Just How Many Muslims Support Terrosism

[vanesch]

It is always someone else's fault when an Arab country gets bullied. For pete's sake, they're still upset over what happened in Spain 500 years ago.

This argument is not reserved to Arab nations or people. It is the recruiting basis for all xenophobia-minded movements: the problems we have are because of "the others". I think the Jews are historically sad champions in being designed "the others".

 

[Anttech]

However you may regard the US government, it is at least a legitimate, rational government that can be negotiated with

Try telling that to the UN, The current administration under bush works unilatteral

 

[vanesch]

First, of course, the US military does not purposely attack civilians, so if American civilians want to kill Saudi civilians, they need to go do it themselves. Second, the US military is not bombing Saudia Arabia. So clearly the need exists for American civilians to take it upon themselves to go kill Saudi civilians, right?

I think you naively miss the point of the Muslim terrorists. Their goal is NOT to kill, say, American civilians. Ok, they may have some extra "jouissance" by blowing up some of them, but it is not the main factor. Their goal is to make American POLICIES change in the ME (mainly, to stop you guys from supporting Israel, and to leave all military bases in the ME). Now they know that a direct military struggle to do so is hopeless, so what they want to do is to make the *american's government's life as miserably as possible* as long as it doesn't comply to their wishes. And how can they piss off the american government most ? By scaring the hell out of the american people, so that the *people* put pressure on their government. And how to you scare the hell out of Americans ? By confronting them with something they absolutely abhor: insecurity and disgusting atrocities. It's the thing Americans don't like at all. The idea of not even being safe in the WTC, that temple of American greatness in business, really did it. With a little help from Bush, this single act caused more damage to the US (in terms of image - the US is much less liked now than before 9/11, loss of individual liberty, loss of money, oh, yes, and also loss of a few lives - which comes down to the number of accepted casualties in driving accidents in a year or so) than any direct military action could ever have established, for the price of 8 or so kamikaze fliers. A masterpiece of terrorist efficiency. The american public IS being scared to hell (for not much more deaths than they accept without any problem in car accidents) and might eventually start to put pressure on its government.

Of course the demands of the terrorists are unrealistic and they will not achieve their goals completely. But maybe partly. And in the mean time, they succeed in scaring the hell out of everything which comes close to the US, and causes *enormous* damage to the US (mainly because of the extremely unhandy response given - Bush is a great amplifier for the terrorists ; he must be a dream to them!).

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

If someone helped more to the breakup in the arab states and bring war to them is The US.

regardless of the actual implementation, if the arab states are in a weak position it is because they let themselves fall into a position of weakness. i personally believe that religious fundamentalism is directly responsible for this. they became modernized only when world affairs forced them to, and it has been too little too late. as a result they are always 5 steps behind, a situation that has made it almost impossible for them to come up in the world.

my hypothesis is this: enlightenment and state-religion are inversely proportional. once europe realized the darkness of state-sanctioned religion they began to advance into Enlightenment. at around the same time, the arab world went from a Golden Age into a period of decline as Islam became integrated with their governance. this is why the Islamic utopia of the Taliban will never prosper...unless of course all of the modernized nations (especially the US) were destroyed, therefore it is no coincidence that this is now the main goal of Islamic terrorism.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

ahaha yeees right. it can be negotiated with!

yes, that's right, an internationally recognized government that speaks for more than 300 million people versus a couple of retards with a bizarre interpretation of the Koran strapping bombs to themselves.

yes, there is a big difference in doing business between the two.

 

[The Smoking Man]

yes, that's right, an internationally recognized government that speaks for more than 300 million people versus a couple of retards with a bizarre interpretation of the Koran strapping bombs to themselves.

yes, there is a big difference in doing business between the two.

Knowing what we know about the Downing Street Memo and the creation of the 'justification of war', do you not see the Neocon deception as to the reason for war as the reason those 'over 300 million people' spoke with that one voice?

Does the fact that they were decieve not mean that 'it is not 300 million that speak for a just cause but that a handful of Neocons created a lie that got all 300 people to make the same noise at the same time'?

I mean, really ... If we kill all wolves at the insistance of the boy who cried wolf, did we kill all the wolves becaue they are bad as the people were saying or because the villagers believed the lies of the boy? Isn't it the 'boy' who is responsible?

I have a hard time blaming all Americans for what happened in Iraq. I can't blame those 300 million for what happened because it was the majority of them who were decieved in supporting a piece of fiction by a relative minority of their number.

Steps must be taken now as an act of contrition to bring 'the boy' to justice for what was done in the Middle East on behalf of a deceived people.

To cite the support of 300 million people for what is and was a bold faced lie is to perpetuate the lie as a valid excuse and to fail to acknowledge that many of that number now want to see justice performed against 'the boy and his minions'.

 

[The Smoking Man]

regardless of the actual implementation, if the arab states are in a weak position it is because they let themselves fall into a position of weakness. i personally believe that religious fundamentalism is directly responsible for this. they became modernized only when world affairs forced them to, and it has been too little too late. as a result they are always 5 steps behind, a situation that has made it almost impossible for them to come up in the world.

my hypothesis is this: enlightenment and state-religion are inversely proportional. once europe realized the darkness of state-sanctioned religion they began to advance into Enlightenment. at around the same time, the arab world went from a Golden Age into a period of decline as Islam became integrated with their governance. this is why the Islamic utopia of the Taliban will never prosper...unless of course all of the modernized nations (especially the US) were destroyed, therefore it is no coincidence that this is now the main goal of Islamic terrorism.

America now treads a similar dangerous path.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Knowing what we know about the Downing Street Memo and the creation of the 'justification of war', do you not see the Neocon deception as to the reason for war as the reason those 'over 300 million people' spoke with that one voice?

No, I see the reason that the US went to war is that it was in the strategic interests of the US to do so. Those strategic interests changed after 9/11. Would you like me to lay out these interests for you, so that we can travel this worn path yet again?

In any case, my argument is that the US government is a recognized body, whereas terrorists are not. You are not going to be as absurd as to question this basic fact, are you?

 

[The Smoking Man]

No, I see the reason that the US went to war is that it was in the strategic interests of the US to do so. Those strategic interests changed after 9/11. Would you like me to lay out these interests for you, so that we can travel this worn path yet again?

In any case, my argument is that the US government is a recognized body, whereas terrorists are not. You are not going to be as absurd as to question this basic fact, are you?

There is really no need to describe what you perceive as 'strategic interests'.

What you are discussing is the support of 300 million people for your presence there and regardless of what you consider to be your 'strategic interests', you would not have been given the permission of the populace to pursue those interests had you not been lied to by 'the powers that be'.

Would any of it have been legal or facilitated had Bush, et al not fabricated the evidence?

Would you have gained the support of congress if Bush had rightly said:

"There are no WMD in Iraq. We have achieved our goal and now Hans Blix is in Iraq searching for WMD showing compliance with current UN resolutions. The UN sanctions are working and it is now time to change those sanctions to make them more efficient.

We must now redouble our efforts to find the perpetrators of 9/11 in Afghanistan and crush them under foot for he is the true evil in this war."

You already had support for this position.

Why did you destroy all of your support in the world by creating the lies that you cling to to justify your actions?

 

[The Smoking Man]

In any case, my argument is that the US government is a recognized body, whereas terrorists are not. You are not going to be as absurd as to question this basic fact, are you?

When is a recognized body not a recognized body?

When they do something deceptive and therefore illegal.

Your entire justification of all of this is that you have more arms than anyone else in the world and the rest of the world is unable to do to you what you did to Saddam.

Much of the world views the American Administration with equal distain. You were after all the puppet masters behind the creation of Saddam and bin Laden so why not take up the old addage ... 'the buck stops here'.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

When is a recognized body not a recognized body?

When they do something deceptive and therefore illegal.

Your entire justification of all of this is that you have more arms than anyone else in the world and the rest of the world is unable to do to you what you did to Saddam.

When did I say anything about having more arms?

No, the US government is exactly what I have said: an organization that represents a large amount of people. It is a structured organization based upon law, and is legally recognized. Terrorist groups, on the other hand, are merely a rag-tag collection of losers with a failed ideology and no more legal status than a criminal organization (at best)

Much of the world views the American Administration with equal distain. You were after all the puppet masters behind the creation of Saddam and bin Laden so why not take up the old addage ... 'the buck stops here'.

If we created them, then we should not have and so I guess it is our responsibility to remove them now, right?

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Why did you destroy all of your support in the world by creating the lies that you cling to to justify your actions?

You cannot please all of the people all of the time. There will always be hostility toward the US flexing it's muscles when needed. The legality of the war in Iraq has already been covered here: the war did not violate US or international law. It merely met with disapproval, but they will get over it eventually.

 

[The Smoking Man]

When did I say anything about having more arms?

I was referring to the 'your' in the sense of the American populace.

It seems to be the general response that "Yeah we were wrong and deceptive but what are YOU going to do about it ... Oh and by the way, we want exemption from prosecution under the Geneva Conventions ... Oh heck, screw that, we just won't recognize the authority of the world court'

No, the US government is exactly what I have said: an organization that represents a large amount of people. It is a structured organization based upon law, and is legally recognized. Terrorist groups, on the other hand, are merely a rag-tag collection of losers with a failed ideology and no more legal status than a criminal organization (at best)

No the American government is only a legal entity as long as it conforms to the laws that they themselves have laid out for themselves to follow.

As soon as they chose to deviate from the law they engaged in a crime aginst their own people as well as the ME.

If we created them, then we should not have and so I guess it is our responsibility to remove them now, right?

I am often amazed at the ignorance of most Americans of the most basic of 'old adages'. Have you truly never heard the old saying, "Two wrongs do not make a right."

How about, "Oh, what a troubled life we lead when first we practice to deceive"?

 

[The Smoking Man]

You cannot please all of the people all of the time. There will always be hostility toward the US flexing it's muscles when needed. The legality of the war in Iraq has already been covered here: the war did not violate US or international law. It merely met with disapproval, but they will get over it eventually.

LOL

Nice to see you have declared the war legal.

When did the trials take place?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5855.htm

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

LOL

Nice to see you have declared the war legal.

Sure thing. You can read my summary on the domestic side on post #203 of this thread:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=80084&page=14&pp=15&highlight=tonkin

The UN resolutions make the matter even clearer on the international side. No laws were broken.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_actions_regarding_Iraq

How 'bout this...I will bet you $20 that the UN council will never collectively find the Iraq war to be illegal.

When did the trials take place?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5855.htm

Lol that is a funny little piece of fiction

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

No the American government is only a legal entity as long as it conforms to the laws that they themselves have laid out for themselves to follow.

Where did you ever get this idea from? That's certainly not true, even if the laws were broken it would not cease to be a legal entity.

If a corporation breaks the law, does that corporation cease to be a legal entity? Of course not, if they ceased to be a legal entity then they could never be held accountable!

 

[GENIERE]

I do not regard the US as a threat to Islam, I phrased what I said in the way I did in order to show that, contrary to what the extremists have been saying, the US is not an enemy of Islam, and the extremists' philosophy is far more harmful to the Islamic way of life than the US ever possibly *could be* (i.e. potentially/hypothetically. I never said that it actually was).

Fair enough, I wanted to be certain. Buona fortuna! :!)

...

 

[GENIERE]

This argument is not reserved to Arab nations or people. It is the recruiting basis for all xenophobia-minded movements: the problems we have are because of "the others". I think the Jews are historically sad champions in being designed "the others".

What he said^^.

...

 

[The Smoking Man]

Sure thing. You can read my summary on the domestic side on post #203 of this thread:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=80084&page=14&pp=15&highlight=tonkin

And as soon as you link to the law degrees of each of the members who declared the USA free and dismiss all new evidence, I just might even consider some of the decision to be any worth.

The UN resolutions make the matter even clearer on the international side. No laws were broken.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_actions_regarding_Iraq

Did the UN decide it was so? It seems that you have overlooked the Downing Street memo yet again which clearly states the opinion of the law lord in the UK that the excuses would not hold up in court.

How 'bout this...I will bet you $20 that the UN council will never collectively find the Iraq war to be illegal.

I think I have already covered the fact that the UN Security council currently has the USA veto and they have a penchant for using it more thatn any other nation.

It doesn't however change the fact that of the 'coalition of the Willing' only 40 members of the UN actually supported the invasion indicating you had about 20% consensus on the act of invading Iraq.

Lol that is a funny little piece of fiction

You are aware that the US Embassy actually sent a team of lawyers to this little 'work of fiction' and lost?

 

[Yaaks]

All i can say is regarding the TOPIC is,,
Although i am a Hindu,, it doesn't mean that i am proud of what some bad elements do in the name of religion (for Eg: The VHP, RSS and the Bajranga Dal do things that i don't appreciate in the name of Hindu religion.). The Point is, sadly!, Bad Elements do exist in every Country, Religion, Belief etc..., who brand the whole community as Bad, which is not true,,, WE CANNOT GENERALISE! ...
This goes for all Religions, Faiths including Muslims..
Many of my close Pals are Muslims..

 

[BobG]

You cannot please all of the people all of the time. There will always be hostility toward the US flexing it's muscles when needed. The legality of the war in Iraq has already been covered here: the war did not violate US or international law. It merely met with disapproval, but they will get over it eventually.

Do you think, at a minimum, a country could at least please itself with its own policies?

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

A significant minority might still defend Bush's invasion and fewer still actually believe the reasons he gave. Do you think US voters will get over it by 2006, when Congress faces elections? Or will they not get over it until 2008, when some Republican would hope the party's entire image hasn't been trashed? Or will they not get over it until after 8 years or more of Democratic control of the presidency and Congress?

You don't make the decisions Bush made unless you're sure you're right. Honest mistakes aren't acceptable, let alone mistakes of questionable intention.

 

[klusener]

All i can say is regarding the TOPIC is,,
Although i am a Hindu,, it doesn't mean that i am proud of what some bad elements do in the name of religion (for Eg: The VHP, RSS and the Bajranga Dal do things that i don't appreciate in the name of Hindu religion.). The Point is, sadly!, Bad Elements do exist in every Country, Religion, Belief etc..., who brand the whole community as Bad, which is not true,,, WE CANNOT GENERALISE! ...
This goes for all Religions, Faiths including Muslims..
Many of my close Pals are Muslims..

The RSS saved the lives of 80 Christian priests a few weeks back.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Do you think, at a minimum, a country could at least please itself with its own policies?

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

A significant minority might still defend Bush's invasion and fewer still actually believe the reasons he gave. Do you think US voters will get over it by 2006, when Congress faces elections? Or will they not get over it until 2008, when some Republican would hope the party's entire image hasn't been trashed? Or will they not get over it until after 8 years or more of Democratic control of the presidency and Congress?

You don't make the decisions Bush made unless you're sure you're right. Honest mistakes aren't acceptable, let alone mistakes of questionable intention.

I don't believe that the US is deciding the presidency based on foreign policy at the moment and can be easily swayed by domestic issues that are of concern to religious fundamentalists.

It won't be until Bush screws up significantly on a domestic issue that the Republicans will feel a real backlash. Will they feel that Bush betrayed them significantly over the 'banning gay marriage issues' at the federal level ... only time will tell.

 

[Yaaks]

The RSS saved the lives of 80 Christian priests a few weeks back.

wht i meant was, 'I don't appretiate their ideology'...

 

[Smurf]

You cannot please all of the people all of the time. There will always be hostility toward the US flexing it's muscles when needed. The legality of the war in Iraq has already been covered here: the war did not violate US or international law. It merely met with disapproval, but they will get over it eventually.

That's such a cheap excuse. It sickens me to see it used as a cop-out by Bush's defenders. We're not talking about weather or not to raise taxes, or which way to stop the exportation of jobs to China. We're talking about a ****ing war here. A war where people die because you couldn't be bothered to take them into account when deciding who you would please. They don't have a chance to "get over it".

 

[SOS2008]

...The legality of the war in Iraq has already been covered here: the war did not violate US or international law. It merely met with disapproval, but they will get over it eventually.

This has been covered here, and the invasion of Iraq was and is considered illegal by the majority of the world and half of America according to UN resolutions and Just War theory. I've sourced this many times:

Since the majority of the United Nations security council members (both permanent and rotating) did not support the attack... [which] violated international law as a war of aggression since it lacked the validity of a U.N. Security Council resolution to authorize military force, and was not an act of defence, and so violated the UN charter.

...Under Article 2, Number 4 of the UN Charter, "All Members shall refrain... from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state..." This is known as the "Prohibition of Aggression." For the use of force other than in self defence, it is absolute without the positive sanction of the security council under Article 42.

In regard to The Downing Street Memo:

It was clear about one point, "Regime change," insisted the Attorney General, "cannot be the object of military action." Any invasion which had that goal would be unambiguously illegal under international law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Legality_of_the_invasion

Please provide reliable evidence to show that the invasion was legal, otherwise please do not spread this untruth further.

 

[Nomy-the wanderer]

Regarding the topic, i live in Egypt which means I'm surrounded by mostly muslims in the streets, and none of them love terrorism, cause mainly many people realize that it's a move for the blinded people who know **** about anything, they also know that the responsable people mostly are there for the funds and power (the funds are coming from outside of the country , which makes some very few people realize that these people can't be trusted).

Also being in a country that have a lot of faith in religion, and because 70% at least are poor and unsufficiently educated people, these terrorists get more influence, but also the people here, can't live that tight...So the terrorists can't reveal themselves, they make more smaller groups to convince the people they r true muslims and stuff...
But our people mainly suffered from a huge operation in Luxor in 1997, and another one in a church in a country side village (i don't remember the name). Also 2 minor jobs in cairo this year...

On the other hand here are the motivations that those terrorists gives to the youngs specially:

1- muslims are hated in the world (referring to palestine, pakistan, iran, iraq finally)
And moving the youngs to ake protests to push the government into the war, to defend palestine, and iraq..Not putting in their mind that we are in peace with israel and that there's a cooperation between us eversince the war was over for us.

2- justifying their violence actions by revenging for the sake of their brothers, also to punish the atheists for their sins (atheists in their point of view can include muslims too)

3- installing a democratic system based on the Qur'an, which is certainly just talks and u cna look to what happened to Algeria.

Put in mind that those religious muslims that are not too deep into their religions may get scared by false alerts of those terrorists telling them to fear the day when God will punish them for all their mistakes, sorrowfully they've a lot of influence than they r suposed to have...

And only ignorants can believe their bull crap! Even those who are motivating all these people can't believe themselves, they know their lies.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

This has been covered here, and the invasion of Iraq was and is considered illegal by the majority of the world and half of America according to UN resolutions and Just Law theory.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but how the majority feels has nothing to do with whether something is legal or not. just because the majority of other countries don't like something does not make it illegal. The democratic majority does not determine the outcome of legal questions, fortunately - we can only imagine what justice would be like if that were the case.

the war can only be found to be illegal if declared as such by US congress (unlikely, since they voted in favor of the war), US supreme court (doubtful since they don't typically deal in matters of national security) or illegal by international law by the UN (and this does not just mean one guy standing up and saying that his country thinks the war is illegal - it needs to be an actual UN ruling, again unlikely). and of course even if the UN, in some parallel universe, were to rule that the iraq war is illegal, the US could just ignore them as saddam did, right?

you can spin your tires all day long over the downing st. memo and all of that, but in reality the US war in iraq has a legal basis that is overwhelming in comparison with downing st. and whatever additional conspiracy theories are out there.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but how the majority feels has nothing to do with whether something is legal or not. just because the majority of other countries don't like something does not make it illegal. The democratic majority does not determine the outcome of legal questions, fortunately - we can only imagine what justice would be like if that were the case.

the war can only be found to be illegal if declared as such by US congress (unlikely, since they voted in favor of the war), US supreme court (doubtful since they don't typically deal in matters of national security) or illegal by international law by the UN (and this does not just mean one guy standing up and saying that his country thinks the war is illegal - it needs to be an actual UN ruling, again unlikely). and of course even if the UN, in some parallel universe, were to rule that the iraq war is illegal, the US could just ignore them as saddam did, right?

you can spin your tires all day long over the downing st. memo and all of that, but in reality the US war in iraq has a legal basis that is overwhelming in comparison with downing st. and whatever additional conspiracy theories are out there.

Sorry to burst YOUR bubble Q. but it was Herbert Hoover who had the Kellogg-Briand pact and signed it.

It has never been repealed as has the amendments to the Geneva Conventions done in 1925 banning the creation and use of bio and chemical weaponry.

Come on Q. just make the statement like every onther American in the 'Redneck' camp, 'Sure, we're guilty but what are you going to do about it? We have the best weapons.'

You have zilch as a basis for invading Iraq. Here is the remedy from 1441:

13. RECALLS, in that context, that the council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

Now when my father told me I would face 'serious consequences' if I didn't do my homework, I certainly didn't expect to be beaten to death.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Come on Q. just make the statement like every onther American in the 'Redneck' camp, 'Sure, we're guilty but what are you going to do about it? We have the best weapons.'

You make great assumptions here. I am not some trumpet for Bush - I just happen to be a bit more conservative when it comes to foreign policy. When it comes to domestic policy you will find an atheistic raving liberal...not that any of this really matters.

I certainly have no desire to make the claim that you're making about having "the best weapons" and therefore we can do anything that we want. I simply see the last few years as a rather shocking moment for the US, and this has forced a rearrangement of our policies.

It should be clear that the US cannot deal with terrorism on a person-by-person basis. What is being waged against the US right now is known as asymmetric warfare - the only reasonable counter to this is to treat nations that support terrorism as terrorists themselves. Without national support, terrorism cannot survive. The invasion of Iraq was as much a message as anything tactical - a way of "convincing" middle east governments that they need to back down from the support of fundamentalists, and also to give the threat of sanctions some teeth again. This would not succeed as long as Iraq, being the most powerful middle east government, was allowed to disregard international pressure. The success in convincing Libya to not pursue WMD is proof of this.

Now when my father told me I would face 'serious consequences' if I didn't do my homework, I certainly didn't expect to be beaten to death.

Um, yeah, but what if the police threaten "serious consequences" what do you think that would possibly mean? Giving out flowers and chocolate? I'm thinking a bullet in the rear-end or jail time at best.

"serious consequences" is diplomatic jargon for military action.

As has been discussed on this forum already, the UN is not even consistent on such matters since the NATO actions in Kosovo was not approved by the UN either. In comparison with Kosovo, the case against Iraq was overwhelmning. Nor was a UN resolution required for invading Afghanistan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War

The legitimacy of NATO's bombing campaign in Kosovo has been the subject of much debate. NATO did not have the backing of the United Nations to use force in Yugoslavia but justified its actions on the basis of an "international humanitarian emergency". Criticism was also drawn by the fact that the NATO charter specifies that NATO is an organization created for defence of its members, but in this case it was used to attack a non-NATO country which was not directly threatening any NATO member. NATO countered this argument by claiming that instability in the Balkans was a direct threat to the security interests of NATO members, and military action was therefore justified by the NATO charter.

If you sense some bitterness from me, it cannot be helped. There is a great deal of charity and security that the US offers. It is true that we are not perfect, and are not seen as benefactors by everyone. But...when the time comes when we are attacked and we need to do something for ourselves, my god you would think that we were hitler's children all of the sudden. How is that for conditional love?

 

[russ_watters]

I think you naively miss the point of the Muslim terrorists. Their goal is NOT to kill, say, American civilians. Ok, they may have some extra "jouissance" by blowing up some of them, but it is not the main factor. Their goal is to make American POLICIES change in the ME (mainly, to stop you guys from supporting Israel, and to leave all military bases in the ME).

Tactical vs strategic: strategic is the overall goal of the war, tactical is the goal of the specific strike. Both must be judged separately (ie, Bush's motivations are part of the strategic goal in Iraq) and one can never justify the other.

You're falling into the trap-argument set by the terrorists: no, it is not ok to be a murderer if you have a larger goal that is rightous.

So we're still left with the fact that people have said that its "understandable" that people who are wronged may lash out - irrationally, even - and do things like bomb busses and trains in a foreign country. Yet, none of the thousands of family members of victims of 9/11 have done that. Why do Saudis do it and Americans not?

 

[russ_watters]

Unfortunately for us, the real 'US' that your extremist groups are fighting are Coca-Cola, McDonald's, Levis jeans, and other signs that interaction with the Western world is eroding traditional Middle Eastern lifestyles. Unfortunately for your extremist groups, you can't fight time and change successfully. Western products and customs are seeping into the Middle East because the 'average' Middle Easterner likes the conveniences that oil money has brought their country.

A very important point, and that's one of the things in Bin Laden's open letter to the west. He spends so many words on it, I think it indicates that that's what he hates about us most - our culture. Perhaps he sees that the only way to prevent our culture from permeating the ME (such evil things as womans' rights ) is to destroy it.

 

[BobG]

You have zilch as a basis for invading Iraq. Here is the remedy from 1441:

13. RECALLS, in that context, that the council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

Now when my father told me I would face 'serious consequences' if I didn't do my homework, I certainly didn't expect to be beaten to death.

Completely different context. If you and your father had just engaged in a gun battle and he told you you would face serious consequences if you picked your gun back up, I doubt you'd have much confusion over the consequences.

I think the legality of the invasion is kind of a gray area (and beside the point, as well).

If the US had unilaterally invaded Iraq with no UN discussion of the issue, we could have made a credible claim that we were enforcing 1441. Tactically, taking the issue to the UN was a mistake. There were only two valid reasons to take the issue to the UN - as aknowledgement that we required UN approval to invade or because we knew the UN would approve the invasion.

What actually happened was that the Bush administration botched the job. Their assessment of the situation was wrong and a major embarrassment. Backing out of a request for UN approval before an actual vote was taken may have just barely maintained a gray area, as far as legality was concerned, but it sure did cement perceptions of the invasion.

 

[Art]

A very important point, and that's one of the things in Bin Laden's open letter to the west. He spends so many words on it, I think it indicates that that's what he hates about us most - our culture. Perhaps he sees that the only way to prevent our culture from permeating the ME (such evil things as womans' rights ) is to destroy it.

Just FYI although certain muslim figures do not treat women well it is a fairly recent phenomenon and is an exception to the norm. Muslim women had property rights hundreds of years before western women and in many western countries women were still legaly chattels of their husbands until relatively recently, in the UK until about 35 years ago. Whereas under Islamic law women and men have always been adjudged equal.
Western women were also denied the right to vote; in the UK, USA and Canada until circa 1920 and in France until 1944, Italy and Japan 1946 and in Mexico 1953 whereas muslim women have held equal status with muslim men for hundreds of year.

 

[Jelfish]

So we're still left with the fact that people have said that its "understandable" that people who are wronged may lash out - irrationally, even - and do things like bomb busses and trains in a foreign country. Yet, none of the thousands of family members of victims of 9/11 have done that. Why do Saudis do it and Americans not?

The reason why they are so willing to suicide bomb and commit acts of terror while American citizens are not is that they have a motivation that we do not - religious conviction. The Muslim extremists abhor Westernization and liberalism. They believe that it leads to moral decay.

For example, when western banks started to invest in Egypt in the '70s, their middle class began to grow and flourish. Materialism became normal, as it is in the US. What's worse was that their leaders were embracing this liberalism and the extremists suspected corruption. In fact, after the Yom Kippur War between Egypt and Israel, the Egyptian people were horrified when Sadat, their current leader, signed a peace treaty with Israel, which was supported by the Carter administration of the US. The extremists declared this as a sign of weakness and trumpeted their 'I told you so' corruption claims. This lead, of course, to Sadat's assassination. Of the hundreds imprisoned for suspected involvement in the assassination of Sadat, one was Ayman al-Zawahiri, who believed that to be a true Muslim, you must follow the Qur'an and reject materialism and liberalism. Sadat gave into such things and therefore could be justifiably killed, because he was no longer a 'true' Muslim. Hoping that the common people would come to their senses and join the revolution, the extremists were shocked to see that most people just went back to living their regular lives. Because of this, they too were labeled as not being 'true Muslims' and they too could justifiably be killed. al-Zawahiri, by the way, is a head lieutenant to Osama Bin Laden and has been part of al-Qaeda since its inception.

These ideas spread throughout Muslim communities and this is how they justify killing civilians. The part of the story that links the US into this (i.e. 9/11) comes from the continuation of this Islamic Revolution after the Soviet break-up.

The point is, suicide bombing isn't just about revenge. It's about religious conviction. They believe that they are helping to exterminate an evil and thus are winning the favor of their god. Americans in general do not have such conviction, just like most Muslims in the Middle East do not have that kind of conviction (relative to the extremists). That's why civilians are also killed. However, if you were to ask a faithful Muslim whether or not western materialism and liberalism is a sinful thing, they would undoubtedly say yes. Perhaps this may mean that they 'side' with the terrorists, but that does not mean that they all condone murder.