|
Time for some sober thought and reflection
I do not intend to defend an indefensible action but as some others have pointed out in this thread, perhaps some reflection on the cause of hatred for the U.S. (no, it is not for the liberty or economic success, nor way of life) in the Middle East.
Matthew Ingram, an editorialist for the Globe and Mail in Canada (Canada's leading paper), has written this commentary: <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> Hatred of the United States is rooted in oil By MATHEW INGRAM Globe and Mail Update Although the pieces of the puzzle haven't all been put together yet, the early signs are that those responsible for the attacks in the U.S. are associated with militant Islamic leader Osama bin Laden. And what could possibly have sparked those horrific attacks? As with so many other aspects of U.S. foreign policy, much of the hatred that emanates from militant Islamic terrorist groups such as Mr. bin Laden's can be traced back to a single thing: Oil — and more specifically, the U.S. government's desire to maintain control over the vast quantities that exist in the Middle East. Mr. bin Laden, a Saudi-born businessman who left the construction business to become a financier of international Islamic terrorism, is only the latest in a series of Middle Eastern figures who have become public enemy number one as a result of U.S. oil policy. Until Mr. bin Laden came along, for example, the most hated man in the Middle East was Saddam Hussein, the leader of Iraq — who some military intelligence observers feel may be involved in assisting Mr. bin Laden with the war of terrorism against the U.S. Many political analysts believe that the war against Iraq was fought largely to ensure that the oil would continue to flow from Saudi Arabia. During the Gulf War, the U.S. stationed troops in Saudi Arabia at the request of the Saudi royal family — a move that Mr. bin Laden and other Islamic groups have said was an affront to Muslims, and one which many security experts warned against at the time, arguing that it would increase tension in the Middle East. "A lot of people advised [President George W. Bush's] father not to put U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia — to put them 'over the horizon' rather than in the heartland of Islam," said U.S. policy expert John Sigler, a professor of political science at Carleton University. While the State Department argued that the troops should be located in some other area, Prof. Sigler said, the Pentagon decided that they needed to be on the ground in Saudi Arabia for reasons of "military efficiency." Even after the Iraqi threat had eased, U.S. soldiers remained in what Mr. bin Laden's group refers to as "the land of the two holy places" (Mecca and Medina). American officials said the troops needed to remain because they would protect the Saudi Arabian government of King Fahd from Iraqi attack — but Prof. Sigler said this was largely a fiction, presumably designed to justify keeping troops to protect Saudi oilfields. Not only does the presence of non-Muslim soldiers inflame the religious passions of fundamentalist Islamic groups such as Mr. bin Laden's, but their existence is also a regular reminder that the U.S. is primarily interested in the Middle East because of its oil supplies. Much of Mr. bin Laden's anti-U.S. rhetoric — expressed in several rare interviews with Western reporters over the past few years — concerns the alleged "rape" and "plundering" of the Middle East by the United States, aimed at controlling the area's oil for the benefit of the U.S. and other Western nations. This idea is intricately intertwined with America's policy on Israel. Some Muslim groups believe that the U.S. is in league with Israel to take control of the Middle East — driven, they argue, by Israel's desire to crush all Islamic nations, combined with the American desire to control the source of the vast majority of the world's oil. Within Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, many critics of the monarchy see the U.S. as supporting a "puppet" government for its own purposes, in the same way it did in Iran. The problem for the U.S. is that anything it does to try and influence the flow or supply of oil involves a large part of the Middle East, and impacts on nations that have an abiding hatred for the U.S. — including Iraq, Iran and Libya. And despite sources of oil such as Alberta's tar sands, some forecasters expect the U.S. and the rest of the Western world are going to need even more supply from the Middle East in the future: A study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies said the world will become increasingly dependent on the Middle East over the next 20 years. The study said that oil-rich Persian Gulf nations will have to expand their oil production by almost 80 per cent over the next 20 years in order to keep up with demand, particularly demand from China and India. The potential for terrorism, supply interruptions and outright war will remain high, the study says — adding that getting more oil from Iraq will be "crucial" to meeting the world's demands, since Iraq contains 11 per cent of the world's oil reserves, second only to Saudi Arabia's 25 per cent. As long as the U.S. continues its growing demand for oil, in other words, it will be forced to deal with the troubled politics of the Middle East in one way or another, whether it wants to or not. </font> |
Another article pusblished in the Globe and Mail in the aftermath of Tuesday. See bottom of the quote for the writer's credentials and balanced and understandable point of view.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> What sort of people did this? Those marked by despair and unhealed wounds, says author ERNA PARIS By ERNA PARIS In a culture that ignores the past, Tuesday's devastating attacks on the military and financial nerve centres of Western power are portrayed as having emerged out of a void. Today, the finger seems to point to Saddam Hussein, or to someone called Osama bin Laden. Saddam is familiar, but just who is Osama bin Laden? In photos, he is rather handsome. We are told that he is a fanatic and that he is protected by another group of fanatics called the Taliban who live in Afghanistan and wear turbans. But there is a thread that connects us to Mr. bin Laden and to other haters of the West. Here are two strands. Picture the world in 1955, a decade after the end of the Second World War and the Holocaust (the attempted genocide that will, as the years pass, increasingly colour Western perceptions of the 20th century). The ancient territories of the Middle East have recently undergone a fatal change: The State of Israel is just seven years old, but its arrival has effectively displaced most of the Arabs who had lived for centuries on that tiny sliver of land. The Palestinian refugee camps are already in place. And they are breeding a generation of angry children nourished on stories of family loss and exile. In Europe and North America, the postwar West is ascendant. The special relationship between Israel and the United States is already firm, largely because the former is perceived by the latter as a geographical and ideological bulwark in the emerging Cold War struggle. In Western Europe, especially Germany, what matters are the pleasures of a booming economy. Then in April, 1955, a key event occurs: A conference whose echo will be heard across many decades is held in Bandung, Indonesia. Delegates from 29 African and Asian countries (representing half the world's population) come to discuss racism, nationalism, and the struggle against colonialism. Britain has been separating from its colonies relatively peacefully, but France's eight-year war to hold onto Indochina (Vietnam) has just ended. Its war to maintain control over Algeria is still ahead. The meeting concludes with a statement about economic and cultural co-operation, human rights, and anti-imperialist self-determination, but the single common theme among the Arab delegations is hatred of Israel. The Iraqi representative calls Zionism "one of the blackest, most sombre chapters in human history." An Arab-sponsored resolution against Israel is one of the few that everyone can agree on. Israel, the conference concludes, is a base for imperialism and a threat to world peace. Bandung gave birth to the idea of the Third World and concentrated efforts to achieve stability that continue to this day (they were visible in the buildup to the recent Durban conference). At the same time, Bandung was the first comprehensive, international opposition to Israel, Zionism, and eventually to the entire West -- an ideology that would soon mobilize elements of the radical right as well as the Marxist left in terrorist movements that paralysed parts of Western Europe in the 1970s and 1980s. Otto Ernst Remer, an ex-Nazi who lived in Cairo after the war, clearly expressed the developing anti-Zionist/anti-Western thinking in an 1980s interview: "There is a problem concerning who holds the real power in the United States," he said. "Without a doubt, the Zionists control Wall Street, and as a result, the Middle East foments war." Since he voiced these words, the equation has been repeated: Zionism + Wall Street + U.S. military power = the enemy. Though we don't yet have all the evidence that this is what drove Tuesday's suicidal attackers to murder thousands of innocent people, the likelihood is high. In a global world united by instant technologies -- a world that ought to be increasingly rational -- how is it that a culture of terror and martyrdom continues into the 21st century? The easy response is to dismiss those who choose to die as fanatics. But a deeper answer may emerge from the unfinished business first articulated at Bandung. North Americans tend to think little about colonialism, but its aftermath has not yet been resolved. Another answer is despair. In 1987, I travelled to the West Bank to research my book (The Garden and the Gun) about the shifting ideologies of Israel. In the dusty Balata refugee camp, I encountered young Palestinians who were enraged or numbed by the thwarted circumstances of their lives. I remember their rousing, well-rehearsed chorus of "Death to Israel." And I shall never forget the boy of 18 who said, "Our daily life is what you see here. We have no hope. . . . Maybe death is that way out." Nor shall I forget the soft-spoken professor at An Najah University near Nablus who said, "I believe that if the Palestinians continue to live as deprived as they are now, the younger, more radical generation will initiate a new round of terrible violence." A few months after I left Israel, the first intifada began. Now that violence has evolved into suicide bombings -- martyrdom in the war against the hated West. Such martyrs struck again this week. Who is Osama bin Laden -- this man who can (we presume) command young people to die for his cause? And when the West retaliates against him or against others, will anything really change? If we paid more attention to the currents of the past that shape the present, would we have been less surprised than Tuesday revealed us to be? Erna Paris's latest book, Long Shadows: Truth, Lies and History, won the Pearson Non-Fiction Prize, the inaugural Shaughnessy Cohen Prize for Political Writing, and the Jewish Book Award for History. </font> |
I thought the first article was pretty bad. It quotes from some self annointed "expert" from "carleton university" (what?)
This fellow dismisses out of hand the notion that stationing our troops in saudi arabia had any strategic purpose. He derides the idea that attacking from Saudi Arabia provided any "military efficiency". Oh yeah, how are we going to invade Iraq and Kuwait -- only from the sea? I guess this fellow does not comprehend the utility of tanks and land based artillery in an invasion. Some expert. He talks about invading from Saudi being a source of anger amongst the arabs, well what alternative would please them more, coming in from Israel? Turkey had refused using them as a base of operations, Syria, well forget it. Another blinder of the article is its dismissiveness of the threats against the Saudi regime, which are in fact very real. Why else do you think they are so eager to have us there, and buy so many of our weapons? There are plenty of people who want to topple the Saudi regime, and I don't think us being there is the primary reason. By the way, what is the alternative to us being there, having some extremists govt take over with massive oil money to trash us? Oh great. Another bogus implication of the article is that if we weren't in Saudi Aarabia, bin laden and his ilk wouldn't target us -- yeah right! The article doesn't even mention our support of Israel as a complaint against us, nor us being the "great satan" and decadent non-islamic westerners in general. The article blames our "oil policy" for everything, but doesn't propose an alternative policy that would turn the world into a terrorist free utopia. I would infer that the proposed solution is for us to not be reliant on Saudi Oil, perhaps by building huge numbers of nuclear plants and radically increasing domestic production. Or maybe the author didn't think it through that far... An interesting oversight of the article is failing to mention that Bin Laden and his family are saudi, his billionaire relatives still in the country and running much of the economy... |
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by benoit: I thought the first article was pretty bad. It quotes from some self annointed "expert" from "carleton university" (what?) </font> <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> This fellow dismisses out of hand the notion that stationing our troops in saudi arabia had any strategic purpose. He derides the idea that attacking from Saudi Arabia provided any "military efficiency". Oh yeah, how are we going to invade Iraq and Kuwait -- only from the sea? I guess this fellow does not comprehend the utility of tanks and land based artillery in an invasion. Some expert. He talks about invading from Saudi being a source of anger amongst the arabs, well what alternative would please them more, coming in from Israel? </font> <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> Turkey had refused using them as a base of operations, Syria, well forget it. </font> <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> Another blinder of the article is its dismissiveness of the threats against the Saudi regime, which are in fact very real. </font> <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> Why else do you think they are so eager to have us there, and buy so many of our weapons? </font> <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> There are plenty of people who want to topple the Saudi regime, and I don't think us being there is the primary reason. </font> <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> By the way, what is the alternative to us being there, having some extremists govt take over with massive oil money to trash us? Oh great. </font> <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> Another bogus implication of the article is that if we weren't in Saudi Aarabia, bin laden and his ilk wouldn't target us -- yeah right! </font> <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> The article doesn't even mention our support of Israel as a complaint against us </font> <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> The article blames our "oil policy" for everything, but doesn't propose an alternative policy that would turn the world into a terrorist free utopia. I would infer that the proposed solution is for us to not be reliant on Saudi Oil, perhaps by building </font> <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> An interesting oversight of the article is failing to mention that Bin Laden and his family are saudi, his billionaire relatives still in the country and running much of the economy...</font> |
The US CIA trained and supported the mujahadeen (sp?) in Afghanistan during their fight against the Soviets in the 1980s. The mujahadeen themselves were divided into two main ethnic/cultural groups, one more similar to Iran/Persians and the other more similar to Pakistan, with Bin Laden aligned more closely with the latter group.
The CIA also taught the mujahadeen the ideology that theirs was a just cause, in that they were fighting and kicking out the occupiers of a Muslim country. This ideology turns out to be the central rallying point for Bin Laden today. The US troops in Saudi Arabia are essentially occupying the country, home of the two most holy places in Islam (as well as a hell of a lot of oil). The US are occupiers like the Soviets in his eye and are thus the enemy. |
Sorry I hadn't heard of the university.
Turkey was asked to be a land base for us and explicitly refused. So again we are back to the "experts" absurd claim that being in Saudi Arabia served no "military efficiency". Since his thesis rests fully on this point, it rather collapses rapidly from there. It was a nice try. The other flawed point that remains is the idea that if we didn't have a presence in Saudi Arabia that Bin Laden and ilk wouldn't hate us. Doh. You say Iraq's military has been shattered, I'd say he's a proven threat who openly seeks the downfall of the Saudi regime. Our being there is the best deterrant, and our presence is radically reduced from war levels. I admit our being there doesn't help the average Saudi vote, but them being toppled by radicals probably wouldn't get them a vote either, would it? The idea that the primary threat to the Saudis is internal is interesting? Lot of wealthy people with strong feelings I'm sure. Same thing outside of the country, though. By the way yes Iran is a threat, a factory and haven for the most extreme and successful terrorists in the world. They're building reactors, so maybe they'll be more of a threat later on. The theocracy still calls us great satan, and would love to topple the Saudi royal family. But the average people are pretty mellow these days. I agree it is good to minimize foreign involvements, and would say increasing domestic oil and nuclear sources is a good way to do that. Would have been nice if the author mentioned excessive reliance on foreign oil and some alternatives instead of vaguely blaming "oil policy" without a proposed solution. The real irony is that the people most vocal about getting us out of the middle east, are often the same ones sabotaging our efforts to increase domestic oil production and nuclear power. |
People all over the world, including in our own country, may very well take offense at a variety of actions of the United States. However, we must be governed by our own conscience and act as we decide we must.
Certainly you can't consider the terrorist acts of this week an acceptable response to any perceived affront? Entire organizations that commit atricities such as this must be rooted out and destroyed. That is the war we are now in. |
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by benoit: Sorry I hadn't heard of the university. </font> <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> Turkey was asked to be a land base for us and explicitly refused. So again we are back to the "experts" absurd claim that being in Saudi Arabia served no "military efficiency". Since his thesis rests fully on this point, it rather collapses rapidly from there. It was a nice try. </font> <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> The other flawed point that remains is the idea that if we didn't have a presence in Saudi Arabia that Bin Laden and ilk wouldn't hate us. Doh. </font> <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> You say Iraq's military has been shattered, I'd say he's a proven threat who openly seeks the downfall of the Saudi regime. Our being there is the best deterrant, and our presence is radically reduced from war levels. </font> <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> I admit our being there doesn't help the average Saudi vote, but them being toppled by radicals probably wouldn't get them a vote either, would it? </font> Right now, I would imagine most of the Arab and Islamic world (and a lot of others outside it too) see the Gulf war fought solely to secure a cheap source of oil and not freedom. I (facetiously) love the popular notion than that is was for freedom for U.S. citizens. Freedom to have cheap oil at best. <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> The idea that the primary threat to the Saudis is internal is interesting? Lot of wealthy people with strong feelings I'm sure. Same thing outside of the country, though. </font> <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> By the way yes Iran is a threat, a factory and haven for the most extreme and successful terrorists in the world. They're building reactors, so maybe they'll be more of a threat later on. </font> <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> The theocracy still calls us great satan, and would love to topple the Saudi royal family. But the average people are pretty mellow these days. </font> <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> Would have been nice if the author mentioned excessive reliance on foreign oil and some alternatives instead of vaguely blaming "oil policy" without a proposed solution. </font> <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> The real irony is that the people most vocal about getting us out of the middle east, are often the same ones sabotaging our efforts to increase domestic oil production and nuclear power.</font> |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 2:05 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.