How did the terrorist attacks become a freedom issue?

[greco_loco]

Ghosiabi’s interview is a well thought out piece, and provides a lot explanation of the Saudi point of view; I don’t remember it being that widely circulated after it occurred, but I felt he provided some needed clarification on several topics. However, I think his comments on ObL and the Saudis involved in 9/11 are more of the standard “Saudi line” than any real description.

After all of ObL’s pronouncements, I think it is quite disingenuous on his part to say the American military presence in the Gulf is not a goal, and that to him it is all a matter of “illusions of grandeur” by the destruction of the only remaining superpower. Ghosaibi neglects to mention that support for American military forces stationed in Saudi, among the Saudi populace, is extremely low: as evidence, we have the waffling of the Saudis on use of our bases there in an attack on Iraq, the continuous movement of American troops to even more remote locations (we no longer operate aircraft out of or close to major cities like Riyadh and Dhahran), and constant comments by the Crown Prince (Abdullah) on Saudi TV assuring the populace that the regime does not support the US stance on Israel or Iraq. Ghosaibi also does not connect the growing anti-US sentiment which has been seen since after the Gulf War to the fact that 15 of the hijackers were Saudi; instead, he uses the fact that Saudi passports were easily accepted for visas into the US. No mention that other GCC passports, such as UAE, Kuwait, and Qatar, were also easily accepted at the time, and tend to negate his contention.

Another historical issue that is avoided is the strong current of Islamic militancy that has not only been important to the development of the Saudi state, but which actually brought the first king into power; the use of the “Ikhwan” as ‘shock troopers’ provided Ibn Abd al-Aziz with firepower at a time when his conquest sorely needed it. He brought the Ikhwan from their enclaves, allowed them to influence his movement, and pressed them into service as the spearhead for his military push into the Hijaz; once the conquest was complete, and he was ruler of a unified Saudi Arabia, he, by political necessity, pushed them aside. Abd al-Aziz was a shrewd politician, and realized quickly that his alliance with such a reactionary group would only serve to distance him from the Western (mainly UK at this point in history) assistance and recognition the fledgling country needed. He told the Ikhwan to go back from whence they came; their understanding had always been that they would be a part of the regime, and no doubt this disenfranchisement deeply rankled. It still does, and the Ikhwan continue to despise the regime for precisely that reason.

Although ObL himself was never a part of the Ikhwan growing up, he, as well as any Saudi, knew the history; it is possible that, on his return to Saudi, he fostered ties in those areas, where the ground was fertile for any type of action against the royals. And remember why the Ikhwan were ‘kicked to the curb’: to curry favor with the West (which is now so grandiosely associated with us); the stretch from evil royal family to evil Americans (or even seeing the royal family as a puppet of the American oil interests) is not that large. In the 97 CNN interview, ObL states that he would be satisfied to a large extent if the US pulled military forces from the Gulf and “desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world”*; after Afghanistan, his views may have radicalized to the point where he won’t be happy until we are destroyed. That tends to happen when you bomb the bejesus out of someone, and create a worldwide manhunt for them; even if he hasn’t stated as much directly, it is not too presumptive to say that he wishes the US would disappear right about now.

Whether his opinions and actions “curtail” any of our “freedoms” is probably more subjective then objective: I currently live in the Middle East with my wife and daughter, and I travel and work freely. As a matter of fact, in the years I have been here, I find the area as safer than any other place I have lived; crime is relatively minor, and violent crime is practically non-existent. Up until the last couple of months, I would happily wear clothing (such as a necktie or even a shirt) that displayed an American flag; in my conversations with residents, I never lied about being an American. I have only had a few adverse reactions in 12 years, and those I can count on one hand. None were threatening, simply expressions of displeasure; I have traveled throughout much of the world, and had more negative reactions to my citizenship in Europe than in the Middle East. So I have a hard time believing that any of my freedoms have been curtailed: I work as I please, I have freedom of movement, and I still have all of the freedoms promised by the Constitution when back in the US (though Ashcroft and the administration may be changing that). After all, we are Americans: we stand for freedom, the freedom to be individuals, to determine our own course in life; if we, as the US, use these attacks as the basis for an invasion of another sovereign nation, no matter how much it may deserve such an act, then we are the ones that turn the attacks into “a freedom issue,” and not ObL. It’s a shame that people don’t see that is exactly what he wants; a good insurgent leader uses the enemy against itself, and that is exactly how he was trained. By us…

Thanks

Greco

*Here is the interview, in PDF format.

[The_Calculus_of_Logic]

because freedom makes for better propaganda matter than unconditional support of isreal or a manipulative foreign policy. Who wants to fight so we can support Israel unconditionally?

If terrorists hated freedom they would have attacked one of the other 30+ countries that enjoy relative prosperity & freedom.

[Tee]

Originally posted by greco_loco *
**In the 97 CNN interview, ObL states that he would be satisfied to a large extent if the US pulled military forces from the Gulf and “desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world”; after Afghanistan, his views may have radicalized to the point where he won’t be happy until we are destroyed. That tends to happen when you bomb the bejesus out of someone, and create a worldwide manhunt for them; even if he hasn’t stated as much directly, it is not too presumptive to say that he wishes the US would disappear right about now.**

This piece taken directly from London_Calling’s post addresses that:

"The country of the Two Holy Places has in our religion a peculiarity of its own over the other Muslim countries. In our religion, it is not permissible for any non-Muslim to stay in our country. Therefore, even though American civilians are not targeted in our plan, they must leave. We do not guarantee their safety, because we are in a society of more than a billion Muslims. A reaction might take place as a result of US government’s hitting Muslim civilians and executing more than 600 thousand Muslim children in Iraq by preventing food and medicine from reaching them. So, the US is responsible for any reaction, because it extended its war against troops to civilians. This is what we say. As for what you asked regarding the American people, they are not exonerated from responsibility, because they chose this government and voted for it despite their knowledge of its crimes in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and in other places and its support of its agent regimes who filled our prisons with our best children and scholars. We ask that may God release them.

He says civilians are a legitimate target in SA, in 1997. We went into Afghanistan because he targeted civilians (among others), on our soil, in 2001. He was in my neighborhood, and yet safe halfway around the world, using these people here as missiles against others in New York. It was his second attempt on the World Trade Center - the first was in 1993. I’m very glad that no one objects to you wearing an American flag in the Middle East but I wasn’t really focused on the Middle East, I am referring to people having the right to fly to LA or work in very tall buildings and not be killed, right here. A terrorist attack is an assault on freedom, period. A terrorist attack in the US against American citizens is an attack on the freedom of American citizens.

Msmith537 had a very good point: why is this man considered a representative of SA, more so than the government of SA. His beef should apparently be more with his own government that we are partnered with…and by the way, why doesn’t SA have the same right of self-determination that sovereignity grants them. I would like to add: why is this man insisting that we are the sole cause of these troubles? Has the UK acted any differently? Is France somehow not imperialist? And why does Russia get a pass, of all places, having fought a decade-long war in Afghanistan. Why aren’t various Middle Eastern states considered complicit in the sanctions against Iraq. Why isn’t Europe considered complicit in the Israel issue, since Israel did not originate from here.

His argument is illogical and his focus on the US irrational. I’m going with “he likes killing.”

[sqweels]

Msmith537:

I do not make the distinction between freedom and safety that you do. When you threaten a person’s safety you are exerting control and influence over that person. If a bully threatens to beat you up every day, does he not threaten your freedom? If you are afraid to walk into a mall or take a job in a high-rise building because some terrorist might blow it up, is that not a threat to your freedom?

Sure, if you insist in portraying it in that sense. But Al Queda was not motivated to attack the US because we had an unacceptable level of freedom from fear. And how tangible are most of us affected by this threat? Who among us is “afraid to walk into a mall”? How many Americans have the opportunity to work in a skyscraper or other likely terrorist target?

There are more tangible example of actual freedoms being threatened. This is a war over idealogy. Fundimentalist Islam, as practiced by the Taliban, is very oppressive to personal freedoms. I don’t believe that groups like Al Quada would be satisfied if we pulled out of the Middle East and abandoned Israel. I think that like other religeous fanatics, they would continue trying to spread their oppressive, fundamentalist version of Islam.

True, there will always be a hard-core (but bringing justice to the Middle East in indispensible to reducing the terrorist threat). But the liklihood of an Islamic regime in Washington isn’t realistic, so that consideration is pretty much off the table. It’s vengeance they’re after, and the situation pretty much boils down to a case of “Yankee go home”.

[tracer]

*Originally posted by cainxinth *
Usery is charging interest on loans.

I believe the word you’re looking for is usury.
From www.m-w.com :

1 archaic : INTEREST
2 : the lending of money with an interest charge for its use; especially : the lending of money at exorbitant interest rates
3 : an unconscionable or exorbitant rate or amount of interest; specifically : interest in excess of a legal rate charged to a borrower for the use of money

[Tamerlane]

*Originally posted by Tee *

Msmith537 had a very good point: why is this man considered a representative of SA, more so than the government of SA.

Well, I wouldn’t say he is necessarily. However he is a reflection of a part of SA society. This is far and away the most fundamentalist country on earth. Far more so than, say, Iran. The sect of Islam overwhelmingly practiced in Saudi Arabia is pretty much practiced only in Saudi Arabia ( and a couple of much smaller Gulf emirates ) and is profoundly ( and quite consciously in that it takes its cues from 10th century theologians ) medieval in a colloquial sense ( though, weirdly, in practice it is actually rather more regressive and close-minded than at least early medieval Islam in general ). Though Islamism is a wider phenomena in the Muslim world, nowhere is it so deeply rooted in society as Saudi Arabia. Now in part this obscures some differences - SA’s official brand of Islamism, what ObL and his ilk refer to dismissively as “Sheikism”, is rather more conservative and stodgy than the “Jihadist-Salafism” professed by the radicals of the Muslim world. Still, there is no denying that the religious mindset of Wahabism ( the sect of Sunni Islam practiced in SA ) is pre-disposed towards religious bigotry and intolerance and that is a ripe breeding ground for radicals like ObL. The more so these days as SA’s wealth is beginning to recede, leaving a semi-disenfranchised younger class that is no longer as well-supported by the SA welfare state ( which nonetheless remains generous in a number of ways ).

So in that sense ObL represents the dark side of SA, while the government represents…uhh…a slightly less dark side ( not a fan of their government, but for practical reasons they have been a faithful ally of the U.S. for many decades now - even their coddling and promotion of Muslim radicalism/fundamentalism before the 90’s when such radicals became threatening to the regime, was done with enthusiastic American support, since it was considered an effective counter to the spread of the communist boogeyman ). Indeed many maintain that he is a more realistic representative of SA than the oligarchic Royal Family, which is considered isolated and out of touch with the common man. However, personally, I wouldn’t take such a negative view - Even today most SA citizens don’t seem to be of the terrorist mindset of ObL et al.

His beef should apparently be more with his own government that we are partnered with

Believe me, it is. Very much so.

…and by the way, why doesn’t SA have the same right of self-determination that sovereignity grants them.

Hmmm?

I would like to add: why is this man insisting that we are the sole cause of these troubles?

He doesn’t. We’re not the sole cause of trouble in his mind - We are the primary cause and biggest target because we are the dominating hegemonic power and the state that most diorectly impinges on the MENA these days.

Has the UK acted any differently? Is France somehow not imperialist? And why does Russia get a pass, of all places, having fought a decade-long war in Afghanistan. Why aren’t various Middle Eastern states considered complicit in the sanctions against Iraq. Why isn’t Europe considered complicit in the Israel issue, since Israel did not originate from here.

UK - One time significant player ( especially in Gulf ), now only a minor presense.

France had even less of an impact in the region and is only really significant in terms of Algeria - However it is worth noting that France was and ( to a slightly decreasing extent ) is a target of the Algerian jihadists and that group ( in a loose sense ), together with the Egyptians, has provided the bulk of al-Qaeda’s operational expertise.

Russia gets no pass, as the solidarity ( and material support, however much or little they’re getting ) expressed for the Chechens show. However with the disintegration of the U.S.S.R. it is no longer considered as direct and major a threat. Rather attention has shifted to the minor successor governments in places like Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

The various dictatorial Arab governments are a major target. The major target, in fact, at least in an immediate sense. The U.S. is considered, rightly or wrongly, a major prop behind these governments ( and there is some truth to that ) and as such an obstacle. Attacking “outside imperialists” like the U.S. is in part seen as a way of rallying support on the street, support which can then be used to topple corrupt secular governments and replace them with theocracies. The jihadists have been waging a violent insurgent and political war against these secular governments for decades, attacks against the U.S. is a recent phenomena.

Europe as a whole is not given a pass either. However vis-a-vis Israel, it is definitely true that for reasons of politics and demography ( and hence culture to some extent ), the U.S. has almost always been a much tighter and more visible ally of Israel than any European nation. The American involvement in the Israel-Palestine affair has been major and very apparent since the 60’s, in ways that Europe doesn’t approach.

His argument is illogical and his focus on the US irrational. I’m going with “he likes killing.”

He IS illogical and irrational in a wider sense. And he may be bloodthirsty. However within the circumscribed world of his particular philosophical mindset, his actions are actually pretty consistent and logical. Insane actions, stemming from an insane view? Yes - But internally consistent, I would argue.

• Tamerlane

[Mandelstam]

*Originally posted by The Calculus of Logic *
**because freedom makes for better propaganda matter than unconditional support of isreal or a manipulative foreign policy. Who wants to fight so we can support Israel unconditionally?

If terrorists hated freedom they would have attacked one of the other 30+ countries that enjoy relative prosperity & freedom. **

Calculus, I agree with your critique of what the terrorists attacks weren’t primarily about; but I’m not sure sure about the alternative view of what American policy is really all about. Manipulative foreign poicy, yes. But “unconditional support” of Israel? What would be the motive for such unconditional support? Are you suggesting that the United States is so beholden to Israel that it will follow Israel’s whims whereever Israel leads?

I think that entirely unlikely: and it also overlooks the ways in which American foreign policy in the Middle East shares mary parallels with its foreign policy in regions where Israel is not a key factor: Central and South America, for example.

[Tee]

Originally posted by Tamerlane
The various dictatorial Arab governments are a major target. The major target, in fact, at least in an immediate sense. The U.S. is considered, rightly or wrongly, a major prop behind these governments ( and there is some truth to that ) and as such an obstacle. Attacking “outside imperialists” like the U.S. is in part seen as a way of rallying support on the street, support which can then be used to topple corrupt secular governments and replace them with theocracies. The jihadists have been waging a violent insurgent and political war against these secular governments for decades, attacks against the U.S. is a recent phenomena.

Thank you for your post. A real Weekend-brunch-at-Rowes sort of post with lots to reflect on.

Paying particular attention to the phrase “the jihadists have been waging a violent insurgent and political war…for decades” now, like you said against secular governments…I see the argument can be made that all non-Islamic governments can be viewed through their theology as “corrupt.” I also see that perception plays a big part in it all - we are more ‘visibly’ corrupt than other nations by supporting the SA and Israel regimes and our military contributions to each. And this is because the US is the primary focus of pan-Islamic rallying cries, which might also involve purely false propaganda? We are not exactly responsible for the factual content of the rhetoric being dispersed, or the influence of Islamic radicals over some percentage of the population. I see trade partnerships here, allies, and good diplomatic relations; these are no less important to us because they interfere with the stated goals of others, or because some feel this is “corrupt.” On some level we will always be supportive of these two countries.

Rhetoric: “The US has caused the death of 2 million Iraqi children.” (by enforcing sanctions?) “The US supports the Jewish expansion of settlements in the occupied territories.” (We don’t.) Ok, so to whom do we direct a clarification and rebuttal? We can’t. Within SA or any other state-run place like it our policies are interpreted and disseminated completely from within, then passed along outside channels, and we may not know what ‘US policy’ consists of until these people land in our backyard complaining about it.

[The “2 million Iraqi children” thing was mentioned recently by Richard Reid (the British shoe-bomb guy) at his sentencing here in Boston.]

We also have a percentage of our population that seeks to mesh their religion with their government, they can also be called fundamentalists, and some are even homicidal…and I don’t see them being given sympathy or acceptance from the mainstream. I don’t see people preserving their ignorance or their twisted-gospel prejudicial statements. That would be silly, and suicidal for many if legislated. The Constitution mandates separation of church and state for good reason. Oddly enough I don’t come across many of the home-grown fundies, but I do seem to be in the flight path of eager Muslim self-immolative ones from overseas. One of them may fall through my roof one day and kill me, who knows…it won’t change my view (in spirit) that it’s a really bad idea to let the most extreme segments of a population decide our foreign policy.

[mswas]

From Tamerlane:

He IS illogical and irrational in a wider sense. And he may be bloodthirsty. However within the circumscribed world of his particular philosophical mindset, his actions are actually pretty consistent and logical. Insane actions, stemming from an insane view? Yes - But internally consistent, I would argue.

I take issue with this statement, just because I feel that the issue of good and evil IS the problem, and not a description of the problem. I feel that your use of the term “insane” is just a replacement for the more perjorative term “evil” and I think that trying to paint his views as those of one with diminished capacity is somewhat lacking in rigor.

Why can one NOT be insane, and yet have views completely antithetical to ours?

I believe it is a difference of opinion solely. I am not a sympathizer, I do not agree with Osama bin Laden, however I do think that just admitting that it’s a difference of opinion, rather than painting it in such ideological terms as “sane” or “insane”, or “good” and “evil” would be the biggest step in the right direction toward actually figuring out a solution to this.

You’ll never find a way to stamp out “evil” if evil doesn’t actually exist, and I think it’s time we started believing our enemy to be a rational being. All we must do is refer to the “Art of War” and begin to try to understand our enemy so we can come as close to the ideal of winning without firing a shot as possible.

Erek

[Tamerlane]

mswas: Difference of opinion? It is that, yes.

However the murder of innocents is insane by definition.

A suicide bomber that blows himself up on a bus filled with civilians is insane. Motivated by real issues? Yes. Performing an action for carefully thought-out tactical reasons? Conceivably. But it is still the hallmark of one who no longer can think clearly enough to realize that his actions are so fundamentally inhumane as to override all other concerns ( and they are, I don’t care what your motivation is ).

Into that category I also place ObL. His stated reasons for targeting civilians are specious at best. Now he may have issued them as a cynic, not believing them himself, but trying to exhort his followers. Which would make him evil, but not crazy ( and evil does exist, but I’ll leave the philosophizing over the defintion to some other time ). However I don’t happen to believe that. I think he is a true believer in his cause.

But all of that does not mean he and his motivations ( some of them ) can just be blithely dismissed as the irrational issues of an insane killer. I understand the contradiction you might see in that statement, but to me it is not a contradiction at all. As I said he is internally consistent in his logic and is quite capable of acting in a methodical and intelligent way to realize his goals, while still working within that paradigm. More importantly, he is motivated by real issues, serious issues, that are important apart from him.

However he is still a insane killer. IMHO. Because again, to me ALL killers of innocents are insane. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t be so short-circuited morally as to kill. Doesn’t absolve them of responsibility and it doesn’t means they don’t have other motivations that are worth addressing in some fashion.

• Tamerlane

[Tamerlane]

Tee:

I see the argument can be made that all non-Islamic governments can be viewed through their theology as “corrupt.”

This is true. However I, an atheist American, also consider many/most/nearly all of these governments to be corrupt as well. It goes beyond simple religious bigotry. The government of Algeria really is run by undemocratic thugs. Unfortunately, in this the Jihadists do have an excellent point - Which is why their philosophy has as wide an appeal as it does.

• Tamerlane

[mystic2311]

America wants to be a global empire. Terrorism is a logical response to empire, its just feedback regulation, like enzymes. The empire wants to be free to rob and exploit the people of the world. Terrorism is interfering with that freedom.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Another view: Terrorists hate us because of our freedom. Bushcroft are trying to take away our freedom so the terrorists won’t hate us anymore.