responses to luke weigler, DDR:
Luke Weiger wrote:
>
> Actually, if memory serves, Pape said in an interview that he acknowledges
> that folks like bin Laden might well wish to blow people up even in the
> absence of occupation, but that they wouldn't have the bodies if not for
> occupation.
>
> Obviously Al Qaeda and similar groups dedicated to exporting terror are
> composed of murderous theocrats from top to bottom, and they detest _all_
> Western wars and occupations on Middle Eastern soil. That's why claiming
> that any particular bombing is the result of _a_ given war or occupation is
> problematic.
>
its probably in the archives (i couldn't find it with a simple search), but when was it claimed that the bombing is a result of the iraq war? the debate, as i see it, has been (on the side i find credible): the iraq war was a significant motivator of those who carried out the bombing and the bombing may (would) not have happened if not for the war; and the opposing position to this. various alternatives ranging from the radicalization of islamic youth or the castrating effect of western liberalism/feminism have been offered instead. i find none as convincing for reasons already stated.
Dennis Redmond wrote:
> Ravi wrote:
>
>>india is not part of the west and i do not see similar acts of
>>castrated frustration there.
>
> On the other hand, there's an enormous amount of daily, unreported
> violence in India, including a number of regional national
> insurgencies...
true, there is violence everywhere. but it is difficult to see one form of violence (in non-western societies/communities) as a response to western liberalism (not imperialism) while not so in others. if western liberalism is such a castrating force for non-western men, then why not so for indian (non-western) immigrants to england, or indian men in india itself (as it "westernizes"), etc...
--ravi