Anniversary Of 9/11

[Dotini]

...but the successful blowback/revenge was entirely deserved and caused by our actions?

Are you still accusing me of "agreeing with Islamic terrorism"?

 

[Vegard]

She was askin' for it.

Do you know what a factor is?

 

[Danoff]

Are you still accusing me of "agreeing with Islamic terrorism"?

I'm trying to figure out where you're drawing the line. You've basically stated three times now that it's our fault, and once you edited a post after the fact to say that you "don't" agree with terrorism. I'm having trouble reconciling that.

If I had to guess, I'd guess that you're trying to say that we're partially to blame. But I don't want to put words in your mouth.

If that's true though, exactly to what extent are we to blame. Specifically which of our "meddling" acts places blame on us, and what would be a proportionate response?

This is the problem isn't it? You want to say that we're guilty, but you don't want to say that we should be punished. You want to say that our actions have brought this upon us, but you want to simultaneously denounce the terrorism itself. I suppose you want them to turn the other cheek? You know that's not fair.

Who is guilty, who is responsible, for what are they responsible, and what is the sentence. You seem to want to avoid soiling your hands by engaging at that level, and yet here we are - between a rock and hard place. You can't just flop back and forth saying everyone is guilty and nobody should act.

Do you know what a factor is?

I believe the statement was a "major" factor. I'll ask of you the same thing I asked above, to exactly what extent are we guilty, who specifically is responsible, and what is the sentence?

 

[Dotini]

everyone is guilty and nobody should act.

Snappy, I like it. It's a more modern way of saying “He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone"

 

[Vegard]

I believe the statement was a "major" factor.

A major factor is still a factor - an influence that contributes to a result.

As for the rest of your question, I never said anything about guilt or responsibility. I only tried to bring attention to the fact that ignoring the consequences of imperialism, and later exploitation and meddling, when trying to understand the conflict is a mistake.

Of course, I'm assuming that you're trying to understand the conflict objectively. Perhaps that was a mistake?

 

[Danoff]

Snappy, I like it. It's a more modern way of saying “He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone"

Not exactly what you said. When it was pointed out that stones were thrown, you responded with "well we sinned".

A major factor is still a factor - an influence that contributes to a result.

As for the rest of your question, I never said anything about guilt or responsibility. I only tried to bring attention to the fact that ignoring the consequences of imperialism, and later exploitation and meddling, when trying to understand the conflict is a mistake.

Sorry, gotta get super concrete here. Who is the imperialist in this case, and what actions specifically are you saying constitute imperialism? What exactly are you saying are the consequences of imperialism? Who exploited what, specifically, and what are the consequences of that exploitation? Who meddled where, specifically, and what are the consequences of that meddling?

I don't need a treatise, one example would suffice.

 

[Vegard]

Sorry, gotta get super concrete here. Who is the imperialist in this case, and what actions specifically are you saying constitute imperialism? What exactly are you saying are the consequences of imperialism? Who exploited what, specifically, and what are the consequences of that exploitation? Who meddled where, specifically, and what are the consequences of that meddling?

If you don't know the history you're going to need a lot more information than I am prepared to give you here.

I suggest you start by looking into how the British empire and colonial France carved up the middle east during WW1 and then follow the oily path that leads to the present day.

 

[Danoff]

If you don't know the history you're going to need a lot more information than I am prepared to give you here.

I suggest you start by looking into how the British empire and colonial France carved up the middle east during WW1 and then follow the oily path that leads to the present day.

Ok, so you just don't want to answer the question? I have a decent if not super extensive knowledge of history, including of the middle east. I want to know exactly what you're thinking, apparently you're not actually thinking about anything in particular? Or were you thinking that 9/11 was in response to WW1?

 

[Dotini]

Or were you thinking that 9/11 was in response to WW1?

Distilled, I think bin Laden's stated reasons were:
1) US troops in stationed Saudi Arabia
2) US bias in favor of Israel in the Middle East
3) US sanctions against Iraq


From Wikipedia:

In Osama Bin Laden's November 2002 "Letter to America",[5][6] he explicitly stated that al-Qaeda's motives for their attacks include: Western support for attacking Muslims in Somalia, supporting Russian atrocities against Muslims in Chechnya, supporting the Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir, the Jewish aggression against Muslims in Lebanon, the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia,[6][7][8] US support of Israel,[9][10] and sanctions against Iraq.[11]

 

[TenEightyOne]

If you don't know the history you're going to need a lot more information than I am prepared to give you here.

I suggest you start by looking into how the British empire and colonial France carved up the middle east during WW1 and then follow the oily path that leads to the present day.

He'll also need a lot more information than you seem to have... you need to involve many more European courts and go back even further - at least to Georg Ludwig of Hanover and easily beyond. "Cuz oil" (or Energy Security) is a valid sphere of discussion for modern times but it conveniently ignores so much previous history that it's useless in a wider context.

 

[Vegard]

Ok, so you just don't want to answer the question? I have a decent if not super extensive knowledge of history, including of the middle east. I want to know exactly what you're thinking, apparently you're not actually thinking about anything in particular? Or were you thinking that 9/11 was in response to WW1?

I gave you the name of two imperial powers and the prize they were after.
The fight for control over the oil and gas in the middle east can't be ignored, in my opinion.
If you think it's irrelevant, that's your mistake. Again, my opinion.

You seem to think along the lines of G.W. Bush: "Either you're with us, or you're with the terrorist."

you need to involve many more European courts and go back even further - at least to Georg Ludwig of Hanover and easily beyond. "Cuz oil" (or Energy Security) is a valid sphere of discussion for modern times but it conveniently ignores so much previous history that it's useless in a wider context.

One would possibly have to include every major development since the dawn of civilization, and probably go even further. It's not pratical to do that here, nor am I interested in doing that when the other guy doesn't seem interested in any other view that his own.

When trying to understand what could motivate these individuals today though, I don't think that marginalizing the question of the enormous energy resources, and the fight for control over them, is helpful.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I gave you the name of two imperial powers and the prize they were after.
The fight for control over the oil and gas in the middle east can't be ignored, in my opinion.
If you think it's irrelevant, that's your mistake. Again, my opinion.

I haven't said it's irrelevant - I was trying to lead you to the view that it's far from the whole picture or an original driver.

You seem to think along the lines of G.W. Bush: "Either you're with us, or you're with the terrorist."

I think he actually said "tourist"?

 

[Vegard]

I haven't said it's irrelevant - I was trying to lead you to the view that it's far from the whole picture or an original driver.

That was a response to Dotini, not you.

In terms of understanding the conflict as a whole, it's less of a factor that when trying to understand the motivation for the
current wave of terror attacks against western countries. I can agree with that. Maybe you can agree that in terms of motivation for the fundamentalists, the struggle for control of natural resources, and all the bloodshed it has brought with it, shouldn't be ignored as a major factor.

I'm not trying to pass judgment on the west, I'm trying to get an unbiased view of the situation.

 

[Danoff]

Distilled, I think bin Laden's stated reasons were:
1) US troops in stationed Saudi Arabia
2) US bias in favor of Israel in the Middle East
3) US sanctions against Iraq


From Wikipedia:

In Osama Bin Laden's November 2002 "Letter to America",[5][6] he explicitly stated that al-Qaeda's motives for their attacks include: Western support for attacking Muslims in Somalia, supporting Russian atrocities against Muslims in Chechnya, supporting the Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir, the Jewish aggression against Muslims in Lebanon, the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia,[6][7][8] US support of Israel,[9][10] and sanctions against Iraq.[11]

Ok, now we're talking. So which of those things sentenced 3000 people to death on 9/11? Let's take them in order.

Troops stationed in Saudi Arabia. Ok, so we did have troops stationed in Saudi Arabia after the first Gulf War, and it looks like the Saudi government was cooperating with us and actually supplying additional military presence. Osama was upset that we were apparently too close to Mecca for his liking. So, what do we think? Was this "meddling" (cooperating with the Saudi government in enforcing no-fly zones following Iraqi aggression in the first gulf war), and being too close to Mecca, a justification for the murder of 3000 people and maiming of thousands more? I'm going with "no" on that one.

Next...

US bias in favor of Israel in the Middle East. Specifically, the creation of Israel as a state was cited. So, let's take a look, which of the 3000 people killed on 9/11 were responsible for the creation of Israel? Was the creation of Israel a capital offense? We can go further into this one if you like, it's a long road.

Next...

US sanctions against Iraq. This appears to be US enforcement of UN resolution 661 and 687? So, Iraq invaded Kuwait, and the US and UN came to Kuwait's defense. Following that, sanctions were imposed, including sanctions aimed at eliminating the chemical weapons Saddam had used against his people. So, what do we think, was this a good reason to kill 3000 people and maim thousands more? Is the US guilty of a capital offense?

Which of these justifies Osama? Which of these constitutes a "sin" on the part of the US. I'm not saying they were all a good idea either (I'm also not saying they're not). I'm not passing judgement on the intelligence of the acts themselves. I'm diving into whether or not those acts were justified based on the events that transpired before them. The ends never justify the means, the beginnings justify the means. What do you think? Good reasons for terrorism on 9/11? Or an excuse to wage a religious holy war because Christians were too close to the Muslim holy land?

I gave you the name of two imperial powers and the prize they were after.
The fight for control over the oil and gas in the middle east can't be ignored, in my opinion.
If you think it's irrelevant, that's your mistake. Again, my opinion.

You seem to think along the lines of G.W. Bush: "Either you're with us, or you're with the terrorist."

Have a shot at responding to any of the above, or responding with anything over than vague generalities.

 

[Vegard]

Have a shot at responding to any of the above, or responding with anything over than vague generalities.

Wow, you're really dug in deep in the trenches aren't you?

Since you're mostly responding with questions, and since you're not at all providing any meaningful contribution to the discussion I think we're done here. You've most certainly convinced me that you are nothing but and ideologial warrior.

Good luck with that.

 

[Danoff]

Wow, you're really dug in deep in the trenches aren't you?

Since you're mostly responding with questions, and since you're not at all providing any meaningful contribution to the discussion I think we're done here. You've most certainly convinced me that you are nothing but and ideologial warrior.

Good luck with that.

I'm not the one making claims I can't be bothered to substantiate. Why is it "dug in deep in the trenches" to ask people for justification for why they think mass-murder was provoked or even warranted?

 

[Vegard]

I'm not the one making claims I can't be bothered to substantiate.

You said you knew the history reasonably well. Can I assume that you know of the Sykes Picot agreement?

Short video by the economist:


A longer video by the Khan academy:


If you have an alternate view, perhaps you could present it.

ask people for justification for why they think mass-murder was provoked or even warranted?

Where did I say it was?

 

[Danoff]

You said you knew the history reasonably well. Can I assume that you know of the Sykes Picot agreement?
...
If you have an alternate view, perhaps you could present it.

Depends on how much you expect me to "know", sure you can assume it.

You want me to present an alternate view to what? I haven't watched the videos, are you saying that your view is in the videos? Or do you have a conclusion that you'd like to draw that has something to do with the Sykes-Picot agreement? What exactly are you trying to say.

 

[Vegard]

What exactly are you trying to say.

That my initial comment; western imperial meddling and exploitation during WW1, and the continued exploitation and meddling, by additional actors in more recent times, should be considered as a major factor when trying to understand the motivation for the current wave of radical terrorist; isn't a radical one.

If you have an alternative analysis, please present it. If not, don't bother responding.

 

[Danoff]

That my initial comment; western imperial meddling and exploitation during WW1, and the continued exploitation and meddling, by additional actors in more recent times, should be considered as a major factor when trying to understand the motivation for the current wave of radical terrorist; isn't a radical one.

If you have an alternative analysis, please present it. If not, don't bother responding.

That wasn't your original statement, but it's fine if that's what you meant. You can just say "my initial position" or something that looks less quotey if you're going to not quote yourself but italicize the statement to make it look like you're quoting yourself. Rather than providing you with something to throw stones at, I'm still analyzing your claims above.

Your rephrased initial comment is not very clear. Are you putting words in the mouths of radical terrorists and saying the the terrorists would say "western imperial meddling and exploitation" is the motivation for their actions. I'm sure they would. Or are you saying that in your opinion, western imperial meddling and exploitation is a motivation for their actions. If you don't see the difference between those two statements, I'll point it out for you. In the first case, you're not making the statement the western imperial meddling and exploitation necessarily exists, and in second case, you are making the statement that western imperial meddling and exploitation exists.

I'll assume, for a moment, that you think that western imperial meddling and exploitation both during WW1 and "continued" meddling and exploitation by "additional actors" in "more recent times" exists. If that's true, please be specific about what you think that is (I acknowledge that you've pointed out the Sykes Picot agreement as an example during WW1).

Since I don't know what you're referring to in "more recent times", I'll just take for granted that you're correct (I doubt it, but I'll take it for granted). So what can we do about our recent meddling and exploitation? It has occurred right? Shall we declare our guilt? Who among us is guilty for this exploitation? Bush Sr.? People who voted for Bush Sr? I didn't vote for Bush Sr., am I guilty of meddling? All US persons who were adults when Bush Sr. was elected? What about people who voted for Bush Sr. who had no idea that Bush Sr. would go to war (sorta) against Iraq? Even Bush Sr. couldn't have known that would happen when he was elected. Are we all responsible for every action taken by our president? Even those of us who did not vote for that president? Even those of us who would never have agreed with that president?

Let's circle back to my original statement - which was the religion is the main motivation for Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism (it's in the name). Muslims believe they have a holy claim to their holy land. Anything we do, or have ever done, or apparently anyone with the same skin color who has ever done anything remotely related to the holy land who is not a Muslim is guilty of a capital offense (to fundamentalist terrorists). They (terrorists) want the Jews wiped out of existence for being in Israel. They want the rest of us to convert to Islam and enact Sharia law (the particular flavor depending on the particular terrorist), or we should all be put to death. That is the long and short of their demands.

I don't actually need to know anything beyond the above to understand their motivation. So here's what we have:

What motivates the terrorists? Religion
Are "we" guilty of crimes against them?
- Specifically what are "we" accused of, and on what basis do we declare them crimes?
- Specifically which individuals share guilt in those crimes, and on what basis do we declare that guilt?
- Specifically what sentence is justified based on that guilt?

We could go on with questions like:
What's the best way to combat terrorism?
How can we slow down recruitment?

But, in this discussion, we haven't gotten there.

 

[Vegard]

Or are you saying that in your opinion, western imperial meddling and exploitation is a motivation for their actions.

I'm saying that it's very likely that the terrorists see it that way, yes.

please be specific about what you think that is

Well, to name a few, the overthrow of Mosadegh, the support for Saddam Hussein's regime in the war against Iran, the invasion of Iraq in '91 and '03 and the humanitarian disaster that followed as a result of the sanctions in the intermediate period, the continued economical and millitary support for Israel. All of these factors are fuel to the fire in the minds of the Radical Islamists.

So what can we do about our recent meddling and exploitation?

Acknowledging it is a start. Transitioning to a more sensible (less hegemonic) foreign policy would be a big step in the right direction.

Also, I'm not very interested in assigning blaim. That is a very counter productive activity in conflict resolution.

If you're really interested you could lend your ear to Dr Galtung, he is very experienced and successful in the field of conflict resolution:

 

[High-Test]

I'm saying that it's very likely that the terrorists see it that way, yes.

Well, to name a few, the overthrow of Mosadegh, the support for Saddam Hussein's regime in the war against Iran, the invasion of Iraq in '91 and '03 and the humanitarian disaster that followed as a result of the sanctions in the intermediate period, the continued economical and millitary support for Israel. All of these factors are fuel to the fire in the minds of the Radical Islamists.

Hold on a second. Can we please make some very important distinctions crystal clear? Are you lumping Hardline Twelver Shi'a fundamentalists with Sunni Salafi-Takfiri fundamentalists? Can we keep them distinct? They would appreciate it.

Or perhaps the "old rivalry" of secular nationalist regimes against the conservative kingdoms? (ex: "Nasser's Vietnam" in Yemen against Saudi backed Royalists from 1962-70) (Also happening now between Saudi and Iran)

It is telling that Saudi Arabia would bankroll Iraq against Iran for eight years.

“In fact, the weaker a state, the more repressive its rulers tend to become. It is this obsession with regime security that helps explain the reactions of the rulers of Iraq and the conservative gulf monarchies to the appeal of the (Shia-Islamic) Iranian revolution and its perceived impact on their security - reactions manifested in Iraq’s decision to invade iran, and saudi arabia’s decision to underwrite the iraqi war effort to the tune of billions of dollars.” (Mohammed Ayoob, 1985)

And it continues. Another perceived threat was the soviets in Afghanistan. Merry Christmas.

And that Juhayman guy took control of the masjid al-haram the month before, on 1 Muharram, 1400. Bin Baz's fetwa allowing violence to expel the insurgents haunts us all to this day.

The rift between Saudi Arabia and Iran grows daily in violence, death toll, and number of square kilometers affected.


Daesh wants death to anything it believes is not Islamic enough. Especially Shi'a. Then the hypocrites like al-Saud, and then everyone else will have to wait their turn. But Saudi Arabia does more against the Houthis than it does against Daesh.

 

[Danoff]

I'm saying that it's very likely that the terrorists see it that way, yes.

You see it that way, or they do, or both?

Well, to name a few, the overthrow of Mosadegh, the support for Saddam Hussein's regime in the war against Iran, the invasion of Iraq in '91 and '03 and the humanitarian disaster that followed as a result of the sanctions in the intermediate period, the continued economical and millitary support for Israel. All of these factors are fuel to the fire in the minds of the Radical Islamists.

Acknowledging it is a start. Transitioning to a more sensible (less hegemonic) foreign policy would be a big step in the right direction.

I'm not, entirely, in disagreement with you. But let's first acknowledge that there is no putting out this fire. Christians kill each other over Christianity within the US. We will not put out the Radical Islam fire no matter what we do. We didn't create it, we're not responsible for it, and we can't stop it. Especially if you're going to cite supposed transgressions from early 1900s and the 1950s. No one in power today, and few people even alive today, are responsible for those acts.

Gulf War I and II were simply justified actions. Support (non-military) for Hussein's regime in the war against Iran was probably not a good idea (it's hard to play God with history). I'm not up on my history well enough to know if it was properly justified or not. From the US perspective, it seemed like we had a vested-interest in the status quo, but I don't think anyone would argue that the fallout from that was wonderful. Likewise, I don't think it's a good idea to continue US support for Israel. It does paint a target on us. Neither of these, however, justify, in any way, actions of Islamic Terrorists against US citizens, not in 2001, and not in 2017.

When you say the US should transition to less hegemonic foreign policy, are you referring to current support for Israel (that's the only thing you cited that is current)? I agree that would be smart, but it doesn't change the reality that Islamic terrorists have all the justification they need through scripture and ancient feuds to fuel terrorist acts against "western" countries, democracies, socialist countries, and even Islamic nations under Sharia law.

Would it be prudent to stop supporting Israel? Almost certainly. Would it stop terrorism? No. Would it be a big step toward ending terrorism? Nope.

I'll go a step further and say it's probably a bad idea to be selling arms to Saudi Arabia right now (under Trump, Obama, etc.).

Also, I'm not very interested in assigning blaim. That is a very counter productive activity in conflict resolution.

That's interesting, considering that you've done nothing but point fingers at "meddling" and "exploitation" as the basis for mass-murder. Or have I misunderstood you? How have we gotten this far into the conversation without you being clear on that point?

 

[Vegard]

Hold on a second. Can we please make some very important distinctions crystal clear? Are you lumping Hardline Twelver Shi'a fundamentalists with Sunni Salafi-Takfiri fundamentalists? Can we keep them distinct? They would appreciate it.

Or perhaps the "old rivalry" of secular nationalist regimes against the conservative kingdoms? (ex: "Nasser's Vietnam" in Yemen against Saudi backed Royalists from 1962-70) (Also happening now between Saudi and Iran)

It is telling that Saudi Arabia would bankroll Iraq against Iran for eight years.

“In fact, the weaker a state, the more repressive its rulers tend to become. It is this obsession with regime security that helps explain the reactions of the rulers of Iraq and the conservative gulf monarchies to the appeal of the (Shia-Islamic) Iranian revolution and its perceived impact on their security - reactions manifested in Iraq’s decision to invade iran, and saudi arabia’s decision to underwrite the iraqi war effort to the tune of billions of dollars.” (Mohammed Ayoob, 1985)

And it continues. Another perceived threat was the soviets in Afghanistan. Merry Christmas.

And that Juhayman guy took control of the masjid al-haram the month before, on 1 Muharram, 1400. Bin Baz's fetwa allowing violence to expel the insurgents haunts us all to this day.

The rift between Saudi Arabia and Iran grows daily in violence, death toll, and number of square kilometers affected.


Daesh wants death to anything it believes is not Islamic enough. Especially Shi'a. Then the hypocrites like al-Saud, and then everyone else will have to wait their turn. But Saudi Arabia does more against the Houthis than it does against Daesh.

What does internal conflicts in the Islamic world have to do with terror attacks against the west?

But let's first acknowledge that there is no putting out this fire.

So, the conflict can't be resolved diplomatically?
I guess that means genocide or indefinite war then.
Do you by any chance work for an arms manufacturer?

Gulf War I and II were simply justified actions.

Perhaps not everyone who lost their families and friends agree with your point of view.

That's interesting, considering that you've done nothing but point fingers at "meddling" and "exploitation" as the basis for mass-murder.

Again, you're misrepresenting my statements.
I brought to your attention that these actions are used as justification by the terrorists. If you had bothered to listen to what they have to say you would know that. But you seem to have a hard time grasping the concept of objective analysis.

What's your motivation for feeding the conflict rather than attempting to resolve it? Because that's what it looks like you're trying to do from my point of view.

 

[Danoff]

So, the conflict can't be resolved diplomatically?

Not unless you know of a diplomatic way to convince someone that their interpretation of their scripture is wrong.

I guess that means genocide or indefinite war then.

Pretty much. Indefinite rather than infinite. This fire has to put out itself, meaning people have to choose to put down violent interpretations of their scripture on their own. It's the first step toward putting down scripture altogether.

Do you by any chance work for an arms manufacturer?

I do not produce or benefit from the sale of arms in my employment.

Perhaps not everyone who lost their families and friends agree with your point of view.

Perhaps not, but they'd be wrong (see invasion of Kuwait and violation of Gulf War I cease fire terms).

Again, you're misrepresenting my statements.

You cut off the part where I said "Or have I misunderstood you". Which seems like a misrepresentation of my statement.

I brought to your attention that these actions are used as justification by the terrorists. If you had bothered to listen to what they have to say you would know that.

I have listened to what they have to say and I did know that prior to our conversation. What I'm trying to figure out is why you seem to think it's a good idea to represent that as a legitimate point of view, and why you seem to think that any of that really matters when it comes to indiscriminate killing in the name of religious beliefs.

But you seem to have a hard time grasping the concept of objective analysis.

Ironic on many levels.

What's your motivation for feeding the conflict rather than attempting to resolve it? Because that's what it looks like you're trying to do from my point of view.

Is that your objective analysis of our conversation? What have I said that makes you think I'd be feeding the conflict?

 

[High-Test]

What does internal conflicts in the Islamic world have to do with terror attacks against the west?

Just about everything.

Off to clausewitz first. In that clausewitzian trinity of war, the people provide the passion to allow the ruler and the military to prosecute a war.

“The fight between men consists really of two different elements, the hostile feeling and the hostile view. In our definition of war, we have chosen as its characteristic the latter of these elements, because it is the most general.” (Clausewitz, On War)

Sectarianism. That'll stoke up passions, right?

This fire has to put out itself, meaning people have to choose to put down violent interpretations of their scripture on their own.

The problem @Danoff noted is that the extremists of any cloth can't be forced to put down their guns.

What will complicate solving the above problem is just how easy it is to stir up sectarian tensions.

How many Shi'a have been massacred over cries of fitna? How many Jews have been killed over accusations of Christ killing? Sunnis massacred by shi'a militias? Crusades? Jihad? Ulster? Thirty Years war?

A ruler can and will use a hostile view against an "other" to distract from the ruler's own failings.

After the bungle of the Grand Mosque seizure, Shi'a were massacred in al-Hasa and moderates were generally purged from the government. 250 or more of the attackers went on to lead the fight against the soviets in afghanistan.

When there is little hope in a life of repression and destitution, or a perception of repression, extremism is offered as a convenient answer.

When the west blunders in and gets involved, as has been done since (before) Napoleon's tangles with Muhammad Ali Pasha at the turn of the nineteenth century, or in Crimea, there is a resentment built up. Such a resentment is natural.

when it comes to territory, Iranians say "Look what they did to us!?" Hard to fault them. Half the Qajar empire got annexed by Britain and Russia. Mossadegh, Ajax, Nixon's screwover of the Shah that guaranteed the revolution, Saddam's Qadisiyyat.. the indignities continue.

What is not natural nor forgivable is the stirring up of hatred by rulers to justify sectarian violence. Religious extremism. Terrorism.

The West is that one gigantic, loosely defined "other" against which Middle Eastern leaders can distract populations. (Whether these leaders be political or religious)

I'd say that Abdul Wahhab's departure from his own movement out of disappointment in 1773 is pretty important.

Need we mention Sayyid Qutb's role in all of this? "Your leaders aren't muslim enough, go kill them."

Every one of these internal conflicts can become a cause for someone to kill someone else over scripture.

But don't take my word for it.

sources:

Amos, Deborah. The Eclipse of the Sunnis. Power, exile, and Upheaval in the Middle East. New York: Public Affairs, 2010.

Delong-Bas, Netana J.. Wahhabi Islam: From Revival and Reform to Global Jihad. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2004.

Fraihat, Ibrahim. Unfinished Revolutions: Yemen, Libya, and Tunisia after the Arab Spring. New Haven: Yale University Press. 2016.

Furtig, Henner. Iran’s rivalry with Saudi Arabia between the Gulf Wars. UK: Ithaca Press. 2002.

Gerges, Fawaz A. ISIS: A History. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016.

Johnsen, Gregory D. The Last Refuge: Yemen, Al-Qaeda, and America’s War in Arabia. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. 2014.

Nasr, Vali. The Shia Revival: How Conflicts within Islam will Shape the Future. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. 2007.

Trofimov, Yaroslav. The Siege of Mecca: The 1979 Uprising at Islam’s Holiest Shrine. New York: Anchor Books, 2008.

 

[Vegard]

What I'm trying to figure out is why you seem to think it's a good idea to represent that as a legitimate point of view

Understanding that people have resentment because of betrayal and subsequent exploitation is not a legitimate point of view?

Is that your objective analysis of our conversation? What have I said that makes you think I'd be feeding the conflict?

Your reluctance to listen to suggestions that doesn't involve killing countless innocent human beings, for one.

Just about everything.

@High-Test I'm sorry, I didn't read your post until now.

Thank you for lending me your insight. I think I need to digest it for a while to really appreciate it.

 

[Danoff]

Understanding that people have resentment because of betrayal and subsequent exploitation is not a legitimate point of view?

...and here we are again. All the way back to where we started, where you started getting cagey about what you meant.

That's interesting, considering that you've done nothing but point fingers at "meddling" and "exploitation" as the basis for mass-murder. Or have I misunderstood you? How have we gotten this far into the conversation without you being clear on that point?

So you're not interested in assigning blame, but you're interested in assigning blame.

Once again I ask you to cite the specific betrayal and exploitation you're speaking of, and who exactly is to blame for that. Show your evidence, and conclude rationally with specifics about who you think deserves "resentment". In this case "resentment" is in reference to the desire for genocide. You cannot have this conversation with hand-wavy generalizations where you kinda gesture at "the west" and say "guilty".

Edit:

To be perfectly clear, no their "resentment" is not a legitimate point of view. The desire to murder innocent people for perceived crimes from 1915 is not a legitimate point of view. The desire to kill children (literally) for the perceived religious crimes of their grandfathers is almost the definition of illegitimate. Further, you seem to actually want to find some legitimacy in their list of tenuous grievances that thinly veil the crux of their argument... that they want their holy land back and non-Muslims shouldn't be anywhere near it.

 

[High-Test]

To be perfectly clear, no their "resentment" is not a legitimate point of view. The desire to murder innocent people for perceived crimes from 1915 is not a legitimate point of view. The desire to kill children (literally) for the perceived religious crimes of their grandfathers is almost the definition of illegitimate. Further, you seem to actually want to find some legitimacy in their list of tenuous grievances that thinly veil the crux of their argument... that they want their holy land back and non-Muslims shouldn't be anywhere near it.

+1.

Quoted for truth.

 

[Vegard]

...and here we are again. All the way back to where we started, where you started getting cagey about what you meant.

My intention from the start has been to try and understand what motivates the people conducting these atrocious acts.

You seem to think their motivation is only based on religion and I don't agree with your analysis.