Why Do They Want to Kill Us?

Ever since the September 11 attacks, it has almost been taboo, within both the U.S. government and the mainstream press, to openly examine and analyze the three specific reasons that Osama bin Laden has given for his holy war against the U.S. government and the American people.

Suppose someone has told me that he intends to kill me. Even though I intend to defend myself by meeting force with force, I'm going to ask him an important question: "Why do you want to kill me?"

Suppose the answer is, "Because I hate you for believing that Jesus Christ is Lord." My response will be to defend myself because I'm not about to give up that belief even if it might cost me my life.

But suppose my enemy says, "I want to kill you because you are having an affair with my wife." The affair would not justify his murder of me, either legally or morally, but it certainly might explain why he's so angry and why he wants to kill me. It would behoove me to have this information because I might decide that continuing the affair is no longer worth it and because altering my conduct might cause my enemy to alter his.

But the only way I can get to that point is by asking, "Why do you want to kill me?"

Osama bin Laden and his coterie of terrorists have given three reasons for their terrorist acts:
(1) The stationing of U.S. military personnel in Saudi Arabia, which they say encompasses the Islamic holy cities of Mecca and Medina;
(2) The 10-year embargo against Iraq, which, it is reported, has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children; and
(3) U.S. economic and military aid to Israel.

One response might be: "We shouldn't care about their motives for killing -- all that matters is that our government officials kill them before they kill us." But that position is problematic for two big reasons:
(1) Even if current terrorists are killed first, wouldn't new ones, driven by the same motives, surface to take their place? and
(2) Isn't it possible that the terrorists might kill many of us before our government officials find and kill all of them?

A second possible response is: "The terrorists hate us so much that it doesn't matter what our government's foreign policy is and therefore there's no sense in reexamining it." Even if it is true that the terrorists are motivated by blind hatred, however, is it not always a good idea to periodically reexamine government policies, especially with the thought of terminating those that are not achieving their goals and that are actually producing perverse consequences?

What would be wrong with a reevaluation of the U.S. government's Middle East policy, even while efforts are being made to bring the people who committed the September 11 attacks to justice? Couldn't this result in a better direction for our country -- one that might also alter the mindset and behavior of people who want to kill us? The following questions could be asked in such an inquiry:

(1) Why are U.S. troops still stationed in Saudi Arabia, especially given that the Persian Gulf War ended some 10 years ago? Are the troops really based on Islamic holy lands, and is that really an important religious issue for Muslims? What would be the downside to immediately pulling U.S. troops out of Saudi Arabia?

(2) Has the embargo against Iraq succeeded in altering Saddam Hussein's cruel and brutal treatment of Iraqi citizens? Has it prevented him from producing weapons of mass destruction, and might there be a better way to address that problem? Has the embargo really caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, as UN officials contend and, if so, why doesn't that alone dictate its immediate termination? What would be the downside to immediately ending the embargo against Iraq?

(3) Why should the U.S. government continue giving economic and military aid to Israel? Why shouldn't all foreign aid be privatized, which would mean that American citizens would no longer be taxed for the purpose of providing foreign aid to anyone but would be free to privately donate their own money to anyone they wish, including Israel? What would be the downside to depoliticizing foreign aid?

Some might suggest that a reevaluation of our government's Middle East policy would be "appeasing" the terrorists. But wouldn't that be a short-sighted excuse for continuing what is possibly a failed or bankrupt policy and for not trying to find what might be a better course of action for the future?

Some might say that it's not patriotic to question the policies of one's own government during wartime. I say that genuine patriotism involves not a blind allegiance to one's government even in war but rather a love of country that sometimes entails trying to move one's government in a more positive, constructive direction.

Some light. . . some hill. We kill 125,000 Iraqi children a year. We deliberately bomb civilians in Serbia. We support corrupt regimes if we believe it is in our "national interest". We ignore scripture and have tossed God out of our schools and public square.

Those Iraqi children (if your numbers have not been corrupted ), are killed by their own governmental decisions,and I will not assume responsibility for it..on the other hand the 7,000 Americans killed 9/11 were killed by an act of war.You may choose to be one of the blame America first crowd,I see that these Americans were victims of hatefilled heathans that see the American infidels to blame for all their trouble.Do you think that they would put the ten commandments on the wall?

You may prefer to close your eyes so you dont see the light..but there is still enough there to allow freedom!

The figure is from the U.N. and they die from starvation and from that fact that the US deliberated bombed their water supply and sewage treatment plants and now refuse to permit them to chlorinate the water.

The "heathens" as you call them do subscribe to the 10 Commandments, so I suppose they would have no problem with them being placed on the wall.

Thank you for your reasoned response, even though I don't agree with it, I respect your right to hold it and in no way wish to imply that I am right- just at this point I THINK that I am right. This is the reason for discussion, not the vitriol that takes up 80% of these posts. Back to the point-I believe killing simply for the sake of killing should have the killer either present and/or participating (as your psychopath) otherwise there MUST be a reason. More wanton examples of mass extermination of civilians under the guise of legitimacy (wartime) could be Churchill (Dresden) and Truman (Hiroshima, Nagasaki). Given that each had his reason(s), however poor they look in the light of history, I don't think you would wish to refer to them as 'enjoying killing'. Your question on why Bin Ladin didn't take responsibility for these 'terrorist' acts- consider maybe that he didn't have anything to do with them!

If bin Laden didn't have anything to do with it, why hasn't the person or persons responsible take credit.

Insofar as your reference to Churchill and Truman I would point out their actions were in response to similar unprovoked terrorist acts by the Germans and the Japanese. More importantly these actions were conducted by men in uniforms which means they were readily identified and thus their commanders openly took responsibility for these acts. These acts were taken to accomplish easily ascertained goals.

I ordinarily don't agree with Bill Clinton, but yesterday in Spain Clinton stated that bin Laden has become addicted to killing.

One further point a major reason for the underground existence of groups, such as that controlled by bin Laden, is to use terror as a weapon and when this major reason manifests it in the intentional murder of thousands of innocent people in a single act it is hard not to at least consider murder for the sake of murder. Of course, one must recognize that some Muslim sects do not consider the killing of nonbelievers murder.

Sir, I shall try to respond in the order of your questions. The reason why neither Bin Laden or any other 'terrorist group' has taken any public credit is the loudest fact (of many loud facts that just don't add up) on why they may not have been involved. THERE IS NO UPSIDE FOR THEM TO HAVE ALLEGEDLY PERPETRATED THESE ATROCITIES! There are more obvious beneficiaries to this crime but to discuss that would bring a flock of carrion birds who circle FR into the fray. What possible 'similar unprovoked acts' committed by the Japanese and Germans necessitataed the vaoporization of non-military, civilian targets? Remember that Dresden was an 'open city' and in February 1945 the outcome of the war was not in question. (death toll 135,000+) Well, you quoted Mr. Clinton, so it suits you when you agree with him I guess. I would have steered clear of him , because he is a __________ liar of the highest degree. But in that spirit lets see 'what the meaning of is, is' . I don't agree with your conclusions of what terrorism becomes if innocents are killed. There is a political message. (if legitimate then also claimed, reasons for doing so stated etc.) There must be a GRIEVANCE- which is where this whole post started- why can't we discuss what this grievance is? (open question)

You wrote:

Mr Hornberger wonders what the downsides might be of:

1) Pulling out of Saudi Arabia
2) Stopping sanctions on Iraq
3) Giving up support for Israel

Real tricky. Here are three possible downsides:

1) Iraq takes advantage of the withdrawal and attacks Saudi Arabia. Oil to the US and EU dries up and a major regional conflict begins. Lots of people die along the way, trying to stop this happening.

2) Iraq revitalises its weapons program and restarts aggression towards its neighbours. For the rest, see 1 above.

3) Israel gets attacked by its neighbours. For the rest, see 1 above with the added spice of potential use of weapons of mass destruction. Marvellous.

My congrats to your response, imho, best one on this thread. A reasoned answer to the three questions posed in this article. And not a spelling error to be found! LOL

from the article, last paragraph:

I agree we should not have blind allegiance to our country, we do make mistakes. But, not with these three questions. Your answers plainly show that pulling out of SA, easing sanctions on Iraq and abandoning Israel would put us in a very bad position.

And, as others have pointed out, UBL has other reasons to hate us, the most important is that we are not a Muslim nation. Does anyone believe that is NOT his main motivation?

I will not get into a catfight of grievances because that smacks too much of the ends-justify-the-means rhetoric. Talking about real or imagined historical grievances, many centuries old, is not a productive exercise in solving current disputes or promises. One man's heroic deed is another man's evil deed. Cognitive dissonance that all too real affliction of human nature prevents most people, even highly educated ones, from acknowledging facts that are contrary to their deeply held beliefs. I prefer the economic concept of sunk costs - recognize that the past cannot be redone and make one's current decision based on one's perception of the future, i.e. don't continue holding a losing investment if other investments provide superior results.

Insofar as to motivations of "leaders", most people project their motivations on the leaders. If their leader takes positions with which they agree, they will regard him as a good leader. If they disagree with their leader and their major preoccupation is money, they will project their preoccupation on the leader and say the leader is only doing it for money. The same holds for a preoccupation of power. I think many problems arise from these tendencies because they overlook the basic human need for recognition, i.e their fifteen minutes on the world stage of life. Some people are motivated to be the best doctor or lawyrt in the world while others strive to be the best criminal, killer or terrorist in the world.

Poor Saddam Hussein. If we would just leave him in peace, then he would devote all of his energy in building Iraq into a Garden of Eden for his beloved citizens. < /sarcasm>

No, "poor" Saddam Hussein devotes his energies into building weapons of mass destruction, and may very well be the source for the Anthrax attack upon America. He may also be behind the 9-11 attacks as well. It Iraqi children are dying, it is due to the fact that their country is led by a madman who wants to put out the lights all over the world. Hey Ada, why don't you move to Iraq to give them a hand?

Thank you for your kind remarks, and I'm glad someone appreciates the spelling--I purposely avoided US/UK differences in the name of unity... ;^)

I agree strongly with the article's belief about the need for an eyes-open patriotism. My belief is that without that type of patriotism, we lose. I do *not* want people to stop asking "do we really need to do X?", whether X be "sanctions against Iraq" or "military action against the Taliban". What I want is for them to ask loud and clear and to get loud clear and reasonable answers that demonstrate why their proposals won't fly. Too often, the answers they get are just insults or "kill all the ragheads", which does nobody any favours. This reminds me of the distinction between the novel of Starship Troopers and the film--the former glorified the military, the latter glorified the violence. The former described a moral authoritarianism--defensibly--while the latter described a brutal and sadistic autocracy--indefensibly. I think that the book has some important lessons for us as we ponder our futures. Heinlein was hardly the world's most profound writer--but he was an exceptional populariser, and he expresses clearly the meaning, purpose and value of military power in that book.

I'm interested to learn whom you think has benefited from 9/11 besides a maniac trying to bring down every non-fundamentalist Islamic government in the world. Do you mean Israel? China? The EU? Someone else? Try as I might, I can't think of anyone who has gained from 9/11. You might build a conspiracy case for any one of these three, but you have to do so in a way that answers the obvious problems. So if you're going to claim Israel is better off, for example, you've got to explain why 9/11 *doesn't* represent the most enormous threat to that country's security with the US busy trying to get the Arab world onboard and hence stepping down support, and with Palestinian radicalism rejuvenated, re-armed and re-enthused. Similar objections stand for each nation you might put forward.

The "heathens" as you call them do subscribe to the 10 Commandments, so I suppose they would have no problem with them being placed on the wall.

And the devil can quote scripture...that has nothing to do with anything.

God gave us the law so we could see what sinners we are and how much we need a Savior..the Muslims may know them..but they do not know the One that saves..

Allah is a false god..he is not the God of Israel...they are heathans

Poor Saddam Hussein. If we would just leave him in peace, then he would devote all of his energy in building Iraq into a Garden of Eden for his beloved citizens. < /sarcasm> No, "poor" Saddam Hussein devotes his energies into building weapons of mass destruction, and may very well be the source for the Anthrax attack upon America. He may also be behind the 9-11 attacks as well. It Iraqi children are dying, it is due to the fact that their country is led by a madman who wants to put out the lights all over the world. Hey Ada, why don't you move to Iraq to give them a hand?

I watched a documentary on the Discovery channel that left no doubt in my mine that he is indeed the one..also that he is in fact the actual leader of the Talibon (sp ?)

I do believe that we should adopt Muslin rules for his trial..He has stolen the lives of Americans ..He is the leader that terrorizes women ....so off with both hands and off with both feet...then to the "Football Stadium" to be shot .

Perhaps Ada would find that a bit harsh...but she needs to see that the Afgan Muslims still live under the rules of heathans and they need to be punished under them too!

Well for one thing, unless you are more of an expert on Mid-East / Israeli issues than 'Bibi' Netaniahu (sic?) who was quoted by Jerusalem Post on what he thought of the attacks "....Good, Very Good" (for Israel), I would suggest that they are in a far better position with USA in a shooting war against their sworn enemies. I know that if I were an Israeli, I surely would welcome American military might in full swing against someone who declared himself my enemy. As for some vacuous comments about Palestinian autonomy from 'Read my Lips' Jr. - be serious, consider the source.

Your concept of projection onto leadership would have some merit if there was no such thing a mass media and consequently an easily swayed public. Perhaps the city-state of Athens would support your view. But see, that is the weakness of your 'sunk treasure' view of history. How in hell do you know where to go if you refuse to remember where you have been?? How would you know if you are entering a minefield if you refuse to acknowledge that your missing leg was due to entering that same minefield??

So you *did* mean the Israelis. Now there's a surprise... That's right, the Israelis are really strategically benefiting at the moment, aren't they? And of course, they've got not only the motivation, but the means and the morality to crash or induce others to crash 4 airliners into buildings killing thousands of Americans. That's right. Yup. And of course, they're all delighted that it's happened and it's not like my friends who live there are terrified for their lives and their childrens' lives. No, they think that things are really improved with a good dose of instability in the Middle East. They crave it. Really.

Ahh- you 'baited' me out at the expense of revealing your own bias! Fair enough. Now let's be civil about it. No , I cannot be sure of any theory extant on this tragedy but I am sure about one thing- the official story from the President and the press is so rife with omissions and inconsistencies that it invites speculation from all but the most simpleminded. Now, using the most fundamental investigation maxim of 'who benefits' , something may start to make sense. The Israeli theory may not be true- but it makes more sense than the official line. If something develops such as Bin Ladin proofs- thus far 'too sensitive for the public', then I would gladly believe them ( the proofs being verified). BTW, you did not comment on 'Bibi's' statement, his would be closer to the official sentiment than your friends.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.