Somehow, Draginol, I feel that this post was a product of my response to the Michael Moore comments that I made under the guise of "Brian" and I think that I may need to clarify my position on some of the things that I said in that post that are reflected by your commentary here.

Now, by no means am I a world history expert, but I would have to say that even though it shouldn't be categorized as karma per se, that the actions of a group (be it a nation, a regime, a faction or what have you) are definately what is responsible for any action that would be brought upon it. In short...for every action there is a reaction.

To use your example of the Hiroshima bombing, the Japanese attacked us, war breaks out, we develop nuclear fission and drop two very large bombs on Japan. They cave in and surrender. Would we have bombed them if they had not attacked Pearl Harbor and instigated a war. No, because it was a reaction to the Japanese decision to attack us first.

Some see the attack on the WTC and Pentagon as something that was "a long time coming". But why is that? As you say, "What did we do to deserve this?" A buildup of bad karma? Maybe not quite karma more than a biulding resentment for the culture and style of Western civilization. I work with a bunch of Persians who came to this country early in their lives, but occasionally go back to their homeland. Being fairly ignorant of Middle Eastern culture I often ask them fairly unorthodox questions about their culture and why their people do various things that they have been doing for centuries. Even though they're Americanised the answers they give illustrate the differences between our cultures. However, they don't justify the atrocities that some of their people commit to "get their point across". Even they view them as zealotous radicals who are willing to do anything further their cause.

Man, by nature, is a provocative beast. The British and the Scots. The Israelis and the Palestinians. America vs. "The Terrorists". India and Pakistan. There will always be conflict in the world, some more devastating than others.

Let's digress for a second and compare the WTC tragedy with another incident from recent history...


It was April 19,1995 – a perfect, sun-drenched Oklahoma morning in springtime. Against a perfect blue-sky background, a yellow Ryder Rental truck carefully made its way through the streets of downtown Oklahoma City.

Just after 9 am, the vehicle pulled into a parking area outside the Alfred P. Murrah Building and the driver stepped down from the truck’s cab and casually walked away. A few minutes later, at 9:02, all hell broke loose as the truck’s deadly 4000-pound cargo blasted the government building with enough force to shatter one third of the seven-story structure to bits.

Glass, concrete, and steel rained down. Indiscriminately mixed in the smoldering rubble were adults and children – alive and dead.

The perpetrator –- twenty-seven-year-old Timothy James McVeigh – by now safely away from the devastation was convinced he acted to defend the Constitution, for he saw himself as crusader, warrior avenger – and hero.

But in reality, he was little more than a misguided coward. He never even heard clearly the sound of the initial sirens of emergency vehicles rushing to the scene. Because, blocks away, he was wearing earplugs to protect himself from the roar of a blast so powerful it lifted pedestrians off the ground.


To me, there are a lot of similarities to both the WTC incident and the Oaklahoma City bombing. Does his motiviation to defend the Constitution of the United States justify the deaths of hundreds of office workers and dozens of children? Of course not. But it sure got him noticed, didn't it. Same thing with the WTC. Instead of one man in a rental truck, it was a dozen and a half Saudis who used airplanes as their vehicles of destruction. *Something* has to happen to lead up to these types of events.

Now I'm not some anti-militarist or left-wing sympathizer to "the cause". However, I am of the belief that as long as there are humans on this planet, we are going to be stuck with these types of events and as we grow ever divisive due to our clutural differences, we will never see a time where these types of tragedies are absent.

Brian,

Thanks for the good response. However, there is nothing in it that really shows what we coudl have done to "provoke" it. At least in the sense that there is something we could constructively do about it.

My view is that they "hate us" simply because we exist. Our existence demonstrates their own failings. That western civilization, examplified by the United States enjoys a cultural, material, and technological success that the Islamic world cannot even begin to match. That in itself builds resentment.

But we cannot fall prey to what can only be described as moral infantilism. That there is somehow some justification for 9/11 that any rational person would accept.

After all, if we cave into that principle, then there is no horrific carnage that can be truly condemned.

For example, imagine the damage 20 Americans could do. Not the government, I mean 20 pissed off Americans with resources. They could make 9/11 look like a picnic. Imagine these 20 pissed off Americans going off to the middle east to exact "revenge" for what happened on 9/11.

As you mentioned, the Oklahoma city bombing was the act of 1, maybe 2 guys with minimal resources. So you tell me, if 20 relatives of the victims of 9/11 went off to the middle east and started killing thousands and thousands of muslims, do you think the left would say "Well, the Muslims should think why they're hated"? I doubt it.

In fact, if Americans behaved in teh same way as these Islamic Klan types, they woudl be thoroughly condemned by Americans and foreigners equally. It's a pity that you don't see the Islamic world condemnign the prepetrators of 9/11 as much as we would have if roles were reversed.

"Regardless though, I can't see how any rational thinking person could possibly believe in some sort of universal karma for nation states."

That's right, no rational thinking person would. If i have noticed one thing since 9/11 it's the divide in the populace's thinking, there is now appearing from my own observations ( blog's are great for that ) a divide between people who can and do think rationally, logically and with reality as their guide, and those who would rather just blame everyone and everything for that attrocity other than the actuall perpetrators of that crime.

And i think it's a divide for the good of humanity as you quickly find out who has the brain capacity to live in reality and who the deluded are among us.

Brad,
I think it's important to focus on the separatiuon between the leaders and the followers. The leaders almost always have different agendas to the followers. As you clearly pointed out, the initial stated goal of Al Queda was to get American troops out of Saudi Arabia. To achieve this they need gullible and malleable supporters. How better to get these that to play on their hatred of the US? Highlight every area and case where the US has upset or hurt muslims and low and behold Al Queda gets lots more support and the terrorists it needs. This is fairly standard practice among terrorist groups. It always really annoys me when I find fellow Irish people who actually believe the crap IRA sympathisers come out with.
We could take northern Ireland as an example of where 'bad karma' can cause terrorist acts. For years the official police force was generating 'bad karma' through having an awful reputation, isolated events, supposedly siding with the 'enemy', etc. In reality most of them were hard working people trying to do a hard job in an awful environment. That didn't stop the IRA from convincing people that all RUC members were legitimate targets. They were universally hated by the Catholic community because of that perceived bad karma. A few weeks ago one of my friends was out in Belfast for a night out. Her car broke down and the new police force offices in the area came over and changed her tyre for her. They refused and form of compensation and wished her a good night. This friend had spent 5 years previously living in Belfast and despised these people but in a single act they wiped out years of perceived bad karma. Now if anyone suggests to her that the police force are legitimate targets she would totally disagree.
Fundamentally, that's America's problem. Over the years many incidents worldwide have generate 'bad karma'. Will this bad karma cause attacks? No. Will it allow terorists to convince gullible people to supprot them in their attacks? Yes. Just yesterday America vetoed a UN resolution to demand that Israel remove a threat to evict Yassar Arafat from the West bank. Just think of how that looks to Muslims around the world. He is the democratically elected leader of the Palistinians and the US looks like it's telling Israel to do what you want with him. Sure, most people will have no idea of why Israel wants to evict him or why the US refuses to deal with him, but that's unimprotant to karma. What's important is that it generates more bad karma for people like Al Queda to exploit.
Will removing bad karma stop terrorism? No. But it will reduce supprot for it and make the world fight against terrorism much easier.

Paul.

>There is often a basic problem when trying to debate geo politics. You have one side that seems to be ruled by emotion or at least believes in "spiritual forces". >You have the other side that seems to be ruled by logic and believes in direct causes and effects.

Wow Drag, what and incredible low "argument", not meeting the opposite sides arguments but instead deducting them to a bunch of naive silly hippies. Why are they like that one askes ? The answer is ofcourse "Drag said so". While there is few things i agree with you, i would never say that your an idiot because of what you think but instead try to change your views. But i guess your way is easier ?

But lets go back to your agruments.
According to your reasoning, US is hated just because its possible to hate the us, right ? It was nothing to do with anythign the US has done. What is quite funny is that I actually come from Turkey oroginally, a country where the US enjoyed quite a bit of good will 10 years ago. Yet now 90% of the population does not associate the US with positiv things. Guess somebody told them they forgot that they should hate you ? Oh, and before you put me conviniently in one of your "muslim extremist" slots just let me tell you that i'm neither muslim nor have lived there for 25years so sorry .

>That there is somehow some justification for 9/11 that any rational person would accept.

Understanding the reasons behind such attrocities and claiming that they could be prevented by different forgein policy is not the same as approving them. I though that was obvious.

>Americans going off to the middle east to exact "revenge" for what happened on 9/11.
Do you feel that your government is not doing enough so there would be a need to do so ? You also seem to have forgotten what "patriotic" americans can do to nations that hasen't done anything to them, i.e. contrass - iran affrair ?

>It's a pity that you don't see the Islamic world condemnign the prepetrators of 9/11 as much as we would have if roles were reversed.
Sure, this is especially true when we view with coutries get condemned (iraq, iran) which dont ( israel ) due to US initiative in the UN.

>After all, there weren't any Japanese, Vietnamese, German, or Costa Rican terrorists on 9/11.
So you agree that there are attrocities done due to US forgein policy them but feel that there should not be any backlash due to these ?

/ Falaffel

Falaffel,
I think you're a bit harse in your reading of the initial post. Draginol never suggested that a spiritual argument and a logical argument were not equally. He only stated that it is hard to communicate between them.

He also does not believe that the US did anything that could possibly justify such action.

I agree that nothing should ever justify a terrorist act, but disagree with the America never upset people enough for them to want to do such a thing. Draginol however is American and as such has American angles and views to his beliefs. There is nothing wrong with this, but this America is the same country that 70% of the population still believe that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Bush finally admitted on TV today that Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

Why should so many Americans believe something so completely unfounded and now admitted as untrue? What's the difference between Americans believing this and demanding revenge, and Saudi terrorists believing that America has attacked them and demanding revenge?

Hard question to answer. In my mind both cases are wrong. Revenge is never something which people should have a right to. It is always based on arguments heavily affected by culture, morals, race, religion, hatred.

Paul.

A long time ago I was told that two wrongs don't make a right... It's too bad that when your 5, that was hard concept to believe, but you listened to your parents and said you're sorry, instead of retaliating.

Now a day, when you’re all grown up and "mature" you forget common decency and smack who ever offended you. Weather it be a person, or a nation. Quite hypocritical on any parents part to bestow to their children "moral" values and then act in a contrary belief.

Weather your Muslim, or American, who’s the better person if no one turns the other cheek?

The US certainly has turned the other cheek.

Let us remember that the United States has the capability of turning the middle east into a glass parking lot. Obviously, it would be monstrous to even consider such an action.

But then again, if the terrorists had that capability I think we know what they would do. That is why I find moral equivalence arguments so bothersome. Because if the American culture was as warp and sick as the Islamo fascist culture, there wouldn't have been an invasion of Iraq at all, it would simply have been wiped off the face of the Earth.

As for Bush and 9/11, please show me this poll where 70% of Americans think Saddam had something to do with 9/11. I am unaware of any statements by the President that implied that Saddam was involved with 9/11. I know I never thought they did.

Falaffel, your anti-Americanism is clouding your judgement.

One thing that is kind of interesting is that the Karma people like Falaffel can't seem to put up a specific example of horrible US behavior that could remotely justify 9/11.

What American action in the middle east could possibly justify 9/11? Or if that's too much of a challenge, how about an American action that could incite a reasonable person to want to commit those acts.

As I said earlier, be thankful that Americans aren't a bunch of blood thirsty fanatics like the Islamo fascists or there wouldn't be a middle east.

>What American action in the middle east could possibly justify 9/11? Or if that's too much of >a challenge, how about an American action that could incite a reasonable person to want to >commit those acts.


Hmm, why does it have to be a specific incident (or a series of incidents)? It could just be due to the sheer fact that they do not care for the way we do things here in America. It could be due to the fact that the US sees itself as a sort of International Police agency, getting involved in foreign affairs.

Draginol, you keep bringing up the point of rationality and reason, but you have to realize that the people that are generally responsible for these types of acts are generally construed as irrational and unreasonable people.

Even you point out that people should be thankful that Americans aren't a bunch of blood thirsty fanatics. I'd have to agree...but we're working with a disadvantage here. Most Americans are so sedentary and lazy they won't even get off their fat asses to vote in an election to choose the people that run our country. I'd have to say, that on the average, most Americans could give a shit one way or another unless they're provoked by an incident such as the WTC tragedy.

I think a lot of this ties into media coverage of world events. And I'm not just singling out one country or region, but generalizing here for all media coverage. Al-Jazeera can be a propaganda vehicle for the Middle East, pushing ideas that Western people are nothing but a bunch of ingrate infidels who deserve to have the wrath of Allah brought down upon them. However, in America who knows who to believe? As you said yourself, many people were wont to believe that Saddam Hussein had something to do with the WTC attacks. How could they have come to that conclusion. I'd bet that they're sitting on the couch watching CNN or Fox News and coming to their own conclusions about things.

The main problem here is that the world today is so saturated with media, you have all of these pundits, coalitions, special interest groups all telling you what should be right or wrong. And the people eat it up like so many sheep that they are out in the field. No wonder that there are so many irrational and unreasonable people out there today (and Americans are just as guilty of it as the M-E terrorists, they're just not as extreme) with so much garbage that they are fed. Personally, I think that it's just brainwashing of the masses, it's just that there are so many target auddiences to reach.

Ah, but I digress, and I am going off on a tangent. I think that there will always be groups of people out there who are willing to take matters to the extreme edge of things to prove their point. Look at the people who protest abortion clinics and bomb them. There were a group of eco-friendly tree-huggers that set fire to a Hummer dealership (and later claimed responsibilty for it) because they thought that Hummers were gas-guzzling Earth killers. Tim McVeigh blew up hundreds of innocent people to "defend the Constitution". The Nazis killed thousands of Jews because they neeed a scapegoat for their troubles after WWI.

If you look at it on a broad scale, it doesn't matter whether it's cultural indifferences, or just a brewing hatred for your rival baseball team...sometimes people just go too far.

Mr Frog,

The problem is that you have people who say we need to change our foreign policy and that 9/11 is the result of foreign policy.

If one assumes that these people are just ranting mindlessly then the quesiton they need to answer is: What exactly did we do to provoke 9/11?

From my vantage point it just seems pretty straight forward that Al Queda and its ilk are really just another form of monstrous fascism of the kind that brought us death camps.

Or put another way, the problem isn't the United States or the west, the problem is that part of the Islamic culture is sick and should be treated as such.

Mr_Frog: "If you look at it on a broad scale, it doesn't matter whether it's cultural indifferences, or just a brewing hatred for your rival baseball team...sometimes people just go too far."

I’d like to bring the focus of this discussion back to where I believe it started. We’re searching for ways to prevent acts of lethal terrorism, correct? According to scientific/rational principles, the first step is to theorize on the causes, which is the bulk of this discussion.

Mr_Frog: "Al-Jazeera can be a propaganda vehicle for the Middle East, pushing ideas that Western people are nothing but a bunch of ingrate infidels who deserve to have the wrath of Allah brought down upon them."

I speak Arabic, have watched a great deal of Al-Jazeera, and would like to point out something about this network. Al-Jazeera is one of the more open-minded news broadcasting agencies in the Middle East. It has been portrayed as a tool of Islamic extremism, but in reality, it’s one of the brightest hopes in combating extremism. Mr_Frog says it “can be a propaganda vehicle”, which is true, but if a reader does not pause to contemplate the significance of “can” in that statement, one would have the notion of Al-Jazeera a terrorism tool reemphasized. My point is that it’s very easy to think of Al-Jazeera as a tool of our enemies, but it can just as easily be our ally if we encourage the truth-seeking aspect of this network.

Draginol: "One thing that is kind of interesting is that the Karma people like Falaffel can't seem to put up a specific example of horrible US behavior that could remotely justify 9/11."

Justify? We need to stop right here and ask ourselves if we need to accept the justification put forward by the terrorists in order to combat them or do we simply need to understand how their justification empowers their actions. We need to understand how terrorist groups succeed, which involves understanding how their justification functions. If we reject their arguments because they’re irrational from our perspective, then you eliminate an essential tool in combating terrorism. My point here is that we have to stay focused on our goal - the reduction of acts of terrorism.

Draginaol: "The US certainly has turned the other cheek."

We removed the Taliban by invading Afghanistan, are still chasing and killing individual terrorists all around the world, removed Saddam Hussein by invading Iraq, and are currently struggling to stabilize both Afghanistan and Iraq. I fail to see how we’ve “turned the other cheek.” Thank goodness U.S. foreign policy doesn’t rely on simple idioms.

Zool: "If i have noticed one thing since 9/11 it's the divide in the populace's thinking, there is now appearing from my own observations ( blog's are great for that ) a divide between people who can and do think rationally, logically and with reality as their guide, and those who would rather just blame everyone and everything for that attrocity other than the actuall perpetrators of that crime."

This is an overly dismissive and simplistic comment. On both sides of the argument, Americans are thinking rationally and logically with reality as their guide (although we’re not 100% rational and logical and what we perceive as reality is not 100% accurate, but that’s another topic). Some Americans want to focus on the immediate threats. They blame the hijackers, try to identify their immediate supporters, and seek to kill them. Some Americans want to focus on long-term threats. They try to identify what enabled terrorists to attack us (whether it was our own actions or sources abroad) and deliberate on what among those actions/sources could be changed/influenced to prevent further attacks. Just remember that both sides will probably never be able to completely eliminate terrorism.

Draginol: "It's a pity that you don't see the Islamic world condemnign the prepetrators of 9/11 as much as we would have if roles were reversed."

This is a good point to bring up and the next step is to ask why a portion of the Islamic world was unwilling to condemn the perpetrators of 9/11. The answers to this question can aid us in our battle against terrorism. If you only use your statement for condemnation, we get nothing more than mutual hatred.

Draginol: "My view is that they "hate us" simply because we exist. Our existence demonstrates their own failings. That western civilization, examplified by the United States enjoys a cultural, material, and technological success that the Islamic world cannot even begin to match. That in itself builds resentment."

American hubris is raging in these comments.

Draginaol: "Regardless though, I can't see how any rational thinking person could possibly believe in some sort of universal karma for nation states."

Karma for nation-states is often just an oversimplified way of describing one side of the debate. It is the side that has a very rational belief that we can only defeat terrorism by addressing every last cause. There is also a very rational belief that we cannot possibly address every last cause.

Draginaol: "To the American haters, it never occurred to them that hey, you know what, the US may not be perfect but it's not a monster."

Emotive language makes for great rhetoric, doesn’t it? “American haters” and “Karma people” often recognize that America is no monster and is quite possibly the greatest hope for pervasive peace and joy in humanity’s future. It is because of this that they question our foreign and domestic policies and the nature of our society. These ‘hateful’ and ‘irrational’ Americans want to safeguard this grand hope.

Draginol: "So what were the root causes? What specifically were they?"

Here we are back at one of the initial steps in a scientific/rational approach. It’s obvious enough that hijackers perpetrated the attacks of 9/11. We can do nothing to them because they are dead. We know that they had support, but it is difficult for the public to be certain of the identity of the hijackers’ supporters because of security concerns. Only our intelligence services have the resources to track most of them down. We can only rely on faith in our institutions. We know terrorists had reasons for carrying out the attacks. Whether those reasons are justified from our perspective or not is pointless. The debate in this article and its responses should be about how far back we should trace the reasons for the attacks. When we identify what actions we need to take, we have to keep in mind the limitations of our means. This is very rational. For a full understanding of the situation, we should trace it back as far as we can. This is very rational. Saying that one side is filled with “American haters” and “Karma people” lends nothing to the debate. It is a waste of time that detracts from furthering the cause of reducing international terrorism.

So what’s my opinion? I believe we’ve made mistakes that contributed to 9/11. I also believe it is essential that we question our past and present foreign policies. I believe we need to make changes at home in order to win this fight against terrorism. Lastly, I don’t believe the terrorists will have won if we change the way we do things so long as we retain the essence of our way of life. Does this mean I’m one of those “American haters” and “Karma people?” Call me that if you want, but you better remember who I really am. I’m a soldier in the Reserves, trained to translate Arabic for the purposes of killing our enemies, and I’ll submit to our nation’s foreign policy even if I disagree with it because I have faith in our way of life.

This is what happens when I write such a long spiel. Someone adds a few important points before I hit the "Post Comment" button.

Draginol: "Or put another way, the problem isn't the United States or the west, the problem is that part of the Islamic culture is sick and should be treated as such."

From the post below I may have sounded like I'm against taking aggressive action abroad, but this is not at all true. I don't bother to mention it because people such as Draginol already have it covered. My stand is that we need to do a great deal more than hunt down terrorists and elliminate threatening regimes. Take our foreign policy for example. For decades we have tried in many ways to 'treat the sick parts of the Islamic culture.' For example, we have supported the Saudi family because we believed they had the strength to elliminate radical elements. Because we're not perfect, we make mistakes. It seems the Saudi regime doesn't see the threat of radicals quite the same way we do. Mistakes can obviously result in unwanted responses. Our mistake of not forseeing the Kingdom's scant will to elliminate radicals resulted in more recruits for Al-Qaeda. What do we do then? Do we carry out a short-term ellimination of those unwanted responses? Heck yes! Do we also continue making the same mistakes? Heck no! We have to reevaluate our 'treatment' in light of unwanted responses. Isn't this a part of a rational approach?

Good thought out posts Kitwarrior.

Draginol, the poll I refer to is one by the Washington Post, taken between the 7th and 11th of August with an estimated 3 per cent margin for error.

I'm surprised that a poll widely published in the American media (it was released to the associated press and published across the world) should have been missed by you. I believe it's a very important indication of American thinking that over 2/3rds of the country blames Saddam with no proof. If you reverse your entire argument and ask from Saddams side, 'why do the American people hate me for something I did not do?' Try explaining that. IT's very similar to trying to explain why many Muslims hate the US. It's not what they did, it's what they were perceived to have done.

As for indivual acts by America (in the Middle East) to explain such hatred, I certainly would not think they had any. The largest cause for American hatred in the middle east is it's undying support for Israeli actions. America has REFUSED time and time again to condem indivual cases of Israeli killing of civilians. How is this similar to some Arab states refusing to condem 9/11. Different in scale maybe, but different in principle?

You need to start looking at things from the other sides point of view and use the understanding gained to remove or reduce the causes of support for terrorists in the middle east. If America treated Israel the equal to how it treats many Muslim countries then a major cause would be removed.

Paul.

Al Queda has done nothing to Israel. No jetliners flying into buildings there. The evidence that the United States supporting the lone democracy in the area leading to 9/11 seems tenuous at best.