# The reason for the terrorists attacks on the US. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 21, 2003, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reason-for-the-terrorists-attacks-on-the-us/196562 "2003-08-21T00:43:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reason-for-the-terrorists-attacks-on-the-us/196562/61 "2003-08-22T00:14:49Z")
> [@](#): > > OBL made it clear what he dislikes about the US. > > The US support for Isreal. > The US deployment in SA. > The US led blockade on Iraq (at the time). Yes, this is pretty clear. It’s beyond me how even Shodan can defend someone who, instead of clearly articulating that these are the policies the terrorists are against and the reason for their attacks (and then, hopefully, why these policies are worth continuing even in the face of terrorism), invents some laughable but appealing bullshit about them hating Joe and Susie America’s liberty and freedom. Yes yes, the terrorists hate us because our electoral processes just make them sooooo mad. Definately, they went to all this trouble because they hate babies and trees and apple pies. Phhhbt. ---
**Author:** ![Roger\_Mexico](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f6c823/32.png) [@Roger\_Mexico](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roger_Mexico)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reason-for-the-terrorists-attacks-on-the-us/196562/62 "2003-08-22T02:07:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Beagle \* > \*\*The Iraqis attacked Saudi Arabia at Kahfji. They must have massed a few troops to actually invade Saudi Arabia and capture a small city, even if only for one day. The US Marines with some air support made it a short and unpleasant stay. The air support killed seven Marines though. > > After the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, how can anyone argue that Iraqi troops were not massed on the border of Saudi Arabia? Is the argument that they were dug into defensive positions, but not preparing to invade Saudi Arabia? There were huge trench systems dug all along the Saudi border which were mostly pulverized by B-52 strikes during the long air campaign leading up to Desert Storm. > > Are you, **Roger\_Mexico** , saying that those troops didn’t exist, or something else? Maybe there was some other area the Pentagon claimed the Iraqis were massing troops, other than along the Saudi-Kuwaiti border? \*\* According to the Washington Post, only about 600 Iraqi troops invaded Khafji. Their purpose was to engage coalition forces, not to invade SA. Khafji is on the coast right next to Kuwait. "ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF KHAFJI, Saudi Arabia, Jan. 31—A fierce battle for this deserted coastal town ended today when forces from Saudi Arabia and the emirate of Qatar, backed by American artillery and air strikes, evicted Iraqi troops and tanks, and freed two trapped U.S. Marine reconnaissance teams. The 12 Marines had been trapped in Khafji since Tuesday night when the town was overrun by about 400 to 600 Iraqi troops and 40 to 45 tanks in the first major ground action of the Persian Gulf War." [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/fogofwar/archive/post013191\_2.htm](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/fogofwar/archive/post013191_2.htm) I am saying that the Pentagon lied about the massive buildup of Iraqi troops on the SA border, in order to justify basing their troops in SA. The pentagon never released their satellite photos which supposedly showed the buildup. There is no evidence that the photos even exist. The Pentagon classified the photos, claiming that revealing them would compromise their intelligence sources. They had no problem showing satellite photos of supposed evidence of WMDs in Iraq recently, or for that matter of Soviet missiles in Cuba. Why suddenly the secrecy? I think the emperor has no clothes. It wouldn’t be the first time the Pentagon lied to justify a war, perhaps you remember the Gulf of Tonkin incident? At least in this case, the government admitted it had overestimated the size of the ground force: “After the war, the House Armed Services Committee issued a report on lessons learned from the Persian Gulf War. It did not specifically look at the early stages of the Iraqi troop buildup in the fall, when the Bush administration was making its case to send American forces. But it did conclude that at the start of the ground war in February, the US faced only 183,000 Iraqi troops, less than half the Pentagon estimate.” > **[In war, some facts less factual](https://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p01s02-wosc.html)** > > Some US assertions from the last war on Iraq still appear dubious. There is more about what the satellite photos did reveal: "The Times retained two satellite image specialists to interpret the photos: Zimmerman, a nuclear physicist who now is a professor of engineering at George Washington University in Washington D.C, and a former image specialist for the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) who asked not to be named because of the classified nature of his work. While Iraqi troops cannot be seen, it is easy to spot the extensive American military presence at the Dhahran Airport in Saudi Arabia. “We could see five C-141s one C5A and four smaller transport aircraft, probably C-130s,” said Zimmerman. “There is also a long line of fighters, F-111s or F-15s on the ground. In the middle of the airfield are what could be camouflaged staging areas. “We did not find anything of that sort anywhere in Kuwait. We do not see any tent cities, we do not see congregations of tanks, we do not see troops concentrations, and the main Kuwaiti air base appears deserted. It’s five weeks after August 2, 1990, and what we can see, the Iraqi air force has not flown a single fighter to the most strategic air base in Kuwait. There is no infrastructure to support large numbers of (military) people. They have to use toilets, or the functional equivalent. They have to have food. They have to have water at the rate of several gallons per man per day. They have to have shelter. But where is it?”.” [http://www.mideastfacts.com/iraq\_saudi.html](http://www.mideastfacts.com/iraq_saudi.html) ---
**Author:** ![bizzwire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/958977/32.png) [@bizzwire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bizzwire)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reason-for-the-terrorists-attacks-on-the-us/196562/63 "2003-08-22T02:28:47Z")
_from rjung_ > [@](#): > > The Saudi royal family doesn’t want us to leave. OTOH, I believe a majority of Saudi citizens do, largely because of their dislike towards the Royal family. Well, it looks like we’ve come full-circle. As a sovereign nation, we can only treat with, and accomodate, the desires of other sovereign nations. We can’t tailor our policies to satisfy every Tom, Dick, and Mahmoud in the middle east. So, are you’re saying is that we shouldn’t listen to the heads of state of a given nation but must consider the desires of every crank, lout, and mouth-breather with a chip on his shoulder and a belt-full of C-4, ball bearings and rat poison? If so, then the \*\* OP \*\* is correct, and we got what was coming to us. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reason-for-the-terrorists-attacks-on-the-us/196562/64 "2003-08-22T03:42:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by rjung \* > \*\*This claim has already been proven false many times in this forum. Please stop repeating it. > > . \*\* Proven? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. That’s funny. Are you supposed to be Judge Judy. You left out “IMO”. I be repeating it as many times as I see fit. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![T.Mehr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ccd318/32.png) [@T.Mehr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/T.Mehr)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reason-for-the-terrorists-attacks-on-the-us/196562/65 "2003-08-22T11:18:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > > If you have a better solution than what is underway, by all means let’s hear it, but you are going to need to be clear on how it will reduce terrorism. Unfortunately I don’t. And I don’t think anyone has. The point is, that the US is not exactly popular in the middle east because of the ways it pushes it’s own political and strategic goals with no respect of local religions, beliefs, cultures etc. > [@](#): > > If you mean that nobody would attack the US if we hadn’t overthrown Saddam Hussein… That’s of course crap. I don’t see how you can read taht out of my statement. ---
**Author:** ![T.Mehr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ccd318/32.png) [@T.Mehr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/T.Mehr)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reason-for-the-terrorists-attacks-on-the-us/196562/66 "2003-08-22T11:21:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blalron \* > But being pragmatic, they ought to be aware that something bad might occur as a consequence, and try to figure out whether, to them, the value of what they are doing outweighs the possible risks. Yeah, but this would mean, you’d have to be diplomatic and you’d have to think before you act. And the current administration seems not to be very good at any of these disciplines. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reason-for-the-terrorists-attacks-on-the-us/196562/67 "2003-08-22T11:50:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Rashak Mani \* > \*\* > PS: Shodan… you seem to think the reasons for Terrorism started pretty recently. You should know better that things have been building up for much longer. They just entered your reality in 9/11. \*\* No, I have specifically mentioned terrorist incidents pre-dating 9/11, such as the two previous attacks on the World Trade Center. If you can’t read, please don’t post. If you are being deliberately stupid, same advice. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![T.Mehr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ccd318/32.png) [@T.Mehr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/T.Mehr)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reason-for-the-terrorists-attacks-on-the-us/196562/68 "2003-08-22T12:07:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bizzwire \* > First off I would like a cite and a rationale for this statement. Here is a rather long document from 2000: [http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf](http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf) > [@](#): > > While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein. ---
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reason-for-the-terrorists-attacks-on-the-us/196562/69 "2003-08-22T12:47:30Z")
Shodan your the thick one… the former attack on WTC was a few years before. So lets see your first post in this thread shall we ? Bang in a bit to see if it gets in… the US is no angel and a lot of shitty stuff was done in the cold war. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > \*\*Well, the policy that caused the World Trade Center attacks was that of defending Kuwait from invasion by Iraq. I am sure that kicking Saddam’s ass out of Kuwait was demeaning to him, but I don’t think we should have done nothing during the first Gulf War. > > Most reasonable people agree that Osama bin Laden and his ilk attack the US because he feels that modern, Western secular democracy is threatening to his brand of fundamentalist Islamic theocracy. And the US is seen as the epitome of that form of society. > > Are you suggesting that the US has been demeaning to the rest of the world by being a successful, prosperous, and free society? And are you suggesting that we should not work toward that as a vison for the rest of society? > > I think those who say that terrorists are threatened by our freedom and our success are right on the money. > > If you want to define being a functioning Constitutional republic as provocative, you can do so, but I suspect most Americans would object if you tried to get the US to abandon this “policy”. > > You are entirely correct that “things will not change”. So long as we offer a successful alternative to the absolutist vision of many terrorists, they will continue to attack us. > > So be it. I would rather suffer the risk of terrorist attack than live under the regime of an Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein. > > Regards, > Shodan \*\* Lets go by paragraphs: 1. Defending Kuwait caused the WTC ? (better freeing Kuwait)Nope 2. Bush could be more secular… its not that simple 3. The US might be free and prosperous… but they have been supporting Despots all over the world. From Iran to Latin America the Coups were always to put in heavy handed desposts. Not democrats. So yes… the US didnt have that vision for the rest of society. 4. They arent threatened by US sucess… just its foreign policy and arrogance. 5. Again what policy you do INSIDE the US isnt what your doing OUTSIDE. US policy was always divide and conquer… keep friendly desposts to avert communism. Communism isnt nice… but desposts arent either. 6. Things wont change while the US keeps giving good reasons for people to support terrorism. Without support and cash these terrorists are way less effective. So killing them is less important than winning the minds and hearts of the Arab World so that they will stop financing these discontents. If the US doesnt change… why do they expect others to change ? 7. You have a choice… the Iraqi werent given one. They might have preferred UN rule ? They seem to be complaining about your choice of security for them by daily attacks. ---
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reason-for-the-terrorists-attacks-on-the-us/196562/70 "2003-08-22T12:53:53Z")
Response to the Iraq had or hadnt massed troops on the border with Saudi Arabia… ``` That fact is irrelevant. Having taken Kuwait the Iraqi could in a week join enough troops to attack Saudi Arabia. (If that would be sucessful is another issue.) The US being a bit far would have at best deployed lightly armed Marines and Paratroopers. Infantry, even if elite, in the open desert isnt what you want to fight 7-72 with. Bringing tanks takes time... So the US, the world too of course, couldnt risk Saddam having the 3 main oil producing countries. I dont think it was Saddams plan to attack Saudi Arabia.... but still... it might have become later on. So they dispatched troops as fast as possible. ``` ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reason-for-the-terrorists-attacks-on-the-us/196562/71 "2003-08-22T13:10:44Z")
**Rashak Mani** is right. If you accept the historical fact that Iraq invaded Kuwait and at least tried to invade Saudi Arabia with a substantial armored force, why does the prepositioning of the forces matter that much? It’s not like armored columns sit around to be struck by air attacks if they can avoid it. Hiding from satellites is just part of doing business in the modern military. I’d assume that troops are trained to do it all the time. I’d do it to save my ass. YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reason-for-the-terrorists-attacks-on-the-us/196562/72 "2003-08-22T13:13:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Rashak Mani \* > \*\*Shodan your the thick one… the former attack on WTC was a few years before. So lets see your first post in this thread shall we ? Bang in a bit to see if it gets in… \*\* I’m the one who pointed this out to you. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Shodan \* - > \*\* > As well as the previous attacks on the WTC during the Clinton presidency, the attacks on our embassies in Africa, Libyan terror attacks, etc._\* Read the whole thread before you respond, is that too much to ask? And could we use our “big boy” voice in Great Debates? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reason-for-the-terrorists-attacks-on-the-us/196562/73 "2003-08-22T13:18:14Z")
**Rashak Mani** : > [@](#): > > Shodan your the thick one [Moderator Hat ON] Rashak Mani, do NOT call your fellow posters “stupid” in this forum. If you absolutely must insult them, do it in the BBQ Pit. [Moderator Hat OFF] ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Owes\_Bess](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c37758/32.png) [@Alan\_Owes\_Bess](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Owes_Bess)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reason-for-the-terrorists-attacks-on-the-us/196562/74 "2003-08-22T14:21:56Z")
If you want to find out Osama Bin Laden’s reasons, why don’t you simply read what he actually said following the attacks on the twin towers. Let’s take the Al Jazeera version first, one step at a time: > [@](#): > > Let the whole world know that we shall never accept that the tragedy of Andalucia would be repeated in Palestine. We cannot accept that! Palestine will become Jewish. So formerly Moorish Spain of 700 years ago becoming tragically Muslim free, with a danger of a similar thing happening in Israel is Reason #1. > [@](#): > > And what America is facing today is something very little of what we have tasted for decades. Our nation,since nearly 80 years is tasting this humility. Sons are killed, and nobody answers the call. Whatever this rant is supposed to mean, it has been going on since the time of Calvin Coolidge, or thereabouts. Possibly the infidel Western world is deemed to be fully responsible for the low estate of the Muslim world. Reason #2. > [@](#): > > And when those people have defended and retaliated to what their brothers and sisters have suffered in Palestine and Lebanon, the whole world has been shouting. Probably the Israelis are the main focus of his ire here. Reason #3. > [@](#): > > And there are civilians, innocent children being killed every day in Iraq without any guilt, and we never hearanybody. We never hear any (inaudible) from the clergymen of the government. This would refer to the ante bellum boycott of goods into Iraq which supposedly caused great suffering over and above that inflicted by Saddam Hussein and his cohorts. Reason #4. > [@](#): > > And every day we see the Israeli tanks going to Jeanine (ph), Ramallah, Beit Jalla and other lands of Islam.And, no, we never hear anybody objecting to that. Israel, again. Reason #5 > [@](#): > > I say these events have split the whole world into two camps: the camp of belief and the disbelief. So everyMuslim shall take — shall support his religion.And now with the winds of change has blown up now, has come to the Arabian Peninsula. Reason #6, I suppose, whatever it means. The source of all that stuff is [Here](http://www.september11news.com/OsamaSpeeches.htm) So, Osam bin Loser has given everyone his reasons, such as they are, and although some of his rants are too incoherent to understand completely, there is no real need to speculate further on what he and his followers believe or on how they are likely to behave in the future. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reason-for-the-terrorists-attacks-on-the-us/196562/75 "2003-08-22T19:05:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Age Quod Agis \* > Is it difficult to type with your pants on fire? Since **clairobscur** isn’t here to debunk the whole “certain people made it clear they would not support a resolution of war no matter what” bullstuff (again), you can read the details for yourself [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3800706&highlight=france+and+veto#post3800706) (the most recent re-iteration I could find): > [@](#): > > And France _never_ stated it was opposed to war in all cases. It was even ready to participate in such war _if_ and only _if_ : > > 1. The inspections could have been carried on during at least a reasonnable period of time (one month or two has been mentionned) > > 2. The inspections showed that there was WMD and Irak wa refusing to destroy them OR Irak wouldn’t allow the inspection team to do its job > > 3. The war would be allowed by the UNSC on the basis of 2) > > Chirac _never_ ruled out a french military involvment in Irak, and even warned the french population about it during a TV speech. > All these things have been staten dozens of times, by dozens of posters on this board, but still, France’s position is still completely misrepresented again and over again, on the basis of out of context bits of quote. We’re supposed to be _fighting_ ignorance here, remember? ---
**Author:** ![magicman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@magicman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magicman)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reason-for-the-terrorists-attacks-on-the-us/196562/76 "2003-08-22T19:15:51Z")
I hate to say it but i think many people are missing the point of most terrorism, if people listen closley to what people like Osama Bin Laden are saying then people would realise that its not what America believe in that dirves the terrorists to target them, its the fact that America sees it as its duty to spread its self worldwide, most people in the middle east want nothing to do with the USA they want to fight their own conflcits, without help from the USA, they don’t want a MacDonalds in every town, they don’t want American companies interfering in their lifes, which is why i think that sice the USA attacked Iraq it has given terrorists more reasons to attack America, don’t get me wrong the USA did what they had to do and get rid of Saddam Huessein, but by doing so it has opened the door for a lot of new attacks. ---
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2003, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reason-for-the-terrorists-attacks-on-the-us/196562/77 "2003-08-23T02:41:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by magicman \* > \*\* …its not what America believe in that dirves the terrorists to target them, its the fact that America sees it as its duty to spread its self worldwide… \*\* Just add something to your comment: Remember that for the devout Muslims the US and the West are sinners, over sexed and without morals. The US spreading out does mean their “pure” gets “infected”. In general I agree with you thou. Osama would like to see the Arab world kept free of these influences principally. PS Beagle… where did I talk of hiding from satelites ? 🙂 PS Moderator Gaudere I didnt start the stupid calling… check a few posts before. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2003, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reason-for-the-terrorists-attacks-on-the-us/196562/78 "2003-08-23T03:28:55Z")
Rashak: Please provide proof of your assertion that “for devout Muslims the US and the West are sinner […].” Last I checked, there were more than a few Muslims in the United States and some of them are \ in the Armed Forces. I hear they’re devout, especially the Muslim chaplains. ---
**Author:** ![ChaosGod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ac91a4/32.png) [@ChaosGod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChaosGod)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2003, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reason-for-the-terrorists-attacks-on-the-us/196562/79 "2003-08-23T04:07:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by msmith537 \* > \*\*Yeah…we should only elect people who are financial failures. Forget leaders who have demonstrated success in business, law economics or some other endeavor. Let’s put some homeless guy or a pizza delivery boy in office. The point actually is, even if you are Jesus Christ himself, you won’t be elected without a shitload of money, and the backing of the biggest players. PS: Bush is a financial success? ---
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2003, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reason-for-the-terrorists-attacks-on-the-us/196562/80 "2003-08-23T16:13:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Monty \* > \*\*Rashak: Please provide proof of your assertion that “for devout Muslims the US and the West are sinner […].” Last I checked, there were more than a few Muslims in the United States and some of them are \ in the Armed Forces. I hear they’re devout, especially the Muslim chaplains. \*\* ``` Taking their values... we westerners drink alcohol, use skimpy clothes, our women dont cover hair or anything much in fact. We eat pork and fornicate a lot. We show sex on TV and we let women walk freely. In fact for a devout [insert religion here] anyone outside their group is a sinner and devoid of virtue usually. ``` [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reason-for-the-terrorists-attacks-on-the-us/196562.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reason-for-the-terrorists-attacks-on-the-us/196562.md?page=5)