Can’t you leftists get it through your head that there are wars of aggression?
If you doubt me read any book by Bernard Lewis, or if that’s too difficult, read any book about WWII, or if you can’t mamage that, just read any history book. It’s amazing what you can learn from these things.
I’m not quite sure how to answer this. Let’s just say that in both cases a country was attacked by expansionist assholes and lots of innocent people died.
No, really? You mean someone always strikes first? :rolleyes: Estilicon, please explain how I am responsible for the actions of the Bush Administration when I did not support him in any way, actively supported the person who ran against him for President, and have continued to speak out against his policies the entire time that he has been the President? I did not help to put into office anyone who currently supports his policies. I do not even support the process through which he became President (the Electoral College).
I have had no more control than if he were a dictator.
(And no, I am not saying that Bush is a dictator.)
I ask only about my own responsibility and yet you must keep in mind that most American voters voted for another man to be President. Doesn’t that make a difference to you?
Clairobscur, I am in the sad position of thanking you for the additions to my list.
Too tired to look it up right now. If work is slow this week I’ll find a link to Islamist quotes where they say they want a world free of infidels.
Also, from what I hear there are Muslims living in NYC. And there have been calls for sharia wherever Muslims live. May be harder to find a link on that one.
I can’t be bothered with links either, but I’m pretty sure there’s a few Americans who believe the Bible is the literal truth. It has fuck-all about Christianity, and the ideology of Al-Quada has fuck-all to do with Islam.
A defensive or pre-emptive strike on a military target? No.
An attempt for financial gain? No.
The precursor to a planned invasion? No.
It was murder motivated by hatred. It was to exterminate as many non-muslims as possible thru the most efficient, plausible, easily accessible (i.e. cowardly) means possible. It was a lynching, a gay-bashing, a swastika painting on a synagogue, on a massive scale.
A defensive or pre-emptive strike on a military target? No.
An attempt for financial gain? No.
The precursor to a planned invasion? No.
You’re about half-right here. They do hate us, and they do want to kill as many of us as possible. But, like most cases, there is more than one motivation.
They are fighting someone who they view attacked them first (which most Americans seem to lack the capacity to comprehend).
They are fighting to gain prestige on the world stage to up recruitment and funding so they can grow and do what they want in Saudi Arabia.
They’re a bunch of people who move into caves in Afghanistan and plan terrorist actions against the most powerful entity the planet has ever seen. They may be many bad things, but they have balls.
Any idiot can say “They attacked us because they hate us.” That’s a given, right up there with “It rains because there’s a lot of humidity in the atmosphere.”
The smart idiots are the ones who ask why they hate us, and look at things like American intervention in Middle Eastern politics, American support for repressive ME governments, retaliation for perceived wrongs in the past, a one-sided Israel/Palestinian policy, and a dozen other complex, long-term factors.
The dumb idiots will say “They hate us for our freedoms,” and congratulate themselves for their “insight.”
Not really. It is quite accurate to point out that bin Laden and the like hate us particularly for our freedoms - especially certain freedoms.
The US has freedom of religion. That is, we neither interfere with the practice of religion, nor attempt to establish one over another. bin Laden disagrees with this notion, and wants the US to establish his brand of fundamentalist Islam as the official state religion.
There are a bunch of other reasons bin Laden claims for hating us - that gambling is legal in some parts of the US, that we allow investing and charging interest, gay liberation, allowing women to work outside the home and have contact with strangers - lots of things that most normal people would refer to as “freedoms”, but which bin Laden hates.
bin Laden and al-Queda attacked us because we based American soldiers in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War, and because we are the largest, most influential society on earth - and we are not fundamentalist Muslim.
If you believe that these are bad things, you agree with fundamentalist Islam. If you believe that innocent Americans should die as a result, you agree with the terrorists.
Wars or conflicts of these types are not based on logic.
Going by the books, yes you can say that the Americans are on Saudi soil on the invitation of the Saudi government. But that does not change the fact that despite having the knowledge that the Saudi govt is corrupt and totalitarian, the US still accepts their invitation and is friendly towards them - something that is against their stated policy. It thus becomes an issue of implementing double standards. Supporting something wrong only because it serves your vested interests is wrong. OBL and his gang, as also many of us, do not like this duplicity on the part of the US. They find it insulting to their self respect and their religion that their holy land, that the prophet had said should have no other religion, is harbouring foreigners. The US is seen as favouring and supporting the oppressive regime of SA.
The purpose of the terrorist attack is to hurt the US sentiment in an attempt to make it see where it is wrong. When talking and reasoning doesn’t seem to help at all, and does not seem to lead anywhere, then depending on how strongly they feel, some people take the law in their own hands and hit back in whatever way they can. At that time they do not think that they are killing civilians. In their mind they are just “getting back” at the evil US.
Another thing I would like to understand - What if the terrorists instead of busting the WTC, had gone in, taken one civilian hostage and shot him? I can say with reasonable certainty that the reaction that would have generated would have been almost nothing comparatively. The question is “why?”. Is it the number of civilians killed in one incident make the act more descipable and unacceptable?
Asume for an instant that there is intelligent life on another planet not so far away. The government of one of the “lesser” countries of our planet get in cahoots with a powerful tyrant of that planet and start doing things that the rest of the people of the planet do not like. One of the disgruntled “aliens” gets hold of a spaceship that has a “planet destroying” ray gun. What do you imagine this disgruntled guy will do to planet earth? I will tell you. He will point the gun at planet earth and blow the whole goddamned planet to smithereens! He is not going to come down here on a tourist visa to find out which country and which individuals are invloved in the nefarious activities on his home planet, make a list of them and then go with a pistol after them.
I hope the above gives you a picture of how the minds of the terrorists work.
Not rightaway because there is still a lot of oil there for everybody. But sooner or later it will run out. Do you think the French, Brits and others(US I guess) will invite the Saudis home for dinner?
Hatred and its intensity depends on beliefs. Its is like that shoe pinch thing - you wouldn’t know how they feel unless maybe you were one of them! But looking at the hatred that they have should at least make you wonder why, and that you do ask but do not want to understand and accept their views and sentiments.