The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Retirement Discussions / Retire Early CampFIRE
|Subject: Re: Cartoon of the day||Date: 11/21/2012 10:12 AM|
|Author: MadCapitalist||Number: 656312 of 778834|
"What interventionist policy led to the attack on 9/11?"
Our military presence in Saudi Arabia, sanctions against Iraq, and support for Israel. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were pretty explicit about the motivation behind the attack.
The problem with radical islam is that they are like Dem/liberals with weapons. If we weren't ever in Saudi, they would find some other excuse. We could be entirely within our borders and they would use the excuse of our women running around without bedsheets covering their bodies. Or that we let women drive cars. Or we eat bacon. Or who knows what.
It's possible, but when it comes to Bin Laden (who really set the direction for Al Qaeda), I doubt it. He was pretty consistent about fighting occupation of the Middle East by non-Muslim countries. He and Al Qaeda basically got their start fighting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan for the same reason. Then when the Soviet Union left and we began to occupy the Middle East in the early 1990s, he turned his attention to us.
I also think that it would have been much harder for Bin Laden to "sell" terrorism against us if we weren't intervening in the Middle East. Our intervention there was something that they could easily rally behind. We were "infidels" interfering with and occupying their region of the world. It wasn't difficult to develop broad support to fight this interference.
|Copyright 1996-2015 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|