Reply
Wed 5 Mar, 2003 06:48 pm
In several of the discussions related to terrorism there have been statements made that the terrorism by Al Qaeda was a direct result of our actions and policies. On several occasions I asked for particulars and received no response. The question is why has Bin Ladin [Al Qaeda} chosen to wage "war' against the US? Facts please.
AU
This might be a bit offbase to your direct question, but I suggest you read The Ugly American by William J. Lederer and Eugene Burdick, probably available on Amazon. It's about tragic American blunders abroad and how we just keep paying the price and paying the price.
seaglass
seaglass
Seaglass I have been hearing and reading about the ugly American for about 40 years. However, what I am looking for the specifics of why Bin Ladin {Al Qaeda] began the war of terrorism against the US.
Au, I'll try to give you a synopsis of my take on it. Bin Laden is a radical fundamentalist, and is outraged by Israel, the US's saupport for Israel, and by The US Military Presence in The Middle East, particularly in Saudi Arabia. He was similarly incensed by The Soviet Presence in Afghanistan, and saw it a religious duty to oppose them. Whether support came from The US, The French, or Pakistan, or whomever, he employed it as he saw fit in the accomplishment of the sacred goal of driving the infidel Soviet Aggressor from the soil of an Islamic land. Emboldened by the Soviet withdrawl, and the not-too-much-later collapse of the Soviet Union, interpreting both to be due to opposition in which he participated, he turned his attention to the matter of US presence in The Middle East, seeking to drive from the region what he perceived to be the greatest impediment to Arab triumph over Israel. A series of escalating attacks' in which he was in some way or another involved at very high level, upon US interests and assets followed, culminating in 9/11. I suspect there are no deep ties between Al Queda and The Regime in Iraq, but I would be unsurprised to learn of less formal "Understandings of mutual convenience" in matters of shared concern despite the differences of ideology.
timber
Au, fanatics generally don't need specific logical reasons for their actions. A deep hate of someone who is perceived as an enemy is enough. And binLaden was nothing if not a fanatic. (And I think I use the past tense here advisedly.)
My read is that it is a religious war Fundamental Islam the type preached in Saudi Arabia Vs the western infidels. The Crusades are being fought all over again with Islam gathering up it's forces to repel the supposed western invader. The only thing we are guilty of is bringing backward people into the modern world.
au, I gotta agree with that. They picked the fight. The Armed Militant Radical Islamic Fundamentalists, chief among whom are The Wahabbists, have declared themselves The Enemy of Western Civilization and intitiated hostilities.
timber
Just watching and looking for answers myself. I was going to add what I've seen and read, but Timber covered those bases.
This is what one editorial writer said in answer to the question.
A premise for ceaseless wars
Mar. 9, 2003 12:00 AM
Too many Americans wonder what we did to get the Muslims so mad. Here are some of the things we did:
• Americans died saving Muslims from genocide in Bosnia.
• Americans died stopping the genocide by Saddam Hussein against the Kuwait Muslims.
• Americans died preventing Saddam Hussein from entering Saudi Arabia and killing more Muslims.
• Americans opposed the Soviet Union, which was oppressing Muslims in Chechnya.
• President Bush spent political capital pressuring the Russians not to commit atrocities against the Muslims in Chechnya, a charge they later acknowledged.
Then why are some of the Arab leaders so against us entering Iraq? They remember what we did when we conquered Germany, Italy and Japan. We introduced a working, lasting democracy in these countries. This puts real fear into any totalitarian government.
Why is al-Qaida so bent on destroying us? Simple: With us still standing, they cannot achieve their stated goal of re-conquering all the lands once occupied by Arabs. This includes large parts of Spain, Italy, Portugal and various other lands.
Were these lands theirs? If you agree that to the victors go the spoils, then yes. They should regain their spoils. If you accept this premise, as so many do, then war will never stop.
au
That last quote from whomever is as silly an answer to the question as I've ever read. That the US is without fault and blameless in this matter (or any other similar matter) is a very dangerous delusion. How likely is it to be true? How many cultures or empires can you name which were so lily white that all anger or strikes against them had no rational, justifiable, or understandable basis? Though these matters are complex, why not begin with the rather more likely assumption that the US is in some ways responsible? This isn't a matter of blame, this is a matter of fixing the correct problem, not the wrong one. The notion (the myth) that the US is attacked or disliked MERELY because it is so good is not only one of the stupidest ideas I've ever bumped into, it is one of the most dangerous to the US and everyone else.
You suggest that the Arab states are against a US attack on Iraq becasue they aren't democratic, but this attack will promote democracy, thus upset balances of power within those states. That seems clearly wrong in a number of ways.
First, how would you feel if China entered Canada? A powerful foreign entity moving next door is rarely greeted with cheers. Further, the existing power structures in the oil producing states is just fine with the US, which is why the US has worked with them so closely for so long. Democracy there has been irrelevant to US foreign policy. Totalitarian governments aren't scared of the US because the US commonly supports them with money, arms, intelligence, etc.
What makes up the al Quaida worldview is beyond my ability to answer, as would be a question as to what makes up the Klan or the moonie worldview. Books are available (eg Bernard Lewis). You ask for 'facts please'. What sort of facts are you looking for?
blatham
The article I posted did not answer the question any more than yours did. You just seem to be repeating the same mantra everyone else does. Since they attacked us it must be our fault. If that is true or that is your belief you must have some logical reason for the formation of that premise.
I should note that views expressed in the article are the views of the writer that I do not necessarily agree with. I should further note that 9/11 and other acts of terror occurred prior to the anticipated preemptive attack upon Iraq.
It is odd that so many people have said that the US is in some way responsible for the Al Qaeda attacks but when pressed for reasons I get the same old tired non answer.
IMO the Basic reason is one of religion.
I'll take the psychological position: envy, jealousy, low self esteem, black and white thinking (have to hate the 'other'), and because they can. The latter is the more worthwhile point to ponder.
seaglass wrote:This might be a bit offbase to your direct question, but I suggest you read The Ugly American by William J. Lederer and Eugene Burdick, probably available on Amazon. It's about tragic American blunders abroad and how we just keep paying the price and paying the price.
While I don't doubt that the book might be a good read, I continue to have a hard time with this focus some people have on blaming America for those who attack America. It smacks of blaming a woman for being raped, if you ask me.
It is impossible for any large, powerful country to avoid having an impact on other people and other nations. It is also impossible for everyone to be pleased with the impact that nation has. We could do X and make country A happy, but make country B mad. Even being isolationist and not getting involved anywhere would still make someone mad. The fact that the US has done things that are unpopular in some quarters does not justify terrorism, any more than the fact that my neighbor's dogs bark all night means I have a right to shoot them.
...gotta LOVE them analogies...
Now I'm mixed up - oh well, life goes on!
:wink:
OK, let us assume that Arabs are right in their anti-Americanism (I do not agree with this, but this is an assumption). And the reasons that the other members mentioned made them to attack the USA. But USA is a sovereign country, and it is not supposed to build its policies in the way to please the Arab world. And it also has rights to defend its interests in any ways including military. Granted, the USA is the most powerful country in the present world, its military victory against any enemy is guaranteed. Therefore, Arabs should reconsider whether it worth attacking America, or it is better to accept the U.S. policies as they are. Effect of their attacks may be tantamount to a mosquito bite (even dirty bomb or bacteriological attack attempt are not supposed to have catastrophic effect on the USA and lead to its disappearance or losing power), but the response may be devastating to any of their nations.
If they want war, they will get it; but in such a case, they should not whine...
steissd, there is no right and wrong - this is a messed up situation that needs a very good stateman to handle. That is the grip - we have a war monger who has exalted himself into the position of GOD! The war is the product of the propagator.
I do not think that the current administration seeks for war just for sake of war. Its objectives are, IMHO, changing the strategic balance in the Middle East in favor of the USA and sending clear message to the other rogue regimes about their possible destiny if they attempt to threaten the U.S. citizens or strategic interests. Achieving these objectives is in favor of the USA. And whose favor should serve the U.S. administration, if not this of the USA?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace