Why do they hate us?

"Simple prediction; I'd say that if anyone is going to get bin Laden it'll be MI6 or DGSE."

Absolutely. No arguement there.

I think we've gotten our wires crossed. Catching or eliminating bin Ladin is good and necessary...but that's not the only mandate for action in Afghanistan and elsewhere. That's what I am arguing.


"You can't stop terrorism unless you recognise fault on your behalf first. Ask yourself this; why have Australians never suffered a terrorist attack?"

Because they are not the superpower al qaida is gunning for. Bin ladin thinks that they brought down the Soviets in Afghanistan, and wanted to bring down the Americans next.

Saddam knows his enemy is not Europe or Australia, though they are all on board against him. He doesn't consider them his enemy because alone, they cannot do anything about him.

America, and the targets selected, were attacked for symbolic value and maximum casualties. It is modernization that Islamists fear and disdane, and the driving force in the world for that eminates from America. More importantly, the power that protects and drives that modernization comes from America.

Yes, this is about power in part. Yes, there have been displays of American or western power that has angered and fueled Islamist disgust and anger. Yes, there are things we should do differently in the future. But the arguement that America is at fault or somehow to blame for what transpired (aside from inability to stop it and unwillingness/inability to deal with al qaida before 9-11) is wrong. That's analogous to if Kiwis rammed a tanker into the Golden Gate bridge and toppled it at rush hour, and people pointed and said 'America deserved this because they did not ratify Kyoto!'

 

So, we should risk hundereds/thousands of American's lives to kill ONE man? A man, that if you kill him, he will only become MORE popular in the Arab world? A man, that if you kill...you will inspire MORE impoverish and bitter young men to become LIKE him? A man, that if you kill...his organization will likely go on just as strong without him? Yeah, that's worth risking thousands of life's. How's about we stay in Afganistan because AL QUIEDA is STILL there, re-grouping (as well as in Pakistan). Risking American lives to kill one man is assine IMO. We need to break up the terrorist organization. Kill Bin Laden would be a nice bonus, but it doesn't really weaken Al Queida. We need to disrupt their profit-making, and at least MINIMIZE the damage they can inflict with attacks by being viligant ESPECIALLY with the INS!


Sort of on the same note: I was just on the bbc's site, and saw that a bomb exploded outside the U.S. embassy in Jakarta. (No fatalaties reported as of now.) One shouldn't speculate, but this is likely the work of Al Quidea or someone affiliated with them. Despite what Bush says about having them "on the run", Al Quidea is still a very serious threat, and their infastructure must be attacked to lessen the chances of major attacks against the U.S. IMO. Bin Laden is secondary to that IMO.

 

Not at all. If America intervened in New Zealand politics to further it's own agenda at the expense of the peoples lives, then "Kiwis running a tanker into the Golden Gate" analogy would be appropriate. It's a historic formula (god that sounds Marxist!) that anytime a people are oppressed they fight back. Cuba's revolution is a prime example. They're just very Catholic and intrinsicly Western-enough to not believe in flying planes into Washington and New York to protest such, well, downright imperialist laws as "Cuba Democracy Act 1994".
Apply Newton's second law of physics here; "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." Terrorists don't hate the US because it's fashionable in Wahabi islam. They hate the US because they believe that everything that is wrong with their countries - poverty, democracy, moral corruption -is due to Washington supporting regimes as "corrupt as they are." Like Iran, who had to put up with the Shah (sporting Washington's seal-of-approval) before having a revolution and "Death to America day". You're gonna have to accept that's how they see it, no matter whether we agree or not. If you don't believe me, check out the DoJ and their al-Qaeda manuals.
What I'm saying can be summarised as follows:
1) Terrorists are totally evil - BUT - there is a reason they believe what they do
2) That reason is more often than not "blowback" - the unintended consequences of foreign policy.

Please see: Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of the American Empire by Chalmers Johnson. Blowback is a CIA term used to descrive unintended political fallout over failed ops - but has been expanded to deal with Foreign Policy, esp in the wake of 9/11. Don't get me wrong, I don't assume State, DoD or Langley wanted this to happen, and you're right that nothing was done about it before 9/11, but it is a result of American foreign policy, albeit unintentionally.

Also, has anyone seen the cover of the book "The Clash of Fundamentalisms"? Go to amazon.com and search CLASH FUNDAMENTALISMS - it's imperative you pluralise it into fundamentalisms. It's a cool pic, albeit a little wierd and scary.
E_S

 

E_S, I agree with you. The things that have happened and will continue to happen are a direct result of things that the US has done, or not done. However, the solution to it is a somewhat spotty area. Even if we admitted wrongdoing in any way and tried to cease the activities that lead to this it is my opinion, and the opinion of our government and a great many people, that they will not stop. They will not put on their "all is forgiven" face. We have crossed the point of no return and there will not be a peaceful resolution to this, no matter how much people want it. I know. I'm one of them.

The writing is on the wall and it's staining it in blood. As much as we hate to admit it, it has come down to an us or them scenario. We'll never be truly safe from terrorists, but we can attempt to minimize their ability to effect out lives. The only way to do that is to eradicate them.

I don't believe this "war on terrorism" will work but I think, if enough pressure is applied, we can and will keep our attackers at bay.

Well, at least until they go underground and build their numbers up enough to retaliate.

 

Article on that blast outside the U.S. embassy in Jakarta

Apparently, the only death was the attacker, who it appears blew himself up prematurely.

 

You are totally right; there won't be a resolution to this specific incident. However, it needs to be a two-fold approach. Firstly, you need to eradicate al-Qaeda (and kill Bin Laden quietly; you don't want to martyr him and you don't want to put him on trial, it'd be open season on the US to secure his release) and all the other terrorist cells*, and two, you need to prevent it happening again. This is done by revising foreign policy and targeting areas that lead people, (Common people, not leaders like Osama) into terrorism - mainly, poverty and cultural "inferiority".

* - We also need to recognise Osama is just one man, and there are many men, and many organizations out there dedicated to the destruction of the West. Let's not afford him more attention than he deserves.

E_S

 

I agree 100%.

 

-sorry, had a problem posting so I double posted-

I did add this though:

Treat terrorism like you would a wart. It's ugly, so it works.
If you cut the head off, you ignore the roots. If you go after the roots only, you've got the head to worry about. You've got to get both, and sure there will be scar there, but it's a small price to pay.

E_S

 

Here is a little help to answer the question...
[image=http://membres.lycos.fr/emiliereturns/cartemondeusa.jpg]

 

I'm closing this thread, because there's an overabdundance of related threads, and one that pretty much replaces this one.