Remember that question that liberals asked after 9/11? It seems they're not so interested in it anymore, now that Dinesh D'Souza has formulated an answer in his book The Enemy at Home that's not to their liking. Looking inward, apparently, is only enlightened when the conclusion flatters liberal sensibilities. Why do they hate us? Ask them. Anyhow, there seem a few legitimate internal reasons for the external hatred. Terrorists attack American targets, D'Souza posits, because they believe that "their values and way of life [are] threatened. Even as the cultural left accuses Bush of imperialism in invading Iraq, it deflects attention from its own cultural imperialism aimed at secularizing Muslim society and undermining its patriarchal and traditional values. The liberal "solution" to Islamic fundamentalism is itself a source of Islamic hostility to America." I doubt Muhammed Atta was screaming "This is for gay rights!" when he slammed a plane into the World Trade Center, but there's certainly some truth in D'Souza's analysis. Islamic disgust for Western secularism seems to be one of a number of reasons for the hatred. Other reasons certainly include American military actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Bosnia, Iran, Libya, Sudan, Lebanon, and a few other predominantly Muslim nations over the last few decades. Just as many liberals don't wish to admit the former, many conservatives don't wish to admit the latter.

D'Souza on the Colbert Report:
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_colbert_report/videos/celebrity_interviews/index.jhtml

Was 9/11 really that bad?
The attacks were a horrible act of mass murder, but history says we're overreacting.
By David A. Bell
January 28, 2007

LAtimes.com

IMAGINE THAT on 9/11, six hours after the assault on the twin towers and the Pentagon, terrorists had carried out a second wave of attacks on the United States, taking an additional 3,000 lives. Imagine that six hours after that, there had been yet another wave. Now imagine that the attacks had continued, every six hours, for another four years, until nearly 20 million Americans were dead. This is roughly what the Soviet Union suffered during World War II, and contemplating these numbers may help put in perspective what the United States has so far experienced during the war against terrorism.

It also raises several questions. Has the American reaction to the attacks in fact been a massive overreaction? Is the widespread belief that 9/11 plunged us into one of the deadliest struggles of our time simply wrong? If we did overreact, why did we do so? Does history provide any insight?

Certainly, if we look at nothing but our enemies' objectives, it is hard to see any indication of an overreaction. The people who attacked us in 2001 are indeed hate-filled fanatics who would like nothing better than to destroy this country. But desire is not the same thing as capacity, and although Islamist extremists can certainly do huge amounts of harm around the world, it is quite different to suggest that they can threaten the existence of the United States.

Yet a great many Americans, particularly on the right, have failed to make this distinction. For them, the "Islamo-fascist" enemy has inherited not just Adolf Hitler's implacable hatreds but his capacity to destroy. The conservative author Norman Podhoretz has gone so far as to say that we are fighting World War IV (No. III being the Cold War).

But it is no disrespect to the victims of 9/11, or to the men and women of our armed forces, to say that, by the standards of past wars, the war against terrorism has so far inflicted a very small human cost on the United States. As an instance of mass murder, the attacks were unspeakable, but they still pale in comparison with any number of military assaults on civilian targets of the recent past, from Hiroshima on down.

Even if one counts our dead in Iraq and Afghanistan as casualties of the war against terrorism, which brings us to about 6,500, we should remember that roughly the same number of Americans die every two months in automobile accidents.

Of course, the 9/11 attacks also conjured up the possibility of far deadlier attacks to come. But then, we were hardly ignorant of these threats before, as a glance at just about any thriller from the 1990s will testify. And despite the even more nightmarish fantasies of the post-9/11 era (e.g. the TV show "24's" nuclear attack on Los Angeles), Islamist terrorists have not come close to deploying weapons other than knives, guns and conventional explosives. A war it may be, but does it really deserve comparison to World War II and its 50 million dead? Not every adversary is an apocalyptic threat.

So why has there been such an overreaction? Unfortunately, the commentators who detect one have generally explained it in a tired, predictably ideological way: calling the United States a uniquely paranoid aggressor that always overreacts to provocation.

In a recent book, for instance, political scientist John Mueller evaluated the threat that terrorists pose to the United States and convincingly concluded that it has been, to quote his title, "Overblown." But he undercut his own argument by adding that the United States has overreacted to every threat in its recent history, including even Pearl Harbor (rather than trying to defeat Japan, he argued, we should have tried containment!).

Seeing international conflict in apocalyptic terms — viewing every threat as existential — is hardly a uniquely American habit. To a certain degree, it is a universal human one. But it is also, more specifically, a Western one, which paradoxically has its origins in one of the most optimistic periods of human history: the 18th century Enlightenment.

Until this period, most people in the West took warfare for granted as an utterly unavoidable part of the social order. Western states fought constantly and devoted most of their disposable resources to this purpose; during the 1700s, no more than six or seven years passed without at least one major European power at war.

The Enlightenment, however, popularized the notion that war was a barbaric relic of mankind's infancy, an anachronism that should soon vanish from the Earth. Human societies, wrote the influential thinkers of the time, followed a common path of historical evolution from savage beginnings toward ever-greater levels of peaceful civilization, politeness and commercial exchange.

The unexpected consequence of this change was that those who considered themselves "enlightened," but who still thought they needed to go to war, found it hard to justify war as anything other than an apocalyptic struggle for survival against an irredeemably evil enemy. In such struggles, of course, there could be no reason to practice restraint or to treat the enemy as an honorable opponent.

Ever since, the enlightened dream of perpetual peace and the nightmare of modern total war have been bound closely to each other in the West. Precisely when the Enlightenment hopes glowed most brightly, wars often took on an especially hideous character.

The Enlightenment was followed by the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars, which touched every European state, sparked vicious guerrilla conflicts across the Continent and killed millions (including, probably, a higher proportion of young Frenchmen than died from 1914 to 1918).

During the hopeful early years of the 20th century, journalist Norman Angell's huge bestseller, "The Great Illusion," argued that wars had become too expensive to fight. Then came the unspeakable horrors of World War I. And the end of the Cold War, which seemed to promise the worldwide triumph of peace and democracy in a more stable unipolar world, has been followed by the wars in the Balkans, the Persian Gulf War and the present global upheaval. In each of these conflicts, the United States has justified the use of force by labeling its foe a new Hitler, not only in evil intentions but in potential capacity.

Yet as the comparison with the Soviet experience should remind us, the war against terrorism has not yet been much of a war at all, let alone a war to end all wars. It is a messy, difficult, long-term struggle against exceptionally dangerous criminals who actually like nothing better than being put on the same level of historical importance as Hitler — can you imagine a better recruiting tool? To fight them effectively, we need coolness, resolve and stamina. But we also need to overcome long habit and remind ourselves that not every enemy is in fact a threat to our existence.

David A. Bell, a professor of history at Johns Hopkins University and a contributing editor for the New Republic, is the author of "The First Total War: Napoleon's Europe and the Birth of Warfare as We Know It."

the latter happens to be a response to the former, to me anyway. its a no brainer that are culture is the no. 1 reason that they hate us. hell i hate alot of it too. but dont attack us, shut your self in a state like n. korea. or a cave :) but dont attack us. because now its our problem and so we have war. i cant believe people still dont know why they hate us. retards i know why but i dont care. DONT TREAD ON US! AND IF YOU DO YOU GET WHATS COMMING

Rethuglican

That is wholly irrelevant to this discussion. Thank you for your meaningless contribution. A more valuable alternative would to have been to post that in a thread about Iraq, or wait for a thread about Iraq to come up before posting it.

Rethuglican:

I apologize, the mistake was mine and not yours. I thought I was in the Modern Medicine thread.

I would urge you all to read The Religion of Peace by Gregory Davis. My eyes have now been opened to the grave threat that Islam is to the West.

The threat posed by "radical Islam" has always been way overblown. In fact, Iraq was outside the sphere of radical Islam and did much to keep Iran at bay. For this, they deserve our thanks.

Radical Islam, Jihad, weapons of mass destruction are all just ingredients the Bush Administration throws into a cocktail to frighten Americans into war.

No one had any concern over radical Islam in the 1990s -- at least not enough to define it as the central issue of our time. To the extent the Muslim world hates us, it is because of our support for Israel, stationing troops in their country, and supporting their enemies. Democracy or liberal "culture" have no role -- at least they aren't sufficient to drive Muslims to kill.

If we were to stop all support for Israel, fund the Palestinians, provide humanitarian support for Arab refugees, and stop waging war in Iraq, does anyone think their enmity toward the United States would be unaffected?

Eric,

You are absolutely right. Muslim violence is completely driven by U.S. foreign policy. Just look at Europe where Westerners and Muslims live in peace and harmony.

Theo,

You're deliberately taking my argument out of context. Anytime -- or almost anytime -- you have a mixing of cultures there is going to be problems. This problem is not unique to Muslims. We have racial problems in this country between whites and blacks and now between Mexicans and other Americans. South Africa and Zimbabwe have this problem.

However, you shouldn't confuse the problems that arise when two cultures come together with Arab hatred for the United States. Their hatred of the United States is a reflection of our aggressive foreign policy and one sided support for Israel. I don't think Europe should permit Muslims to immigrate into their countries, just as I don't think we should allow Mexicans to immigrate into ours. But this is a separate and distinct issue from Muslim terrorism.

Stop playing dumb.

Eric, your argument is self-contradictory. Either Muslim and Western culture cannot co-exist and so they must be kept seperate, or they can co-exist perfectly well and so the real culprit here is US foreign policy. It is not both. If they cannot co-exist,as you seem to believe if you advocate ending Islamic immigration to Europe, there is no particular reason to believe that it is US foreign policy, because it is, in any event, impossible to isolate variables. If you have somehow done the impossible and isolated variables in whatever tests you ran that concluded that US foreign policy was the cause of Islamic terrorism, then it must not be that the cultures cannot co-exist.

I don't think any two cultures can peacefully co-exist. Either one people lose their culture and acclimate to another one or there is tension and conflict in varying degrees. However, there is no reason to single out Islam, since the same is true for Latino culture and our Anglo culture. Are Muslims in Europe somehow different from Latinos in the United States in their inability to assimilate into western culture?

But the intractable problem of culture clash is very different and distinct from the issue of why the "Arab street" has such a vehement hatred for the United States. This has to do with our support of Israel, aggressive wars, and general double standards. Our values have always been more decadent than theirs, but they weren't flying planes into buildings right after WWII.

There is no reason why need to be at war with Iraq, Iran or any other Muslim/Arab country. We should support a foreign policy that doesn't needlessly provoke Muslims and one that doesn't allow Muslims to immigrate to the West.

If they can not co-exist, then you cannot isolate any variables, and as such have no possible way of concluding what causes Islamic terrorism.

Ben,

Sure you can. Islamic terrorism wasn't the problem that it is today after WWII. If Islamic terrorism inheres solely in the religion of Islam then today's terrorism would not be unique or different or more or less serious than the Islamic terrorism against us after WWII.

What changed is our foreign policy.

No, unfortunately you have no control groups. As such, your experiment is invalid, reduced to simply being the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Eric,

I don’t think it’s a question at all of what changed in our foreign policy from then to now.

Islamists believe that their God is the one and true God and their God tells them to either convert or destroy the infidels. I don’t think this has ever changed over time. So, whether post WWII or now, they have consistently disliked the West and Western values. And as the U.S. is the West’s biggest target it makes sense that they would come after us, our policies notwithstanding.

What has changed over time (using the post WWII to present timeframe) are the means for the radicals to succeed. It wasn’t always so easy to waltz into the U.S. or even so easy to get here. Changes in our policies with regards to entry into this country have made it easier for foreigners to come and go and advances in transportation and technology have opened the doors to allow for these fanatics to be more successful.

Unfortunately, people like you will always be looking for answers based on thinking that it’s somehow our fault. And it really doesn’t matter what our policies are. There are groups that hate us and the best we can do is to protect ourselves against them and not try to figure our how to appease them.

Prepare for peace by preparing for war.

depression medicine sbx depression medicine http://hometown.aol.com/abbottabey/depression-medicine.html
depression anxiety sbx depression anxiety http://hometown.aol.com/abbottabey/depression-anxiety.html
signs sbx signs http://hometown.aol.com/abbottabey/signs-of-depression.html
twinks sbx twinks http://hometown.aol.com/abbottabey/twinks.html
manic depression information sbx manic depression information http://hometown.aol.com/abbottabey/manic-depression.html
symptoms sbx symptoms http://hometown.aol.com/abbottabey/depression-symptoms.html
symptom of depression sbx symptom of depression http://hometown.aol.com/abbottabey/symptom-of-depression.html
cum sbx cum http://hometown.aol.com/abbottabey/gay-cum.html

Dear Dan,

Happy Birthday James Joyce. The big one-two-five.

OK, did I just read you correctly?

Are you suggesting that the Englightenment heritage (freedom from unreasonable authority structures, such as, e.g., genital cutting and forced marriage) is a liberal program as opposed to a conservative one?

Au contraire mon frere ... liberte, egalite, fraternite, or the American take on similar principles is for everyone and, relative to the monarchists of yore, we're all liberals.

It seems to me that it's 'liberals' or a species thereof, the 'academic liberal' who have watered the enlightenment gospel down with multiculturalism (born in Canada in '71), which is now invoked to shore up all sorts of backward and patriarchal social structures, right in the heart of Europe, in the islamic parts of town that exist in Paris, Berlin, and Amsterdam. Oh, they're out there my friend, arguing that if Dutch citizen X slugs his wife, he should be prosecuted, but that if Dutch immigrant Y does it, and he's Sunni or Sh'ia, then he shouldn't be prosecuted because of his culture.

Well, it's their culture, and all cultures are good, right?

No, I think the principles and values of the Englightenment are for everyone.

But you're not the only one who thinks this ain't so. Did you see the dispute recently between Timothy Garton Ash and Pascal Bruckner? Check it out when you have a moment, at www.signandsight.com
It's worth reading.

D. Ali G.

I finally got around to reading D'Souza's article in the Washington Post. He's right, it seems to me. Muslims are attacking the U.S. because they (rightly) judge elements of our culture to be a threat to their own, and they are willing to die and kill to remove that threat. Perhaps, then, the best defense is to remove those elements from our culture.

Ben,

We don't need control groups, whatever that means. Osama bin Laden's own words prove it's our foreign policy in the region that he despises.

asdf,

That's nonsense -- the Muslim world did not hate the United States after WWII. You just wish to pretend that their enmity for the United States arises from their religion, that way you remove any responsibility for yourself since you are a big supporter of our imperial Middle East policies.

Eric,

You're in denial about this country's motives. The "Hate America First" crowd always is. So, tell me, what imperial policies? Give me one example of an imperial policy, Middle East or otherwise.

"Ben,

We don't need control groups, whatever that means. Osama bin Laden's own words prove it's our foreign policy in the region that he despises." -Eric Wilds

He could be lying, of course. You say U.S. foreign policy is all that has changed since World War II. Many, many, things have changed in the world since World War II. There are nearly infinite variables that cannot be isolated.

In fact, Atta was screaming: “Allahu Akbar.” It’s time we got smart about these things and not overlook the obvious. Islam doesn’t hate Americans. The “Arab Street” doesn’t hate Americans. Only individuals, like Atta, can hate Americans. Why?

I find it hard to believe that Moslem children or religious fanatics like Atta are serious students of geopolitics, so serious they decide to strap on a suicide bomber's vest in order to rectify some perceived foreign policy injustice.

And if “military actions…over the last few decades” are responsible for a Moslem terrorist’s hatred of America in this day and age, what caused a Barbary Coast Moslem to hate Americans in the early nineteenth century?

Islam is at once both a religion and a political philosophy. Islamic mullahs are at once both preachers and politicians. Islamic political creed is drilled into the heads of Moslem children from the age of reason. Ted Sampley of U.S. Veteran Dispatch says it succinctly:

“Almost from birth, Muslim children are taught to hate Christians and Jews - to glorify jihad (holy war) and to embrace violence, death and child martyrdom.

"In their schools and mosques, young Muslim's are taught songs about wanting to become ‘suicide warriors’ and taking up guns and bombs to kill non-believers. Such indoctrination is an essential part of Islamic prescribed destiny which is to destroy all non-Muslims (infidels) and thereby achieve their Quranic vision of one world under Islam.

“Muslims have been in this unceasing struggle since the time of Muhammad.

“During the last decade, Islamic expansionists have further perfected the exploitation of children and teenagers indoctrinated with messages of hatred and incitement against Christians and Jews to perpetrate terrorist attacks and engage in terrorist-supportive activities such as demonstrations and clashes with authority.”

America is a nation whose politics are secular but whose culture is Christian. America supports Israel, The Jewish state, both politically and culturally. Is there any doubt that Moslem mullahs inculcate hatred for Americans into the hearts of the Moslem faithful? Is there any doubt why?

Quoting again from Mr. Sampley:

“In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the ‘Dey of Algiers’ ambassador to Britain.

“The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote to appease.

“During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey's ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

“In a later meeting with the American Congress, the two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam ‘was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.’”

Ben,

That's true, but we have control over our foreign policy, and not the sun's output (maybe it's the heat that's causing all this terrorism), so why not re-orient our foreign policy toward the Middle East and see the results?

I do think we should re-orient our policy towards the Middle East (for other reasons). I just don't think Muslims would stop hating us, and I think predicating a policy on trying to get ones enemies to stop hating you is a dangerous precedent.

Eric,

If a gang lives in your neighborhood, and you organize a community effort to root them out, they will surely hate you. I suspect your response would be to simply leave the gang be, or, make their lives as easy as possible and give them complete freedom of operation. After all, they are nice young boys.

-ERCauswell

Ben,

I don't regard Muslims as our enemies and doubt we would think of them as such if not for our inhumane foreign policy.

And, Ercauswell, your "ana-logy" is stupid, to put it nicely. How many military bases or terrorist training camps does the Muslim world have operating in the United States? How many military bases are we currently building in Iraq? We are the ones in the wrong neighborhood, not the Iraqis.

Islamic terrorism got its start long before we invaded Iraq. Specifically, Bin Laden's main protest was that the United States had troops in Saudi Arabia. At the invitation and with the consent of the Saudi Kingdom.

In order to get men like bin Laden to stop, we would not have to stop engaging in aggressive foreign policy in that region. We would have to refuse to interact with it at all, except when we had his personal stamp of approval.

Ben,

That's a good idea. Let's stop meddling in the affairs of other nations. The price of empire is terrorism. What are the benefits?

The presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia could not be classified as empire, since they were there at the request of the Saudi Kingdom.

Ben,

According to Neocon dogma our presence in Saudi Arabia could be defined as empire because Neocons do not regard any regime that isn't "democratic" as legitimate. Since Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, it's policies have no legitimacy. Were the Saudi Arabian people happy about our presence? Is the Arab world supportive of our new, superbases in Iraq?

I don't think so.

What neocons think about the Saudi government is irrelevant to the question at hand.