Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
America's opponents shouldn't ascribe nobility to its enemies
Published on May 31, 2004 By Draginol In Politics

There's been an interesting discussion regarding the War on Terror. Simply put, the discussion revolves around what the causes of 9/11 were, did the US "deserve" to be attacked and does the US really need to understand the "root causes" in order to win.

Opinions vary on this, of course. But I will submit that historically speaking, WHY rarely, if ever matters. Nation states don't ask why something happened to them. They react instead to what actually happened. We may not like this. We may wish that populations were more introspective. But you can either deal with the world as it is or sit around being frustrated that the world isn't the way you wish it was.

People who are effective in life, in my experience, are the ones who deal with the world as it is. Those who fail are usually impotently trying to change the world to behave as they would like it to be.

What makes matters worse, those who wish the world was something it's not tend to fall under self-delusion. For instance, I have found that those who wish the world was different tend to be quite hostile to the United States.  I won't get into whether that hostility is justified or not because that part doesn't matter. But the other half of the self-delusion is more serious -- they tend to ascribe motives and traits to those who oppose the United States that simply aren't true.

For example: Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda isn't some noble organization fighting with any means necessary to preserve their native culture. They're just yet another hateful bigoted group of violent thugs that history has seen thousands of times who differentiate themselves only in the scale of their violence.  The difference between Al Qaeda and say the KKK is only a matter of scope, not personality.

Al Qaeda and their ilk are violent racist organizations that despise our culture for what it stands for and wishes to eradicate it from the face of the earth through violence -- first in the middle east and later throughout the world. It has very little to do with the imagined wrongs the US has committed during some arbitrary time frame.

The US doesn't need to "understand" Al Qaeda any more than the US needed to understand Japan's motivations for attacking Pearl Harbor. It is up to the one who is liable to suffer the most to learn from history. 

The atomic bombing of Hiroshima (and Nagasaki) are the end points that trace their beginnings to Pearl Harbor. One can argue that the deaths of over a million Japanese civilians (when you add in conventional bombing) was an overreaction to the loss of 2,500 people (mostly sailors) in a military base attack.  But ultimately, that's not something Americans have to worry about. Maybe they should in some ideal world give these matters the weighty concern they deserve. But they don't.

In reality, it is the one doing the attacking that should be reading up on history.  The reaction to 9/11 is significant and far-reaching and should be an object lesson to those would would perpetuate terrorism against the United States. For after all, there have been zero terrorist attacks against the US since 9/11 while on the other hand Al Qaeda's leaders are living in caves in the mountains of Pakistan, Saddam is gone, and the Taliban is now without a country to rule. 

From the US's point of view, therefore, there is little evidence to show why the US needs to "understand" the question "why do they hate you". Again: Yes, maybe Americans SHOULD care. Maybe they SHOULD come together and take a "hard look" at the foreign policies that help give rise to the Bin Laden's of the world. But it's not going to happen. It's not because Americans are uniquely oblique to this, it's just human nature.  And even if they wanted to, the chattering classes who are so ready to educate America as to "why they hate you" can't even agree what the justification is.  I don't think the Average New Yorker is going to see the connection between alleged US interference in say Chile or the Bay of Pigs or whatever and airplanes crashing into the World Trade Center.

I know I don't care why. I might care academically but I would rather see those who would perpetuate such violence and hatred removed first so that I have the luxury of pondering those issues in relative peace and security.

In short, knowing why might be interesting in an academic sense but on a practical level, it doesn't matter. It never matters. Anyone who knows anything of history, will recognize that the why someone attacks you never matters. It only matters that they did. Nation states aren't individuals. They are collectives. They react as collectives. They cannot do otherwise and never do. And idealists are far from the first to express their frustration and exasperation over the way "the masses" react.

It is far more effective for the middle east to clean up its culture of death and violence than try to convince Americans that it somehow "had it coming" because the US supported Israel or because it had a US base in Saudi Arabia or some other lame ass argument for justifying the mass murder of innocent people.

Let us remember, after all, that 9/11 was PLANNED during the Clinton administration who was about as benevolent to the Muslim world as can be realistically expected. If Clinton's foreign policy wasn't "sensitive" enough to the middle east, then I can't envision any US policy that would satisfy the violent hate mongers and their death cults. Clinton was their best case scenario.

But all that aside, I can find far more justification as to why Japan attacked Pearl Harbor than to muddle through the bullshit arguments as for why 9/11 occurred. Pearl Harbor was attacked in response to specific US actions with specific goals in mind.  By contrast, 9/11 happened for very nebulous reasons with very nebulous (and unrealistic) goals. When you read through a history book on World War II, there's no debate as to what was the impetus for Pearl Harbor. But even 3 years later, we still debate the WHY of 9/11.  I saw on one forum someone claiming the US policy on the Kyoto treaty was a "contributing" factor. Simply put, the reasons for 9/11 are at best, nebulous.

And at the end of the day, Al Qaeda is no government in waiting. It's just another pathetic violent hate group more akin to a KKK out of control than any sort of legitimate organization.


Comments (Page 3)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Jun 02, 2004
Al Qaeda is just another pathetic violent hate group - Nobody is arguing that they are anything but. You might as well write a post titled "Up With People" or "Horray For Sunshine", it's just as relevant and enlightening. No one is saying Al Quaeda is good.

America's opponents shouldn't ascribe nobility to its enemies - I have seen posts that are critical of US policy, but nothing that demonstrates a general opposition to America. So I think you are confusing specific criticism of specific US policies with opposing America. Many Americans question US policy in the Middle East but can't reasonably be considered opponents of America.

I have yet to see a post on this site ascribing nobility to Al Quaeda. Not one. So I'm not sure who this article is aimed at.

What makes matters worse, those who wish the world was something it's not tend to fall under self-delusion....they tend to ascribe motives and traits to those who oppose the United States that simply aren't true...For example: Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda isn't some noble organization /B]

Nobody here has said Al -Qaeda is a noble organization. Who are these people who are self-deluded and are ascribing motives such as nobility to Al-Quaeda?

So I think this article starts off with a few false premises which tends to diminish some otherwise good points. As I've said before, the real enemy is bullshit and I think characterizing people who questions US policy as opponents of America is wrong and saying these opponents of America ascribe nobility to Al-Quaeda is false.
on Jun 02, 2004

David - on the contrary, MANY MANY people are arguing that Al Qaeda is not a violent hate group. There have been comparisons to Nelson Mandela and the IRA in here on JU.

Similarly, I can only assume you haven't read that many articles. There's rabid anti-americanism. There's been outright "The US earned what it got on 9/11" (both precisely and in so many words) regularly here.

All I can say is that you should read more articles both here and elsehwhere.  Heck, didn't you read about the Soccer game in Mexico where the fans yelled "Osama! Osama!" during the playing of the national anthem?

on Jun 02, 2004
What I usually see on this site is someone saying something about "understanding" how the actions of the US might have contributed to terrorism, and other people jumping on him for allegedly saying that the US "deserved" to be terrorized. The difference between "understanding" and "justification" ends up getting lost in the ensuing scuffles.
on Jun 02, 2004
I disagree, Al Qaeda is fighting for something. They want there land back that israel stole and the americans gave to them. Do I agree with what they did? No but let me ask u, if germans took NJ from United States what will americans do? Just a point. Israel shouldnt be a country because the bible states they broke his rule. Moses sent them to the promised land and if they obey gods rule they will be protected they didnt and lost it like god promised and americans gave it back.
on Jun 02, 2004

Thanks Drillsar for making my point.

Incidentally: Number of 9/11 bombers from Palestine: 0.

on Jun 02, 2004
Incidentally: Number of 9/11 bombers from Palestine: 0.


The Israel/Palestine conflict is of concern to all Arabs. That's why I've said that the road to defeating terrorism begins with defeating the terrorism of the Palestians and Israelis, and not with defeating the terrorism of the most hardened and extremist groups. Eliminating the later won't deal with the former, but dealing with the former will definately make the latter less popular and plausible.
on Jun 03, 2004
the Soccer game in Mexico where the fans yelled "Osama! Osama!" during the playing of the national anthem?

all the reports i read said the fans booed the national anthem and a 'few dozen' spectators (holding beers) did the osama chant as the team left the field.

it was in poor taste (and im not defending it, only trying to put it in perspective) and pales by comparison to continental european hooliganism in which people are killed and injured. they were being stupid and drunk...it wasnt a political statement anymore than if they were yelling chinga su madre.
on Jun 03, 2004
Kingbee: Someone JUST wrote in this thread how no one can possibly see Al Qaeda as somehow noble.  In response, you had someone who believes they are noble and secondly, I provided concrete examples (such as people at that soccer game).  You can debate what percentage of people in the west think Al Qaeda is somehow a noble group  but you can't deny that there's quite a few people that do indeed think Al Qaeda has a noble cause.
on Jun 03, 2004
*sigh* Drillsar didn't call them noble. Nobody called them noble (at least, not in this thread). If someone says they "understand" why some in the Middle East hate the US, they're not (necessarily) saying that terrorism is justified.

As an analogy, I can "understand" why a soldier under orders might participate in illegal torture of prisoners in Iraq, but doesn't make it right in my eyes.
on Jun 03, 2004
There have been comparisons to Nelson Mandela and the IRA in here on JU.


I think you are referring to me (or maybe I am being vain and you weren't ), but I'd simply like to point out that I wasn't specifically talking about al Qaeda, but rather what defines a terrorist. And at no time did I compare al Qaeda to either the IRA or Mandela--I simply discussed the definition of the word "terrorism" juxtapositioning these groups/people.

Al Qaeda is different than the "traditional" terrorist organizations and that is what makes fighting them so much harder. Al Qaeda could be any where at any time, whereas Eta, the IRA, the ANC (et al) focused their efforts on the region that they were fighting for. That's not to say that they didn't sometimes go outside those zones, but for the most part they stuck to them. It wasn't likely that they had some underground network infiltrating another country. For this reason, traditional methods of dealing with terrorist and warfare are out of place. As I've said before, the response has to be more cunning and conviniving than the terrorist perpertrators!
on Jun 03, 2004
the US must become paralyzed in inaction in order to try to study what IT did to deserve what has happened to it. It doesn't work that way.


Frogboy - that is exactly what think tanks are for. The study of context and deeper rationals while government continues its main function of legislation and its execution. Branches of government and specialisation in a society means that paralysis is avoided. American foreign policy and action continues in the face of opposition and analysis. Reflection, criticism and analysis is meant to inform and influence government action, not paralyse it.

I'm trying to figure out who you are exactly so i can figure out what you meant by your comment about the irrelevance of mine. I was commenting on what Draginol, not you, wrote, unless you are one in the same.

Marco

PS Draginol. Sorry if my prior comment sounded confrontational. Sometimes i use the second person pronoun "you" a bit too forcefully and a bit too often. It's a case of my writing style undermining my intentions (should have just said bad writing, huh?)
on Jun 03, 2004
Marco: Frogboy and Draginol are the same person. At least, I think that's what Brad has said in the past.
on Jun 03, 2004
Thanks shade..., makes a lot more sense now.

Draginol,

This is why I posted my first comment:

But I will submit that historically speaking, WHY rarely, if ever matters. Nation states don't ask why something happened to them. They react instead to what actually happened. We may not like this. We may wish that populations were more introspective. But you can either deal with the world as it is or sit around being frustrated that the world isn't the way you wish it was.


Marco
on Jun 03, 2004

There are two basic types of people: People who deal with the world the way it is and people who complain that the world isn't the way they wish it was. Some people are both.

So let me say it again since there seems to be muddling in here: Should the reaction to KKK lynchings have been to have "think tanks" consider why the KKK went around lynching people or should we instead vigorously try to stop them?  I don't see the KKK and Al Qaeda as being very different.

on Jun 03, 2004
AMen, Draginol. We despise one group with a passion but are sympathetic towards another though they are so similiar it is apalling..(Maybe one day I can get my point across without trying to spit venom in peoples' faces)
4 Pages1 2 3 4