Nearly killed my son - but this thread for analysis, not sympathy

There are several threads here expressing sympathy, unity and condolence to the people of London, as is proper.

But I feel we need a space where it is not improper to ask, and discuss, WHY ? And to keep this question separate from the expressions of emotion or outrage, which are well catered for elsewhere. This thread is meant to be that special space, so please respect its intent, and try to stick to logic and the issues. Emotion - post in the appropriate threads please.

Here then is my take on the issues, not uncolored by personal involvement:

I have two brothers, two sons, and a pregnant daughter-in-law living in London. The father-to-be was on the underground, following one of the bombed trains just 5 minutes behind it, and was marooned in the immobilised tunnel for over an hour.

Yet every one of these now vulnerable relatives of mine has the same view. The US and UK governments have followed devious policies in Iraq, lying knowingly to their people to suck them into an unjust and illegal war. They have created this terrorism problem, by giving hundreds of thousands of people good reason to hate us, and to want revenge.

Madeleine Allbright admitted on camera that sanctions killed 500,000 Iraqi children, but that it was "worth it". Many of their relatives must hate us.

This clip is so critical, please view it, whichever side of the argument you are on. It had a big effect on me.
http://home.comcast.net/~dhamre/docAlb.htm

The Lancet estimates we killed 100,000 civilians in the latest Iraq war. Many of their relatives must hate us.
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Lancet+deaths+iraq&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Plus perhaps 125,000 Iraqi soldiers killed, who were also partially innocent by our own criteria, since they had been forcibly conscripted by a dictator. Many of their relatives must hate us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq_casualties.

We elected successive governments which followed policies leading to death for maybe as many as 725,000 people who were (by that point at least) minding their own business elsewhere in the world. Our true motives were almost certainly economic, and nothing to do with freedom, which is much more sorely needed in any number of other countries of the world. We (even those of us individually totally opposed) must therefore expect the hatred which this has created to flower into frightful terrorist acts against us. Unless every single one of our victims is absolutely free of any desire to seek vengeance by exchanging innocent blood and broken bodies for innocent blood and broken bodies.

Such sainthood and forgiveness would be wonderful and amazing, but given their human nature, and ours, it's hardly likely.

So I have to accept my share of the guilt, and live now in fear for my loved ones' safety. Exactly as the people of Iraq (and of many other countries where we have meddled) have been doing for years.

And don't anyone dare tell me this posting is inappropriate. I utterly condemn EVERY act killing innocent civilians, and I utterly condemn this one. I was only five minutes from losing a son this time, but that doesn't justify my blinding by emotion. It means I should look even more closely to find the causes and underlying injustices, to understand why.

When something like this has happened, and this close to one, is EXACTLY the time for one to reflect on whether one might personally share any of this awful burden of guilt, and to reflect with all the wisdom and justice and calmness one can command.

Terrorism existed before Iraq, it will exist after Iraq. These horrible acts were done because brainwashed, economically poor, religiously zealous people blame the Western World for their poverty. Countries participating in the Iraq War is an excellent scapegoat.

But the fact is that terrorists are scared as shit that democracy is slowly coming to Islam nations, and the idea that Iraq could be both Muslim and Democratic scares the extremist leaders who abuse their religion to get less fortunate people to die for the cause.


No, Saddam killed them by buying lush palaces instead of feeding his country's children. Are we obligated to trade and give aid to people in a country that is warring with its neighbors? No. The fact that we had the Oil for Food program was a step to limit the deaths at Saddam's hands - but as we see from the UN debacle, that went horribly wrong. Because of countries like France, Germany, and Russia - ironically and not surprisingly the most staunch against the war.

Let me not underscore my disdain for Bush and his lies. Its clear that Bush intentionally misled the world with the WMD claims, or if not, he acted extremely recklessly. The plan to go in Iraq was based on false claims and bad intelligence, poorly executed by politicians (though I underscore well-executed by our brave troops).

But it's simply invalid to suggest that anything but brainwashing and lies from Islamic extremist leaders caused attacks on civilian targets.

If you want to oppose the Iraq War, do it on its own terms. Please do not demean those people who died innocently in terrorist attacks. There is no room for blame shifting on these matters.


"The analysis, an extrapolation based on a relatively small number of documented deaths"

Any statistician will tell you that study was invalid by a small sample size.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ provides a more accurate measure, between 22787 and 25814 deaths, mostly by insurgents. Not to demean their loss, which is great and should be respected. Also understand that many body counts include insurgents who drop their guns, are taken to the hospital with no uniform, and are counted as if innocent civilians.

The bottom line is that there is overwhelming evidence that the US military takes every conceivable action to avoid civilian deaths - contrary to the terrorists you so lend such thinly veiled support to in your thread.


I don't blame them. War is horrible. We went in for bad reasons. Who knows if we would have had to go in if Bush had taken diplomacy more seriously?


That's ridiculous. Just because one person does violence doesn't justify another's violence. The fault is on the terrorists alone. You simply do not go after civilian targets. Killing women and children is against the Koran, as well.

While we can accept responsibility and a share of the blame for the situation we created, and that may be appropriate, acts of terrorism against civilians was never warranted.


Everyone seeks to grasp the why of this. But don't confuse an explanation with a justification. The different is whether something is appropriate or not, and even at worst of what you are saying, it still never comes close to justifying terrorism on civilians.

Why?

Personally I think they're a bunch with more blind faith than brains. Which is precisely why it makes no sense.

Forget the political overtones. It strikes me as more an attention fest aimed at blinding the world with fear and anger. Hence, "terrorism."


After all, violence is the proven last resort of those that are unable to do things civily. Which is precisely why we shouldn't sink down to their level.

stop doing war and load gatling guns with flowers!!!!

Terrorism existed LONG before the war on Iraq.

Up to this point I was reading carefully, and respecting your different point of view, Hiro. Was it really necessary to ruin it with such an unjustified and insulting misrepresentation of my motive ? What "thinly veiled support" ? I absolutely reject this allegation. See the final point below.



Its kind of you to point out this danger, Hiro, but you really needn't. The whole point of my posting is to discuss explanations, and to reject any justification of civilian deaths by either side. If I see any justifications of atrocities here, Hiro, it looks to me like they reside in your text, not in mine.

The whole point of the Allbright clip is her seekingto provide justification that these deaths were "worth it".

As a further example of the "justification" which you so rightly abhor, Allbright's same interview continued :

"ALBRIGHT: It is a moral question, but the moral question is even a larger one. Don't we owe to the American people and to the American military and to the other countries in the region that this man (Saddam Hussein) not be a threat?

STAHL: Even with the starvation?

ALBRIGHT: I think, Leslie … it is hard for me to say this because I am a humane person, but my first responsibility is making sure that United States forces do not have to go and re-fight the Gulf War."

I interpret that to mean - the deaths of these innocent children were necessary to prevent deaths to American soldiers which would result if we had to go back and fight in Iraq again. What a justification ! The lives of innocent unarmed children as a trade for those of trained and armed adult soldiers. And note it didn't even work. They did go back, and thousands more have indeed most sadly died.

As for the numbers, yes, as I indicated, those are the high figures for those three categories. But the adults and elderly who died from sanctions are left out. The total figure of all deaths is almost certainly getting up towards a million. But these numbers are so large, why argue? Even if the total total of Iraqi deaths since sanctions began is only the 500000 sanctions children, and the lowest figures of maybe 20,000 civilians and 40,000 soldiers, my point about creating the hate is just as valid And we are still there. Soldiers and civilians of both sides, and children, are dying in dozens every day. More hate against us created daily. More terrorist acts stored up for the future. Not because they "hate our freedoms", but because we are killing their ordinary people.

Note these points are under the "explanation" heading still. NOTHING justifies either side killing civilians.

Ive read a few times, that terrorism existed before Iraq. True enough - but i think the word TERRORISM has become a post 9-11 construction...

Decades.. centuries.. millenia before the iraq war, people have used violence to get their point across... and i dont think its any different this time. But is it terroism? I havent kept up with the reports from London, as ive been sick and barely awake - but is there any evidence pointing where these attacks stemmed from?

Before 9 -11 and Iraq, the word terrorism was reserved for the most autrocious acts. But since then, its become more of a First cry expression. for example.. a bomb goes off somewhere and the first thing we scream is TERRORISM!

I think the point im trying to make here is that we're so quick to label any act terrorist.

I can't disagree with anything you have said. I would go as far as to say that anyone who does is blind. I have nothing else to say.

When I was seven years old, in 1972, I remember a Palestinian group called Black September, who abducted and killed 11 Israeli atheletes and a cop, being labeled as "terrorists". Same with those who committed highjackings of the airliners in the 70s and 80s.

However, that is not where it comes from. It has been used much longer.

It was first used during the "Reign of Terror" in the late 1700s, with respect to the Jacobins. We now call this "state-terrorism".

The term "terrorism" has come to enjoy a broader scope of usage in recent times, I do agree with you on that. It can be just a loner like Kaczynski, or an established network, we tend to call them all terrorists. I suppose that is because they use stealth and anonimity to carry out their "work". It causes people to be terrified.

Well .. i agree with all you say. But being a Child of the 1980's. I dont recall the 1985 hijacking of the Indian Airliner.. but my parents do talk about it. I guess what im trying to say is, all the incidents you've mentioned, were when i was very small - pardon my ignorance. In my recent memory terrorism didnt become a household word until very recently.

Aside from that - my opinion on terrorism is smothered by my knowledge of communal violance in India, Pakistan and neighboring middle east - and i dont regard communal violence as terrorism - thats probably the point im missing here.

Ps. i noticed your Gandhi Quote.. Was never a gandhi fan.. but he is very quotable.

Brilliant. Thank you for having the intelligence and bravery to post this. You're definitely someone special.

~Ulrika~

while terrorism has existed for quite awhile and largely due to religious zealots, it's not the sole reason.

before i continue though, let me point out that i abhore war and don't agree with the ongoing one in Iraq; however, on the other hand, i'm glad Saddam is no longer in power and as a world together, we would do well to rid ourselves of terrorism.

i was thinking about all of this earlier today and wondering what the reasons for all of it may be. now, i'm not ignorant and am aware that Blair has been happily skipping along with Bush when it comes to Iraq and as such i'm not surprised that there was an attack on London. again, not that i would ever condone such an action.

yes.. regardless of our involvement in Iraq, terrorism would exist. what my observations ask though is.. would terrorism have come to London today if we had not continued to have a presence there? (when i say "we", i mean all countries who have troops there)

we're seeing an escalation of violence leading to violence over and over again.

i think the real question is, are our current anti-terrorist actions the best way to combat these groups? on one hand we don't want to leave or else we would be seen as a scared dog with it's tail between it's legs, but if we stay then we're an oppressive force laying down a hand of justice that falls on too many innocent people.

there is no easy answer. and my feelings lean towards that some of these attacks are simply to show that they CAN attack and to strike fear into the hearts of their enemies. (i know what you're thinking and no.. Batman is not the answer)

seriously though.. it's a confusing subject and not one of us should pretend to know everything going on behind the scenes. these fights and wars have ties that go back decades.. centuries even. there are little reasons for each side to act how they act and they're too numerous, and many too trivial, to know all of them.

honestly, in my opinion, most terrorists today probably are just "doing their job". they grow up in that environment, they're taught to hate the enemies of whatever factions their fathers were taught to hate and some reasons have legitimate foundations for why they feel a need to terrorize others.. but mostly, they just hate because that's what they know.


Ellie, i see your point.. while we will always look for a "how", first we should understand all the nuances of the "why".

-

Ps - wow, this was really hard to write in the midst of watching two Family Guy episodes and now into the second episode of Robot Chicken!!!

How can you *not* be a Ghandi "fan"?





Sorry, it's just confusing me. Like, you can admire someone for what they did --

I guess I find it hard to *not* admire Ghandi.

Er, anyway. *sorry for the hijack*

Can you please define "brainwashing" for me? Sorry, I ride the slow bus.



Hm... It's a nice thought anyway, albeit very idealistic . Maybe we were brainwashed at the time?


Can you tell me what "terrorism" means too? Sowee

"We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war." Hisatsune Sakomizu the chief Cabinet secretary in 1945

According to some Japanese historians, Japanese civilian leaders who favored surrender saw their salvation in the atomic bombing. The Japanese military was steadfastly refusing to give up, so the peace faction seized on the bombing as a new argument to force surrender.

Waiting for the Japanese to surrender was not a cost-free option. The conventional bombardment was killing tens of thousands each week in Japan, directly and indirectly.
Combined with the delay in relief supplies from the Allies, could have resulted in a far greater death toll, due to famine and malnutrition, than actually occurred.

In addition to that, the atomic bomb hastened the end of the Second World War in Asia liberating hundreds of thousands of Western citizens (including about 200,000 Dutch) and 400,000 Indonesians ("Romushas" from Japanese concentration camps. In addition, Japanese atrocities against millions of Chinese were ended.

Also there was an order given by the Japanese War Ministry on August 1, 1944. The order dealt with the disposal and execution of all Allied POW's, numbering over 100,000, if an invasion of the Japanese mainland took place.

In response to the argument that the large-scale killing of civilians was immoral and a war crime, supporters of the bombings have argued that the Japanese government waged total war, ordering many civilians (including women and children) to work in factories and military offices and to fight against any invading force. Father John A. Siemes, professor of modern philosophy at Tokyo's Catholic University, and an eyewitness to the atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima wrote:

We have discussed among ourselves the ethics of the use of the bomb. Some consider it in the same category as poison gas and were against its use on a civil population. Others were of the view that in total war, as carried on in Japan, there was no difference between civilians and soldiers, and that the bomb itself was an effective force tending to end the bloodshed, warning Japan to surrender and thus to avoid total destruction. It seems logical to me that he who supports total war in principle cannot complain of war against civilians.

Cybin,

What you expressed is very on par with what I am thinking.


Being the primary source of information for people from birth, and being in a position to userp one's religion to twist it to goals and beliefs never supported by that religion. A person is thus able to be convinced of convictions that are totally crazy.


Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both industrial towns; the targets were chosen over more civilian ones. Additionally, the choice was made after extensive research concluded that it would save both American AND Japanese lives. From what I've read and heard about the decisions, it was one that was difficult to live with for the people who decided.

However, the firebombings of Tokyo and Dresden are two concrete examples of attacking civilian targets during the war. These were bad choices, I agree. At the very least, the US was fully engaged with military targets as well; modern terrorist groups choose to hide, and attack civilian targets over military ones.


Well, the history context has been laid out, but I'm beginning to think the use of the word has been greatly abused in recent years. I would say the most accurate definition I could say is "attacks on civilian/non-military targets intended mainly to degrade an enemy's morale".

...

Elie, I'm sorry you disapprove of my use of that phrase, but given that you post numbers and fail to examine them critically, it's clear you're settling to hear what you want to. That's not "analysis". That's the absense of it. Such knee-jerk reactions is precisely what an enemy performing psy-ops (such as terrorism) wants to do. It's playing in to terrorist hands.

You're absolutely right. Next time a ruthless dictator slays millions, next time a poor nation is in dire straits, I'll walk away, as it "isn't my fight". Let's face it, it's easier, and my seat is pretty comfy on my well fed behind.

*switches and plays Devil's advocate*

Jsecure... what about the widespread human rights violations in China, who continues to threaten Taiwan, has sub-par working conditions for many manual labor jobs, and holds Tibet (as well as hiding the rightfully chosen person who will choose the next Dalai Lama of Buddhism, and putting forth their own?)
How about North Korea and Iran, who are developing the Atomic Bomb?

Why did we pick Iraq instead of one of these countries, if we were itching to war? North Korea and Iran not only keep their people under an oppressive regime, but also are direct threats to the US.

Well honestly put, it'd be nice to save every human from an oppressive regime, but some are too powerful to take on. Sadly in life some evils you have to live with. Not that I'm saying regime change is the correct option for all oppressive regimes, I'm just saying for some of them it's not even on the cards.

Is that anything like living in a country where an oligarchy controls most broadcast media? I'm going to ignore the "religion" aspect because it's baloney. An "ecoterrorist" doesn't have to be religious to make Monsanto sweat when they firebomb their GM labs. (add your own example for whatever you think is more appropriate, like mad libs) "Ideology" is the appropriate word, I think.

But seriously, who is not brainwashed to some extent? Even I'm brainwashed by my own violently individualistic ideals and misanthropic observations. I don't experience reality directly, but through a middleman of senses that I've had since birth (that can be "twisted". No one is beyond misinformation because semiotics != reality (whatever that may be). Okay, maybe I shouldn't have responded to that part because that could unleash pages of elucidation.

So, at the very least, the difference between justifiable and unjustifiable is being fully engaged with the enemy in some kind of honor-bound knight fight? Well, hell, let's all line up like gentlemen (or redcoats) and shoot at each other in straight lines.

In a world primarily driven by capitalism, wouldn't the financiers of the military be considered military targets? Is an arms factory a civilian target because they're not immediately involved in a military campaign? How about a temp agency that is staffing the arms factory? Where do you draw the line?

I think Cyd did a pretty good job illustrating my point without(?) intending to. The difference between "justifiable" and "reprehensible" is all in the way you spin it (substitute "view" for "spin" if it's a dirty word). The winners will always be justified, so the terrorists (as a losing minority) will probably be reprehensible forever. That's the only difference I see between terrorist acts and justifiable acts of atrocity.

You say that "violence doesn't justify another person's violence" and "you don't go after civilian targets," and yet you can somehow agree that it's the right thing if it is spun correctly (as in the WWII examples)? You also say that "The fault is on the terrorists alone," yet also say in the next paragraph that "we can accept responsibility and a share of the blame for the situation we created?" I think you are just angry and that's why you're being weird.

.. We can continue this elsewhere, maybe even in IM. But before you ask me how i cannot be a GANDHI fan, i must ask you, what do you know about gandhi? Aside from his Non Violence? Are you aware of the Bengal Famines? The salt marches? His hypocrisy? His disgusting bedroom manner?

Great political leader, in that he was able to bend and shape men's minds so t hat the would agree with his own thoughts and actions - but a lot of the times he was a puppet who was misleading the indian masses. I like the work he did in South Africa - but india wasnt south africa - the problem wasnt the same so why was the same policy being forced?

With much conviction, the policies of satyagraha and ahimsa, truth and non violence fell from his lips.. at the same time his pen was dipped in hypocrisy as he was rounding up as many troops as possible to support the British in WW2. .. Non Violence - but war is ok, cuz we're helping britian. Thats ok. But standing up for your own personal freedom, for your own rights. Trying to defend yourself from Britians divide and conquer policies --- was not ok.

There's a big difference between being subject to multiple sources of propaganda in a society whose public schooling system still teaches thinking for oneself, and being subject to a theocracy that teaches west-hating in public schools.


Like violence in general, I'm saying it should be a last resort.


I dunno. Women and children are a good start. That's why I posed the fact that the koran specifically forbid that.

But, on a more general basis, arguing that everyday civilians are "financieers" is silly. Perhaps if they struck banking data warehousing, then you could claim an economic attack. But even at 37 dead - let's say they make 40,000 a year each and 25% goes to the government as tax. (rough estimates) - that's $370,000 -- not exactly a huge financial giant compared to the hundreds of billions spent on the war. So, I state that your argument is not valid.


No atrocity is really justifiable. Of course, one could then argue about what defines "an atrocity". So, you're right about the spinning to an extent.

Still, I think that extent ends clearly when civilians become your primary choice of target.


LOL

You can tell I'm conflicted.

War isn't justifyable ever... but in a realistic sense, we're talking about shades of grey, here. It's a lot more acceptable to attack civilians who participate in "Complete War" (as Cid so eloquently laid out) than to pick civilians as preferrable targets.

As for accountability and blame sharing, it may sound like I'm splitting hairs, but I'm differentiating between taking the blame for helping create a hostile Middle East situation, and actually causing the London attacks. The prior I think we need to be responsible, partly. The latter we need to understand is because islamic extremist terrorists have betrayed their own religion and do not care about human life.

Incorrect. The mainstay of Ghandi's non-violence campaign was post-WW2.

Perhaps he learned something from the war, and changed his ideals.

The problem, I think, is testosterone.

Somebody kills your brother, so you kill all his brothers, so he kills your father and uncles, so you kill his sister and aunts, etc, etc. It's a classic escalating revenge cycle that doesn't end until the world is hip-deep in dead bodies.

In this case, the US withdraws the support that the CIA was providing Bin Ladin and the mujahadin in Afghanistan. Bin Ladin and his cohorts develop a festering pathological hatred of the west that culminates in 9/11. Those attacks spur a frenzy of jingoistic chickenhawking that culminate in the invasion of Afghanistan in the midst of negotiations for the Taliban to turn over Bin Ladin. That "emboldens" the chickenhawks in the Bush administration to push forward their plan for the invasion of Iraq on fabricated pretexts. Iraqis resist with more violence. Extremists from other countries feel their hormones surging and join the fight. And that leads directly to the attacks on Madrid and London.

And on both sides, it's adolescent boys thinking with their balls rather than with their brains. Appeals to the global spread of democracy or Islamic solidarity are justifications for people who really just want to kick some ass and take some names (or more correctly, send conveniently impoverished teenagers to kick ass on your behalf).

Terrorism is stupid. Trying to solve terrorism with tanks is equally stupid. And until We the People let our leaders know that, we're the ones who are paying the price for their goddamn macho bullshit.