"One of the most astounding feats in propaganda is how we've managed to take people who live in a country which we invade, bomb and occupy — and who fight against us because we're doing that — and call them "Terrorists," thereby "justifying" continuing to bomb and occupy their country further."
That sentence may not sound all that profound at first reading, but it is.
When the U.S. arbitrarily invaded Iraq, al-Qaeda "terrorists" were not there. Some came later to Iraq, especially following the release of the Abu Ghraib picnic photos. Neo-conservative propagandists, cheerled by Fox and Fiends, did their best to brainwash Americans into believing that shadowy Sunni figures or Shi-ite rebels (al-Sadr) or (Saddam's former) Baath Party remnants were each interchangeable surrogates for al-Qaeda. Even though Iraq had no al-Qaeda presence, no "terrorists", U.S. media quickly transplanted Sunni, Shi-ite, and/or Baath members into the role of the "terrorists."
America had attacked a sovereign nation where "terrorists" were not harbored, where al-Qaeda had no significant, if any, presence,….and within short-order of occupying a country that posed no threat to America, we were told that we were fighting the "terrorists" inside Iraq. Amazingly, Iraq had become the "central front of the war on terror." The lines were purposely blurred in explanation of who those "terrorists" were. Were they Sunni, were some Shi-ite, were they the remnants of Saddam's old political party? No one was sure…..and that, of course, was the point.
The same is true in Afghanistan, and has been for…..what is it now?…..over EIGHT years. al-Qaeda is a stateless, borderless group….so, in order to justify bringing the enormous U.S. military machine to the region in preparation for the already-determined plan to attack and occupy Iraq…..we needed a nation state as an enemy. The Taliban-ruled Afghanistan fit the bill. Those camel-riding Taliban were "harboring" those al-Qaeda, by god….quickly a whole new group of "terrorists" were created.
As Greenwald said, America attacks a country, occupies that country with it's military….an action that creates a resistance from natives of that country, whom we then quickly declare the "enemy" or the new "terrorists", which, completing the circle, justifies us continuing with our occupation.
The Reverend has often stated without apology that there is no "war on terror" and never has been. The U.S. "enemy" was/is al-Qaeda. After 9-11, the "war" America declared under Commander Guy, more appropriately, should have been called a "war on al-Qaeda"….but see?, that's too narrow, too specific. This American musical chairs style, changing-enemies game in Iraq and Afghanistan is often called a part of a non-existent "war on terror", but in all honesty, all it is, is an ongoing faux-justification to defend U.S. neo-conservative ideological and imperialistic goals for the region.
……….
Greenwald also writes about "why they hate us." The hopelessly incompetent Decider insisted that "they" hated us "because of our freedoms", a childish non-sequiter at best. A neo-conservative propaganda tool, at worst.
Overnight, a Fox and Fiends-led cottage industry developed complete with nonsensical "Islamofascist" name-calling and ridiculous notions of Islam's "real" goal to overthrow the "free" world. Americans were repeatedly told that Islamic radicals killed themselves in order to kill Americans because, somehow, America's freedom just drove them insane with rage. The Villagers all nodded, knowingly, in agreement.
Here's why "they" hate us…..
I also saw how some of the consequences of Washington’s antiterrorism policies had galvanized the Taliban. Commanders fixated on the deaths of Afghan, Iraqi and Palestinian civilians in military airstrikes, as well as the American detention of Muslim prisoners who had been held for years without being charged.
Here's why "they" hate us….
In 1996, Israeli jets bombed a UN building where civilians had taken refuge at Cana/ Qana in south Lebanon, killing 102 persons;…..
"On April 11, 1996, when Atta was twenty-seven years old, he signed a standardized will he got from the al-Quds mosque.l It was the day Israel attacked Lebanon in Operation grapes of Wrath. According to one of his friends, Atta was enraged,and by filling out his last testamentd during the attack he was offering his life in response."
A little over 5 years later, Atta led a group of hijackers who crashed planes into American buildings, killing 3000.
And here's why "they" will continue to hate us…
The 25 lines edited out of the court papers contained details of how Mr Mohamed's genitals were sliced with a scalpel and other torture methods so extreme that waterboarding, the controversial technique of simulated drowning, "is very far down the list of things they did," the official said.
A British High Court has just ruled that those 25 lines describing what CIA officials told British officials that they had done to an innocent Muslim detainee, Binyam Mohamed,…must be released to the world. Both George W. Bush and, now, Barack Obama, have tried, (up until now successfully) to keep examples of U.S. depravity and torture, like this one, secret.
But many middle eastern Muslims already know about U.S. torture and depravity. Many middle eastern Muslims know that we attack and occupy their countries with our military, then declare any subsequent native resistance, "enemies" and "terrorists." Many middle eastern countries already know that we will block any investigations into war crimes perpetrated against Gazans by Israelis…..or perpetrated by U.S. officials against Muslim detainees.
"They" already know all of this.
"They" are, just now, learning about this.
And that's why "they" hate us….and unless we change policy course….that's why "they" will continue to hate us.
{ 18 comments… read them below or add one }
So, your narrative is that the peaceful and gentle Islamists only hate us because the Great Satan and Israel mistreat the Islamists.
I'll try to be nice here, and just say…you are leaving out a terribly large part of the story.
That's not my "narrative" at all…..as any thorough reader of my post can attest.
I guess I'll just have to wonder about that "terribly large part of the story" that I left out.
Why did they hate us in 1993? why did they hate us in 1979?
Why do the left bloggers always rely on "topsecret info" or "missing lines"that no one but the blogger has heard of or knows about? It remeinds me of Art Bell and George Nory.
I dunno, Rev. I read your whole post, and your message seems to be "they hate us because we terrorize them." What did I miss ?
We do terrorize them, unless having a U.S. rocket blow up your family doesn't qualify as terrorism…you know, waterboarding is just some good ole' college hazing…..so I suppose when your entire wedding party is blown into the stratosphere by a U.S. fired WMD….maybe it's, hell, I don't know, kind of like the 4th of July.
Your use of "only" and "peaceful and gentle" and "Great Satan" help to characterize it the way you would prefer…..but I have never justified the use of violence by the radical jihadists. What I did do was lay out the evidence for why young Islamics turn suicidal, willing to kill themselves if in doing so, they also kill westerners, Americans. The U.S. did bring on 9-11, but not in the Falwellian wingnut way, but by our continual CIA and military activities in the mideast region, and our continued acceptance of the Palestinian apartheid situation.
average…c'mon, you know how our CIA pulled sh*t in Iran, as well as Lebanon, trying to control the political structure of Muslim countries. It's what we do…and it goes way back.
Average Joe – A Department of Defense study in 1997 concluded that: "Historical data show a strong correlation between US involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorist attacks against the United States." Former president Jimmy Carter, some years after he left the White House, was unambiguous in his concordance with such a sentiment: "We sent Marines into Lebanon and you only have to go to Lebanon, to Syria or to Jordan to witness first-hand the intense hatred among many people for the United States because we bombed and shelled and unmercifully killed totally innocent villagers — women and children and farmers and housewives — in those villages around Beirut. . . . As a result of that . . . we became kind of a Satan in the minds of those who are deeply resentful."
The terrorists responsible for the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 sent a letter to the New York Times which stated, in part: "We declare our responsibility for the explosion on the mentioned building. This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel the state of terrorism and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region."
Rev,
So, when you said "that's not my narrative at all," you meant, that WAS your narrative, as I said.
They hate us for the same reason the Reverend hates capitalism–it's all the Jews' fault!
I know that you guys agree with what I've written here, but because it goes against the neo-con grain, it's difficult for you to admit it. That's fine, I won't tell anyone.
If we apologized, promised to never return, nor would we suppply even one bullet to anyone that would do them harm and in a display of good faith disarmed would they immediately stop hating us or would it take a generation or two?
I am pretty sure that Iran had a "democratically "elected president before the U.S . installed the Shah.
angry….we reap what we sow. I don't know how long the suicidal hatred will continue…but I do know this: They want to hurt us because our military terrorizes them.
The most urgent cause is the Israeli-Palestinian situation. Muslims everywhere would take the west more seriously if the U.S. really brokered a fair two state deal. With Bebe in charge there's little chance of that happening. Obama has been handed an extremely difficult situation. Trying to get out of 2 Vietnams simultaneously, Likudniks in charge of Israel, and a retracting economy at home.
Obama's doing pretty good for the shape he's in.
Tbomb,
How many democratically elected presidents has Iran had since the Shah ???
Rev says, "The most urgent cause is the Israeli-Palestinian situation. Muslims everywhere would take the west more seriously if the U.S. really brokered a fair two state deal."
Um, we've been trying to broker a two state deal for like 40 years now. The ARABS don't want that. Wake up already.
king, was the Shah elected?… a classic example of how not to encourage democracy…no wonder boygeorge had no cred in the region!
The U.S. hasn't been trying to broker a deal between Israelis and Palestinians in the last 8 years. That last minute lick and a promise by Condi Rice was laughable, embarassing.
And why is it that King never included the fact that many Israelis don't want a peaceful 2 state agreement either?
And what does any of that have to do with renewing U.S. efforts to get a peace deal?
The Israelis do support a two-state solution, and have for decades. The sticking point is that they know the Muslims only want to use it as a progressive step toward the destruction of Israel. The root of the problem, the intractable position, lies with the Muslims, and anyone who says otherwise is lying.
Sorry, I'm not lying. The conservative problem with this issue is, as I have stated elsewhere, the "Israel and America are uniquely exceptional" problem.
Conservatives simply filter out facts that they don't want to recognize. It's too inconvenient for their pre-conceived opinions.
Does Bebe support a 2-state solution?