Majority of Canadians polled say US partially to blame for 9-11

[ckweb]

Y'know US policy is not to blame for the existence of radical Islamic fundamentalism or its targets. As pointed out by "Chris 62," Bin Laden has a particular way of interpreting the Qu'ran and he opposes any state or nation that is not Islamic, or more accurately, not consistent with his interpretation of Islam (remember, he also opposes the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia). This segment of Islam would exist with or without US interference in the Middle East. As Michael the Great points out, the reasons for Bin Laden's hatred are not so much about foreign policy as they are about religious, interpretive issues.

However, having said this much, the US is still in some respect responsible, through its foreign policy, for the attack of 9/11. How? Bin Laden would be a powerless, raving lunatic on the fringe of the Muslim world if it were not for US policies in the region that allow him to gain a hearing and audience with the people. If the US were not propping up corrupt regimes, unilaterally supporting the State of Israel, and turning a blind eye to the plight of poor Muslims in the Middle East, there would be considerably fewer disaffected Muslims for Bin Laden to recruit nor would he have a podium from which to incite hatred against the US. But because the US does these things, Bin Laden can tap into a justifiable sentiment against the US and enflame it into a radical and dangerous global terrorist network. In other words, the US gave Bin Laden the means to move from a powerless, raving lunatic on the fringe to a populist and powerful, raving lunatic who stands, however insanely, for those Muslims who can not stand for themselves.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Wrong. 9-11 and the videos are far more about inciting jihad and inspiring Islamic uprisings and fundamentalist movements, by demonstrating that they had the power to dramatically strike even the "most powerful" country in the world.

Bin Laden and his followers derive much of their Islamic views from the writings of al Qutb, who took Sayyid Maududi's writings on modern Islamic fundamentalism and expanded on them after his visits to the west in the late 1940's and early 1950's. This was long before the US was a major player in the middle east, and at the very beginning of US prominence in foreign policy, long before there was much to particularly hate us over.

Al Qutb's hardon for the US and the west in general was primarily based on morals and decadence. (Keep in mind this was the socially conservative 40's and 50's we're talking about - just imagine what they think of us now ) Everything from the consumer society, to the roles of women - especially all that nakedness and brazen sexuality for which the early 50's are known to the total lack of faith in Allah.

We are apostates, sinners, ones who defile the holy days and outrage Allah with our countless abominations. We are hated, to be destroyed without mercy unless we happen to see the light, renounce our wicked ways and in turn take up jihad (and no doubt prove our sincerity by martyrdom). We violate Allah's law by refusing to govern ourselves under Sharia. Our biggest "crime" (and sometimes I see his point ) is the spread of our values and culture.

The big difference between al Qutb's time and bin Laden's has been the availabity of wealth, technology and communications with which the Jihadi could develop and expand their power, and their ability to strike out.

The US was picked for two simple reasons - as the most powerful nation on earth, hitting us proved they could hit anyone. The other (and this gives China a big advantage) is that we are extremely easy to infiltrate. I doubt they would have been able to get 19 guys long term visas and into Chinese flight schools.

Why didn't bin Laden hit the Netherlands...or Denmark...or France, etc.?

All of them of well to the left of te US socially.

He gets support for such attacks mainly from the people who see US presence in Islamic countries as sticking the collective Christian **** up the collective Muslim ass. His talk is religious and nationalist...but it's only a unique combination of the two that give it such power.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Frogger


Why didn't bin Laden hit the Netherlands...or Denmark...or France, etc.?

All of them of well to the left of te US socially.

He gets support for such attacks mainly from the people who see US presence in Islamic countries as sticking the collective Christian **** up the collective Muslim ass. His talk is religious and nationalist...but it's only a unique combination of the two that give it such power.

Why is **** censored but ass is not?

[KrazyHorse]

Because of **** Cheney.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Asher
So the US' stance on stuff like Israel had absolutely nothing to do with it...

I've heard the "guilty of our own success" stories too many times to care anymore. Everyone but the US thinks differently, perhaps it's time to think outside the box.

It's because you haven't bothered studying the roots of Islamic fundamentalism. Maybe you should start thinking out of the box, read the Quran and read what you can find on radical Islam.

If everything else was the same on September 11, 2001, except the state of Israel had been exterminated in 1948 (or never created), we'd still be the target. It has nothing to do with "guilty of our own success" - it includes things like failing to stone you, for example. We're not a nation of Abdullah abu CivNationi

Israel is just a nice, convenient, 30 second sound-bite for the two digit IQ crowd, both inside and outside the Islamic world. It's a little easier to explain to the average peasant than "Brittney Spears naked" websites and women walking in public with exposed navels.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Chris 62
You REALLY need to read entire threads dear boy...

I don't I've ever read more than 10% of any "serious" thread

[KrazyHorse]

Mike, your argument is kind of disingenuous.

Do some people hate the West because of its freedom/openness/whatever? Yes.

Would this have the same power in a world where it wasn't combined with a feeling of having your national affairs being trampled on by neo-colonial militarism? No.

[Chris 62]

So the Reb restates what I said on page one, and was a big whoosh for Bucephalus and several others.

The only part the US is at fault was not taking the threat seriously.

Oh, BTW Frogger, I was correct about Gitmo, you should read that thread.

[KrazyHorse]

What part?

There were more objections than simply the fact they were being kept in open cages (which IIRC has been corrected now)...

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I don't I've ever read more than 10% of any "serious" thread

Yes, but I was driving at something, and you stepped on the banana peal instead of reading on.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Frogger


Why didn't bin Laden hit the Netherlands...or Denmark...or France, etc.?

All of them of well to the left of te US socially.

He gets support for such attacks mainly from the people who see US presence in Islamic countries as sticking the collective Christian **** up the collective Muslim ass. His talk is religious and nationalist...but it's only a unique combination of the two that give it such power.

Hitting the Netherlands or France also doesn't demonstrate to prospective financial backers or recruits that you can take on anyone. Plus the effect was global - remember bin Laden on video talking about the (overestimated) economic effect of the attacks. What are you going to attack in the Netherlands or France or anywhere else that gives you that global bang for the buck?

They wanted something that would top taking on the USSR. Besides, Baywatch and Xena are syndicated worldwide far more than any Dutch or French TV series.

However, al Qutb is still the major key to bin Laden's thinking, and that of most fundamentalists. Al Qutb spent a couple of years in the US, so his contact with apostate western culture is primarily US based, and his writings really hold the US as the symbol of everything the Islamic fundamentalist should oppose by jihad.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Frogger
What part?

There were more objections than simply the fact they were being kept in open cages (which IIRC has been corrected now)...

That they wouldn't be considered POWs, since they were illeagal combatants by the Geneva stautes.

They are being held in a sort of limbo, no status has been given for them.

[Alexander's Horse]

Oh come on Chris, people know why.

Americans are just in this huge state of denial about it.

Anyway, better to talk about this now rather than on the evil day.

I wonder if we could have a commemoration thread on the OT?

[KrazyHorse]

So the US is the only one getting hit because of some strange myopia on the Islamic fundamentalists' part?

One would think that those with a smattering of international education (many Al Qaeda members seem to qualify) would have driven at least some attention to the Eurocoms, who are like the US...except much worse.

Especially when they see stuff like this.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/020904/6/oq46.html

[Chris 62]

Yes, we all know why.

What kind of thread did you have in mind?

My thread about it was not preserved, it's gone to electronic limbo.