Russell Brown commented Tuesday on some of the growing bigotry coming out of the New Zealand blogosphere in response to last week’s bombings in London.
There’s another form of bigotry: that of denying the links between terrorism targeted at the West and the actions of Western governments and corporations. People don’t want to believe they’re a part of something horrible so it’s a natural reaction to deny these links; to do otherwise is to admit that we are in some way responsible for these acts of violence. But the truth is we are. We need to take responsibility for our collective actions and stop denying that what goes around comes around.
In an interview with The American Conservative, Associate Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago, and author of Dying to Win: The Logic of Suicide Terrorism, had this to say in light of his research:
The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign — over 95 percent of all the incidents — has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw.
Once the occupying forces withdraw from the homeland territory of the terrorists, they often stop — and often on a dime.
In Lebanon, for instance, there were 41 suicide-terrorist attacks from 1982 to 1986, and after the U.S. withdrew its forces, France withdrew its forces, and then Israel withdrew to just that six-mile buffer zone of Lebanon, they virtually ceased. They didn’t completely stop, but there was no campaign of suicide terrorism. Once Israel withdrew from the vast bulk of Lebanese territory, the suicide terrorists did not follow Israel to Tel Aviv.
In the mean time British tabloids, television and politicians have been working furiously to ensure that the dominant theme of last week’s London bombings becomes, “the terrorists will not change the way we live.” Meaning what? They’re not talking about privacy, civil liberties and human rights. No, despite the rhetoric, these are the very things authoritarian politicians and their bankrollers are itching to change.
I think what it really means is that we will continue to strut around the planet sticking our limp dicks in other people’s deserts; murderously invading and occupying other nations to “secure our interests.” I think it means we will continue supporting Israeli apartheid, oppression and tyranny. I think it means we will continue to mass produce weapons of war; selling them to dictators throughout the world when they kotow to the capitalist power-elite. I think it means we will continue to allow private corporations to rape this planet and its population. I think it means we will continue to support and re-elect politicians who lie through their teeth, taking us into wars of aggression which fly in the face of everything we supposedly learnt about war and propaganda in the previous century. And I think it means we will continue to believe we are god’s “democratic” gift to this world while simultaneously producing “representatives” who talk like this:
In 1996, Madeleine Albright, then the U.S. secretary of state, was asked on national television what she felt about the fact that 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of U.S.-led economic sanctions. She replied that it was “a very hard choice,” but that, all things considered, “we think the price is worth it.”
I’m tired of hearing from those who supported the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the so-called “War on Terror.” You’ve done enough damage. I’m damned if you’re going to continue ruining my niece’s future and the future of millions of other children in this world. And I’m tired of all the self-proclaimed “moderates” who have tolerated these war-mongers because they’re piqued that the bombs are pointing the other way for once. Stop denying the violence of the West and the valid greviances of those who make last week’s violence thinkable.
Comments
Saying that these attacks were directly caused by invading Iraq is a ridiculous knee-jerk reaction. It “could” have been, but just as easily “could not” have been, you just don’t know.
As you’ve pointed out in your previous post the 11/09/01 attacks were a response to US-supported Israeli activities in Lebanon in 1982??!? Would a radically different American Foreign Policy in the intervening 19 years have made any difference to the reasoning of an extremist?
The West should not alter their foreign policies in the Middle East and Africa in response to a “terrorist attack”, that is letting “terrorism” dictate foreign policy. The Foreign Policy of Western nations should only be changed because the people of those countries demand it, not Al Queda. It is called democracy.
Well, let me tell you what I believe, since you are so willing to misrepresent what I’ve written. I didn’t write “these attacks were directly caused by invading Iraq.” I wouldn’t be surprised in the slightest but what I actually wrote, to paraphrase myself, is that it takes a bigot in a heightened state of delusion to deny the links between terrorism targeted at the West and the actions of Western governments and corporations. Who knows indeed, it could have been perpetrated by MI5. Turn off your box and take a look at the world around you Nick. To speculate that the London bombings are connected to the invasion and occupation of Iraq is quite clearly far from being a “ridiculous knee-jerk reaction.”
That’s the conclusion of researcher Robert Pape, and it’s certainly my belief. “Lebanon” wasn’t the only reason of course. Indeed, as Robert Pape points out, the intervening years have played an important part but it’s the actions of here and now that really count; stop murderously invading and occupying people’s homelands (such an outrageous demand, I know) and the attacks are likely to stop, “on a dime.”
It’s too easy to forget that the “War on Terror” is what saved Bush’s ass, it’s his political life blood, and it’s a gigantic crock of steaming shite. Whether terrorist attacks are perpetrated by the CIA/MI5/Mossad or people hanging out in the caves of Afghanistan, the problem is not one of terrorism but one of classic politics. Terrorist attacks are a symptom. Take away the environment in which terrorist attacks are made possible and you’ve largely dealt with the problem. It’s stating the obvious really. And by taking away the environment in which terrorists attacks on the West are made possible we kill two birds with one stone, since “the environment” is Western state terrorism.
It’s an interesting catch phrase, “foreign policy,” isn’t it? Swap it for “stop murderously invading and occupying” in your last comment and, bingo, we have the statement of a bona fide bigot. I know you probably believe we’re “delivering democracy to the world” and “riding it of terrorism,” but for the sake of my niece and millions of other children in this world do us a favour will you and stand the fuck down.
Dude, you’re doing that straw man thing, where have I stated I personally support the “War on Terror ™”? nowhere. because I don’t.
I don’t believe in using a terrorist attack as an excuse to further one’s political agenda no matter how passionate or “right” you, GW Bush, or Tony Blair think you are for doing so.
Also, I didn’t get your “point” on democracy at all, unless you are actually advocating a dictatorship ruled by a minority that “know better” than the majority of voters.
If you are so passionate about the “injustice” of which you offer no realistic solutions — (Jews aren’t likely to heed the demands of Al Queda and leave Israel anytime soon) you should be trying to convince people in a semi-rational manner, perhaps calling those who don’t have the exact same world view as yourself — “bigots” isn’t the way to go to convince them.
I guess “You are either with us or against us” isn’t just a Bushism.
You know Nick, what people like you really need — the self-professed leftist moderates — is a good clip around the taringas. I mean that in the kindest way.
Look, if you don’t like being labeled a bigot then maybe you shouldn’t come on here preaching peace while simultaneously arguing that the West should not stop its own terrorism. Maybe you shouldn’t come on here preaching rationality while simultaneously spouting some half-baked straw man argument that the West shouldn’t stop murderously invading and occupying other nations because some of the victim’s heavies have decided to fight back (with or without the help of CIA/MI5/Mossad). And maybe you should stop denying the links between terrorist attacks on the West and the West’s own terrorism.
There’s no peace without justice Nick. I don’t think the West should change its foreign policy because of terrorists attacks, I think the West should change its foreign policy because its barbaric, stupid and bigoted.
Or perhaps you’d rather focus on my debating style than the substance of my argument? Why are you so determined to avoid talking about the West’s own violence? Why do mention Israel’s existence instead of the real problem: its violent oppression of Palestinians? What is unrealistic about stopping the murderous bombing, invasion and occupation of other nations and peoples Nick?
P.S. no dudeing please.
One thing I have noticed is that apologists who attempt to deny a link between increased terrorism and the war in Iraq turn the claim of this being one of the causes into being the only cause — a silly claim they can then deny. As you say — its an utter straw man line of argument and unfortunately Nick provided a good example when he paraphased your position badly into
“these attacks were directly caused by invading Iraq”
“privacy, civil liberties and human rights. No, despite the rhetoric, these are the very things authoritarian politicians and their bankrollers are just itching to change.”
In case you are interested I have posted in a similar vien on my blog earlier today.