Blaming the victims of terrorists

Everyone has a reason to lash out -- except Americans

Published on May 20, 2004 By Draginol In Current Events

I wrote an article the other day that asked a pretty straight forward question: What do you think the US response would be if terrorists smuggled in a nuclear weapon into New York and set it off killing tens of thousands of people.

The responses were quite surprising. Hardly anyone actually answered the question. I was interested in hearing various response scenarios. Instead, the comments area got filled with people preemptively blaming the whole thing on the United States. Apparently, in the eyes of some people, there is no deed too terrible that the US doesn't deserve it.

You can almost imagine the kind of thinking that resulted in the holocaust. The holocaust in Europe occurred because the general population in the areas it took place in did nothing to prevent it. More recent historians have made the case that the general population had slowly concluded that "the jews" had it coming. That this was all retribution for a whole host of perceived injustices.

In the mind of some, for instance, various vague acts by the United States serve as ample justification for the wholesale murder of Americans by Islamic terrorists. When I asked what those acts were in another article, the answers included "The Bay of pigs invasion, Interference in Chile, support of Israel". Ah, yes, I can see the connection between Cuba and Islamic terrorists flying air planes into the WTC in an effort to murder as many Americans at once as possible.

Psychologically, this holocaust-like mentality is pretty easy to demonstrate. If you reverse the scenario, the US still remains the bad guy. For example, if the US response after 9/11 was the wholesale destruction of Islam, the US remains the bad guy. None of them say "Well, they deserved their destruction!" When Americans die wholesale, they say "Ask yourselves why they hate you" If the US retaliates for a very specific murderous act in kind, they don't say to the targets of this wrath "Ask yourselves why they hate you." No matter what the scenario is, the US is the bad guy.

If you hate something enough, you can justify any heinous act. Those who hate the United States are able to justify virtually any horrific act done to Americans. Yet, without a trace of irony, can turn around and passionately argue how wrong it would be to respond in kind. Americans, in their view, just need to accept that they're part of an evil nation and suck it down until Karmic retribution has been completed.

Which is, of course, absurd and contrary to human nature. If someone comes up to you and pops you in the nose and kicks you in the groin, your first reaction is not going to be to think about why you deserved it. Similarly, one is not going to look fondly at someone claiming to be your friend who explains that you really deserve to get beat up by this guy because you slighted him indirectly in some unintentional way long ago. In the real world, if someone comes up and physically assaults you, you're likely going to have to fight back.

I suspect some people would find it absurd if I wrote "Perhaps those abused POWs in Iraq need to ask - why did their guards hate them?" Because that's how absurd most Americans find the suggestion that 9/11 or some hypothetical future nuclear terrorist attack was our fault.

Comments (Page 1)

bakerstreet

on May 20, 2004

Like I said on the other blog, there is always gonna be provocation. It is a competitive world with limited resources. Sometimes people feel abused, people ARE abused, or are victims of irrational hatred. Then, though, there is a moment of decision. Do I live with this anger, do I go on a hunger strike, do I go and fly a plane into a building?

If, and it is a big if, the victims of terrorism deserve any blame, the furthest you could go would be to say they inspired emotions, hate, anger, etc. Terrorism, though, is an act, a response to these emotions.

So saying that the US or Israel is to blame for the terrorist attacks they suffer is saying that the people we anger don't have any choice. That is insane. I shouldn't expect people I anger in traffic to shoot me, and women shouldn't expect men they attract to rape them. The world is full of angry people, but it is a small minority of psychopaths that resort to terror. No normal human being can behead someone, no matter how angry they are.

Saying the victims are to blame ignores the choice Terrorists have NOT to commit terroristic acts. Martin Luther King Jr., Ghandi, history is full of figures who had every reason to be angry and react violently when their causes faced insurmountable opposition. Terrorists choose terror, so they are solely to blame.

Pam Johnson

on May 20, 2004

First: Brad the only reason for no answer to your first blog is because all that came to mind was nuc the hell out of the middle east, and turn it into a sea of glass. That is the wrong way to think, thus after some thought I came to the conlucsion that maybe we first request that the nations who would harbor such individuals turn them other to us. If not then turn that nations cities one at a time into a sea of glass. Maybe that would get someones attention, maybe not. It could just be possible the general population of a nation who has come under such an attack would come to their senses, and turn in the idoits who would cause such a thing to happen.

Second: BakerStreet there is in all reality no reason to use Chemical, Biologial, or Radiogial weapons on anyone. To think that there are people on this planet that contains this kind of hate is truly sad. Having said that; as a nation we need to look at what can be done to protect the overall population. We as a people cannot stand back and watch our brothers and sisters kill for so asanine reason. The reason can have many different points which some group of terrorist shout out to the world. Have we the people of the United States really brought great horrors to the rest of the world that we need to be removed from this planet. No. There is no nation which can grow the first rock.

Pam

Pam Johnson

on May 20, 2004

Corrections:

"We as a people cannot stand back and watch our brothers and sisters killed for some asanine reason."

greywar

on May 20, 2004

Brad - I don't have much to say about your article except to express my complete agreement with it's assessment. The "moral equivalency" argument is one of the most intellectually bereft memes I have ever had the misfortune of being exposed to.

dharmagrl

on May 20, 2004

there is in all reality no reason to use Chemical, Biologial, or Radiogial weapons on anyone.

Just as there's no reason to fly hijacked planes into buildings full of American people.

Brad and Greywar: agreed. But if we in the US were to do unto them what we have had done unto us...well, we all know what the outcome of that would be.

PlausibleDeniability

on May 20, 2004

Interesting. I didn't read the first article and probably would have responded to it if I had, hopefully with something more like what you were looking for. For my part, I absolutely do not think American's "deserved" to die at the hands of terrorists on September 11th or at any other time. I also, however, don't think innocent Iraqui's, Afghani's, Cubans or whoever else deserve to die at the hands of Americans. The whole torture mess has brough an even darker side to this idea of equality of death and innocence--if we, Americans, claim to be the good guys, the liberators, than we are even more culpable for our horrific actions than others who make no such claims. It goes back to the ideals of chivalry and Camelot--might for right not might makes right. All the same, you and I and even crazy redneck fools, did not torture anyone, or deliberately opress Islam or any such thing. My biggest problem with American views of terrorism is that instead of taking any introverted moments of self-introspection to see where culpability might lie within ourselves we just turn to hate and violence and retribution. All this does is prove terrorists right about our vulgar, yahooistic tendencies, and makes us the monsters in turn.

JakeD

on May 20, 2004

When the Afhgan invasion began, I supported it. When the deconstruction of the taliban occured, I supported it. The response was in finding the perpetrator. Where I and I suspect many others fell off the bandwagon was carrying this "I'm a victim" mentalilty into prolonged world affairs. Please inform me how you feel victimized by a little dictator who had relations with the current defense secretary.

Please tell us how the violation of all american residents takes precedent to the residents of bosnia or chechnia or spain or any other country. Would you like it if the USSR was still together and told you that your democracy was unproductive compared to communism? Only difference here is we are talking about islam vs western democracy.

The normal response would be to resist. To fight back in one's homeland is called a civil revolt. Now take this and multiply by how many countries that need regime changes. Take every living casualty as potential malcontent waiting to strike for the next time. I'll ask you, is this solving the problem of global security?

Now assign blame where you think it needs to be placed. Pre-emption simply does not work.

JD

mikimouse

on May 20, 2004

wow. well ranted there mr.wolf. I applaud thee.

steveb1

on May 20, 2004

"When the Afhgan invasion began, I supported it. When the deconstruction of the taliban occured, I supported it. The response was in finding the perpetrator. Where I and I suspect many others fell off the bandwagon was carrying this "I'm a victim" mentalilty into prolonged world affairs. Please inform me how you feel victimized by a little dictator who had relations with the current defense secretary. "

How do I feel victimized? Easy. That stupid little dictator dragged my country into a war to kick his sorry ass out of his neighbour's
country, at considerable cost in blood and treasure. Why was he a threat? Even easier. He used poison gas on his own people (the Kurds). He did it again to foreign enemies (the Iranians). He openly supported terrorism ($25k to the family of any suicide bomber who died killing Israelis). That adds up to a demonstrated capability, a demonstrated willingness to use same, and a plausible method for doing so. That's not a combination one can safely ignore under any circumstances, let alone post-9/11. Now, as to the little dictator's "relations with the current defense secretary," this is a particularly dumb point to raise, because to whatever extent America assumes culpability for his misbehaviour thereby, he becomes America's mess to clean up, as they see fit.

"The normal response would be to resist. To fight back in one's homeland is called a civil revolt. Now take this and multiply by how many countries that need regime changes. Take every living casualty as potential malcontent waiting to strike for the next time. I'll ask you, is this solving the problem of global security?

Now assign blame where you think it needs to be placed. Pre-emption simply does not work. "

Well then, what response would you suggest? The United States, and every other democratic nation, relies on efficient trade with other nations to support itself. It is simply not feasible to put in place sufficient inspections, security and so on to keep these people and their tools out. We all saw what a few dedicated guys could do on 9/11, and they could have increased the body count by a factor of 50 or more if they'd waited a couple of hours for the buildings to fill up. Toss in even a smallish nuke for good measure, and you might get another factor of ten over that in ideal(!) circumstances. If you can't rely on stopping the bad guys at the border, and you can't afford to take the hit, then what other choice is there but to hunt them where they live?

Steve

kingbee

on May 20, 2004

Hardly anyone actually answered the question

of the 57 responses listed a moment ago, 18...possibly 19...proposed response scenarios. i havent been here that long and im not going to attempt a representative survey, but 32%+ cant be too far off the average rate of focus-compliant replies.

Instead, the comments area got filled with people preemptively blaming the whole thing on the United States

it's difficult to qualify the remainder into two groups of posts asserting or denying us or arabic/islamist culpability because some seem to take both positions. i count 9 of each that arent too muddled accounting for roughly another 1/3 of total.

there are also 8 draginol comments.

kingbee

on May 20, 2004

even if the responses were exactly as characterized, i cant see how that justifies the 'holocaust mentality' conclusion. american citizenship isnt an arbitrary condition (although that could change by 2008 if our current attorney general is permitted to void the bill of rights even though revoking the constitution entirely only decodifies the governments acknowledgment of rights intrinsic to human beings and as such exist outside the scope of anyones control). a slight majority of us are unburdened by any sort of cultural memory of state-sanctioned repression or disenfranchisement.

what is being questioned or opposed isnt america. its the current administration's policies and their execution. theres no measurable support in america for osama bin laden or al quaida. there is significant disapproval and serious concern that the effort to eliminate bin laden and al quaida has been severely compromised in favor of a significantly flawed counterproductive agenda.

americans have a right and duty to question and express their opposition in that circumstance. to dismiss that obligation by implying it is somehow anti- or unamerican is an unwarranted, unfair, divisive, mean-spirited tactic..

brackenfish

on May 20, 2004

You make an interesting point, Draginol. Nowadays, it does seem silly to blame the United States, claiming that "we got what we deserved."

However, I don't necessarily agree with your reasoning. While you do make a convincing argument for your hypothetical situations, I don't think that it connects too well to our current world situation. Hypothetical observations are great and all, but they are just that, hypothetical. The population's underlying issues, memories, emotions, and all that other subconscious junk are what separate our current situation from a hypothetical one and is what keeps me from fully believing your reasoning.

I'd like to keep rambling on all scientific-like about my stance on this issue, but unfortunately, I don't have one. I can't sort through all the informational garbage that is out there right now to form a stance, but I'll be sure to do so over this summer when I'm off school. For right now, I'll just stay on the outside, looking in and occasionally pointing out faults with each side's logic. Hope you don't mind.

Muggaz

on May 20, 2004

You use the term Victim Loosely.

Let me put it to you, the victims of said terrorist attacks - the 'Average Joes' in the trade towers, were also victims of US foreign policy... Well, I consider them to be blind victims...

The Dark side clouds everything when it comes to you Brad... you seem to have mistaken me for some heartless provokateur who thinks every American should die because of American foreign policy... All I am asking here, is that you wake up and smell the cheese... If the US was really interested in protecting it's people, It would not have interventionalist tactics, and all US bases would be only in the USA!!! In which case - 'terrorist's' would have a much harder time inflicting any harm upon your country. I am asking to assess foreign policy so no more American's die heartlessly... we are on the same team - we just have different vantage points and methodology.

Do onto others as you would have done to you... If you would be comfortable with some other country have troops stationed within your borders, and an occupying force who has no respect for your culture (if American's had culture) I cant imagine that you would be too happy with your lot in life... At which point, I would invite you to starve yourself to death to try and get your point across.

As for your other thread, my response was directly related to the quetion... while i know that the US would not ask questions as to why anyone would nuke them, I beleive that should be the response...

BAM!!!

JakeD

on May 20, 2004

Saddam never dragged anyone into anything. He made an assassination attempt on the previous ruler, was imprisoned, got out and made buddy-buddy with Rumsfled to acquire a militia force. That is how he came into power. He took weapons and was supposed to send frequent groups to Iran to destabilize. The government of the day aided and abetted a man charged with treason in his own country, think on that for a moment.

If my point is so dumb, then why is it the same man who shook hands with Saddam personally set up an entire cabinet to hunt him? That is the nature of politics. He set up the office of special plans (which was not answerable to anyone but Rumsfeld) and now just recently a secret subcontracting intel gatherers ended up being twisted and caught on tape. Rumsfeld had a personal hate and that oversaw the issues of the day.

Ironically, the isssue of open trade had been refused with Iran for decades and efforts were made even then to "change the regime". They have oil - we have money and tech, they tell us to go to hell. Tell me, is trade on the upswing or the downswing since the war began? Saddam then realized he had 3 distinct unhappy ethnic groups within the country and ended up using some of those weapons on the Kurds in '91 in an effort to keep marshall law on a volatile situation. He merely was grasping for control within his own country with the most heavy handed tactics possible.

He killed and I am not excusing him of that. But he was a one man show who had his authourity challenged on a regular basis.

Steve: Ask yourself, Iran shared a border with him, was overwhelming more powerful in terms of military might and still DID NOT CONSIDER HIM WORTH INVADING. Why is that? He was not a liked man who couldn't escape his own borders from oppressors. If you had the US of A down your throat wouldn't you at least leave the country? Instead he ended up hiding in a hole! That is shows just how desparate and pathetic he had become.

After 12 years of sanctions, he had (as everyone knows) nothing. The immediacy of "atttacking now" was a pipe dream. He merely was a control freak who has had a history of human rights abuses. Abuses that puts Haiti, Nigeria, Bosnia, and most of the cabinet of Venezuala on a war footing with America. That is if you are being fair about it. I suggest reading the Geneva conventions before using human rights abuses as the be all and end all for war footing. Trust me after 2 world wars they were set up for a reason.

Rather than place blame, I just hope people would take a more Spanish like approach and apprehend people without attacking nations because right now the two are getting mixed together.

bakerstreet

on May 20, 2004

After hearing people say that America is to blame when Americans are targeted by terrorists, I had a thought. Does that mean that racists are to "blame" for Martin Luther King Jr.'s work? Does that mean that Colonial India is really the party responsible for Ghandi's work?

If we can say that victims are to blame for terrorism, then postitive responses to anger and hatred must be credited to the provocation, too, right?

Nah. People get mad, and then decide what to do themselves. No one can steal credit for the work of the peacemakers, and no one can place the blame for terrorist attacks onto the victims.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!