By the way, cabbage, nice post up top. And you're right - this logic is so demonstrably wrong, but it is the exact logic that we seem to use in dealing with radical extremism. Radicle extremism, excuse me. We start an almost-comically bogus war to fight those who hate us. More people begin to hate us for starting a bogus war. Then we say "see, they hate us, we need to go to war with them." It's like we need some sort of "on last week's episode of Our War With Somebody...." to catch people up. Yes, 9/11 was awful, the worst, scariest and most shocking day of my life. But I am not going to disrepsect that day by taking a bunch of stupid pills and confusing Osama Bin Laden, Mohammed Atta, Saddam Hussein, Louis Farrakhan, and Hakeem Olajuwon in my shaping of foreign policy. The sort of "brown people are confusingly similar to me" disease has metastecized into our cutlure and foreign policy, and is such a huge part of this problem. I am not really concerned with torque, he can think whatever. The problem is, he is articulating the precise confusion of something like 45% of the American public, just enough to keep us balls deep in a war with people who did not attack us in the first place, and who did not have the capability of doing so. Even when there were others who did and still do. At least we got Bin Laden, right? Or did we, i forget. The guys who orchestrated the attack are not still at large are they? Help me here. I mean, our brave men and women's lives would never depend on the whims, nuances of fledgling constituional law in freaking Iraq, while Osama Bin Laden wandered around doing whatever, right? What an embarassment. I am surprised more right wing hawks are not super-pissed that for all our resources we can not find that guy. Some dude pulls off a stunt like 9/11, and four years later, we are searching for signs of victory in the "war on terror" from election returns in Iraq? I mean, I guess they are better off, but THAT is our war on terror? Give me a break. Nice war, fellas, can't wait for the sequel.
The only reason Americans today are so ignorant regarding the perspective of those around the world is that any time the truth is told, your side makes accusations of "justification." No genius, he wasn't justifying terrorism, he was presenting the other side's reasoning. You can go on in ignorance and eating up the lies that "they hate us for our freedoms and culture" and we'll continue in this nonsensical cycle of killing. I for one hope to look into the root causes of this worldwide conflict and that starts by engendering discussion to both sides perspectives and dismissing this egocentric attitude that "we are innocent, they are just f*cking terrorists." Grow up and pick up a book because you and those of your ilk disgust me. P.S. They hate us for our western culture? Funny, because I sure haven't seen Canada attacked. Maybe if your perception of the Middle East went beyond the scope you see painted on FOXNews of cavemen walking around the mountains, you'de also know that many Saudi Arabian cities are more opulent than even we are.
These "radicles" as you call them, would probably point out that we're guilty of a lot of the same things. In the name of democracy we poison entire villages in Colombia where we suspect cocaine is being grown, in the name of democracy we've crippled the economies of nations like Haiti and Cuba via sanctiosn, in the name of democracy we've killed hundreds of thousands in wars in places like Vietnam and Iraq. What makes these people so "radicle" as opposed to the warmongerers who make our political decisions. Oh wait, as Bob Dylan so aptly pointed out we fought our battles "with guns in [our] hands and God on [our] side." I'm not defending the use of suicide bombings, or any other violent tactic. But, I don't think you can simply write these people off as being "radicle" and irrational when we've done much of the same in pursuit of causes we hold dear. Bin Laden kills several thousands in 9/11 and he's a terrorist. George W. kills tens of thousands in Iraq and he's reelected. Look through the rhetoric and try to see what each side is actually doing.
I think JuanValdez is right, we have derailed this enough, you're just not going to convince those hellbent on a certain view (it makes them feel warm and fuzzy at night, so anything that helps them sleep better I guess) to learn anything new, why? Because they are NOT interested in changing their views, period. Back to the thread... As I have said in a previous post, the NOI is something 'unique' to America, because it grew out of this society and political/historical circumstances of early 20th century America (only it actually was a reactionary movement to injustices against the Black people of America for centuries, not just the early 1900s). They have many Islamic and Christian principles mixed into their faith, not just Islam. Many of their views are, however, unique to them (i.e. the superiority of the Black race, the inherent 'evilness' of the 'White blue-eyed devil', among other beliefs).
While Farrakhan is not muslim and his group killed Malcolm X because he became a regular muslim which did not believe in racial separation, I, as a muslim, agree with some of what you say. The people in these dictatorships are fed from the state controlled media every bit of international news they recieve. I do, however think that the US is not nearly as despised as it seems with an exception to the fringe ultra extremist al-queda type groups. Many times leaders of muslim/arab countries will promote animosity and blame towards the US and Isreal primarily to appease their population because of their lack of civil liberties, economic opportunities due to non-free market systems and the immense amount of corruption.
While I slightly agreed with one of your points, the 'hatred' of western culture argument is just silly. If that was the case then more liberal places such as Amsterdam, where prostitution and drugs are legal would be Al-Queda target #1. The US lobbying groups have it interfere in some areas when in reality a hands-off approach that allows all countries to benefit from the products and services of our corporations would help the US the most. And to state that 'all muslims' must be accountable for a fringe extremist groups actions is equatable to all Christians being accountable for Hitler, Milosovic or McVeigh.
Irony abounds. I would use your words to describe the Bush Administration... extemisim resulting in loss of life (quite an understatement), and the promotion of fear, which was the driving force of the Bush reelection campaign, and of it's attempt to justify what it is doing both at home and overseas. Fear. A four letter word that has been used throughout history to promote the agendas of regimes without a legitimate basis for what they are doing. I missed the thread rhadamanthus referred to. I was in the Northeast for the month of June with my family, visiting friends and relatives, and showing our kids a portion of the wealth of history and beauty that resides there. Keep D&D Civil
The two embassy bombings and the USS Cole? Those were done in response to US troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia, not in response to our foreign policy in regards to Israel. The Munich Olympics disaster doesn't have anything to do with US foreign policy. The suicide bombers in Lebanon were attacking a UNITED NATIONS deployment, not US support for Israel. Saddam fired his first missle at Israel because he knew bringing them into the war might fracture the arab coalition, not because he was an Israel hating Muslim. What about the head choppers in Iraq that took French hostages because of the whole scarf laws they passed? That didn't have anything to do with Israel. Muslim attacks in India - how is that related to Israel? While your summary is certainly the 'chic' answer these days, I don't think its so simple.
