They Did Not Attack Us for Our Freedoms

Over the past six years, President Bush has constantly told the American people that we were attacked on 9/11 for our freedom, and not a single politician has challenged him on that assertion. They did NOT attack us for our freedom. If they did, why is it that the U.S. and Great Britain remain the two main targets of Islamic terrorism? Why is it that Sweden, Holland, France, Germany and Japan - all of which are as free or freer countries than we are - are not the targets of terrorism?

They did not attack us because they hate our freedom. They attacked us because we have constantly put the American economic interests and safety of our allies in the Middle East before the defense of our principles. When Saudi Arabia passes a law, banning a woman from driving without a man in the car, or when Iran arrests an Iranian-American scholar and jails her for three months with preposterous espionage charges, America keeps quiet. But as soon as the price of oil climbs up, President flies to Saudi Arabia to literally hold hands with the king or issue threats against Iran not because of its human rights violations, but because they are enriching uranium, which they legally have the right to under the NPT. America does all of this while violating the NPT, principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal and International Criminal Court by developing new nuclear weapons that it claims it may use first and holding Israel - Iran's main enemy - to a double standard, constantly funding its military and allowing it to possess nuclear weapons without membership to the NPT and while having remained in the occupying territories in the West Bank. Terrorism and killing of civilians are not the right answer to the hypocritical American foreign policy, but this hypocrisy is the reason why we were attacked on 9/11.

This brings me to the second fact that most politicians won't admit. The reason why Israel gets preferential treatment is because it has an enormously strong lobby in Washington. This lobbying power has been substantially influencing American policy in the region and has made our current policy in the Middle East a liability for America.

Another factor that has been contributing to this problem is the willingness of millions of Jews in America, including many liberal ones who normally support sensible foreign policies, to roll over, make an exception, keep silent and even vocally cheerlead America's support for the Israeli occupation. As a recent issue of The Economist so eloquently put it, "what self-defeating madness. For peace to come, Israel must give up the West Bank and share Jerusalem; the Palestinians must give up the dream of return and make Israel feel safe as a Jewish state. All the rest is details." One can only hope that one of our presidential candidates can take the advice of the Baker-Hamilton Report and address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Committee's recognition of the role of this factor in helping to strengthen terrorism was arguably its most significant accomplishment.

The fact is that the United States cannot fight and "win" the struggle against terrorism with fire arms alone, because terrorism is not an ideology but a tactic, it is not an infection but a symptom, and it is not an end, but a mean. In order to address terrorism, America must address its causes. Bush and Giuliani speak about winning the war against terrorists as if there are a constant number of terrorists, most of whom happen to conveniently be in Iraq. Most republicans pretend that these terrorists can be eliminated with 150,000 American troops and then we can live in a world where people in many countries remain oppressed but maintain an undying love for America that is willing to ignore their oppression, take advantage of their natural and economic resources, continue to ignore international law, pretend to stand for the universal and idealist principle of freedom while maintaining a realist view without values and support Israel no matter what it does. Who thought American taxpayers would end up funding a war that has energized and multiplied terrorists, is playing into radical Islam's narrative of infidels and jihadis and has cut the legs from under the pro-western reformers in Iran. In the meantime, we have ignored how our allies and enemies have treated their own citizens and we have kept silent as long as they kept their pumps open and oil flowing.

There are more terrorists today than they were before 9/11 even though we have killed many of them ever since. A recent intelligence briefing reported that Al Qaeda is as strong or stronger than it was before 9/11. Surprised? The fact of the matter is that there is not a constant number of terrorists. In the real world - as opposed to the Bush world - for every terrorist we kill in Iraq where we aren't supposed to be, we help recruit five more. It is absolutely correct that there are career terrorists whose hearts and minds cannot be won, such as bin Laden and members of Al Qaeda. We must eliminate the likes of bin Laden where they are. People from both sides criticized Senator Obama for his intention to do what he would have to do to kill bin Laden. Obama's view on this demonstrates the common sense and departure from the conventional thinking that has been lacking in our foreign policy.

Every time we ignore the arrest of a young couple in the streets of Tehran for holding hands and not make any noise about those brutalities as we do about Iran's nuclear program, we send the message that America will only take an interest in your country if its own interest is at stake. As long as we try to fight terrorism the conventional way and remain silent about the oppression of millions of people in many of these "rogue" states, we will fail to make allies with the peoples of those countries who are the ones that should really matter to us, and our struggle against terrorism will remain a game of trying to put out a fire with a gallon of gasoline.

Comments

[truthtotell]

My comment does not concern Mr. Sadei's writing, but is rather directed to the notion that his smacks of anti-semitism. I suppose I shall never understand excessive possessivism. We, all of us, who have had kids, and those who some day will, right along with citizens here and those in Israel and quite possibily every other country in the world, may critisize each other and governments. When we do it here, we reject such claims as we are anti American or anti childhood. In personal life, as in parenthood, we criticize our kids, and are subject to their criticism. If we are wrong in our claims, it is because they do not stand up to inspection and hence we are not entitled to them.

It stikes me that we are not less free in the case of Israel. Without a doubt no country on the planet is free of error. When we see it, as in the case of certain Israli policies and resulting action, we are free to express our opinion, which if sound makes us entitled to them. The expression of criticism and its support is not a ground for the claim that one is anti-semetic.They are no more that than the claims against Mr. Bush makes us anti American, or that criticism of our kids (and they of us) means that we do not love them (and they us).

We are as free, and as responsible, as Israeli's themselves when they stand critical of their government
its policies and actions. None of this of course bears on Israel's
right to exist. It does and hence, for all parties, end of story.

[loslobo]

While others may praise your blog, I must ask why are you perpetuating the administration's myth? There is enough information available, use it, educate yourself.

[gilbaker]

The U.S. is not despised by people in the Middle East for our "freedoms," as George W. Bush was instructed by Karl Rove to say. We are hated for our government's history of imperialist actions in that region. In 1953, Mohammed Mossadeq was elected the president of Iran promising to nationalize Iran's oil industry. Mossadeq was immediately assasinated by our CIA (with help from Great Britain's SIS), and replaced with Shah Pahlavi, a brutal dicator who served as "our man in Iran" for the next twenty-six years. Only when our government stops meedling in the affairs of other countries, will there be a chance for peace in this world.

[Sedaei]

Thank you for mentioning Mosaddeq. There is little doubt among historians that his overthrow was the reason why the revolution of 1979 - and hence Iran's current conditions - were brought about. quick correction, however, Mosaddeq wasn't assassinated. He was overthrown and put on house arrest. Nonetheless, your main point is well taken.

[Woofer58]

Hmmm.. upon reading the comments and a bit more on the web, I can't help but see Bin Laden as playing Bush extremely well. Kind of like 'he knew' that if Bush got into power that he (Bin Laden) would be able to orchestrate a huge building of terrorist organizations world wide. Bush provided him with exactly the "money grubbing, oil stealing" entity he needed to get this whole ball rolling.
Now, thanks to Bush, Bin Laden has Muslims all over the world up in arms against the "capitalist crusaders".

The flip side is that we "could have" never invaded anyone and had a special forces unit track Bin Laden down and neautralize him. Where would we be now ??

[WillSweet]

Excellent point.

[Rescisco]

"Over the past six years, President Bush has constantly told the American people that we were attacked on 9/11 for our freedom, and not a single politician has challenged him on that assertion."

Absolutely correct. So, why do we keep electing and re-electing these politicians? At some point in the not too distant future, one would hope that the search will begin for intelligent life on this planet.

[873450]

The following is part of a video message from Osama bin Laden to the American people released on 10/29/04 just days before the 2004 presidential election.

"O American people, I am speaking to tell you about the ideal way to avoid another Manhattan, about war and its causes and results.

Security is an important foundation of human life and free people do not squander their security, contrary to Bush's claims that we hate freedom. Let him tell us why we did not attack Sweden for example.

...We fought you because we are free and because we want freedom for our nation. When you squander our security we squander your's.

I'm surprised by you. Despite entering the fourth year after September 11, Bush is still deceiving you and hiding the truth from you and therefore the reasons are still there to repeat what happened.

God knows it did not cross our minds to attack the towers...[until the 1982] American-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, I thought about it...

...As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way [and] to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women."


What bin Laden meant:

1. He explains why he attacked us 09/11 attack.

2. Free people cherish security and don't squandor it away.

3. Bush claims we hate freedom - ask him why we don't attack Sweden.

4. We are also free and cherish security. If you attack our security, then we will attack your security.

5. If you continue to believe Bush's lies, then you a will be attacked again.

6. The idea of attacking the Twin Towers first came to him in 1982 when the U.S. supported Israel's invasion of Lebanon."

Polls indicated the presidential election was a toss up when the video was released. Intelligence analysts concluded bin Laden gave a backhanded endorsement to Bush. He correctly anticipated American patriotism would surge and voters would rally around Bush.

[Brennial]

We shouldn't overlook the enabling of American evangelicals for Israel. Many of these people support aid to Israel despite a distaste for jews because they believe that the righteous will be raptured up to Halliburton's new Dubai headquarters if they stand with Israel and everyone else will be left behind in New Orleans. I honestly believe that W's middle east policy is driven by the desire to bring about armageddon. It explains a lot if you think about it.

[jay1975]

I have been saying for years that our presence in Saudi Arabi was the start of all of our problems in the middle east. Before the 1993 bombing at the World Trade Center (a response to our foreign policy and prence in the Saudi kingdom) there were no grand schemes to attack us. To blame 9/11 on anything other than our foreign policy is an insult to all who have died for this country. When Ron Paul said it was, in essence, our fault, the other candidates on stage shouted him down. How terrible that they would do that when he was telling the truth. I am a combat veteran and I have served my country and did what was asked of me but I am not a moron. I know why we are the "enemy" to so many and it is not because of our freedoms (which we have many more than most countries).

[ponderman]

When George Bush said, "They hate us because we love freedom", I almost puked. It was the dumbest, most meaningless statement I ever heard from a president.

[AceInTheHole]

That just show you how much he respects our intelligence, I know my spelling can be atrocious at times like Lincoln and Webster's were but like them, I'm smart enough to reconize bs when I hear it.

[AceInTheHole]

Bravo Sam,

You laid that senerio out prettier than a beautiful old Oriental rug.

Some people can reason and right but some people can REALLY reason and right and you fall into the latter category my friend.

Maybe you should drop a book from this article since you have such an clear and erudite perspective on the subject matter. I bet you could drop an excellent 200 page book on this subject in 90 days or so.

PS I like the job you do on the radio too!

[in4success]

amen

[DrVeruju]

In any event, Bush has removed so many of our freedoms that the terrorists should no longer hate us.

[WillSweet]

You are exactly right. And that is probably Bin Ladens most significant victory. And it was willingly handed to him by George Bush.

[indypete]

Great post,Sam. 'Fraid you're asking to get a beating-up from those who equate opinions like this with "Blame America First" when, in fact, it's "Blame Power Hungry Maniacs First".

[PapaJim]

Tremendous article! Thanks

[peterg76]

Osama bin Laden explained Al Qaeda's motivations (US military presence in Saudi Arabia) quite clearly. Saudi Arabia is one of the least free societies on the planet - if they really hated freedom the hijackers would have been thanking the US for propping up the Saudi autocracy.

It certainly didn't justify terrorism, but like it or not, bin Laden did have a valid point.

I think when Bush says "our freedoms", "our" means the ultra-wealthy, and "freedoms" means their abuse of the other 99.9% of the planet.

[Anirban]

How extraordinary! Mr.Sedai might come right out and say that the cause of terrorism is the resistance to it .that as far as your syllogism go.whereever it comes from if fighting it only produces it. Then I think you more or less have circularized your soldiers. Now let me add something. Bin laden"s group attempts to detach Kashmir from India. He wants the destruction of India and as far as he can he proclaims the destruction of Hindu religion and establishment of Sharia law. He wanted the Philippine Government to surrender a large part of its territory so he can have a separate Muslim state in the Philippines. Till date ,He wants East Timor Back to Indonesia. I can go on and on. But the take home message is that, no change in American Policy is going to please this man and for God's sake don't take your freedoms for granted.