PDA

View Full Version : Why Are They at War With Us?



kkbou
01-12-2010, 12:31 PM
Why Are They at War With Us?
Posted By Patrick J. Buchanan On January 11, 2010 @ 11:00 pm

“We are at war. We are at war against al-Qaeda, a far-reaching network of violence and hatred that attacked us on 9/11, that killed nearly 3,000 innocent people, and that is plotting to strike us again.”
Thus did Barack Obama clear the air as to whether we are at war, and with whom and why.
Following his remarks, during a White House briefing by National Security Council aide John Brennan, Helen Thomas asked a follow-up question to which we almost never hear an answer:
Why is al-Qaeda at war with us? What is its motivation?

It was Osama bin Laden himself, in his declaration of war in 1998, published in London, who gave al-Qaeda’s reasons for war:
First, the U.S. military presence on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia. Second, U.S. sanctions causing terrible suffering among the Iraqi people. Third, U.S. support for Israel’s dispossession of the Palestinians. “All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on God, his Messenger, and Muslims,” said Osama.
He began his fatwa quoting the Koran: “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war.”
To Osama, we started the war. Muslims, the ulema, must fight because America, with her “brutal crusade occupation of the [Arabian] Peninsula” and support for “the Jews’ petty state” and “occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there” was waging war upon the Islamic world.
Terrorism, the direct killing of civilians for political ends, is al-Qaeda’s unconventional tactic, but its war aims are quite conventional.
Al-Qaeda is fighting a religious war against apostates and pagans in their midst, a civil war against collaborators of the Crusaders and an anti-colonial war to drive us out of the Dar al-Islam. On Sept. 11, they were over here – because we are over there.
Nothing justifies the massacre of Sept. 11. But these are the political goals behind the 9/11 attack, and this is why Islamists fare well in elections in the Middle East. Tens of millions of Muslims, who may despise terrorism, identify with the causes for which Osama declared war – liberation of Muslim peoples from pro-American autocrats and Israeli occupiers.

Americans are being killed for the reasons Osama said we should be killed – not because of who we are, but because of where we are and what we do.
Consider. America lost 4,000 soldiers in six years in Iraq, with 30,000 wounded. Yet not one American of the 125,000 soldiers in Iraq was killed in December. Why not? Because we no longer conduct raids, patrol streets, kick down doors, and pat down suspects. We have ended our combat operations, withdrawn to desert bases, and seem anxious to go home. When we stopped fighting and killing them, they stopped fighting and killing us.
Most Americans today appear content to let Shia and Sunni, Arab and Kurd decide the future of Iraq. And if they cannot settle their quarrels without a civil-sectarian war, why should their war be our war?
According to Gen. Barry McCaffrey, we must now prepare for 300 to 500 dead and wounded every month in Afghanistan by summer.
Why are the Taliban killing our soldiers? Because we threw them out of power, took over their country, and imposed the Hamid Karzai regime, and our troops, some 100,000 by fall, are the force preventing them from recapturing their country. We will bleed in Afghanistan as long as we are in Afghanistan.
But if, as Obama said, “we are at war with al-Qaeda,” why are we fighting Taliban when al-Qaeda is in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and North Africa?
Hamas has used terrorism, but not against us. Hezbollah has used terrorism, but not against us since the bombing of the Marine barracks, a quarter-century ago. And our Marines were attacked in Lebanon because we were in Lebanon, intervening in their civil-sectarian war. Had the Marines not been sent into the midst of that war, they would not have been targeted.
When Ronald Reagan withdrew them, the attacks stopped.
Like Europe’s Thirty Years’ War – among Germans, French, Czechs, Dutch, Danes, Swedes, Scots, and English, Catholics and Protestants, kings, princes, and emperors – the Muslim world is roiled by conflicts between pro-Western autocrats and Islamic militants, Sunni and Shia, modernists and obscurantists, nationalities, tribes and clans. The outcome of these wars, the future of their lands – is that not their business, and not ours?

The Muslims stayed out of our Thirty Years’ War. Perhaps we would do well to get out of theirs. But as long as we take sides in their wars, those we fight and kill over there will come to kill us over here.
This is payback for our intervention. This is the price of empire. This is the cost of the long war.

Gotta hand it to him, he ain't shy.

Atlantic Friend
01-12-2010, 12:35 PM
I like Buchanan's approach. He's not shy indeed, and it's always interesting to hear his point of view even when one doesn't agree with him. It's rather disgraceful the way he got slandered by some of the Republican radicals.

Kaplanr
01-12-2010, 12:45 PM
He simplifies it all too much so it fits into his neat bundle. If I agree with him on anything it's that our goals are too lofty and unrealistic. Nation building may have a basis in practical reality, but not when we overlay our ideologies (wonderful as they might be) on societies and states that don't have the cultural experiences to apply them.

Atlantic Friend
01-12-2010, 12:49 PM
Every politician simplifies the issues. The rhetoric that led to the war in Iraq was simplified, the one used by those who opposed it was simplified. When all you get is 50-60 lines to present a complex idea, I don't think there's any other choice than simplifying it.

kamaz
01-12-2010, 01:00 PM
a beyond-words retarded op-ed piece.

we should stay out of 'their' civil war. Right Pat, just like we shouldve stayed out of the that 'European' civil war back in '39. Nevermind that its not a geographical or continental war, its a global war of ideas, of values, its not just 'their' war. How many homeland terror attacks does it take to understand that you cant be isolationist in regards to militant Islam.

The Takfiri ideology rooted in Wahhabism is aimed at subduing the entire world under their brand of Islam, and the steps to that path are to take down any government and society that doesnt fit into their definition. This isnt simply a border-war or an ideological difference that is usually a casus belli, but a fight for a way of life, Western civilization/Enlightment vs. Backward Reactionary Islam.

I dont understand why anyone still takes this Paleocon's views seriously.

Atlantic Friend
01-12-2010, 01:19 PM
a beyond-words retarded op-ed piece.

we should stay out of 'their' civil war. Right Pat, just like we shouldve stayed out of the that 'European' civil war back in '39.

That was rather what the US was doing back in '39. And back in '40. And it would have been another peaceful year in '41 if those pesky Europeans and their Japanese allies hadn't decided to take the war to the US.

okiebugg
01-12-2010, 01:27 PM
He simplifies it all too much so it fits into his neat bundle. If I agree with him on anything it's that our goals are too lofty and unrealistic. Nation building may have a basis in practical reality, but not when we overlay our ideologies (wonderful as they might be) on societies and states that don't have the cultural experiences to apply them.

Quoted for truth and accuracy

I also question so-called missionaries bringing religion to the unwashed masses. Not to confuse me with atheism, it is just a rhetorical question

I have never understood all of these religious entities spending $$$$$ to bring Christ to people who were perfectly happy and normal under their normal cultural conditions living a life that fundamentilists see as imperfect without some form of the Messiah being a part of their everyday lives.

I am a Christian, attend weekly services, and am a believer

brainplay
01-12-2010, 02:13 PM
We tried isolationalism. It didn't work out. And now that technology and made this a globally connected world it really won't work out. Mr. Buchanan is nuts if he thinks we should remove all Western presence from these countries whether peaceful or not. Extremist like bin-Laden will find other reasons to make war on any non-believer. Much like 9/11 or the Madrid train bombing they'll just pool their resources and eventually bring the war to us in large symbolic ways. One can only speculate on what would happen if a few of them went on a road trip like the so called "Beltway snipers" did back in 02'.



I also question so-called missionaries bringing religion to the unwashed masses. Not to confuse me with atheism, it is just a rhetorical question

I have never understood all of these religious entities spending $$$$$ to bring Christ to people who were perfectly happy and normal under their normal cultural conditions living a life that fundamentilists see as imperfect without some form of the Messiah being a part of their everyday lives

Because religios people see the good in their religion and want to spread it among others. Unlike the crusades (or some modern day Muslim locations), no one is holding a sword over their head to join. Its free choice whether is Christianity or Islam. Whats your beef with that? Sure, it can be annoying just like an advertisement. But sometimes people are looking for a religion...or a new telephone plan. You avatar is appropriate.

sheikhness
01-12-2010, 02:55 PM
ah, hear hear...

wait... what about oil?

how could he forget that little detail?

Atlantic Friend
01-12-2010, 02:55 PM
Isolationism is one thing, assuming the responsibility for building up nations worldwide is another.

Sierra10
01-12-2010, 04:01 PM
ah, hear hear...

wait... what about oil?

how could he forget that little detail?

It is funny that not once does he mention that.

Sootan
01-12-2010, 09:10 PM
It is funny that not once does he mention that.

That was like the 500 kgs gorilla in the room.

budgie
01-12-2010, 10:14 PM
We tried isolationalism. It didn't work out. And now that technology and made this a globally connected world it really won't work out. Mr. Buchanan is nuts if he thinks we should remove all Western presence from these countries whether peaceful or not. Extremist like bin-Laden will find other reasons to make war on any non-believer.

Too true - except that if the West leaves the Muslims alone altogether their first priority will be making war on each other. Buchanan is spot on with his reasons for their anger, but it still doesn't seem possible to disengage from the middle east altogether. In today's world, connected by trade, alliances and communications networks - and yes, oil - , it's not possible to have nothing to do with them.

It's not possible to solve the Palestine problem without Western engagement - not possible to stop Pakistan or Lebanon sliding into chaos, not possible to bring Arab dictatorships into the fold, not possible get Afghanistan on its feet.

Sure we could always reduce involvement, limit interference, but we'll always be there, as much as there are Muslim immigrants in the west. And if we're always there, then there'll always be a bin laden to hate us. This is a good reason not to stop 'fighting' but also the reason we may never 'win'.

okiebugg
01-12-2010, 11:34 PM
[/QUOTE]Because religios people see the good in their religion and want to spread it among others. Unlike the crusades (or some modern day Muslim locations), no one is holding a sword over their head to join. Its free choice whether is Christianity or Islam. Whats your beef with that? Sure, it can be annoying just like an advertisement. But sometimes people are looking for a religion...or a new telephone plan. You avatar is appropriate.[/QUOTE]

They religious people want to spread it to others who have no concept of religion. I agree that no one is holding a sword over their heads, but taking advantage of ignorance is not an excuse.

I "have no beef with that" just asking a rhetorical question.

Are you the avatar police?????????? I see many avatars using the fvck word, and many other such NSFW symbols and things that I deem inappropriate, but do not complain. You sir may stick IT in your ear

Kilgor
01-12-2010, 11:54 PM
Last time I checked Islamic extremists were terrorist acts all around the globe and against many societies, not just the west.

SoSo
01-13-2010, 12:52 PM
Why are they at war with us? Because we won't do what they want. And Pat Buchanan seems to suggest that we should, for the sake of peace. Of course, it's easy to end any war that way, by simply quitting the fight, abandoning friendly regimes to their fate and bringing all our troops home. It's easy to have peace, if you're willing to desert your allies, evcuate your military bases in the region and do whatever else your enemy wants you to do.

Sootan
01-14-2010, 03:33 AM
Why are they at war with us? Because we won't do what they want. And Pat Buchanan seems to suggest that we should, for the sake of peace. Of course, it's easy to end any war that way, by simply quitting the fight, abandoning friendly regimes to their fate and bringing all our troops home. It's easy to have peace, if you're willing to desert your allies, evcuate your military bases in the region and do whatever else your enemy wants you to do.
Or because they don't want to do what you want?

sheikhness
01-14-2010, 03:42 AM
Or because they don't want to do what you want?

It's a combination of two, the western greed and arrogance has awaken the genie of Wahabism, but really there was never any chance for it lay asleep because the have-nots will always want what have's have if that makes sense, and will fight to get it until the sides are reversed ad nauseum - to quote Cohen brothers "this is how the human comedy keeps perpetuating itself".