posted on October 17, 2001 07:31:40 AM new[Yet another in a series of long-winded posts...]
It seems like every time somebody suggests that the U.S. could have avoided the September 11th attacks by having a different foreign policy in recent years, that view is rejected as "blaming the victim" and comparisons are inevitably made to abused or battered wives being blamed for "letting" the abuse happen.
Well, I strongly agree that battered women do not deserve any of the blame, but I also don't think that the comparison is an accurate one. The term "battered" woman conjures up images of a weak, helpless female being terrorized by a much stronger male, and the U.S. is anything but weak and helpless.
Even if you reject the battered woman analogy, however, the fact still remains that victims should not be blamed for the actions committed against them, whatever the circumstances. The question, though, is whether you can acknowledge a lack of common sense or good judgment on the part of the victim, as well as discuss what the victim can do in the future to avoid such situations, without actually "blaming the victim".
For example... Stealing is wrong, and I can't think of a case where it would be OK to blame the victim of theft or take the blame away from the perpetrator. However, if I were to park my new sports car in a known high crime neighborhood and leave the keys in the ignition with the engine running, I think you'd all agree that I was an idiot. And if the car got stolen in such a situation, there's no question that the perpetrator should be caught and punished. But at the same time I think you'd agree that I was in deep need of a severe dope slap to the head. And you would all probably not hesitate to tell me what I should do in the future to prevent this from happening again.
Similarly, if I were to go up to a large football player and start taunting him with racial epithets, and he ended up kicking the living #^%$! out of me, I think you'd all agree that there were certain things I could have done to avoid having the pavement wiped with my face, and that I should probably avoid doing those things in the future. The fact that I taunted the player doesn't give him the right to strike me, nor do my actions remove the blame from him in any way, but the fact still remains that I could have avoided the situation, and pointing that out isn't the same as "blaming the victim".
Did the U.S. "deserve" to be attacked? No, and I don't think anyone here has said that. Did the terrorists have a "right" to attack us, or were they somehow "justified" in doing so? Again, the answer is no. But has the U.S. done things that were wrong and that may have left itself open for attack? Well, that's where I think it's permissible to say yes, without implying that the U.S. is to "blame" for what happened.
We [the U.S.] have supported terrorist regimes when it suited our purposes [and no, I'm NOT talking about Israel, dammit!] We have turned a blind eye to mistakes caused by our allies while at the same time comdemning their enemies for doing similar things [and here I AM talking about Israel]. We have helped liberate countries from "evil" regimes, and then turned our back as the new regimes became worse than the old ones. We have placed severe embargoes on countries in an effort to oust evil dictators, and ignored the consequences those embargoes have had on the people living there. We have worked diligently to export our brand of "Western Civilization" all over the world, heedless of the impact it might have on old, esptablished cultures. And the list goes on.
Were these actions necessarily "wrong"? Were there other choices we could/should have made instead? I don't claim to have the answers, but my point is that these issues should be discussed without simply being dismissed as "blaming the victim". Like it or not, we are but one country in a world-wide community, and we need to be able to figure out how to live peacefully with our neighbors. "We're always right and everyone else is wrong" may be a popular sentiment, but I think it's both inaccurate and, in the long run, very dangerous.
Again, the only one to "blame" for the terrorist attacks are the terrorists. Period. But that doesn't mean there weren't things we could or should have done to avoid being attacked, nor that there aren't things we can or should do in the future to prevent it from happening again.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on October 17, 2001 07:44:01 AM new
Or were we to busy buying things to even notice until now. We are not to blame for it happening we are to blame for not paying attention. We are paying attention now and when this is over we need to remain in that alert position, Threat or no threat. Security last year meant having a good broker. Security now means the military.
posted on October 17, 2001 07:46:37 AM new
One thing I have noticed over and over again is that Bin Laden is speaking one language and we, the west and particularly our pundits are speaking another.
I've heard people (literally) blame the attack on everything from acid rain to capitalism. When he says "holy war" and when he says Bush is "chief of the infidels" we don't believe him because he really sounds like he's from Mars, so we devise all these other things and assume he must mean them and not what he says.
In case you don't know, for him it's not the year 2001. It is the Islamic year 1379 (2001-622=1379).
If you recall, what was the west doing in 1379? Coming out of the Crusades and coming into the Inquisition.
For a flavour of what I mean, read the first few pages of A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court and see how Hank interacts with a 6th century English knight pointing a lance at him.
posted on October 17, 2001 07:48:55 AM newbreinhold: No offense, and I certainly hope you are correct, but do you really think we could ever have enough security to prevent a determined terrorist with no regard for his own life from attacking us in every case? Or, if so, would any of us want to live our daily lives under such tight, intrusive security?
There's the old "Fortress America" mentality, which basically advocates shutting our borders and cutting off all contact with the rest of the world. Short of that, however, I don't think that all the security in the world will "guarantee" our safety.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on October 17, 2001 07:55:40 AM new
Barry, this will have to be short because I'll have to leave. I had posted this in your other thread but think it needs to be reposted here.
This article focuses on how some lab procedures became tightened after Larry Wayne Harris, an Ohio state student and Aryan Nations member got a sample of plague.
My personal opinion is that our export of guns and germs was lax for far too long and we're reaping what should have been obvious - that if you supply your "ally" in a volatile region of the world with "nasties", you have to be prepared for his successor or foe to use them on you. Kind of like loaning your car keys to a stranger who looks friendly with the hope that your car will be returned unharmed.
posted on October 17, 2001 08:14:26 AM new
Perhaps a little common sense and caution are in order.
"Meanwhile, the Justice Department has not told the INS to turn back or detain Middle Easterners entering the U.S. with flight-school visas – not even those from countries that sponsor terrorism, such as Syria."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24955
posted on October 17, 2001 08:22:13 AM newjamesoblivion: "we devise all these other things and assume he must mean them and not what he says"
Well, here's an excerpt from the transcript of what Bin Laden actually said in his recent videotaped message:
Our Islamic nation has been tasting the same for more than 80 years, of humiliation and disgrace, its sons killed and their blood spilled, its sanctities desecrated.
A million innocent children are dying at this time as we speak, killed in Iraq without any guilt. We hear no denunciation, we hear no edict from the hereditary rulers. In these days, Israeli tanks rampage across Palestine, in Ramallah, Rafah and Beit Jala and many other parts of the land of Islam, and we do not hear anyone raising his voice or reacting. But when the sword fell upon America after 80 years, hypocrisy raised its head up high bemoaning those killers who toyed with the blood, honor and sanctities of Muslims. [i]"I seek refuge in God against them and ask Him to let us see them in what they deserve."
They have been telling the world falsehoods that they are fighting terrorism. In a nation at the far end of the world, Japan, hundreds of thousands, young and old, were killed and (they say) this is not a world crime. To them it is not a clear issue. A million children (were killed) in Iraq, to them this is not a clear issue. ‘These events have divided the world into two camps, the camp of the faithful and the camp of infidels.’
But when a few more than ten were killed in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, Afghanistan and Iraq were bombed and hypocrisy stood behind the head of international infidels, the modern world’s symbol of paganism, America, and its allies.
I tell them that these events have divided the world into two camps, the camp of the faithful and the camp of infidels. May God shield us and you from them.
As to America, I say to it and its people a few words: I swear to God that America will not live in peace before peace reigns in Palestine, and before all the army of infidels depart the land of Mohammad, peace be upon him.
Now, whether what he is saying is actually true, well that's another matter. But it's not just "the West" that is talking about "all these other things" as reasons for the attacks.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on October 17, 2001 08:31:48 AM new
I am not suggesting we live in a military state. when the statement was made in the news that a sleeping giant has awoke (meaning the united states) all I thought was ,why were we ever asleep?
posted on October 17, 2001 08:33:30 AM new"Meanwhile, the Justice Department has not told the INS to turn back or detain Middle Easterners entering the U.S. with flight-school visas – not even those from countries that sponsor terrorism, such as Syria." And here is a prime example of why we are such an easy target. We are IDIOTS!....
Pls correct me if I'm wrong (oh, and I do trust that you all certainly will!) but in this "war against terrorism" any country who aids terrorists is our enemy. Now, if we allow people from known terrorist countries to enter our country for pilot training, are we not our own worst enemy? Especially, in light of Bin Laden's threat (as it appears in JT's first link above)
On Sunday, Osama bin Laden's lieutenant warned that another "storm of airplanes" will hit America.
"Thousands of young Muslims want to die [as martyrs], and the storm of airplanes will not stop," said al-Qaida spokesman Suleiman Abu Ghaith in a propaganda video broadcast on Arab television.
"The storm of airplanes will not be calmed," he said, "if it is God's will."
Oh yeah, we are not supposed to allow "threats" to stop our activities or curb our freedoms, but IMO to allow these people access is just plain stupid!
posted on October 17, 2001 08:38:47 AM new
I agree with you, Barry. In another thread, I used a reason/justification comparison (My sister said I was ugly, so I beat her over the head repeatedly with a baseball bat. Her saying I was ugly was the reason I beat her, but it wasn't a justification.)
So, whenever someone explores possible "reasons," they're accused of offering "justifications," and then it turns into - There can never be a justification for such an act, with attendant anger.
And even if Bin Laden himself is looking to set up housekeeping in the Al Hambra, is that the end of what we should be considering? One guy, no matter how determined, isn't much of a danger. The danger is that others rally around, for more reasons. Clearly, Bin Laden isn't acting alone (if nothing else, he wasn't on 4 planes at the same time.) And, there are plenty of reasons, and we're creating more reasons as we go.
You can look at how public opinion in Pakistan has shifted against us as the bombings in Afghanistan have gone on. From the first goal of - getting Bin Laden, it turned into removing the Taliban, and then turned into getting rid of some of the Taliban and possibly keeping more moderate members. As we first bombed, it was going to be "softening up" the area as a preparation to moving in Special Forces. It's been.. what, more than 8 days? It's pretty dern soft by now.
Okay, say that we have to bomb, and we have to keep on bombing. We're doing the right thing, in the right way. Still, we can't disconnect the Pakistani's growing anger against us from what we've done. When we wonder, some time down the road, why the Pakistanis hate us, will we say it's "because they hate freedom?"
Or, assume that the Pakistani public already didn't like us before the bombing started, and the first public opinion polls were artificially showing more support for us than was there. Take a narrower view and look at Indonesia.
At first, the Indonesian president made her Mecca-like pilgrimage to D.C. to chant the same old line - We support you fully, etc. etc. A few days ago, she said that "Blood can't cleanse blood." Again, regardless of whether the bombing is right, it's an action we're taking that's affecting the level of support others have for us. She didn't make the "blood" remark because she hates freedom, it's in reaction to something we've done.
It's the wider circle of people, the potential billions now or of the future, that make it so important that we need not merely say that - this guy is in the middle ages and you're blaming the victim.
posted on October 17, 2001 08:40:32 AM new
But rancher that is America's law of political correctness, "Always put the multitudes at a disadvantage to avoid offending one".
posted on October 17, 2001 08:43:37 AM new
godzillatemple p.s. no offense taken ,and the mess we are in only proves we were never safe. many things let up to this horrible situation. I really don't think we are at the beginning of something I think we are in the middle of it. but now we are all looking very closely..........After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured
> 1,000, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted
> down and punished.
>
> After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military
> personnel, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down
and
> punished.
>
> After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and
> injured 200 U.S. military personnel, Clinton promised that those
> responsible would be hunted down and punished.
>
> After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and
> injured 5,000, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted
down
> and punished.
>
> After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 3 U.S.
> sailors, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and
> punished
and it goes back before clinton out of all fairness.........
posted on October 17, 2001 08:44:31 AM new
"when the statement was made in the news that a sleeping giant has awoke (meaning the united states) all I thought was ,why were we ever asleep?"
Forget about the "sleeping giant," comment, breinhold, it's an old WWII chestnut that's been dragged up for the occassion. We just can't come up with spiffy comments anymore, so we have to recycle them, it wasn't born of this occassion.
posted on October 17, 2001 09:05:21 AM new
i understand the sleeping giant quote is old. my point was only ,why were we asleep and how do we avoid it ever happening again.
posted on October 17, 2001 09:06:23 AM newOur Islamic nation has been tasting the same for more than 80 years, of humiliation and disgrace, its sons killed and their blood spilled, its sanctities desecrated.
Eighty Islamic years ago (Islam uses a lunar calendar that is 11 days shorter than a solar year, making '80 years ago' 1924. He is referring to the overthrow of the Caliphate by the founder of modern Turkey -- a Muslim and a non-Westerner.
A million innocent children are dying at this time as we speak, killed in Iraq without any guilt. We hear no denunciation, we hear no edict from the hereditary rulers.
Clearly here he is denouncing the ruling Emirs and Sheikhs of the various Arab kingdoms. I will grant you that Saud, for example, did ascend to his throne with help from the British, but on the other hand he also snatched the throned the good old fashioned middle eastern way; through blood and force.
I tell them that these events have divided the world into two camps, the camp of the faithful and the camp of infidels. May God shield us and you from them.
Several times he couches the conflict in these terms; it's not "brutal westerners" versus us even though he makes reference to instances he considers brutality. It's "the faithful" and "the infidel". If he gave a fig for brutality he would be denouncing Saddam Hussein and the Assads.
As to America, I say to it and its people a few words: I swear to God that America will not live in peace before peace reigns in Palestine, and before all the army of infidels depart the land of Mohammad, peace be upon him.
Even the PLO leadership has pointed out the hypocrisy of his suddenly invoking the Palestinians after 9/11 whereas he never before mentioned them. Granted, they desperately do not want to be linked to Bin Laden, but the fact remains that this is a new cause for him and it's pretty transpareny why he picked up the mantle when he did.
Finally, he actually speaks of "the Andalusian tragedy" [when the Spaniards finally kicked invading Arabs and Moors out of Spain after 800 years] as something that needs to be reversed. Hello! That happened, what, 600 years ago?! Are we speaking of current events?
Sorry, none of these things have anything at all to do with any hypocritical U.S. foreign policy, poverty or colonialism. Since he changes the charges every time he speaks, it's obvious that there is little we can do to appease him or prevent the future arising of fanatics like him. Certainly a major reversal of fortunes, if our countries economy turns to dust, out military disbands and mass conversions to his brand of Islam might do the trick.
He hates us because we're there, the way people climb Mt. Everest because it's there.
posted on October 17, 2001 09:13:27 AM new
brienhold,
If you're going to do the old "clinton is responsible for all things" bash you might want to get some facts.
The truth is that much of the important anti-terrorist legislative movement is contained in the President Clinton, Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which was finally enacted in a watered down version after months of give and take with a republican congress that would have killed it without the compromises.
Unfortunately much of the difficulty is no longer available except through the titling of links because the contained data apppears to have been hastily removed. Some of that titling, from the famous Cato Institute, the New Republic, and the airlines as well as the ACLU shows by your easy inference just what an uphill battle both the act above and the following Gore recommendations on air safety and security have been. Money was not allocated in sufficient amount, each provision was pestered to near death.
But don't let that stop you blaming clinton, OK?
Here are some link titles. Some are live, but some are rather pointedly not live:
FAA, Airlines Stalled Major Security Plans
... airports. But the Gore commission wanted a ... Commission on Aviation Safety and Security ... for
protecting commercial aviation against terrorism. Many of the ...
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-000079911oct06.story
More Results From: www.latimes.com
The New Republic: HOT AIR
... to improve airline safety and security. The ... of one. The Gore Commission, which ... 12,
and the Aviation Security Advisory ... failure, not terrorism, brought Flight ...
http://www.thenewrepublic.com/magazines/tnr/textonly/031097/txtellingwood031097.html
16.Regulation Vol. 20 No. 1 Letters
... School. Shortsighted Approach to Terrorism. ... the formation of the Gore Commission probably
was ... increasing politicization of aviation safety. For example, it ...
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg20n1-let.html
More Results From: www.cato.org
17.CNN - Critics: Too much emphasis on terrorism in air safety ...
... Vice President Al Gore announced a major ... experts say federal aviation officials are
placing ... emphasis on fighting terrorism while not ... general air safety better. ...
http://home.c2i.net/stein.sandvold/cnn_new_security/
Close Up Foundation: Domestic Terrorism
... provision in the Anti-Terrorism Act that would have ... assigned Vice President Al Gore
to head a new Commission on Aviation Safety and Security. The ...
http://www.closeup.org/terror.htm
posted on October 17, 2001 09:17:15 AM new
Oh, and brienhold, maybe you'd like to research how much of the money that was meant for programs and equipment to combat terrorism survived the bush budget and tax cut? I'm going out.
posted on October 17, 2001 09:20:51 AM new
Barry, I should also mention that Bin Laden knows a great deal more about the West than the average Westerner knows about the East. In fact, that's probably the case with most Eastern sophisticates [i.e. the rich, educated] as opposed to most Western counterparts.
If he makes occasional reference to the things that our minds can comprehend it is because he knows that words like "colonialism" resonates and smarts in the West. So do words like "racism" and "imperialism" and that's why those words are strewn about in English. For our ears; so that we can debate "causality" and be "introspective" about our position in "a global economy" and our "responsibility to democracy".
But even he does make it plain. It's jihad and he doesn't mean "soul-struggling".
posted on October 17, 2001 09:36:13 AM new
"and it goes back before Clinton out of all fairness".........
krs it wasn't just Clinton bashing ,if you read my last comment (above). as I said it goes further back. that was only a list of things that happened in the last administration proving we weren't tuned in and should have been.
sorry I upset you but they are facts , there are similar facts from other administrations and parties and i know that. at the time these things happened ,it was just news from a far away place that didn't feel personal to most Americans. now its personal. it should have always been. that is my point.
posted on October 17, 2001 09:54:48 AM new
Jamesoblivion,
Your breakdown of bin laden's oratory reinforces what I've understood from the beginning. Bin laden and other's like him will not be satisfied until the entire world is converted to Islam. Even if that were to happen, they would find something else to "jihad" against well within their own ranks. It's they themselves who are a people who will never find rest, but they point at others as the reason and cause for it. I'm not expert on the religion of Islam but what I've read about it is that it is a "conquer by force" religion. A religion with its origin in war. The goal of Islam is to make the world Islam. Some believe they can accomplish that goal peacefully, still for others it's the 7th century "conquer by force" method.
posted on October 17, 2001 09:56:09 AM newjamesoblivion: Nice response. You missed one, though:
But when a few more than ten were killed in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, Afghanistan and Iraq were bombed and hypocrisy stood behind the head of international infidels, the modern world’s symbol of paganism, America, and its allies.
I'm not saying that this is necessarily true or even a key reason for the attacks, but neither is it true, as you stated, that "none of these things have anything at all to do with any hypocritical U.S. foreign policy".
Yes, Bin laden and his cronies talk about holy wars and death to infidels. But they ALSO talk about America's support of Israel, our various involvements in the Middle East, and our hypocritical foreign policy. Those other reasons may or may not be sincere, but they're not just made up by Western commentators who are unwilling or unable to listen to what Bin Laden is "really" saying.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
[edited to add "not" where it belongs....]
[ edited by godzillatemple on Oct 17, 2001 10:07 AM ]
posted on October 17, 2001 10:08:14 AM new
I submit that he is simply picking up on our discourse here in the United States. He didn't say any of these things until weeks after the attacks. I'm not saying he's clued into your particular comments, but he's certainly aware that much conversation like the one we are having now is going on in the United States.
If many Americans had decided that a 'root' was environmental concerns (as someone told me one of the 'roots' is) I would bet that Osama would have scolded the U.S. for "your abysmal environmental record" -- and "by the way, you're Satanic infidels too".
So I did miss one. I missed the one where he condemned our retaliations for his prior terrorist attacks.
But when a few more than ten were killed in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, Afghanistan and Iraq were bombed and hypocrisy stood behind the head of international infidels, the modern world’s symbol of paganism, America, and its allies.
posted on October 17, 2001 10:13:25 AM new
"... his suddenly invoking the Palestinians after 9/11 whereas he never before mentioned them."
I don't think that's true, it looks like the "he only invoked Palestinians after 9/11 and never mentioned them before" was fabricated as a talking point and it's been picked up and spread around. James isn't the only one who picked it up and is spreading it around, my sister told me the same thing the other day.
Compare the "He never mentioned Palestine until after Sept 11th" claim to what Tony Blair says in his "10 Downing Street Responsibility for terrorist atrocities in the United States" thing. In part:
"22. On 12 October 1996 he issued a declaration of jihad as follows:
...
My Muslim brothers: your brothers in Palestine and in the land of the two Holy Places [i.e. Saudi Arabia] are calling upon your help and asking you to take part in fighting against the enemy – the Americans and the Israelis."
posted on October 17, 2001 10:25:07 AM new
Okay, perhaps "never" was too absolute a word.
He rarely mentioned them and never lately. 1996 was 5 years ago, and if you'll recall things were relatively calm and headed in a more positive direction than. Where he was he all year?
As it's your pet cause too, I understand fully that it's crucial that Arabs attacks on America be linked to that cause as well.
But the PLO themselves pointed out in response to his recent declarations that he hadn't mentioned them [with any frequency or urgency, I guess] previously.
I don't pretend that it was an entirely original thought. "Talking points" or not, it's the truth.
You don't need to be more Palestinian than the Palestinans.
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Oct 17, 2001 10:29 AM ]
posted on October 17, 2001 10:28:50 AM new
Also from the same link in my previous post, under heading 22 again:
"In February 1998 he issued and signed a ‘fatwa’ which included a decree to all Muslims:
". . . the killing of Americans and their civilian and military allies is a religious duty for each and every Muslim to be carried out in whichever country they are until Al Aqsa mosque has been liberated from their grasp and until their armies have left Muslim lands." "
Al Aqsa, of course, is in Jerusalem.
So, I think it's pretty clear that it is not true that Bin Laden only opportunistically brought up the issues of Israel and Palestine after Sept 11th, 2001.
posted on October 17, 2001 10:41:16 AM new
"As it's your pet cause too, I understand fully that it's crucial Arab that attacks on America be linked to that cause as well."
And,
"You don't need to be more Palestinian than the Palestinans."
That's wrong-headed. I'm sorry that the facts of what he said before September 2001 don't gibe with what you want to believe. Don't like the message, kill the messenger.
It is not my pet cause or, anymore than the reverse is yours. If you see a crucial effort to link the attacks on America to issues elsewhere, I see a crucial effort to deny any links. We can all have opinions. But if one of the bases that are used to support these opinions is a repetition of clear falsehoods, it would be better, I think, to separate the facts from the fictions to arrive at a better support for any opinion. Of course, casting aspersions at me personally never hurts.
