« Not getting the point 101 | Main | Up a tree… »
Thursday, September 09, 2004
The other shoe...
I will not say 'I told you so'.
That would be insulting to the 7 (as currently reported) people who were just killed, and 160+ who were wounded, in the bombing outside the Australian Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia. No, I will simply say how very sorry I am that savages seem bent on discrediting the liberal voices around the world who always seem ready to defend them (or at least excuse them).
A couple of days ago treppenwitz was host to a lively (but academic) discussion of whether terrorism was a stand-alone evil, or a reaction to bad behavior on the part of the targeted nations. One of the participants in that discussion, a bright and eloquent (no, those two attributes don't always go together) blogger from Australia, took the position that terrorism was inexcusable... but could ultimately be tied to previous bad acts on the part of the targets.
I would have to think long and hard to come up with a country that is less offensive to the terrorists than Australia... maybe Finland. Yet, here we have horrible, tangible proof that no nation, no matter how inoffensive to the sensitivities of Islam, is safe from harm.
This is one case where I would have much, much rather have been proved wrong.
Posted by David Bogner on September 9, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c581e53ef00e5503e69678833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The other shoe...:
Comments
I'd have to say Canada is less offensive to terrorists. Afterall, we let them stay here for a bit and maybe even get a bit of training before the dispicable deeds of 9/11. We've played host to them so I doubt they'd want to draw attention to themselves (by upping racial profiling even more).
I hate to say it but these attacks are a problem that is only going to get worse with time. God help us if these people actually get organized on a large scale.
Posted by: celestial blue | Sep 9, 2004 1:46:27 PM
Imagine if those same people echoed that same sentiment about rape or domestic abuse victims. 'Tis frightening, the hypocrisy, the shifting goalposts, the rationalization and denial - especially in a most certainly deadly arena as this one.
It's days like today that I hate that feeling - "I told you so."
Posted by: maura | Sep 9, 2004 4:01:46 PM
When I read about this attack before work this morning, my *very* first thought was "I pray that you... sitting in the relative safety of Australia... will continue to enjoy the luxury of your current point of view."
But I disagree with your comment that Australia is relatively inoffensive to the terrorists. The Australian people have always been brave, good, and true friends to the US. Unfortunately, that in itself will sometimes get you killed.
Posted by: Tanya | Sep 9, 2004 4:50:50 PM
While Australia may be perfectly innocent in this case, it would be myopic to assume that target of terrorism is always innocent.
Not all terrorists are cut from the same cloth, so I don't think we should make universal statements about "terrorists". After all, my own American founding fathers were deemed as such by the British Colonials.
Please don't think I'm a terrorist sympathizer for I am not. I *do* think that unprovoked violence is universally bad. I only saying that if a large and powerful nation pisses off those in smaller and weaker nations, that larger nation is going to have a lot of pissed off people on their hands. It doesn't mean that larger nation *deserves* acts of terrorism, I'm just saying they may have a thing or to to learn.
Should we have universal and harsh laws against terrorism? Yes. Should nations tread respectfully on other nations' affairs? Also yes.
Posted by: Jim | Sep 9, 2004 10:54:24 PM
Jim... I have to part ways with you on this one. Anyone who deliberately attacks civilians... especially in a manner designed to cause the maximum loss of life... is wrong. period. There is no backstory that can place terror of this sort in a an understandable position.
The argument you bring is the very sort of thinking that clouds the waters just enough to take the negative attention off of the evil-doers. It is the same misdirection that had the press and goverment officials in Russia pointing fingers at everyone BUT the terrorists before the smoke had even cleared.
Posted by: David | Sep 9, 2004 11:47:36 PM
Jim-
I disagree with you as well.
1. If someone has a bone to pick with a government, they should either vote out the government (if they live in a democracy) or overthrow it (ie attack its officials and military -if they do not live in a democracy).Not attack civilians.
2. And if someone has a bone to pick with a large group of civilians, they should get their government to do something about it, not take matters into their own hands. Not attack civilians.
If the government won't do anything about it, then the real problem is either with the would-be terrorist or with the government. If the latter, go back to number 1.
I can't imagine what justification you think there could be for killing small children in pizza parlors. Anywhere. Is there anyplace on the planet that such a thing could be considered "provoked"? You got a problem and want to kill someone over it? Go for the soldiers, man, not the little kids and other innocent bystanders.
(I'm not saying that killing soldiers is good, either, but it's not terrorism.)
Posted by: Sarah | Sep 10, 2004 12:13:09 AM
David, I do agree with your first paragraph. Civilian attacks are *never* justified. This is a complex issue that we need to stay clear-headed about: civilian attacks are wrong and should be severely punished. In fact my first reaction to the school siege was that the Chechen rebels who the terrorists were demanding be freed should have ... instead ... been put to death. That would have sent a very clear signal to terrorists. Then I thought further about it and realized that might have been a knee-jerk response and probably unwise.
I also agree that my point of view might cloud the waters, and I *don't* want that to happen. I am coming from the point of view of an American whose foreign policy has been so egregious in certain regions that I know with certainty *why* some groups hate America.
Dear Lord, I hate losing a good debate, but I think I'm about to because the more I think about it, the more I see your point. To attach the U.S.'s culpability to an act of terrorism does give a shred of credibility to the terrorist's motives, which shouldn't be done because it might actually encourage terrorism.
Dammit, you're right.
However, I will still recommend greater wisdom in U.S. policies abroad, albeit apart from the topic of terrorism.
Posted by: Jim | Sep 10, 2004 12:24:57 AM
Yes, Sarah, your post came up after my epiphany, and it was the very train of thought regarding peaceful protest that I had as well. However, I'm surprised I gave you the impression that killing children was ever okay. Nothing could be further than how I feel.
Posted by: Jim | Sep 10, 2004 12:30:07 AM
Jim... I respect a man that can walk away gracefully from a flawed point of view. You are all class.
Before I saw your comment I was going to make one last observation... aw what the heck... I was just going to say that there were dozens of hijackings, bombings, and other acts of terror against U.S. interests and citizens before Dubya (or even his father) started getting up close and personal on Arab soil.
In this case, the chicken really did come before the egg.
Thanks again for being a mentch.
Posted by: David | Sep 10, 2004 1:17:28 AM
David, I know I have yet to address your points on that other discussion, and since they were good points I do intend to do so. Right now I don't have time, since I really need to be working on an unrelated essay.
However I need to take issue with how you have paraphrased my point of view. I didn't say that terrorist acts could be tied to bad acts on the part of the targets - nor especially, as I take Maura to think you to mean - on the part of the victims.
I do believe that US foreign policy (since well before either Bush) - and with it Australian foreign policy, especially in recent years - has played a role in generating some of the hatred that exists in the world, and I do understand some of that hatred. I do not (as you correctly said) believe that there is ever any justification for terrorism.
But here is where I think I part ways with Jim's 'epiphany' - I don't think it is clouding the waters to look at what, other than the evil characters of the terrorists, might have led to *and might continue to lead to* terrorists existing. Or if you like, terrorists so easily recruiting more suicide bombers to their causes. Or if it is clouding the waters, it's a necessary clouding.
Because quite frankly, Bush's war on terror has not helped so far, and I don't think it's likely to do so. I see your point, Jim, about not wanting to give any sort of credibility to terrorism, but I don't think acknowledging our own bad does that. Maybe there could be a degree of 'hey, they listened to us finally' but rather than encouraging more bombs I think that might go a ways to lesson hatred. And in any case, as I said, I don't think Bush's plan is working.
David said: "Anyone who deliberately attacks civilians... is wrong. period. There is no backstory that can place terror of this sort in a an understandable position."
Yes, absolutely.
And Sarah, yes, of course if you have a problem with the government you should vote against them, go through the government to deal with civilians etc. I am completely in agreement with all of that. But we know that not everyone is. We know that there are people out there who are prepared to do (formerly) unthinkable things. And we need to deal with the world as it is, not as it should be.
And finally, and this is where you will shoot me and say "I told you you were saying that," does anyone think the Russian government can really be surprised that they have terrorist activity as a result of their history in Chechnya? There is no question that the events in Beslan were evil. But is there really a question about the behaviour of Russia in Chechnya? I don't think so. Does that make the terrorists who tortured those children with thirst and then killed most of them less responsible for their actions? No. Does it make any sort of terrorism in anyway justifiable? No. But does it make it inevitable? I'm afraid so. That is the world in which we live. So does that make Russia culpable in (at the very least) not protecting it's citizens?
Posted by: Kay | Sep 10, 2004 1:05:35 PM
Oh Kay, I was *this* close to calling it a day on this issue and then I read your last paragraph. [sigh}
I was in the US Navy during the Iran hostage crisis under President Carter. Besides being a friend to the Shah, what did the Carter administration do to cause that? Hatred of 'The Great Satan' and all other infidels is unique in that it is ideaology-based... not a reaction to any particular event.
I like to take a long view of history.
I can't say for sure what exactly the Russian's thought their reasons for going into Chechnya were, but once there they were forced to confront a military force that did not play by conventional rules of war. Warfare in that part of the world has never had any rules to speak of, and as a result, anyone waging war there will have to sink to new depths of deparvity in order to prevail (this is one of the main reasons the coalition forces in Iraq have exactly 0% change of a clear military success on the ground... and never did).
The irony is that the wars fought between Muslim nations (i.e. Iran vs. Iraq) have been far more brutal than anything Rusia or the US have waged, without causing universal oaths of eternal Jihad... that, unfortunately is reserved for infidels... and that is what is at the root of the vast majority of anti-western hate on the part of Muslims... not our foreign policy, but rather a religion that codifies and encourages hate/violence towards non-believers.
Posted by: David | Sep 10, 2004 1:25:44 PM
David
I've been following this discussion with interest with Kay (my wife), and while she's busy writing her essay I thought I'd add my two cents worth.
As I recall, the Shah had a pretty nasty secret police force that did despicable things to a lot of Iranians. Friendship with such a regime could very easily cause ill feeling amongst those suffering under it.
And while the Carter administration may have been relatively benign in this regard, previous administrations in the 50s and 60s routinely propped up brutal, right-wing dictatorships to further America's political ends, regardless of the suffering this caused for the average joe in the street in the countries involved.
In the case of Chechnya, the Russians have been 'in' there since Czarist times and the Chechens have been fighting for independence the whole time. They have been brutally repressed by successive Russian and Soviet regimes for decades, and the rape and torture of non-combatants has certainly not been unheard of. In Stalin's time pretty much the whole population was forcibly removed to other areas in central Asia, and many were not allowed to return for years.
This is not to in any way condone what was done in Beslan. It was horrific and unconscionable. But the motivating factors go back a long way, and it is a gross over-simplification to lay the blame solely at the feet of Islam. It is clearly as much motivated by nationalist sentiments as religious ones, and probably more so.
Posted by: Kay | Sep 10, 2004 3:13:26 PM
Damn, I was sure I had changed the name from Kay's to mine in the post above. I'm Chris by the way, just in case this one comes out as Kay too.
Posted by: Chris | Sep 10, 2004 3:16:38 PM
Chris... So by your way of thinking, if groups from the countries that suffered under the brutality of Muslim conquest of Europe (Spain, et al) popped up and began taking out their long-suppressed rage over those misdeeds... it would be unforgivable, but understandable?
What exaclty is the statute of limitations on the kind of 'understandable' hate that gives one a gudging nod of empathy from the bystanders of the world?
You say that the U.S's sin in Iran was befriending a corrupt, totalitarian regime... and in Iraq, it was toppling a corrupt, totalitarian regime. If you are really suggesting that we lose either way, then maybe the right wing nuts are right: 'Kill 'em all and let G-d sort 'em out!'
Obviously I don't subscribe to this worldview...
But if nations invite hate by giving financial aid... by withholding financial aid... by befriending foreign powers... by attacking foreing powers... It would seem that you are advocating isolationism as the only solution that will keep us out of the path of Jihad.
As I said before, I don't believe the problem is rooted in any county's bad deeds. The problem is a society that fetishises death... that preaches and teaches hate of non-muslims in the mosque, home, school and media... and which uses hatred of outsiders as a way to distract their populations from the reality that they are living in the stone-age.
{sigh}
Posted by: David | Sep 10, 2004 5:15:14 PM
Kay and Chris, excuse me, but I believe that the US, Israel, and Australia already subscribe to the "internal" analyzation which you insist will decrease terrorism. That analysis takes form in public debate, the media, and the electoral process. It is the result of responsible citizens and governments CONSTANTLY analyzing their actions, their commitments and their goals.
Certainly, Israel, which has gone through three administrations during this most recent intifada can not be accused of not examining itself. Barak offered Arafat more than any other Israeli administration and the response was to begin targeting innocent children and their families in pizza parlors and public buses.
Where there is a noticeable lack of self-analysis is in the societies which foster this practise of targeting innocent civilians. WHERE is the outcry from the so-called moderates in these societies? WHERE are the people who prescribe your "we must examine how we contribute to the environment which nurtures this kind of murderous hate?" WHERE ARE THEY?
Where I believe we (you and I) part company, is that I believe that there already is a sense of social responsibility built into the societies which you insist must bear a (albeit it a miniscule) portion of the responsibility. Where we also seem to part company, is that as the terror escalates, I believe that it is inappropriate and extravaggant to indulge in a public airing of "dirty laundry" because it is clearly sending the signal that we are willing to accept culpability and they are not.
That is not to say that I suggest that democratic societies repeal their due process – rather, I think that these processes must remain internal and discussion limited to the citizens of each of these democratic societies and that the public front presented to terrorists is one of deafening silence. Until such time that the societies which foster this intolerable form of protest, there can be no meaningful discussion between the two sides.
BTW, you should know that a book was recently released that was written a well-known left wing Israeli author whose research found that it was actually statements by the Israeli LEFT and peace movements which encouraged Hamas of the effectivess of its campaign of terror. See this link for more information: http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=68735
Posted by: zahava | Sep 10, 2004 6:31:31 PM
Chris,
It seems relevant to note that lots of populations have been brutally repressed by lots of dictators - including not a few Muslim dictators, I should add. But it is only Muslim populations who have "responded" by resorting to murder of civilians as a primary tactic.
Now of course every credible falsehood has some truth behind it. The one behind yours is that most of the conflicts have indeed started with some greivance being cited. But the greivance appears simply to be an excuse - part of the psychological warfare involved in terrorism. The underlying thread in common with all of these attacks is that they are executed by Muslims against non-Muslims. And not just any Muslims (there are not very many Sufi Muslims blowing themselves up to kill infidels) - they tend to be made by Muslims who subscribe to the philosophy of Sayyid Qutb.
Yes, any alleged malfeasance by the West is seized upon by these characters as yet another "justification" for their evil. But just about any action by a desired target can be called a provocation. Just look at the recent kidnapping of *French* journalists - and the "crime" was France's attempts to slow the spread of Islamic radicalism by banning headscarfs!
BTW, this use of manufactured reasons to demonize the West should sound familiar to anyone who is Jewish. It is exactly the same tactic used for centuries by antisemites: Jews are evil because they are capitalists, or because they are communists, because they keep to themselves, or try to assimilate, because they are too rich, or because they are too poor. The real reason for the hate is because they are Jews, just as the real reason for the hate of non-Muslims is because they are non-Muslims who do not accept the second-class status that Islam decrees for them.
Posted by: Russell Gold | Sep 13, 2004 5:48:11 AM
BTW, if you have not already done so, I strongly recommend reading Paul Berman's The Philosopher of Islamic Terror. It is frankly chilling, and shows just how far we have to go before we can really prevail in this war.
Posted by: Russell Gold | Sep 13, 2004 7:02:04 AM
