8 ms·
Osama Bin Laden told the US the reason for his fight (which is the origin of violent movements such as ISIS): American politics/interference in Muslim countries
by benevol 10y ago
Osama Bin Laden told the US the reason for his fight (which is the origin of violent movements such as ISIS): American politics/interference in Muslim countries.
Do you see the pattern?
- ZenoArrow 10y agoOne thing I find bizarre about 9/11 is that very few people seem to openly question why the World Trade Center was amongst the top targets that day. Perhaps if people looked a little deeper into what the WTO does it might help us make better decisions going forward. In the interest of balance, the situation on 9/11 wasn't completely the fault of the US. Saudi Arabia appears to have been the main driving force behind the attacks. There are a number of reasons the US avoided attacking Saudi Arabia and went into Afghanistan instead, including past political deals and Saudi Arabia being the home of Mecca, the holiest site for Muslims (if you're looking for the quickest way to radicalise Muslims, damaging Mecca would probably be it). I believe the main way for resolving the mess in the Middle East is to reduce our reliance on oil and move to locally controlled sources of energy like renewables. It's the oil money that's fuelling the conflict on both sides, if we cut that out of the equation I'm confident we would find it much easier to work towards peace in the Middle East.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago> It's the oil money that's fuelling the conflict on both sides, if we cut that out of the equation I'm confident we would find it much easier to work towards peace in the Middle East. I agree, though even if the US solved its energy problems today, we (i.e. the entire Western world) need to survive the generation or two of pretty angry Middle-Easterns seeking revenge for their destroyed homes and killed families, as well as our own politicians using that to further their agendas.
- ZenoArrow 10y agoI agree with you too, we will almost certainly be dealing with the blowback from our current activities in the Middle East for many years to come, and like you say certain politicians will try to use that for their own gain (particularly if they have financial links with the military industrial complex). However, reducing our dependence on oil would help reduce the financial incentives for war, as well as taking money out of the hands of those in the region who would buy weapons to fight (assuming that there was a similar move towards decentralised energy production in the Middle East also).
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- fennecfoxen 10y ago> ... even if the US solved its energy problems today ... Observe: We kinda did, as far as geopolitics are concerned anyway (environmentalist concerns may obviously differ). US net imports of oil are approaching zero, and our neighbor Canada has plenty more. Here the Financial Times reports on projections that the US will be a net exporter by 2028, and maybe 2019 if the price shoots up: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f6dcbd90-e2bf-11e4-aa1d-00144feab7de.html http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f6dcbd90-e2bf-11e4-aa1d-00144feab7...
- ZenoArrow 10y agoI realise you were responding to a comment about US energy independence, and in that context your point is well made, but in the wider context the US is just one western country, there are plenty of other western countries that will continue to be customers of the Saudis and other countries in the Middle East without changing how they generate energy. US exports alone will not meet the worldwide demand for oil at current rates of consumption. http://www.zdnet.com/article/us-will-not-surpass-saudi-arabias-oil-production-by-2020 http://www.zdnet.com/article/us-will-not-surpass-saudi-arabi...
- njloof 10y agoWe'd better start being nicer to Canada then. Will we see our next President holding hands with Justin Trudeau?
- nova22033 10y ago>seeking revenge for their destroyed homes and killed families, 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were saudis. The London 7/7 bombers were raised in Britain. Most of the Paris/Belgium attackers were born in Europe.
- digi_owl 10y agoI'm not sure if the wall street cronies wants to solve that, as it would basically be the execution squad for the petro-dollar.
- cm2187 10y agoCall me cynical, but I am not convinced that Israelis and Palestinians, Sunni and Shias, Kurds and Turkey, etc will suddenly make peace and start singing and dancing together as soon as we stop using oil.
- ZenoArrow 10y agoNo, it won't be an overnight change, but it's an important step towards peace in that region. People are willing to put aside their personal differences if it benefits them economically, but at the moment those economic forces are tearing them further apart.
- cm2187 10y agoEven in Palestine and Israel where there is no oil?
- ZenoArrow 10y agoYes, even there, as the violence is being fueled by other countries in the region with large ties to oil. It is not the only thing that needs to change in that region (a proper Palestinian state that could control its own borders would also be a great step in the right direction), but it's something that the average person has some control over, so instead of sitting on our hands and watching the situation get worse we can take practical steps to help out, with the added bonus of helping ourselves in the process.
- calgoo 10y agoWithout Israel expanding their borders all the time? That would be a nice thing for once. Second thing to do: Stop supporting Saudi Arabia and Israel, which both empowers the instability of the reason.
- LyndsySimon 10y ago> Without Israel expanding their borders all the time? This seems like a fairly biased statement. In all cases that spring to mind - Gaza, the Golan Heights, and the West Bank - Israeli seized and occupied territory during wars in which they were the defenders.
- enoch_r 10y agoThe WTO and WTCs have similar names, but are not otherwise related to each other.
- ZenoArrow 10y agoTIL. Thanks. So if it wasn't the headquarters for the WTO, what activity was taking place at the WTC?
- unethical_ban 10y agoTrade. Wikipedia probably has the answer but I believe it was just another set of high rise offices.
- maxlybbert 10y agoThe WTC belonged to the Port Authority -- an organization created by a compact between New York and New Jersey ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Authority_of_New_York_and_New_Jersey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Authority_of_New_York_and... ) that handles most of the public transportation between the two states. The Trade Center itself was just an office building complex, with the Port Authority one of the biggest tenants ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_%281973%E2%80%932001%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_%281973%E2%... ).
- fanf2 10y agoThere are World Trade Centres in lots of cities, affiliated with the WTC association. They are named after the NYC WTC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Centers_Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Centers_Associatio...
- EliRivers 10y agoOne thing I find bizarre about 9/11 is that very few people seem to openly question why the World Trade Center was amongst the top targets that day. Makes a lot of sense to me. NYC is an obvious top target. WTC is a big building, so high body count. Well known around the world; will have more impact than hitting some building nobody has ever heard of. Very distinctive appearance and a lot taller than the buildings around it, so good chance of actually being able to find it. Having two tall towers next to each other increases the chance of collision. Being so tall compared to the buildings around them, good chance of a lot of people seeing it happen (and recording the second one hit, so good publicity). In terms of practicality and terrorising, it ticks all the boxes.
- ZenoArrow 10y agoSure. Turns out I was mistaken about the WTC being the headquarters of the WTO. I still stand by the second and third paragraphs of my earlier comment.
- berntb 10y agoOne thing that really got bin Laden was US military bases in Saudi Arabia. Hell, countries pay to have those bases today, since when they are attacked, the US gets involved directly. The point is, the values/excuses of murderous islamists might not be that relevant...
- im3w1l 10y agoISIS is commiting genocide. They are killing and raping, and destroying monuments from eons ago. Are you saying that these are acts of legitimate self defence??!!
- nl 10y agoThat's not what they said. Don't escalate a difficult topic of discussion into an argument unnecessarily.
- im3w1l 10y agoWhat are they saying then? Because to me it really looks like he is saying that CIA did something wrong by interfering and what happened afterwards just followed necessarily from that. And that all blame lies with the CIA.
- nl 10y agoThey are relaying the fact that bin Laden used US intervention as a reason for his actions. There was no implied justification in that statement, just a statement of fact.
- im3w1l 10y agoIf you cite someone without any context to indicate the contrary, it means * You hold the same position yourself. * You think we should take So-and-so's word for it. I find your explanation of "just telling a random anecdote" unconvincing.
- nl 10y agoI think you may want to reconsider this idea. It's pretty common to quote someone in the context of discussing their actions, because it helps explain why they acted in that way. In the context of the CIA's actions, it is completely reasonable to point out that murderous barbarians like bin Laden use those actions to justify their actions, especially since that justification has proved to be influential in motivating enemies of the US.