If the terrorists truly hated our freedom, then they would also be attacking Norway, Sweden and Canada. Countries with even more freedom than America.

I've never understood the "they hate us because of our freedom" line of (il)logic. Do you think Bush really believes it or does he just use it because it's a simple explanation for a relatively complex thing?

probably a bit of both JS.

it works though, my family in rural Oregon buy that line wholesale. as if we're still some beacon of justice and freedom.

I'd sure like an explanation about how Canada is more free than the United States. My impression is that the guarantees of the First Amendment don't find an equal counterpart north of the border.

Muslim fundamentalists may not have set off any bombs in places like Canada, Norway and Sweden, but they have been active in all those countries. Also, the two latter countries, along with others in Scandanavia and Europe as a whole are facing a variety of challenges posed by large-scale Muslim immigration and related problems associated with Islamic fundamentalism and Islamic culture in general.

JS is right to say that the problem is complex, and thus abbreviations may come in handy, but I don't think it's wrong to say that Islamist fanatics "hate us for our freedom." They are not merely acting to address grievances such as support for Israel or the mere presence of infidels on Muslim territory, but envision the spread of society that is antithetical to liberal democracy. Do you not think the purveyors of Sharia hate the "libertinism" of the West?

I don't have any real proof as to why Canada is more free than America. But I know its easier to smoke pot in Canada... So I guess they've got that going for them... which is nice.

On a completely unrelated topic, I just ran across an interesting article which states that National Crime rates are at their lowest point in 30 years.

http://www.wtvo.com/Global/story.asp?S=2290595&nav=0RePQpH2

America is probably safer now than ever in our history. And yet, we as a country continue to live in fear. Why?

I don't think that Islamic fundamentalists hate the United States because of freedom or because of support for Isreal. I think they hate the United States because everything they know about this country makes them believe that we are a nation of arrogant, selfish, wasteful, unGodly, rude, trampy, immodest, uneducated, bullying cowboys. If I had learned everything I know about the United States from watching television and listening to a cleric spew propoganda, I would probably think the same thing.

Justin,

You had it right (or nearly so) when you said, "on a completely unrelated topic): What do domestic crime statistics have to do with fear of threats of foreign origin?

I don't have any proof near to hand (though I could search for it), but my impression is that the U.S. is significantly freer than Canada (and Britain) when it comes to freedom of expression. Alan Borovoy, general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association once called Canada "a pleasantly authoritarian country."

Sally, surely several of the unflattering adjectives you mention could be associated with the idea of freedom. Americans are free to be all those things. Even if the Islamists were better informed about Americans, their doctrine is hardly compatible with Americans' notions about the nature and value of freedom, let alone what Americans think are acceptable expressions of their freedom.

My question is geniunely honest. If our country is safer now then ever in our nation's history, why do we Americans continue to live in fear?

I blame the media.

They may possibly hate us because we have a couple of military bases a few scooby snacks away from their most sancrosanct mosques; come to think of it, most of the world has a shitty opinion of the red, white, and blue because we have some sort of presence or interest in their country.

Maybe if we all read Dick's "Man in a High Castle", we may understand what it is like to be occupied and sharing space with someone else...can't believe I just referenced Phillip K. Dick on this damn blog. If you grew up in a miliary setting, are a miliatry brat and have shared time with someone who wears the same camoflague shit to the j-o-b every damn day, you may know where I'm coming from--

Oh,yeah... I think Steve Earle is dope!

Justin,

My question was "genuinely honest" too. Why not answer it?

(What do domestic crime statistics have to do with fear of threats of foreign origin?)

Now, let me get this straight, Javi, the mullahs would be quite comfortable with Western notions of liberty if it weren't for military bases?

If we want to understand why Al Qaeda attacked us, it is helpful to read the words of Osama bin Laden himself. Here is a link to his letter to America, written after we invaded Afghanistan: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html

If you read it, you'll see that he references all of the things people have mentioned here - our position on Israel, our immoral & debaucherous ways, our military presence worldwide, and yes, our freedom, though on that last point bin Laden's position contains some logical inconsistencies.

His central objection does seem to be our support of Israel, which is a thread that runs through the entire letter.

One very important point that I believe needs to be made is that the war bin Laden & Al Qaeda have declared is not just against the U.S. They do not only hate the U.S. (So comparing which countries are more free than others is irrelevant.) This is a global war. Bush's policy of alienating the rest of the world is a potentially disastrous one. Belittling the U.N. and the opinions of other nations is arrogant (to say the least), and I believe that it's dangerous. At the very least, it's unwise.

Steve Earle is right - until we're willing to talk about these things, we're in big trouble. We have a President who is unwilling to entertain any opposing views. He is on some kind of mission, and he refuses to be distracted, no matter what the evidence shows or what other people's views may be.

"America is probably safer now than ever in our history. And yet, we as a country continue to live in fear. Why?"

My take is because there is money and careers to be made in keeping everyone feeling scared. Look at the silly overhyped SARS mess and how many magazine stories that sold and how easy it was to whip everyone into a panic.

I frankly don't get this "but we live in fear" idea. I don't think people do. The Taipei Kid is certainly right that all sorts of threats are hyped, but I just don't think the average person is walking around in fear.

In fact, I think that all too often, being creatures of habit, we dismiss risks as being something that we watch on TV or that happens in some other realm.

Who hear will deny that there are things to fear from foreign enemies, for whatever reasons? Unless those threats materialize frequently, nobody's going to walk around in fear. But it doesn't hurt to be aware of the threats and it's rational to want to do something about them.

But this has been a digression. I haven't seen any solid refutation of the assertion that the Islamists indeed do hate our freedom.

"What do domestic crime statistics have to do with fear of threats of foreign origin?"

Nothing.

I'm not trying to compare the two.

I believe we are safer from a threat of terrorism now than we were before 9/11.

However, I don't think the war in Iraq has made us safer. I think Americans being suddenly aware of the threat of terrorism is whats preventing attacks.

And now we find out that there aren't any WMD's in Iraq. Why are we in that country? Its a freaking disaster. We spent billions of dollars and lost over 1000 American lives because of a connection between Iraq and Al Quaeda.

A CONNECTION! We went to war for a "CONNECTION." We're idiots.

Anthongy said: "But I don't think it's wrong to say that Islamist fanatics 'hate us for our freedom.' They are not merely acting to address grievances such as support for Israel or the mere presence of infidels on Muslim territory, but envision the spread of society that is antithetical to liberal democracy. Do you not think the purveyors of Sharia hate the "libertinism" of the West?"

That's hardly definitive proof that Muslims do indeed hate our freedom. Just because you say its true doesn't necessarily make it so.

Steve Earle must be a genius. Lets turn our back on Isreal and allow genocide of the Jews just to make the Muslims happy. What a wonderful world. Next he'll suggest we allow France control of our domestic policy.

Justin, I didn't make a statement so much as ask a question. I'll rephrase is: Do you think our notions of liberty are compatible with the views of Islamic fundamentalists?

Is it unreasonable to say they hate our freedom when they can't stomach the idea, for example, of women going uncovered, driving, having jobs (let alone influential jobs), etc.? Do we have to multiply other examples to make the point?

as if we're still some beacon of justice and freedom.

The liberal mindset, encapsulated in a phrase.

Anthony,

Point taken. You are correct. People who force womean to cover themselves, probably are not enthusiastic about America's strip clubs and porn.

But I still don't think that's the reason Osama attacked the US. And I don't think "our freedom" is the reason terrorists are blowing up buildings in Iraq.

To quote Chris Rock, "Whatever happened to crazy."

Forget about strip clubs and porn; people who force women to cover themselves probably are not enthusiastic about the provisions of the Bill of Rights.

If Osama bin Laden and the terrorists in Iraq shared the U.S.'s values they wouldn't be blowing up buildings in Iraq and elsewhere.

I don't think Mr Earle wants us to alienate the Israelis too. I think he wants us to think about why we would love them so much and not love everyone else equally. It's all about the love!

I am extremely sympathetic to what Sally posted early on:

"I think they hate the United States because everything they know about this country makes them believe that we are a nation of arrogant, selfish, wasteful, unGodly, rude, trampy, immodest, uneducated, bullying cowboys."

I don't believe that at our core, we (the United States of America) really are all these things, but almost everything Bush has done has propogated this perception across the Middle East (and the rest of the world). His PR machine is horrible, and I think the cuts to the foreign service over the years have really impeded our ability to educate the rest of the world about what the US really stands for.

McDonalds, MTV, and other corporations and elements of American pop culture have taken over the role of communicating American/Western ideals and values to many parts of the world. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I think it's had horrible consequences in many un-democratic Middle Eastern countries where there Islamic fundamentalism has a strong presence.

Obviously, many of our detractors in the Middle East disagree with policy decisions made by the Bush Administration (and previous administrations) . But there are only two ways to improve things: 1) change the bad policies; and/or 2) do a better job explaining the inherent value of American ideals and how our policies promote them.

So the stereotypes by which resentful Europeans choose to think of Americans is only encouraged by Bush, so all the fault is with him?

McDonalds, MTV, etc., isn't necessarily a bad thing, but we should care that it upsets fanatics in the Middle East?

Some Middle Eastern "detractors" also disagree with policy decisions made by the Bush Administration and previous ones, so the conclusion is that the U.S. needs to change the "bad" policies and/or do a better job explaining. But on what criteria do you distinguish good from bad policies, and what do you do if those "detractors" can't stand our "good" policies? And assuming we were to do a better job of "explaining the inherent value of American ideals and how our policies promote them," why would you assume that the U.S.'s detractors are going to approve of those values?

Hi Folks....I have had the good fortune to live, study and work in many different parts of the worls including a number of Middle East, North African and Asian nations either partially or wholly Islamic. For the most part "they" don't hate "us". There are serious cultural clashes most often relating to religious and social values. We look at veiled women in Islamic societies as repressed and exploited. In most Islamic societies, however, women wield significant influence through family and clan and view the veil as a religious obligation to maintain modesty. Do we criticize Mennonite, Hutterite and Amish women and girls for wearing ankle length dresses and head scarves ?

Our cultural and military instructors spent a great deal of time on the notion that we cannot understand another culture in the context of our own and that we [militarily] were unlikely to prevail over our adversaries if we continually underestimated and denigrated them. The explicit message contained in this instruction was that belief in propaganda is fine for the folks back home to generate support for
wars and, unfortunately, to convince front-line cannon-fodder to give up their critical thinking. The danger comes when the REMF's, politicians and pointy-heads start believing it as well.

Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

So the stereotypes by which resentful Europeans choose to think of Americans is only encouraged by Bush, so all the fault is with him?

Of course not all the fault is with Bush--and why'd you change from the Middle East to Europe's perception fo the US? And you call them resentful? I think you might harbor a bit of stereotypes yourself, there.

I think it can't be denied, that our standing among many allies and foes has worsened in the years since 9/11 and I just don't think that can be ignored. And I think much of it stems from Bush foreign policies, considering we didn't quite have this standing under, oh, many other US presidents.

The Middle East is not necessarily the biggest fan of occidental culture. That shouldn't keep us from trade or diplomacy. That also shouldn't keep us from examining their critique of us. I know, we hate to face our negatives, but we got a bunch of them and a total disproportionate abuse of finite resources (clean air, drinkable water, oil, gas) could certainly be one of them.

McDonalds, MTV, etc., isn't necessarily a bad thing, but we should care that it upsets fanatics in the Middle East?

Of course we should take note. I think globalization is showing no signs of really slowing and, when you're trying to hold on to your culture and way of life (as many Americans do) you tend to see foreign influence in a not-so-positive light. (In fact, I'd argue, we see this same fear in racism, sexism, etc.--fear of the foreign)

This fear (warranted or not) can turn to unjustifiable violence (against women, gays, Americans). That violence should always warrant introspection AND action. Bush just likes action.

You make some perfectly reasonable points that I’d hope would be uncontroversial: For the most part, Middle Easterners don’t hate Americans, and soldiers on the ground (or whoever) need to work at understanding the culture of the people they are working among in order to maximize success.

But the relevance of your comments isn’t clear to me.

You wrote about the propaganda that instructors suggested is meant to be digested by the folks back home. If that’s a commentary on references here to the status of women in the Middle East, you should note that the comments on this thread were made with regard to what Islamists are likely to think about the freedoms enjoyed here, not the reverse.

However, since you raised the point, is a person just a sucker for propaganda if he or she considers the relative merits of one approach to life or another? You ask whether “we criticize Mennonite, Hutterite and Amish women”; well, if we were to criticize them, so what? If there is a point to be made relative to this discussion it is that in this culture, those women are not persecuted. They are free to do as they please, at least with regard to the practices you mention. The same is true for Muslim women who wish to veil themselves. We know that kind of freedom displeases our Islamist enemies.

It may be worth noting that “in most Islamic societies… women wield significant influence,” etc. Maybe some people could benefit from such observations. But knowing these things doesn’t make such practices any less subject to critical consideration than, for instance, the relative degrees of freedom enjoyed by women in Western societies at different times and in different social subgroups, and what one ought to think of that. Did Western women in, say, the 19th century not have similar influence on their social groups? Does that mean their lot has not been improved since then?

But these considerations are really beside the point here: the discussion wasn’t about animosity between people of different cultures minding their own business, it was about the motivations of a minority of hostile actors that have shown we have to worry about them.

Jesse,

You raise some good points. No doubt I do harbor stereotypes of some Europeans. I hope they bear more resemblance to reality than the "cowboy" stereotype that some of them peddle. In any case, I'd be happy to discuss that further. I guess I brought up "resentful Europeans" because I think some of the negative (and unfair) stereotypes originate in Europe (as did I, by the way) and are the consequence of resentment at the ascendancy of the U.S. Some of it is also related to socialist contempt for the economic system of the U.S. (they hate us for our freedom too!).

Regarding the "cowboy" characterization, I challenge anyone to say with a straight face that France's foreign policy and diplomatic behavior is a model of principle and restraint.

I understand you to say we should deal with people despite various ideological differences. I agree wholeheartedly, but also think that sometimes it makes sense to draw lines and take a stand.

I do think that aspects Bush's foreign policy and even his personal demeanor have affected relations with several countries, and not only on a diplomatic level. But I also see a lot of fault on the other side, as I've suggested, and I think that sometimes you just have to risk irritating people. Reasonable people can disagree about whether Iraq was the right time and place to do so.

I doubt that much of the world is genuinely upset at America's "disproportionate" use of finite resources. It's a fine stick to beat the U.S. with, but I find it highly problematic. If the U.S. is consuming its own resources, what's wrong with that? If it's using resources that it bought, why not criticize whoever sold it. Do you think they're upset at having been able to make the sale? Also, how precisely are we to allot use of resources? If a country can't use as much petroleum, for instance, why should it have a proportionate share? And if it can't afford it, should we force producers to give it away?

Regarding the reaction of people threatened by the spread of globalization, or whatever, I'm really not sure what you are counseling. I'm all for trying to understand those different than oneself, but I'm not sure how it applies to the current crisis. I think Bush has been diplomatic to a fault in terms of reaching out to Muslims and affirming that Islam is a "religion of peace." I don't think a lack of introspection on the part of Bush is the source of disagreement; it's just that some parties don't like the way he thinks, and the way those thoughts translate into action.

John Dunagan,

Your post puts me in mind of Ted Kozynski, the Unabomber, who wasn't any less deadly than Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot combined, but for scale.

You'll excuse me, I have to go now and put in a phone call to Homeland Security to inform them of the Republican terrorist problem that you so helpfully draw attention to.