Redstate

that they hate.

I was discussing this issue with somebody else, who is convinced that support for Israel is the source of all the hatred and that the US should stop all money given to Israel and stop its support of Israel, and the terrorists would go away.

I disagree.

While Israel, and a US presence in the region is a part of the problem, I think anyone who denies the hatred of us, because of what we value in our culture is ignoring reality.

Foaud Ajami wrote this story a few years ago, and it presents even more on the issue of Anti-Americanism.

I think the MSM has parroted the "The World hates America" mantra so long, that few in our country ever realy question if those sentiments are even true.

Pat Buchanan summed it up nicely for me on MTP a few months back.  The quote was something like, "People say they hate us because we're free.  It's not as though bin Laden is sitting in a cave getting angry a copy of the Bill of Rights."

Our policies are the catalyst for violence I believe, but the fact that they do despise our culture perhaps overdetermines it.  I do think it's (violence) mostly related to foreign policy disagreements, maybe something like 75/25 if I had to quantify it.  The insults to our culture are icing on the cake.

That said, I don't think bin Laden should be able steer our nation through intimidation. There are things we could be doing better diplomatically in the ME, but we already have ample non-terrorism related motivation to improve our standing there.

Bin Laden et al's main goal is overthrowing all middle eastern governments that do not adhere to their brand of Islam and seating a new caliphate to rule the region.  Saudi Arabia is crucial in this equation.  The main obstacle in their way is the good ole USA.  If they can cut us out of the mid east they would have a significant shot at taking down several governments that are not at all popular in their respective nations.  This is the goal and basis for their actions, but they must motivate their followers and doing so through the prism of their religion is the way they hope to motivate.  They can easily use our culture to show their supporters how bad we are, but that's not the only piece of the puzzle that makes fundamentalists take up arms against us.

Any action we take in the region can be shown as anti-muslim or an attack on their religion and Bin Laden knows how to exploit that.  And we can't say ignorant, poor muslims are the ones being recruited, because many are being recruited from upper middle class families and they have a decent education.

So, in a way, our policies do have a significant impact on their motivations.  We could leave and perhaps they would leave us alone...for a little awhile.  But I don't think we should underestimate their adherence to worldwide conversion to Islam.  If they had the means they would pursue it.  Of course, that is not at all representative of the vast majority of muslims throughout the world.  

our values, but I can't imagine something that abstract motivating them to acts of war and atrocity. This is NOT a criticism of US foreign policy, but I imagine if the US were just some isolated foreign nation on the other side of the planet that had nothing to do, economically, culturally or politically, with their world they would have no great desire to attack us because we wouldn't matter. It's not JUST our values, but that fact that our values succeed so that we are powerful in every respect that motivates them.

If the West (more specifically, the United States) withdraws its armed forces from Iraq and the rest of the Muslim world will the Muslim terrorists leave us alone?

No.

Hemingway once said that fascism is made by disappointed people.  Muslims, and in particular the Arab nations, are a people who were an empire 150 years ago, and today are pretty much thwarted.  The are the heirs of a proud, refined, accomplished culture, and today they are backward, left behind, valued only because they are sitting on an ocean of oil.  So, they are angry and resentful.

They don't know how to move forward, so they're looking for someone to blame.  We're elected.  

We, meaning the western nations generally, offer some reason for resentment, but if radical Muslims and/or Arabs think that by killing us they will improve their lot, they're fools.

Unfortunately for them, we can crush them at will.  Assuming we actually have the will, which given Porter Goss' recent statements is unclear to me.  

Unfortunately for us, all it takes is 19 guys and a half million bucks (not hard to come by these days) to knock down the pride of the financial capital of the US, and do serious damage to the headquarters of our military infrastructure.

They hate us because they need someone to hate.  We're elected because we're convenient.  That's my analysis.

Solution?  Kill the folks that have dedicated themselves to killing.  Treat everyone else fairly.

Simplistic?  Sure.  But, I can't think of a better solution.

Cheers -

Unfortunately for them, we can crush them at will.

I think we underestimate these guys at our own peril, amos.  In a straight up fight, yes, they will be crushed, but that's not the type of war we're engaged in right now.

But I think you're right that the shame/honor culture plays a large part, too.

I don't think as much as they hate us, as we are thier mortal enemy in thier eyes.  Our ideals and beliefs do contradict thier views, the Jihadists and party boys, and we support thier sworn enemy, Israel.  Let's examine reasons: (By the way, this is my first post so I repeat or misstep, be cool)

1.  Israel:  it is thier birthright as well as the Israellis, in thier eyes also.  For thousands of years the residents of that area have fought for that valuable piece of real estate.  It has been Philistines, Palistines and so on.  It also is the home of thier holy shrines.
   
   
2.  Gwen Stefani:  not so much her, but the symbol of a strong sexual woman to tempt them.  Yet do the whole recieving virgins as sucide bomber make sense, or thus seem hypocritical?
   
   
3.  Finally, power.  Immortallity is given to those who take risks or make a name for themselves.  Create a feeling of hate aganist a country that you will say represents all that is evil, then attack them using, repeat using, poor, impressionable, and naive individuals.  You got a leader.  Think about it, bin Laden has used the jihad to make himself immortal in history.  The believers will celebrate as a martyr, hopefully soon, and the infidels seem him as a mastermind of evil.  either way he has created a cult of personality.

I'm on the "values" side of why they hate us....because our values don't speak to their worldview. As Winston Churchill presciently noted way back in 1921:

"A large number of Bin Saud's followers belong to the Wahabi sect, a form of Mohammedanism.... The Wahabis profess a life of exceeding austerity, and what they practise themselves they rigorously enforce on others. They hold it as an article of duty, as well as of faith, to kill all who do not share their opinions and to make slaves of their wives and children."

Underneath it all, Mr. Churchill astutely observes the fatalism and present danger of radical Islam. As the grieving and shock of July 7 fades, let us remember that the enemy is not attacking because of poverty or Western oppression or any other fashionable "root cause". The worldview of Islamic radicals requires a simple kind of life, with rigorous adherence to their graceless absolute and militaristic subjugation of all who oppose them. Islamofascists attack because of who they are.

Click here to read more about Churchill's hella good insights on this topic.

Too many people try to make it one or the other.

Do they hate our values and way of life? Probably

most of it.  So do a lot of others in the world,

though they rarely (if ever) commit acts of terror

against us.

Do they hate many of our policies, especially in

regards the Middle East? Certainly.  Is it the more

important element? Probably, but it also probably

varies from terrorist to terrorist.

But a third element that is so often ignored is that

Bin Laden et al. are for all intents a bunch of

thugs with nothing better to do.  After the Afghan

war they had accomplished their goal, gained

many military skills, had boosted egos, still had

a boatload of weapons and money... but no longer

had a mission.  After years of fighting the

Soviets on their own terms these were not people

who were going to simply go back to their boring

jobs at their boring homes in their boring

countries rules by their boring dictators.  Hence

they needed a new mission and new targets - The

house of Saud and America.  Everything else came

later.

The article lists OBL's stated reasons that Islamists are superior, and that America in particular is inferior.  But Allah has bestowed mighty blessings on the USA, and the Islamists are backward and benighted, in spite of material wealth from the oil fields.  Does. Not. Com. Pute.

So naturally, the correct thing for Osama to do is to attack the people that Allah has so richly blessed, by violating all tenets of the Muslim religion: suicide, murder of innocents, attacks on fellow Muslims.

Maybe bin Laden is just crazy.  That would explain a lot.

I doubt it.

I doubt that Osama bin laden woke up one morning and said, "Boy I hate America, they're free and all that good stuff. Let me devote my life to destroying them."

They hate us because of our policies and our involvement in Saudi Arabia, let's be real here.

Well, actually, it's possible.  The problem is, we can't withdraw from the Middle East.  At least, not without re-learning how to shoe horses.  And remove their own unique environmental pollution.

If anyone on this site wants to lose some sleep tonight, pick up Dan Fromkin's A Peace to End All Peace.  There's a bit there (blast that I've left my copy in the office or I'd point out the page) where Fromkin points out that the Brits in London and Cairo and Delhi were, by 1922, convinced that some d****d foreigners had stirred up near-simultaneous revolts against them in Egypt, Afghanistan, India, Palestine, and Mesopotamia/Iraq.  Were the culprits Germans?  Kemalist Turks?  Angry Ottomans?  Jihadist Muslims?  Bolsheviks?

Fromkin then shows that the "foreigners" stirring up rebellion -- by their very presence -- were the British themselves.

My point is perhaps Buchananesque: but if our troops were not in the Middle East in huge numbers; if our government did not prop up/subsidize the regimes in Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, to name a few; we would as Americans face a lot fewer attacks.

The rage of Osama's movement would then, by necessity, be aimed at local barriers to the re-establishment of the Caliphate.  And locals whose names weren't Assad or Mubarak or Musharraf or Saud would then have no Yankee to blame for everything.  Plus, the unpleasant prospect of actually living under the rule of the Wahhabis.

But we don't do the above things as the USA because of some scary conspiracy (Calling Justin Raimondo!), but for the very simple reason that we need oil.  And that's the part of the world that has it.  Google the "Carter Doctrine" sometime and check out the date, and the text.

That theory that Saudi Arabia is central to UBL's desires was shot when US troops were pulled out of Saudi Arabia, yet UBL's rants against the USA continued.

about 4,000-5,000 military personnel in Saudi Arabia.  We probably had near that number in 1979 when Vinnell were training the SANG and U.S. troops were training/supporting them in AWACS.  This whole "kaffis in the holy lands" just doesn't wash.  But, like you said, even if it did total divestiture is impossible.

It will be a hoot though if in a few years Osama is howling about the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq, home to Shi'a holy sites.

Well, of course we had a few thousand troops in SA in the 1990s.  That's not the point.  The point is, we supported Israel in the '73 war, and before that we cozied up to the Sauds and we kicked out Mossadegh.

We are a convenient, omnipresent, enemy for folks in that region who bear a grudge.  We have been since (pick your date: 1943?  1953?  1973?  1978?).

The question that obviously arises is:  why?  Why are we there?  And the answer isn't Israel.  It isn't "freedom."  It's "oil."  

It's not evil, it's not some crazy plot, it's not a Bushitler ruse.  It's an uncomfortable fact.

I think that this issue is very complex. In the above article, Osama clearly mentions both specific actions of 'The West' that piss him off concerning our presence in the middle East, and then he goes on to atack more fundamental issues of our culture.

Now I will not pretend to have an insight into Osama, and while his fervency and desire to wage jihad against America may very well continue after America, theoretically, withdrew from the middle East, what would his followers do?

I think this is the question that is getting ignored in the above commentary. Just because the head of a movement might continue on to the bitter end no matter what happened, would his followers do the same?

Now I won't pretend to answer this question buecause I have no idea, but someone should find out. I mean it is a whole new ball game if Osama looses support of those in the Middle East. Even if he hates America for the Iraq sanctions AND  usury, would his followers still carry the same hatred if he wanted around inspiring people by solely discussing the selling of alcohol and usury in the US?

Amos,

I think you are right.

The solution to all this (at least from a Western perspective):  Cut the heads off the Islamic movement and you'll quell most of its hatred (and thus its irrational violence) in a few generations.  But leave those dudes (the mullahs) in place and you're begging for millenniums of anti-Western hatred and unbelievable violence.

Letting Iraq create a new government that puts Islam (and its mullahs) in a brokering position is a horrible mistake.  Failing to take the mullahs out of the equation only begs for more anti-Western violence from Iraq, even after the country deals with its current insurgents.  Providing a lead position for Islam in its government structure will only come back to haunt the West.  And delaying the elimination of Iran's mullahs will only make for millions of dead Westerners in due time.  

These guys in power in the Middle East (the mullahs) mean business.  Leaving them alone to continue to foment their masses (and create madmen like bin Laden) is a big mistake.  Chamberlain tried it and look what he got.  You can't play footsie with people who want you dead.  And we are playing footsie right now with Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, and Syria.

obob,

I think you've got it right.  The mullahs (and those who would fancy themselves as Islamic leaders -- such as bin Laden) thirst for raw power.

Although simplified for the sake of relative brevity, here's my version of ONE of the origins of that hatred and its present day manifestations:

About 1,500 years ago, some dude named "Mohammed" decided that he wanted to create a new power base for himself.  Or maybe he just wanted to play some wild, cruel joke on his friends and family.  Or else he smoked some really strong stuff.  Or else he had a brain tumor.  Who knows why he did it . . ., but some of his followeres ended up being real powerfuls gents.

In any case, he did what it took to be regarded in some circles as a prophet.  He concocted a bizarre story and managed to fool a few people (known as his "disciples") into actually believing all that poppycock.  They spread the word and Islam took off.  It was a decently-close replication of how Christianity was formed (although Mohammed's claims weren't as bizarre as Jesus' were), which had its roots in Judaism.  Earlier, to create Judaism, some power schemers decided to get to the top of the heap by creating an mythology and then got people to believe it and fear it.  Enough did and Judaism took off.  

Like their earliest founders, modern day Islamic leaders (mullahs) still crave power -- but they don't have much real influence in the world at large -- at least not outside of a concentrated Middle East.  With the advent of modern communications (the internet, for example), they worry that their followers, if left to their own devices and without some strong-arm tactics by the mullahs, would move to the much more hedonistic ways of the Western world (that they see as primarily Christian and Jewish).  

Bottom line:  if that happened, the top religious dogs in Islam and their cronies could not only be out of jobs, they could be in jail -- or worse.

So in a scheme to control their followers (and thus retain what little power they still have), the mullahs (with upstarts like bin Laden trying to CREATE a large power base) are whipping their followers into as much irrational hatred as possible, and keeping them emotionally focused on the "evil" Christians and Jews in the Western world.  

Note that cool logic would never convince a Muslim to blow himself up.  His zeal has to be fomented with a frenzied, righteous hatred of the evil Christians and Jews, and wound around a preposterous story about how some Supreme Being wants him to self-destruct and take some infidels with him.

It's mainly about power.  The hatred is simply a way to control the masses (power) and keep them focused on something other than how their lives could be better if they cast off all that hocus pocus crap the mullahs spew.

I thought your reference to the Brits was about the kaffirs stirring up the locals.  Anyways, we've always had some presence in Saudi Arabia but the jihadis didn't fixate on it until we had 500,000.  After that we went back to a relatively small number as we'd always had in some capacity.  Did that dissipate their ire?  Nope.  Did removing the 4,000-5,000 in 2003(?)?  Nope.

And the point's also about Egypt.  We aren't funding them because we love their corrupt government or the pyramids.  We're funding them because they signed a peace treaty with Israel.  Same reason we're funding Israel in part.  Has Osama targeted Egypt for vowing not to slay the dreaded Jews?  Nope.

We've had sanctions against Pakistan as late as the late-90's.  We even had sanctions/embargo against Israel back when they were getting weapons from the Soviet bloc(namely, the Czechs).  Does any of that likely matter to Osama?  Nope.

I'd imagine if Mossadegh were still alive Osama would gladly take a knife to his throat.  As would Mugniyah, a fellow Shi'a.  I give you points for not describing the man as "democratically elected" but zero for relevence to al Qaeda.

Trying to impute some rationale to or find consistency in the actions of Osama is a fool's errand.  He revels in showing how decadent and weak the West is and I'm somehow to believe acquiescing in any way will make things better?  Sorry, not going to buy it.

I never disputed that we're in the region because of oil.  But I doubt you'd take any bets on energy independence solving our problems in this decade or the next.  So for now freedom/democracy will have to do.

by the interaction of wahabiism and arab nationalism, and I believe that it is the failure to understand the dynamic of their relationship that causes so much confusion and doubt among "westerners". I would venture to say that there may be just as much confusion in the muslim world.

Honestly, the more information I seek out, the more the picture becomes obscured. I think the best way to describe it is that I feel like I'm looking at shadows of shadows. I don't have much argument or analysis to offer. But I do have some questions.

Which is the stronger element in "their" war against the west? wahabiism or arab nationalism?

Which is more harmful to our interests in the middle east?

Is there an "original" element?

Can the moderates win the "war within islam".

What role should western nations play in this "civil war"?

Will the Yankees pick up another starter?

Does any of this even matter?

Without seeking to re-ignite another foreign policy flame war, I'll simply offer my opinion that if we had the political will and the focus to get the job done, we'd get the job done, at least as regards the Al Qaeda principals.

Cheers -

We could be independent of Persian Gulf oil tomorrow.  All we'd have to do is use less oil.  It's not hard to do, and we know how to do it.  Raise the CAFE standard, eliminate the light truck exemption, introduce some other conservation measures.

Problem solved.

We won't do it because it's seen as a "liberal" policy position, and because we as a nation are too stupid, fat, and lazy to do it.

So our national security is compromised because we have to hold hands -- literally -- with odious toads like the Sauds.

We don't need them, and we should do whatever we need to do to remove our dependence on them.  They're not good friends.

My two cents.

Cheers -

Sorry, another point.

Just to be clear, I don't think there's anything unique about Arab or Islamic culture that makes it particularly prone to shame or honor as motivating forces.  Unfortunately, we've seen both turn into an ideology of hatred and revenge in a very, very broad range of cultures, including subsets of our own.

I'd even say it's not hard to understand how folks come to the point of killing others senselessly out of an extreme sense of disappointment and humiliation.  While we might have an understanding of it, however, we cannot tolerate it.

Cheers -

Its pretty obvious that part of the solution is reducing energy dependence. Making progress towards independence is probably the best thing we can do.

That being said, I don't think the problem will go away.  The US economy is integrated into the world ecomomy to such an extent, that if the world economy is hurt, so are we. Also, many of our foreign policy goals depend on our allies health and on the good health of economies in the third world.  

The rest of the world is dependent on oil, and will be for the forseeable future.  Right now, Europe gets like 60% of its oil from imports, and Japan gets, I think, over 90%.  China and India are in the midst of development and are rather ravenous for oil. Its going to be a long time before these states achieve energy independence, even if we show them the way.  

So if the global economy and global trade are to remain healthy, someone must secure stable access to oil at reasonable prices. This means making sure there isn't some sort of instability like war in the Persian Gulf. Someone's still go to do this.    

and then there is hate.

The hatred that comes from the belief that someone is invading your land, appropriating your natural resources and funding and arming your enemies is the kind of hatred that can be used to persuade folks to strap explosives to themselves.

Hatred for people half world away because they are drinking liquor, dressing scantily and engaging in a variety of sex acts of which you don't approve just doesn't seem to have that kind of power.

The hatred that comes from the belief that someone is invading your land, appropriating your natural resources and funding and arming your enemies is the kind of hatred that can be used to persuade folks to strap explosives to themselves.

We can't solve every illogical thought the world over.

I agree entirely. Our dependence on Middle Eastern dictators is a national security issue, and one being ignored as there is no WILL to face it - yet. The sooner we tackle this issue, the better. Couple of interesting articles came out today in the Oil world.

First, Chevron basically admitted to Peak Oil

http://www.willyoujoinus.com/downloads/manifesto.pdf

http://www.willyoujoinus.com/downloads/twobarrels.pdf

I'll quote from one of them in part. Please, do follow the links and read the ads I think they are spot on. They also have lots of link to background information.

It took us 125 years to use the first trillion barrels of oil.

We'll use the next trillion in 30.

So why should you care?

Energy will be one of the defining issues of this century. One thing is clear: the era of easy oil is over. What we all do next will determine how well we meet the energy needs of the entire world in this century and beyond.

...

We can wait until a crisis forces us to do something. Or we can commit to working together, and start by asking the tough questions: How do we meet the energy needs of the developing world and those of industrialized nations? What role will renewables and alternative energies play? What is the best way to protect our environment? How do we accelerate our conservation efforts? Whatever actions we take, we must look not just to next year, but to the next 50 years.

At Chevron, we believe that innovation, collaboration and conservation are the cornerstones on which to build this new world. We cannot do this alone.

Corporations, governments and every citizen of this planet must be part of thesolution as surely as they are part of the problem. We call upon scientists and educators, politicians and policy-makers, environmentalists, leaders of industry and each one of you to be part of reshaping the next era of energy.

Second, the (ahem!) NYT had an article today about oil demand http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/12/business/worldbusiness/12oil.ready.html?

The failure to control consumption is most glaring in the country's transportation sector, which now represents two-thirds of all oil demand in the United States and is solely accountable for the growth of the nation's oil thirst over the last three decades. Each day, America's fleet of more than 200 million cars guzzles 11 percent of the world's daily oil output. Gasoline consumption has risen 35 percent since 1973, compared with a 19 percent increase in overall crude oil consumption.

Israel does occupy former Palestinian territories. (True, the territores were taken in war and kept for self defence, but they are still occupied with many displaced people in neighbouring Arab nations).

And the US does fund and arm Israel.

I'm not saying we shouldn't fund and arm Israel, but its not an illogical thought either.

"You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire..."

Osama is not just angry with the Bill of rights.  He hates the whole dang Constitution!

and it would be difficult for Bin Laden to take the Royal Family out even with our troops out of the country.  I'm saying he's probably full of sh** when it comes to specifically Saudi Arabia, the reason SA is so important is the religious aspect.  He wants us out of the Mid East completely, not just Saudi Arabia.

And there have been a few bombings in the country since our troops left too.

the issue isn't whether the culture itself is more prone to shame/honor, but the fact that it does use these principles in many facets of their daily lives that is the point.

here is a combination of Big Oil and the Joos? Are you taking this seriously?

This is needlessly disrespectful ...

The fact that I'm a Muslim makes me especially sensitive to insults to the Prophet (S.A.W.) but I'm also very offended when other faiths are denigrated (i.e. "Piss Christ").

You could have made your point easily without resorting to this level ... it's something I'd expect to see celebrated on DKos ... and this is not DKos.

About 1,500 years ago, some dude named "Mohammed" decided that he wanted to create a new power base for himself.  Or maybe he just wanted to play some wild, cruel joke on his friends and family.  Or else he smoked some really strong stuff.  Or else he had a brain tumor.  Who knows why he did it . . ., but some of his followeres ended up being real powerfuls gents.

In any case, he did what it took to be regarded in some circles as a prophet.  He concocted a bizarre story and managed to fool a few people (known as his "disciples") into actually believing all that poppycock.  They spread the word and Islam took off.  It was a decently-close replication of how Christianity was formed (although Mohammed's claims weren't as bizarre as Jesus' were), which had its roots in Judaism.  Earlier, to create Judaism, some power schemers decided to get to the top of the heap by creating an mythology and then got people to believe it and fear it.  Enough did and Judaism took off.

Congratulations. You just insulted the three monotheisms at once. Goodbye.

From Osama bin Laden's 1998 "fatwa" against America (it's my understanding that he does not possess the religious authority to issue a fatwa, but decided to do so anyway):

"First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples...

Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, in excess of 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation...

Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there."

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/fatwah.htm

No mention of American values like freedom, or the way women are treated, or even the simple fact that we practice Christianity--but specifically that we are "occupying the lands of Islam." Our support for Israel in general also seems to be a major sticking point.

Does that mean they don't also hate our values? Of course not, and many probably do. But having American troops in Saudi Arabia seems, at the least, to have really annoyed bin Laden.

Steinbrenner is not dumb enough to think that someone like A.J. Burnett or Kip Wells will really make a difference in his rotation, and I'd like to think that the Jeff Suppan and Kris Benson deals reminded everyone that mediocre pitchers do not win World Series.

Re: Muslims, and in particular the Arab nations, are a people who were an empire 150 years ago, and today are pretty much thwarted.

It's been a lot longer than 150 years. Except for the Kingdom of Morocco, which was a power of some importance up through the 19th century (but that's half-Berber) the Arab people have been politically impotent for over a thousand years. They were overrun by various Turkish tribes (and by Berbers in North Africa) back before 1000 AD and even when they were properous and at peace they were usually ruled by non-Arabs.

I think I had the Ottomans in mind, who were not Arab.

Sorry for the error!

Cheers -

...is that some of his points are actually correct for some in our society.  Many do, in fact, hold up immorality as virtue.  (I haven't myself ever charged interest on money loaned, but I have certainly imbibed in demon alcohol.)  Many also insist that no one try to bring religion into the political sphere, which so is wrong-headed it drives me to demon alcohol.  We should not have dropped the bomb on civilians in Japan.  And, of course, President Clinton really did get nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

Those facts, combined with what many in the Middle East already believe about Israel and Palestine, have got to be ridiculously persuasive to young Muslim men.

My recommendation is that we go back and impeach Clinton properly, outlaw same-sex marriage and fornication, and bring back Prohibition.

Or we could just beat the ever-loving tar out of Osama bin Laden and several generations of his family.

There's a line I recall from a TV show or somewhere in which someone on the law enforcement side was wondering about the reason for a schizophrenic's violent behavior.  This person was told, "It doesn't have to make sense to you, it just has to make sense to him."  Without implying that the jihadists are mentally ill in any clinical sense, I think that there is a strong parallel.  There are,have been, and always will be those for whom terrorist violence makes sense.  It doesn't have to make sense to us, and it won't make us better or safer if it does.

I don't think anyone here will argue that their motives need to make sense. To me and to the vast majority of Americans, terrorists' motives for killing innocent people will never make sense, no matter what they've suffered. But it does help to hone a counter-terrorism strategy if we know what they're thinking.

I approach this somewhat differently than some people who ask for understanding. They would like to get at the root causes of terrorism and stop terrorists from ever existing. I'm skeptical that there's much the United States can do on that front. Depending on which root causes you choose to attribute, the problems are historical (Israel, memory of the Crusades, inferiority complex vis-a-vis the West and nostalgia for heyday of Muslim empire), economic (miserable poverty), or military (invading Westerners). For the first two, I don't think there's anything we can do to stop people who are going to be mad at us from being mad at us. For the last one, we could vow never to set foot there again, but (although I lean isolationist) there are often instances where that's adverse to national security.

Instead, I see understanding terrorists' motives as a good way to picture their targets, their strategy, and their mindset. I'm not sure we can prevent terrorists from existing, but we can better foil those who inevitably do exist if we understand what their aims are.

give money to the Palestianian authority to embezzle and misuse.

Honestly I think the Israel policy is part and parcel of the hatred, but I think we could write off Israel tomorrow, tell them to take a flying leap, and fend totally for themselves, and OBL would still hate us, and still try to recruit people to kill us.  

Also, I remember seeing in interveiw with Irshad Manji (a liberal muslim that is Canadian, but one of the few people I have heard take a stand against muslim extremists honestly), where she compared the number of Palestinians killed by Israeli's and the number of Arabs killed by other Arabs and the number of Muslims killed by other muslims (she also smacked the Muslim leader she was debating over the head with the Syrian Occupation issue), and she didn't even use any deaths in Iraq as an example.  She basically argued that Muslims were killing far more Mulsims and Israeli's were killing, but they didn't make a peep about that.  She basically made the "muslims need to clean up their own back yard, before complaining about the neighbors (Israel)"

Very interesting woman, with some very interesting opinions, and has also been the recipient of numerous death threats for her opinions-she apparantly has more curouage than a lot of Muslim moderates out there.

pretend like the middle east doesn't exist, our economies around the world are way too interconnected and interdependant.

th

This debate seems a lot to be about, if we can rationalize the terrorist hatred towards the west.

You apply rationel logics, where logic in a rationel  sense may not be found.

This is just like when some people can't stand gay-men - most people that does so, have no rational logic to do so - it doesn't affect them the slightest. Still, they recent them, make fun of them, refuse to help them, obstruct their freedom to live their lives the way to want by - for instance - denying them the right to marry. Some even takes great plessure in beating gay-men.

Rationel logic? There is none - just hatred and small mindedness.

Same may go for fundamentalistic muslims - they may have no rationel reason to hate the US (and the west in general), but they just can't stand the way we choose to live our lives, even if it wasn't to have any effect on their lives.

So, the answer may be more complicated, than to just withdraw from SA and the ME in general.

Mike

Taliban and Whabists and Al Quaeda hate us because we are a threat to their way of life. To the institutionalized supression of women. It's so mainstream in Saudi Arabia, that a wife must have a note from her husband giving her permission to shop for groceries.

At the root of it, it's not much different then the gangsta rappers and the way they feel about their "b****es." They're Chattel, property. Their very manhood is threatened. Especially when the see the western influence on the Royal House of Saud. Our very way of life threatens their comfortable hearth and home, their property rights to their women. The right to abuse, rape, murder, etc. in the name of Islam.

They do hate what we stand for. But they are in dread fear of freedom for their own women. What more horrifying precedent then both Israel and the United States actually having female soldiers on the front lines. Female officers. Bossing men around. (Visualize the average whabbist melting). The Taliban reacted to this with the reintroduction of the Burka, pulling all the girls out of school. You can see what it's about. The muslim man has got his boot firmly on the neck of his female counterpart, and he'd rather blow himself up than give up the macho male right to make her ask permission to buy groceries.