Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
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 2)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on May 20, 2004

I wonder how the courts would react to this argument:

I murdered Mr. Jones because his government made me mad.

So if I meet someone who says that Americans deserved death on 9/11 he won't object if I beat the snot out of him on the grounds that he made me mad. After all, if violence can be excused due to the person being made mad by your opinions or policies, then let's be consistent about it. Heck, those Iranian students were burning the US flag. That makes me mad, kill them all. Insane.

on May 20, 2004
By that rationale, Iraq is to blame for being invaded because its government made a lot of people angry, and Iraqis bear the brunt of their nation's sins. Palestinians must be to blame for Israeli attacks too, since they provoke the Israelis. Hey, in that case couldn't the US just beat the hell out of anyone that makes us mad and them blame them for making us mad?

Hrm. I guess it can work to your benefit of you strain hard enough. I wouldn't wanna be the underdog if this kind of logic takes hold, though, since it allows you to do about anything you want with no blame on yourself. I wonder if we can keep twisting this logic and work France in...

The more I think of it, the more this seems to be the way to go. Sure, people can blame 9/11 on the US's policies, but now everything we do around the world we can blame on being angry ABOUT 9/11. Somehow Muggaz and the rest of the bleeding left have independantly invented the exact same excuses they are so incensed about the US using. Interesting...

on May 20, 2004
Not all of the people who died in 911 were Americans. Many nationalities are represented in the approx 3000 souls who departed this mortal coil in this wicked act. The attack was not just against America but the whole world and this race's aspirations for a prosperous and peaceful future. The people who carry out such attacks aren't angry, they're psychotic. Anger is a valid human emotion, these people have no emotion or principle; only desire. As for your 2008 scenario...unfortunately based on current activities and recent patterns I conclude America's response would be swift and merciless. May whichever god you pray to protect us from that. Me personally...I'll be hiding in a cave waiting for it all to blow over...or up, whichever the case may be.
on May 20, 2004
murdered Mr. Jones because his government made me mad.


You make the same mistakes over and over again... I dont want Mr Jones to die. Mr Jones is my friend. You seem to think I am a terrorist...

I wonder how an international war crimes tribunal would react to this statement

"I dropped the bomb on the wedding party because I thought they were terrorist's shooting in the air" What you dont understand is that these troops overseas are sanctioned by the US government... they are directly at fault for putting them there... why does the US put them there? because no one is foolish enough to stand up to the US.

It's a shame people have to die, but I dont see the USA leading by example... I mean, If they didn't have any conflicts/wars - how would they get their troops and weapons battle ready?

BAM!!!
on May 20, 2004
Muggaz: Your entire argument hinges on "they are directly at fault for putting them there...". You don't believe they should be there, many other people do. It's cute how you propose just deciding not to have wars. That's the kind of opinions you get from weedy folk who only bother with politics when they are outraged. Later, they'll be too bored to hang around and see the aftermath of their opinions. Wouldn't matter, if your opinion ended up being wrong you'd just blame the politicians who carried it out. It's all about authority anyway, right?
on May 20, 2004
Baker - I am sorry you find my attitude to war disturbing.

You dont even know me mate, so why bother generalising? You dont know where I am coming from, and you dont know where I am going...

My entire argument hinges on the fact that the US needs to look at its interventionalist policies. Your entire argument hangs by the thread that US is the greatest, and should not be violated in any way, shape or form... if it is, the perps. must be fanatical lunatics who just enjoy death... Not once have you attempted to ask why it happens, you just know it happens to your people, and you are justifiably aggreived, just as anyone from the Middle East has the right to be aggreived at anyone that violates their culture.

You have written all terrorism of as crazy acts of fanatascism, which most generally are... I ask why these people are driven to fanatascism, you say because they are fanatics they must be destroyed.

BAM!!!
on May 20, 2004
Muggaz - Understanding that rabies makes a rabid dog a violent killer does exactly nothing to stop the attacks. You still have to kill it to make it stop. Understanding is only useful in preventing *future* outcomes. In the present you still have to deal with the mad dogs already infected.
on May 21, 2004
I don't believe that the issues here can be understood from a slice in time perspective. I think it would be more fruitful to look at the long history between the west and those who live in the middle east. It should also be exmined in terms of power differentials. How they evolved and who benefits. I look forward to the near future when we can see the immediate outcomes and benefits.

Simply assigning the behavior of those that caused the attack on 9/11 to insane fanatics, is far too simplistic. Apart from the great tragedy, the people of the United States have never experienced the type of manipulations the most third world countires have endured. Whether it was for stratagic reasons as in the Phillipines, oil in the middle east, sugar in the carribean, diamonds in Africa, or rubber in Malaysia, it's always been true that if there was a resource available the most "advanced" took advantage of it. Who cares if they are muslim or christians or buddhist, the only thing that ever mattered was the cash. So, it's not surprising that there is so much "U.S." hating. I suspect that a survey of people from a diverse religious spectrum would demonstrate that religious belief has nothing to do with the amount of displeasure floating around the world concerning the United States.

nothing is ever what it seems.
on May 21, 2004
I don't believe that the issues here can be understood from a slice in time perspective. I think it would be more fruitful to look at the long history between the west and those who live in the middle east. It should also be exmined in terms of power differentials. How they evolved and who benefits. I look forward to the near future when we can see the immediate outcomes and benefits.

Simply assigning the behavior of those that caused the attack on 9/11 to insane fanatics, is far too simplistic. Apart from the great tragedy, the people of the United States have never experienced the type of manipulations the most third world countires have endured. Whether it was for stratagic reasons as in the Phillipines, oil in the middle east, sugar in the carribean, diamonds in Africa, or rubber in Malaysia, it's always been true that if there was a resource available the most "advanced" took advantage of it. Who cares if they are muslim or christians or buddhist, the only thing that ever mattered was the cash. So, it's not surprising that there is so much "U.S." hating. I suspect that a survey of people from a diverse religious spectrum would demonstrate that religious belief has nothing to do with the amount of displeasure floating around the world concerning the United States.

nothing is ever what it seems.
on May 21, 2004

So being mad at the policies of a nation state gives you a rationale to commit mass murder? Wow. So by that line of thinking, the US would be justified in extermianting every man woman and child in the middle east in retaliation.

on May 21, 2004
Brad,

Do the Middle Eastern policies have a direct relation to life in the US?

Does US policy affect life in the Middle East?

BAM!!!
on May 21, 2004
policies that "affect life" does not equal justification for hijacking civilian aircraft and then slamming them into civilian buildings. Ever. At all. Not even a little. In any reality.
on May 21, 2004

Allow me to add that my previous statement would also apply to: terrorist bombing of civilian targets do not justify targetting civilians on the othe side in retaliation. Ever. At all. Not even a little. In any reality.

on May 21, 2004
terrorist bombing of civilian targets do not justify targetting civilians on the othe side in retaliation. Ever. At all. Not even a little. In any reality

exactly
on May 21, 2004
Muggaz said: "My entire argument hinges on the fact that the US needs to look at its interventionalist policies."

In the 1930's, post World War I and at the beginnig of the Great Depression, the United States accepted a policy of non-intervention. US troops were withdrawn from Nicaruaga and other countries in South America where we had previously intervened under the Monroe Doctrine. Great Britain, under the leadership of Neville Chamberlain, also took the stance of non-intervention. It seemed perfectly reasonable. After all, if Spain wanted to be ruled by Franco, well that was their business, right? And events in places like Czechoslovakia, which Germany had invaded, were far away, right? Neville Chamberlain said that non-intervention would assure "peace in our time." Please see http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/ralph/workbook/ralprs36.htm

Neville Chamberlain was well-intentioned and well spoken. Many would agree with his sentiments today. The problem was that allowing dictators to rule in Germany, Italy (Chamberlain even praised Mussolini for his help in securing a treaty,) Spain and elsewhere was that non-interventionism set the stage for World War II.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana.
4 Pages1 2 3 4