For those who think "they hate our freedom"
Originally posted to eSchwa BBS:
There was not an act of terrorism by Islamic/Arab terror organizations against Americans that was NOT related to our support of Israel before Pan Am 103, and that was largely considered recompense for the bombing of Libya in 1986. That was the first act of terror by an Islamic group against the US that involved large-scale loss-of-life. And all subsequent such attacks (involving many dead) have been carried out since the First Iraq War, and the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia.
So, in looking at terrorist acts against the US prior to 1986 we can see those as rooted in our support of Israel, because they were carried out by groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad which were focused on the struggle in Israel/Palestine. That's not about culture, that's about foreign policy.
As pointed out, Pan Am 103 was about retribution, not about culture. That brings us to the acts since 1991. Khobar Towers, the Kenyan and Tanzanian Embassies, the USS Cole, 9/11; all carried out by an organization that has as its number one goal to get US troops out of the Middle East. That is far more about politics than it is about culture. In fact, in the 14 years since the First Iraq War, one could argue that the US's culture has grown more conservative and pious. The role of religion in public life has grown stronger. We have added ratings systems to TV programs and video games to allow parents to monitor how much sex and violence their kids are exposed to, if they are so inclined. Teenagers are taking "abstinance vows" and we've thrown up all sorts of restrictions on abortion. We've allegedly (re-)elected a president on the basis of the "values vote." Our culture is arguably LESS decadent than when al-Qaeda's focus fell on us. And yet they still attack us. They don't attack Canada, which has legalized same-sex marriages. They haven't attacked Spain since they did such as well. They've never attacked the Netherlands; infamous home of legalized prostitution, pot-smoking and same-sex marriages.
I don't see how even a part of this is about western culture when it's quite obvious that terrorism in the past was about politics, and al-Qaeda's stated reasons for attacking us are rooted in politics. "Terrorism" is a political tool, used in an attempt to sway international policy, going back to the establishment of the State of Israel, and the IRA bombings of the 1970s and 1980s. Using it in an attempt to mold culture is unreasonable, because even laws cannot restrain the tides of cultural change. Right now there are at least 38 states with laws against same-sex unions. Polling shows that 3/4 of 18-24 year olds support same-sex marriages. Even our own laws cannot change that support, and one day the younger generations who support these cultural changes will change those laws. "Terrorism" is an ineffective tool to work these changes, as you're as likely to instill defiance in your targets as you are to inspire fear. It makes no sense to use "terror" to affect cultural change; and if there's anything that I think should be evident here, it's that bin Laden is a rational, intelligent man. So why bother expending your human resources to affect a change that you cannot hope to succeed in? It's much better to affect the change that you can make, and that is to try and affect policy.
(Incidently, the reason for the "we don't negotiate with 'terrorists'" rhetoric of Reagan and his successors is that in legitimizing "terror" as a political tool we encourage its further use. Conversely, if they're not able to succeed in their goals, they will decide it's not worth expending their resources. On the other hand, went our actions are making it easier for organizations to recruit willing "soldiers" to act against us, each act that doesn't affect the desired change is less costly in the past, because human resources aren't as limited. Our presence in Iraq and Saudi Arabia are making terrorism against the west less costly for the groups who want us out. But our government views pulling out as legitimizing the use of "terror" as a tool, so they won't do the one thing that may end the use of that tool. It's a nifty little catch-22 situation.)
Addendum to the above post:
Yes, groups like al-Qaeda DO have specific goals for what an Islamist state should be that are in conflict with our ideals for a democratic state. They use the Iranian model, which is certainly not an ideal. If you know about what happened with their recent parliamentary and presidential elections, you would understand why. If not, the short-form is that a council of "elders" (made up of clerics) have to approve the candidates who are standing for election before they can appear on the ballot. Imagine that candidates for office in the US had to be vetted and approved of by a council of Catholic bishops, televangelists, and other religious figures. You can see where the problem is within that model. Yet, in the 15 years between the death of the Ayatollah Khomeni and the parliamentary elections last year, Iran has liberalized tremendously. While their rights are not what the could or should be, women enjoy more freedom than they had before 1989. Change has been slow, but that's the preferable way to find a desired equilibrium. Radical change inspires radical response.
While it is understandable that we would not want to see the Muslim world, particularly in Northern Africa and the Middle East, molded the way in which bin Laden would like it to be, it is also not in our interests to prop up equally repressive regimes already in place. Prior to last year, women had more rights in Iran than in Kuwait, and they still have more rights than women in Saudi Arabia. And if this were all really and truly about culture, al-Qaeda would be attacking Abu Dhabi and Dubai, which exhibit all of the decadence of western culture, and right there on the Arabian Peninsula.