US Involvement in Iraq Began after 1993

[Berzerker]

Consider that the US and Saudi Arabia were supposedly in alliance for the duration of the Gulf War and afterwards.

You said it had nothing to do with the presence of US troops. The attacks began shortly after that war... And where were most of those attacks? US naval ships, army barracks, and eventually embassies and the twin towers and Pentagon. Why not Hollywood? Las Vegas? San Francisco? Why didn't they target all those amoral hedonists? Because they are a nuisance, not a reason to die.

Consider that hatred from the US stems mostly from the government controlled media in that country and its racist educational system--and that this system existed prior to the US presence and continued after it.

But the attacks began after we plopped a bunch of soldiers down in the area, not before when your alleged cause was already in place. Explain that timeline...

What possible cause could the Islamic Fundamentalists have had for preaching against the US--barring the obvious differences in morality between them--prior to the presence of US troops there?

Fundies obviously dont like some aspects of our culture, but we weren't getting attacked until after we put troops in Saudi Arabia. They can shut out our culture, they cant shut out our troops.

[question--how exactly was the US in ME for 5 decades with troops? No sarcasm meant, I checked on Wiki and googled it but afaik wasn't the US' first military presence there only in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia during 80's/90's?]

Never said we had troops there for 5 decades, I said we've been over there for 5 decades. The troops were eventually sent as a result of our meddling...

One may state that Israel is the cause of this hatred, then, or rather the United States' support of it. Well, to be more precise, Islamic Fundamentalists oppose Israel's existence, and likewise so do fundamentalist/dictatorial countries such as Saudi Arabia in the Middle East. Their proposed peace treaty is meaningless in this regard, because it relies upon the Right of Return being recognised--an act that would in effect cause Israel to cease to exist. If you believe that the United States should not support Israel's right to existence, well then I can't argue with you.

Thats their problem, the US does not exist to prop up Israel. But does that mean our presence over there is a cause of the terrorism? You said it wasn't our presence but our culture.

If you believe the United States should be more harsh towards Israel due to its treatment of the Palestinians (which, I assume, you find unacceptable), then fair enough--I would agree with you if I thought its treatment of them unacceptable given the present situation.

I didn't even mention Israel, strange how you jumped onto that issue...as if you already knew it is one of the main causes.

But I would remind you that this would be held as ultimately irrelevant by Islamic Fundamentalists, who simply do not want Israel to exist. Because their tirades and propaganda against Israel and America do not for the most part rely on actual events and occurrences but rather on rumour and outright lies, their effect upon Arabs [if any] would remain unchanged should America 'clamp down' on Israel.

I want America out of that region. Our politicians got us into a civil war among Muslims and another war between Jews and Muslims. I dont want my family members killed in an attack on US soil because they hate each other over there.

We weren't attacked because we are "free", we were attacked because we won't mind our own business.

[Zevico]

I didn't even mention Israel, strange how you jumped onto that issue...as if you already knew it is one of the main causes.

You did--1st paragraph. But I was looking for other possible reasons, not agreeing with them.

Thats their problem, the US does not exist to prop up Israel

Agreed.

The troops were eventually sent as a result of our meddling...

All countries 'meddle'. It is in their nature to. To accuse the United States of 'meddling' is like punishing a cat for killing mice. Inevitably, whether or not you wish to get involved now or later, America will have to get 'involved' (god I sound like I'm out of a Graham Greene novel...). 'Evil triumphs when good men do nothing' and all that. Isolationism is what America resorted to in WWII. Nazis and these supposed adherents of Islam are in my mind morally equivalent. They are racist, bigoted, fanatical, and willing to kill anyone who gets in their way and they are doing so right now and were doing so regardless of America's presence in the ME. They did it to their own people and they did it to others'. They had someone drive into a crowd of children next to american soldiers. They have countless opportunities in Iraq to attack American soldiers with a minimum of civilian casualties--yet they always pick crowded places. Doing nothing will only result in the eventual rise to power of these sickening people.

But the attacks began after we plopped a bunch of soldiers down in the area, not before when your alleged cause was already in place. Explain that timeline...

Practicality. It is easier to attack someone next door than it is someone halfway accross the world. Also, America is not the sole enemy of these guys all over the world. They've got Kashmir, Chechnya [though I guess not at that time], and other hotspots in Africa that are much easier to target and where terrorists have much more influence--even (some) popular support.

Fundies obviously dont like some aspects of our culture, but we weren't getting attacked until after we put troops in Saudi Arabia. They can shut out our culture, they cant shut out our troops

"some" is an understatement. Think all. For god's sake these people are against the -principle- of democracy. They've said it for all to hear plenty of times.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by MrFun
No -- his almost knee-jerk response was to lump all Nazi Germany references as simply being Godwin, regardless of the context of the argument, or the legitimacy of any analogy.

Bingo (its a pet peeve of mine)

Oh, and no one cared about the Buchanan argument? I was sure Berz would latch onto it .

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Bingo (its a pet peeve of mine)

You really shouldn't reveal to me what your pet peeves are -- it just gives me more ways to annoy you.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Won't work. I know your peeves better and can use them to lethal effect

[MrFun]

[Berzerker]

You did--1st paragraph. But I was looking for other possible reasons, not agreeing with them.

Oops, you're right.

All countries 'meddle'. It is in their nature to. To accuse the United States of 'meddling' is like punishing a cat for killing mice. Inevitably, whether or not you wish to get involved now or later, America will have to get 'involved' (god I sound like I'm out of a Graham Greene novel...). 'Evil triumphs when good men do nothing' and all that. Isolationism is what America resorted to in WWII. Nazis and these supposed adherents of Islam are in my mind morally equivalent. They are racist, bigoted, fanatical, and willing to kill anyone who gets in their way and they are doing so right now and were doing so regardless of America's presence in the ME. They did it to their own people and they did it to others'. They had someone drive into a crowd of children next to american soldiers. They have countless opportunities in Iraq to attack American soldiers with a minimum of civilian casualties--yet they always pick crowded places. Doing nothing will only result in the eventual rise to power of these sickening people.

Does this "meddling" anger millions of Muslims? To say all governments meddle is overstated and irrelevant to the fact meddling can and does make alot of people angry with us. We waited until we were attacked in WWII even though our leaders were chomping at the bit. And you're using the "they'll attack us if we dont mess with them first" argument. How do you know? We "knew" Saddam was going to blah blah blah. Would we have the moral high ground to defend ourselves? How much of that moral high ground erodes when we spend 50 years meddling in their affairs before they attack us?

"some" is an understatement. Think all. For god's sake these people are against the -principle- of democracy. They've said it for all to hear plenty of times.

So dont try to impose democracy on them. Hell, alot of people cant stand popular culture. I want to see proof 9/11 was a result of us being "free".

Practicality. It is easier to attack someone next door than it is someone halfway accross the world.

No motive? Since they have no motive - other than our culture - why aren't they attacking some of the European countries that aren't meddling in the ME? Was the Pentagon just a coincidence? Seems to me if you're right, they would have hit one of our "sin" cities. Hollywood, Vegas, San Fran, etc.

Also, America is not the sole enemy of these guys all over the world. They've got Kashmir, Chechnya [though I guess not at that time], and other hotspots in Africa that are much easier to target and where terrorists have much more influence--even (some) popular support.

All peoples with foreign rulers, we're dealing here with tribes fending off what are foreigners to them (one reason why the Pakistani Prez wont go after Osama). Coincidence? The guy (Pape?) is right, his data shows almost all terrorism is a reaction to some kind of occupation. The attacks on the US in Saudi Arabia following the first Gulf War show that. They send a message by hitting a US ship and tell us to leave and we ignore them. They attack again, and finally hit our homeland. Even the Bush administration has admitted thru their actions that we got attacked for keeping troops over there. We've been trying to ratchet down our presence in Saudi Arabia.

Pape explained how Reagan avoided these attacks for the most part by keeping troops off shore. His 1 mistake was putting troops in Beirut and we got hit. We left, and the attacks didn't continue until after the first gulf war. Thats a pattern in my book.

Oh, and no one cared about the Buchanan argument?

I thought Buchanon was quoting an author - Pape I think. I saw the guy on Tucker Carlson and he explained his data as best he could in the time allowed.

[Berzerker]

But is this true?

Few Americans have given more thought to the motivation of suicide-bombers than Robert Pape, author of "Dying to Win: The Logic of Suicide Terrorism." His book is drawn from an immense database on every suicide-bomb attack from 1980 to early 2004. Conclusion: The claim that 9-11 and the suicide-bombings in Iraq are done to advance some jihad by "Islamofascists" against the West is not only unsubstantiated, it is hollow.