U.S. drone strike kills 30 pine nut farm workers in Afghanistan

I hear this a lot but is there any basis for this? Were any of the 9/11 attackers widowed/orphaned by the US? Or were they just whipped up in religious fervor and an abstract idea of a cultural war with the US?

And does it go the other way? Do you create violent anti-Islamists when Muslims commit terror attacks? Were the orphans of 9/11 more likely to sign up for the US military, or commit hate crimes against Muslims than their non-directly-affected peers?

Well we have been bombing a Muslim majority country for 18 years. That probably counts.

There was a wave of anti- Muslim hate crime in the US after 9/11, although not by any of the specific families of the victims.

> Do you create violent anti-Islamists when Muslims commit terror attacks?

Yes? E.g. after the murder of Lee Rigby in the UK there was a small wave of attempted arson on mosques.

Counts for what? My question was about the basis for terrorism, not about the facts of bombing campaigns.

Terrorism is a label slapped on violence that breaks some arbitrary rules someone thinks ought to be followed.

Were the founding fathers terrorists? The British sure thought so...

You can be the gatekeeper of that word all you want, just know that you're playing that role.

> not about the facts of bombing campaigns

Calling indiscriminately killing civilians something as generic as "a bombing campaign" is like calling 9/11 "a training flight gone wrong".

>Were any of the 9/11 attackers widowed/orphaned by the US? Or were they just whipped up in religious fervor and an abstract idea of a cultural war with the US?

It's so sad that you don't know this.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

>Full text: bin Laden's 'letter to America'

>As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:

>(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

> And does it go the other way? Do you create violent anti-Islamists when Muslims commit terror attacks? Were the orphans of 9/11 more likely to sign up for the US military, or commit hate crimes against Muslims than their non-directly-affected peers?

Yes, of course it does. Hell, even on the recent 9/11 HN thread there were people who said they joined the military after the towers collapsed. It's only natural reaction when your nation gets attacked, and it works the same everywhere.

It's best to think of this as a single self-perpetuating process, with a strong feedback loop of hate and suffering inside. So the US bombs some Muslim countries, and eventually some group manages to pull off a 9/11 in retaliation. US reacts to this by utterly destroying several countries, and in reaction, ISIS is born. Which then US and others attempt to bomb out of existence. Rinse, lather, repeat. A kills B's people, B retaliates by killing A's people, A retaliates to retaliation by killing B's people, ...

It’s just not a loop.

Jihadists aren’t in a loop. That’s a myth. Jihad is real to them, and they are attacking non believers.

The stated motivation for the 9/11 attacks were the presence of U.S. airbases in Saudi Arabia. Not revenge for some past hurt or attack.

Why does everyone presume that what they say isn’t what they mean?

Oh they are in the loop, even if they don't see it.

This is how religion is used to get people to do things. You can read anything you like from a religious book; you'll find justification for anything if you comb for quotes enough. This makes religion a glue, or an amplifier, not a prescriber of behavior.

Consider Christianity - the religion that gave us half of what's nice about the Western culture. That same religion using that same, unchanging book, set half of Europe aflame multiple times, for ostensibly religious reasons. When you look at it from outside it looks ridiculous, and when you study history you discover obvious political goals behind the crusades and other European wars - but then, a lot of people fighting and directing forces believed they do it because "God commands it".

It's no different with Islam. Jihad is just an excuse to get people to fight and die for political causes. If the political reasons disappear, they'll soon find an excuse to not fight, and Jihad will again become "the internal struggle".

Someone else in this thread posted this [0]. They don't say what you tell us they say.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

The British thought the founding fathers were rebels, which is not the same thing as terrorists(not that they had that word to use anyway)

I love how hn is all about logical discussion and data, but when the topic is emotional enough, now anecdotes count for something.

Considering America has concentrated a large number of bombs on Afghanistan, why are they underrepresented in terrorist bombing of American targets? Why didn't the US see a spate of attacks from Cambodia in the 70s?

These are all great stories that have been talked about. But unless there is some kind of supporting evidence, these are still just stories.

Doesn't Western culture look back on Roman and especially Greek times as their founding myth?

> Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures.

Did you read your own source? Yes, there's more to it than what OP said, but it is true that this was a motivation.

Funny how a CEOs public letter is looked at with more skepticism than OBL on here.

Cannot upvote this enough. Folks just don't want to know the truth: Asymmetric war just guarantees more war.

It does, that's why I said "half of" not "everything". The Western culture is built as much on Roman and Greek legacy as it is on Christianity in Europe. So e.g. while a lot of classical literature is Greek/Roman, classical art and music is mostly from Christianity (and usually religious or semi-religious in nature).

I don't know the answers to your questions, but they are good questions. Not inconsistent with the image of a feedback process I presented. As a supporting evidence, I can say that every single case of terrorism or genocide I recall from both news and history lessons always has the perpetrators retaliating for some perceived or real injustice that happened to them, or their forefathers, in the past. Circle of violence isn't a new concept.

Yeah, yeah. Beliefs gets mixed on, always. But do you seriously believe the Troubles in Ireland were over theological hair splitting about who is the head of the Holy Church? Yet, it was always framed, even in my school books, as a conflict between Catholics and Protestants. Very puzzling if it were only that.

Nope, rebel is the positive (or at least neutral) version of terrorist, the terrorist for your side.

This exact oratory slight of hand is used constantly in media, virtue signaling through word choice.

No, there is a vast difference in tactics between rebels and terrorists. Rebels may use terrorism, terrorists may be rebels, but the two are not synonyms.