[twoodfin]

If you think OBL would have been thrilled with a peaceful, democratic, Islamic world with all the freedoms and associated "decadence" we see in the West, just so long as the U.S. had never interfered there, I don't think you are seeing the whole picture.

Obviously the U.S. record in the Middle East is not spotless. But it's not as if we haven't been a force for good there on more than one occasion. The Suez Crisis comes to mind immediately, as does Desert Shield/Storm. Our record there isn't better or worse than our record in, say, Central and South America, yet for some reason, Nicaraguans and Chileans aren't blowing themselves up in Times Square.

[tome]

Right, nor are the Vietnamese, nor are the Indians blowing themselves up in London, nor are the Gabonese blowing themselves up in Paris.

[ucee054]

Are you telling me NO Vietcong ever launched a kamikaze attack? Maybe you should try asking the French what happened to their tank crews in Vietnam

[tome]

No, I'm saying that historical misadventures don't always have to lead to suicide attacks.

[ucee054]

In the Monkey King Legend the heroes are warned not to overwhelm the monster by a reference to the Art of War by Sun Zi.

If I remember correctly, the translation is "even a rat will fight if cornered", though today we might mutter something about "asymmetric warfare" in response to "full spectrum dominance".

Sun Zi wrote in about 500BC. So it's not like you were warned yesterday. You've had 2500 years of warning.

Expect kamikaze attacks. They happen. Especially from people who feel they have nothing to lose, and feel under attack from very, very strong opponents.

[tome]

> Expect kamikaze attacks. They happen.

But they don't. Not from the Vietnamese, nor the Indians nor are the Gabonese. Nor the Chileans and Nicaraguans, as was pointed out in the comment I originally responded to.

[ucee054]

But they did from the Vietnamese, when the Vietnamese were occupied.

And try googling for "suicide attack India" or "suicide attack Kashmir" or "suicide attack Sri Lanka", you'll find plenty of hits.

Just because South Americans haven't done it (yet) (that we know of), it doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. Like I told you, you've had at least 2500 years warning.

Hell, there's even the American saying "Give me Liberty or give me Death!"

I have referenced academic study on this topic elsewhere, go read it.

[ucee054]

This has actually been studied:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_to_Win:_The_Strategic_Log...

http://www.amazon.com/Dying-Win-Strategic-Suicide-Terrorism/...

TL;DR People do not run kamikaze attacks against other people for being less religiously conservative than they are, they run kamikaze attacks against occupiers.

[twoodfin]

Pray tell, which Islamic nations was the U.S. "occupying" on 9/11? We're getting way off topic, re: decadence and "hating freedom", but let me try to bring it back. Why blow up the World Trade Center? Surely that was a symbolic act, against a quintessentially civilian target.

[ucee054]

As I've stated elsewhere, and as you can find by googling what jihadis actually say about their motives, the motive for 911 included the occupation of Palestine and US enabling of it.

And if they wanted to make a symbolic attack, they would have hit the Statue of Liberty, not financial and military targets like the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Furthermore it is you who are taking things off-topic.

The topic was jlgreco commenting about the Granai massacre, and how resistance in Afghanistan is because (sarcastically) "they hate us for our freedoms"

You tried to make it out that "Western Decadence" in fact was the reason, which is plain WRONG and contradicted by authorities which I have cited and provided references for.

You have repeatedly attempted to derail the point by going off on a tangent about Osama Ben Laden's psychology, or why Nicaraguans haven't reacted the same way, despite all of my efforts to stick to the topic. The 911 example is a similar red herring, because NO Afghans, Taleban or otherwise, were involved in that attack.

Just admit that you are wrong, will you?

[tome]

> As I've stated elsewhere, and as you can find by googling what jihadis actually say about their motives, the motive for 911 included the occupation of Palestine and US enabling of it.

It doesn't matter what they say. It matters what's true, and it matters what's right.

It's as though you defend a child's tantrum because the child explained "my mummy didn't buy me any sweeties".

[ucee054]

What, you think they are NOT mad about Palestine?

You think jihadis are in truth really pleased about how Palestinians were ethnically cleansed, how they can't get their homes back and how they're treated like dirt everyday?

That's retarded, they're mad as hell about it, and as it happens many non-terrorist Middle Easterners are mad as hell about it too. If you doubt that, read the 2004 Pentagon Defense Science Board Report.

Furthermore, many non-Middle Easterners are mad as hell about it too. Many jews are mad as hell about it as well, as you can see from looking up eg mondoweiss.net

Finally, many Americans - including veterans and ex-intelligence personnel - are mad as hell about the American money and lives being expended to harm the Middle East on Israel's behalf, which you can see by looking up eg The Council for the National Interest.

[tome]

They may well be angry at how they perceive Israel and the US is behaving towards the Palestinians.

However, it does not mean that anger is justified, and it does not justify attacks on civilians.