The basic problem with this view (which is shared by some culturally self-hating “conservatives”) is that it focuses on the particular phenomena (some of which will inevitably offend somebody’s sensibilities) rather than on the general issue (individual freedom versus coerced conformity).
I think we agree on the basic point, which is that Wahabifascists (correctly) perceive that the spread of Western culture, with its emphasis on individual freedom, will inevitably destroy their preferred culture of religious coercion (or at least confine it to small enclaves). The bumper-sticker slogan “they hate our freedom” is an oversimplified shorthand for this concept, but not wrong in essence.
And your own mighty wind accounted for 2 of them. A masterful demonstration of spin by including quotes from me out of context and not bothering to go into the point of my own arguement…and not attributing the quotes of others or me so that you can mix and match and spin the arguement the way YOU want it to go…brilliant. My hats off and my own irony meter is off the scale by your demonstration.
Since you quoted me more than any other in your little trailer park romp perhaps you would point out again where the bored Muslims part is in this quote? See, the sentence DID have two parts, and as I’ve already said I WAS talking about the whole thing…not just selective parts. When put together I think this is the classic definition of a ‘strawman’…which is what I said. To spell it out to you, the OP was trying to spin a strawman by including one part truth, one part made up crap to put ‘the other side’ in the worst possible light…‘those stupid republicans believe that a bunch of bored muslims attacked because they hate us for our freedom. Gods dey are dumb!’ Strawman.
So, again I ask…who exactly out there believes or has said this crap (except the OP of course)? Who thinks that AQ attacked us because they were bored and they hate us because of our freedom? Do you have a snappy quote for THAT? No? Then don’t quote me again unless you find one please.
I already said that Bush’s sound bite is a VAST oversimplification. As politicians are known for, they enjoy condensing complex situations into a snappy sound bite for general consumption…and Bush seems to do this even more than the norm. Yes, I agree that AQ doesn’t like us much. There are myriad reasons for that, and ONE of those reasons is that ‘they hate our freedom’, or to put it better our freedoms threaten what they want and what they stand for.
While I agree with you that oversimplifying impedes understanding, I think the same can be said by the standard they hate us because of the bad things we did in the region in the past and really its all our fault line too. This is just as vast an oversimplifiction and gains us nothing…except the pleasure in bashing the US of course or justifying an attack that killed thousands of innocent civilians.
I tried to lay out why I think the attacks happened (and I oversimplified too, though not as much as either the ‘hates us for our freedom’ or the ‘its all Amercias fault’ crowd)…and I notice no one had a lot to say about it one way or the other instead focusing on my brief statement calling part of the OP an obvious strawman (which it is IMO) and a seemingly endless wrangle over the ‘hates us for our freedom’ sound bite.
Except the US ISN’T imposing our law or culture around the world. We were in Saudi AT THEIR REQUEST. You know, to protect them from Iraq in the first GW and afterward…again at their request. And we aren’t attempting to change Saudi, or force them to adopt our ‘laws and culture’…far from it.
I agree with you that they feel threatened (AQ and many of the more extreme fundamentalist types in the region), not just by the US but by the west…but its not because we want to impose our laws or culture. Its the very existance of our laws and culture as a symbol…and of course the fact that our culture spreads on its own so easily throughout the world with not need to impose it on anyone. Having been to the ME several times I can tell you that a lot of folks would LOVE to live in Europe…or the US. Even more so, they would LOVE to live under a similar set of laws (and affluence) as people in Europe take for granted. This is a direct threat to fundamentalist Islamic groups, as it errodes their own support.
I dont think that this was the main reason for the attack on 9/11 though (as I said earlier)…just as I don’t think the main reason for the attack was anger at the US or because we ‘deserved it’. I think it was an attack that was calculated to (eventually…I think it was only one move in a complex game) keep the US sulking at home cowed and unwilling to take a hand in the ME region…giving other groups a free-er hand there themselves…similar to how the US didn’t lift a finger (except to help evacuate) in '75 when North Vietnam finished off the South.
Let me get this straight, XT. You wanted me to provide cites for quotes that were posted on the same page? I think the best thing you can do here is admit you got owned this time and move on.
As a minor quibble, the Saudis are the current royal family. It’s less confusing if you refer to the citizens as Arabs.
And the Saudis were not imposed by the United States or any other outside power. They first established themselves as a local power in 1744. Their current control of Arabia dates back to the 1920’s when the Ottoman Empire lost control of Arabia. Saudi Arabia was formally founded in 1932; eleven years before any Americans appeared on the scene.
Either you have a reading comprehension problem, you are being deliberately obtuse, or you are delusional…which you obviously are if you think the cites quoted in this thread proves that the OP wasn’t tossing out a strawman. This is getting to be like a 2nd ammendment thread…‘but but, the FIRST half says THIS’. ‘Yeah, but there are TWO parts to the statement bonehead!’. Blah blah blah. In any case if you want to think I ‘got owned’ you are more than welcome too it. Knock yourself out Nemo.
I’m more irked not by the myriad of reasons that AQ might have caused 9/11 than by the fact that so few people even venture to understand the why of it all. To simply dismiss them as lunatics and wacko zealots seems to be way to common a reaction, and the beggining of new 9/11’s.
Overall I think one big reason was the promotion of islamic and religious governments in Arab countries. The status quo wasn't allowing for radical islamic elements to have as much power and influence... by hitting the US big time they could "unite" radicals and also with the backlash of US response break arab inertia into acting. Basically create the right condition to unbalance corrupt arab regimes.
The 9/11 atrocity was carefully planned…probably 5 years in advance. Millions of dollars were transferred to safe houses in the US, Germany, and possibly Italy. The hijackers were carefully selected and trained. Money transfers were made to the USA, apartments and automobiles rented, and flight school courses paid for. To think that the perpetrators didn’t KNOW what they were doing is ridiculous…these “people” (I hesitate to callthem that) were fanatics, who hated the US and everything it stood for. The sad thing is: the US ignored Bin Laden, and dismissedhim. He certainly gave plenty of warning.
I see the Islamic world as being at a crossroads…either it opts for democracy and human rights, or it goes retrograde (as the Khomeini regime did). But I don’t think that most people will like living under a Taliban-style regime-Iran has a large and vocal student population, that wants a democratic, non-theocratic government. We should encourage this.
I wish there was a country that had American freedoms but where the people were mature enough and intelligent enough to recognize when those freedoms were being abused. I’m so sick of stupid parents who let their kids listen to “F**k dem Ho’s 'till dey Ded” etc. I’m sick of having to clean up my teenage neice’s and nephew’s computer files and seeing they’ve downloaded videos with titles like “14 Year Old Lesbians Getting F****d.”
Not kidding. I believe in letting the President be the head of state. I believe in a stronger President and weaker Congress than what we have now. The President should be free to implement his policies and Congress should only be able to block his actions with a 2/3 majority vote.
Actually I was thinking of fundamentalist Christians (which I am not, but was raised as such)
The highjackers’ actions were evil. Everyone involved should be hunted down and killed. I’m just trying to give you a view of American culture from an outsider’s point of view. Maybe most Americans just can’t understand how shocking and disgusting some of the excesses are to people who aren’t used to it.
God, I love the nutbar left. You can’t make this stuff up.
Yeah, they’re all real pissed to be making trillions by selling black goo from the ground that they have no other use for. IT’S EXPLOITATION, I tells ya! Why, only a few decades ago, Saudis were wealthy and prosperous nomads living of the fat of the land; now instead of their elegant camels they have to make do with Bentleys and Filipino chauffeurs…
Oh, sure there’s a germ of truth to; the wealth acquired by selling natural resources has only made the Arab world’s status as otherwise backwards even more apparent, and may in fact have stifled genuine cultural progress and adaptation to the modern world … but calling $40 a barrel “stealing” is unintentional humor at it’s finest.
In 1993, a Saudi prince came to Boston, for medical treatment (as a prestigious Boston hospital). The royal party leased an entire floor of a local hotel. While the royalparty was in town, the demand for hookers skyrocketed! Members of the saudi party were seen at local strip joints, and exotic dancers reported a huge surge in income. Yeah, saudi morality…pass it on…that’s a good joke! tell me about the filipina contract workers (in SA) who are used as virtual sex slaves…or the public executions of adulterous women.
So yeas, i’m sure the saudis are outraged at our loose morals…yet they seem to have no problem participating in our horrific society.
I understand it just fine. For example, self-loathing whines about the “decadence” of the West, at a time when it is important to keep our attention focused on the key issue (which, for those who came in late, is the defense of Western Civilization from barbaric religious totalitarians who have no legitimate* complaint against our “excesses”), strikes me as a textbook example of abusing one’s freedom of speech.
*The best way to illustrate the illegitimacy of the complaint is to cite a clearly stated fictional example thereof:
I don’t know if he’s “joking”, but I will be utterly astonished if he considers this statement equally applicable (in either direction) to Watergate and Whitewatergate…
There was also a piece in this month’s Reason (not yet online, but presumably will be after their usual lag between the print issue and the web page publication thereof) about widespread (about 500 reported cases) of sexual abuse in Pakistani madrassas. It would seem that they have a considerably worse problem than the Roman Catholic church (especially when one extrapolates from the former’s much greater ability to hush it up).
Now our grim task is to choose one of three paths: embrace pacifism and risk losing it all, enjoy the tense compromises while the long process of assimilation occurs, or we wage war and destroy the competition. (I may have excluded a middle there.)
It’s simple conflict. Some people disagree, to the death, with the way of life we lead.
The motivation behind 9/11 could have been to jumpstart an all-out war between the cultures. Those advocating this are either irrationally faithful that God is on their side, or perhaps they are clever enough to see how our rush to war could result in tripping over our own feet.
On the other hand, the motivation behind 9/11 could have been to simply strike out at us and do us harm. In this, they were lucky - it did more damage than expected - but the net result was hardly a crippling blow.
Concerning those involved, the motivation would naturally vary from person to person. However, it seems to me that the higher-ups, the master planners, are trying to be clever but also trying to strike a blow. There are a number of ways 9/11 could have worked out, but few of them would have been good for us.
Especially because a few of those choices require sacrifices of our own.
One horse wonder eh? How many times are you going to drive by with the same red herring? Your little tactic done got old. You don’t score points with this crap. You just prove your intellectual dishonesty. Unless you can prove Bush targetted innocent civillians for American freedom, quit making yourself look retarded.
Well, this actually gets right to the heart of it. AQ is a fundamentalist movement at its heart. They hate the decadence of the ruling Saudis as much as they hate their repressiveness. Probably moreso, in fact, since I’m sure that AQ would be quite happy to see Saudi Arabia transformed into an even more repressive state than it is now, so long as it was the right kind of fundamentalist repression.
If their main beef is with the Saudis, then why strike America? Because they see the west, and the United States in particular, as the wellspring of the decadence that has infected the Saudis. By striking against the United States they force a polarization of the Arab world. In essence, they’re saying to the Arab street: “We’re fighting against the foreigners who have corrupted our leaders … why aren’t you?”
The goal was to provoke a response from the United States that would reinforce this polarization and weaken the position of the Saudi government. The best American response IMHO would have been to treat the attack strictly as a criminal action, thus helping to delegitimize AQ as a political movement. The decision of the Bush administration to respond to AQ as a political entity I fear has only strengthened their base. (No pun intended.)
In short, we should be trying to isolate the cancer within Arab society. Not encouraging it to metastatize.
Of course, the root cause of all of this trouble is the United States’ dependence on Middle Eastern oil. The necessity of keeping the oil flowing requires us to support repressive regimes in the interests of regional stability. This exercise in economic realpolitik runs counter to America’s historical position as a beacon of liberty to the rest of the world. This further helps to explain why AQ is so pissed at the U.S. in particular – to them we look like hypocrites, talking about freedom out of one side of our mouths while supporting the Saudis out of the other.
Well, that’s what some Muslims are rebelling against. They hate the Saudi royal family as much as they hate the U.S., and for the same reasons.
I’m just saying that if I was an Arab Muslim, I would feel my culture and way of life seriously threatened by the U.S. and I would try to resist it. Not the way the 9/11 highjackers did it, though. They wasted their own lives and the lives of 3000 innocents to achieve nothing. I’d try to find more constructive means of resistance.
Oh, spare me! Western Civilization is in no danger whatsoever. 50,000 Americans die every year in car accidents and nobody gives a shit. We could lose a few million people and it would be just a pinprick. The terrorists have nothing. Stop with the panic.
A masterful demonstration of spin by including quotes from me out of context and not bothering to go into the point of my own arguement…and not attributing the quotes of others or me so that you can mix and match and spin the arguement the way YOU want it to go…brilliant. My hats off and my own irony meter is off the scale by your demonstration. 