Underlying Causes

Many people have said that rather than seek only military retribution, we should attempt to root out the underlying causes of terrorism, and make changes in our policies in the Middle East.


This point of view takes it for granted that the reasons for terrorists' actions are valid ones. This is not so, in general. Why should we believe that people who are insane enough to commict these atrocities have valid reasons for their actions. Note that I am not questioning whether or not they believe their reasons are valid, I'm am questioning whether or not there reasons are actually valid ones. There is a difference.


It is not possible to end suffering. It is not possible to please everyone. It is possible to strive to do what can be done in each of those areas.


There have also been some statements implying that America is being hypocritical to the extent that we are (too?) outraged at Tuesday's events simply because they happened in America. In addition there have been several posters who believe or imply that US is involved in commiting or supporting terrorist activities. This is simply not true. I saw a definition of terrorism, with which I agree, which was (paraphrased) "Any attacks made upon civilians or property, with no military purpose, to instill fear in the populace." This not something which the US has ever done. We gave money and weapons to bin Laden and others to help him and others fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. We did not give him money, weapons or training to destroy civilians or property with no military purpose. Every group of "terrorists" we have supposedly supported had clear military goals. It seems to be the case that many people view the US as evil. That does not make them right. The point of view which leads them to that conclusion may have valid points to make, but it may also be heavily based on propaganda or misinformation. It may also be based on fundamental beliefs to which we are firmly opposed, and over which there can be no compromise. For instance, if some of the people responsible for this attack believe that America is evil because we have indecent television programs or movies which are broadcast around the world, and they therefore believe that we are corrupting the world in some way, this would not be a disagreement which we could resolve. If a person holds a belief which demands that they prevent others from doing a certain thing, then anyone whose beliefs demands that they do that thing will not be able to compromise. Who is right? Who knows? But the one thing that is almost universally condemned is violence against innocent people. So anyone who resorts to terrorist atrocities, regardless of their beliefs, regardless of real or percieved harm they have suffered, is wrong.

Mr Terrorist,


A can of woop ass is on it's way...


SPM,...

"In addition there have been several posters who believe or imply that US is involved in commiting or supporting terrorist activities. This is simply not true. I saw a definition of terrorism, with which I agree, which was (paraphrased) "Any attacks made upon civilians or property, with no military purpose, to instill fear in the populace." This not something which the US has ever done."


I have pulled down from a shelf my old copy of "Contra Terror in Nicaragua," by Reed Brody, former Assistant Attorney General for the State of New York, South End Press, 1985. You will recall that the contras were organized, financed and controlled exclusively by the U.S. Here is an illustration from the chronology in the appendix, pulled virtually at random (from hundreds), recounting the events of April 3, 1984:


"About 1,000 contras attacked the village of Wasala, central Zelaya, and surrounding areas, killing 37 and kidnapping at least 210. Among the incidents: A family with a newborn baby was taking cover in a ditch. The father was dragged off, tortured by having his fingertips and then his right hand cut off, and then killed with bayonets. Finally, the contras beheaded him and carved a cross in his back. The contras also shot the wife and threw a grenade into the ditch, lodging shrapnel in teh woman and her children. On teh same day, three children were kidnapped, and the bodies of five campesinos, too disfigured by torture to idenify, were found in the nearby hills. Three teenage boys, returning home after hiding in the hills all morning, were attacked with bayonets. Two of the boys, one 14, the other 16, died from their wounds. The third, who had been stabbed five times in his stomach and all over his body, survived. In nearby El Achote a band of contras dragged an agrarian reform worker from his hom, and in front of his wife, 11 month old son, and three year old son, cut him into pieces with their bayonets. The man's wife was then shot, but she lived to wath them behead her 11 month old baby. She was later found hidden in the hills, near dead."


Your tax dollars at work. Hundreds and perhaps thousands of similar stories have been meticulously documented by Americas Watch, the North American Congress on Latin America, the Catholic Church, the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, the Lawyers Committee for International Human Rights, and other groups independent of the Nicaraguan goverenment. They were reported in the Congressional Record and congressional committee reports, the U.S. press at the time and given scant coverage by the major media organs here. This isn't "misinformation" or "propaganda" or something that's subject to serious debate, it happened. Thousands were tortured and murdered. Responsibility for this lies with the U.S. governement. You'll pardon me if I find it a little sickening to see the likes of Oliver North as a Fox News talking head urging on our efforts to bring "terrorists" to justice.


Nor were the contras even an isolated event of a few years. Throughout the postwar era, the United States generously financed, armed, trained and equipped military, paramilitary, and security forces throughout the world that engaged in extreme forms of terrorism and torture not to defend their countries from Soviet invasion but to prop up regimes amenable to U.S. business and geopolitical goals. In another example, I recently read a New York Times account of the very worst "terrorist" incidents in recent memory, which included a passenger train derailed by UNITA in Angola. Omitted from the story: UNITA was financed by the U.S. There we went again.


You wrote: "So anyone who resorts to terrorist atrocities, regardless of their beliefs, regardless of real or percieved harm they have suffered, is wrong."


I agree with this and condemn anyone involved with terrorism, including any individual, government, sect or cell that engaged in it. Would you be willing to do that, or would you think you've tended to exempt terrorists fighting on a side you support?

Lenny


Your post looks well thought out. I have a few criticisms however:


1. When you say that the terrorists reasons for action "are not valid ones", you do not provide any proof that they are in fact

incorrect. You assume that they are incorrect only because "why should we believe that the people who are sane enough to commit these atrocities have valid reasons for their actions." This is wrong. People can do violent things in the names of just causes.


Take for example, the Black Panthers. While you might disagree with their methods (militant), or their agenda (in some cases black separatism), the racism that led to the formation of the Black Panthers was in fact very real. Not only was it real, but there was justification to take action against it. And changes in US domestic policy were made. Not because of the black panthers, but because it was the right thing to do. The same thing with US foreign policy. We should make sure we have a moral and consistent foreign policy not because Osama Bin Laden says so, but because it is the right thing to do.


2. Giving weapons to despotic regimes who are known to terrorize their own populace is not much different from attacking those people yourself.


3. Where is the proof that bin Laden (if he is in fact behind this) had no motives, but in fact did it only because he hates the American way of life? If you can, find the transcripts of the interview he did with John Miller on the internet. Here is a quote, when asked if he had a message for the American people:


We say to the Americans as people and to American mothers, if they cherish their lives and if they cherish their sons, they must elect an American patriotic government that caters to their interests not the interests of the Jews. If the present injustice continues with the wave of national consciousness, it will inevitably move the battle to American soil, just as Ramzi Yousef and others have done. This is my message to the American people. I urge them to find a serious administration that acts in their interest and does not attack people and violate their honor and pilfer their wealth. ...


Hmm... doesn't say anything about him killing us because we are watching temptation island. If he is attacking countries with liberal lifestyles, why doesn't he go after Holland? They are far more liberal than us. If you can find valid basis that these attacks came because of bin Laden's despise for the American lifestyle and NOT because of its' involvement in the middle east, I would be more than happy to look at it.

The symbol for FATAH, the group founded by Arafat, is a grenade and crossed bayonets superimposed over the State of Israel. That pretty much says it all.

Were the contras primarily a terrorist group or primarily a resistance/insurgence military group? While the distinction may seem to pale at times (as in the horrifying example above), it is still an important distinction.

For Chris Alger, Do you say "Nee Har Ah Wa" even when you don't pronounce other Spanish words similarly? I dated a radical leftist woman once upon a time and it seemed as if she and her cohorts studying international relations would do this as a political statement. I thought it was sort of cute when she got worked up.

Interesting.


On a separate but related point, why does the Islamic world so seem to hate Israel? Aside from the Palestinian problem, I don't see why they don't just IGNORE that little country called Israel. Yet, even if the Palestinian problem were somehow resolved, I suspect we would still see much anti-Israel sentiment throughout the Islamic world, and probably anti-Israel actions too. Yes, I know there is much history involved and I must admit I don't know much of this history (this is in part why I am posing this question). It just seems to me that the amount of widespread animosity towards Israel is entirely disproportionate to the bone of contention over the Palestinian problem. These Islamic states have far greater areas and resources than Israel in many ways...it really seems ridiculous, with all that oil wealth and land, for them to trouble themselves so greatly over such a tiny country.

Good post Lenny. I have also been thinking about the criticisms of the U.S. made because we gave arms to the Taliban types when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. I don't understand how this is used as a criticism. It was clear that the Soviet intent by trying to take Afghanistan was to get a foothold in the Persian Gulf. How can any group (except for the communist sympathyzers) in the Middle East criticize us for this? Why should we second guess our decision? If we arm people to fight off an oppressive, evil foe, why should they hate us a few years later? Particularly when it comes to people with strong religious beliefs. The last time I looked, the Soviets were not exactly friendly to religious leaders. The Taliban were able to set up their ridiculous Islamic rules because the Soviets lost. If we helped the Soviets lose, they should appreciate the help. How much worse would things be if the Soviets took over the region? I'm glad we armed the groups fighting the Soviets. And I will be glad to destroy any group that now has turned against us and helped in the attack on us. This is not inconsistency or hypocricy. And there is no need to apologize for our prior actions regarding Afghanistan.

They are most accurately characterized as mercenaries. Their most common targets were civilians and civilian infrastructure in order to destabalize the economy and prove the inability of the Sandanista regime to protect it's people. They generally accomplished this.


Some insight into their "military" nature was provided by Sen. Harkin: The contras "have promised to bring to Managua a reign of terror that will make the Frech Revolution look like a Labor Day picnic." One FDN member told Newsweek in November 1982 that "Come the revolution, there will be bodies from the Honduran border to Managua." [Central America Fact Book, Grove Press 1986 at 277.]


But I suspect that many Americans seething with righteous indignation at the WTC attack still agree with Reagan's assessment: they are the "moral equivalent to our Founding Fathers."