The Guardian's Seumas Milne on the roots of the WTC atrocity

[ciphergoth]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,551036,00.html

Shock, rage and grief there has been aplenty. But any glimmer of recognition of why people might have been driven to carry out such atrocities, sacrificing their own lives in the process - or why the United States is hated with such bitterness, not only in Arab and Muslim countries, but across the developing world - seems almost entirely absent. Perhaps it is too much to hope that, as rescue workers struggle to pull firefighters from the rubble, any but a small minority might make the connection between what has been visited upon them and what their government has visited upon large parts of the world.

Comments

[keith-london.livejournal.com]

It's a fair point to try and look at the view from the "other side". But what kind of morality do the Bin Ladens of this world offer? Would the world really be a better place if say America suddenly disappeared? In a lot of ways, it's a battle of values and ideology, and both sides, it may be argued, see fit to use any means to justify their own ends. Maybe the US should use suicide bombers too?

I wouldn't credit the terrorists in this particular episode with any form of what we in this society (West in general)would consider "rational" thought. Anyone can have some grievance (real or otherwise), and then take it out on somebody else. I would hazard a guess that if the US played by their rules, a nuclear war would have broken out by now!

Even if the "United States" really were that hated, does it then follow as a matter of logic that US civilians too are hated, and deserve all to be slaughtered (as so-called fatwas have called for in the past)?

(PS You don't have to answer these question - I'm just thinking it out in words, in response to your entry)

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

If failing to side with Dubya comes to be interpreted as siding with the WTC hijackers, all hope is lost.

[keith-london.livejournal.com]

"If failing to side with Dubya comes to be interpreted as siding with the WTC hijackers, all hope is lost."

I didn't suggest taking sides - I'm trying to seek answers, which perhaps aren't forthcoming yet. Just to balance things up, here's my non-sequiter :-)

"If failing to side with WTC hijackers comes to be interpreted as siding with Dubya, all hope is lost."

Disclaimer: This last statement does not represent my view nor does the first statement!

[djm4]

'I didn't suggest taking sides...'

If you say so. It looked as though you did, though. You started your last post:

'It's a fair point to try and look at the view from the "other side".'

which implied to me:

a) you thought the article (and Paul) were trying to do just that

b) you saw this as a debate with only two sides. That is, indeed, how your first paragraph is worded.

I don't blame Paul for misreading you, under the circumstances.

[keith-london.livejournal.com]

You are reading things that are not there! You are wholly mistaken in your interpretations given in (a) and (b) above. Those thoughts you attribute to me never entered my mind, if you must know.

The Guardian article offered just that - a consideration of the "other side", as opposed to the US viewpoint. Everyone hopefully will recognise that is going to be a multi-faceted debate, of which the Guardian article offers one of a multitude of views.

The article seems to imply that there will always be some form of terrorism "until the injustices and inequalities that produce them are addressed". This sounds dangerous to me. What if the injustices and inequalities are addressed, but not deemed to be addressed to the satisfaction of those posing the terrorist threat? How can a threat of terrorism ever be a legitimate way to get one's way? If the world is such an awful place that the only recourse to injustices and inequalities is terrorism, then all hope is lost. I really do not believe we are at that point yet.

I think it's fair to say no one is attempting to justify what happened?! My point is - who will protect us against those who simply feel that they have some grievance and then use the terrorist route to instill fear? We can, and it is right to at least attempt to rationalise "why people might have been driven to carry out such atrocities, sacrificing their own lives in the process" But, just suppose for a minute there was not anything to rationalise - are we already discounting that possibilty?

I am also emphasising the distinction between the US political regime and the US civilian population. People who mercilessly and in cold blood murder the latter to make some political point (we assume) against the former are plainly and simply cold blooded murderers.

I would in fact violently disagree with any sentiment that says - "just because you are not supporting a particular political leader, means you are siding with the enemy". I believe in the free societies, certainly in the UK, you can choose not to support the political leader of the day, and you wouldn't be automatically deemed by the authorities as an enemy of the State, unlike dare I say, in Afghanistan?

[booklectica]

I came across an article in a US paper that said basically that.

(This is a paraphrase) 'Anyone who fails to support whatever we choose to do as retaliation is our enemy. This is how we will decide who is good and who is evil'.

Scary. Not, I hope, typical.

I can't find the article - I got it off a lj post somewhere but I've been roaming around so much I can't remember where it was.

at last...

[tempaccount99]

Cheers for posting that... I'd been trying to find something that actually described a little background to the situation, rather than just showing pictures of explosions...