
We say to the Defence Secretary that his talk could induce a grieving mother to laughter! And it shows the fears that have enveloped you all. Where was this courage of yours when the explosion in Beirut took place in 1983 CE (1403 A.H). You were transformed into scattered bits and pieces; 241 soldiers were killed, most of them Marines. And where was this courage of yours when two explosions made you to leave Aden in less than twenty-four hours!
But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where, after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post-cold war leadership of the new world order, you moved tens of thousands of international forces, including twenty-eight thousand American solders, into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu, you left the area in disappointment, humiliation, and defeat, carrying your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You had been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the heart of every Muslim and a remedy to the chests of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut, Aden, and Mogadishu.
I say to the Secretary of Defence: The sons of the land of the two Holy Places had come out to fight against the Russians in Afghanistan, the Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and today they are fighting in Chechnya, and by the Permission of Allah, they have been made victorious over your partner, the Russians. By the command of Allah, they are also fighting in Tajikistan.
“Our toughness has, O Amroo, tired the enemies before you, never giving in!”
‘snip’
“Those youths know that the reward in fighting you, the USA, is double than the reward in fighting someone not from the People of the Book. They have no intention except to enter paradise by killing you. An infidel, an enemy of God like you, cannot be in the same heaven with his righteous executioner. “
‘snip’
Those youth are different from your soldiers. Your problem will be how to convince your troops to fight, while our problem will be how to restrain our youth to wait for their turn in fighting and in operations. These youths are commendable and praiseworthy.
http://www.meij.or.jp/new/Osama%20bin%20Laden/jihad1.htm
“when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse.”
http://www.greatdreams.com/osama_tape.htm
The people who believe that we are creating jihadists by fighting in Iraq should listen to Bin Laden who understands the Muslim psyche. The best way to stop the Jihad is to be the strong horse. Muslim public opinion of us was best after we went in to Afghanistan and removed the Taliban quickly and effectively.
We used to know this. It took a Nixon to make peace in China, a Reagan to end the Cold War and a Sharon to end the Intifadah.