Why does Al Qaeda hate us?

[BasketCase]

I recall quite a number of terrorist attacks against Russia in the last few years <snip>

Yes. In the last few years. How many terrorist attacks did Russia get hit with when it was the USSR, and was committing far worse crimes against humanity? None.

My point being: Russia only became a terrorist target after it evolved from a dictatorship to a "nice-guy" type nation, whose government actually gives half a damn about its citizens.

 

[carlosMM]

Yes. In the last few years. How many terrorist attacks did Russia get hit with when it was the USSR, and was committing far worse crimes against humanity? None.

My point being: Russia only became a terrorist target after it evolved from a dictatorship to a "nice-guy" type nation, whose government actually gives half a damn about its citizens.

one word that you should learn about:

CENSORSHIP!


All the attacks on military installations and russian civilians that YOU didn't hear about.....DID happen. I talked to people who were there and lost limbs. But the western media didn't pick it up, for a variety of reasons.

 

[BasketCase]

Somebody besides him answer that one please?

 

[carlosMM]

Somebody besides him answer that one please?

a bunch of million Russians did
Your American-media centered perception is only natural ina citizen of that continent - but remember some people live on other landmasses, we're not (anymore) playing on a pangea map

 

[BasketCase]

All right, all right--you get removed from my ignore list for 5 minutes.

The American-centered press can't cover the entire planet any more reliably than the BBC or, say, whatever press agencies they've got in Timbuktu. The media go for shock value.

The Internet is a much more likely source for finding stuff the American press is likely to miss--or cover up. I have done a lot of searching for terrorist attacks against dictatorships, and I can't find any. I did find testimony from one person that "from the end of WorldWar II to the fall of the Berlin Wall, there were no terrorist attacks against the Soviet Union". It appeared to be an archived news article, but I couldn't be sure of that, so that one had no value.

Certainly there are attacks against targets in such nations. An attack on a Soviet military base is a guerilla attack, not a terrorist attack. To me, a terrorist attack is when you take innocent civilians as hostages and threaten to kill them unless somebody-or-other meets your demands--or maybe you go ahead and kill a bunch of innocent civilians and threaten to do it again unless somebody-or-other meets your demands. I cannot find ANY evidence that this has ever happened in a dictatorship. After all, terrorism is worthless if the government considers its own citizens worthless.

Okay, you're back on my ignore list now.

 

[Sickman]

I did find testimony from one person that "from the end of WorldWar II to the fall of the Berlin Wall, there were no terrorist attacks against the Soviet Union".

To me, a terrorist attack is when you take innocent civilians as hostages and threaten to kill them unless somebody-or-other meets your demands--or maybe you go ahead and kill a bunch of innocent civilians and threaten to do it again unless somebody-or-other meets your demands. I cannot find ANY evidence that this has ever happened in a dictatorship. After all, terrorism is worthless if the government considers its own citizens worthless.

Could you tell how many terrorist attacks US suffered between the WW2 and the fall of the Berlin Wall?
What kind of groups made them?

In totalitarian dictatorship the attacks are done against those that are high elite or their families. They are much more small scaled but they do happen.
Of course they are much harder to do in highly organized and militarized country also especially which borders are tightly shut down.
What comes to civilians in overall it's quite natural that elite doesn't care about the attacks.
I bet western leaders wouldn't care them either if those wouldn't affect polls, elections and the chance they create to be used as propaganda for their own good (whatever it is ).

I didn't earlier and do not understand now where you are getting with this point?
So US is different than Soviet Union, is that surprise for you?

 

[10Seven]

All right, all right--you get removed from my ignore list for 5 minutes.

The American-centered press can't cover the entire planet any more reliably than the BBC or, say, whatever press agencies they've got in Timbuktu. The media go for shock value.

The Internet is a much more likely source for finding stuff the American press is likely to miss--or cover up. I have done a lot of searching for terrorist attacks against dictatorships, and I can't find any. I did find testimony from one person that "from the end of WorldWar II to the fall of the Berlin Wall, there were no terrorist attacks against the Soviet Union". It appeared to be an archived news article, but I couldn't be sure of that, so that one had no value.

Seems like you're restricting your sources and search so as not to challenge your predisposed view - 'USA: Victim'.

France also has been the 'victim' of terrorist attacks for longer than just a few years.

 

[BasketCase]

The only way I'm restricting my sources and search is to use only those sources that are not the one guy on my ignore list.

Yes, France has been a victim of terrorist attacks. But then, France isn't a dictatorship.

Errrrrr....is it....?

Russia is also a victim--right now. As far as I can tell, Russia was not a victim of terrorism when it was the USSR. There are a whole bunch of nations that are victims of terrorism, and all of them appear to be free states that care about their citizens in some way--for the votes if nothing else. If the primary motive for terrorism was crimes against another ethnic group, dictatorships would be getting hit a whole lot more than they are.

So, anger by the dispossessed against the powerful doesn't appear to me to have anything to do with why terrorist attacks happen.

 

[Sickman]

Russia is also a victim--right now. As far as I can tell, Russia was not a victim of terrorism when it was the USSR. There are a whole bunch of nations that are victims of terrorism, and all of them appear to be free states that care about their citizens in some way--for the votes if nothing else. If the primary motive for terrorism was crimes against another ethnic group, dictatorships would be getting hit a whole lot more than they are.

So, anger by the dispossessed against the powerful doesn't appear to me to have anything to do with why terrorist attacks happen.

Are you comparing terrorism in Russia to what US is facing?

Part of the terror in Iraq is guerilla warfare and part of it is terrorism.
Probably the guerilla warfare has probably slowly ended but the terrorism
wave continues.
But those are just basic definitions and it's quite hard to use term without creating certain image out of them.

The primary motive for terroristic organizations differ. Usually it's goal is to create political pressure towards certain solution, so it's clear in those kind of situations it's very unlikely that attack against civilians in dictatorship has real effect.

But the terror which western world creates amongs muslims and also the power it has and uses will make people join there terroristic organizations. Inviduals may cry for help but are turned into mindless suicide bombers through the brainwashing of those organizations.

Organizations goals depend from the leaders. It's very possible that example OBL really things his cause is noble one and just tries to get back to the west but for faceless soldiers of those organizations it doesn't matter what leaders think the goal is same as always: protect the islamic world.

Terrorist attacks in scale they happen now wouldn't happen if there wouldn't be any organizations to join by those people who feel "oppressed" under the influence of western culture.
But again same scale of attacks wouldn't happen if there wouldn't be any feeling of oppression.

So it's combination of political goals (which may be nationalistic) by the leaders of these organizations and the frustration and zeal of those who do the actual deeds that cause the current terrorism and attacks against US.

In some cases freedom fighter is impossible to say from terrorists. Such is the propaganda from both sides.

 

[BasketCase]

Are you comparing terrorism in Russia to what US is facing?

Yes. Those Russian civilians in that movie theater never harmed a Chechen citizen in their lives. They were not legitimate targets. In this, the U.S. and Russia face similar circumstances.

But the terror which western world creates amongs muslims and also the power it has and uses will make people join there terroristic organizations. Inviduals may cry for help but are turned into mindless suicide bombers through the brainwashing of those organizations.

Why are Muslims practically the only people on the planet who are reacting to U.S. "terror" in this fashion? Why is modern-day Japan not getting subjected to terrorist attacks by various peoples Japan terrorized in World War II? For that matter, why are Native Americans/Indians not committing terrorist attacks against the U.S. right now? (well, actually, they did use terrorist tactics for a while, but they stopped around a century ago--they GAVE UP.)

Sorry, but I don't buy it.

 

[Sickman]

Yes. Those Russian civilians in that movie theater never harmed a Chechen citizen in their lives. They were not legitimate targets. In this, the U.S. and Russia face similar circumstances.

Sure but do you agree also that both countries are in conflict were it has sometimes been about guerilla warfare rather than always suspected islamic terror?

If you look what Russians have done there, it's not any miracle that they retaliate to civilians in Moscow. They are certainly feeling overpowered and that is exactly what many of fundamentalists want so they can use these people to their ends.

Why are Muslims practically the only people on the planet who are reacting to U.S. "terror" in this fashion? Why is modern-day Japan not getting subjected to terrorist attacks by various peoples Japan terrorized in World War II? For that matter, why are Native Americans/Indians not committing terrorist attacks against the U.S. right now? (well, actually, they did use terrorist tactics for a while, but they stopped around a century ago--they GAVE UP.)

Countries have different background and histories towards each other. Japan was put under spell by US shortly after those terrorizations. What would be the point attack country that isn't a threat towards them anymore?
Muslim countries have felt constant pressure from the west.

You don't seem to understand that the effect of actions of Europeans and later US has caused muslims to react after long period of time.
This has been the case since the crusades.

Religions of many nations don't have such elements that would cause same kind of feeling to need to defend as those of muslims.
I believe west would also use civilian bombing (not necessarily suicide bombing but close) if they would feel overpowered by Islamic traditions. However it's harder to convince the masses of westerners to use their military power against Muslim countries than convince couple of muslims to take bags and goto west to blow themselves up.
Of course some have also succeeded in the first one too.

Many muslims are afraid their traditional way of life is destroyed by the west and US is seen as the flagship of the fleet. It surely is the biggest target, even though not necessarily most vulnerable.

BTW Europeans and US did their terror to native americans in much larger scale than native americans did to those colonists ever.
Natives had small chance ever to achieve any of their goals and never were united to enough to make difference. Only difference being of course the end of the lousy Custer which saw some native nations together to fight against common enemy.

Sorry, but I don't buy it.

Personally I don't even understand what point you are trying to make here?

 

[BasketCase]

Countries have different background and histories towards each other. Japan was put under spell by US shortly after those terrorizations. What would be the point attack country that isn't a threat towards them anymore?

How about plain old basic revenge?

Some radical Muslim groups, when claiming responsibility for this or that bombing or other attack, give exactly that reason in their videotapes. That's been happening ever since the suicide belt and the VCR were invented.

Muslim countries have felt constant pressure from the west.

The Muslims aren't unique in any way about this. A whole bunch of cultures are currently in the same (alleged) fix the Muslims are. Yet they all react differently.

Those four boldface words up top are the most likely reason. Nations with different cultures will react differently to the same situation. The possibility must be considered that the problem is on the terrorists' end.

 

[Sickman]

How about plain old basic revenge?

Sure, for some muslims that is the reason.

Desperate times rise desperate men to take desperate measures.

It doesn't necessarily have nothing to do with how poor the soldiers of these organizations themselves are they just need faith, for leaders of those organizations example OBL any excuse is enough.

The Muslims aren't unique in any way about this. A whole bunch of cultures are currently in the same (alleged) fix the Muslims are. Yet they all react differently.
Nations with different cultures will react differently to the same situation.
The possibility must be considered that the problem is on the terrorists' end.

Part of it yes, or rest of those countries are just too weak to do anything under western culture pressure or are in fact happy about it. Muslims just seem to have problems to adapt modern world and they blame west bringing it to them. Simple as that.
Example compared to native americans many of them tried to escape the modernization but then adapted parts of the western culture very quickly. Entirely new religions and ways of life were born. American Indians never had though will to fight it. However if you look South America you can see there have been problems because of "western rule" and there have been also move towards different system than capitalism. Difference is just that they don't have the zeal to do terror attacks. Probably they are just more clever than muslims. However one advantage using terrorist attacks is that when you hit someone's heartland you will get reaction out of it. From both of "your" people and from the enemy.
That is were fundamentalistic muslims are counting for but I think they are counting it wrongly.

It will take time to convince muslims that they can live by many of their tradional rules but still under free trade and also democracy.
Nobody wants to give power up and that's what these fundementalist or old aristocratic families don't want to do (example Saudis).

 

[Tejas]

I recall quite a number of terrorist attacks against Russia in the last few years - also, France, UK, and a few others too.

Only attacks in the US will be remembered - - -

 

[BasketCase]

Not from where I sit, Tejas. I don't forget. And I usually don't forgive, either. The terrorists who attacked France and Russia and London (and everybody else) should get the same fate. Death.

 

[silver 2039]

Terroisim is a useful tool of the state....

 

[Communisto]

Al Qaeda doesnt exist

 

[HamaticBabylon]

Funny how people are easy confused!

You're right Communisto.

 

[amadeus]

Al Qaeda doesnt exist

So who then was responsible for the Khobar Towers bombing? Who was responsible for the 1998 embassy bombings? Who was responsible for September 11? Who was responsible for Bali bombings? Who was responsible for the London Underground bombings?

 

[HamaticBabylon]

Hay look man, Al Qaeda is just a phantom menace the U.S Government has just dreamt up, you can't fool me. The Government is responsible for those bombings.
Moderator Action: Trolling - warned.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889