Olent,
Not trying to be nitpicky here, but Mossadegh was Iranian. He was trying to nationalize Iran’s oil fields and the CIA staged a counter-revolution to kick him out and put the exiled Shah back in power.
I’m not sure how Saddam came to power. But if I’m not mistaken he came to power in 1967 and quickly drafted some law which said he would remain ruler until he died.
Just wanted to clarify that.
By the way, I love your posts!
Olentzero:
I think you insult us by assuming we don’t understand the terrorist morality. Furthermore, I think you belittle and unintentionally justify the actions of these terrorists by even seeking to esplain their motivations.
There’s no doubt they have them. There’s no doubt they feel justified. They are wrong though. Their motivations don’t matter.
Just for argument’s sake though, let’s examine these motivations.
During the late 60s and early 70s several mideastern courntries, most notably Iran sought to westernize. Walking down the street you would have seen Irani women in miniskirts and halter tops, walking next to women covered head to toe. There were discotheques, liquor.
All of it was too much too soon and their was a fundamentalist backlash. America became known as the “Great Satan.” A corruptor and evil temptress.
We are accused of supporting dictators and despots, and yes we have done that when it suits our needs, as we seek to allow countries self-determination. The fundamentalists have their own dictators and despots too, and they support them because they suit their needs. Such is the way of the world. In this we are nothing special. Nor are we different from them.
They consider us a threat to their way of life. In this they are quite correct. We are.
Though we do not force our culture or economic values on those other cultures, our ways are extremely attractive to some. Our wealth, our freedom, the equality we state between races and sexes (but only live up to imperfectly,) are threats to fundamentalist Islam.
For them their can be no live and let live. Their culture is not endangering ours.
Yet, the fact that we allow our citizens freedom of religion, means that we have the freedom to blaspheme Allah. That is unacceptable to them. That we let our women go about uncovered is unacceptable to them. That we allow people to use alcohol or gamble is unacceptable and offensive.
They want us to change our ways not just in our dealings with them, but all the time. In order for their culture to perpetuate they must shut themselves off from the temptations of our superior culture. When I say superior, I don’t mean that smugly. As a people we are not superior, but our freedoms, and rights that they do not allow their people to share make our culture superior and a threat.
So they shut themselves off from the civilized world and teach their children that we are not free, but evil. They do not wish to coexist in peace. They wish to destroy us, or change us into their own image.
They are not civilized. They bring new meaning to the term parochial. They are jealous of us, they hate us, and they wish to cause us pain simply because we exist and are different. They are racist and xenophobic, and we must defeat them or be defeated by them. There is no third choice.
They accuse us of Imperialism. That is a bold lie. The U.S. is not a country of conquest. We defeated Japan, we didn’t annex them. We didn’t annex Germany.
And this is a shame. Islam is perhaps the most tolerant of religious traditions. In the Quran it teaches that Jesus was a prophet, and that both Jews and Christians are fellow beleivers in the same deity, and therefore brothers, just with different ways.
The Arabs had a true and advance civilization while the rest of Europe was blundering about blindly in barbarism.
But these fundamentalists have turned their backs upon these tradittions and achievements. They are not compassionate Muslims, they are not Christian, they are not civilized, and they do not value life, peace, or freedom.
They are the enemies of all that do. We owe it to ourselves, and more importantly, we owe it to the world as the most powerful nation in it, to put an end to them. Though some of their causes and griefs are legitimate ones this is still so.
Their causes and their way of life, lost its validity and its right to exist this past Tuesday morning. We will bring them to an end.
The Marines in Lebanon
Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie
WTC basement
The embassies in Africa
WTCs destroyed
The Pentagon
How many times should we negotiate? How many of our people have to die? These people are nothing but roaches and we must stomp on them. They cheer in the streets as our people die. The solution to this is simple, kill every last one of these fuckers. Use any other words for it, take out, rub out, eliminate, as long as we do it. Hell, we can get Lawrence Russell Brewer and John William King out of prison, give them a truck and drop them in the middle of Afghanistan, that should solve the problem. Let thousands of their mothers weep over their burned and dead children. Let them all rot in the deepest pit of hell. We need not worry about more suicide bombings if we kill every last one of those fuckers. Death to them all.
http://www.tch.org/~russb/wtc/wtc25.jpg
http://www.danielpipes.org/articles/1986summer.shtml
If you don’t want to read it, I can summarize: government actions caused terrorism, and it wasn’t the US government.
Having been reading quite a bit on terrorism I stand by what I said in my GQ thread: it is political. That terrorists happen to be of a radical religious nature is coincidental except so far as they advocate the radical religious state.
But how does America threaten the religious state? Simple: decadence. Tolerance is not tolerated; pluralism is unacceptable.
We, as a government, have known this since terrorism became an issue. Wonder why we play the marionette game? I don’t. I never have. I understood the motivation behind Vietnam (except why we entered in the first place… French imperialism? 
). As I read up on the recent history of Afghanistan I understand the motivation there as well. I understand some of the motivations behind entering into some ocnflicts and staying out of others. It is an explosive political situation there. Action is as terrible as inaction; diplomacy fails when the day after a peace treaty more terrorists set off car bombs in Israel (80’s event). Let me stress this: explosive. I can’t think of a time of such organized instability with the exception of the revolutions throughout history.
Do I necessarily agree with the decisions made? Eh. Do I see where we may have made better decisions? Eh-- in hindsight its easy to set public policy. Do I feel one fucking thing we’ve done deserves this type of retribution?
Well, easy for me to say when I support pluralism, women walking in public at their whim, and a democratic state. NO.
Since my morality necessitates a tolerance of pluralism, the use of primary force as a no-no, equality of the sexes and races and ethnicities, and some reasonable form of democracy, I cannot possibly see that there is anything to gain from tolerating those who would act against those interests. If my way of life and its survival is threatened by someone else’s intolerance they lose whatever they could have gained through reason and rational discourse.
So yeah, I understand why they did it. So does our government. And I don’t accept it. How fitting they used our own weapons against us? How fitting that they inspire the same rage they used to justify their operation in the first place.
If I had the Golden Apple I’d throw it right now and revel in the chaos by the values they possess. But I don’t have to.
Mossadegh, you’re correct, of course. I got my history mixed up. Saddam Hussein was put into power with US backing, but the details escape me at the moment. Will have to find my sources.
Zenster, I did indeed mean Kuwait - damn typos.
erislover, the “Are we clear” question referred to my position on terrorism, and more specifically the atrocities of this past Tuesday. So, I ask again - are we clear that I have no sympathy for the terrorists, or do you still insist I sympathize with murderers?
Scylla, if I’ve come across as thinking you don’t understand the motivations of terrorists at all, then I apologize. I do think, however, you don’t understand the motivations of terrorists correctly. Both you and erislover provide arguments for a cultural basis for these motivations - reactionary theology responding to secular progressivism - but that’s not all, nor is that enough. There are definite political and economic sources for terrorist motivations as well.
Finally, the United States didn’t just finance bin Laden; they trained him in all sorts of skills he now possesses. I make no claims that he was all a nice guy and everything before he was recruited by the CIA for the Afghan war, but since he was against the Russians, they were willing to overlook whatever megalomaniacal tendencies he was displaying in order to work with him. As far as fighting the Russians was concerned, bin Laden was good for buisness.
The CIA didn’t make him a megalomaniac, they made him a megalomaniac with skills. And thousands of working-class Americans paid with their lives for it.
The Marines in Lebanon <------> The support for forced occupation of Arab land
Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie <------> The shooting down of a passenger jetliner filled with civilians
WTC basement <------->The meddling with sovereign contries’ political elections, affairs, and leaders
The embassies in Africa <-------> The illegal and unnecessary presence of NATO troops in Iraq.
WTCs destroyed <-------> The military presence and buildup in the Persian Gulf during peace time.
The Pentagon <---------> The imposing of worldwide economic sactions.
You sound just like them. And Bin Laden seems to have the same solution in mind as you do. Kill 'em all.
Since you seem to have some of the worst traits in common with these people, why don’t you lead the way by killing yourself you stupid redneck.
I know.
It is a strong thing to say, and I did it (against my better judgement) out of something I think is implicit in the situation which, admittedly, you do not seem to.
That is, there is no reason behind their actions. There is nothing to understand. They want a militaristic, dictatorial religious state that stands opposed to equality and freedom. You do not come to this opinion by any rational means.
Our psychiatrists would lock them up and pump them with drugs. Years ago (and perhaps even today) they would be given shock therapy. Perhaps they would simply be in jail getting their three meals a day like Manson.
We know all we need to know about people who are diametrically opposed to what we can be said to stand for in the west, including the socialists and communists who genuinely seem to want freedom as well, and surely want equality.
There is no common ground here. There is nothing to understand except that fundamental perceptions are completely skewed.
The sad thing is that world opinion never shifted strongly enough to allow oppresive regimes to be eliminated sooner. The really sad thing is we thought that there was a solution to the Middle East. There isn’t one so long as these people are around. They ruin it for the countrymen that unknowingly protect them because of the oppressive regime that dominates them. We cannot distribute our flyers in their streets as a counterpoint. We cannot broadcast our news. We don’t have the ability to share ideas with these people who are, in every real way, innocent.
Is it possible to win an espionage war on another country’s land? I doubt it. Highly. Is it possible to threaten these governments? Not really… we’ve bombed before and it only serves to keep angry dogs at bay-- getting more angry. So where does that leave us?
We cannot liberate a country, even if they don’t already hate us for past transgressions in some ways necessitated by their own government which forbid them from being even remotely a decision maker in the process. We cannot frighten a government that has little to lose. We cannot chase someone hiding in these governments.
Or can we? Can we show them that the diplomatic cover they’ve hidden behind all these years is only a flimsy sheet? Can we show them that we really were being tolerant with a warlike government? Can we, basically, show them that they aren’t in charge anymore?-- that they’ve essentially fucked it up? That they’ve managed to live in one of the wealthiest areas of the world on natural resources alone and can’t even get their act together when entire nations with less (like Cuba) and trade sanctions (like Cuba) manage to have one of-- if not the– highest literacy rates in the world?
Does bin Laden have a legitimate gripe? If he did, why did he need to fly two planes into the WTC to get his point across? And what point could he possibly get across?
So: there is nothing to understand other than he is right in his perception that we are, in fact, diametrically opposed to each other.
What more would you like to know, Olen, really?
Olent:
Yeah, I agree. I even mentioned some.
I see. SO you’re saying that by having aided Bin Laden and trained him before he revealed his terrorist leanings , we are somehow responsible for his actions now?
Gimme a break.
My views on this debate:
The general view seemed to be that we were going to attack almost immediately and their fear was that we would just strike indescriminately.
Of course my view is that we must be sure, focused and (above all) complete in our response to this. No half measures.
Nukes cannot be ruled out, but for the life of me I cannot see any possible use for them in this situation. Sorry, but no good arguments for them have been put forward.
Remember, even more so than ever before, this situation calls for a balanced political and military response. Not a half-cocked shoot 'em all attitude, not a wring our hands and not do anything but talk the matter to death. If the US can do this, I will be even more proud of our country. This response will solidfy our maturity as a country.
Nuts and bolts of military response: In arm waving terms- we must seek to capture, no matter the cost in human or material terms, the leaders behind this. They have to be taken alive, put on trial, and then die old and forgotten men or women, in solitary cells, at a desolate prison.
This would require a superior combined arms technique that I think the US forces are capable of, especially with the advice of countries like Israel and Great Britan (who have had so much more experience than we have with terrorists).
On the diplomatic front, we have to make sure that a prolonged conventional war is avoided. We have to use and consult our allies (remember, they’ve lost people in this too). We cannot give the opportunity for a martyring of a country or a people. That would only help their cause. The key I believe is speed.
In a nutshell: We have to capture, not mass kill. We have to act with our allies in a swift, decisive manner and persue it to a conclusion. We must avoid making martyrs…we have to rid the enemies of symbols not give them new ones.
Of course, this is my opinion and observations…all comments welcomed but I may be slow in answering. I need to catch up on my sleep.
Read the post carefully, Scylla. I said:
In other words, the CIA found someone who already had terrorist leanings and trained him in skills they intended to use against the Russians. If bin Laden hadn’t already had terrorist leanings the CIA would have found someone who did.
And I don’t believe America as a whole is responsible. The responsibility lies in the pursuit of profits from oil, which necessitate active intervention in the governments of other countries to ensure the supply of oil continues to flow.
Which brings me to another statement of yours:
Self-determination means allowing the people of a country to determine their own leadership. If the United States supports a foreign dictator or despot to suit its own needs, that is not self-determination.
To be honest, you should have followed your judgement. It completely gave the lie to your earlier statement of respect.
There is. There may not be solid reason in their actions, but there is definitely reason behind it besides simple fundamentalist megalomania.
So there is no reason behind my political ideas either? :rolleyes: Two insults against one compliment. Thanks, pal.
The United States had a direct hand in ensuring ‘these people’ came to be. Expressing fervent desire for a peacful solution is sheer hypocrisy when one is involved in creating the problem in the first place.
Not to bomb this time, obviously. If you admit that bombing previously has made the angry dogs angrier, how can you support more retaliatory bombing now?
Why is it up to the United States? What makes us the savior of the rest of the world? Simply because we’re the richest and most powerful? Who pointed at us and said “Go forth, save the world from itself”?
I don’t know what particular transgressions bin Laden sees the US as having committed. Terrorism is certainly the wrong way to act upon those grievances, but it does not delegitimize them. Only careful examination of the factors which gave rise to the grievance can do that.
Because he was trained in those methods to get his point across. He wanted the Russians out of Afghanistan, and got shown how to terrorize them and make the Afghan war unpopular in Russia. Now he has grievances with the United States, and he goes with what he’s been taught, reinforced by his willingness to use terror in the first place.
“We” and who? The United States and Arabs? Christians/Jews and Muslims? Who are “we” diametrically opposed to?
Plenty. There is no argument or assertion that is not worth critical examination.
Thanks, clairobscur.
We’re not even sure who did this yet, how do you know their motives?
Do you believe any of the actions you listed in your post justifies their response?
Hmmm, sure, I suppose “meddling” is something that requires a deadly response…
How about the "illegal and unnecessary presence of Iraqi troops in Kuwait?
And let me add my voice saying that I strongly disagree with just about everything Olentzero has said. He has shown a tremendous lack of understanding of what Bin Laden wants. In typical Marxist terms, he thinks this is all about income inequality, our meddling in political affairs, etc. As I said before, it’s not. It’s a clash of two world-views. Bin Laden declared a Jihad against the United States a long time ago. Islamic radicals HATE the United States merely for what it represents. You could have stayed home for the last 50 years and sent economic aid to every country in the Middle-East, and they would still hate you.
And it’s not just Bin Laden. Islamic radicalism is a cancer on the face of the Earth. Has everyone forgotten that the Taliban is about to execute two young American girls merely for talking to people about Christianity? It made me sick weeks ago when I kept hearing about how those two girls were getting what they deserved for interfering with those people’s faith. The Taliban does not respect human rights in any way. They are a government that came to power through violence, who maintain their power through violence, and who’s stated goals are antithetical to everything we believe in. And now that they are harboring Bin Laden, they have lost their claim to sovereignity. Today, they are threatening a Holy Jihad if the U.S. penetrates Afghan territory even if just to get Bin Laden. And why? Because they LOVE the guy. He’s doing their work. They are supporting him and harboring him, and now they are threatening war if we try to bring him to justice.
The Taliban government has got to go. Saddam Hussein has got to go. Other countries who lean the same way but have not yet crossed the line of brutality such as Syria and Libya have to be put on a short leash - step out of line even a whisker, and they’ll get the same treatment. Yassir Arafat is saying the right things at the moment, but his history is very different, and so he too shall be put on a short leash.
It’s time for a Pax Americana. There have only been several periods in human history where one country was strong enough to dictate the behaviour of the world. The Romans had the Pax Romana, the British had the Pax Brittanica, and now the Americans must declare a Pax Americana. From this day forward, violence ANYWHERE in the world has become the interest of the U.S., and if the countries in question can’t get their act together, the U.S. and her allies will step in and stop it for them. Regimes that do not recognize human rights and who oppress their own citizens just lost their sovereignity.
And this has to be tempered with good judgement, respect for the rights of others to self-determination, and with aid, economic and otherwise, to those who agree to share our values.
No, it doesn’t JUSTIFY them, it just EXPLAINS them!
Sheesh! Know your enemy.
What is that? Can you give me a hint since you are so determined?
I have no fucking idea what makes you say that. Please reread what I said.
GIVE ME A BREAK, by that logic no war should have ever ended, we aren’ really at peace with all of Europe, all of Europe is still at war with itself not to mention a continent full of hipocracy :rolleyes:. Let me tell you about warfare, Olentzero: the whole world has suffered from it in varying degrees over the course of history. You know who is to blame for this? God, in whatever form he takes (whatever religion or lack thereof). Period. It created a world of limited resources and creatures who needed those resources to survive. That is a recipe for fighting. We did not create the people who did this, people who do these things happen and they justify their shitty actions in a political context.
I’m almost regretting taking back my sympathy comment. Lesse: we need to understand them, we made them, we helped them, and we bombed them… that is quite a sob story you are giving me between the lines Olentzero. You’re a nicer guy than that, so I just don’t get what is going on. At all.
Because we’re bombing to come after the terrorists now, not the governments we previously bombed. And I hope we don’t stop.
You know what, I am reminded of the great Hagbard Celine who answered just such a question. Why us? “Because [we’re] there, schmuck.”
Let me give you a hint: go right to the source for that. Our transgressions are simple, and I listed them above. But read his words when he declared war on the US back in, i think, 1993 or 6 or something.
Being alive under a warring government makes mean people. If, then, those governments don’t allow their people access to any level of the truth without twisting it for their own purposes, they can make mean people meaner, sometimes on purpose. End of story.
Whatever, let me restate the question: why does bin Laden hate the US?
I thought I was very clear about that, even given the excessive pronoun use in that post. I explicitely stated what the opposing ideals were, and you are welcome to try and extrapolate those ideas into smaller ethic and cultural groups if you want.
I disagree. The time to get to know these guys happend years ago, and we ignored the threat we knew was there. We know them. We knew hem then and we know them now. Game over.
olent:
Yes. We trained him to fight Russian soldiers.
Soldiers.
You’re right, Guinastasia, Mossadegh explained himself before.
Apoologies.
If we do NOT try and understand why they do this, then we run the mistake of another Vietnam. It’s simply common sense. Robert S. McNamara said as much in In Retrospect.