Thursday, July 21st 2005
America’s Fault?
Ilias Chrissochoidis, a lecturer at Stanford, wrote a letter to the Stanford Daily to explain the cause of terrorism: capitalism!
Has anyone considered how desperate the life of an ordinary person can become in recent years? To be such a person today means, more or less, that you are an expendable employee of a large company (or a sector subject to the currents of market forces), you see your income falling year after year, you lose health and educational benefits, you find fewer opportunities to improve the quality of your life and more closed doors. To be ordinary is to be nobody, because you have no control over the conditions of your life…
More than anything else, suicide bombers are the sons of despair and idealism. Indoctrination and jihad are simply methods of directing this energy to specific aims.
And lest we forget who should take the blame:
The London bombings were only a tiny repercussion of the bomb that the USA released to the world two years ago, as much as Sept. 11 was a boomerang of terrorist activity this country had brewed for decades through CIA. What one sows in Afghanistan and Iraq, one reaps in New York and London…
I don’t see how he’s necessarily wrong about the blowback in the form of terrorism.
Why do you think the attacks happen, Pat?
Are we being attacked, as Bush claims, because they hate freedom? Or is it a result of our intervention in the Middle East?
Comment by cw — 7/22/2005 @ 12:31 pm
In the context of this war, there are obvious back and forth actions. Who was the first to fire? It depends on how far back you go.
I think what the letter writer is trying to convey is that it’s not the suicide bombers’ fault. They’re just full of “despair and idealism.” Despair because they’re not getting what they’re “entitled” to by some non-binding socialist UN document.
If you want, you can place the blame on the West for its various interventions. But it’s probably wishful thinking to believe that these types of attacks would not take place if we completely isolated ourselves. Our liberal culture is a threat to their totalitarian/fundamentalist one. But I’ve blogged a long post about this before, where I state that Yes, It’s about Freedom.
Comment by patr — 7/22/2005 @ 5:00 pm
So at least we can all agree that you can still place a certain amount of blame on the West. If the Western World did not intervene so frequently, it is quite possible that there’d be far fewer attacks….
What I don’t agree with, however, is your unsubstantiated claim that the attackers wish to destroy our “liberal culture” so we can all live under their “totalitarian regime”. It’s amazing how something that outrageous becomes ingrained into people’s thinking, once repeated enough by politicans and other commentators….
Comment by hh — 7/22/2005 @ 6:21 pm
I didn’t say that there’d be far fewer attacks. I said that attacks would continue irregardless. There’s a good post today on Catallarchy that shows how ridiculous it is to think that pulling out everywhere would stop the terror.
Did you read the post of mine that I linked to? Our capitalism and laissez-faire lifestyles make Islamic fundamentalists sick. But our freedom is attractive. Look at the pro-west sentiment among the youth in places like Iran. They have been exposed to a tiny bit of our culture, and they want it. The totalitarian leaders of these countries see this as a threat. Transition to a liberal society is inevitable; their leaders know this but can only slow down the pace. In their own countries: suppression of rights and government sponsored hate propaganda. But our passive influence is too strong, our existence is the primary threat to the survival of their backwards regimes. As long as we exist, we serve as an example to dissidents and reformers. To deal with this, they can either convert us to an Islamic fundamentalist state, or failing that, eliminate us. Elimination would not have to be complete, as terrorism could be used to induce fear and show that the fundamentalists wield the real power. Neither option is tolerable.
Comment by patr — 7/22/2005 @ 7:00 pm
Actually the fact that our society is in such disorder and degeneration is only a fluke. No nation can stand long term effect of it. Rome was once the greatest city on earth, and BAM!!!….
Transition away from this liberal society is inevitable. Look at the AIDS epidemic, for one.
Comment by HB — 7/23/2005 @ 9:38 am
in any case, if that’s the way you see those people….well…maybe they are not enemies after all, at least not my enemies.
Comment by HB — 7/23/2005 @ 9:39 am
HB: Your sympathy with oppressive, authoritarian ideologies has been noted.
Comment by patr — 7/23/2005 @ 3:57 pm
The neocon induced paranoia and bloodlust have landed us in one fine situation.
In any case, I find it ironic that a multi-culti like you always criticizes the city of Berkeley or Cal campus to living up to its fullest liberal potential.
That’s what needs to be noted.
Comment by HB — 7/23/2005 @ 4:26 pm
I’m the multiculturalist? You’re the one that’s defending a culture that condones the murder of women, homosexuals, and basically anyone that doesn’t fit into their twisted worldview (e.g. anyone not an Islamic fundamentalist). I’m the one who’s supporting the tolerant and free Western culture. And I’m also saying that inevitably, all roads lead towards it. For all those yearning for freedom in these oppressive states, they can sleep well knowing that their leaders have allies such as yourself.
You’ve read this blog long enough to know what I mean when I use the word liberal in a positive sense. I criticize leftist, anti-liberal topics. There’s a difference. Don’t try and twist my words.
Comment by patr — 7/23/2005 @ 5:23 pm
Freedom is on the march, of course.
People in Uzbekistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia can sleep well knowing that their operessive governmnets have allies such Bush and yourself. They are our allies in the war on terror, we need them don’t we?
I’m not a fan of the Muslim religion or the methods they use, but not gonna sit here and swallow up your fear mongering that only leads us in circles of perpetual war.
What is the real point to all this? If liberalization is inevitable, than why don’t we take the cheaper route? Fiscal conservatism is out of the window when we support puppet regiemes. War on terror is out of the window when we support puppet regiemes that cause anger towards our country and its allies, and thus more terror.
Comment by HB — 7/23/2005 @ 9:30 pm
You and I seem to live in two different worlds.
with plenty of double standsrds
Comment by HB — 7/23/2005 @ 9:41 pm
there are many points i’d like to bring up if i may…
…first off, the middle east and the muslim world are far more complex than you suggest, both in this post and in “it’s about freedom” that you linked too. you have an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ mentality as when you say “Our liberal culture is a threat to their totalitarian/fundamentalist one” above. It’s just not that simple. I know you don’t think America is monolithic, so why would the Muslim world be?
For example (I think this order is right), largest Muslim population in the world? Indonesia. second largest? India, also the largest democracy. “Ah,” you say, “that just goes to show how Democracy can coexist with Islam, and you liberals who opposed the war in Iraq said it couldn’t be done.”
To the contrary, and speaking for myself here as I am throughout, I think Islam and Democracy are quite compatible. Sure there will be issues from time to time, but it’s not as though questions of religion and state don’t come up all the time in this country.
One of my major misgivings about this war from the beginning has been the idea that we can go in with military force and impose democracy. To paraphrase Churchill, democracy may be a horrible form of government, except for all the others. Even so, democracy becomes even less appealing when it’s brought about by foreigners who don’t exactly have a sterling reputation in much of the Middle East. How would you feel about democracy if it was brought by people who, even if accidental, blew up the coffee shop, killed your cousin, and then couldn’t even turn the lights back on? None of this is to say that Iraq may not turn out to be a stable democracy, I hope it does, but it’s going to take a hell of a lot of work and time and blood and money to do, and Bush has never leveled with the American people, in my opinion.
…In terms of the recent tragic terrorist attacks in London, they may have happened if we had or hadn’t invaded Iraq, but doesn’t it make sense to you that the war could have galvanized some angry but otherwise peaceful poeple into joining the terrorists? To me it seems there is a hard-core of terrorists like bin Laden and his lieutenants, but the lower level guys who actually blow themselves and others up weren’t born evil.
…anyways, back to the middle east, it is home to a multitude of cultures, religions, languages, ethnic groups, political systems, and histories that cannot simply be categorized as “them.” you can’t limit the people of a country or culture, much less a whole region of the world, to a few “essential” characteristics as they would say in anthropology.
don’t take my word for any of this though, take a class on middle eastern culture or history or religion. History 12 taught me plenty I didn’t know and will probably challenge your political opinions. at least sit in on a few classes…
i’m tired so i’ll shut up now
Comment by kcdem — 7/24/2005 @ 12:17 am
I, too, am worried about your “us or them” mentality. You speak of Islamic fundamentalist governments with totalitarian regimes. And you speak of terrorists “attempting to threaten our democratic way of life”. I finally it hard to believe that you are actually suggesting these terrorists are acting on behalf of their autocratic governments (and the evidence between the two is circumstantial at best)….
Comment by hh — 7/25/2005 @ 11:55 am
While the terrorists may not be acting on the orders of the fundamentalist regimes, they certainly do so in the spirit of the fundamentalist ideology. There are linkages of course, such as Iran’s sponsorship of terror. But I believe that when the fundamentalist states are on the verge of collapse, all those with a vested interest in the ideology will unite in a last gasp effort against the West and its allies in the region. Call this speculation, but I can’t see it as being too far off base.
We did not start the “us or them” mentality. Fundamentalism is less of a threat to liberal states, than liberalism is to fundamentalist states. On its own, a fundamentalist state is not a threat to the West. However, the existence of the West is a threat to the fundamentalists. Without even firing a shot, our movies, books, ideas cause more damage to backward regimes. This is the main reason why they see us as such an enemy and a threat.
We can argue about the merits of our wars, but I think that the point I made above is of the utmost importance.
Comment by patr — 7/25/2005 @ 3:44 pm
I think you’re still not seeing what I’m trying to say. You have no evidence to back up your claims that terrorists are attempting to destroy our “liberal” way of life, but yet you continue to make your “speculation” the centerpiece of your arguments, in which you ultimately conclude that halting injustices currently committed by the West in the world would not curb terrorism, because terrorists attack us because they hate our “liberalism”.
Comment by hh — 7/25/2005 @ 5:30 pm
two points, what “fundamentalist states” are there? perhaps afghanistan under the taliban and iran, but both of these countries are good examples of problems at least partially rooted in the actions of the US from the past 50 years. we funded bin laden and others against the soviets, and then left a void a power vacuum in afghanistan when the soviets pulled out. in iran, we deposed a democratically elected leader to install the shah, and then supported his military and police forces which effectively crushed the liberal and communist opposition, leaving only the religious right with the power to depose the shah. obviously, these examples don’t explain everything happening now, but it’s good to know where we are coming from. as for other states in the region, they too are threatened by terrorism and in some cases more directly than we are, as in bombings in Saudi Arabia and the recent attack in Egypt. these attacks are partially a result of conditions within those countries and the wider region…
…secondly, while I don’t doubt that the leaders of al-qaida and others are angered by a perception of western “liberalism” or decadence, they also have specific political aims like a removal of US troops from the holy land of Saudi Arabia and a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the latter of which should definitely be a higher priority of the US
Comment by kcdem — 7/25/2005 @ 10:51 pm
War on Iraq
Then again, jingoism and ignorance are fun and blissful.
Trackback by Res Ipsa Loquitur — 7/28/2005 @ 11:29 am