A Lesson In Hate

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Desertrat, Apr 21, 2007.

  1. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #1
    From the February 2006 issue of Smithsonian Magazine http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/i...nce.php?page=1

    "A Lesson In Hate

    How an Egyptian student came to study 1950s America and left determined to wage holy war

    By David Von Drehle

    Before Sayyid Qutb became a leading theorist of violent jihad, he was a little-known Egyptian writer sojourning in the United States, where he attended a small teachers college on the Great Plains. Greeley, Colorado, circa 1950 was the last place one might think to look for signs of American decadence. Its wide streets were dotted with churches, and there wasn’t a bar in the whole temperate town. But the courtly Qutb (COO-tub) saw things that others did not. He seethed at the brutishness of the people around him: the way they salted their watermelon and drank their tea unsweetened and watered their lawns. He found the muscular football players appalling and despaired of finding a barber who could give a proper haircut. As for the music: “The American’s enjoyment of jazz does not fully begin until he couples it with singing like crude screaming,” Qutb wrote when he returned to Egypt. “It is this music that the savage bushmen created to satisfy their primitive desires.”

    Such grumbling by an unhappy crank would be almost comical but for one fact: a direct line of influence runs from Sayyid Qutb to Osama bin Laden, and to bin Laden’s Egyptian partner in terror, Ayman al-Zawahiri. From them, the line continues to another quietly seething Egyptian sojourning in the United States—the 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta. Qutb’s gripes about America require serious attention because they cast light on a question that has been nagging since the fall of the World Trade Center: Why do they hate us?

    (Snip)

    Some biographical sketches suggest that Qutb arrived with a benign view of America, but if that’s true it didn’t last long. During a short stay in Washington, D.C., he witnessed the commotion surrounding an elevator accident and was stunned to hear other onlookers making a joke of the victim’s appearance. From this and a few offhand remarks in other settings, Qutb concluded that Americans suffered from “a drought of sentimental sympathy” and that “Americans intentionally deride what people in the Old World hold sacred.”

    This became the lens through which Qutb read nearly every American encounter—a clash of New World versus Old. Qutb easily satisfied the requirements at the graduate school of the Colorado State College of Education (now known as the University of Northern Colorado) and devoted the rest of his time to his true interest—the American soul, if such a thing existed. “This great America: What is its worth in the scale of human values?” Qutb wondered. “And what does it add to the moral account of humanity?” His answer: nothing.

    Still, Qutb’s contempt for America was not as simple as some people might now imagine. He did not recoil from political freedom and democracy, as, say, President Bush might expect from a jihadi theorist, nor did he complain about shades of imperial ambition in American foreign policy, as writers on the left might suppose. Regarding the excesses of American culture—vulgarity, materialism and promiscuity—Qutb expressed shock, but it rang a bit hollow. “The American girl is well acquainted with her body’s seductive capacity,” he wrote. “She knows seductiveness lies in the round breasts, the full buttocks, and in the shapely thighs, sleek legs and she shows all this and does not hide it.” These curvy jezebels pursued boys with “wide, strapping chest” and “ox muscles,” Qutb added with disgust. Yet no matter how lascivious his adjectives, the fastidious, unmarried Egyptian could not convincingly portray the church dances and Look magazines he encountered in sleepy Greeley as constituting a genuine sexual “jungle.”

    The core problem with the United States, for Qutb, was not something Americans did, but simply what America was—“the New World...is spellbinding.” It was more than a land of pleasures without limit. In America, unlike in Egypt, dreams could come true. Qutb understood the danger this posed: America’s dazzle had the power to blind people to the real zenith of civilization, which for Qutb began with Muhammad in the seventh century and reached its apex in the Middle Ages, carried triumphantly by Muslim armies.

    (Snip)

    Sayyid Qutb cut short his stay in America and returned to Egypt in 1951 after the assassination of Hassan al-Banna, founder of the nationalist, religious and militant movement known as the Muslim Brotherhood. Over the next decade and a half, often writing from prison, Qutb refined a violent political theology from the raw anti-modernism of his American interlude. Virtually the entire modern world, Qutb theorized, is jahiliyya, that barbarous state that existed before Muhammad. Only the strict, unchanging law of the prophet can redeem this uncivilized condition. Nearly a millennium of history became, to the radicalized Qutb, an offense wrought by the violence of jahili “Crusaders” and the supposed perfidy of the Jews. And Muslim leaders allied with the West were no better than the Crusaders themselves. Therefore, Qutb called all true Muslims to jihad, or Holy War, against jahiliyya—which is to say, against modernity, which America so powerfully represents.

    This philosophy led to Qutb’s execution in 1966. Proud to the end, he refused to accept the secular Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser’s offer of mercy in exchange for Qutb’s repudiation of his jihad. Nasser may have silenced a critic, but the martyrdom of Sayyid Qutb accelerated his movement. The same year the philosopher was hanged, according to journalist Lawrence Wright, the teenage al-Zawahiri formed his first violent cell, dedicated to the overthrow of the Egyptian government and the creation of an Islamist state. Meanwhile, Qutb’s brother Muhammad went into exile in Saudi Arabia, where he taught at King Abdul Aziz University. One of his students, an heir to the country’s largest construction fortune, was Osama bin Laden.

    Others have taken Qutb’s ideas in less apocalyptic directions, so that M.A. Muqtedar Khan of the Brookings Institution can rank him alongside the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran as “one of the major architects and ‘strategists’ of contemporary Islamic revival.” But the last paragraphs of Qutb’s American memoir suggest just how far outside normal discourse his mind was wont to stray. After noting the stupidity of his Greeley neighbors, who failed to understand his dry and cutting jokes, Qutb writes: “In summary, anything that requires a touch of elegance is not for the American, even haircuts! For there was not one instance in which I had a haircut there when I did not return home to even with my own hands what the barber had wrought.” This culminating example of inescapable barbarism led directly to his conclusion. “Humanity makes the gravest of errors and risks losing its account of morals, if it makes America its example.”

    Turning a haircut into a matter of grave moral significance is the work of a fanatic. That’s the light ultimately cast by Qutb’s American experience on the question of why his disciples might hate us. Hating America for its haircuts cannot be distinguished from hating for no sane reason at all."

    __________________ 30 _______________

    When a guy's views of an entire nation derive from the behavior of people in a town like Greeley, Colorado, hey, Houston, we have a problem. Ever been to Greeley? During his tenure, it was churches and irrigated farms. That's not exactly the epitome of Sodom and Gomorrah, in most anybody's book. Yet this guy is pretty much the founder of today's Jihadism.

    IMO, there's little doubt that our lack of understanding of the Islamic mind/character has played a large part in the problems of today's world. That's almost beside the point, however, given the inherent philosophy created by such as Qutb. The hatred existed and exists outside any political arena.

    Consider: "In America, unlike in Egypt, dreams could come true. Qutb understood the danger this posed: America’s dazzle had the power to blind people to the real zenith of civilization, which for Qutb began with Muhammad in the seventh century and reached its apex in the Middle Ages, carried triumphantly by Muslim armies."

    'Rat
     
  2. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #2
    The inverse is also true. How many people living in Mississippi or Alabama derive their view of an entire region, race and religion from people like Osama bin Laden?

    Until we have presidential leadership in this nation – real leadership without egotistical bravado or timidity – on the issues facing our relationships in the Middle East, I fear this spiral of violence and hate will continue to accelerate.

    Hey, if "you people are deranged perverts" leads to 9/11 and 9/11 leads to the Iraq invasion/occupation, there's no end to the bottom of this pit.
     
  3. Desertrat thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #3
    I don't know of anybody from Mississippi or Massachusetts who's advocating going out and killing folks because they're of a different culture or religion. We're not in Iraq because we're hostile to Arab culture or the Islamic religion.

    If it's indeed factual that Qutb's ideas are seminal in the philosophy of Al Qaeda, then his views are controlling--and their accuracy is unimportant.

    I don't think it matters who's in charge of US foreign policy, insofar as the Jihadists are concerned. Their worldview of "how things should be" does not attach importance to how we see the world; we're different, so we're by definition wrong. Regardless of the views of the vast majority of all Islamics, the Jihadists have said their goal is Sharia, world wide--and those who resist will die.

    What's to negotiate or understand? They are fixed on their goal; that's not negotiable--and they've certainly made themselves clear.

    'Rat
     
  4. sushi Moderator emeritus

    sushi

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Location:
    キャンプスワ&#
    #4
    'Rat what is a real shame, is how many Americans do not seem to understand this simple concept.
     
  5. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #5
    We've seen plenty of the "we should just nuke them all" talk on these very forums. I've heard it enough in person to know it's not an uncommon sentiment.

    Rather than let common sense and decency prevail, why must we continue to feed violence, death and hopelessness into cultures vulnerable to the suasion of this madness?
     
  6. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #6
    Maybe if we tried to negotiate with them we could find out what there is. instead we just seem to want to throw away the lives of our soldiers. Force should only be used when all other options have failed, but unfortunately a lot of people here want to go directly to the fighting instead of trying negotiating.
     
  7. OldCorpse macrumors 65816

    OldCorpse

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    compost heap
    #7
    The lessons the OP drew from the facts of Qutb is a perfect example of why we were pre-destined to lose in Iraq and why we will eventually, after much bloodshed and destruction to ourselves and Muslims around the world, be kicked out of the Middle East. This is exactly why the decline of our Empire has already started.

    Why? What is the cause? Lack of understanding of the underlying dynamics of terrorism and terrorist ideology. We don't understand our enemies - and therefore have no hope of defeating them. Which is why we will lose in Iraq and in the rest of our over-extended empire. Let me repeat this: the decision makers have zero understanding of the enemy.

    That is a recipe for defeat - just as surely as it was in Vietnam. We did not lose the war in Vietnam because we had inadequate tactics, didn't have enough weapons, weren't "tough" enough, didn't fight ruthlessly enough, the weak liberals and the treasonous media - or any of the other usual excuses and fantasies of assorted right wing nutters. We lost because we didn't understand the most fundamental fact about Vietnam - to the Vietnamese, it was always a war of liberation. It was always about nationalism NOT communism. Because we always labored under the mistaken view of "communism and falling domino theory" - we were bound to lose. WE DID NOT UNDERSTAND OUR OPPONENTS.


    Here's what the OP has missed - along with all the neocons, rightwingers, conservatives, Bushies and red staters. I'll try to make it short.

    The terrorists indeed don't "hate us for our freedom." That much is true (and something that apparently Bush does not understand). However, the other side of the coin is what the OP said:

    "I don't think it matters who's in charge of US foreign policy, insofar as the Jihadists are concerned. Their worldview of "how things should be" does not attach importance to how we see the world; we're different, so we're by definition wrong. Regardless of the views of the vast majority of all Islamics, the Jihadists have said their goal is Sharia, world wide--and those who resist will die."

    This view, which is btw widely held by right wing nuts, is exactly why we will fail. Because it is profoundly wrong in subtle but important ways.

    Here's what they all miss: THE VIEWS OF THE TERRORISTS DO NOT MATTER!

    Friends, there are all kind of nutty people running around. We have nutty people in this country as well. Have you ever looked at any number of nutty militia who gather around racial purity nonsense? They can inflict damage - indeed, sometimes they lynch blacks or kill Jews, or abortion doctors or hundreds in the Oklahoma bombing.

    Yet, these nutty organizations do not threaten our country or any country on earth!

    Do you fear that a Timothy McVeigh type organization might conquer the U.S.? Sure, they may inflict some damage - but that's on the order of a criminal issue, a police issue, dealt with by police force, without need to resort to a military solution. We do not fear that they'll destroy our country or be a threat to us.

    This is exactly the case with Qutb - he was a nutter, like any other nutter, there are tons of those in every country on earth including our own. He founded an organization, and organizations sprung based on his views - just as we had nutters who spawned or inspired terrorist organizations.

    And now for the key to this puzzle - the giant huge clue missing for the conservatives:

    The only time a nutter like Qutb, or Bin Laden, or whoever is the flavor of nut of the week - the only time such a person or organization is dangerous is when they have a population that supports them!

    Timothy McVeigh, or the American Nazi Party, do not have the population behind them - which is why they are a minor irritant, not a threat to the existance of our nation.

    And Qutb, or Bin Laden or whoever, would similarly be just an isolated nutter, an irritant not a threat to our or any other nation, if the population did not support him, if the Muslim world, or the populace of the Middle East did not support them.

    And why do they support him? Because we turned that population toward the terrorists! By our murderous and continous interference in the ME for decades - we INCUBATED both Qutb and Bin Laden by supporting oppressive and murderous regimes in the ME. We created the Ayatollahs in Iran, when our CIA and the Brits overthrew the democratically elected Iranian government to install our puppet the murdering Shah. We are paying for it now. The resentment that we breed, comes to us as blowback.

    Same as in Iraq. Textbook case of why insurgencies (which Bush and Cheney call "terrorists", lol) are so hard to fight, is because they have support the population. It would be simplicity itself, to destroy terrorists without that support - as it is in this country - should the American Nazi Party stage an attack, every citizen would out them, and give the police info to catch the perpetrators, rather than hide them. Same in Iraq. We can't win, because the insurgents have domestic support of the population. And why do they have that support? Because we invaded their country on trumped up charges, we murdered, tortured, "collateral" damaged on an immense scale - we are foreign invaders. We attacked a country that did NOTHING to us.

    How would we, Americans react, if some country attacked us on trumped up charges? That's your answer.

    There are always nutters, and there will always be nutters. There is no rhyme or reason to them. They are only dangerous if WE make them dangerous to us by turning the population against us and to support them. WE create the fertile ground for the terrorists to thrive. WE make the conditions for the creation of terrorists - we have created tens of thousands since the beginning of the Iraq war crime invasion, and we continue to create terrorists and a fertile ground for them ALL IN A COUNTRY THAT HAD NO TERRORISTS BEFORE WE INVADED!

    That is within our power. Stop the criminal war in Iraq. Stop interefering in the ME, stop supporting oppressive regimes because we want the oil. STOP. And then, you'll see the support for nutters like Qutb and Bin Laden and terrorists disappear, just as there's no support in this country for the American Nazi Party and our assorted terrorists.

    However, the right-wingers can never stop searching for scapegoats, pointing to the "mean, nasty, bad terrorists who hate our freedom, or who hate us for just being us". They can never take responsibility for their own actions, greed and theft and face the consequences. This is why they will lose. And since they are in charge of our country - we will lose.

    Because the truth is: right wingers, as has been demonstrated over and over again in studies - are very poorly informed, don't understand their opponents, misconstrue reality and can't face facts. This thread, is just another example of such ignorance - which always ends in defeat. And so it shall be this time.

    YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR OPPONENT - AND YOU WILL LOSE AGAIN - JUST AS IN VIETNAM. This thread and pronouncements on Qutb, illustrates that ignorance.
     
  8. princealfie macrumors 68030

    princealfie

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Location:
    Salt Lake City UT
    #8
    Uh, not all Muslim people dislike the United States... or perhaps the govt. loves it because it makes them seems to have a puppet enemy because they haven't gotten anything better to do except pull the Wag the Dog type of shebang. :rolleyes:
     
  9. Desertrat thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #9
    Old Corpse, much of what you say is true; IMO, though, some is not relevant to the problem.

    Look: You said, "The terrorists indeed don't "hate us for our freedom."

    Not if you think in terms of "democracy" and such. But think of freedom in terms of equality for women. Our commonplace freedoms for movies, music, booze, clothing styles. Women's freedoms in western culture is anathema to the Jihadists. They're not very pleased that we're as happy to call Jews friends as we are other Christians--or whatever. (Derek Zeanah, who keeps TheHighRoad.org running is Islamic. Great guy.) And you have the freedom to eat hog meat. These freedoms don't exist under Sharia.

    I'm not worried about "conquer". Not gonna happen. But that's not the problem. It's the unending supply of Jihadist idiots who are happy do the 9/11 thing or IEDs to kill me or you just because we're not Islamic. Again, only a small percentage, but even a small percentage of the Islamic world is a large number. We in the U.S. tend to focus on ourselves, as though problems aren't in existence in numerous other countries. But IEDs are going off all over the world, and those aren't Bush' fault. A Pres. Hillary ain't gonna kiss that ouchy and make it well.

    "The only time a nutter like Qutb, or Bin Laden, or whoever is the flavor of nut of the week - the only time such a person or organization is dangerous is when they have a population that supports them!"

    True. Very true. And they do so have some amount of population that supports them. Some in the US, some in Canada, more in the UK and even more than we seem to recognize, in France. Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany--and then there are some of the African countries and SE Asia. Oh, yeah, and the Chechens in Russia's underbelly.

    'Rat
     
  10. princealfie macrumors 68030

    princealfie

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Location:
    Salt Lake City UT
    #10
    Also there is an unending supply of nutcases willing to go on gun rampages against people because they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time... fear sets in...

    Alas just more stereotyping again and again. You assume that everyone wants to blow up someone's else face but it's not the case. There are only a finite number of people who would consider doing such.
     
  11. OldCorpse macrumors 65816

    OldCorpse

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    compost heap
    #11
    Yes, but that's my point - the nutters, can hate all they wish, whatever they wish, including "us just for being us". If they have no support, they'll be a nuisance at best, just as Timothy McVeigh can hate all he wishes and he'll be a nuisance at best, if he has no support. And support is manufactured BY US, by OUR policies, by OUR crimes against whole populations. Indeed, no matter our policies, IEDs will go off in other countries - as an Tim McVeigh will happen occasionally - but that's the point, occasionally (you can never control all nutters, see the VT killings). But what is happening in Iraq is not occasional - it is constant and it is fed by OUR policies. Remove our policies and we are back to occasional - inevitable - IEDs (including folks like T.McV.).

    Indeed, as yourself: before we invaded, how many Americans did Saddam's terrorists kill? How many Iraqi IEDs killed our troops? Answer: ZERO.

    How many now? Answer: thousands.

    See? This is the result of POLICY. And Hillary Clinton will not make the boo-boo OK, because she can't undo decades of our crimes in the Middle East - hatred we richly earned. I do think though that had Gore been president instead of Bush stealing that election 6 years ago, we would not have gone into Iraq, and would not have suffered a SINGLE IED in Iraq - not to mention not bankrupted ourselves and created tens of thousands of terrorist that will haunt us for decades. THAT my friend, is down to policy - terrorists we CREATED, who weren't there before. And btw. I despise Hillary Clinton.

    Yeah. That's called blowback. If you mistreat a religion or people - you turn them against you - how very, very, very unsurprising. How about we try not to discriminate against muslims, not invade their countries, not exploit them economically, not install our puppets as their dictators. Terrorists with crazy ideas will always exist - as did T.McV. - but to earn the support of the population, you need to turn the population against you by doing evil things to them. You want them to NOT support the terrorists? Try being fair.

    Remember: a terrorist is helpless by himself, a nuisance. The real danger starts when DECENT people support the terrorist because YOU are viciously oppresssing them. The first step - stop alienating the population, stop pushing them into the arms of the terrorists. WE are the ones giving the terrorists who hate us, whatever power they have. STOP.
     
  12. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #12
    The man with a job and a family is not inclined to introduce violent upheaval into his life.

    Woe be those who underestimate the potential of someone who feels he's lost everything.
     
  13. OldCorpse macrumors 65816

    OldCorpse

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    compost heap
    #13
    Madness/stupidity/ignorance breeds isolated terrorists.

    Injustice/oppression breeds dangerous terrorist movements.

    That's always been true and always will be. Wherever there is injustice, there eventually is terrorism. Chechnia - there was no Islamic terrorism, until Russia conducted brutal war against the population. Chechnia, btw. wanted to be free for decades. Same in the Baltics. Until the Serbs started to murder and torture the Kosovo Albanian Muslims, there was no Islamic terrorism in that region - since then, Islamic terrorists have been inflirtrating... blowback. France committed horrific crimes in their Arab colonies - and there has been some blowback in France from Islamic terrorism. Same for Britain which committed war crimes when they invaded Iraq - blowback. America or Israel - need I say more... blowback, blowback, blowback.
     
  14. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #14
    Neither of you see the irony of what you're saying?

    Kinda the problem, isn't it?
     
  15. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #15
    I don't know how many people have seen it but I recommend a viewing of Adam Curtis's documentary "The Power of Nightmares" in which he compares radical Muslims and the neoconservatives and shows how they are two sides of the same coin.Including Qutb and his role in the Islamic side. I believe it's around on Bittorrent (not that I would download it Oh no!).
     
  16. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #16
    The people who need to see it never will. But that's exactly true. I'll look for it (legitimately). Thanks.
     
  17. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #17
    Saw it when it came out. Very interesting.
     
  18. j26 macrumors 65832

    j26

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Location:
    Paddyland
    #18
  19. Nickygoat macrumors 6502a

    Nickygoat

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Location:
    London
    #19
    I'll second that - it's a fantastic piece of work.

    You can get it here.

    EDIT:too slow :)

    That's not necessarily true - 2 of the 7/7 bombers were married with kids, link and there's plenty of evidence of Palestinian bombers having wives & kids.
     
  20. Desertrat thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #20
    Old Corpse, as I recall, the invasion of Iraq occurred AFTER the WTC came down. Let's stipulate that the whole Iraq affair was and is a big mistake. It's irrelevant to this discussion.

    As far as joblessness and hopelessness providing causation, the leadership of groups like Al Qaeda are well-educated and some--like OBL--are extremely wealthy. OBL's share of the family fortune has been reported to be some $250 million, prior to his expenditures in these last dozen or so years.

    How do you deal with organizers who've said a primary motivation was the insult to their country by the presence of Infidels therein?

    If the issue is treatment of Islamics in non-Arab countries, how is it that some Imams in this country, in Canada, England and France, have spoken in support of Al Qaeda? Certainly in the US the Islamics here have equal opportunities for jobs, etc.

    Old Corpse, it strikes me as ironic that our troops in Macedonia have been a protective buffer--for Islamics against Serbs...

    I guess my summary is that the hatred exists outside of any US foreign policy of past or present, and the killing/destroying will continue. I don't say that the foreign policy is not partially causative, but it's light-years away from any sort of THE cause.

    The cultural clash that is going on now is but a resurrection of the past...

    'Rat
     
  21. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #21
    Oh we get it. What we don't get is how turning a relatively secular Muslim country into a radical one is helpful. That shouldn't be hard to understand.
     
  22. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #22
    They're nuts. They're also cowards. They don't act out personally, the find people who will do the violence for them. Being a terrorist is a short career. Being a terrorist organiser though...

    It's only when they have access to a hopeless or highly disgruntled population that they have a well stocked and ready pool of employees.
     
  23. OldCorpse macrumors 65816

    OldCorpse

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    compost heap
    #23
    But it is relevant. If 20 years from now, there's a terrific attack against our country that has roots in what is happening today in Iraq, then it'll sure be relevant!

    Same with WTC - what you keep missing is that we've had decades worth of illegal interventions and murderous regime changes. We are paying for that. That hatred is earned. It keeps paying dividends decades down the road. You ask about WTC - I point you to countless murderous interventions for years and years before WTC. I don't see Switzerland or Sweden earning that kind of dividends. It's not just random. Canada didn't overthrow the legitimately elected democratic government of Iran and installed the puppet murderous Shah - we did. Canada is not earning blowback - we are.

    See, this is why it's so hard for you guys (right wingers) to figure these things out, and why you keep losing these wars. I just explained this to you in several posts - but you can't seem to grok it. I'll try one more time.

    There will always be crazy individuals, ideologies, and organizations. Always. Everywhere. Including the U.S. That's human nature. But these nuts are largely irrelevant, at worst a nuisance. Yes, there will be a random attack here and there - but you'll never eliminate that, anymore than you'll ever eliminate all crime. How do you deal with such organizations? Same way you deal with all crimes - police action. That's how we dealt with the Weathermen, or with Tim Mc Veigh. Works, imperfectly. Here's why:

    Madness/ignorance/stupidity breeds isolated terrorists.

    They'll always be around. But they are powerless.

    It's exactly the same with Osama or Qutb. Powerless, at worse a nuisance.

    Now, they can metastasize like cancer - become virulent and deadly when we created the conditions for that! When we turn their societies to support Bin Laden, instead of their societies hunting him down. When we oppress them, when we install puppets or support oppressive regimes (including Saudi Arabia), when we exploit them.

    Religious nuts have always existed, and will always exist. We have them in this country too. But why are they so powerful in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries? Because those societies don't have the freedom to address their frustrations. Why? Because they are ruled by despotic regimes which we either installed or support. And then the population turns to the only people willing to fight - the religious nuts, who not surprisingly turn against the U.S. which is the source of support for that regime, not to mention a thousand other things we do... like supporting a murderous colonial power - Israel, which kills, tortures and steals Arab land. How surprised should we be that this breeds huge support for all forces - terrorist or not - that opposes such crimes against humanity?

    Osama and the like will always exist, but only WE can make them powerful:

    Injustice/oppression/exploitation breeds dangerous terrorist movements.

    Because they are muslims or Arabs and see their brethren oppressed and murdered and exploited by the U.S. and they speak out? I'll turn it around for you using your own words:

    If the issue is the treatment of Jews in the West, how is it that some Rabbis in this country, in Canada, England and France have spoken in support of the Jewish Anti-Nazi Resistance?

    Many Muslims see Al-Queda as the defenders of Muslims everywhere in the world - not surprising they'll express support and solidarity for them even in the West or non-Arab countries. Just as Jews in Canada/France/America would support their brethren and the organizations that protect them.

    Did you know that when Israel was formed there were Jewish terrorist gangs that operated in Palestine (yes, terrorist, replete with wanted posters by the British), which murdered civilian Palestinians and exploded hotels with diplomats etc. Yet, Jews in America and elsewhere supported those terrorist gangs with words, and with money. How's this different?

    Bottom line: STOP the murderous interventions in other countries affairs. Then, we'll have exactly as many or as few attacks by Muslims OR WHOEVER as f.ex. Canada. Yes, there will be isolated attacks by madmen, just as there will always be crime. But you will dramatically lower the danger and the effectiveness of terrorism.

    And I don't see any Bosnian or Kosovan Muslim terrorists hitting the U.S.... do you?

    And I say YES, irrational hatred will always exist - but it is our policies which give such hatred power and effectiveness. And my point is that policies are 99% of it. There will always be that 1% - as there will always be crime. But we can be at least in the same position as countries which don't have such policies - Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Japan or any number of other countries that somehow manage to only get that 1% of attacks while we earn the other 99%.
     
  24. Desertrat thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #24
    Old Corpse, I guess where we'll just have to agree to disagree is that you see the numbers as few; I do not.

    A few other points: Did we not support the Arabs in Afghanistan, when the USSR invaded? Did we not organize the mutual effort to free Kuwait via Desert Storm? Are our efforts on behalf of Arabs of no value, to be forgotten as meaningless trivia?

    Note that bin Laden has said that the presence in 1991 and 1992 of our soldiers on the holy soil of Saudi Arabia provided the impetus for his efforts to organize Al Qaeda. Is Al Qaeda powerless? Is its membership, its following of sympathizers merely a handful of nutcases?

    It strikes me that any group which began as well funded and has notable quantities of money coming in to support it is a potentially strong force. With the madrassahs preaching Jihad, the membership steadily grows. With modern technology available, this hate group does not strike me as a trivial problem. What stands out about the mindset is that they aren't interested in understanding us, nor of our understanding them.

    Calling "nutcase" in dismissal reminds me of the ancient joke about the guy who has a flat tire adjacent to the State Home for the Bewildered. While changing the tire, he accidentally kicks the lug nuts into the grass. An inmate who'd been standing inside the fence, nearby, suggests he merely remove one lug nut from each of the other wheels; three would be sufficient. Mr. Flat Tire applauds the inmate's idea and says, "That's pretty smart! It's a shame they have you locked up in there." The inmate responds, "I'm in here because I'm crazy, not because I'm stupid."

    The OBL crowd might be nuts, but they're not stupid.

    'Rat
     
  25. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #25
    Aren't you being a trifle disingenuous here? You supported Bin Laden and others (few of them Arabs, of course) in Afghanistan not in defence of Islam, but to give those pesky Reds a poke in the eye, at the expense of bringing down Najibullah's government, incidentally, which was more progressive than any the Afghanis have had since. The "mutual effort" to "free Kuwait" - already a far more repressive place than Iraq - was organised to protect your despotic friends' oilfields for the US' benefit. Let's not paint a completely false picture.
     

Share This Page