Tabacco begins the Search for an Answer by Googling – or rather Binging – the Question in Question.
1st Find: CLOSE ENOUGH!
SOME INTERNET FOLKS ACTUALLY
THINK FOR THEMSELVES
One Man’s Considered Opinion!
Was Al Qaeda provoked to attack the US for what we do not what we are?
- Follow publicly
- Follow privately
Update : Clarification,
Imagine a country with an imperialistic and militaristic foreign policy on US soil. How would you respond?
Best AnswerAsker’s Choice
- stephenmwells answered 7 years ago
Al Qeada was formed and financed by the CIA. Osama was the patsy in order to give Bush the backing to go to multiple wars in the middle east.
The main reason we are hated and attacked is because of our military stationed in their holy lands. Saudi Arabia was the first violation to their beliefs. Our air bases that are constructed in their lands has caused great unrest.
As with most people in the world they do not hate a country or people because of their way of life. A country’s action is what insights hatred.
Another reason is our blind support for Israel we support them even when they commit acts of terrorism on the Palestine’s people. We do nothing but continue to subsidize them.
This country needs to grow up and quit believeing in the FAUX news we get before we all turn into nazi pricks like Bill o Reilly.
One Woman’s Considered Opinion!
What we do, and did, is much the same as what they do.
The Muslims from the various Mideast countries have been emigrating to other countries and attempting to spread their influence and power throughout history. They have used conquest, population, and forced conversion, as well as money and terrorism to do this.
If there is any doubt as to the veracity of this statement, look at modern southern Spain. Look at the churches in Moscow and St. Petersburg.
People are people, and it doesn’t matter what nationality or religion they are, they will all try to control the world if they can.
Right now, the people in the Mideast have power, oil, and they are using it to extend their influence and power. We, are doing the same thing, by trying to control that oil, and them, and we will continue to do so as long as it is in our interest to do so, or until they clearly win.
Al Qaeda, is just an organized group, trying to get more power. The thing that is disturbing to us, is that they are more than willing to destroy themselves to this end. They would like to destroy us, and they will use whatever tool becomes available to them, whether it is religion or oil, money, or the lives of their members.
It’s all about power and control, and it always has been.
SOME INTERNET RESPONDERS HAVE BEEN
BY THE MSM & FOX NEWS –
SPONGES & PARROTS
Contrarians MSM, Politicians & War Profiteers Love
I answered those questions right after 9/11 in an editorial I wrote for my college’s newspaper.
The truth is Al-Qaeda didn’t attack the us because of what we are, rather because of what they THINK we are. & also not because of what we do, rather because of what they BELIEVE we do!
Most of the Al-Qaeda members think of the US as this evil crusading kingdom pretty much like Europe in the middle ages! They don’t seem do realize that America is a free country who respects the freedom of religion. & that many Muslims live safely in the US & enjoy life better than many modern Muslim countries.
Most of Al-Qaeda members believe in the conspiracy theory & suffer deep double thinking problem. They used to complain that America is so picky with Iraq & is so willing to attack it for any reason or even no reason. On the other hand, America allows the Serbs to murder Muslims in Bosnia or Kosovo. It’s a new crusade (they say). Then when America attacked the Serbs & Milosevic, he became a hero in their propaganda. They began to say stuff like “Maybe Milosevic is a butcherer, but he’s a real brave man who stood against the American arrogance!”
The very root of the Al-Qaeda’s madness against America is the propaganda of Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden didn’t accept the opinion of the Saudi clergy, who saw no problem in getting assistance from the US to defend Saudi Arabia. He accepted Saddam’s propaganda instead & saw such a relation with the US is the worst thing a Muslim would ever do!
They attacked us because they are unhappy with the state of the Arab world, and have convinced themselves it is our fault. Our policies may not have been beneficial to most of the people in the middle east, but they are not the primary cause of their misery either. It is human nature to blame others for your own failings, and AL Qaeda has carried this to an extreme, and are living in a fantasy world where the US and the West is the root of all evil.
I don’t know if “provoked” is the right word … they are, after all, a bunch of wacked-out islamaniacs. But yes, the so-called motivation, according to Osama himself, was the presence of US military bases in Saudi Arabia.
I think Osama lies, even to his own followers, about his motives (see link), but he’s pretty good at using the Koran to manipulate them.
See, Readers, there are two sides to every Issue. Unfortunately in this instance, one side is intelligent and well-thought out, while the other side consists of Archie Bunker’s Dingbats!
I dare say – because of MSM Right-Wing Propaganda – Dingbats on our shores outnumber the Thoughtful by a significant number.
That’s just one of the Pitfalls of Capitalism, seasoned with the illusion of democracy! Clever Capitalists are always in the background manipulating Americans and pulling our strings!
I find the following Blogger’s “take” on the matter interesting if not very informative. He seems to believe that if you don’t make specific demands, he is unable to fathom the reasons for Terrorists’ Terrorism.
He certainly says little to answer the operative question here. But something is better than nothing. And I can point out where he succeeds and where he fails. I should be thankful for small favors.
What do Islamist terrorists want? The answer should be obvious, but it is not.
A generation ago, terrorists did make clear their wishes. Upon hijacking three airliners in September 1970, for example, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine demanded, with success, the release of Arab terrorists imprisoned in Britain, Switzerland, and West Germany. Upon attacking the B’nai B’rith headquarters and two other Washington, D.C. buildings in 1977, a Hanafi Muslim group demanded the canceling of a feature movie, Mohammad, Messenger of God,” $750 (as reimbursement for a fine), the turning over of the five men who had massacred the Hanafi leader’s family, plus the killer of Malcolm X.
Such “non-negotiable demands” led to wrenching hostage dramas and attendant policy dilemmas. “We will never negotiate with terrorists,” the policymakers declared “Give them Hawaii but get my husband back,” pleaded the hostages’ wives.
So far, he fails miserably. The reason for his Failure is he focuses on the specific while completely ignoring the general. Some Analysts do the exact opposite with comparable results. In order to make a Case, you must include both the General and the Specific. But he’s not finished, so let’s give him the benefit of a doubt!
Those days are so remote and their terminology so forgotten that even President Bush now speaks of “non-negotiable demands” (in his case, concerning human dignity), forgetting the deadly origins of this phrase.
Most anti-Western terrorist attacks these days are perpetrated without demands being enunciated. Bombs go off, planes get hijacked and crashed into buildings, hotels collapse. The dead are counted. Detectives trace back the perpetrators’ identities. Shadowy websites make post-hoc unauthenticated claims.
But the reasons for the violence go unexplained.At last that author gives us reason to hope for an answer here!
Analysts, including myself, are left speculating about motives. These can relate to terrorists’ personal grievances based in poverty, prejudice, or cultural alienation. Alternately, an intention to change international policy can be seen as a motive: pulling “a Madrid” and getting governments to withdraw their troops from Iraq; convincing Americans to leave Saudi Arabia; ending American support for Israel; pressuring New Delhi to cede control of all Kashmir.
Any of these motives could have contributed to the violence; as London’s Daily Telegraph puts it, problems in Iraq and Afghanistan each added “a new pebble to the mountain of grievances that militant fanatics have erected.” Yet neither is decisive to giving up one’s life for the sake of killing others.
In those 2-highlighted sentences, that author has added some fuel to the fire! But I suspect he will leave us hanging – mind you, as I write these comments, I am reading the Post for the very first time! I anticipate and pounce! If I am wrong, I will publish anyway along with a Doubting Thomas’ Apology! The Prime Directive here is EDIFICATION regardless of whether it comes from me or someone else.
In nearly all cases, the jihadi terrorists have a patently self-evident ambition: to establish a world dominated by Muslims, Islam, and Islamic law, the Shari’a. Or, again to cite the Daily Telegraph, their “real project is the extension of the Islamic territory across the globe, and the establishment of a worldwide ‘caliphate’ founded on Shari’a law.”
That Author has jumped to the General, but the General about Muslims, not about Western Capitalists! He sounds like a Republican to me – excellent at analyzing the “Enemy”, but not very adept at analyzing “Capitalists in the USA”! Is this just one more attempt at IGNORING THE REAL ISSUE?
Terrorists openly declare this goal. The Islamists who assassinated Anwar el-Sadat in 1981 decorated their holding cages with banners proclaiming the “caliphate or death.” A biography of one of the most influential Islamist thinkers of recent times and an influence on Osama bin Laden, Abdullah Azzam declares that his life “revolved around a single goal, namely the establishment of Allah’s Rule on earth” and restoring the caliphate.
Bin Laden himself spoke of ensuring that “the pious caliphate will start from Afghanistan.” His chief deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, also dreamed of re-establishing the caliphate, for then, he wrote, “history would make a new turn, God willing, in the opposite direction against the empire of the United States and the world’s Jewish government.” Another Al-Qaeda leader, Fazlur Rehman Khalil, publishes a magazine that has declared “Due to the blessings of jihad, America’s countdown has begun. It will declare defeat soon,” to be followed by the creation of a caliphate.
Or, as Mohammed Bouyeri wrote in the note he attached to the corpse of Theo van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker he had just assassinated, “Islam will be victorious through the blood of martyrs who spread its light in every dark corner of this earth.”
Interestingly, van Gogh’s murderer was frustrated by the mistaken motives attributed to him, insisting at his trial: “I did what I did purely out of my beliefs. I want you to know that I acted out of conviction and not that I took his life because he was Dutch or because I was Moroccan and felt insulted.”
Although terrorists state their jihadi motives loudly and clearly, Westerners and Muslims alike too often fail to hear them. Islamic organizations, Canadian author Irshad Manji observes, pretend that “Islam is an innocent bystander in today’s terrorism.”
What the terrorists want is abundantly clear. It requires monumental denial not to acknowledge it, but we Westerners have risen to the challenge.
Aug. 1, 2005 update: The Daily Telegraph picks up this theme, focusing on role of the caliphate, in “Fanatics around the world dream of the Caliph’s return.”
Dec. 12, 2005 update: For an ongoing report on responses to the caliphate idea, see my weblog entry, “The Caliphate.”
June 29, 2014 update: Of a sudden, a caliphate does exist, announced today by the group that calls itself the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. The new caliph’s ruling name is Ibrahim. I will write more about it, but for now this article bears re-reading to understand the Islamist longing for an ancient and long-defunct institution.
Right – Correct again! (I must be very careful with that word.) This Author seemed at first sincerely interested in unbiased analysis. I was mistaken on that point!
This is just one more EVASION! Just one more APOLOGY for CAPITALISM by FOCUSING ON THE VICTIMS (ALL Muslims) and their violent responses to perpetually having their necks under the boots of Western Capitalists.
Surely the fault lies with the downtrodden, never the boot wearers! Should those, whose necks reside under Capitalist boots, thank the storm troopers for keeping their necks protected from other dangers? Should OPEC peoples thank America for the undying attention we pay to their OIL RESERVES?
Here that Author gets to Specifics about Terrorist Motives, but completely ignores the Overview. He portrays these Terrorists as buffoons, imbeciles or worse! That may sell newspapers and entice readership, but it does little to edify, clarify or inform.
I wanted to present more in this Post, but there really isn’t much more that will illuminate our Subject matter. I’d write an editorial myself, but if you are a Regular Reader here, you have already read my thoughts on the matter. Why gild the lily!
I will say only this: If the Western Powers had NOT reestablished the Jews and called it ‘Israel’ after thousands of years in Exile, there might not be a Middle East conflict today. Or at least our Capitalists would have to find another EXCUSE to STEAL THEIR OIL!
After all, the West did not reestablish Israel to benefit the Jews, but to benefit their own Lust for Muslim Natural Resources. Bush invaded Iraq under FALSE PRETENSES because Saddam Hussein made deals with the French, the Germans and the Russians – excluding the USA, whom he disliked immensely – and with good reason!
But Destabilization, WAR PROFITS & OPEC OIL CONTROL were always their GOALS!
Now I must pay adherence to my own message about ‘Redundancy’ lest I add Cicero’s technique of saying ‘what I won’t say’ to my other
hypocrisies – rhetorical techniques.
EVEN LIBERALS LIKE HUFFINGTON POST
BARELY SCRATCH THE SURFACE
At the very end, they scratch the surface:
Pakistanis believe the drones kill far more civilians than terrorists. Polls show enormous popular hostility towards America. Moreover, the U.S. has begun targeting Pakistani Taliban leaders. One U.S. official told the New York Times: “The Pakistani Taliban gets treated like al-Qaeda.” However, that encourages the Pakistan Taliban to treat the U.S. like al-Qaeda treats the U.S. One intelligence officer said: “Those [drone] attacks have made it personal for the Pakistani Taliban–so it’s no wonder they are beginning to think about how they can strike back at targets here.” Jeffrey Addicott, a former legal adviser to U.S. Special Forces, said: “Some of the CIA operators are concerned that, because of its blowback effect, it is doing more harm than good.”
The same appears to be the case in Afghanistan, where civilians are dying in air strikes, at checkpoints, and from drone attacks. Afghan Najibullah Zazi, arrested last fall for planning a suicide bombing in the New York subway, explained: “I would sacrifice myself to bring attention to what the United States military was doing to civilians in Afghanistan by sacrificing my soul for the sake of saving other souls.”
Certainly civilian casualties have spurred more mundane guerrilla opposition to U.S. forces. New York Times reporter David Rohde was held captive for seven months by the Taliban. After he escaped he wrote that he “saw how some of the consequences of Washington’s antiterrorism policies had galvanized the Taliban.” For instance, “They said large numbers of civilians had been killed in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Palestinian territories in aerial bombings.” To his complaint that he was a civilian, they said the U.S. “had held and tortured Muslims in secret detention centers for years,” so why “should they treat me differently?”
The point is not that there is never a legitimate case for military intervention or use of drones. However, the high costs of these tactics must be recognized and weighed. To reduce terrorism, Washington should do less, not more, abroad.
September 11 demonstrated that America is not invulnerable. Washington no longer can expect to invade, bomb, and intervene in other nations without consequence. Policymakers should consider all the costs, including terrorism, before they casually thrust the U.S. into foreign controversies and conflicts. As Glenn Greenwald put it, “if we continue to bring violence to that part of the world, then that part of the world—and those who sympathize with it—will continue to want to bring violence to the U.S.” That’s why many people in other nations not only hate us, but are trying to kill us.
Admittedly Obama’s DRONES have some causal effect on Terrorists. But REMEMBER that Terrorists were attacking America’s Weak Points (how about 9/11/2001) before Obama became President or Drones became so prevalent. So keep Drone Genocide in its proper perspective!
WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS,
Still, only about them; nothing
SPECIFIC about us! QED
In summation, just imagine how we Americans would feel and what we would do if another Power did to us what we do to others! Sounds like the Golden Rule to me!
Tabacco: I consider myself both a funnel and a filter. I funnel information, not readily available on the Mass Media, which is ignored and/or suppressed. I filter out the irrelevancies and trivialities to save both the time and effort of my Readers and bring consternation to the enemies of Truth & Fairness! When you read Tabacco, if you don’t learn something NEW, I’ve wasted your time.
Tabacco is not a blogger, who thinks; I am a Thinker, who blogs. Speaking Truth to Power!
In 1981′s ‘Body Heat’, Kathleen Turner said, “Knowledge is power”.
T.A.B.A.C.C.O. (Truth About Business And Congressional Crimes Organization) – Think Tank For Other 95% Of World: WTP = We The People