Queue on 14/9/2010 at 00:42

---

I was just sitting here thinking that myself.

But I also think that a lot of it has to do with the perception of America -- and Americans as a whole thanks to the zealots that bark out bullshit continuously on media outlets -- that those in other nations, especially Islamic nations, have. I believe that a lot of the fanaticism that we face is the product of fear--fear that's been provoked by our own brand of fanaticism (i.e. Evangelical lunatics who want to burn the Quran just to prove that Muslims may get more than slightly annoyed by such an action).

CCCToad on 14/9/2010 at 01:39

---

If you believe what they say, the biggest reason isn't religious. It has more to do with an Imperialistic mindset in America's Foreign policy, and has become somewhat self sustaining because of our military actions. The single biggest cause of the continued insurgency is the collateral damage that is (for all intents and purposes) bound to happen in a war. Some is also provoked by our policies of torture and extradition (which has not only continued, but been expanded under Obama). Its no mystery, really. When another country comes in, tells you that you are uncivilized ignorant rubes who need to be Christianized and Westernized, and backs it up with military power, of course there's going to be a push back. And, its a repetition of America's history. Our oh-so-wise leaders decide that somebody needs to be brought in line with our values, followed by a military conflict and a pointless loss of lives and money. Is this time different? I doubt it, because the Bush administration heavily hyped the idea of "spreading democracy". In other words, we need to teach those rubes how to behave.

edit: of course, there's multiple reasons for staying in the conflict(both economic and strategic). But the "Lets civilize them savages!" one is particularly egregious because of its stupidity, arrogance, and that it was one of the main arguments used to get us into this conflict.

Muzman on 14/9/2010 at 03:42

---

I think he's talking about (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War) these sorts of numbers. If you take the civilian casualties and say give half to the US forces that makes the 3000 v 60,000 of 9/11 compared to Iraq.

But it's true; straw numbers, somewhat oversimplified given its an ongoing thing and not very comparable. (I doubt 'bombing' was the specific metric and more a figurative thing, but Afghanistan in particular seems to have most of its coalition civilian casualties dealt by bomb)

Anyway, my point was more that religion is a bit of smoke and mirrors in every sense. There's been a lot of soul searching about how someone could do something like 9/11 and some weird psych gets thrown around like its the crusades again or a religious war or they hate freedom or Jews or something.
None of this stuff seems quite sufficient. Sure it's part of the propaganda from both sides. But the nub, from what I read, is that Bin Laden is a displaced prince. The first comparson that springs to mind is William Wallace actually. That'll ruffle feathers beacause we're supposed to like him, but the cheiftain sort of chap railing against who the Royals are doing business with seems broadly comparable (there's sure to be a better comparison somewhere). It's not a war of cultures or ideologies or religions or races at heart, although we can look at it like that to some extent. Al Qaida is waging war on the United States. It's a simple old school scenario in essence and it's better not to lose sight of that (even if you have to address the myriad of complicating meta-factors to do anything about it).

theBlackman on 14/9/2010 at 09:27

---

Agreed.

Vivian on 14/9/2010 at 12:30

---

That reminds me: I need to see Four Lions.