I think it is because they believe, with much justification, that Americans use their freedom to enrich themselves at the expense of others, and to try to make others more like themselves. Often by war, killing, coercion and manipulation.
The trouble is, Americans believe they have the best system, society, country in the world, and that it is up to them to make every one have that same sort of system, regardless of whether or not they asked for it.
If you see America as a religion, its constitution as a holy book, its foreign policy as a crusade, its politicians as religious leaders, its people as believers, then you begin to understand the problem.
The problem is, America has a fundamentally different history than most other countries, and is that way it is because of its history. Essentially diverse people came from abroad for many different reasons to create it. The rest of the planet is not like that. Nothing wrong in that at all for America, it makes total reasonable sense, and works fairly well inits context. But for most other countries it does not. All America needs to do is accept that its unique and that other systems have equal validity to their own people. It is not up to America to judge other and seek to tell them they are wrong. If other countries and culture are wrong for their people, its is up to them to change it, not have it forced on them. If such people want American "democracy", which lets face it, Americans seem to have plenty of issues with, then such people will fight for it, loose blood for it, and really value it. Just like Americans did for themselves. No one forced democracy on Americans.
My point here being that "our freedoms" plainly is not why they hate us. The real reason is because of our involvement and interaction with them. When such involvement and interaction is kept classified for decades, then the American public has no hope of correctly evaluating statements such as Bush's.
Agreed. Sadly, many Americans continue, as you describe, to believe that the country is hated because of its freedoms, when the reason is its actions overseas. The core reason that people believe glib lies such as Bush's is that many people in the USA have no idea that people in other countries are not that dissimilar from themselves, in their interests and in their ambitions and concerns.
We can't get everyone to travel, but we should be able to do better with modern internet technology and ubiquitous cell phones. For example, perhaps a website facilitating the creation of email / text message friendships between people in America and people in Afghanistan (or Gaza or Yemen etc). That would have the advantage of potentially severely reducing the signal-to-noise ratio in the government's mass surveillance of its own citizens. Initially of course it would be the more enlightened westerners that would participate, but it would be a start. Incentives for both sides could include language skills / other educational objectives.
The reason Mohamed Atta or Osama Bin Laden hated the U.S. need not be the same reason their followers hate the U.S.
Let's just say that Al Qaida had an easy time recruiting men with a grudge against the U.S. The western worlds 'decadent' lifestyles are just a way for Al Qaida to dehumanize them.
That said, I bet Mohammed Atta and Osama Bin Laden also have their reasons besides idealistic ones to despise the western world.
Osama Ibn Laden has equally to do with 9/11 as you or me with Boston Bombing. Well, that's overstatement, but here are some facts for you to digest:
- Osama never took responsibility for 911. His multiple speeches he gave recorded in caves after 911 were incorrectly translated and heavily redacted for political purposes. E was just perfect to be framed. Anyone speaking Laden's language can hear him speaking that his family were doing business with Bush family (proven fact) for decades and he would never be competent to carry such an attack. Unfortunately, most videos of him speaking without overlapping loud audio vanished and any translation you find you can barely hear his native language. But you can find interview with people that were asked to translate his words ad they were pretty angry that everything got twisted.
- ibn Laden was on FBI top list but never for 911. As far as I remember he was most wanted for some huge oil fraud he performed while his family did work with Bushes.
His argument is that radical Islamists hate us for what we do, not who we are. But we do what we do because of who we are. That's nearly a tautology in a democracy. We support Israel because its people largely share our values. We threw Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait and maintained a presence in Saudi Arabia because we support and defend the sovereignty of our allies, particularly when those allies supply vital resources. We continued to prop up Mubarak because we thought he was better than the alternative, etc.
All of these are policies reached through a free, democratic process, which has not been a hallmark of those societies which have welcomed Al Qaeda into their midst.
Also, have you heard of Sayyid Qutb? Just curious.
Also remember when all the fatwas were proclaimed for a Danish newspapers publication of a cartoon featuring the Prophet Muhammad? That's not even considering the issue of extremist religion and Sharia law, as led to the shooting and near-murder of Malala Yousafzai.
Islamist culture is not entirely compatible with Western democracy, just as far-right fundamentalist Christian extremism is not entirely compatible with Western democracy (e.g. the 1996 Olympic Park bombing).
I'm using Islamist as the term was first defined, which means exactly "Islamic terrorism". As far as I know there's never been a popularly-agreed-on meaning of "Islamist" other than that, if you're referring to the peaceful followers of Allah the term is Muslim, or perhaps Islamic, but never Islamist.
Christian on the other hand is already overloaded with many meanings and I don't feel like inventing new words when I can simply add adjectives as appropriate.
"Islamism" certainly does not mean "Islamic terrorism". It means a belief that Islam should be a force in the public sphere, not just a private religion.
Well, it's certainly a pity that Islamic terrorism is a big enough threat that they had to invent a Huffman-coded word for it. Though perhaps we can treat it as a relief that Christian terrorism is no longer so prevalent that we had to make a shorter term for it after we invented 'terrorist'.
Though I hear 'Crusader' is a close equivalent among many Muslims, for obvious reasons. I don't think Americans or most West. Europeans would understand that as a negative connotation though.
So you are telling me that the "decadence" of modern Western society simply FORCED the USA to support the Shah, Mubarak, Ben Ali, the dictators of Bahrain etc etc etc down through history?
Like the Western world couldn't possibly have beer and miniskirts without installing dictators in or invading other countries?
If you think OBL would have been thrilled with a peaceful, democratic, Islamic world with all the freedoms and associated "decadence" we see in the West, just so long as the U.S. had never interfered there, I don't think you are seeing the whole picture.
Obviously the U.S. record in the Middle East is not spotless. But it's not as if we haven't been a force for good there on more than one occasion. The Suez Crisis comes to mind immediately, as does Desert Shield/Storm. Our record there isn't better or worse than our record in, say, Central and South America, yet for some reason, Nicaraguans and Chileans aren't blowing themselves up in Times Square.
In the Monkey King Legend the heroes are warned not to overwhelm the monster by a reference to the Art of War by Sun Zi.
If I remember correctly, the translation is "even a rat will fight if cornered", though today we might mutter something about "asymmetric warfare" in response to "full spectrum dominance".
Sun Zi wrote in about 500BC. So it's not like you were warned yesterday. You've had 2500 years of warning.
Expect kamikaze attacks. They happen. Especially from people who feel they have nothing to lose, and feel under attack from very, very strong opponents.
But they don't. Not from the Vietnamese, nor the Indians nor are the Gabonese. Nor the Chileans and Nicaraguans, as was pointed out in the comment I originally responded to.
But they did from the Vietnamese, when the Vietnamese were occupied.
And try googling for "suicide attack India" or "suicide attack Kashmir" or "suicide attack Sri Lanka", you'll find plenty of hits.
Just because South Americans haven't done it (yet) (that we know of), it doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. Like I told you, you've had at least 2500 years warning.
Hell, there's even the American saying "Give me Liberty or give me Death!"
I have referenced academic study on this topic elsewhere, go read it.
Occupation is one reason the kamikaze may feel like a cornered rat. Indirect occupation is another.
This can be because the perpetrator (USA) is giving weapons to the actual occupier (Israel), because the perpetrator is implementing a sanctions/embargo regime amounting to a mediaeval siege that killed half a million, mostly children (Iraq) or because the perpetrator has installed a "government" in your country to do the occupation for it (Lebanon, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Ethiopia etc etc etc Saudi Arabia).
If you google for the jihadis' motives, you'll find that they mention all three.
Given that the actual 911 attackers were Saudis, I would have thought that US sponsored tyranny in Saudi Arabia would have been their main motive, but it appears that they were significantly motivated by fellow-feeling for Palestinians.
It is not an excuse if the guy is ready to throw himself and an airplane into a building for it. That means the guy is pretty sincere. The word you are looking for is motive.
The fact that you do not find their motives "reasonable" intrigues me. Is it their methods you disagree with, or their grievances?
If you think their grievances are not legitimate, does it change when you substitute "gold rush" for "oil rush" and "red skin" for "rag head"?
(By the way I'm not thrilled about getting bombed. I almost lost a friend in Boston.)
> It is not an excuse if the guy is ready to throw himself and an airplane into a building for it. That means the guy is pretty sincere. The word you are looking for is motive.
The human unconscious is a mysterious place.
> The fact that you do not find their motives "reasonable" intrigues me. Is it their methods you disagree with, or their grievances?
I disagree with deliberately targeting civilians. I also think the worldview of these perpetrators is rather distant from reality.
> If you think their grievances are not legitimate, does it change when you substitute "gold rush" for "oil rush" and "red skin" for "rag head"?
(c) you can only condemn the violence if you would not do the same thing in their place.
To me, that means you should be able to sell them a peaceful method as being more effective than jihad. Well, we have a historical record.
The peaceful, liberal, pro-democratic reformers in the middle east seem to have gotten defeated and tortured by the CIA and their local satraps. Like what happened to my family.
On the other hand Jihad seems to be winning in Lebanon, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia and so on.
The relative I was thinking of was an activist for constitutional democracy and against absolute monarchy. Don't know what happened to him in prison; he doesn't talk about it.
TL;DR People do not run kamikaze attacks against other people for being less religiously conservative than they are, they run kamikaze attacks against occupiers.
Pray tell, which Islamic nations was the U.S. "occupying" on 9/11? We're getting way off topic, re: decadence and "hating freedom", but let me try to bring it back. Why blow up the World Trade Center? Surely that was a symbolic act, against a quintessentially civilian target.
As I've stated elsewhere, and as you can find by googling what jihadis actually say about their motives, the motive for 911 included the occupation of Palestine and US enabling of it.
And if they wanted to make a symbolic attack, they would have hit the Statue of Liberty, not financial and military targets like the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Furthermore it is you who are taking things off-topic.
The topic was jlgreco commenting about the Granai massacre, and how resistance in Afghanistan is because (sarcastically) "they hate us for our freedoms"
You tried to make it out that "Western Decadence" in fact was the reason, which is plain WRONG and contradicted by authorities which I have cited and provided references for.
You have repeatedly attempted to derail the point by going off on a tangent about Osama Ben Laden's psychology, or why Nicaraguans haven't reacted the same way, despite all of my efforts to stick to the topic. The 911 example is a similar red herring, because NO Afghans, Taleban or otherwise, were involved in that attack.
> As I've stated elsewhere, and as you can find by googling what jihadis actually say about their motives, the motive for 911 included the occupation of Palestine and US enabling of it.
It doesn't matter what they say. It matters what's true, and it matters what's right.
It's as though you defend a child's tantrum because the child explained "my mummy didn't buy me any sweeties".
You think jihadis are in truth really pleased about how Palestinians were ethnically cleansed, how they can't get their homes back and how they're treated like dirt everyday?
That's retarded, they're mad as hell about it, and as it happens many non-terrorist Middle Easterners are mad as hell about it too. If you doubt that, read the 2004 Pentagon Defense Science Board Report.
Furthermore, many non-Middle Easterners are mad as hell about it too. Many jews are mad as hell about it as well, as you can see from looking up eg mondoweiss.net
Finally, many Americans - including veterans and ex-intelligence personnel - are mad as hell about the American money and lives being expended to harm the Middle East on Israel's behalf, which you can see by looking up eg The Council for the National Interest.
Well, way back in the day (around WWII) Arab opinion of the US was rather high. One of the key initial moments in the disenchantment came with Sayyid Qutb[1]'s journey to the US and writing about it. He had a lot to say about the moral degeneracy of the US, where men and women mixed together socially even sitting side by side in church etc. He later helped found the Muslim Brotherhood from which splintered the Islamic Jihad under Ayman al-Zawahiri which later made up half of Al Qaeda.
But while it is true that part of their beef with the US was things that we would consider freedom a much bigger issue would be America's support of Israel or the stationing troops in Saudi Arabia. And then 9/11 happened and the West invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and this became very much beside the point. So Bush's famous mention of Al Qaeda hating us for our freedoms, while true in some sense, was very much a red herring.
Question: Mommy, mommy why do all the Arabs seemingly want to blow themselves up and attack us and why do we have to fear them?
Answer: Because they hate our freedoms honey...
/They reason it is presented in that way is because the explanation is infantile and geared for an infantile mind but it is funny how well it has worked for so long
