I think its pretty clear in this case that the root of Al Qaeda’s hate of America has nothing to do with America’s freedom. There are many countries which are just as free—if not more so—than the US. (Has Al Qaeda ever bothered to condemn Japan?) No doubt they disapprove of many aspects of the American lifestyle, but mostly they are interested in signalling to their fellow Muslims the purity of their opposition to US power in the middle east. Attacking a shared common enemy is a tactic for increasing support for Al Qaeda throughout the Muslim world. The root cause of the Anti-American sentiment is the very real history of US aggression and meddling in local affairs.
Likewise, when US politicians condemn rival countries for human-rights violations, you can be sure that they don’t actually care about human rights. Hence they frequently condemn Russia, Syria, and Iran while being close allies with countries that are much less democratic and much more oppressive (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain.)
The simpler explanation is that if they do hate freedom, their hatred is going to be aimed at the most prominent example of it. The US is a lot more prominent in international politics than Japan.
Note that this is still different from signalling—they do hate freedom, outside considerations just affect which particular target they pick of the free ones.
“No doubt they disapprove of many aspects of the American lifestyle, but mostly they are interested in signalling to their fellow Muslims the purity of their opposition to US power in the middle east.”
But why do they object to US power? They object, in their own words, to US power because it dilutes the purity of Islam. They are not struggling for national liberation, but for theocracy. Their explicit goal is the establishment of a vast theocractic empire—the attack on America was a part of that, to rally the faithful to their cause. Take Palestine, for example—Al Qaeda doesn’t even think Palestine should exist, except as a province of the Caliphate.
What is “meddling in local affairs” in this context? According to what they say, it is as much American pop culture and the spread of “decadence” (liberalism) as it is the support of certain tin-pot tyrants.
That isn’t to say there aren’t objectionable US policies. But please don’t confuse why you might object to a US policy with why an Islamic fanatic might object to it.
What is “meddling in local affairs” in this context?
Overthrowing Muslim governments (including democratically elected governments), massive military, logistical, and even direct participation in Saddam Hussein’s attack on Iran, invading and occupying various countries, etc. No, I don’t believe US pop culture is a major reason they attack the US.
You don’t… but others do. Dinesh D’Souza has written a book detailing the “root causes” argument, but with a twist—the quotations and other evidence he amasses are from a socially conservative perspective. That is, he makes exactly the same, fully backed up “root causes” argument, but differs on the root causes in question.
Again, I am trying to make the point that what you find obvious isn’t at all what others find obvious. People change radically across time and space.
I think its pretty clear in this case that the root of Al Qaeda’s hate of America has nothing to do with America’s freedom. There are many countries which are just as free—if not more so—than the US. (Has Al Qaeda ever bothered to condemn Japan?) No doubt they disapprove of many aspects of the American lifestyle, but mostly they are interested in signalling to their fellow Muslims the purity of their opposition to US power in the middle east. Attacking a shared common enemy is a tactic for increasing support for Al Qaeda throughout the Muslim world. The root cause of the Anti-American sentiment is the very real history of US aggression and meddling in local affairs.
Likewise, when US politicians condemn rival countries for human-rights violations, you can be sure that they don’t actually care about human rights. Hence they frequently condemn Russia, Syria, and Iran while being close allies with countries that are much less democratic and much more oppressive (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain.)
The simpler explanation is that if they do hate freedom, their hatred is going to be aimed at the most prominent example of it. The US is a lot more prominent in international politics than Japan.
Note that this is still different from signalling—they do hate freedom, outside considerations just affect which particular target they pick of the free ones.
“No doubt they disapprove of many aspects of the American lifestyle, but mostly they are interested in signalling to their fellow Muslims the purity of their opposition to US power in the middle east.”
But why do they object to US power? They object, in their own words, to US power because it dilutes the purity of Islam. They are not struggling for national liberation, but for theocracy. Their explicit goal is the establishment of a vast theocractic empire—the attack on America was a part of that, to rally the faithful to their cause. Take Palestine, for example—Al Qaeda doesn’t even think Palestine should exist, except as a province of the Caliphate.
What is “meddling in local affairs” in this context? According to what they say, it is as much American pop culture and the spread of “decadence” (liberalism) as it is the support of certain tin-pot tyrants.
That isn’t to say there aren’t objectionable US policies. But please don’t confuse why you might object to a US policy with why an Islamic fanatic might object to it.
Overthrowing Muslim governments (including democratically elected governments), massive military, logistical, and even direct participation in Saddam Hussein’s attack on Iran, invading and occupying various countries, etc. No, I don’t believe US pop culture is a major reason they attack the US.
You don’t… but others do. Dinesh D’Souza has written a book detailing the “root causes” argument, but with a twist—the quotations and other evidence he amasses are from a socially conservative perspective. That is, he makes exactly the same, fully backed up “root causes” argument, but differs on the root causes in question.
Again, I am trying to make the point that what you find obvious isn’t at all what others find obvious. People change radically across time and space.
Eh? If you mean the operation Praying Mantis, it was a response to the US ship hitting an Iranian mine, and near the end of war anyway.
So what does the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris signal?