Bloodless Coup

They don't however, hate us because we are "free."

Sorta depends on how you look at it. At bottom, to the extent that we can capture the feelings of a movement with a gross generalization, "they" hate us because we're secular and modern and our women run around uncovered and stuff. And because we're sort of exuberantly exporting all that at 'em. And because they're poor and have shitty oppressive kleptocratic governments and are full of resentments that have been all fired up by blowhard imams, of course.

Yep. Those are all actual, positive reasons to hate us (from their perspectives). None of those, however, has to do with "freedom" per se (though, of course, our freedom has allowed us to choose to be those things).

Or, to put it another way, we're about as free as Canada, Britain, and France (in a general sense), and yet the terrorists don't hate (or attack) those states (except as they see them as associated with us) in the same way.

My point was that being secular and modern and running around uncovered is certainly about "freedom", particularly when the proposed alternative is "sharia".

The US is certainly the biggest, loudest, most unruly and obnoxious representative of that sort of freedom, and of course that makes it the fattest target -- wholly apart from exceptionalism and interventionism and worldpolicemanism and manifestfuckingdestinyism and whatnot.

Secular?

It certainly is where I am.

Yeah I don't think being secular has much to do with it. I mean it's not like these groups (or some of them - discussing them like they are a cohesive "they" is highly problematic) haven't targeted the Saudis too. That's hardly a bastion of the secular (well, from our perspective or that of many Saudis).

You guys really don't believe the fact that we're not Islamic doesn't have something to do with it?

Really?

WTF?

We're getting off-track: my point was that all these different terrorist groups (as armand noted: they have different goals) are not focused on the US because of our "freedom." They attack us because our policies interfere with their goals and strategies. We can debate whether we should interfere, and how to interfere, but lets at least put to bed the idea that they want to kill us because we are "free."

That may fit your preferred theoretical framework, but it ignores reality. To consider these groups as just another set of geopoliticial actors and ignore the radical religious motivation is ridiculous.

amplifying baltar's: "They attack us because our policies interfere with their goals and strategies" --

isn't it also fair to say that "they" attack us because it's good for business? not in the american sense -- shareholders, if i don't make 14% on my money somebody's getting fired, that sort of thing -- but in the sense that people want something to do, something to live for, a raison d'etre of whatever sort, and demonizing this country provides that, by offering the poor, dispossessed, and oppressed an effigy to gambol about other than the injustices they themselves suffer (ever so much harder to face).

and it's not as though that's not broadly analogous to what the bush admin (and others before it with other enemies) has been doing for 6 years -- with iraq, if not all global terrorists.

maybe this is inappropriately nihilistic or cynical of me, or too nebulous in any event, but it just strikes me that a cynic might opine that, especially in authoritarian regimes of one sort or another, the demons hardly matter -- what matters, is that there are demons. because of our broadly secular character, we fill that purpose nicely as a photonegative of sharia law, but it is a purpose, and we are a convenience, a chisel people (imams, would-be terrorist leaders) can use to break themselves off a little power. call it the gangster or bully theory of IR.

in this sense you can call it freedom or pumpernickel -- they hate us because they're told to, and they're told to becausse doing so makes certain people powerful and influential and wealthy by whatever measure pleases them.

wow, i've a) got no idea what i'm talking about and b) i'm depressing myself rather severely.

we're not Islamic

That's not the same thing as being free. FOr that, the would be attacking Japan, which is free and not islamic either.

Yeah, I don't think that "we're not Islamic" has much to do with it. There are lots and lots of places that aren't Islamic, and Al Qaeda (and all the offshoots) aren't much planning on killing them. The only non-American targets they tend to go after are ones associated with American policy (Britain, Spain, etc.) Thus, I conclude, it isn't the "non-islamic" part that angers them, but something about what we do that angers them. Likely, I argue, our policies (or, to be more accurate, their interpretation of what our policies are).