With the recent London bombings, I'm hearing phrases like "They hate our freedom" being bandied about once again as explanations for why terrorists are bombing things.
I'll be the first to admit that I haven't read extensively on terrorist motivation, but I can't help thinking that "They hate our freedom" reminds me of the useless platitudes that grownups would say about bullies when I was a kid. "They're just trying to get attention, just ignore them." "They just want you to react. Don't react and they'll go away." "They're just jealous of you." "They just have low self-esteem." Just as I cannot imagine someone thinking "I want attention. I think I will call the girl behind me names that imply that she engages in degrading sex acts that she hasn't even heard of yet" or "I am going to put spiders in the hair of the class arachnophobic because I want to see her react," I cannot imagine someone thinking "Those people are free. I hate that. I shall bomb them." (Particularly since anyone who can organize a terror campaign must have at least as much personal freedom as I do.)
Based on the limited reading I have done so far plus applying simple logic and reasoning to my knowledge of the global socio-political situation, I'd assume that this terrorism is more in response to certain elements of foreign policy that the terrorists construe as military occupation of their holy lands or attacks on their religious values and/or way of life. I've read that they're unhappy with the Israel/Palestine situation and the fact that the US (and maybe some of its allies? I don't know offhand) has a military presence in Saudi Arabia and perhaps some other Arab countries, and this makes more sense to me as a motivation for terrorism than hating the freedom in some distant country.
I wonder what the terrorist think of being told that they hate our freedom?
13 comments:
I think they do hate our freedom. They are religious fanatics who are hell-bent on spreading their very restrictive beliefs and lifestyle all over the world. They do not tolerate "infidels" in their homelands or anywhere else. They do not tolerate freedom of speech, or civil rights for women or minorities, etc. They are not about freedom, they are about the opposite. As long as such freedom exists, their religion and lifestyle will never be dominant and they know it, so they do what they can to make us uncomfortable. I think the freedom we enjoy in the West, warts and all, is really what they construe as an attack on their religion and their way of life. It's freedom to us, but to them it is a means to decadence that threatens their religion and must be stopped.
I think it does come down to "Those people are free. My religion hates that. I love my religion. I must bomb them."
That is entirely incorrect. al-Qaeda has never made reference to American domestic affairs in a justification. While they don't approve of how Americans live their lives, that doesn't cause them to take up arms. They are happy to let foriegners and infidels live as they please (in their foreign land of infidels) and leave the final settlement of accounts up to Allah.
That claim is repeated so many times by columnists and politicians, always lacking in evidence to support the same. This is pure war-mongering. It is done to convince the ordinary people that this war is their war, that they too must take up arms and/or support the expenditure of billions for military equipment for a hundred years since it is their freedom and their "way of life" that is at risk.
As for the terrorists themselves, they make it very clear: What angers them is US foreign policy.
http://www.mepc.org/public_asp/journal_vol10/0306_alqaeda.asp
Arab disaffection, which strethces back centuries, runs deeper than '80 years of American foreign policy'. It's a ruse. Treating them like rational actors implies they have rational grievances. On the surface the demands are rational but any means to meet those grievances are always refuted or met with suicide attacks. It's one of the great mysteries of the West how they underestimate the nature of their enemy. We look at it through the lenses of what the U.S. is doing and less the reality of where and how terrorists arise. It has less to do with us than with centuries of severe degredation and fragmentation within the Arab world itself. This was made worse by kleptocracies and dictatorships in the region that have further worsened the situation. Domestic lack of leadership and instability come before foreign policy. Nor does poverty sufficiently explain why they take up arms. The explanation, though highly complex, is nonetheless simpler than we think. Think 'throwing Jews into the Sea.'
Anon, your own link contradicts you:
"By means of this document we send a message to America and those behind it. We are coming, by the will of Allah almighty, no matter what America does."
They are coming anyway, no matter what America does. There could be a 180-degree change in foreign policies and it wouldn't change a thing. They are extremists whose only goal is world domination, to eliminate everyone and anyone who doesn't share their beliefs.
'They are happy to let foreigners live as they please..and leave the final settlement up to Allah' What? Did they let the 9-11 victims live as they please? Bali? Madrid? Did Allah just bomb some buses in London?
You disdain war-mongering, then cite a document that attempts to rationalize the killing of innocents in the name of 'religion'. What a load of hooey.
Arabic culture is not my cup of tea particularly and I would never want to have to live like that. I am not soft on the concept of Taliban imperialism; I just don't think it exists. The URL is of a document issued for the 911 crashes, and in it I did not see any reference to our "freedom of speech, or civil rights for women or minorities, etc"; they do not say that they are doing this because they are angry that over here women are permitted to vote and homosexuals are allowed to live. The actual grievances are about battles between Muslims and non-Muslims in Bosnia, Herzegovina, the Kashmir, Chechnya, Afghanistan, East Timor, Somalia, the Phillipines and Israel/Palestine. Nothing along the lines of "Those people are free. My religion hates that. I love my religion. I must bomb them." Also, nothing about world domination and/or a future holocaust for all non-Taliban. (If you know of any Osama attestations to this that I do not, please provide them.)
It isn't because they hate secular western liberal free democratic states, it's because they hate the foreign policy of some of them. We are a target not because of our way of life but because we have troops in Afghanistan. They have captured and killed on videotape citizens of such non-liberal (and perchance Muslim) states as Turkey, Russia, Pakistan, Nepal, Lebanon, Jordan, Indonesia, India, Egypt, Croatia, and Colombia. All members of the "coalition of the willing" with campaigns in Iraq.
When al-Qaeda starts blowing up breweries and vineyards, casinos, gay nightclubs, cathedrals, and shops that sell women's pants (you know, "freedom to us, but to them it is a means to decadence that threatens their religion and must be stopped") anywhere in the west, or buses and subways in peaceful (western, secular, non-Muslim) countries like Sweden and Switzerland, then your argument will be correct.
We are a target not because of our way of life but because we have troops in Afghanistan."
But we have troops in Afghanistan (or at least a much larger presence) primarily in response to the 9-11 attacks. Prior to those attacks, other than providing gobs of foreign aid that kept Afghans alive (when the Taliban wasn't stealing it before it could benefit Afghan civilians), we could have cared less about Afghanistan. But we were a target, anyway. We were a target *before* we had any significant military presence in Afghanistan.
When al-Qaeda starts blowing up breweries and vineyards, casinos, gay nightclubs, cathedrals, and shops that sell women's pants (you know, "freedom to us, but to them it is a means to decadence that threatens their religion and must be stopped") anywhere in the west, or buses and subways in peaceful (western, secular, non-Muslim) countries like Sweden and Switzerland, then your argument will be correct.
I think the argument is already correct. I guess it will take more senseless bombings, kidnappings, decapitations, and other random and assorted violence and death to convince you and others. And that is sad, beyond belief.
We were a target *before* we had any significant military presence in Afghanistan. Your corroborating evidence for this is what?
Please address my points instead of merely repeating your assertions. Please tell me the reason you have been convinced of this. In doing so, please make reference back to first-source documents from al-Qaeda, Osama, the Taliban, Iraq insurgents, or any other Islamic terrorist faction. Also, as much as possible, link these specific statements with specific deeds.
In order to buttress your argument, please explain the following:
1. Why are such notoriously free liberal states (not part of the coalition of the willing fighting in Iraq) like France, Sweden, and Switzerland not on Osama's target list?
2. Why are such notoriously illiberal states and regimes (part of the coalition of the willing, fighting or supporting fighting in Iraq) like Turkey, Russia, Pakistan, Nepal, Lebanon, Jordan, Indonesia, India, Egypt, Croatia, and Colombia, on Osama's target list and have had their citizens killed by his men?
3. Why is (gay marriage OK) Belgium (coalition unwilling) given a pass but the (gay marriage OK) Netherlands (coalition willing) on the target list and already has a body count?
4. Why has Amsterdam, arguably the most liberal place on earth, not been bombed, but Madrid and London have? The Dutch began removing their troops in March. Is this making them more, or less, of a target?
5. Why did the threats against Spain cease when Spain removed their troops from Iraq?
6. In your answer to the above two questions, refer back to your earlier statement that a 180-degree change in foreign policies... wouldn't change a thing.
7. Canada has a greater commitment to freedom of speech, civil rights for women and minorities, homosexuals, etc etc, than the USA, but the USA is a much greater target than Canada. Why is this?
8. Why has al-Qaeda so far largely avoided bombing such liberal red-flags-to-a-bull as vineyards breweries and distilleries, casinos, gay nightclubs, cathedrals, and shops that sell women's pants?
9. What is the reason for al-Qaeda's published statements that their bombings are in revenge for Muslim blood spilled in armed conflicts in such trouble spots as Somalia and Chechnya? Is this a ruse, a red herring, a self-deception?
10. What is the source for your statement that they aim to kill everyone on earth that is not a Taliban fellow-traveller?
I contend that if it is all about the liberalism, a) they would bomb liberal targets b) they wouldn't be interested in illiberal targets c) they would very probably say something to that end. Can you answer any of these points?
This is what comes of having George W Bush speeches as ones only source of news.
We were a target *before* we had any significant military presence in Afghanistan. Your corroborating evidence for this is what?
The World Trade Center was bombed/attacked not just once, but twice, before we had any significant military presence in Afghanistan.
1. Why are such notoriously free liberal states (not part of the coalition of the willing fighting in Iraq) like France, Sweden, and Switzerland not on Osama's target list?
It's difficult to speculate on the motives of madmen, but perhaps Osama and his followers feel no need to target countries that will surrender to their domination easily enough without force. Save the gimmes for last.
2. Why are such notoriously illiberal states and regimes (part of the coalition of the willing, fighting or supporting fighting in Iraq) like Turkey, Russia, Pakistan, Nepal, Lebanon, Jordan, Indonesia, India, Egypt, Croatia, and Colombia, on Osama's target list and have had their citizens killed by his men?
Because Osama and Co. will kill anyone, even Muslims who don't meet their standards.
3. Why is (gay marriage OK) Belgium (coalition unwilling) given a pass but the (gay marriage OK) Netherlands (coalition willing) on the target list and already has a body count?
See the answer to Question 1.
4. Why has Amsterdam, arguably the most liberal place on earth, not been bombed, but Madrid and London have? The Dutch began removing their troops in March. Is this making them more, or less, of a target?
It means they give in to terrorists without much of a struggle. Like the countries in question 1, that makes them a low priority. No need to waste resources on countries that have already essentially surrendered to a-q's demands.
5. Why did the threats against Spain cease when Spain removed their troops from Iraq?
See the answer to Question 4.
6. In your answer to the above two questions, refer back to your earlier statement that a 180-degree change in foreign policies... wouldn't change a thing.
See previous answers. This is getting tiresome.
7. Canada has a greater commitment to freedom of speech, civil rights for women and minorities, homosexuals, etc etc, than the USA, but the USA is a much greater target than Canada. Why is this?
I would suspect it's for the same sort of reason lawyers tend to sue McDonald's, and not Burger King or Wendy's.
8. Why has al-Qaeda so far largely avoided bombing such liberal red-flags-to-a-bull as vineyards breweries and distilleries, casinos, gay nightclubs, cathedrals, and shops that sell women's pants?
Skyscrapers, trains and subways are more efficient. But please be patient, if violence against these other places is deemed necessary by these extremists, a-q will oblige sooner or later.
9. What is the reason for al-Qaeda's published statements that their bombings are in revenge for Muslim blood spilled in armed conflicts in such trouble spots as Somalia and Chechnya? Is this a ruse, a red herring, a self-deception?
No, just another attempted rationalization for murder.
10. What is the source for your statement that they aim to kill everyone on earth that is not a Taliban fellow-traveller?
I think it's all the bombings and other violence. A picture is worth a thousand words.
At least to those who don't have their head in the sand, or up in similarly dark places.
You are not providing any evidence or source information for your conclusions, leading me to believe that you have none, save propaganda speeches.
- I don't see how the carbomb in the parking garage of the World Trade Centre in 1993 illustrates that al-Qaeda was out to get Canada long before Afghanistan. If I remember correctly the WTC was located in New York City USA, which is an international border and about 1200km away from Canadian soil.
1. "It's difficult to speculate... but perhaps..." Silly speculation, nothing reasonable to it.
2. "What they want to do is kill all free people."
"But they have killed plenty of non-free people."
"Well, what they want to do is kill everybody."
3. You suggest that depth of a nation's commitment to liberalism can be seen in whether or not it fights in Iraq. If this is true, then Kazakhistan, Mongolia, El Salvador, Angola, and Rwanda, are greater bastions of western liberalism and freedom than France, Switzerland, Belgium, and Sweden.
4. You agree that the Netherlands is at a lessened risk now, with troops leaving Iraq, than they were before March with troops in there, because "No need to waste resources on countries that have already essentially surrendered to a-q's demands." Correct!
5. With regards to al-Qaeda making a bigger target of the less-liberal USA than the more-liberal Canada, you "suspect suspect it's for the same sort of reason lawyers tend to sue McDonald's, and not Burger King or Wendy's." There is a big difference: McDonald's has defense lawyers. Wendy's doesn't.
8. If their goal really was to change lifestyles, wouldn't they choose specific targets? Terrorists have always chosen symbolic targets if their terrorism has a socio-political aim. If these people hated liberalism as much as the IRA hates the British, they would blow up cathedrals and gay nightclubs as the IRA blows up British soldiers at checkpoints.
9. You state your conclusion but you fail to provide reasons for that conclusion.
10. As for your assertion that they aim to kill everyone on Earth, "I think it's all the bombings and other violence." I don't know what to say to that.
This is ridiculous: You are being so utterly indigently stupid that you are completely beyond debate or discussion, because there's no reason supporting your beliefs, just fear and a misguided clinging for relief to the propagandistic invocations of politicians. We can't discuss reasons and rationales, because you have no use for them.
You claim to have figured out the terrorists, but you make no references to anything the terrorists have ever said; and when I provided you with things they have said, you discarded it. And when your conclusion of how the terrorists behave does not match up with what the terrorists do, your defence is that if the terrorists change what they do in the future it will be proof that you are correct.
Of course I know that people like you are the majority in the USA, and it's your kind of panic that is buttressing Guantanamo Bay and, of course, all the other fun things that come from war, like the death and $419.3 billion in paycheques and invoices for military spending in 2006, and of course the death.
I've given up on discussing it with Americans and Bush people. They don't base their opinions on what is true, and they admit it. Truth isn't what it's about: it's about other things like fear, pride, nationalism, revenge, racism, xenophobia. When you bring them the facts and ask them to look at them, they throw them off the table with a shriek and return again to fear and revenge. Donald Rumsfeld smiles, people die, Haliburton sends an invoice, and the show goes on.
I wouldn't have bothered to answer you but that I thought you were one of Imp. Str.'s friends, assuming them to be all university-educated yuppie women. And I didn't think that type of view was common amongst that demographic.
If Holland has essentially surrendered to al-Qaeda, and so is now an example of how bin Laden wants to re-make the world, I join with George W and say "BRING IT ON!!!"
Anon:
I am an American, who has never even considered voting for Bush. Your assumptions about me are so far off-base, it's not even funny.
Just go on believing that Taliban (or al-Q or extremist Muslim, all essentially the same) imperialism doesn't exist.
Evil does exist, but if 9-11 and Bali and Madrid and now London don't convince you, I doubt anything I have said or could say will.
You should hope that someone will be courageous enough to oppose this evil and defend your well-earned freedoms and your sensible liberalism and that they will be successful in that opposition.
Otherwise, one day you will be wearing a burka and answering to a dictator.Your freedom and anything remotely resembling a liberal lifestyle will be gone. And you will have no one and nothing to blame but yourself and your smug denial.
Peace.
It occurs to me that Anonymous could be either a woman or a man. Which, following Fran's comment, leads to a mental image of a man in a burqa. Which leads me to wonder if, in cultures where burqas are worn, it is considered sick and twisted and perverted for a man to wear a burqa. Or if men who are interested in transvestism put on burqas just for kicks.
Point taken, imp strump. Anon could be a man for all I know, and won't have to wear a burk(qu)a. But he/she/it might still have to do things against his/her/its will that make any current infringement on our freedoms seem small and minor.
As I said, I am no Bush fan. I believe he has badly bungled our foreign policy and has done even worse here at home. I don't think $2.50+ and rising gas is unrelated to having a cadre of oil men at the top of the government, for just one example.
But that doesn't mean extremist and imperialist terrorists don't exist, or that I should ignore or condone their violence, just because I dislike Bush.
Perhaps "fear, pride, nationalism, revenge, racism, xenophobia" are coloring my opinions, as Anon says. But I hope she/he will remember that there is another side in this battle and that it seems to be driven by all of the above. Just because they haven't come for your homeland or any other you care to name yet, doesn't mean they won't.
The US and its allies are far from perfect, but from what I've seen, I still prefer them to the alternatives.
I think I've made my point and I'm off on vacation tomorrow, so I will leave you with that.
Post a Comment