Why do the Jihadests hate us? Do they hate anyone else?

[Keith Bee]

Why, yes, they do:

1) Israel
2) The royal family of Saudi Arabia

And we give billions of dollars in money and materiel to those two countries, every year.

Is the math really hard to do on this one?

I think not.

[leveymg]

1. We organized and trained the Jihadists to fight the Russians and Serbs, and grab Soviet oil

regions of the trans-Caucasus and Caspian Sea. UBL and al-Qaeda was part of the force of terrorists trained by us and funded by the Saudis that operated long after the Russians withdrew from Afghanistan. We succeeded beyond our wildest dreams in creating a sustainable global paramilitary force.

[sendero]

2. In other words..

... the blowback is worse than the blow every time. Yea for our "intelligence" agencies.

[leveymg]

3. Thank G.H.W. for the original "Safari Club" deal by which the Saudis paid for CIA covert ops that

the Democratic Congress and the Carter Administration had banned after the Church and Pike Committee revelations of assassinations, coups, and domestic dirty tricks by the CIA. So, in 1975-76, CIA Director Bush made a deal with Saudi intel chief Prince Turki al-Faisal to outsource and privatize these sorts of things with Saudi money paying for it. In exchange, the Saudis got the Bush CIA's permission to develop the "Islamic atomic bomb" through their proxy, Pakistan, along with the go-ahead to build and field their own covert operations capabilities with Osama bin Laden eventually given command over global logistics and organization. See, http://journals.democraticunderground.com/leveymg/280

That arrangement morphed into CIA Operation Cyclone that brought hundreds of Jihadists into the U.S. for training and safekeeping in the secret war against the Russians and the Serbs that continued right up to 9/11 - despite repeated Jihadist killings of Americans during the 1990s, that sort of entry was so routine that the State Department and INS looked the other way when a bunch of Saudis with known terrorist ties were given visas and allowed entry into the U.S. in the two year period leading up to the attacks. Every time the FBI came close to busting up these cells, the Agency pushed the Bureau away, as was SOP. In 2001, things got so hot that even the CIA Director was alarmed enough to make personal visits to the President, but as always, the Bushes refused to do anything that might antagonize or embarrass their patrons, the Saudis, who by that point owned a large chunk of corporate America and were the primary funders of the Republican Party. See, http://journals.democraticunderground.com/leveymg/308

The Saudis still have a huge slush fund, "al Yamamah" (The Dove) used for intelligence and influence buying operations in the US and UK - basically, the Saudis have bought protection from any accountability or interference using petrodollars and kickbacks from arms purchases, corrupting and blackmailing vast swaths of top officials in both both governments. See, http://journals.democraticunderground.com/leveymg/303

UBL was "our man" (really the Saudi GID intel service and their primary US liaisons, the Bush family) in Khartoum and Kandahar long after the Soviet Union collapsed. The Saudis never really abandoned him or the fight against the Russians over oil. It was obviously in both our and the Saudis mutual interest that UBL never testify about what his actual role was in that war. See, also, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/04/810764/-Erik-Prince:-American-Bin-LadenCIA-Asset,-MoneyGunmen

[Robb]

7. Uh, bin Laden was never "our man."

OBL was never "our guy" fighting the Russians, even when he was with the Maktab al-Kheedamat. We were nominally on the same side as the MaK (e.g., "against the Soviets"), but they were funded by Muslims, mostly in the ME, and represented a tiny fraction of the Muj. Our Operation Cyclone dollars went through the ISI, and Azzam and OBL were already at odds four or five years before the Soviets left.

Remember, Assam wanted to take MaK mainstream after the war; bin Laden didn't. Azzam continued courting Western funding and legitimacy until he got mysteriously blown up; bin Laden was well-connected into ME money from day one, and never wanted, or frankly needed, funding from the West. Once Azzam was out of the picture, OBL took over his faction of the MaK. The rest, as they say, is history.

[leveymg]

8. MAK was allowed to train and fund inside the US. It was a joint operation with GID and ISI

Uh, yes, he was "our guy", but really Prince Turki's guy, as I pointed out above. Ultimately, he may have become his own guy, but was never really completely abandoned by his patrons.

In his profile and takeover of MaK by expounding the maximalist line, UBL shows many of the characteristics of an agent provocateur. UBL coordinated efforts with the US in Bosnia and Kosovo long after Assam was just a footnote in AQ history. The rest is, as they say, history. See my (longish) article on the strained but continuing CIA-UBL relationship after the Soviets abandoned Afghanistan, here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/04/810764/-Erik-Prince:-American-Bin-LadenCIA-Asset,-MoneyGunmen

[Robb]

13. It's a good theory.

Not impossible. Thin on facts, but that's the nature of it all. :hi:

[leveymg]

15. As I said, the history is provisional, many of those personally involved will never tell it

and fill in the gaps.

If there's an interpretation you prefer, please point me to it, and explain why it seems more plausible to you. That's how we learn from each other here, and part of the enormous value of DU and this medium of communication. B-) :thumbsup:

[sufrommich]

4. I've got zero interest in basing our foreign policy according to

what terrorist want.

[DireStrike]

5. Me, I'd like to not create terrorists by propping up terrible regimes.

[madokie]

9. Now we're talking

I can see and if I can see it all should be able to that the reason so many in this world hate us is because of what our corporations, via cia and no telling the other unheard of organizations that are funded by us 'the citizens' of the USA are doing to them. The rest of the world knows a lot more of what WE do than we know ourselves due to the fact they're the ones being fucked up one side and down the other by us.
It really isn't rocket science

[Bonobo]

6. In #2 you cited a government, on #1 you cited an entire country.

Do you condemn the entire state of Israel?

[Keith Bee]

22. Good point

I do not condemn the state of Israel. But the jihadists do.

[leftynyc]

10. Your answer is to cave to terrorists?

I think not. And I would suggest a stronger backbone for you.

[krabigirl]

24. Is this free republic?

There really is no difference...I could see these comments fitting well on any neocon site. Sad.

[Chris_Texas]

11. They also hate other Muslims, Hindus, etc

While it is accurate to say that our own actions helped atract the attention of these maniacs, this is about like blaming someone killed in a drive by shooting for being on that street. The evil at the heart of their violence is religion. That's where we need to start.

Not the Islamic religion, but all, and I would even go so far as to include the political "religions" of the right and left in here. All can be twisted by evil men into violence. It takes no more than a push in that direction. Watch the following:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roFB7bGCAgc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NutFkykjmbM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omy24KC3LzU

Just a little push folks. That's it. That's all it takes to turn the most fanatic followers into something more. Which is why you must question everything you are fed, question everything you take on faith. Question even the things you KNOW, I mean really just KNOW! Here's one, an personal favorite of many on the left: We don't spend enough on our schools!

I know, I know... of COURSE we don't spend enough! Everyone knows this! Right? Only, I can guarantee you that there are some who read what I wrote above and they didn't even think it through far enough to form that little of a rational objection. They immediately went rage. I challenging their faith, and they react the way a evangelical soccer mom would respond if you handed her a Playboy and asked her to read the article defending cross-dressing.

It's faith. Question it. And when you do begin with a blank slate, leave the confirmational bias to the faithful and activate your own mind.

[taterguy]

12. Because our insatiable demand for oil requires us to occupy their homeland

After the Embargo in 1973 we realized that military force was necessary to insure a reliable supply of oil.

If it wasn't for oil we'd treat Middle Eastern terrorists the same way we treat terrorists in Sri Lanka: a novelty that we rarely think about.

[blondeatlast]

14. They hate Buddhists and Hindus and Jews as well. nt

[sufrommich]

17. And women. nt

[blondeatlast]

18. True. nt

[Swede]

20. and homosexuals

[ChoppinBroccoli]

16. They Hate Us For Our Freedom

That's why, when you look at the list of countries with the most freedoms (which, by the way, the U.S. is way down the list), the terrorists have attacked basically NONE of them. Yeah, it's our freedom they hate.

[RZM]

19. The US ranks fairly high by world standards - on par with many other Western nations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices

And you must have forgotten the 2004 train bombing in Madrid and the 2005 London metro bombing.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

21. The Last Time The List Of "Countries With The Most Freedom" Was Published...........

................the United States was either #17 or #30-something (not sure which because I always confuse the ranking with the ranking for best education), and of the countries ahead of us on the list, MAYBE one or two had EVER suffered a terrorist attack. Whatever the number is, it's not statistically significant enough to make the assertion that "terrorists hate freedom." Terrorists hate the United States for a laundry list of reasons, but "our freedom" AIN'T one of them.

[RZM]

23. I don't take issue with your rejection of the 'hate us for our freedoms' thing

Although I do think the perceived permissiveness of Western society in general is a grievance of the jihadists, though only one relatively minor reason of many that they don't like us. My issue was with your assertion that the US doesn't score all that high on indices of freedom. The US does score pretty well . . . not #1 in the world . . . but not too bad. It's interesting to look at other Western countries in that index I linked to in the previous posts. A surprising number of Western countries don't have perfect marks in every category.