Re: American marines insulting dead bodies
al-qaeda is indeed a congregation of ideology-driven zealots. not much different from textbook hollywood villains. i didn't say all jihadis are.
which muslim nations were occupied by the US before 9/11? at that point, the most recent american military action in muslim lands was saving thousands of muslim lives in bosnia/kosovo and saving kuwait from annexation by saddam hussein. and of course, before that was the eviction of the soviets from afghanistan.
many countries are allied to countries that someone or the other doesn't like. that's geopolitics. i personally disagree with the unconditional nature of US support for israel but it's not a simple issue.
you are getting into extremely dangerous semi-justifications here. the US established a military presence in saudi arabia not forcibly but through an agreement between two sovereign nations and (theoretically) allies on the basis of mutual interest. why wasn't 9/11 perpetrated against saudi arabia and the house of saud for agreeing?
in your example, indians would first protest against the idea of an unelected, unrepresentative government ruling their country. further, indians would protest against their own government if it agreed to something important that they disagreed with. what indians would NOT do is declare war on the US and kill thousands of its civilians in a massive terrorist attack.
you seem to think that because there were reasons to be unhappy with the US, that equates to inviting a response like 9/11. if you call someone's mother a cow and he kills you in response, would you have invited that response? of course not. even though you provoked him, would anyone in their right mind say "yes of course the killer is to blame but he was kinda asking for it with that cow comment". obviously not. nobody would say that.
pre-9/11 al-qaeda was a relatively young and small-scale organization started by arabs. gotta start somewhere. the evolution of al-qaeda indeed entailed expansion throughout pakistan, afghanistan, north africa, indonesia, and muslim diaspora communities in the west.
you must believe that muslim anger is a good reason for the US to introspect and revise policies that led to attacks like 9/11. seems logical enough, right? the problem is that muslim anger is not always a good indicator of whether or not a policy is illegitimate. this is because muslims are particularly prone to irrational anger. the danish cartoons episode is the perfect microcosmic illustration of this. the takeaway from that episode was NOT to introspect and resort to a censorship culture to keep muslims happy.
Im surprised. I was expecting something a bit more thoughtful then this, instead I get a long rant which quite frankly sound border line racist.
First of all, let us establish that terrorist attacks targeting innocent civilians is wrong in all circumstances. However, resentment, and antagonism between the west and the Muslim world is a long standing issue.
Let us keep the historical context in perspective.
Your first line screams of someone who really isnt serious about understanding others, despite the claim that you want to examine the complexity of issues closely. That you acknowledge there is complexity in the US Israeli relationship, but consider those involved with Al qaeda as nothing more the "comic" villains is very telling. Perhaps the only common denominator between you and those who cite the Israel/American nexus, is that both you and they refuse to see the complexity of the other sides argument. You seem to be guilty off the same 2d thinking, when such thinking suits your own narrative, as the terrorists and their well wishers.
America has had long history of involvement in the Middle East. And more then once, it has been in stark contrast to wishes of the people who live there. The Middle East itself has a long history of imperialist powers usurping control and manipulating the dynamics of their societies. So one can understand the sensativity of the region to the influences of the US. And it has been made abundantly clear time and again, that US ambitions in the region are not welcome.
Occupation doesn't necessarily mean boots on the ground. It can be through financial and political support. The type of inluence the US exerts far exceeds this humble forum, but you are intelligent enough to understadn what I mean.
The most recent US involvement was in Iraq. But US has been involved for a very long time, by virtue of its influence alone.
The wars the US chooses to fight are not always out of altruism. It picks wars that will result in the maximum benefit and least harm like any other country. The US also supported Saddam for quite some. Its only when he became a problem for the US that he became the enemy. I dont think the people of the region are fooled by such succour.
The complexity of geopolitics it may be, but such politics are bound to step on peoples toes. Im not saying one should kill anyone, but you have to acknowledge that US policy does create a great deal of resentment.
As for Saudi, some would argue that the agreement is between the US and a weak, corrupt, unelected monarchy, which is being propped up by the US, and has little choice but to comply. Once again, did the Saudi govt have their peoples mandate for such a deal? Probably not. And are there people in the Muslim world who are offended? Certainly.
In the example of India. I dont think Indians are above going to such lengths if push came to shove. If they felt their govt was completely castrated in the face of US influence, if they felt their govt was ineffectual and corrupt, if they felt that they are voiceless and vicitmized, then they too would turn on the US. Terrorism, criminality, protest, the projection of ones problems onto others are a common human trait not simply limited to Muslims.
I think its childish to believe that your actions would NOT invite retribution. If you call someones mother a cow, then I think you are asking for it. Whats debatable here is the degree of response to such provocation, not whether or not the provocation warrants a response. People would blame the killer for responding in a manner grossly disproportionate to the provocation, not for being provoked. Al Qaeda is guilty of committing an attrocity greatly disproportionate to the degree of provocation.
Still, I dont go about calling peoples mothers "cows" nor do I go around insulting anyone. Why? Because that means I am inviting trouble.
I seem to think that provoking people causes a response, ofcourse I dont believe 9/11 was the proper response.
Your last line screams racism. Muslims are prone to irrational anger? What exactly do you base this on?
Its very easy to sit on the ledge and critisize and belittle others, it takes more courage to actually acknowledge the humanity of others and understand their grievances.
You are no different then the South Asian Muslims who believe Hindus are irrational and angery, despite nearly a thousand years of Muslim expansion into India.
Believe it or not, Muslims are basically just like you! They have problems, they get agry , they get frustrated, they are sensativve. That is why there is an Arab spring! Perhaps the best evidence to discredit your notions of irrational Muslims!