People who tried to explain the attacks on the USA on 9-11 2001 were often accused of defending the attacks. They were accused of saying that "the USA had it coming" which isn't really all that far off the mark, except the idea that the US government had created enemies around the world was dismissed, and it was the innocent civilians who were killed that reality-based people were supposedly "blaming" for the attack. That of course, would have been a highly offensive thing to have said.
But most everybody in North America would have no problem explaining why the USA invaded Afghanistan after 9-11. They were harbouring the man thought responsible for that terrorist attack and they were refusing to simply hand him over. But notice how this line of thinking ("Afghanistan had it coming") is found to be not the least bit controversial amongst North Americans. Remember though, that as a result of the invasion, and the cutting off of food rations during the Afghanistan winter, thousands of innocent Afghans have been killed. (Perhaps tens of thousands starved in the mountains, though nobody has bothered to count the dead so we'll never know.) Why does this simple explanation that "Afghanistan had it coming [for harbouring Osama bin Laden]" not extend to the offensive notion that all those innocent men, women and children likewise "had it coming"?
Is it because hyper-sensitive "conservative" hypocrites have been successful in closing-off avenues of discussion? That an objective look at US foreign policy and its consequences has to be made impossible to achieve in order to allow US foreign policy elites to continue their revolting work unhindered by rational debate?
My other quick thought refers to news reports that top-level Canadian military brass and department of defence officials referred to sexual abuse of young boys by Afghan government security forces as "a 'cultural' issue." Prominent [inexplicably prominent] Canadian commentators have also informed us that torturing prisoners is also part of the culture of Afghanistan [they also "lie as effortlessly as they breath"].
Given the fact that they've decided they can't cure the Afghan authorities of raping children or torturing prisoners, how the hell do they imagine they'll instill something as huge and complicated as a genuine functioning democracy in Afghanistan? They're either lying or stupid or both. My money is on "both."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
I think they've gotten themselves into a logic trap. If you think of democracy as basically procedural (voting, written constitutions, and so on), and not cultural (respect for the citizen, concept of individual rights), then it's perfectly possible to think you can have democracy without human rights. Furthermore, since procedures are far easier to impose externally than cultural changes are, it becomes tempting to focus on the former and take an "oh, well" attitude towards the latter.
Chet,
It was good to read that in plain black and white.
The outer forms of democracy with none of the inner values that make it meaningful.
That's there world-view in a snapshot.
Yeah, I think it is. I'm not sure how conscious it is, though.
"Why does this simple explanation that "Afghanistan had it coming [for harbouring Osama bin Laden]" not extend to the offensive notion that all those innocent men, women and children likewise "had it coming"?"
Assume that it does. What then is the reason that America "had it coming"?
It looks like you've completely missed the point.
Nobody who says "Afghanistan had it coming" means that they think innocent men, women and children deserved to die.
But they want to twist any explanation of the 9-11 attack as being the result of American foreign policy to mean that.
In other words, they can countenance an objective look at how the Taliban government might have invited attack, but they can't do the same thing for the US government.
Instead they create an identity between US civilians and the psychopaths with the government's foreign policy elite.
"Nobody who says "Afghanistan had it coming" means that they think innocent men, women and children deserved to die."
Agreed. Nor do I believe that those who said "the USA had it coming" when referring to 9-11 meant that innocents deserved to die. I did not miss your point.
"In other words, they can countenance an objective look at how the Taliban government might have invited attack, but they can't do the same thing for the US government."
This is exactly what I thought you were referring to in your post.
Now, given that it is permissible to countenance an objective look at how the American government might have invited the 9-11 attack, which of their actions do you believe were responsible for the al-Qaeda attack? This is what I was asking you in my first comment.
you'll forgive my confusion. i thought it went without saying that longterm enabling of Israeli imperialism, ... bases in Saudi Arabia, murderous US-UK sanctions that killed around a million people [note, that's ONE MILLION], ..., support for the Shah, .... support for the corrupt Saudi regime, ... suppression of genuine nationalism, ...
What are you getting at?
Given all that, would you not agree that al-Qaeda made a choice to attack the US? Do you believe that choice to have been inevitable? All of the items in your list above are either foreign policy choices of the Americans, or the results thereof. Surely if these choices and results can be used as justification for al-Qaeda's attack on the US, so can that attack, which was itself a choice and a result, be used as justification for the subsequent US response. Would you not agree? If not, why not?
You implied that an objective discussion of US foreign policy regarding this issue has not been possible. I thought we could try.
I wasn't justifying anything. I was explaining.
An objective discussion of US foreign policy IS possible. Just not with those yahoos who seethe with rage when you explain why things happen to them, but who can understand it when bad things happen to other people.
"I wasn't justifying anything. I was explaining."
Fair enough.
But no thoughts on the other questions?
??? I thought i answered your other question.
I mentioned some of the things that US governments have done that might piss off people in the Middle East.
My comment from Sept 28 at 8:41 contains the other questions.
fergusrush,
I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish with all of this.
Are you trying to get me to say that Al Qaeda wasn't "forced" to do what it did? Anymore than US foreign policy elites were "forced" to do what they did?
What's the point of this line of questioning?
My impression is that you believe the al-Qaeda attack on the US is somehow excused by previous American foreign policy behaviour, that that behaviour acts as a mitigating factor. Furthermore, it is my impression that you believe the subsequent American action in Iraq and Afghanistan to merely be a continuation of that previous behaviour. My questions are an attempt to ascertain the validity of my impressions.
If by "excused" you mean "justified," then I think I've already answered that.
You use the term "mitigating factor" where I would use the terms "reason" or "explanation" or "cause."
At the end of the day, the perpetrators of 9-11 did not drive civilian airliners into civilian office towers as some random act of evil but as their attempt to strike at the source of much of their anger about US foreign policy.
Subsequent US reaction in Afghanistan and Iraq? The invasion of Afghanistan was no doubt primarily caused by the anger created in the USA on 9-11, 2001 though there are obviously older and more durable motivations at work there.
The US invasion of Iraq was definitely a mere continuation of past US policy given the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.
There. I hope I've satisfried your curiosity.
Notice folks, how "fergusrush" was engaging in precisely the sort of behaviour I was talking about in my post.
Really? All I've done is ask you questions that you don't wish to answer. I'm patient, though; I'll try again.
You state above that you would not use the phrase "mitigating factor" but instead would use "explanation", "reason", or "cause" in describing the relationship between American foreign policy and the al-Qaeda response. To be clear: you see US foreign policy as a "cause" of the al-Qaeda attacks on 9-11. Fair enough. Now, allow me to repeat the question you did not answer:
"All of the items in your list above are either foreign policy choices of the Americans, or the results thereof. Surely if these choices and results can be used as justification for al-Qaeda's attack on the US, so can that attack, which was itself a choice and a result, be used as justification for the subsequent US response. Would you not agree? If not, why not?"
I don't really expect you to answer this question this time either, but no worries, I will continue without an answer but with what I can only assume to be your position based on what you have written, if only indirectly.
It appears that you wish to hold the Americans to a different standard than their adversaries: US actions are understandly the "cause" or "explanation" for anyone attacking them, but al-Qaeda actions are mysterious, apparently, because their ability to influence US reaction is left...unanswered by you. This is comical because what seems to be a straightforward causal relationship -- the actions of one group lead to reactions by another group -- is obviously much more subtle because it only seems to cut one way, and that is against the US. Unlucky for them, I must say.
This might take a bit of wind out of your sails, but I have no problem with the idea that American foreign policy is a major contributing factor to the al-Qaeda attacks. The idea is entirely reasonable to me. I believe that all countries, and groups, organizations, what have you, act in whatever manner they believe is in their own best interests. Period. It's not rocket science.
I think that such behaviour inevitably leads to friction and confrontation, to conflict and, sometimes, violence. It happens everyday in society on the personal level; it is not surprising that it occurs at the international level.
You really don't know what an idiot you are do you?
You kept leaving these cryptic questions which i answered as honestly as i could given the circumstances. I figured you were hoping to "trap" or "trick" me into revealing a double-standard for explaining US foreign policy and that of my supposed terrorist buddies. When you failed to elicit such an admission from me and i called you on it after waiting almost 48 hours for a response to my last attempt to answer your question, you clearly decided to simply assert that I have this double standard.
I already told you that Afghanistan's invasion was no doubt partially caused by the anger created by the 9-11 attack. What more could i possibly say? (I've also hazarded the guess that the invasion of Iraq was really a war of choice and NOT a response to 9-11, and I'll stand by that assertion and I'll note you didn't bother to take issue with that. Probably because it's true and because it would spoil this fantasy of my double-standards that you've concocted.)
Where, in anything that i wrote do you see me saying that poor ol' Osama bin Laden had no choice but to attack the evil US-Americans?
I'll say this though: the USA as an entity has been meddling in the Middle East/Islamic World/Arab World or whatever longer than Osama bin Laden has been alive, so HIS actions, by default, are more of a response to the USA's than theirs are a response to his.
My calling you out certainly produced far more information for me to work with regarding your delusions, so here's a thought experiment: When we talk about the USA's invasion of Grenada under Reagan, how much do you think we should examine that subject on the USA making conscious choices and how much should we see it as an understandable response to previous provocations, threats from Grenada, and meddlings in US domestic affairs on the part of Grenadian elite?
Once you're done with that, perhaps YOU could HONESTLY discuss the idea as to whether the USA is more the one CHOOSING to meddle in the Middle East (for the entirely rational purpose of maintaining hegemony over Arabian oil resources) and whether bin Laden (and others) are more REACTING to this US presence.
Why do you suppose it is that the USA appears to concern itself with Venezuelan affairs, Chilean affairs, Georgian affairs, Vietnamese affairs, North Korean affairs, Iraqi affairs, Egyptian affairs, Somalian affairs, etc., etc., than does Osama bin Laden?
Is it possible that the USA sits atop a particular world system?
If you're able to grasp that, we might be able to get somewhere with you.
"You really don't know what an idiot you are do you?"
Well, that didn't take too long, did it?
There is no trap, thwap, just simple questions.
"...and I'll note you didn't bother to take issue with that. Probably because it's true and because it would spoil this fantasy of my double-standards that you've concocted."
I didn't take issue with your Iraq statement because I agree with the basic premise. As for the long response time, I was not near a computer for quite a while; I answered you when I finally saw your response, hence the long reply all at once.
"Where, in anything that i wrote do you see me saying that poor ol' Osama bin Laden had no choice but to attack the evil US-Americans?"
You didn't. Where in all I wrote did I accuse you of doing so?
"Once you're done with that, perhaps YOU could HONESTLY discuss the idea as to whether the USA is more the one CHOOSING to meddle in the Middle East (for the entirely rational purpose of maintaining hegemony over Arabian oil resources) and whether bin Laden (and others) are more REACTING to this US presence."
I have not ever denied that the US chooses to act as it does. Keep in mind, though, that reactions are actions themselves, capable of being the "cause" of subsequent "reactions". This is my point, thwap: every action can be called a reaction if we simply move one step farther back and define an earlier action as the cause. And this solves nothing. There is no highest authority to which one can appeal and plead one's case that "he started it!" To use your Grenada example, for instance: Grenada chose to align itself with the Communist bloc at a time when such action would certainly draw an American response. They undoubtedly did not expect the response they got, but there you have it. The US was not forced to invade, they chose to do so for their own reasons. So, by going one step back in the chain, I've cast the US invasion as a reaction to Grenada's initial action. That you will disagree is immaterial, it is legitimate. And you can go one step further back again to cast the US in a poor light and that will be similarly legitimate. And, again, it solves nothing because I can then go yet another step back and so on. There is no ultimate cause.
"Why do you suppose it is that the USA appears to concern itself with Venezuelan affairs, Chilean affairs, Georgian affairs, Vietnamese affairs, North Korean affairs, Iraqi affairs, Egyptian affairs, Somalian affairs, etc., etc., than does Osama bin Laden?"
For the reasons I stated in earlier remarks: their view of
their own best interests.
"Is it possible that the USA sits atop a particular world system?"
Absolutely. So what? There will always be someone on "top" of whatever "system" exists, and they will desire to remain there.
"If you're able to grasp that, we might be able to get somewhere with you."
I appear to have "grasped that", so I look forward to your efforts to "get somewhere" with me.
Given that there is a "system" atop which the US sits, what would you change, assuming you would change something? I mean, is it the system to which you object? Is it the US postion in the system that offends you?
This is curious. Reading the results of your bizarre mental confusion. But it's also getting a little tiresome.
YOU accused me of having a double-standard.
Where, in the original post, did you find the evidence for this?
I await your reply with breathless anticipation.
"YOU accused me of having a double-standard."
Please try to read my actual words: I wrote "It appears that you wish to hold the Americans to a different standard than their adversaries: US actions are understandly the "cause" or "explanation" for anyone attacking them, but al-Qaeda actions are mysterious, apparently, because their ability to influence US reaction is left...unanswered by you."
And the unanswered questions keep piling up, my most recent ones dying in the line behind those from the beginning. I've answered yours (see my comments above this one) and offered more comment to discuss (again, see above) but you simply find offence in something I write then rant about it.
You are right: this is curious and tiresome. It is obvious that you do not wish to discuss, only to rant (see "idiot" and "bizarre mental confusion" above). Oh well.
Carry on.
fergie,
You know that i don't have a lot of respect for you to begin with.
Where then, DOES IT "APPEAR THAT [I] WISH TO HOLD THE AMERICANS TO A DIFFERENT STANDARD THAN THEIR ADVERSARIES"?
The point of my post wasn't the history of the antagonism between the USA and Al Qaeda.
The point wasn't to judge the relevant merits of the grudges of the USA or Al Qaeda against each other.
The point was that some people find it IMMORAL to believe that the USA at all invited an attack upon itself, while thinking it VERY MORAL to not only believe that Afghanistan "had it coming" but, moreso, to support the actual attack upon Afghanistan.
You need to have things presented to you very slowly it seems, so I'll ask again (and if you don't answer, it's more than fine with me, because your entertainment value is slipping fast) where does it "appear" that i was holding the US-Americans to a differnet standard?
Into the wayback machine, Sherman...
Surely if these choices and results can be used as justification for al-Qaeda's attack on the US, so can that attack, which was itself a choice and a result, be used as justification for the subsequent US response. Would you not agree? If not, why not?
Remember that? You are more than ready to say that US action is responsible for, is an "explanation", "cause" or "reason" for the response by al-Qaeda but when asked directly if such reasoning cuts both ways, you duck. Naw, no appearance of a double standard there.
"The point was that some people find it IMMORAL to believe that the USA at all invited an attack upon itself, while thinking it VERY MORAL to not only believe that Afghanistan "had it coming" but, moreso, to support the actual attack upon Afghanistan"
I told you that I don't hold those views, so put that to bed and stop bobbing and weaving.
Anyway, do as you will. It's been fun, Bob.
Okay. i get it now. you're insane.
I'm glad we've cleared that up.
In the original post, and twice now in this little dicussion, I've said that 9-11 was a cause for the US invasion of Afghanistan.
If you were a sane person, you'd accept that i've answered you 3 times. But you're a goddamned lunatic.
It hasn't been fun fergie. It's been a complete waste of my time.
In the aftermath of 9/11, there were some who suggested that the perpetrators may not have been insane people on a mission. Those who made that suggestions were denounced throughout the media as being supporters of terrorism.
The media went further and said there was no 'moral equivalence'. In other words, one couldn't point to various aggressive USA actions around the world as a reason the perpetrators of 9/11 may have decided to take the action they did.
Given that many of these same commentators have suggested that Afghanistan was 'asking for it' by sheltering Osama Bin Laden, I completely understand Thwap's point. There is obviously a serious double standard among those people.
By the way, the 'moral equivalence' argument has gone by the wayside now that it gets in the way of USA policy initiatives. Now every action by the 'enemy' (Iran, Islam, what-have-you) is denounced as immoral, and therefore we can bomb, invade, you-name-it because of that immorality.
As far as appeals to a final authority, I think it's quite clear that neither Iraqi, Irani, North Korean, or Afghani troops have ever made themselves visible in the USA. The interaction between the US and then has always been at their end of the stick.
If someone breaks into my house to steal my stereo, and I beat him into submission, that is a reaction on my part. His part was an 'action'. Those taking such 'actions' will always be able to justify such actions to themselves, but that doesn't mean we have to accept their justifications.
As far as Grenada goes, I well remember President Reagan telling people that Grenada was getting ready to invade the US, so therefore action had to be taken. The US invasion was the result.
Of course, you'd have to be insane to actually [i]believe[/i] Grenada was going to invade the US, but that didn't stop Reagan from using it for a justification. Of course, you'd have to be insane to actually believe Grenada was going to invade the US, but that didn't stop Reagan from using it for a justification.
How much easier to justify 9/11 in response to the real US invasion of the Middle East, and the constant interference in local politics.
Do I think 9/11 was justified? Absolutely not! For a good idea of what I think on that subject read Trotsky on acts of individual terrorism. He was very clear that such acts have little overall effect except to create divisions among those who might otherwise be united in opposing acts of oppression.
After all, if individual acts of terrorism worked, then the stated US solution to Saddam Hussein (the one bullet solution) could work in many other cases. Why bother having a left party, why bother organizing opposition, why bother trying to unite people behind issues? Just shoot someone, and the problem is solved.
Obviously that doesn't work, and never will. So the real work must go on. And if sometimes it feels as if one is banging their head against a brick wall, so be it. From that task we must never waver.
Thanks Reverend. A lot of good stuff there.
Post a Comment