New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | July 19, 2005

Cathy Young bristles at the left's reaction to the London bombings.

Comments

|7.19.05 @ 12:01PM|#

Cole pooh-poohs the idea that Islamic fundamentalist terrorism is a product of hatred for the West's democratic values. In his view, it is a response to specific Western policies that are perceived as a war against Muslims, from Israeli oppression of the Palestinians to the military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

These beliefs are hardly as fringe as Young makes them out to be. Reasonable people all over the political spectrum are making similar arguments. And pardon ME for pointing out the obvious, but the US has had a military presence in places like Saudi Arabia since long before 9/11. This seems a more likely cause of terrorism than a vague "they hate us for our freedoms".

|7.19.05 @ 12:02PM|#

I don't know what the bombers' specific motivations were, unless and until I hear them from the bombers.

Say the bombers did leave behind notes saying: "I like the freedom, but the Iraq War was terribly unfair and that is why I am going out to terrorize this morning."

If these notes exist, would they be released by the authorities to the Boston Globe? OF COURSE NOT. Bad for morale in wartime, homeland security, baloneyium ad infinitum.

Maybe the UK needs a FOIA so that we can get the important and credible info 1sthand, rather than speculating in its absence. How 'bout an article about this?

Jim Henley|7.19.05 @ 12:04PM|#

Oh dear. How fortunate at least that Cathy Young somehow missed all the right-wing references to "Londonistan" before the blood of the dead had even coagulated, outright "blaming the victim" for being too nice to Britain's Muslim population. Then she'd have had to write one of her even-handed pieces. But this is dire enough as it is.

|7.19.05 @ 12:06PM|#

Give me a break; Cathy, you'll need more paint to use a brushstroke that broad.

Using "a New Yorker", Juan Cole, a few commentators, and the Rev. Jesse Jackson as a makeshift representation of the Left is laughable.

Also, to suggest that the jihadists' hatred of our freedom drives their killing in the same paragraph as your mention of our "cavalier attitude" toward prisoner abuse is darkly humorous.

|7.19.05 @ 12:14PM|#

To quote the ever-timely David Cross:

... I don't think Osama bin Ladin sent those planes to attack us because he hated our freedom. I think he did it because of our support for Israel and our ties with the Saudi family and all our military bases in Saudi Arabia. You know why I think that?

Because that's what he f--king said!

Are we a nation of six-year-olds? Answer: Yes.

|7.19.05 @ 12:16PM|#

What is it about Arab people that causes them, uniquely among all the people's of the earth, to develop opinions about other countries that are wholly unaffected by those countries foreign and military policies?

I developed certain hostile opinions about the Russians during the Cold War - largely because they had several thousand kilotons of nuclear-tipped ICBS pointed at my house. Apparently, the Arab mind doesn't work like this.

Adam|7.19.05 @ 12:16PM|#

How many times do we have to go over this?

Bin Laden wants us to:
1. FIRST AND FOREMOST, adopt Islam and an Islamic theocracy.
2. Get out of the Middle East.
3. End our practices of fornication, homosexuality, gambling, using "intoxicants," and lending money with interest.

They hate us because their lives are hollow and meaningless and they have no hope or prospects. They've banned pleasure, and they operate on the philosophy that their misery demands global company.

It was John Kerry - not Juan Cole, not a New Yorker on the subway - who blustered that invading Iraq in response to 9/11 would be akin to FDR invading Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor. That's complete and utter nonsense, and that was from the HorseFace's mouth.

Young is right on on this one.

Adam|7.19.05 @ 12:18PM|#

Alkali - You're making shit up. You're just making shit up.

|7.19.05 @ 12:18PM|#

As if I need to remind Reason people: it is always appropriate to respond to an initiation of force with appropriate retaliatory force. But what seems to get lost is what constitutes *appropriate*.
The other side of the coin, though, is to ask if a terrorist attack is really an initiation of force, or some kind of retaliation, however inappropriate *it* may be. If it's retaliation, then clearly it behooves us to find out what started it, and not just pretend that they're crazy. That's not necessarily an admission of blame, or a reason not to use appropriate retaliatory force.
If the U.S. government cannot use appropriate retaliatory force, then the difference between the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys' is lost, and we may as well give up on Western civilization and revert to barbaric tribalism, just like our alleged enemies--might makes right, whoever has the most power wins.

Adam|7.19.05 @ 12:19PM|#

Alkali: THIS is what bin Laden said. And pardon me - David Cross is making shit up. You're just regurgitating David Cross's nonsense.

|7.19.05 @ 12:28PM|#

I think our foreign policy IS Bin Laden's main motivation, and everything else is just secondary.

I remember once when a this friend of mine broke up with her boyfiend--the REAL reason she did it was because he was a lying scumball drunk. But after the breakup, when we were smoking and talking about him, she brought up a whole other list of complaints: He never put the toilet seat down. He gave me crummy gifts for my birthday. Etc. But these weren't the reasons she dumped him, and she would have gladly tolerated these faults if not for the drunk-scumbag thing.

So while Bin Laden no doubt DOES hate our secularism and treatment of women, I don't think that alone is what motivates him; his saying "I hate US foreign policy. Oh yeah, and their culture, too," is like my friend saying "I hate him for being a lying drunk. Oh yeah, and for leaving up the toilet seat and buying me crummy gifts and etc."

|7.19.05 @ 12:31PM|#

Bin Laden wants us to:
1. FIRST AND FOREMOST, adopt Islam and an Islamic theocracy.

I wonder then why he's not attacked Japan, China, Russia, Brazil, South Africa, etc?

|7.19.05 @ 12:32PM|#

Jennifer-

Obviously what your friend should have done is stay in the relationship with that drunk, but blame all her problems on some other guy. Then she could go burn the other guy's house down and wonder why the other guy's family is so mad at her.

It's no disproportionate, it's empowering!

|7.19.05 @ 12:35PM|#

Adam,

Did you even READ the link you posted? His FIRST complaint is we support Jews.

|7.19.05 @ 12:37PM|#

Yeah, yeah, Bin Laden puts out a lot of verbiage about the whole world becoming Muslim.

I recall reading a few words here and there suggesting that the founders of our nation believed that their rights-of-man based philosophy was universal, too.

But I find it somewhat useful to remember that such assertions were made during a war to remove a specific military/political foe from our country's soil, and that upon the achievement of this goal, they didn't turn their efforts towards a global crusade.

|7.19.05 @ 12:42PM|#

Adam, I was with ya until you said... It was John Kerry - not Juan Cole, not a New Yorker on the subway - who blustered that invading Iraq in response to 9/11 would be akin to FDR invading Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor. That's complete and utter nonsense...

To recap: Bin Laden says he wants a one-world Islamic theocracy. This is wrong, bad, evil, and unlikely to happen. He also wants the U.S. to (your #2) get outta the Middle East. So, naturally, we bombed and invaded Iraq, one of the most secular of many oppressive Arab states, while maintaining our sweetheart relations with the Saudis whose citizens actually participated in the 9/11 attacks. So far I don't see the error in Kerry's statement, but I'm sure one of the posters here will enlighten me.

|7.19.05 @ 12:44PM|#

Cathy usually nails it, but I think this one was over-simplistic.

It was said above, but it needs saying again: Al Qaeda's beef with the US is in large part due to Gulf War 1 and military bases in the "Holy Land" of Saudi Arabia. The timing works out splendidly: war in '91, the first attack on WTC in '93, then a highly-organized, big-vision, "get 'em while they're sleeping" retry in 2001. Cathy obfuscates the timeline, but it seems pretty clear to me.

|7.19.05 @ 12:49PM|#

"So far I don't see the error in Kerry's statement, but I'm sure one of the posters here will enlighten me."

The error in Kerry's statement is that he has a face like a horse. I thought the original poster made that explicit.

|7.19.05 @ 12:50PM|#

Other myopic responses abound. A few commentators insist on a moral equivalence between the deaths of Iraqi civilians in US military operations with the deaths of civilians in the London bombings. Yet the US military and its allies have made every effort to minimize civilian casualties . . .

You know, killing Iraqi civilians who are neither "insurgents" nor terrorists, and certainly weren't involved in 9/11 or any other jihadi attacks, doesn't occupy a higher moral plane simply by virtue of the fact that we achieve it by accident rather than by design.

Perhaps the starkest illustration of this mindset is the fact that, only a couple of days after the bombings, the British Broadcasting Corporation reverted to its policy of avoiding the use of the word "terrorist."

Yawn. Reading the BBC coverage online, I've seen them referred to as "bombers," "suicide bombers," and "militants," and seen information that several of the perpetrators were being sought by "an anti-terrorist task force." So what, precisely and in great detail, would the use of the word "terrorist" achieve that those words do not? Greater fear in the populace? Greater cover for further military action?

The jihadists are driven primarily by hatred of Western civilization and its freedom . . .

Still waiting for those attacks in Amsterdam, Oslo and Stockholm . . .

. . . their primary targets are innocent civilians; and they cannot be defeated except by force.

Right. Which is why the only actual successful stopping of terrorist events thus far has come from law enforcement and global intelligence operations.

Really crappy, tendentious work there, Cathy.

|7.19.05 @ 12:52PM|#

Not just that, Mark, but he had a psychotic complulsion to take down the President of the United States.

You know, by accepting the nomination of the non-incumbant party, and trying to win votes.

|7.19.05 @ 12:55PM|#

The more I read, the more jaded I become.

There are no facts. Only politics.

|7.19.05 @ 12:57PM|#

I've got a question for Rick Barton, and everybody else who thinks our support for Isreal is the main reason they hate us: Why did they attack Madrid and London? Europeans and their governments are either nuetral or pro-Palestinian in the Israel-Palestine deal.

|7.19.05 @ 1:00PM|#

Madrid and London probably were due to their helping us in Iraq.

|7.19.05 @ 1:05PM|#

To answer Danimal's rather obvious question (and I'm late for work, so I won't touch anything else in this thread):

They attacked us, and not any of the other countries you list, because we're the biggest, and so we'll make the biggest noise when we fall.

Look, nobody straps bombs to their ass over *foreign policy*. That's nuts. I'm perfectly willing to accept that OBL has complex foreign policy goals. But his rank-and-file minions? Gimme a break. They're able to do it because they've been taught their whole lives that America is a profound evil.

I'm sure, given time and resources, they'd hate Japan, too. But one thing at a time, you know? It's hard to have a pantheon of Satans. Best to keep the wild-eyed youth focused on a single enemy.

|7.19.05 @ 1:07PM|#

...the work of so-called insurgents who drive explosive-packed cars into crowds of children while American soldiers hand out candy.

Wait, I'm confused. Is this hyperbole? Or did this actually happen? If so... that's just fucked up.

|7.19.05 @ 1:08PM|#

Why did they attack Madrid and London?

Because those two countries helped us in Iraq. Sometimes the friend of an enemy (the US) becomes an enemy, too.

|7.19.05 @ 1:08PM|#

I would probably have more respect for her opinion if she has remembered to mention that the ocupation of Iraq (well, part of Iraq, the "no fly" zones) and our military bases on the sands of Saud actually dates back to before the first attepmted attacks on the Towers: 1991. I'm sure she remembers it, it was a little thing we now call Desert Storm part I. (which I supported, but I would have supported more if A: we had removed Saddam, and/or B: left when we were done "freeing" Kuwait.)

Her leaving that out says something important about what she is really saying. I nominate this article for inclusion in NRO, rather than Reason.

|7.19.05 @ 1:10PM|#

Usually Cathy Young's articles are vry well-balanced; I don't know what happened here. Considering who she used as spokespeople for the left, maybe she should have also talked to Jerry Falwell and Fred Phelps to get the right-wing point of view?

|7.19.05 @ 1:11PM|#

"Right. Which is why the only actual successful stopping of terrorist events thus far has come from law enforcement and global intelligence operations."

Because, of course, law enforcement works so well without the threat of force. They enforce the law by argument. Also, Global Intelligence stopped terrorism how? Apparently by existing according to Phil. They report the intelligence findings to whom? No one, the just eavsdrop and the terrorist plot subsides.

Really crappy work there, Phil.

|7.19.05 @ 1:12PM|#

Look, nobody straps bombs to their ass over *foreign policy*.

If the foreign policy involves invading their country, they just might. Every war that's ever been fought was foreign policy by some country.

|7.19.05 @ 1:12PM|#

Look, nobody straps bombs to their ass over *foreign policy*.

Bullshit. The Tamil Tigers -- the world's leading suicide bombers -- do it over domestic politics. It's hardly a stretch to believe one might do it over foreign policy.

|7.19.05 @ 1:15PM|#

Because, of course, law enforcement works so well without the threat of force. They enforce the law by argument. Also, Global Intelligence stopped terrorism how? Apparently by existing according to Phil. They report the intelligence findings to whom? No one, the just eavsdrop and the terrorist plot subsides.

Really crappy work there, Phil.

If I had claimed any of those things, you might have a point, but as it stands, you're a fucking idiot. I said "law enforcement and global intellligence operations." You know, actively gathering information, conducting investigations, arresting people, jailing them and trying them.

None of this has anything to do with the kind of military force Cathy was clearly referring to in her piece.

|7.19.05 @ 1:16PM|#

What foreign policy does the US adopt to best deal with the following mindset described in this article, I wonder.

An insightful look into profiling "martyrs" and the hiring process and job descriptions surrounding suicide bombers.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7-1692606,00.html

|7.19.05 @ 1:19PM|#

...the work of so-called insurgents who drive explosive-packed cars into crowds of children while American soldiers hand out candy.

Wait, I'm confused. Is this hyperbole? Or did this actually happen? If so... that's just fucked up.

Presumably the soldiers were the target and the children were neccessary collateral damage in taking out the military target.

I hate collateral damage, too. We should take more aggressive steps to eliminate it.

|7.19.05 @ 1:19PM|#

Also she says "because the response to terrorism even on the moderate left remains an egregious moral muddle."

But uses as examples, Juan Cole, the BBC and Jesse Jackson. Moderate liberals? Yea, and FOX network is fair and balanced. And does this mean that Fred Phelps is a moderate conservative?

Personally, the "moderate" liberals I know want to know why we can't call Eric Rudolph a terrorist too. And we use the word "Terrorist".

Would have been nice if she had actually quoted a moderate liberal after starting the article that way.

I don't know, just looks like someone building a strawman to knock down.

Britton|7.19.05 @ 1:23PM|#

Wait, I'm confused. Is this hyperbole? Or did this actually happen?

Last week. Soldiers were handing out candy to a large group of kids, and a suicide bomber drive into them and detonated. Killed 28 children and one soldier, iirc.

Adam|7.19.05 @ 1:28PM|#

Rhywun - did YOU even read the link I posted?

(Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

Granted, he's not exactly consistent (and he does, after all, have some screws loose): He goes off about Palestine first, but his first demand is that we forego our way of life and adopt Islam. He then goes off on all the other "bad" things we do.

Jennifer - I see what you're saying, and no doubt our foreign policy is a motivator for bin Laden.

Danimal - I wonder then why he's not attacked Japan, China, Russia, Brazil, South Africa, etc?

Same reason we can't knock off Syria, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, etc. all at once, perhaps? He's attacked Saudi Arabia, Kenya, Tanzania, Indonesia, Tunisia, Morocco, Turkey, Madrid, a school full of children in Russia, Iraq Iraq Iraq Iraq and more Iraq, and now London. I'd bet it's a bit of opportunism and exploitation of weaknesses, a bit of political calculus, a bit of playing on whatever strengths his organization might have.

|7.19.05 @ 1:29PM|#

D Allen-
That was indeed a disturbing article about the Palestinian suicide bombers. And one foreign policy recommendation I'd make for dealing with this mindset is: stop supporting nations who make Palestinian lives so miserable that suicide becomes an attractive option.

Adam|7.19.05 @ 1:32PM|#

Dave W. - Re: blowing up kids and their families while getting candy from U.S. soldiers in Iraq. It really happened - 27 dead, at least 12 kids.

|7.19.05 @ 1:34PM|#

isuldur, if the Soviets had put 20 divisions on the California littoral, would you have given your life to stop their "foreign policy?"

David W., if pretending not to understand the cleft among the insurgents in Iraq - jihadis and nationalists - makes you feel better, than have it. But it's not doing much for your credibility in this argument.

Adam|7.19.05 @ 1:34PM|#

Dave - 27 Iraqis and one U.S. soldier dead/3 hit: doesn't exactly sound like collateral damage in an attack on U.S. forces. Sounds like a blatant and deliberate attack on Iraqis to me. Pure, unadulterated evil? Yes.

|7.19.05 @ 1:35PM|#

Dave W. - Re: blowing up kids and their families while getting candy from U.S. soldiers in Iraq. It really happened - 27 dead, at least 12 kids.

Presumably the soldiers were the target and the children were neccessary collateral damage in taking out the military target.

I hate collateral damage, too. We should take more aggressive steps to eliminate it.

|7.19.05 @ 1:37PM|#

I don't know Adam. Has the US ever dropped a bomb that killed 12 or more kids? My guess is that it has, but because this kind of info is secret, the honest thing to do is admit that we don't really know the extent (or types) of collateral damage inflicted by either side of the Iraq / Afghanistan war.

|7.19.05 @ 1:37PM|#

Cathy -- don't let the racket distract you, this was a good article. If you hadn't nailed it right on they would be screaming so loud. :)

Terrorism -- it's not just for the US anymore. Suicide bombers are taking out far more civilians than troops in Iraq.

I'm not sure I'll ever understand why the Western world is no longer able to see what is in front of it. We don't even recognize monsters anymore.

|7.19.05 @ 1:42PM|#

David W., if pretending not to understand the cleft among the insurgents in Iraq - jihadis and nationalists - makes you feel better, than have it. But it's not doing much for your credibility in this argument.

Now I am really not following. I was (purposely, rhetorically) conflating collateral damage caused by US army with collateral damage caused by Iraqi insurgents.

How is the jihadist / insurgent distinction at all relevant to my argument.

|7.19.05 @ 1:45PM|#

I just don't understand why people have to pick either/or. It's obvious that they hate both our foreign policy and our culture If we hadn't been meddling in the ME for decades, we would still be the biggest target. We're satan, remember? Japan? Amsterdam? Who gives a fuck about them? We're the top dog.

Now, coming from someone who thinks our long involvement in the ME has been misguided at best, does anyone honestly think that if we capitulated to their policy demands now because of terrorism that they would actually stop trying to kill us?

And let's assume for a second that the only reason for recent bombings is the Iraq War. Wouldn't that mean that the terrorists aren't happy about it? Isn't that a good thing? I don't want them to be happy. I want them to be bothered.

Adam|7.19.05 @ 1:46PM|#

Dave, willfully ignoring a very, very, very clear and consistent pattern of attacks against civilians in Iraq on the part of the terrorists, and the very careful and deliberate attempts to avoid harming civilians on the part of the U.S. is horseshit and further undermines your credibility.

|7.19.05 @ 1:49PM|#

And let's assume for a second that the only reason for recent bombings is the Iraq War. Wouldn't that mean that the terrorists aren't happy about it? Isn't that a good thing? I don't want them to be happy. I want them to be bothered.

Maybe we should chop down all the forests to spite the Unabomber and the ELF. I want them bothered. Fuck everybody else.

|7.19.05 @ 1:49PM|#

Dave W.: there's no evidence to suggest that the bomber last week was not specifically targeting the kids instead of the soldiers. Mothers in certain parts of Baghdad and in other towns have reported fliers in their neighborhoods warning them not to send their kids to school, because they'll be killed.

There are lots of soldiers in Iraq; a suicide bomber did not have to drive into a crowd full of kids, and you know this full well. To suggest that this was collateral damage, or at all comparable to US bombs killing civilians while targeted at terrorists, is disgusting.

|7.19.05 @ 1:50PM|#

I wonder whether Cathy is competent. I've been listening to BBC5 radio since the bombings and have hear the T word several times. What they generally haven't done is refer to them as Muslim terrorists just like they don't refer to Eric Rudolf as a christian terrorist. The BBC is not going soft on the bombings, hardly.

Also the BBC is reporting 56 dead, not 53 and have been for a while.

And yeah UK's support of Iraq war didn't help, though the fact that they were hosting the g8 summit might have made them a target even if they had they not been in Iraq, but who knows.

|7.19.05 @ 1:54PM|#

Stubby,

It is a lot easier to kill more kids when soldiers are not around. That is because soldiers tend to be armed and watchful.

For this reason, it makes a lot of sense to conclude that the soldiers were the target. No sense risking a Nicola Calipari if you really are after the softer kid-shaped targets.

|7.19.05 @ 2:00PM|#

The ignorence of many Reasonites never fails to amaze me. Yes, if we would just abandon Isreal and let them kill all the Jews, Bin Laden and his crew would go merrily on and we could live in peace with them. Islamic fundementalism is an agressive, totalitarian ideology. Like all agressive, totalitarian idealogies it must have an enemy and be expanding to survive. Abdoning Isreal and meeting all of Bin Laden's demands would not spare us attack anymore than abadoning Czechoslovokia to Hitler prevented World War II or giving Eastern Europe to Stalin prevented the cold war. If anything, accomadation makes such ideologies more aggressive. The Wall Street Journal today points out a usful bit of history concerning Islamic terrorism.

"Of paramount interest is the fact that each nation had recently exhibited a weakening public determination to aggressively meet the rising challenge of Islamist terrorism. Consider the U.S. of 2001: The Clinton administration had left behind a record of essentially ignoring those few terrorism analysts who asserted that full-fledged military action against al Qaeda's Afghan training bases, backed by the possibility of military strikes against other terrorist sponsor states, was the only truly effective method of preventing an eventual attack within U.S. borders. President Clinton himself, we now know, at times favored such decisive moves; but opposition from various members of his cabinet, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and finally (as well as most importantly) a general public that would not or could not confront the true extent of the Islamist problem generally, and al Qaeda specifically, forced him to confine his responses to occasional and counterproductive bombings -- even as the death toll from al Qaeda attacks on U.S. interests abroad rose dramatically. Correctly sensing that the new president, George W. Bush, was treating the terrorist threat with a similar attitude of denial, al Qaeda's Hamburg-based subsidiaries launched the 9/11 operation. . . .

In all of these examples, then, the "trigger" for terrorist action was not any newly adopted Western posture of force and defiance. Rather, it was a deepening of the targeted public's wish to deal with terrorism through avoidance and accommodation, a mass descent into the psychological belief, so often disproved by history, that if we only leave vicious attackers alone, they will leave us alone. It is hardly surprising that by actively trying -- or merely indicating that they wished -- to bury their collective heads in the sand, the societies were led not to peace but to more violent attacks."

The United States ignored and accomodated Islamic extremism for nearly 20 years beginging with the Beruit bombings and got the 9-11 in return. I suppose now if we could just accomodate them some more by adanoning our allies in Iraq and all the Jews in Isreal we might let alone. Yeah Right.

|7.19.05 @ 2:02PM|#

"Amsterdam? Who gives a fuck about them?"

Actually, the Islamist militants have recently taken out the Dutch out, too.

Filmmaker Theo van Gogh was stabbed to death because he dared to criticize Islam's treatment of women in a documentary. At the murder trial, the culprit said that if he were freed, he'd do it again in the name of Allah.

Ashish George|7.19.05 @ 2:05PM|#

Cathy Young, let us remember, was one of the first libertarians--I believe she refers to herself as a libertarian conservative, which may explain things--to join the din for the Great Patriotic War for the Fatherland with a Jacobin fervor.

http://reason.com/cy/cy092401.shtml

Does empirical data about the terrorists matter to people who froth at the mouth for a war over values?

http://www.amconmag.com/2005_07_18/article.html

|7.19.05 @ 2:09PM|#

Maybe we should chop down all the forests to spite the Unabomber and the ELF. I want them bothered. Fuck everybody else.

Yeah, that's it, Dave! And when we're done we'll just nuke the entire ME!

Look, I don't think Iraq is the proper way to go about our effort, but certainly don't see the sense in being upset about it because the terrorists are upset. Our mission (which may be near impossible, mind you, and perhaps ineffectual even if successful) is to create a prosperous democracy in Iraq. What the terrorists want is not and should not be a priority.

|7.19.05 @ 2:13PM|#

Adam, you're a waste of blood and hair. This quote from you:

"It was John Kerry - not Juan Cole, not a New Yorker on the subway - who blustered that invading Iraq in response to 9/11 would be akin to FDR invading Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor. That's complete and utter nonsense, and that was from the HorseFace's mouth."

should disqualify you from breeding. Please voluntarily sterilize yourself before we have to get law enforcement involved.

Mike H.|7.19.05 @ 2:13PM|#

What the terrorists want is not and should not be a priority.

Pretty much.

I imagine that they would also not like us to be in Afghanistan either. Yet somehow, this particular fact is usually left out of the overall calculus.

|7.19.05 @ 2:19PM|#

John:

You nailed it.

Appeasement is the road to ruin.

|7.19.05 @ 2:20PM|#

Look, I don't think Iraq is the proper way to go about our effort, but certainly don't see the sense in being upset about it because the terrorists are upset.

You focus on people who already are terrorists and then suffer some upset. This kind of upset doesn't bother you, but then it doesn't bother me either.

I think it is more useful to focus on people who get so upset by the "non-proper ways" you euphemistically refer to. So upset that this upset causes them to be *become* terrorists when they weren't before. Given the tender age of some of the London terrorists, it is quite possible that they are exactly the kind of people I am talking about here. Funny, none of them seem to have left a note somehow(!).

|7.19.05 @ 2:21PM|#

Mike-
Afghanistan actually had something to do with 9-11. Iraq didn't.

|7.19.05 @ 2:22PM|#

stop supporting nations who make Palestinian lives so miserable that suicide becomes an attractive option.

And if we outlawed abortion, then people would have no cause to blow up clinics and shoot doctors. And if we quit building houses or driving cars, the ELF might stop bombing homes and car lots. (The Unabomber is no longer a threat, Dave.)

Besides, it's not the suicide that has warmongering imperialistic facist racist kittenkilling deathbeasts like me so out of sorts - it's the suicide in the middle of other people that's the problem.

And we've left out some items among OBL and his cronies' litany of complaints. The Bali bomb - retaliation for East Timor. So give it back to Indonesia. And what about Al Andulas? They want it back - not all of Spain, I guess, just the portion held by the Moors until about five hundred years ago.

And what about Afghanistan? Nobody ever suggests that countries contributing troops to Afghanistan endanger themselves, but it's been mentioned more than once by the jihadists as yet another source of their pain.

Then there are groups like Hizb ut Tahrir, who want an international caliphate - Islam everywhere and everyone Muslim. A mere dewesternized Middle East won't satisfy that lot.

|7.19.05 @ 2:22PM|#

Mike H

Whats also never mentioned is that many of the same people who whale about Iraq also were against going into Afghanistan. In October of 2001 the party line was:
It was illegal.
There was no proof that the Taliban were involved with 9-11.
We should just demand the extradition of Bin Laden.
It was going to be a quagmire.
Tens of thousands of civilians were going to die.
The people of Afghanistan support the Taliban and will unite and run us out ala Russia and Brittan. Yada Yada Yada.
Now of course, everyone who posts on here supported the war in Afgahanistan from the very begining. Uh Hmm. The fact is many people have so much self loathing and guilt over Western Civilization that they can't bring themselves to defend it, because doing so requires the firm belief that this civilization with all its faults is better and worth saving from civilization as Bin Laden sees it. That is just too much to ask from many people on the fringes of the left and right, libertarian or otherwise.

|7.19.05 @ 2:25PM|#

And if we outlawed abortion, then people would have no cause to blow up clinics and shoot doctors. And if we quit building houses or driving cars, the ELF might stop bombing homes and car lots. (The Unabomber is no longer a threat, Dave.)

So, stubby, you make no distinction between Rudolph's anger at women getting abortions and Palestinian's anger at having their country taken from them to assuage European Holocaust guilt?

Mike H.|7.19.05 @ 2:25PM|#

Jen,

But if our concern is what exactly it is that produces this hatred, this is a reason. Following a certain line of reasoning, shouldn't we take action and get out?

|7.19.05 @ 2:25PM|#

Further to previous:

It may not be clear what my policy prescription here is vis-a-vis the collateral damage I so deplore?

My most important prescription is to track, quantify and make public the collateral damage caused by US (and British, Marshall Is., etc.) forces.

Once we have a good empirical handle on the amount and types of collateral damage we cause, the ensuing public debate is sure to provide many creative ideas about how to reduce this damage, while still achieving our policy objectives.

I doubt that all collateral damage can be eliminated. Some level and some types are morally acceptable to me, at least in the context of a just war.

However, what I will not do is get all excited and conclusory about a collateral damage incident caused by the insurgents when I really have no idea how often or gruesomely it may work the opposite way. That would be hypocritical.

|7.19.05 @ 2:27PM|#

"Whats also never mentioned is that many of the same people who whale about Iraq also were against going into Afghanistan."

John, you're a liar. Only a few on the far fringe said we shouldn't go into Afghanistan; that war enjoyed overwhelming support among Democrats as well as Republicans.

b-psycho|7.19.05 @ 2:30PM|#

-One side says muslim extremists attack because "they hate our freedoms", and believes any shift in policy would be appeasement.

-The other side says that they attack solely because of our policy, and believes that it would all stop if we simply left Saudi Arabia and stopped supporting Israel.

As usual, the truth is somewhere inbetween.

The ideological leadership of these groups -- Osama himself, the radical clerics, etcetera -- would hate "the west" no matter what we did and as a result are completely impossible to deal with. Nothing short of a bullet to the brain will stop them, it's only a matter of whether it will be us doing the job or their co-religionists that are hanging on the fence about it.

The grunts of the islamo-supremecist force -- those people blowing themselves up in Iraq, bombing trains in Europe, the 9/11 hijackers -- though they like the message about our "decadence", they only buy it because our policies seem to confirm what they're being told. Many of them have an internal conflict where they want the wealth and status of "the west" without the sin, failing to realize that modernity and strict religion are irreconcileable, so eventually they're pushed off the edge. Some of these people can be coaxed into something less violent, but it's a race against time, a very difficult one due to the clash between what they want here and what they want in what they believe to be the next life.

What has to be done is to help the 1st group meet as early a death as possible, while convincing the 2nd group that life here is worth staying to enjoy it. This is why we're treading water in Iraq & terrorism by muslim extremists is still going strong, we're trying to do the 2nd task with the military, whose job is solely to handle the 1st.

|7.19.05 @ 2:33PM|#

I think it is more useful to focus on people who get so upset by the "non-proper ways" you euphemistically refer to. So upset that this upset causes them to be *become* terrorists when they weren't before

Dave, there is no doubt in my mind that the war in Iraq has increased the recruitment of terrorists. But creating new terrorists (and keep in mind, no one is suicide bombing anything without extremism already percolating in their veins) seems to me to be just as meaningless as Bush saying his program is working because we haven't been attacked again. Any action we take, even appeasement, will breed new terrorists. That can't be helped, as any sign of strength or weakness on our part will be used against us.

|7.19.05 @ 2:34PM|#

The Unabomber is no longer a threat, Dave

No, but we can still do things to cause him emotional upset. That is the context in which I mentioned his nickname.

b-psycho|7.19.05 @ 2:39PM|#

What we need is a policy that will say "tell you what: liberalize and tell the nutjob clerics to take a flying f*ck off a cliff and we'll disengage like you want. If not, then those people have to die. Your choice, you want us gone or not?"

|7.19.05 @ 2:43PM|#

What a bunch of scaredy cats on this blog! THE ENEMY IS IN THE MOSQUE, NOT THE WHITE HOUSE. The London bombings happened because Tony Blair (Neville Chamberlain II) and others are refusing to acknowledge this ugly little fact.

I'm sorry folks. World War III has arrived.

|7.19.05 @ 2:45PM|#

But if our concern is what exactly it is that produces this hatred, this is a reason. Following a certain line of reasoning, shouldn't we take action and get out?

Mike, before we concern ourselves with what causes hatred, we also need to (honestly) decide whether or not this hatred is justified. For example, there's a HUGE difference between someone who hates me because I stole their life's savings or killed their kid, versus someone who hates me for some stupid reason like having red hair, or being short.

And the sad fact is, America is NOT one hundred percent innocent in regards to the way we've treated the rest of the world, and not everybody hates America for unjustified reasons. I'd say the Palestinians are pretty justified in despising both Israel AND us for supporting her (on a tangent, I STILL don't understand why it was the Palestinians rather than the Germans who had to lose their country to make up for the Holocaust).

|7.19.05 @ 2:45PM|#

(and keep in mind, no one is suicide bombing anything without extremism already percolating in their veins)

If a Muslim army invaded my hometown, you better believe that there would be a big bomb in my car. I hear and heed faint scream of all my departed family members willing to accept (probablisitically) suicide missions in WWII and Korea and protect their homeland. I visit their graves. My family blood is mucho extremist, I guess.

|7.19.05 @ 2:51PM|#

"We're satan, remember? Japan? Amsterdam? Who gives a fuck about them? We're the top dog."

Which is, apparently, a status we share with Spain, Bali, and France (where terrorists attempted to crash an airliner into the Eiffel Tower).

"In all of these examples, then, the "trigger" for terrorist action was not any newly adopted Western posture of force and defiance. Rather, it was a deepening of the targeted public's wish to deal with terrorism through avoidance and accommodation." What avoidance and accommodation did Australie endorse prior to the Bali bombing? Oh, that's right, they joined the Coalition of the Willing.

|7.19.05 @ 2:51PM|#

Whether one is on the right wing or the left, e'll NEVER solve this problem if we insist that as Americans, our country is one-hundred-percent innocent and people overseas hate us for absolutely no good reason at all, and nobody alive right now could POSSIBLY have a legitimate reason for disliking us or wanting to fight us.

|7.19.05 @ 2:56PM|#

Dave, first of all many, if not most, of the actual insurgents in Iraq are not from Iraq. Second, if a Muslim army invaded your hometown would you attack the army or innocent civilians? I don't think you'd drive your car bomb into a school bus. And even if you would, I'm sure you'd rather just blow up the bus and live to blow up another one. As far as I'm concerned, attacks against our military are justified. Blowing up a London tube station is not.

I'm sure your family members fought bravely to defend our country. I also believe that they did not intentionally attempt to kill innocent civilians. Our current army has done more to limit civilian casualties than any army in history. It's a priority for them, and I think they'll keep getting better. Maybe you disagree, but intent counts for something in my book.

Adam|7.19.05 @ 2:58PM|#

Of course - self-flagellation is certainly the key to victory.

|7.19.05 @ 3:00PM|#

> "What avoidance and accommodation did Australie endorse prior to the Bali bombing? Oh, that's right, they joined the Coalition of the Willing."

Well... Either that, or it had something to do with Abu Bakar - head of the radical Southeast Asian Muslim group Jemaah Islamiah - wanting to establish his documented goal of establishing a strict Islamic state in Indonesia. Much like the Abu Sayyaf would like to set up a strict Islamic state in the Philippines, and enjoys slicing the throats of peaceful missionaries along the way.

Adam|7.19.05 @ 3:03PM|#

MD - You've perfectly illustrated the nonsensical horseshit of the left that Young was talking about. You are the weakest link: goodbye.

|7.19.05 @ 3:03PM|#

We cannot demand perfection. We also cannot fall into the trap that because we're not 100% innocent, we somehow deserve to be attacked. That takes the mantle of responsibility off of those who planned and executed the Madrid and London bombings and puts it on our shoulders. Al Qaeda and other groups bear full responsibility for how they respond to their grievances.

|7.19.05 @ 3:03PM|#

Jennifer, I agree with you. We certainly share culpability. However, let's say for the sake of argument that both the US and the terrorists are equally guilty. Then what? Are we supposed to assuage our guilt through the deaths of our people who have more to do with TV ratings then American foreign policy? It would also be good to remember that the terrorists will not accept any guilt on their part. For them, it is 100%.

|7.19.05 @ 3:04PM|#

Of course - self-flagellation is certainly the key to victory.

If you equate self-knowledge with self-flagellation, that's between you and your therapist.

|7.19.05 @ 3:06PM|#

Stretch-
I don't know how to answer that exactly; certainly by now, after fifty years of sucking up to evil assholes (so long as they were willing to say they hated our enemies!), we've painted ourselves into a corner. I don't think there's any one single thing we can do to solve this problem overnight, but I DO know that insisting on our total innocence and purity, and insisting that we are entirely innocent victims here, will blind us to any solutions that we COULD otherwise see.

Adam|7.19.05 @ 3:19PM|#

Jennifer, I'll publicly acknowledge we're not perfect when you acknowledge Saddam Hussein was a menace to world order and a threat to the United States.

|7.19.05 @ 3:21PM|#

Yes, Jennifer, but I see anything but insistence on our total innocence. I see plenty of not only partial-guilt, but total guilt throughout much of our society.

You said it right, we certainly painted ourselves into a corner with our interventionist foreign policy, and now it's too late to remedy those mistakes. There is no simple solution, but I'm certainly not going to fret with collective guilt over foreign policy decisions that I disagree with, in many cases made before I was born. And although it's extremely unlikely that they will get to me (or you, for that matter), if they can they will kill us. They will kill us without hesitation or remorse. Guilty or not, I can't accept that.

|7.19.05 @ 3:24PM|#

many, if not most, of the actual insurgents in Iraq are not from Iraq.

We don't know this. It is not public info. We don't even seem to know if the specific insurgent who did the candy attack is from Iraq(!). Amazingly, we don't seem curious about this seemingly answerable question. We'd rather just speculate that the man was from somewhere else -- probably wherever we want to send the army next.

if a Muslim army invaded your hometown would you attack the army or innocent civilians?

I would attack where my commanding officer told me to. If she told me to firebomb Dresden, I would do it. If she told me to hit Nagasaki I would do it. If she asked me to burn Fallujah down to the ground I would do it. That's just how war works these days.

Not to dodge resp tho, if I were the C.O., then we would have had a full and fair society-wide debate concerning collateral damage before the war started. I would use my power to make that debate happen, like NOW. I would probably have to declassify a lot of embarrassing collateral-damage-related info to fully inform the debate, but the debate would be worth it. How I would Command myself would depend upon what was persuasively argued at the debate.


I don't think you'd drive your car bomb into a school bus.
Yes, under a couple conditions, specifically: (1) a Muslim soldier was on the bus; and (2) he was the only Muslim soldier I had a decent chance of killing with my bomb.


And even if you would, I'm sure you'd rather just blow up the bus and live to blow up another one.
Sure, but I would probably prefer death to capture. Depends on what my realistic options were at the time.


As far as I'm concerned, attacks against our military are justified. Blowing up a London tube station is not.

Agreed. I was discussing the candy bomber in Iraq. When an invading army is not in (or soon to be in) your backyard, it tends to tie your hands as a matter of morality.

I'm sure your family members fought bravely to defend our country. I also believe that they did not intentionally attempt to kill innocent civilians.

Which one? The one who bombed Germany, the one who bombed Japan or the one who destroyed Fallujah?

Our current army has done more to limit civilian casualties than any army in history. It's a priority for them, and I think they'll keep getting better.

This is the info I want quantified and tracked. I sure that once we start collecting and declassifying the relevant collateral damage statistics and anecdotes, the record will speak for itself. On the other hand, if anybody wants to leave this info untracked or undisseminated, then I get real suspicious that they are hiding something.

|7.19.05 @ 3:28PM|#

Jennifer - Why? On what basis should I make the distinction between Rudolph's anger and the Palestinians'? I'm not talking about whose complaint I find more compelling; I am pro choice (probably less so than you, certainly more so than him) and I have a lot of sympathy for the Palestinians, who I think have been screwed and badly by both sides.

But the argument you seem to be making is that, if someone's anger is so great that it leads them to mass murder - that's the issue here, not the suicide - then in order to stop the murder we must assuage the anguish.

Anti-abortion folks believe abortion is murder. To them, every abortion is as tragic and appalling as the murder of an infant is to you or me. Their anger and their anguish is real, and it leads some of them to commit what we consider atrocities, but what they consider necessary and justifiable acts to top the mass murder of infants.

So - is there some objective standard for determining whose anguish justifies the slaughter of innocents and whose does not? Yes, of course I understand you don't approve of wholesale slaughter - you're not saying the Palestinians are right to blow themselves up on school buses, but we have to consider Israel's policies and our support of those policies etc. etc.

"We deem your anger to be a realistic response to the offense you have suffered, therefore we'll stop doing what's causing you offense. But you, over there - we don't find your offense to be reasonable, or justifiable, so we won't stop doing whatever we're doing that grieves you so."

Sounds like a values judgment to me.

One big difference between the Palestinians and the abortion bombers, of course, is that the Palestinians are suffering themselves, the abortion bombers are not. Well, the jihadis aren't suffering themselves, either - spare me, please, the terrorism-is-a-product-of-desperate-poverty theory, cos we know by now that a great many of the most violent and resolute jihadis are actually well-educated and Westernized products of the middle or upper middle classes. They are offended at the presence of infidels in Muslim countries. Is there some objective standard that says their offense is more reasonable and justifiable than the abortion bombers'?

When do you accede to the aggrieved's demands, and who decides, and by what standards?

My feeling is - if you're deliberately detonating yourself in a crowd of civilians - I don't care how righteous is your cause, fuck you. But then I'm a slavering warmongering etc. etc.

|7.19.05 @ 3:32PM|#

This is the info I want quantified and tracked. I sure that once we start collecting and declassifying the relevant collateral damage statistics and anecdotes, the record will speak for itself. On the other hand, if anybody wants to leave this info untracked or undisseminated, then I get real suspicious that they are hiding something.

I don't disagree with this sentiment, but let's face facts. A large chunk of our population just doesn't have the stomach for war (not necessarily a bad thing at all). As a society, I don't think we could tolerate something like Dresden, which was both terrible and effective. To many, any sort of collateral damage is unacceptable. As unrealistic as that is, no matter what the stats showed many would claim that we went too far. This, of course, would be picked up by one political party or the other and used for selfish reasons, which would splinter the country even more and hurt the war effort.

Hey, I'd like them to do such a comprehensive study (or at least release what they have), but I'm not going to hold my breath or necessarily believe that we're killing civilians willy nilly just because they won't release the info.

|7.19.05 @ 3:33PM|#

Jennifer, I'll publicly acknowledge we're not perfect when you acknowledge Saddam Hussein was a menace to world order and a threat to the United States.

How was Saddam a threat to us? Even Bush and company now admit the WMDs didn't exist, and thanks to our no-fly zones he didn't even have access to two-thirds of his own country.

Since you probably suspected that I wouldn't call Saddam a threat to us, does this mean you think we are indeed perfect, and nobody has a legitimate reason for disliking us?

Stubby-
So are you saying there are never any reasons for people to fight back? You seem to think the Palestinians are unjustified. I'm sure you had no qualms with members of the French Resistance attacking Nazis, but for how long? Had Germany won the war, would you call French partisans terrorists? I doubt that. But where do you make the distinctions? If Chiina successfully invaded us, how long would Americans be allowed to fight back before we became "terrorists" in your eyes?

Stretch-
I'm not saying you or we should wallow in guilt, but we SHOULD try to fix those wrongdoings of ours which we can fix. Chronic remorse is useless; better to apologize and make what amends you can.

|7.19.05 @ 3:42PM|#

Still waiting for those attacks in Amsterdam, Oslo and Stockholm . . .

The Dutch have a little problem with jihad that has been in the news lately. If you look hard enough, you will find that Norway and Sweden are encountering problems with Islamic nutjobs in their ghettoes.

|7.19.05 @ 3:43PM|#

I'm not saying you or we should wallow in guilt, but we SHOULD try to fix those wrongdoings of ours which we can fix. Chronic remorse is useless; better to apologize and make what amends you can.

And I think it's too late to do that. To do so now wouldn't be admitting wrongdoing, it would be allowing terrorists to drive American policy. I truly believe we're in a real jam, one that cannot be fixed by changing administrations or tactics. We're pretty much damned if we do and damned if we don't at this point.

|7.19.05 @ 3:47PM|#

Hey, I'd like them to do such a comprehensive study (or at least release what they have), but I'm not going to hold my breath or necessarily believe that we're killing civilians willy nilly just because they won't release the info.

This part, as well as the rest of this post, seems correct to me.

My point is that our lack of knowledge about our collateral damage inflicted by us makes it impossible to really assess the degree of evil of collateral damage acts inflicted by our enemy in the warzone. For all I know, some or even most US bombs dropped in Iraq have a worse civilian-kill ratio than the candy bomber did. If that is the case, I become a dupe when I get on a high horse about the candy bomber.

|7.19.05 @ 3:48PM|#

To [make amends for past wrongdoing] now wouldn't be admitting wrongdoing, it would be allowing terrorists to drive American policy.

Hmm. Perhaps you're right. On the other hand, if peaceful protest didn't change American policy, and we won't allow terrorism to do so, does this mean we just keep blundering through the world oblivious of those whom we hurt?

|7.19.05 @ 4:04PM|#

Jennifer, I'll publicly acknowledge we're not perfect when you acknowledge Saddam Hussein was a menace to world order and a threat to the United States.

It is completely inconsequential what you or Jennifer or Juan Cole or Cathy Young do or do not publicly acknowledge. A question to Cathy Young: Have you lost whatever journalistic ambition you once had or had you always dreamed of being the columnist keeps score in the war of ideas (or un-ideas, anti-ideas, which are really the currency of political debate in America) between "the right" and "the left"?

|7.19.05 @ 4:20PM|#

On the other hand, if peaceful protest didn't change American policy, and we won't allow terrorism to do so, does this mean we just keep blundering through the world oblivious of those whom we hurt?

Jen, I just don't know. It's sad to say, but as a nation run by a handful of pols, that might be the outcome. I kind of beleive we're actually getting close to the end now. If we (or someone else) take care of China, NK, Iran, the entire ME, Pakistan and a few scattered others the world may become a fairly stable place. To be sure, there will always be war of some sort, but the days of real world changing are close to over. It's a tall order to be sure, one which will take centuries at least, but looking at the past few millenia it's pretty remarkable what humanity has acheived. What will happen then is anyone's guess, but I'd like to think we'll make time to make amends.

Of course, we'll have to keep from destroying the world completely first...

|7.19.05 @ 4:30PM|#

Speaking to causes of terrorism:

Since we attacked Iraq for a grab-bag of reasons, from their fascist inclinations, history of invasions, possible WMD possession, Kurd-gassing, terrorist links, educated populace potentially democratically viable, potential integration into world economy, making our military vital again, sanction-deaths, vulgar profiteering etc.etc. and saw them as a good choice for invasion for all these overlapping reasons, to cover our asses if nothing else,

is it so hard to believe Al-quaeda's ideology doesn't have its own grab-bag? Decadent, bases on Saudi soil, infidels, betrayers, supporters of Israel, having other pets in the region, control of world trade, keeping people poor, having an empire when they'd like one, colonial history, colonial traces, blahdeblah,

I'm not saying there's moral equivalence or full rationality to either of these positions, but these discussions can be ridiculous.

And for those who said we couldn't trust Iraq's sketchy leadership in anything they said because of recent history, most people feel they can't trust the United States in anything they say because of their sketchy leadership in recent decades.

|7.19.05 @ 5:15PM|#

Jennifer: I'm not talking about people who "fight back" - I'm talking about suicide bombers who target their own people or the civilian population of another people. The French resistance did not blow up children gathered about German soliders passing out candy. Granted, I doubt Nazis passed out candy to kids, but if they had, the FR would not have taken that opportunity blow them up. (Aside to Dave: The children were interacting with the soldiers, and the so-called insurgents target any Iraqi who has any peaceful contact with the occupying forces (as in, don't send your kids to school). The kids weren't collateral.)

Jennifer: Likewise, if China invaded and occupied us, I would not, under any circumstances, justify, favor or excuse any "resistance" which deliberately targeted American civilians.

If Palestinians targeted only the IDF, that would be one thing. But they don't. Suicide bombers inflict indiscriminate slaughter. And several of the Palestinian factions are still fighting for the destruction of Israel, not just a redress of Palestinian grievances or the establishment of a true Palestinian state. And I never said that Palestinian anger wasn't justified - I said that suicide bombing is not justified.

Everyone keeps screaming about all the innocent Iraqis being killed, but must of those Iraqis are now being killed by the so-called insurgents.

I've often disagreed with your opinions but I never thought you batty. If you honestly believe that there are any parallels between the French resistance and the Iraqi terrorists, then we're living in different universes.

The Iraqi "insurgents" are not fighting for anyone's freedom. A minority of them might be nationalists, and those are the ones who now seem to be fighting the foreign jihadis and with whom we seem to be doing some talking.
But Baathist deadenders are just fighting to reinstate themselves at the top of the food chain (the Kurds, the Shiites and unaccodomating Sunnis being the food), and the jihadis are Islamic imperialists. They're not the Minute Men or the Resistance. They're like the Klan in the 1950s and 1960s.

And Joe - OBL and, I believe, the Bali bombers themselves listed East Timor as a cause for targeting Australians.

You may think the war was a dreadful mistake, you may think it's been handled dreadfully, you may think George Bush is the Antichrist, but to give those people any moral credence whatever does you no credit.

|7.19.05 @ 5:17PM|#

Jennifer,

Whether the U.S. and Isreal are perfect or not has nothing to do with whether or not the terrorists can be reasoned with or with weather their tactics are justified. The fact is that the United States, France and England screwed Germany at the end World War I and the Germans had some legimate grievances against all three. That fact didn't make Hitler anymore reasonable or the cause of destroying him any less just. Yes, the Palistinians have some grievances against the Isrealis. The Isrealis have some grievences against the Arab world, namely that 100s of thousands of them were forcibly expelled from their homes all over the Arab world after the 1948 creation of Israel.

The Germans had some very legitimate gripes with the Poles for their appalling behavior between the wars. That in no way justified Hitler's and the German's attempts to exterminate them. No grievence the Palistinians have against the Isrealis can possibly justify terrorizing the entire population and indescriminately murduring the civlilian population. Make no mistake about it, if it were up to people like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, every Jew in Isreal and perhaps the world would at least be homeless and almost certainly dead. Everytime people like you apologize for the Palistinian's appalling behavior and attempt to morally justify suicide bombing, terrorism, and murder, you give it legtimacy and essentially authorize every other oppressed group in the world to pursue the same tactics. Afterall, what is so special about the Palistinians? If suicide bombing and terrorism is justified in their cause, isn't it also justified for Tibetens, Basques seperatists, Phillipine Muslem Seperatists and the like? The only difference I can see is that the Palistinians are killing Jews in their uprising, which seems to be more acceptible and therefore justified of more extreme measures among many circles these days. But, killing Jews has always been a preferred sport.

|7.19.05 @ 5:23PM|#

The values and the culture of Bin Laden is the problem. He see's them eroding and being perverted by western influence as opposed by the acceptance and assimilation of his fellow muslims. The Taliban see it much the same way, hence their support. Much in the way the US religous right see's with their values and morals being eroded. And like the US War on Drugs, Bin Laden punishes the exporters and the users but doesn't quite understand (nor does he want to understand) why there is such high demand for western culture by fellow muslims. He simplifies it as being an infidel sickness spreading through the islamic world.

Hypocrisy is his hatred, especially among certain islamic and political leaders. The Saudi Royal family is a clear example of dictating religious values to the citizens while walking an infidel's path. US foreign policy in the ME, historically, helps to justify his violent actions to those that choose to follow his lead.

The solution to ending terrorism might resemble the solution that depolarizes the US, uniting the right and the left.

|7.19.05 @ 5:28PM|#

For what it's worth, there is nothing the least bit inconsistent in saying (i) Al Qaeda hates and targets the U.S. because we support Israel and (ii) the U.S. should support Israel. I personally hold both of those views.

Put another way, you can believe the U.S. should support Israel without pretending that the U.S. can do that without suffering any adverse consequences whatsoever as a result. In my view, it's a price worth paying.

|7.19.05 @ 6:18PM|#

Alkali: that's a great point. I never thought of it like that, but I agree with you.

I wonder how many of the people who are very opposed to the Iraq war were opposed to the Kosovo war? Granted, we never put troops on the ground - but at the time, I thought we should. We killed a lot of Serbian civilians, too - a lot of that bombing was stupid and half-assed, and ended up damaging more civilian than military targets. But I don't recall it inspiring the fury that the Iraq war, and Iraqi civilian casualties, did. There was a lot of support on the left for intervention in Kosovo, on purely humanitarian grounds - the Serbs, obviously, were no threat to us. Serbia was a sovereign country, and Kosovo was a province of Serbia. We violated a country's sovreignty in order to stop the massacre - or suspected massacre - of its citizens. There was much talk of genocide and mass graves - but, as it turned out, the numbers bandied about were way inflated. The victims were Muslim, the oppressors Christian.

I'm not saying that the situation in Kosovo, and in Bosnia before that, wasn't dire - it was, and I supported the Kosovo action - I would've supported action in Bosnia - it was as shameful as our inaction in Rwanda - but I don't recall anyone saying, after it was over, that we were misled because the number of murdered Kosovars was far less than had originally been predicted.

I do recall asshats like Tom DeLay opposing the Kosovo war, mostly because they hated Clinton, but that's the way asshats behave (i.e, my guy does it, it's okay. your guy does it, it's an outrage.)

And I suspect that had Clinton taken us into an Iraq war - which he wanted to, but felt he did not have enough support from his cabinet or the American public - a lot of the people who talk of Bush's war crimes would have supported it.

|7.19.05 @ 6:51PM|#

Stubby and John--
First of all, I want to clarify that when I say "insurgents" I am speaking of those who attack American or British military forces and contractors, NOT those who attack civilians. The civilian-killers (I was already aware of the candy bomber of last week) are basically the equivalent of those LA rioters who used the Rodney King verdict as a bullshit excuse to loot the property of business owners who had NOTHING to do with any perceived injustice, and especially the equivalent of the vile LA rioters who pulled Reginald Denny out of his truck and utterly brutalized him.

The Palestinians, though. . . please understand that what I'm about to say is NOT meant as a justification for the killing of innocent civilians, but I'm trying to put myself in their shoes. Me and my family have been kicked out of our home, basically as penance for a horrible crime (the Holocaust) which we NEVER EVEN COMMITTED, and no other country will take us and we've been living in goddamned refugee camps for DECADES now, and treated like subhumans by the people who kicked us out of our home.

Or maybe that happened to my parents; maybe I was actually BORN in the refugee camp. And perhaps I could stand even that, but then the Israelis demolished my house AGAIN, or killed someone I dearly love. Either way, is there a chance that in such vile surroundings I might come to view the Israelis not as a collection of individuals, but as The Oppressor? And do anything to lash out at them? Yes.

This is not to say that what the Palestinians are doing is RIGHT; this is only to say that chances are that a LOT of them feel this way and will CONTINUE to feel this way unless and until their situation changes.

It's like the old arguments about people in high-crime neighborhoods. If you want to wipe out something like murderous LA street gangs you should certainly imprison the individual gang members who commit murder--but jusy picking them off individually will NOT be enough to solve the problem unless you're willing to go for all-out indiscriminate mass murder. You also have to figure out what the hell is going on that so many kids become murderous gang members in the first place, or else you'll never make any progress in solving the problem.

And so it is with Palestinian bombers, and Iraqi bombers, and Afghan bombers, and even the {State Department blacked out this word} 9-11 bombers. Picking off the individual criminals will never, ever be enough to get rid of them all unless we committed genocide. You have to address the root causes, and you can't do that without understanding how the bombers and supporters themselves view the situation.

|7.19.05 @ 7:39PM|#

Jennifer:

The only way you could really address root causes is with a time machine.

|7.19.05 @ 8:19PM|#

Adam, you're saying David Cross was "making shit up." David Cross said Osama bin Laden attacked us because we support Israel and because of all the military bases in the Middle East (this is a paraphrase). You posted Osama's letter to America as proof that this is false. From Osama's own letter, which YOU posted to bolster YOUR opinion:

As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:

(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

a) You attacked us in Palestine:

(i) Palestine, which has sunk under military occupation for more than 80 years. The British handed over Palestine, with your help and your support, to the Jews, who have occupied it for more than 50 years; years overflowing with oppression, tyranny, crimes, killing, expulsion, destruction and devastation. The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its*price, and pay for it heavily.

(ii) It brings us both laughter and tears to see that you have not yet tired of repeating your fabricated lies that the Jews have a historical right to Palestine, as it was promised to them in the Torah. Anyone who disputes with them on this alleged fact is accused of anti-semitism. This is one of the most fallacious, widely-circulated fabrications in history. The people of Palestine are pure Arabs and original Semites. It is the Muslims who are the inheritors of Moses (peace be upon him) and the inheritors of the real Torah that has not been changed. Muslims believe in all of the Prophets, including Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon them all. If the followers of Moses have been promised a right to Palestine in the Torah, then the Muslims are the most worthy nation of this.

When the Muslims conquered Palestine and drove out the Romans, Palestine and Jerusalem returned to Islaam, the religion of all the Prophets peace be upon them. Therefore, the call to a historical right to Palestine cannot be raised against the Islamic Ummah that believes in all the Prophets of Allah (peace and blessings be upon them) - and we make no distinction between them.

(iii) The blood pouring out of Palestine must be equally revenged. You must know that the Palestinians do not cry alone; their women are not widowed alone; their sons are not orphaned alone.

(b) You attacked us in Somalia; you supported the Russian atrocities against us in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir, and the Jewish aggression against us in Lebanon.

(c) Under your supervision, consent and orders, the governments of our countries which act as your agents, attack us on a daily basis;

(i) These governments prevent our people from establishing the Islamic Shariah, using violence and lies to do so.

(ii) These governments give us a taste of humiliation, and places us in a large prison of fear and subdual.

(iii) These governments steal our Ummah's wealth and sell them to you at a paltry price.

(iv) These governments have surrendered to the Jews, and handed them most of Palestine, acknowledging the existence of their state over the dismembered limbs of their own people.

(v) The removal of these governments is an obligation upon us, and a necessary step to free the Ummah, to make the Shariah the supreme law and to regain Palestine. And our fight against these governments is not separate from out fight against you.

(d) You steal our wealth and oil at paltry prices because of you international influence and military threats. This theft is indeed the biggest theft ever witnessed by mankind in the history of the world.

(e) Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures.

(f) You have starved the Muslims of Iraq, where children die every day. It is a wonder that more than 1.5 million Iraqi children have died as a result of your sanctions, and you did not show concern. Yet when 3000 of your people died, the entire world rises and has not yet sat down.

(g) You have supported the Jews in their idea that Jerusalem is their eternal capital, and agreed to move your embassy there. With your help and under your protection, the Israelis are planning to destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque. Under the protection of your weapons, Sharon entered the Al-Aqsa mosque, to pollute it as a preparation to capture and destroy it.

(2) These tragedies and calamities are only a few examples of your oppression and aggression against us. It is commanded by our religion and intellect that the oppressed have a right to return the aggression. Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge. Is it in any way rational to expect that after America has attacked us for more than half a century, that we will then leave her to live in security and peace?!!

(3) You may then dispute that all the above does not justify aggression against civilians, for crimes they did not commit and offenses in which they did not partake:

(a) This argument contradicts your continuous repetition that America is the land of freedom, and its leaders in this world. Therefore, the American people are the ones who choose their government by way of their own free will; a choice which stems from their agreement to its policies. Thus the American people have chosen, consented to, and affirmed their support for the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, the occupation and usurpation of their land, and its continuous killing, torture, punishment and expulsion of the Palestinians. The American people have the ability and choice to refuse the policies of their Government and even to change it if they want.

(b) The American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes that bomb us in Afghanistan, the tanks that strike and destroy our homes in Palestine, the armies which occupy our lands in the Arabian Gulf, and the fleets which ensure the blockade of Iraq. These tax dollars are given to Israel for it to continue to attack us and penetrate our lands. So the American people are the ones who fund the attacks against us, and they are the ones who oversee the expenditure of these monies in the way they wish, through their elected candidates.

(c) Also the American army is part of the American people. It is this very same people who are shamelessly helping the Jews fight against us.

(d) The American people are the ones who employ both their men and their women in the American Forces which attack us.

(e) This is why the American people cannot be not innocent of all the crimes committed by the Americans and Jews against us.

(f) Allah, the Almighty, legislated the permission and the option to take revenge. Thus, if we are attacked, then we have the right to attack back. Whoever has destroyed our villages and towns, then we have the right to destroy their villages and towns. Whoever has stolen our wealth, then we have the right to destroy their economy. And whoever has killed our civilians, then we have the right to kill theirs.

The American Government and press still refuses to answer the question:

Why did they attack us in New York and Washington?

If Sharon is a man of peace in the eyes of Bush, then we are also men of peace!!! America does not understand the language of manners and principles, so we are addressing it using the language it understands.

***

Did you happen to see the bits about us supporting Israel and having military installations in the Middle East?

Here's the Israel bit:

"(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

a) You attacked us in Palestine:

(i) Palestine, which has sunk under military occupation for more than 80 years. The British handed over Palestine, with your help and your support, to the Jews, who have occupied it for more than 50 years; years overflowing with oppression, tyranny, crimes, killing, expulsion, destruction and devastation. The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its*price, and pay for it heavily."

Here's the military occupation bit:

"(e) Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures."

So, if Osama bin Laden said those are (two) of the reasons for attacking America, how can you disagree that those were reasons for him attacking America and claim that David Cross, by repeating Osama's own words, that he's "making shit up?"

|7.19.05 @ 9:02PM|#

Jen: Ok, fair enough - I understand now what you're saying.

And the high crime analogy is interesting; if this thread is still active tomorrow I want to read more. For now I have to go force feed a toddler.

|7.19.05 @ 10:11PM|#

I wonder how many of the people who are very opposed to the Iraq war were opposed to the Kosovo war?

I did.

I was reluctant on Afghanistan but in the end I supported it. I was reluctant because, well, war is a big decision, and nobody should be eager for it no matter what the circumstances. But shortly before the bombs started falling, after the Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden, I concluded that there was no way around it and the war was necessary.

|7.20.05 @ 10:13AM|#

Twba,

"The Dutch have a little problem with jihad that has been in the news lately. If you look hard enough, you will find that Norway and Sweden are encountering problems with Islamic nutjobs in their ghettoes."

And yet, not terrorist attacks. They have large numbers of hostile Islamists living right in their countries and HATING THEIR FREEDOMS, and yet, they aren't subject to the terrorist attacks. I think you just scored a point for my side.

I was also in favor the Kosovo War (and the intervention in Bosnia), and against the Iraq invasion. Mainly for practical reasons - I had confidence that the Kosovo action was of a manageable size, while the Iraq invasion was a huge catastrophe waiting to happen. I also had confidence that the Clinton administration and military leadership was up for the job and would handle the situation competently, while the Bush admin and their military leadership were too blinded by ideology, and too incapable actually governing ably, to prevent such a sticky problem from blowing up on us. For which, I gotta say, I'm looking pretty freaking prescient right about now.

But yes, I can see the parallel between the humanitarian justifications for the two wars, and I always considered that to be the strongest argument for invading Iraq. Certainly moreso than the obviously-phony WMD and Al Qaeda connection stories. For a while, the question of invading Iraq was a tough call for me.

|7.20.05 @ 10:21AM|#

Joe, for now, the terror is inflicted upon muslim women who become a little too Norwegian.

|7.20.05 @ 10:29AM|#

I think you just scored a point for my side.

What makes you think we are on opposite sides of every issue?

|7.20.05 @ 9:37PM|#

Blah blah blah.

If you want a good, scholarly account of jihadi terrorists' and suicide bombers' backgrounds and motives, go read Marc Sageman's Understanding Terror Networks.

Here's a nice summary:

www.fpri.org/enotes/20041101.middleeast.sageman.understandingterrornetworks.htm.