American marines insulting dead bodies

[Med911]

Re: American marines insulting dead bodies

@nikhil25

this is a fashionable view that falls apart quickly upon closer inspection. what “seed” are you talking about? let’s be specific. there are two acts in question here: al-qaeda’s act(s) of war against the US and the taliban’s act of abetment. your view suggests one or both were provoked by the US.

1. was al-qaeda’s primary act of war (9/11) provoked by the US?
   your reference to “cold war interests” (presumably meaning US involvement in the soviet-afghan war) is not relevant here. al-qaeda was not a political actor with specific grievances. it was an ideological actor driven by a perverse and fanatical pan-islamist agenda. the only citable grievances were US military bases in saudi arabia and the general notion of support for israel. neither comes anywhere close to a justification for 9/11, that too by an unaggrieved party like al-qaeda.

2. was the taliban’s abetment of al-qaeda provoked by the US?
   your soviet-afghan war reference is relevant here but where is the provocation? the US is generally considered guilty of “ignoring” the country after the soviets left. your logic suggests that by “ignoring” the country, the US can be held responsible for virtually any criminal act to take place in afghanistan or by any afghan government thenceforth. or perhaps you are saying that the taliban’s very existence (and therefore their actions 12 years later) was a result of US involvement in the soviet-afghan war? if so, then that’s an extremely long and circuitous link to 9/11 that can be equally applied to many different parties. that logic becomes silly very fast.

i think you are generally retrofitting the pre-9/11 era with post-iraq war sentiment regarding US foreign policy. this is something that many people are doing these days, perhaps subconsciously. there are many valid criticisms of US foreign policy (particularly in the middle east) but let’s not connect the wrong dots in haste.

I think you are falling into the same trap I was speaking of earlier. Its far easier to assume our enemies are mindless zealots then actual people with actual grievances. By saying they are fanatics with a “Pan-ISLAMIST” agenda is cheap. Its allows us the convenience of not having to address actual issues. The occupation of Muslim nations is an long running theme, so that must be taken into context. The fact that there are many many people, including many non Fanatical Muslims who are repulsed by the fact that the US supports not only Israel, but also other dictatorships in the Muslim world, shows that the supposed grievances you cite are not limited to fanatic “Pan Islamist s.”
Would Indians accept a US base, outside of Indian jurisdiction in their territory? Especially if that presence is mandated by an un-elected and unrepresentative govt?

I didnt say this in any way “justifies” 9/11. You should go back and read what I wrote.
I said that the US policy does create such enemies. If Al qaeda were PAN Islamist fantics, they would/could have attacked a wide range of target besides the US, inclduing mush easier targets in Europe, and lesser developed coutries. But that they chose to attack the US is reflective of the fact that its US policy that is the catalyst for such attacks. And is it a coinicdense that that the majority of the attackers and the architect of the Al Qaeda is himself a Saudi, among the closest of American allies? Why were there no Afghans or PAKISTANIS, or Indonesians? If it is a truly a Pan Islamist agenda, wouldn;t such an agenda be shared by all Muslims regarless of nationality?

To be continued…