Long, but VERY creepy and extremely interesting:
There’s an interesting paragraph about Sayyid Qutb, and his book Milestones, considered the “Main Kampf” of islamism, where the hatred of America is rationalized using such bizzare logic:
“Here are the chief tenets he inspired: that America, and its clients, are jahiliyya (the word classically applied to pre-Muhammadan Arabia - barbarous and benighted); that America is controlled by Jews; that Americans are infidels, that they are animals, and, worse, arrogant animals, and are unworthy of life; that America promotes pride and promiscuity in the service of human degradation; that America seeks to ‘exterminate’ Islam - and that it will accomplish this not by conquest, not by colonial annexation, but by example.”
So it appears they hate you guys not because of Bush, Iraq and Israel but because of what you are.[/quote]
Not quite so clearcut. There’s this “they”; that “they”; and the other “they”.
“They” believe in and are highly motivated by the tenets laid out in the book Milestones. But “they” might also recruit other “they”'s to help, who aren’t all that motivated by the tenets in Milestones. The other “they”'s are motivated by American support of Israel; presence of American troops on “Muslim soil”; etc. This leads to several questions:
Are the second “they”'s fictitious; or relatively insignificant in number? (I doubt it.)
Would the first “they”'s be substantially weaker if American foreign policy did not motivate the second “they”'s to help the first “they”'s?
Would America be weaker in the long run by withdrawing enough to placate the second “they”'s?
Does America have an ethical obligation to support Israel and/or maintain a military presence in Saudi Arabia and Iraq, regardless of the answers to numbers #1, #2, and #3?