Where the 9/11 Attacks caused by the U.S.A. Foreign Policy ?

Post Reply New Topic

Where the 9/11 Attacks caused by the U.S.A. Foreign Policy or by the Muslims and the Arabs hating our Freedom and Democracy and our way of life ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_po ... ted_States

both.

While the blame may be partially placed on the U.S. foreign policy (depending on one's view), I believe the U.S. foreign policy did not cause the 9/11 attacks. Muslim terrorists did.

I would make a correction by saying 'Extreme Muslims'. Like any time of extremists, these shouldn't be compared to normal Muslims who are also against extremism.
Also I would say that the USA makes a lot of enemies invading and bombing countries under the guise of trying to help them. This I believe makes enemies of the USA and UK. Making these extremists feel righteous in their actions.

+1

The 9-11-01 attacks were the responsibility of both terrorist extremists from the Wahabi Muslim world and the elected terrorists in control of the highest levels of our government at the time - attacks against those they swore to defend with their own lives, if necessary.

The subsequent investigation into the greatest air defense failure in our history produced far more questions than answers. These subsequent questions were never answered, and no one insisted that they be.

You mean the Wahhabi Muslims weren't enough?



Or maybe you just didn't get the answers you wanted. It's always a possibility, you know.

Our failure to wipe out Islam in the entirety led to the outrage of 9/11/2001.

ruveyn

You've changed the question.

The options posited by the OP were not a choice between US foreign policy and Muslim terrorists as cause, the options were a choice between US foreign policy and hatred of US freedom and democracy as the terrorists' motivation.

Frankly, it's a facile question. No one outside of the United States cares about your freedom and democracy. We are quite content to leave you to manage your internal affairs in whatever fashion suits you. However, it is not unreasonable for people to be upset when you project your interest into their internal affairs. When you use military power to influence the outcome of a regional conflict, you have to expect that some people will be upset by this. When you use your commercial power to promote the export of your goods and services, and then erect trade barriers to restrain import of other people's goods and services, you have to expect that some people will be upset by this.

So the short answer is, "of course the terrorists were acting in response to US foreign policy."

But the question fails on two important scores:

1) It fails to put the question whether the terrorists response was a reasoned or rational response to US foreign policy, and
2) If fails to put the question whether the US foreign policies being responded to were themselves reasoned or rational.

Does it matter that the terrorists were motivated to make a repsonse to US foreign policy? No, it does not matter, because their response was wantonly unreasonable, and your government (generally speaking) had every right to make the decisions that it did. Sure, your government could have made better choices, but lack of substantive error is not the criterion for evaluation.

It had a lot to do with our foriegn policy.

agree with this, very sensibly put.



i'd tend to disagree with this part. whether the foreign policy of the us was reasoned or rational is, to me, a moot point. because they obviously were reasoned and rational from a particular perspective. but this does not, to me, discount the fact that in desperate situations people will resort to desperate measures. and i'm not in any way arguing for or against terror attacks against the us of a here.

i.e. regardless of how thought out or what rationale lay behind the foreign policy of the us of a, where it is the source of extreme suffering for large numbers of people, the expectation will be a reprisal of some sort, regardless of what this might actually consist.

When I first heard about the attacks I thought it was done by anti capitalist protesters. I thought they had stepped up their cause. But then I heard it was the muslims and I was confused because I knew little about US foreign policy. Then I became interested in it and thought the Arabs were afraid of America taking over the world, then i saw Michael Moores film and thought it was all George Bush's fault. Then I heard all the conspiricy theories and got bored.

Now I don't even know what to think about it.

But in Britain I was shocked when we found out the 7/7 bombings were done by brits.

The 9/11 attacks were caused by religious fanaticism motivating 19 angry young men to attack and kill over 3000 strangers in an effort to instill fear and incite open war between two or more nations separated by geography and ideology.

Weren't all the hijackers Saudis?

So then we overthrow Iraq and nation build Afghanistan while quietly stepping around Saudi Arabia?

Kinda weird.

I think the US wanted it to happen so they could justify themselves eroding the constitution.

Given that a lot of British Muslims (but not the majority) support Sharia law I wouldn't be too hasty to write off extremists as being a small minority and I don't believe that the percentage of "normal Muslims" are quite as overwhelming as you think. That said, I believe genuinely liberal Muslim organisations (like the British Muslims for Secular Democracy) are doing the best they can at the moment. Pity no-one's ever heard of them as they deserve more coverage.