Why do terrorists hate America's way of life?

1. Change

I don't really think it needs to go much beyond that. Everything you listed is a result, in the minds of many, of a change that moves away from moral and ethical beliefs that they hold (that applies to "religious terrorists" as well as the classic political terrorists.) and they see violence and terrorism as a way to slow the change.

Glad you brought up the topic. There is a concept thats right in front of everyone's face that I'm amazed isn't stated more often. This doesn't really address terrorists per say, but it goes to why its so hard to get other cultures to just accept our way of life:

Not everyone wants to live like us!

Why is that so hard to understand?

Yeah, that is the general idea. But my question was about specifics.

Killing them just because they are Arabs might have something to do with it.

Mr. Stillwater, I'm not talking about Arabs, I'm talking about terrorists.

There's a difference? Could someone tell the President and the A-G?

How does America make people of other countries live like we do?

Prior to 9/11 we weren't trying to change the middle east. Even now with the Iraq liberation, we aren't really trying to westernize them, we are trying to empower them. Anybody who says that removing an EVIL, violent, tyrant ruler from power is an effort to "westernize" a country has no concept of good and evil.

Terrorists hate us because of what we have. Because they get their power by telling people we are evil because of what we have, they can't publicly indulge in it and retain the support of the fanatical followers. Hence, they get power through oppression and freedom means the end of their power. Extreme jealousy!

Now for my thoughts on the 5 talking points:
1. Corporate power exists ony through freedom and consumer choice. Corporations have no power without free people to consume their goods. Even if you don't like Wal-Mart, a lot of free people do. If nobody liked them they would not exist.
2. Violent crime? How does this sound? I hate violent crime, so i am going crash a few planes of innocent people into some buildings full of innocent "non-criminals" in an effort to eliminate it. To me, that sounds kind of stupid.
3. Pornography and Sexual perversion. I am sure the terrorist leaders keep their "loving" to missionary when they get a muslim "2 hour" marriage to a hooker. Not to mention when they stock their rape rooms with the girls of their country. I don't think they would refuse a beautiful western woman.
4. Religeous freedom: Again freedom erodes their power and influence.
5. Huge Silly-cone breasts are like Volkswagons. If you were blessed with the resources to buy a BMW, you would have. But you don't, so you got a Volkswagon, its the next best thing!!!

So you see, they want our way of life, they just can't attain it in good faith. They are in a sort of a "catch-22"

tony

And if they, in their empowered freedom, choose a fundamentalist Muslim faith which rejects the presence of American forces and American business, this then ought to be ok with you.

As to the question...I think fishin has it pretty close. Traditionalist or fundamentalist cultures resist change, that's a central motive for or defining characteristic of their existence.

Even here in North America we can see this resistance to change by those who consider that traditional values ought and lifestyles ought not to be altered.

Communities which are more isolated demonstrate this tendency more than communities which regularly undergo shifts from new populations coming in. Thus one can predict that, for example, a port city will be more 'liberal' than an inland farming community. This goes a long way to explaining why New York and California vote the way they do.

New people coming in bring new and varied ideas, and that leads to change and multiple notions of cultural values, or, 'liberalism' in one important sense of that word. The same effect occurs when communications or transport technoligies expand and extend into a community, allowing in new ideas.

These changes are never, or almost never, without significant turmoil attending.

Not sure if they'd give a flying smeg about your way of life, if they didn't feel that America imposes its power on theirs.

Oh, there's terrorists that dont hate America's way of life. The IRA, for example, doesnt really hate America's way of life, does it? And the Colombian paramilitaries, do those count?

deb/nimh

That post is pretty much carbon copy. God knows how many instances we've witnessed of near-identical sentiment arriving here on this board.

How do both of you account for this?

I personally don't think Osama would kill himself to take out a few Americans. His power is based in hate and "fear mongering." The Terrorists teach their children that the west is evil, by telling them lies and not allowing the truth to be seen. What results, is populations of people who only know that the only way to make life better is to kill all the Americans (westerners).
The power scheme is just like Hitler's. Announce the Jews are the reason everyone's life sucks. Kill anyone who says otherwise. sooner or later nobody wants to say otherwise and be dead, and everyone else believes you because they don't know any better.
People who execute these tactics are usually the most cowardly people in the world, just trying to cover it up. Hitler ate a bullet, Saddam hid in a hole until being discovered, then gave up like a pussy. Osama Bin Laden will either die naturally before being found, kill himself, or give up without a fight. His followers may fight to the death to protect him, but he will not.

The terrorist operatives don't really hate the way we are. They hate us because they were taught from birth to hate us. If they were free to see more than one point of view, (read: the truth) they probably wouldn't hate us. Giving them freedom is the only way to end terrorism. I suppose if the only gain we get out of the war in iraq, is the freedom of the iraquies, we ourselves have begun the distruction of the terrorism's basis for power, and thus the terrorists. I guess it is more self serving than it appears.

This part I all agree with, sadly ...

-Blatham
If the Iraqis want a fundamentalist muslim government, that is fine by me. So long as the people have the ability to hear other opinions, and a mechanism exists for them to change their minds. The freedom of expression brought the freeing of the slaves and the end to "jim crow" rules here in America. I really believe people are good, and given the opportunity, they will treat fellow man as they wish to be treated. Hence, the key to freedom is FREEDOM.

tony

Such would be my preference too. But it might not be what they choose. I detest theocracies as just one more face of authoritarian control. It's not at all certain what form of governance they will choose. They might disallow internet access for example. What then?

-Blatham
It depends who decides to disallow the internet. The people must hold the reigns of power. They should be free to reject the internet if they wish. As long as the citizens are allowed free expression of ideas and opinion without the fear of hardship. The people should have regular elections and the "media" should be independent and unmonopolized. The FCC in America doesn't allow certain words in broadcast media, but it doesn't stop the free exchange of information in other mediums. I personally don't agree with this "sheltering" of the people, but it really has no effect in the scheme of things.

Must they? What if they choose to elect a fundamentalist government which they understand might place some such restrictions on their liberty?

The broader question becomes...is the US free, or indeed obligated, to send armies into all countries who do not have a government like that of the US? Ought the US to attack Iran? China?