Why do the terrorists hate us? Can we ever end this battle that costs us our security, lives, and money? (Poll included.)

Boudicea ,

This video says more about Terrorism than anything I've seen or read since 9/11!

You don't know much about the subject . See #10 .

I think you misunderstood the point of the comment. Americans fully understand that we have to get along with everyone else in the world and are just as subject to laws as we would have others subject to ours. It is those who hold to the tenets of american exceptionalism (hence the term 'mericun) that believe we have the right to go wherever we want and do whatever we want at any given time and the world should make way for us.

Being that I'm in the military myself, I completely understand the dangers of 'mericun exceptionalism in the military and how dangerous it is to go around with an attitude like that. Exceptionalism is what lead us into Iraq in the first place and the policy that got so many of our Service Members killed. They went in thinking they were invincible and could do whatever they wanted.

I completely understand why those native to the countries we've invaded hate us so much. But when you have statements like these:

Yeah, great, except, you know what? They started it. Turn you mind back to September 10, 2001 - no troops on foreign soil, no americans killing foreigners, and no-one in the US, outside of the professionals knew the word Al-Qaeada.

The Muslim world, just like Communist world is not a country or a culture, it is an evil ideology and it can be defeated. Step one - admitting it is an evil ideology. As for the muslim world - it was a vibrant and prosperous world long before islam came there.

Look the people who have been objecting to the wars have been so vocal that THEY have actually boosted our enimies morale all while tearing down the morale of our own people.

When you have both external AND internal enemies it drags you down.

being bandied about and it's quite apparent they don't know or don't care about the history of the region or how US meddling has caused the unfortunate events we've faced concerning that region, it's a sad statement about Americans and how deluded certain portions of our population are. Those who practice the path of exceptionalism make life hard and embarrassing for the rest of us. The actions of 'mericuns make me ashamed to be an American.

No reprimand was involved. I'm glad you posted this seed. It's rare to see anyone who understands the situation we put ourselves in.

LoL, true story: it took me like 10 tries to get that name because every other one I attempted was taken.

Since this is your profession, let me ask you this:

What has caused the most loss of life?

1) Terrorism

2) War

What has caused more displacement of peoples?

1) Terrorism

2) War

Has the US ever been engaged in terror?

Has the US ever funded terrorist organizations?

Could war be considered an act of terrorism?

Could drone attacks be considered terrorism?

Have terror attacks increased or decreased since the invasion and subsequent occupation of ME countries?

Finally, how would you react to an invasion and occupation by a foreign military of the US?

Would you,

1) Fight for your country

2) Fight for the invaders

(If you choose #1, you would become a terrorist, if you choose #2 you would be a traitor.)

That's a bit too broad for my area of focus, and much of what you ask is a play on scemantics, i.e. terrorism for one party is patriotism for another. My focus is more of what motivates our enemies to fight and the tactics, techniques and procedures those enemies employ against us in theaters of combat.

War, as defined by Clausewitz is, "thus an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will." Most of his theory is built upon the state and its ability to fund and then wage war - along with its purposes and intended end-state.

What we see with modern terrorist organizations is that they are no longer necessarily based around a state. They've no fixed borders to protect, capitols to defend, or populations to defend, nor do they have a fixed rank structure with military uniforms. So Clausewitz' definition fits, but only to an extent. Terrorists still use force to compel their enemies to do their will, but that will is much-less clearly defined.

Lets us put this in perspective:

THE TRUTH ABOUT TERRORISM

0: People killed in the USA by terrorism/WMD in 2006.
(Thousands killed by the US and its allies in foreign countries.)

0: People killed in the UK by terrorism/WMD in 2006.

0: People killed in the USA by terrorism/WMD in 2005.

52: killed in the UK by terrorism/WMD in 2005 (all on "7/7").

0: People in the USA killed by terrorism/WMD in 2004.

0: People in the UK killed by terrorism/WMD in 2004.

0: People in the USA killed by terrorism/WMD in 2003.

0: People in the UK killed by terrorism/WMD in 2003.

0: People in the USA killed by terrorism/WMD in 2002.

0: People in the UK killed by terrorism/WMD in 2002.

2,752: in USA killed by terrorism in 2001 (all on "9/11").

0: People in the UK killed by terrorism/WMD in 2001.

0: People in the USA killed by terrorism/WMD in 2000.

0: People in the UK killed by terrorism/WMD in 2000.

Conversely:

WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD

1.2 MILLION: People in killed in road accidents EVERY YEAR.

430,000: Americans killed by cigarettes EVERY YEAR. (The equivalent of 9/11 repeated every two days forever.) Bush's response to a real threat? His election promise to stop the Justice Department's law suit against the tobacco industry.

400,000: Americans die each year from obesity (while much greater numbers around the world starve to death).

11,000: the people killed in America every year by guns, a human tragedy equivalent to a new 9/11 every 3 months.

8,437: Civilians killed by US/UK attacks in Iraq in 2003.

3,800: Civilians killed by US/UK attacks in Afghanistan by 2002.

135,000: Deaths from cancer in UK alone EVERY YEAR

3 MILLION: Killed by HIV/AIDS in 2003.

780,000,000: People starving to death RIGHT NOW.

1.2 BILLION: People "living" on less than $1 a day.

513,000,000: Number of people without access to safe drinking water.

2,500: Palestinian civillians killed "by accident" in Palestine by the Israeli army - and that's just since September 2000.

14,000: Palestinian people whose homes have been demolished by Israeli bulldozers - and that's just since October 2000. Families who do not escape in time are crushed to death - often at night in their beds.

Source

MOST RECENT US WARS:

Iraq:

The estimate that over a million Iraqis have died received independent confirmation from a prestigious British polling agency in January 2008. Opinion Research Business estimated that the death toll between March 2003 and August 2007 was 1,033,000.

Afganistan:

Civilian casualties in Afghanistan have increased, according to the latest statistics from the United Nations creating the highest total since 2006 for civilian deaths - the continued annual rises has seen over 8,000 killed in the past four years.

Source

Pakistan:

Total deaths from drone attacks is 2,680. Total "Militants" killed is 38.

Source

Are you beginning to see how absurd this whole situation is?

We have spent over 6 TRILLION DOLLARS (<-click for info) fighting against something that takes exponentially less life than say cigarettes or even peanut allergies.

The cost-benefit analysis of foreign intervention wars doesn't pass the common-sense test. War has always been an expensive endeavor, but it is more so now than ever. That is part of the reason why I and so many others in the military support Dr. Ron Paul. We need to focus our Defense efforts on just that - defense, vice unnecessary and expensive foreign interventions.

Afghanistan was necessary - to a point. Once the Taliban was forced out (or punished severely) and bin Laden was dead, then our mission should have been complete. Attempting to rebuild such a nation is simply a fool's errand.

Iraq was altogether unnecessary, and that war did much to add to our already considerable debt and erode our stature on the world stage.

I will agree with this assessment.

Since this is your area of study you must be aware of the concept of "blowback" as put forth by the CIA. This whole thing is a win-win for weapons contractors and Banks, a lose-lose for the rest of humanity.

As Smedley Butler once said "To end the war racket, all profit must be taken out of war, and the men who will fight the wars should be the ones to decide if it is waged."

Be well.

Peace to you and yours.

Statistics are the biggest likes ;)

Great questions. Allow me to give it a try:

What has caused the most loss of life?

1. Terrorism
2. War

Whose life? American civilian life - terrorism, American Military - war, so the civilians can sleep well. As for your upcoming argument - Afghanistan was given a choice - to surrender Osama, or suffer the consequences. I do not care many of their lives they forfeited.

What has caused more displacement of peoples?

1. Terrorism
2. War

Which people? American? Probably terrorism.

Has the US ever been engaged in terror?

Probably not, but I am sure you'll find something.

Has the US ever funded terrorist organizations?

I am sure we have. Osama and Al-Quaeda comes to mind

Could war be considered an act of terrorism?

Not according to your beloved Geneva convention. It is a piece of business that overregulated by the government.

Could drone attacks be considered terrorism?

Only if they kill civilians, rather than targets, which hasn't happened yet.

Have terror attacks increased or decreased since the invasion and subsequent occupation of ME countries?

Increased, but mostly because we were to preoccupied with the proportionate response. I heard someplace that parking lots and solar panels are a good answer to terrorism.

Finally, how would you react to an invasion and occupation by a foreign military of the US?

Would you,

1. Fight for your country
2. Fight for the invader

That depends on the reason. Mostly negatively, unless of course they were here to remove Obama from power, and rebuild our school system, then I might consider cooperating with them. Option 3 would be I would do nothing.

If you choose #1, you would become a terrorist, if you choose #2 you would be a traitor.

Do you know why the good guys always win? Because the winners get to write history. If the side I was on lost - than I would be what you say. However if the side I was on won (which is what I am planning to do) than if I choose #1 I'd be resistance fighter, and if I choose number 2, I'd be some sort of patriot liberator fighting against the tyranny. Who do you think Washington and Franklin were in the view of the British Crown? Founding Fathers?

And the most fallacious part of your argument is the fact that they hated long before we even knew they existed, let alone occupied any of them.

And the most fallacious part of your argument is the fact that they hated long before we even knew they existed, let alone occupied any of them.

According to my understanding many of these ME peoples dislike the "West Governments" in general because of Colonialism imposed upon them by the British, moreover they dislike the US Government because of our cozy relationships with dictators and our fascination with overthrowing governments who do not honor contracts with Multi-Nationals.

American's memories are very short and extremely biased. Let us remember that on 9-11 The world Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacked, one is the symbol of the almighty multi-national and the other the strong arm of the multi-national. This is all about resources. Ever heard of the Trans Afghan pipeline? Or the Iran- Pakistan Pipeline? If not, I suggest you do.

Let us also remember that nearly all of the hijackers were Saudi-Nationals, a great friend of ours.

Who do you think Washington and Franklin were in the view of the British Crown? Founding Fathers?

To the British they were terrorist. To American's, hero's. As Mike Prysner once said, "We have more in common with the poor Iraqi working to feed his family than the Billionaires that send us to war."

Guess what, we are in Britain's position now, a superpower trying to force people to submit to our will.

Do you know why the good guys always win?

Yes, that is why we are losing. Big time. We are broke. We are losing freedoms nearly everyday, taxes are getting out of control. The worlds strongest military is losing to a very small group of freedom fighters. But remember, we have made a small few very wealthy, and will continue to make them more wealthy the more we buy into their "boogeyman" scenarios.

I have news for you, no one hates you, they hate our government and our policies, and frankly I cannot blame them.

One thing is for certain, they have more heart for their cause than we do for ours, and that is what wins wars, heart. Something we lost as a nation long ago.

We have become depressed and soulless, not much to live for but killing and plundering.

One thing is for certain, they have more heart for their cause than we do for ours

And that's because of folks with your attitude.

Look the people who have been objecting to the wars have been so vocal that THEY have actually boosted our enimies morale all while tearing down the morale of our own people.

When you have both external AND internal enemies it drags you down.

This country has not been "united" behind a war since WWII.

According to my understanding many of these ME peoples dislike the "West Governments" in general because of Colonialismimposed upon them by the British, moreover they dislike the US Government because of our cozy relationships with dictators and our fascination with overthrowing governments who do not honor contracts with Multi-Nationals.

It goes much earlier and much deeper than that. Try to recall the Barbary wars and what answer was given to Washington by the local authorities, also try to recall how America dealt with the problem back then, and what is the difference right now.

American's memories are very short and extremely biased. Let us remember that on 9-11 The world Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacked, one is the symbol of the almighty multi-national and the other the strong arm of the multi-national. This is all about resources. Ever heard of the Trans Afghan pipeline? Or the Iran- Pakistan Pipeline? If not, I suggest you do.

I couldn't agree more. I mean here we are dealing with Wahhabiism which was born out of Economic Decline in Turkey before America ever was a state, and all you can do is go one decade back. If you didn't get it - the muslims are still conquering Europe, from that jihad long ago, that we barely managed to stop with the first Crusade.

Yes, that is why we are losing. Big time. We are broke. We are losing freedoms nearly everyday, taxes are getting out of control. The worlds strongest military is losing to a very small group of freedom fighters. But remember, we have made a small few very wealthy, and will continue to make them more wealthy the more we buy into their "boogeyman" scenarios.

Well, we go into a fight, tying our hands behind our backs, and then we spend our money for reasons I cannot understand. That is not how you fight a war, that is not how you win one. We are not broke because we are at war, we are broke because we forgot who won.

I have news for you, no one hates you, they hate our government and our policies, and frankly I cannot blame them.

I have news for you, my short-memoried short-sighted American friend. They hate with all their little muslim hearts for the past 1400 years, and there you are, with your borrowed liberal brochure, trying to teach me something you haven't even began to comprehend. Go read a book, or something. Maybe Quran Surah 9, ayeh 5, 29-32, Surah 47 ayat 4. Maybe than we can a little about who hates whom and for how long.

This country has not been "united" behind a war since WWII.

I will agree with that. Our society has slowly been corroded ever since then. Vietnam was a strong blow also, now we have this to recover from. 4 generations torn by war, we as a nation have not had time to rebuild our bonds, connections with our friends and families. The full effect of this current war will not be felt for many years, that is if it ever ends. I recently read that one General said the war on terror will last 100 years. Insane, to me at least. I am a talker,a peacemaker, not a fighter, I see violence is destructive to both parties, in war and in relationships. Communication is the key to understanding.

I had an after thought, and I felt I should post this. I don't know how familiar you are with WW1, but I think it is valuable to understanding our history in the region, without having to go back entirely too far:

World War I transformed the Middle East in ways it had not seen for centuries. The Europeans, who had colonized much of the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century, completed the takeover with the territories of Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine.

The modern boundaries of the Middle East emerged from the war. So did modern Arab nationalist movements and embryonic Islamic movements. NPR's Mike Shuster reports on World War I and its aftermath as he continues his series on the history of Western involvement in the Middle East.

With the onset of WWI, the French and the British sent armies and agents into the Middle East, to foment revolts in the Arabian Peninsula and to seize Iraq, Syria and Palestine. In 1916, French and British diplomats secretly reached the Sykes-Picot agreement, carving up the Middle East into spheres of influence for their respective countries. That agreement was superceded by another which established a mandate system of French and British control, sanctioned by the new League of Nations.

Under the mandate system, Syria and Lebanon went to the French. The British took over Palestine and three Ottoman provinces of Mesopotamia and created modern-day Iraq.

"Everyone understood at the time that this was a thinly disguised new form of colonialism...," says Zachary Lockman, professor of Middle East history at New York University. "The British and French had no thought of going anywhere anytime soon, and fully intended to remain in control of these territories for the indefinite future."

World War I transformed the Middle East in ways it had not seen for centuries. The Europeans, who had colonized much of the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century, completed the takeover with the territories of Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine.

The modern boundaries of the Middle East emerged from the war. So did modern Arab nationalist movements and embryonic Islamic movements. NPR's Mike Shuster reports on World War I and its aftermath as he continues his series on the history of Western involvement in the Middle East.

With the onset of WWI, the French and the British sent armies and agents into the Middle East, to foment revolts in the Arabian Peninsula and to seize Iraq, Syria and Palestine. In 1916, French and British diplomats secretly reached the Sykes-Picot agreement, carving up the Middle East into spheres of influence for their respective countries. That agreement was superceded by another which established a mandate system of French and British control, sanctioned by the new League of Nations.

Under the mandate system, Syria and Lebanon went to the French. The British took over Palestine and three Ottoman provinces of Mesopotamia and created modern-day Iraq.

"Everyone understood at the time that this was a thinly disguised new form of colonialism...," says Zachary Lockman, professor of Middle East history at New York University. "The British and French had no thought of going anywhere anytime soon, and fully intended to remain in control of these territories for the indefinite future."

World War I transformed the Middle East in ways it had not seen for centuries. The Europeans, who had colonized much of the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century, completed the takeover with the territories of Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine.

The modern boundaries of the Middle East emerged from the war. So did modern Arab nationalist movements and embryonic Islamic movements. NPR's Mike Shuster reports on World War I and its aftermath as he continues his series on the history of Western involvement in the Middle East.

With the onset of WWI, the French and the British sent armies and agents into the Middle East, to foment revolts in the Arabian Peninsula and to seize Iraq, Syria and Palestine. In 1916, French and British diplomats secretly reached the Sykes-Picot agreement, carving up the Middle East into spheres of influence for their respective countries. That agreement was superceded by another which established a mandate system of French and British control, sanctioned by the new League of Nations.

Under the mandate system, Syria and Lebanon went to the French. The British took over Palestine and three Ottoman provinces of Mesopotamia and created modern-day Iraq.

"Everyone understood at the time that this was a thinly disguised new form of colonialism...," says Zachary Lockman, professor of Middle East history at New York University. "The British and French had no thought of going anywhere anytime soon, and fully intended to remain in control of these territories for the indefinite future."

But almost immediately after the war, Arab resistance movements emerged to challenge European dominance.

Source

Many are unaware that the "West" drew up all of these ME countries after WW1, which broke up the tribal communities and their way of life, we then put dictators in place to rule over our new "Colonies".

It is very similar to what the Native Americans went through, that task alone took nearly 400 years to complete.

Be well.

If there is one thing I have learned in life it is this, treat others the way you want to be treated. This axiom extends to all, I have no room in my heart for hate, I wish pain upon none.

I don't steal, because I would not like to be stolen from.

I don't kill simply because I would not like to be killed.

I am polite and understanding because I wish others to be the same towards me.

I am sorry, but I cannot support mass murder, no matter how it is sold to us.

And maybe, just maybe, people will see that I live my creed, that is not hallow, that I will stand for for all innocent life no matter color nor creed.

If any of you call yourself a Christian, I beg you to open up your Holy book and point out to me where Jesus said to Hate your enemies, to NOT turn the cheek.

Jesus knew one could not combat violence with violence, that is why he said "Live by the sword, die by the sword."

If there is one thing I have learned in life it is this, treat others the way you want to be treated

As long as it used as a two way street. In other words if the others treat you a certain way, it would only be polite to honor their request for treatment.

Mr. Roger Rabbit-

In other words if the others treat you a certain way, it would only be polite to honor their request for treatment.

Yes, I can see that. There are Masochists out there!

Hey, I enjoyed the convo, be well my friend.

Peace to you and yours!

Peace to you and yours!

See it is working. Live long and prosper.

That's a bit too broad for my area of focus, and much of what you ask is a play on scemantics, i.e. terrorism for one party is patriotism for another.

It's only a distinction for 'mericuns and politicians. For anyone else with a sense of right and wrong it's easy to see the difference...

This country has not been "united" behind a war since WWII.

Most likely because there hasn't been a just war since WWII. Just a bunch of chickenhawks who have never gone to battle clamoring for poor children to do what they don't have the backbone for. And you'll find the biggest hawks of them all are the ones who claim anti-war protesters are un'mericun and enemies.

bart why are all of your posts deleted???

Really, kaz? "They started it?"

Did you really miss the point I was trying to make?

This "conflict" has NOTHING to do with any actions taken or not taken by this country in the past few decades.

It goes back centuries.

I'm not challenging your statement and I'm willing to assume you are correct. I am asking you, in good faith, to remind me of those two occasions.

Both instances happened in Lebanon.

The Isralies had the PLO cornered with their backs to the water and were preparing to wipe them out.

The U.S. stepped in and basically told them to stand down. This country then sent in landing craft and pulled the PLO out from under the guns of the Israelis.

These things happened in the 70's and the 80's.

Who do you think Lawrence of Arabia led against the Nazi troops in the Middle East during WWII?

Lawrence was British NOT American.

Look a simple study of history that reaches back farther than 50 or 60 years will show that there has been a "conflict" between those in the middle-east and the "west"(before it was even thought of that way) that dates back to the beginning of almost recorded history.

Just who do you think it was that the Greeks were fighting in the movie depiction "300"?

Who do you think Alexander conquered?

Who do you think the Polish knights defeated in their invasion of Europe in the 1600's?

Who do you think "Vlad the impaler" was fighting against?

Look back thru history and you will find that Islam's "conflict" with the "west" started long before this country was even thought of.

Just who do you think it was that the Greeks were fighting in the movie depiction "300"?

Who do you think Alexander conquered?

Those two "events" happened more than 300 years BEFORE Christianity even existed and 900 years before Islam.

Who do you think Alexander conquered?

Just who do you think it was that the Greeks were fighting in the movie depiction "300"?

They weren't muslim.

Look back thru history and you will find that Islam's "conflict" with the "west" started long before this country was even thought of.

Apparently it started before Islam was even a religion...

Apparently it started before Islam was even a religion...

And the people living in that region STILL have an issue with "the west".

So NOW they are using "religion" as an excuse.

Look y'all want to defend their actions, fine.

But do not go blaming their actions upon those that they choose to war against.

If they just wanna kill someone, I say let them kill each other and leave the rest of us alone.

And the people living in that region STILL have an issue with "the west".

I don't think there was a "west" at the time you've quoted all of these other activities. The people in that region have a problem with America (more specifically 'mericuns) and it's hard to blame them.

If they just wanna kill someone, I say let them kill each other and leave the rest of us alone.

Maybe if the US hadn't been meddling in the affairs of those countries as we've been doing for decades, we wouldn't be in the situation we are now. Maybe with more transparent government the public can be better informed of what is being done in our name.

Maybe with more transparent government the public can be better informed of what is being done in our name.

Some 60 years ago Secret Government was created to keep us in the dark. Good luck on getting out of the dark.

Zen

You can take you "racist" "bigoted" descriptions of my fellow citizens and place them securely up your fourth point of contact.

LoL, you can have "those" citizens. Their poor decision skills obviously haven't served our country's best interests or we wouldn't be in this situation. It's not your everyday average US citizen the people of that region have had issues with. It's with those so-called citizens who have had the uncontrollable need to meddle in the affairs of their nations for the purpose of imperialism and personal gain. There's nothing "bigoted" or "racist" about it.

I don't hate ya Doc...you're okay for a Squid.....

OK Bart ,

I don't see how those details about the revolutionary war matter all that much . You are talking about what could have been , not what was . Bottom line , the British were setting up punishing financial structures .
We rebelled .

Second, the video was not "obsessed"with the US as the "cause"of terrorist attacks
...
What's wrong with trying to understand these motivations?

Sure it was obsessed . You can't understand the motivations till you take a look at who they attack . As I pointed out above , Al - Queda has attacked a great many countries . Many of them have no troops outside their own borders . These include parts of N. America , S. America , Europe and Asia . These other attacks had nothing to do with troops . That video is taking a provincial and extreme protectionist viewpoint .

As an attempt to understand the motivations it is hopelessly narrow .
If I had to guess at the motivation , I would say that it has to do with the "righteous indignation" about losing battles with Europe many centuries past . In other words , these crazies are nothing but the most extreme sore losers in history . They want to restore the past glory of the Caliphate and they feel the need to defeat the
West to do that . But they had no idea what they were up against ...

Al Qaeda had several aims but it was the war, declared against America by bin Ladin in 1996,that captured American attention.

We in America didn't even know about that letter, and were not allowed to see it, for many years.

I've actually read an online copy of that so I know what you mean . I think you are right about bin Ladin's motives for attacking the US . But that group did not stop there . In fact they didn't start there either .
Here is a timeline of the history of Al Qaeda .
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/etc/cron.html

And here are some links to places in Asia they have attacked :

Bali , Indonesia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Bali_bombings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Bali_bombings

Thailand
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nOg7_0UHQ8

I think they attacked the Philippines too . I'll have to research that . And of course you recall the bombings in Mubai , India as well as several in Europe ...

Glad I could contribute to your knowledge Bart . If you get some free time have a look at the rest of it . Talk to you later .