Now, that's awful, and what's even more is that she will get easily away with that comment.

Sympathy for the Devil?

Why is it that any attempt to understand the mindset of these people is automatically labelled pro-terrorist sympathizing? I don't know anything about this particular case, so I am generalizing somewhat.

The first order of business in defeating an enemy is understanding him, and understanding his motivations.

If a man is without hope, full of anger, fueled by religious fire, I can see where suicide bombing is something that would be a consideration. Right now I don't think it's something I could possibly ever do, personally, but I think I understand the objective factors that would lead to it.

Here's what really bothers me about such knee-jerk "you're a terrorist too" responses. We all sit here living with our shiny veneer of civilization, working hard at our information technology jobs, driving our SUVs, and cluck-clucking at the foibles of those crazy foreigners from the televised comfort of our suburban living rooms. If you're someone surrounded by that kind of comfort and you pass judgement on someone else because terrorism is "inconceivable", you're forgetting one thing:

You don't know what you'd do if you were in the same situation. We all want to believe that we wouldn't do it. It's inhuman, it's inconceivable, it's abhorrent. Not a chance.

So what could push you over the edge? What within your life could happen that would make you a little crazy, make you lose the civilized veneer? What if that happened; a son or daughter lost, and your anger became uncontrollable?

From my office, it could never go that far. I just don't think I have it in me. But I'm not going to pass judgement on those who try to understand, when doing so means pretending that I know my true self, when faced with the same situation.

Yeah, and who knows... maybe if I had been an abused kid, I might take a gun and go murder about 19 people at the local McDonald's. I mean, does anyone really know what they'd do in that situation?

And it would be tragic of course. But understandable. Too bad about those 19 people and their families, I guess.

Ross has a point, a very good point.
WHY is there "no hope for the future"?
WHY can't the PA help this woman and her family have a house, educate her children, create a little more wealth?

WHY? Because of Arafat.

There's little hope without free speech. When Arafat assited Pali thugs take children out of schools, and send them to throw rocks at Israelis -- and kill any who disagree; there is little hope with Arafat.

And the world ignores the Pali killing Pali scourge, so there's little hope there.

Where is the Pali newspaper calling on Arafat to step down, to resign??? Nowhere, and no hope -- until the UN and the external folk start demanding that Palis start respecting the human rights of the people living there.

Would Jenny Ronge be as empathetic with a (hypothetical) IRA bomber who detonated himself in Tottenham Court Station, I wonder? Or on the bus from Holborn to Covent Garden?

Somehow.. I think not.

oops.. Tonge.

Ross, if I was in that situation only one thing would occupy my thoughts...how do I win.

Terrorism has set back the advancement of the Palestinian people and Palestinian nation. It has served their Arab paymasters, who use them as cannon fodder.

A.L.

Joe, you don't seem to be able to draw a distinction between the words "understand" and "condone". I can objectively understand the factors that lead to an action I do not agree with. For each of those factors, I can decide whether I believe it to be justification, or not.

My point is, people go crazy. I think that's what's happened here...Palestinian culture has lost some (or much) capacity for rational thought. I trust that we have not, though.

If you just want to kill'em all and be done with it, then I guess attempting to understand (not condone) their viewpoint makes no sense. Otherwise, you need to understand the factors (even the unreasonable or downright crazy ones) and deal with them one by one.

Do you claim to have a greater sympathy for victims of terrorism than I do? Is there a moral high ground reachable only by excluding rational debate of cause and effect?

Most terrorists are not impoverished or desperate, most are from the middle or upper class. Islamist suicide bombers are trained by a larger paramilitary organization. They believe the clerics who tell them that God condones this act, and that kafir are equivalent to other unclean things like urine and feces. They murder because they hate people who do not share their beliefs and because they believe they have the right to do this.

If Ms. Tonge had any interest in ‘understanding’ these suicide bombers, she would have, you know, done a little research on Hamas, Arafat and Islamic fundamentalism. I doubt that she knows the difference between Sayyed Qtub and Sheik Yerbootie.

Instead, she constructs an irrational little fantasy of poverty and desperation. She doesn’t understand them, she does condone them, I would not want her to live next door to me, and I’m glad that she’s been fired.

Ross, since you've tried to understand them, you must know all about Qtub.

An insightful look at the root causes of this conflict can be found in Irshad Manji's book " The Trouble with Islam". She makes it clear that much of the cause is internally generated within the Palestinian Islamic community. Their leaders have a pathological inability to do the right thing. Feed someone a diet of hate and blame and they will eventually lose it just like the 9/11 guys.

I don't know anything about Qtub, Mary. Was there a claim somewhere within my comments that I know everything about suicide bombers?

Don't put words in my mouth, and I'll try not to put them in yours.

To my knowledge, terrorist organizations do NOT look for a particular set of beliefs when they are recruiting for suicide missions. Instead, they look at the character of the person: Are they suggestible? Of somewhat below normal intelligence? Are they emotional or angry?

With drugs, persuasion, and a good-sized dose of religious craziness you can turn one of these potentials into a suicide bomber.

If you claim that conditions in the West Bank and Gaza have nothing to do with suicide bombing, you are just flat-out wrong, and you are taking a position based on a deliberate decision to exclude factors that do not support your political view, unconditionally.

I don't see how any reasonable person can look at the economic situation in the Palestinian areas and deny that it is a factor. Do I say that it is the only factor? NO! And this is where most of the kill'em all types stick their fingers in their ears.

Try to understand. I agree and accept that there are crazy religious types who train (or force) these people to do nutso things. I also think that the shitty economy is fuel on the fires of hatred. I think inadvertent or intentional killings of Palestinians fuel the fires too. I think people like you are fuel for that fire. I think that Arafat is directly responsible for many of the ills of his people.

I don't claim to know the answer to the situation. I do know it's a complex set of interconnected issues, that neither side is even particularly close to perfect, and that people like you will never solve it, unless your "solution" involves mass deportations or killings. There must be another way.

Ross,

The last Female Palestinian suicide bomber had the choice of being the victim of an "honor killing" or becoming a suicide murderer. She chose the latter.

The only thing you need to understand about that kind of death cult culture is how to wall it off from the rest of humanity.

AL, it's all about perception of the methods used to win. There are a lot of Palestinians who've been brainwashed into thinking that there's no other way. From our vantage point, we can see that terrorism has gotten them precisely nothing but pain, to date. From their viewpoint, though, does it look different?

Define "win" within their cultural context, as yourself. Now subtract your education and background, and substitute theirs. Define it again, and what you'd do to achieve it.

Purely from an objective standpoint, I wonder how many lives would have been saved, on both sides, if Israel had simply assassinated Arafat three or four years ago, at the start of the intifada.

Ross - You don’t know anything about Qtub, you haven’t researched the motivations of the suicide bombers, you don’t know about their philosophies or beliefs – but you know that people like me are fuel "for that fire".

People like me are just pure destruction, aren't we?

So enlighten me. Tell me all about this group I belong to. What are my motivations?

I didn't know that I wanted to massively deport and kill lots of people. I always thought I was opposed to that. Apparently, I'm wrong.

Why are people like me always so wrong?

Ross,

Just give up on your theraputic foreign policy fantasies about the Palestinians. Reality has overtaken them.

A.L. started a topic here on Winds about that in reaction to a post on the Palestinians by Glenn Reynolds here:

Instapundit on Palestine

The discussions there got heated and Micheal Ledeen made an appearance among others.

This is the meat of what I posted there:

--------------
A.L., Mr. Ledeen,

It is far too late.

Ross, while I'm just a blogger, let me suggest some stuff for you to look at to understand where I'm coming from, and I think where some of the others here are as well.

The War on Bad Philosophy 2

Is it The War on Terror or The War on Bad Philosophy?"

On Terrorism, part 1 et seq...

Yeah, I know they're unhappy. And I agree that the answer is to stop growing them. The interesting questions are two: 1) What makes them grow? Why does one set of conditions produce an Arafat and another similar set a Gandhi? and 2) How do we keep them from making a mess in our living rooms while we're figuring out the answer to 1)??

A.L.

Why is it that any attempt to understand the mindset of these people is automatically labelled pro-terrorist sympathizing? I don't know anything about this particular case, so I am generalizing somewhat.

I dunno, Ross. The comment about becoming a suicide bomber just seems to be a pro-terrorist remark for some reason. Perhaps I'm just unenlightened or something.

I don't know what was in her mind when she said that.

But I must agree with Ross on one thing. It is necessary to understand. If we do not know their motivations, if we do not understand what makes them tick, we are handicapped in a very basic way.

The terrorists who attacked us on Sept 11, 2001 misunderstood America. They thought we would fold and surrender. They did not understand us (and still don't). That was (and is) their mistake.

Should we cripple ourselves by making that same mistake?

Kathy brings up a good point. In order to defeat your enemy, we must know them. However, the word "know" means something completely different for that British MP. For her, know means sympathize. If she truly understood what it was that sent a 23 year old mother of 2 to kill Jews, then she would not be talking about doing the same thing. Her nihilism, OTOH, is a product of the hard-left, which has slowly been dying ever since 1989. In a way, it says a lot about her. She wants to go out with a bang, and is most likely a person with emotional problems, who sees suicide bombing as one way of expressing her inner turmoil. She really needs to be looked over by a shrink.

The need to understand the motivation of Palestinian suicide bombers assumes that that the motive cannot be basic hatred and envy. To point to those motives is an obvious explanation, so the "need to understand" assumes that something less obvious is at work. Once the issue is framed in this way - that pointing to basic hatred and envy is too superficial as an explanation - we've arbitrarily stipulated that the killers aren't simply evil and that they have motives with a subtler story to be told about them, one that isn't devoid of illogic and ill-temper, perhaps, but one that is well short of basic hatred and envy. The drive to understand frames the issue in such a way that the contention that the killers are evil is excluded from consideration.

The notion that anyone in the situation of the bombers would do as they do is unbelievable or trivial, depending on what it means. It's unbelievable if it means that a decent person of sound morals would commit mass murder if subject to life in a Palestinian refugee camp. It's trivial if it means that such a person might very well have ended up consumed by hatred and envy if raised from infancy in Palestinian society with all its hatreds and envies.

Just some thoughts which occurred to me:

Suicide bombers are participating in a war. At least, that is their perception. Their cause is, in their own minds, justified. And therefore, what they do to advance that cause is also justified. Attacking their enemy at its weakest point and causing terror, they believe is the path most likely to bring victory to their cause. The weakest point, the point most susceptible to the politics of terror is, of course, the civilian population.

I can see some very strong parrallels between terrorism (including suicide bombings)and the bombing of cities in World War Two. Innocent civilians were the targets there too. The allies bombed Tokyo, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki largely because they felt that terror among the enemy population, and the intolerably high casualty rate would bring victory to their cause. It did.

I have to question why one is seen as a terroristic act, and the other is seen as a legitimate act of war. Is it because, in the case of World War Two, the bombers were clearly military? Did that matter to the dead?

Or is it because, there is something more inherently disturbing about people who are willing to kill themselves along with their innocent targets? Do we condemn suicide bombers for being cowards, for not being prepared to face the consequences of their actions, for not being prepared to take the harder path of peace? If so, I am forced to wonder about the heroic images I saw in WW2 films while growing up of the Allied bomber pilot bravely accepting a mission, knowing that the enemy defences were overwhelming, knowing it to be a suicide mission. His motives were pure. Why aren't the motives of a Palestinian suicide bomber?

I sometimes hear people say that they could sacrifice, or put at extreme risk their own life in extreme circumstances. If I believed that there was a good chance that I could save lives by sacrificing my own (in an accident, for example) I hope I would be prepared to make that sacrifice. If I did, I'm sure I would thought hailed a hero. But what if I had to sacrifice not only my own life, but the life of a stranger who I didn't know, who just happened to be unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. But by doing so, I sincerely believed I could save the lives of three other people. By killing myself, and my hypothetical stranger in an attempt to save the lives of others, am I a hero, or a villain?

What if my beloved freedom loving country (England in my case), which stands for everything I believe in, is under occupation by an enemy power which opposes everything in which I believe. But I hope and pray that attrition will gradually make it intolerable for my oppressor to remain in my homeland. By attacking the occupiers in the only way open to me (strapping a bomb to my chest and detonating it), am I doing the right thing, or the wrong? Am I fighting for the freedom of my country? Or am I just a one-dimensional terrorist? What has more value? The freedom of my country, my beliefs, my people? Or the lives of a few of my oppressors?

No definitive answers. Just some thoughts.

Hi.

Let's make that all-important distinction between understanding and condoning a little clearer in the context we're discussing it. See this Jerusalem Post article.

"British legislator Tonge, who visited the Palestinian areas last June and compared life for Palestinians in the Gaza Strip with the Nazis' treatment of Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto, made the remarks about suicide bombers during an address to a meeting of the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign.

She said suicide bombing "is truly born out of desperation," and while the phenomenon was widely criticized, she said, "I can understand.""

...

"In an attempt to "clarify" her remarks on Friday, Tonge told the BBC she had not sought to condone suicide bombing: "I don't. I think it's appalling and loathsome. But we have to try and understand where they are coming from and understand the situation in which they live.""

...

"While Tonge's remarks about suicide bombers were widely condemned, there was an outpouring of support among media commentators and radio phone-in callers for her appeal to "understand where they are coming from.""

...

Is that clear enough?

By the way, Kaveh, if you follow the link I gave in my previous post, you'll see she didn't entirely get away with it.

:)

Andy - you say

What if my beloved freedom loving country (England in my case), which stands for everything I believe in, is under occupation by an enemy power which opposes everything in which I believe. But I hope and pray that attrition will gradually make it intolerable for my oppressor to remain in my homeland. By attacking the occupiers in the only way open to me (strapping a bomb to my chest and detonating it), am I doing the right thing, or the wrong? Am I fighting for the freedom of my country? Or am I just a one-dimensional terrorist? What has more value? The freedom of my country, my beliefs, my people? Or the lives of a few of my oppressors?

I can answer that. Your beloved, freedom loving country was, to me, an enemy power that was oppressing my grandfather’s country, Ireland. My grandfather fought for Irish independence during the 1920’s, and I grew up hearing many tales about the people who suffered and died during the potato famine. One million Irish died in the late 1800’s. As they died of starvation, the British did nothing to help them, and the British press joked about their suffering.

I still believe that Ireland should have its independence from Britain. But when I visited Ireland and heard about the IRA’s tactic of targeting civilians, bombing bus stations, people describing what a grandmother’s intestines looked like splattered against a wall, I knew that this was wrong.

That dead grandmother wasn’t an ‘oppressor’, the terrorists were. I hoped that the British Army, or the Irish people would find the IRA bombers, kill them or jail them, and eviscerate the organization.

I still wish that they would do that.

The cause is irrelevant. Terrorists are oppressors, not liberators. It doesn’t matter if the terrorists are suicide bombers, homicide bombers, or if they’re just shooting a little girl and her family as they sleep in their beds. Their actions prove that they have no respect for human life, freedom is not part of their agenda.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Mary

I take your point about England being an oppressor. I know England has a shameful history in many respects, along with many other countries. I was being a little tongue in cheek when referring to England as freedom loving, although it is my home, and if my country was under another's yoke I would feel in much the same way as you do as an Irishwoman about Irish independence from Britain.

I'd also like to say, just for the record, that all war, and all oppression is, of course, disgraceful.

Having said that, the question, unpalatable and revolting though it is, still remains.

If, by killing 1 innocent civilian I honestly and sincerely believe I can save the lives of many more, should I do it? Is the life of one person more valuable than the life of several or many others? Would I cause more death through not killing that innocent civilian that I would if I killed her? Would my inaction actually make me more evil, more complicit in murder than my action?

And, when it comes to the cause of innocence, it is true that civilians do not actively take part in any oppression. They do not kill, maim or torture. They just ge on with living their lives. However, they do take part through their tacit support of those who take an active role. In the case of democracies, this is even more relevant, as their governments act in their name. By silently condoning oppression they are guilty to an extent. Shouldn't this make them a legitimate target of war?

Finally, one final question. When you are in a situation where you are being oppressed, when your people are being killed and tortured, when all hope seems lost, when you have no military means to defend yourself and your family. When your enemy is so ruthless as to render peaceful opposition futile.

What should you do?

Andy –

You say “In the case of democracies, this is even more relevant, as their governments act in their name. By silently condoning oppression they are guilty to an extent. Shouldn't this make them a legitimate target of war?”

I’ve already answered the question. Under no circumstances is the direct targeting of innocent people the right course to take. Another word for the deliberate targeting of innocent people is murder. This is a crime in every society.

Are you arguing in favor of making civilians a legitimate target of war? Do you believe that the IRA should have targeted more grannies? Do you believe that the Irish peace movement was evil, because it didn’t help the ‘cause’? Do you think that the IRA should have taken a lesson from Hamas, and sought to evict the British from Britain?

Do you believe that, if the circumstances are right, that you can do whatever you please, kill whomever you want?

This is called nihilism, and it was the philosophy that inspired leaders like Stalin, Hitler and Osama bin Laden. Islamists believe that they have the right to kill little Muslim children, in order to save them. It’s a philosophy that destroys civilizations.

If you have trouble understanding these basic concepts, please read this.

I hope that these are just random philosophical questions.

Andy, there's a simple distinction to make - between guerilla warfare, which involves using the bomb to attack soldiers, and terrorism, which involves attacking pizza parlors. I may find guerilla warfare distasteful, but it's certainly not evil.

There is a profound difference between attacking the Speaker of the House and attacking his grocer in order to frighten him. [Inserted: Both are civilians, but one occupies a role that is both functional and ceremonial in the leadership of the country and by extension, our military capacity.] If you hate the United States, or Republicans, you might believe that killing Hastert, even though he is nominally a ‘civilian’ would somehow strike at the effectiveness or strength of the U.S. or the Republican party... You’d be deranged in these cases, because one of the strength of our system is its relative independence from who wields the levers of power. But you’d be ‘understandably’ evil. Comprehensibly evil. But to kill the guy who runs the Quick Mart where Dennis stops and gets his Slim-Jims, in order to frighten or intimidate Hastert moves the evil to a whole new category. The grocer’s life becomes meaningless, you make him into a pawn, devalue him as a moral agent, and in so doing, devalue yourself morally.

Mary --

I don't have trouble understanding the concepts you are trying to put across. I just don't agree with them.

You are right to say that attacking innocent civilians is reprehensible. It is.

The point that I was, perhaps clumsily, trying to make was that civilians are not always as innocent as we believe. True, they are not directly involved in conflicts, but by their inaction they do condone those conflicts. They give support to those who commit terrible acts. Without this support, those who do commit atrocities would not be able to act. Given that, they then become a part of the war machine. Which is why I believe that they can sometimes be considered legitimate targets.

And, in response to what you say about all killing being murder - I couldn't help but remember your earlier post where you expressed your wish that the British or Irish people kill whoever was responsible for that particular suicide bombing. I can see that you are saying that they deserve to be killed because they committed a terrible act. What I am saying is that it is not just the committing of the act that is a crime. Supporting those who commit such acts is an equally heinous crime.

Armed Liberal --

I've read your blog entry & I was struck by the way you seem able to separate war into military/non-military arenas. I find it much harder to do this. The military, to me, does not and cannot operate independently of the society from which it springs. (Note: This applies to democracies far more than it does to authoritarian regimes).

I don't want to get into the rights and wrongs of the Israel/Palestine conflict here - its a complex confict from which no actors will emerge with their reputations intact. I'd just like to use it to illustrate a theoretical point. Feel free to replace Israel and Palestine with X and Y if my choice of example offends.

The Israeli armed forces cannot operate in Palestine without the support of the Israeli people. Some people are very vocal and active in their support. They believe that what Israel is doing is justified and see little if anything wrong with Israeli actions. Other people perhaps disapprove to varying extents. But their disapproval is not strong enough for them to actively oppose their government's policy. They do not believe that their government's policy is bad enough for them to actually do anything about it. Therefore, in my opinion, they are supporting the actions of their government, even if they do not believe in it.

If enough people in Israel were to say to their government that they believed that what was being done in their name was wrong then the Israeli government (and by extension the military) would have to accept the wishes of its people and stop. It is a democracy, it can do nothing else.

Given that, in my opinion, these people do become a part of the war.

It is very difficult to accept that they are legitimate targets. After all, they do largely oppose what their government is doing. But by not acting, they are making themselves a part of the military machine.

One final point: I find it very hard to accept that there are rules to war, or even that there are moral rights and wrongs in war, because I believe that all war is illegal and immoral. Once we enter a war, 'rules' go out of the window. The more desparate our situation, the more fundamental the 'rules' we will break.

By saying that there are rules to war we are, in effect, legitimising war itself. Which is a truly terrible thing.

Andy - the end result of your post above is simple; the Israelis get to kill all the Palestinians, because they can.

If in fact the population that supports a war is as legitimate a target as the soldiers fighting it (and yes, I know the history of strategic bombing in WW II), then why do we expect the Israelis to act with any restraint?

But in fact we do.

That's because we make a distinction between the military and others.

A.L.

A.L.

I think you oversimplify war. War is, as I'm sure you know, the continuation of policy by another means. The aim of war is (usually) not to kill as many people as possible, but to achieve one's political objectives as efficiently as possible. Sure, Israeli's don't get along with the Palestinians, but they have no reason to pursue a genocidal policy. Therefore they don't.

There are other specific reasons that encourage states to act with restraint. A few examples relevant to the Israel/Palestine conflict off the top of my head:

A need to maintain the support of allies

A need to avoid drawing other groups into the conflict in supprt of the Palestinians (militarily, economically or diplomatically)

A need to avoid upsetting domestic Israeli groups whose support for the conflict may be wavering.

At issue though is not primarily restraint within a conflict. The time for restraint to be exercised is before entering into a conflict.

"The point that I was, perhaps clumsily, trying to make was that civilians are not always as innocent as we believe. True, they are not directly involved in conflicts, but by their inaction they do condone those conflicts."

A baby in a stroller? A grandmother with a cane? They are "condoning conflict" by their "inaction"?

"They do not believe that their government's policy is bad enough for them to actually do anything about it. Therefore, in my opinion, they are supporting the actions of their government, even if they do not believe in it."

Sounds like you think that if some "action" of the Israeli government ceased, the suicide bombings would cease. You need to learn more about the mindset of both the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships. It's actually the other way around. You are also ignoring the examples given in this thread of how the suicide bombing recruiters, and terrorists in general, operate.

I would also like to point out that there are many peoples around the globe who feel oppressed, and many who are much more oppressed than the Palestinians (who are as an aggregate the most Westernized, educated, middle class Arab group in the world), none of whom perpetrate suicide bombings. Therefore some factors other than "desperation" "oppression" and other $3.00 words have to explain the Palestinians.

Andy –

The deliberate targeting of innocent people is murder. Murder is a crime in every society.

All murder is homicide, but all homicide is not murder. Some acts of homicide are justifiable. If someone is running after you with an axe and you shoot them, that’s justifiable homicide by nearly every society’s definition. If a government is oppressing its people, those people are justified in rising up against that government. I hate to bring this up for fear of sounding too anti-British (I really do like Britain – some of my best friends and relatives are British, Monty Python and Yorkie bars rule), but this right to rise up against oppressors and target their rulers and military infrastructure was used effectively by Americans against the British, by groups like the French Resistance, and the IRA during the 20’s.

As I pointed out, terrorists are not seeking freedom from oppression, they are seeking to oppress. The proof of this is in their actions. Like all oppressors, they believe that they have the right to whatever they please, kill whomever you want. This differs from conduct under war, which is regulated in every society. As Glucksman said in the link:

Man is human: therefore, he can be civilised, even if he can’t read or write, because he can master this [nihilism]. Wherever you go, this belligerent hubris is considered lethal. In the huts of the Amazon, young men are taught to conquer this capacity for excessive violence. You can fight together, but you cannot fight in any way that comes to hand, and you don’t set out to fight just anyone.

In every society, terrorism, nihilism, is considered to be lethal to the society. It's motivated by hate, and it's comparable to genocide. War is bad but genocide is worse.

Citizens in a democracy believe that they have the right to fight oppression. This is why they react to terrorism, not by giving in to the wishes of the terrorists, but by the need to annihilate them. When Hitler directly targeted civilians in London during the Blitz, he was hoping to destroy their will to fight. Instead, he inflamed it.

In America, a lot of people have stickers on the back of their cars – hunting licenses for terrorists. Right now, these stickers are a joke, but that shows our attitude. We have no intention of honoring the wishes of the oppressors, we want to destroy them. We vote according to our wishes.

Palestinian use of terrorism as a tactic has destroyed their society. Even if we ignore the moral and philosophical discussions, the deliberate targeting of civilians in a democracy is, on a purely pragmatic level, a tactic that will fail.

You should read the Glucksman essay..

Andy,

Your analogy with bombing in WW II is faulty. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were genocidal regimes bent on domination of the entire world. They had to be destroyed at all costs. Are you really comparing Israel and America, with all their faults, to Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? If anything we've been entirely too easy on the terrorists for the last 25 years. If we had turned Tehran into a parking lot in 1979, September 11 would just be another block on the calendar. But we didn't. Partly because unlike our enemy, we are civilized and partly because unlike World War II, we did not see the case as so extreme as to require turning Tehran into a parking lot with the attendant killing of civilians. After 9/11, though, I for one am not sure we shouldn't have flattened Tehran. And I admit to often having to resist the thought that the only peace plan that would work in the Middle East is for Israel to follow Mr. Kurtz's "Plan for the Suppression of Savage Customs" in Conrad's Heart of Darkness.

Yehudit -

The Israel-Palestin conflict is, of course, a complex conflict in which both sides have to share some blame. Both sides can and must act to pull themselves back from the madness of their current conflict.

True, there are many other groups throughout the world who are equally or more oppressed than the Palestinians. They, for whatever reason, have chosen not to use suicide bombings as a tactic. That is their choice. Perhaps they do not do it because it is morally offensive to them. Perhaps they have other, more pragmatic reasons for refraining. But it would be hard to deny that the Palestinians themselves see their position as one of oppression and desperation.

When you say should a grandmother with a cane be a target? Actually, yes. This hypothetical grandmother lives in a democratic society. She has a voice. She can use it. Her voice is independent of her physical frailness. If she chooses not to use it, knowing what is happening, then she is failing in her democratic duty. That is what democracy is.

Targetting children is, of course, unacceptable. Children can never be considered targets of war in any sense. They have no political voice. They are innocent.

Of course, there will always be people in a democracy who oppose the actions of their governments. However, the world organises itself into distinct societies. Citizens of each society MUST take collective responsibility for the actions of their governments. No, it is not fair to everyone on an individual level. But what is?

Mary --

Firstly, as an aside, I'm a little unsure which Glucksman essay you are referring to. I imagine he has written quite a few. I did a websearch and came up with quite a lot. I read the one at http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-2-95-1111.jsp but perhaps you could be more specific in future.

You said that all deliberate targeting of innocent civilians is murder. I agree with you entirely in that statement. It is murder. It is wrong. And we should condemn it.

However, what I am talking about is the deliberate targetting of civilians who are NOT innocent. When they are not innocent they put themselves in the firing line.

It is interesting that you say civilians believe they have a right to fight oppression and that is why they oppose terrorism. But democracies are not pure as the driven snow themselves. What about the oppression that democracies perpetrate upon others? Don't citizens of democracies have more than a right to fight that kind of oppression? Don't they have a duty to fight it?

Fred

I'm going to leave aside the whole Native American genocide thing for today, and pretend that didn't happen.

I'm not in any way saying that what the US (or Israel) is doing today is on the scale of genocide. America and Israel are both relatively civilised countries although, as I'm sure you'll agree, they aren't perfect. But just because they aren't doing something that is the ultimate in evil, doesn't mean that what they are doing isn't bad. It doesn't mean that people can't be justifiably angry with America, sometimes angry enough to see themselves as at war with America.

Andy – the Glucksman essay was the one I linked to in another comment. The one where I said ‘read this’. Why on earth did you do a websearch? Do you have problems following basic social cues? Since you’re arguing that terrorists have the right to slaughter random grannies, I’m guessing that you don’t play well with others.

Obviously the essay didn’t make an impression. Well, he uses a lot of big words.

The citizens of a democracy have a means for protesting the wrongs committed by various governments – have you ever heard of Amnesty International? Oxfam? If they’re not able to help all of the oppressed of the world, are you be justified in threatening their lives and the lives of their children? According to your moral reasoning, the answer would be yes.

On 9/11, a group of middle class and wealthy middle eastern men (mostly Saudi), members of a paramilitary group that was financed by wealthy Saudis (and members of the royal family) murdered thousands of Americans in an unprovoked act of war.

Hamas, another paramilitary organization staffed by wealthy and middle class Palestinians, and once again financed by wealthy Saudis and members of the royal family (what a coincidence) uses the tactics of terrorism to slaughter children, grandmothers and other innocents because, well, in their own words, they hate Jews.

And you’re arguing that these wealthy bigots are justified. You share their moral values. You share the values of Hitler, Stalin, bin Laden, Arafat, Timothy McVeigh, Saudi royalty and Noam Chomsky. Congratulations.

Palestinians invented modern terrorism, and they allow it to thrive. That’s why their society is in ruin. In America, as in most societies, terrorism and mass murder are against the law. As it should be. One local terrorist, Timothy Mc Veigh is dead. You can argue till you’re blue in the face that he was justified, he’ll still be dead.

OK, Mary, this is getting out of hand a little.

I'm trying to put across a serious point, albiet one that you disagree with and find repulsive. But if you'd rather spend time insulting my social skills and my ability to read big words, than honestly trying to understand where I'm coming from, well thats your choice.

For the record, your link is there, but it isn't highlighted. It just shows up as regular text on my monitor. I'm not a psychic. I was just requesting a clarification.

And moving back to your point about many of the terrorists being wealthy, or middle class. Money is not the be all and end all. I know coming from a capitalist country like America it is hard to see this sometimes. I have the same problem too.

But you can be rich and helpless at the same time. You can also be rich and feel the need to fight for other members of your society who are poor.

As to the 'Amnesty International' issue, of course they are trying to do good things. But there are good people who die all the time. Innocent civilians (some of whom I'm sure actively opposed their government) died when NATO bombed Yugoslavia in 1999. The same in Afghanistan (where a lot of children have died recently as a direct result of US bombing raids), Iraq, Palestine, Ireland, any conflict you care to mention. Life sometimes isn't fair. That sucks. But its true.

As a final note, because I don't think I've made myself very clear on this point. I am NOT arguing that terrorism is something we should accept as good. What I am saying is that all war is wrong. All war is illegal. All war is evil. Terrorism is just the same, in my eyes, as any other form of war. I am arguing that it is EQUALLY ILLEGITIMATE as any other form of war.

Andy - So the Saudis who have been responsible for the deaths of thousands of poor and working class Muslims and others are “rich and helpless”, fighting for “other members” of their “society who are poor”

Did you really say that? Can I quote you?

Wealthy Saudis have also funded the Islamist government of the Sudan, a government that’s responsible for the deaths and enslavement of millions of (very poor) Sudanese. Osama bin Laden called the Taliban’s murderously oppressive stone-age society ‘ideal’, because it followed Islamic law. Are these Saudis fighting for the poor?

You say Terrorism is just the same, in my eyes, as any other form of war. I am arguing that it is EQUALLY ILLEGITIMATE as any other form of war.

Glucksman’s argument was that the nihilistic hatred that inspires terrorists and oppressors is in fact worse than war. War is often the only way to stop this sort of genocidal violence.

You said Citizens of each society MUST take collective responsibility for the actions of their governments?

Who says that they MUST take collective responsibility? How do you plan to enforce this order?

They give support to those who commit terrible acts. Without this support, those who do commit atrocities would not be able to act. Given that, they then become a part of the war machine. Which is why I believe that they can sometimes be considered legitimate targets.

It is very difficult to accept that they are legitimate targets. After all, they do largely oppose what their government is doing. But by not acting, they are making themselves a part of the military machine.

what I am talking about is the deliberate targetting(sic) of civilians who are NOT innocent. When they are not innocent they put themselves in the firing line.

So if a granny lives in a democracy, she is de facto NOT innocent. In your own words, she deserves to be in the firing line.

You believe that innocent civilians who do not behave as you say they should deserve to be made a legitimate target of war. You believe that, if the circumstances are right, terrorists should have the right to do whatever they please, kill whomever they want. This behavior is defined as nihilism, oppression, terrorism. You are arguing in favor of terrorism.

You argue against war, which is often the only means for stopping oppression and genocide. Again, you call for the deaths of more innocents.

No, it is not fair to everyone on an individual level. But what is?

Such compassion. I’m not insulting your intelligence & social skills because of your lack of web skills. I’m insulting your intelligence & social skills because your argument is so pathetic it defies parody.

Sure Mary, you can quote me on that. So long as you absolutely promise to keep it in context.

Answering your points in order.

1.) Wealth I wonder how it is so hard for you to understand that people who commit terroristic acts can have motives that transcend pure evil.

Imagine. Here you are. Joe Palestine. Sure, you hate the Israelis. Sure, you wish bad things on them. But to be honest, you have a life. You have things to do. You have kids to raise. A wife to love. A god to worship. A fortune to amass. Frankly, you have important things to be getting on with. There has to be SOMETHING that takes you away from those important things.

Plenty of people have directly targeted civilians in the name of a cause. Some causes you would agree with. Some you wouldn't. They are all done out of a feeling that if some drastic step isn't taken, things will be worse. Hiroshima is one example. September 11 is another. They were both done for a reason. You may agree with that reason or not. But it does exist.

2.) Glucksman I saw Glucksman's argument. I just didn't agree with his position. The 'genocidal violence' that you refer to is in response to a (perceived) war. Are you proposing starting another war to counter it? Why not just stop the first one?

2.a.) Saudis Funding Sudan I hate to descend to this level, but: Lets look at the US support for dictatorial regimes, past and present. Mobutu - Zaire, Pinochet - Chile, Musharaf - Pakistan, Suharto - Indonesia, Some guy whose name I forget - Iraq. Why does the US feel the need to prop up dictatorial regimes? Could it be that America feels fear? But America is so rich. How is this possible? How can America feel that it has to prop up murderers and enslavers? If it is not afraid, what is your reason? And perhaps it is also doing it because it genuinely feels it is its duty to protect the poor and innocent of this world. Propping up a few murderous dictators here and there is far better than losing ground to the Communists who will enslave us all. America certainly isn't evil. So why do you automatically assume that those who fight the US using methods that you believe are illegitimate are necessarily evil?

3.) Responsibility Who knows how we enfore collective responsibility. I don't have the answer, and I assume from your comment that you don't either. However, just because we are unable to enforce it, doesn't mean the responsibility doesn't exist.

4.) Grandma Are you saying that people aren't responsible for their own actions? I'm actually arguing in favour of people accepting their responsibilities to society. I do not call for the deaths of innocents. I call for Grandma to act in defence of those who are innocent. There is pure self-interest involved here for Grandma, too. She has to know by now that if she doesn't act, some people are going to try and come and get her. But still she doesn't act. Why?

I am NOT arguing that terrorists have the right to kill whoever they want. I'll repeat it again... I am arguing that they have an EQUAL LACK of right to kill to anyone else, and that they have reasons for what they do.

5.) Fairness I'm all heart. Forgive me for condemning war in its entirety.

6.) * Your closing comments* I've addressed them seperately in an email, as I don't think this is the appropriate forum.

To close: I think that this is about to descend into a slanging match. We are also starting to get to the point where we will just endlessly repeat the same arguments at each other. I don't disrespect your point of view. I disagree with it. I know that it is founded on the same fundamental view as me - that killing is wrong. We both, in the end, want the same thing - peace.

So, I'll end my argument here. The last word is yours, should you wish it.

Andy, Mary lives in a pretty black and white world. In her world, everyone is either in front of a firing line, or they're holding a gun. In this psychotic world view, you must pick a side. In fact, she's told you that if you DON'T pick a side, which is her side (according to her definition of what that side is), then you are on the other side of the line.

Apparently more than two classifications of people do not exist in Mary's world.

With Mary, as with most frothing extremists, this two-tone mental stance is highly prevalent. Middle ground cannot exist. She is not interested in dialogue or the possibility of another way; only rage and revenge.

It may be that rage and revenge are an appropriate response, Andy. Certainly, you and I can allow for that possibility, as distasteful as it may be. Sometimes there really is no going back; wars are fought in those circumstances, and millions of people can die. We shouldn't enter it lightly.

I'm glad we think of it that way. I'd rather not be like Mary, who just likes to short-circuit the whole stupid notion of discussion and get right into the hard-tack labelling and dehumanizing.

Mary has a very high opinion of herself. I find it probable that she knows more than either of us, with regards to the specifics of the subject. What she sucks at is having any ability to actually convey any of that in anything less than a hostile and extremist manner.

The reasonable middle is still here. We're just waiting for someone to supply the facts and references and argument we don't have. Someone who has a little less of a victim complex, and a little more compassion.

Andy said:

"But it would be hard to deny that the Palestinians themselves see their position as one of oppression and desperation."

What Palestinians think and what is real are two very different things. The Ku Klus Klan saw themselves as heroic defenders.

"When you say should a grandmother with a cane be a target? Actually, yes."

I'm glad you are so forthright in your opinions. Aside from the obvious failure of moral reasoning exhibited by that statement, let me point out that Arab Muslims were raping and murdering Jews long before Jews had any power over Arabs. Muslims could not tolerate "uppity Jews" just as Klansmen could not tolerate "uppity n******" and if you do not understand this then you cannot understand the current situation.

The roots of Palestinian rage do not lie in oppression by Jews, but rather in the following: (1) Ignorance and poverty caused by Muslim rulers who prefer a subjugated populace. (2) A corrupt theocracy that derives its power from ignorance, terror and wholesale thievery. (3) A culture that, generation after generation, produces an elite as corrupt and decadent as the one before. (4) A need to blame others for the failures of their own culture. (5) A religion that mandates subjugation, oppression and exploitation of other religions (dhimmitude) while pretending to be "tolerant." (6) A burning shame at the vastly superior accomplishments of the supposedly inferior infidels. (7) An incandescent rage that the despised Jews, reviled in the Koran as the descendents of pigs and monkeys, and traditionally treated as despised inferiors, would achieve so much and would actually defeat Muslims in war. Repeatedly.

"Saudis Funding Sudan"

America propped up dictators as an unpleasant bargain while fighting the Soviets, who were by far the greater menace. The Saudis support genocide in the Sudan because they like genocide when perpetrated on non-Muslims.

"I am NOT arguing that terrorists have the right to kill whoever they want."

But you already said that little old grandmothers were legitimate targets.

"All war is illegal. All war is evil." (and various elaborations.)

War is always terrible, but not all reasons for war are equally good or bad. To return to the Sudan, the Muslims do not have any moral right to wage a war of enslavement and genocide on their Christian and animist neighbors, but those Christians and animists are fully justified in fighting to defend themselves. Remember also the Armenian genocide and various other outrages. Remember a thousand years of Muslim conquests and ethnic cleansings, all justified by currently-accepted Muslim law (Hadiths.) Take note of Islam's bloody borders, and reconsider your position.

Joe:

You would do better to avoid cheap and dishonest psychoanalyzing of those you disagree with.

I know I said I wasn't going to post again, but Paul's post just made me want to cry. I thought my mental health, however, would be better served by venting my frustrations in public.

First. In my mind at least, this is not a debate about Israel/Palestine or Islam/Christianity. I just used those examples in debate as they are the most topical and the conflicts which feature terrorism most prominently today.

Suicide bombing and terrorism is not restricted to Islam. Christians, atheists, and people of virtually every other concievable religious persuasion have also resorted to its use at one time or another. To say that one particular religion is the motivation, or that the 'evilness' of one particular religion is to blame, is inacurate given the empirical evidence.

Second. People of every religion have done bad shit. Members of every religious/ethnic/political group have raped, killed or tortured members of every other group at some time or another in history.

Third. The whole point of the exercise is to psychoanalyze. To try to understand what motivates others. I do it, and so do you. It isn't cheap, and it sure ain't dishonest. It is, of course, an inexact science, and conclusions will vary. You and Mary, for example, seem to have concluded that suicide bombers are primarily, perhaps even exclusively, motivated by evil, and a love of genocide. As for me, I don't know what motivates them. I'm pretty sure it isn't just evil though.

Fourth. What is a terrible menace to you may not seem so terrible to others. Equally, what is not a terrible menace to you may seem vitally important to others. See, for example, Robert Kagan's insightful analysis of EU-US perspectives on the current Iraq War in 'Paradise & Power'. The shorter version (Power and Weakness) is available on the web, but I can't remember the link off the top of my head. Anyway, he's a Neo-Con, you'd love him.

Fifth: The language used in this debate is tricky. It is hard to discuss levels of illegitimacy without sometimes inadvertantly using the word legitimate. However, I believe I have made it very clear on more than one occasion that I do not think it is legitimate to blow up little old grannies. I believe it is as illegitimate as any other act of war. It only becomes legitimate if we consder war itself to be legitimate. However, I will endeavour to be more careful in my future choice of words.

Sixth. The word you seem so unable to put down in letters, Paul, is "niggers". Yes, I know it is a bit anal of me to point that out, but I just find it absurd that people feel the need to asterisk out words that might cause offence. Everyone knows what word you intend to say. Therefore the word can be no more or less offensive written than it is asterisked. If you truly think that using that particular word might give offence then find another.

And now, I'm off to practice some restraint.

"First. In my mind at least, this is not a debate about Israel/Palestine or Islam/Christianity."

Sorry, but you're wrong. This thread started as comments on a Palestine-Israel incident in Sweden, and developed into a debate explicitly and continually grounded in that conflict. The actual facts of that conflict are therefore of fundamental importance. If you do not understand the facts, you cannot make reasoned conclusions. Besides, we've been arguing about that conflict all along, and you have been using it as a basis for your general assertions on matters of war, terrorism and morality, so it's disingenuous for you to respond to inconvenient facts about that conflict by suddenly claiming that the debate isn't about that conflict after all.

"Suicide bombing and terrorism is not restricted to Islam... To say that one particular religion is the motivation...."

Sorry, wrong again. Look at the historical record. It clearly shows how important religious doctrine is to the problem of Muslim violence and oppression. It's in the Koran, it's in the Hadiths, it's in the writings and recorded speech of Muslim leaders going back to Mohammed himself. And if you pay careful attention to what Muslim leaders say today (even so-called moderates, unfortunately) the situation has not improved all that much in the last few centuries. You cannot understand the current war if you refuse to recognize the ideology of conquest, oppression and exploitation that runs through Islam's holy books and traditions.

"Second. People of every religion have done bad shit." Members of every religious/ethnic/political group have raped, killed or tortured members of every other group at some time or another in history.

Sorry, but you're evading the issue. Although violence is (obviously) not restricted to any one religion, the majority of the terrorism perpetrated today is Muslim. In fact, Hitler is on record as taking lessons from Muslim practicioners of genocide. You can find violently intolerant Christians, Jews, even Buddhists, but Islam unfortunately is different. I could cite news stories about acts of violence perpetrated by Christians, Jews and Buddhists, but I also know that those religions do not have the scriptural mandates for war and oppression that Islam does. Seems likely that this is why it's easier to live in peace with Christians, Jews and Buddhists. And why although I have known, liked and respected many Christians, Jews and even Buddhists, every Muslim I have known has forthrightly expressed opinions that reminded me of the few Klan-sympathizers I met.

"Third. The whole point of the exercise is to psychoanalyze. To try to understand what motivates others."

If you want to understand, then why do you refuse to pay attention to the facts? Look at what these terrorists and their supporters actually say and write. Look at what so many religious and political leaders in the Muslim world

"I do it, and so do you. It isn't cheap, and it sure ain't dishonest."

What's cheap and dishonest is your attempts to psychoanalyze Mary...and to a lesser extent me. You clearly don't understand us, and it's a cheap resort. Again, pay attention to the facts of the war in question.

"It is, of course, an inexact science...."

No, it's not even a science.

"You and Mary, for example, seem to have concluded that suicide bombers are primarily, perhaps even exclusively, motivated by evil, and a love of genocide. As for me, I don't know what motivates them. I'm pretty sure it isn't just evil though."

Just what do you think evil is? I see the this conflict as rooted in a Muslim ideology of conquest, oppression and exploitation, an ideology what explicitly makes it okay even to enslave and murder. If that isn't evil, I don't know what is. Perhaps you think that evil people get up in the morning and say "Oh what a beautiful morning. I'm really looking forward to being evil today." Of course not, that exists only in melodramas.

"Fourth. What is a terrible menace to you may not seem so terrible to others."

Let's see, three thousand dead on 9/11. About a million in the Armenian Genocide. At least two million in the Sudan. That seems pretty serious to me. Just who thinks that isn't so terrible, and why should I respect their opinion?

"Robert Kagan"

Yes, I'm already familiar with him. May I suggest, as a start for your reading, Bernard Lewis and Bat Ye'or?

"to blow up little old grannies"

Then let me repeat: If you see all acts of war as equally illegitimate, then we have a problem. I cite again the Christians and animists in the Sudan who are fighting against Muslims who seek to enslave them and destroy their culture. Then there are the obvious examples of Hitler, Tojo, Stalin, etc. Was it equally illegitimate to make war on the Japanese who started a war of conquest and enslavement, and who had deliberately killed so many civilians? If you feel that fighting the Japanese was just as illegitimate as the Japanese starting the war, then we have a fundamental moral disagreement.

"N******"

I wrote that in deference to the feelings that many people have. If you have a problem with attempted courtesy to strangers whose opinions I am unfamiliar with, then you should do some thinking about yourself.

I've got to to go work, so that's all.

Andy,

You don't have to pretend. There was never any "Native American genocide." At no time in our history was it EVER official American policy to wipe out any particular tribe or to wipe out the Indians as a race (I refuse to be politically correct and "Native" Americans were just as much immigrants as Europeans; they just immigrated a couple of millenia earlier). As any war, the Indian wars produced atrocities on BOTH sides. But there was never any intention or attempt by any US government to commit genocide. That's a leftist fantasy.

I wasn't objecting to your comment that elements in the Middle East consider themselves at war with us. I was objecting to what seemed to be the moral equivalence you drew between kooks blowing up schoolchildren in Israel or thousands of civilians at a stroke in New York and the bombings in WW II. True, both killed civilians, but context is everything here. And no, I do not think that anything America or Israel have done in the least justifies terrorism. And I do think that terrorism is the extreme of an anti-Americanism that results far more from a combination of envy, ideology, and scapegoating than from any actual US policy. I'm unshakably convinced that if Israel and the US did not exist, the Arabs, Iranians, etc. would have to invent us. Who else would they blame all their problems on?

Andy, Ross -

Suicide bombers and muslim fundamentalists are motivated by a philosophy, described by Sayyed Qutub, that states that jahiliyya, or those who do not follow Shariah law (Islamic) law must be converted or destroyed. Their definition of jahiliyya includes moderate Muslims, Atheists, Catholics, Jews, Animists, Communists and the Falun Gong.

This philosophy is similar to the idea promoted by Saudi Wahhabists, who believe that anyone who is not Wahhabi is a ‘polytheist’ and must be converted or destroyed. This is why Saudi Royals and many other Saudis spend billions to fund the spread of this philosophy of hate around the world.

They also spend billions to finance paramilitary forces like al Qaeda and Hamas. Since their Armies are so weak, financing terrorist paramilitaries is their way of waging war against the polytheists, Kafir, and jahiliyya (ie, most of the world's population).

The spread of this philosophy of hate has resulted in the worldwide jihad that has already claimed millions of lives. Were those Christian animists in the Sudan murdered because they did not accept their collective responsibility to society? Were they murdered because billionaire Saudis care so much about the poor?

Genocide does not result from war, genocide is the result of oppression and extremist ideologies. The British were not ‘at war’ with the Irish when they committed their genocidal acts. Stalin was not at war with his own people when he killed twenty million of them, Hitler did not declare war on the Jews, Mao was not at war with his people when he slaughtered millions..

History proves that genocide is the result of oppression and extremist ideologies that say anything goes, particularly when with regard to ordinary people: These extremists believe that they can do whatever they want, without scruples.

In Thailand, Saudi funded Islamist ‘separatists’ recently slaughtered two Buddhist monks who were on their way to receive alms. Why do you think they did this?

A. Those Buddhist monks did not accept their collective responsibility to society, and were therefore legitimate targets

B. The Islamists were fighting for other members of their society who are poor.

C. The Buddhists live in black and white world, where everyone is either in front of a firing line, or they're holding a gun. They never tried to understand the Islamists.

D. The Islamists, motivated by a philosophy of hate and bigotry, felt that they had the right to behead those monks.

I know how Jenny Tonge would anwer that question, but she is uninformed.

OK, just a few comments, because I have a job to do, too.

Paul -

The debate is about the motivations of suicide bombers. Today they are Islamic/Palestinian. Yesterday they were atheists. The day before that they were Christians. Who knows who they will be tomorrow. The issue that Jenny Tonge was trying to address was: why do people commit such extreme acts.

I was NOT psychoanalyzing Mary. I was asking her to imagine herself in the position of someone else.

By terrible menace, I was not implying that any event is inherently less terrible than any other. What I was referring to was said terrible event's direct relevance to our lives. What goes on in Jenin is of great immediate relevance to a resident of Jenin. He or she has a far greater stake in the outcome than the average resident of New York. The same, in reverse, goes for the residents of New York in relation to 9/11.

Fred--

It was never official US policy to do a lot of things. They did them anyway. Iran-Contra? Allende in Chile? The fact remains that when Europeans arrived in America there were lots of Native Americans/Indians. Now there aren't.

I used the term Native American because I didn't want to cause any confusion. Some people in the world, upon hearing the word Indian, automatically think of people from India. Calling American Indians Native Americans is just one way around this. I entirely accept your point that people born in the US today are Native Americans. It is not about me being politically correct. I could just as easily have said American Indian.

You say that if the US/Israel didn't exist the Arabs would have to create you. There may be some truth in this. Anyone not familiar with the concept of identity existing in opposition to an 'other' you might want to read Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities. It is interesting. But it strikes me that this applies to the US & Israel too. If the Arabs didn't exist, who would be the 'other' that Americans use to define their identities, and their raison d'etre? Many would argue that during the Cold War it used to be the Russians. But they are gone now, so we have to find a new threat to hold our own society together.

Mary --

You say that jihad has caused many deaths. And I agree. But I would just like to point out that it is no more terrible than Western support for regimes such as Mobutu in Zaire. The conflict in Zaire (now Democratic Rep of Congo) has claimed approximately three million lives. The West had its reasons for supporting Mobutu, but so do Saudi's (and others) for supporting war in Sudan. How exactly is the Saudi's support for Jihad any worse than Western support for warmongers in Zaire?

A war does not have to be 'officially' declared to be a war. If it has the characteristics of a war it is a war. The Korean 'War' was not a declared war. It was 'merely' a police action. How many millions died? And I think it is important to note here that wars are not exclusively fought between states. Mao & Stalin were at war with sections of their society. It was a grossly unequal war, but a war nonetheless. America today is at war with Al-Qaida, a stateless organisation. Genocide is war. Just because it is not a part of a legally declared war is irrelevant. I take your point that genocide stems from extremist ideologies and oppression, but so does war generally.

I'll have to look into the Qtub information more closely, I'm not all that familiar with it. But as an initial thought, even if today's suicide bombers are largely motivated by his philosophy of religious intolerance, what motivates suicide bombers of other faiths or those of no faith? They may all have some form of nihilism in common, but what underlies that nihilism?

Mary, I agree with and accept everything you've said. What you've written here is exactly what needs to be said, and the way it needs to be said. Well, at least up until you go into Jenny Tonge's thought process. I'm pretty sure neither one of us knows what's really going on in her head. People need to be able to speak for themselves.

The fundamental problem with Islam (and a lot else in the world), is the distorting influence that money has on the truth. Money is used by Wahhabists and others to mask economic woes, or the barbaric nature of their societies.

Having recently read Irshad Manji's "The Trouble With Islam", I came away with a fundamental question: What is Islam really all about? What does it claim as its fundamental truth? It seems that there is a mismash of ideas and tribalism. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of real consensus.

Of course, the same analysis can be applied to any religion: What is it about, what does it believe, and so forth. I think that Islam is perhaps more overtly hostile to other faiths, and is currently in possession of more than its fair share of extremism. What competing, anti-extreme vision of Islam is there?

Perhaps there is none; if it exists, it is reasonably well hidden.

Most religions have had quite a bit of intolerance in their pasts...this intolerance is usually directly traced to political subversion of the religion for human ends, rather than religious ends. Two of the world's great religions (christianity and judaism) seem to have "grown up", in that political corruption seems to have waned. They are inward looking, rather than concerned with power. Maybe Islam has not gone through this reformation yet.

The lack of a precisely defined, modern Islam is a big part of the problem. All the "fatwas" and all the imams, all the craziness...to a rational observer, it just seems like it's all being made up on the fly. I can see how an adherent to the religion can get himself into a confused state, very quickly.

The funny thing is, my readings on the origin of Islam have fairly clearly indicated that the fundamental precept is man's relationship with God, and his peronal exploration and evoluation of that relationship. All the political and tribal crap that's been layered on just doesn't have anything to do with that core.

Andy,

There were a lot of Indians; now there aren't, largely because of diseases brought over from Europe to which the Indians had no resistance. Many more Indians died that way than were wiped out in the wars. That was unfortunate, but for the most part not deliberate (no one even knew what caused disease until the 18th century) and therefore not genocide. That America "overthrew" Allende is another leftist myth. That was homegrown and not financed or supported militarily by the US. Iran contra--what can I say? It was a major bout of stupidity. We gave sophisticated weapons to the Iranians which was a lot like giving a loaded pistol to a three year old, and it effectively killed the contra policy it was meant to support.

As a literature PhD, I'm quite familiar with postmodernist ideas of the "construction" of community and the deconstructionist idea that every concept is "shot through" with its opposite and "we" can only be defined by "them." Frankly, I think it's a load of crap. If you distill Derrida's arguments from his obscurantism, a bright high school kid could spot the fallacies a mile away. And most of the other postmodernists aren't as clever as Derrida.

Sorry if I seemed to accuse you of political correctness in using "Native Americans." But over here, the two usually go hand in hand. I see your point about clarity, especially since in England you have a large India Indian population.

Finally, I still stand by my refusal to make a moral equivalence between contemporary terrorism and the bombing of WW II. Nothing personal, but I find pacifism, especially in the face of evil like Nazism, Communism, and Bin Ladenism, rather contemptible. As civilized North Americans/Western Europeans, you and I may find the idea of teaching the world to sing in perfect harmony, buying it a coke, and keeping it company appealing. Let's all hold hands and sing Kumbaya. But we're dealing with a group of fanatical savages to whom such stuff can only seem the hallucinations of weaklings and fools and an open invitation to exploit and kill said weaklings and fools. Pacifism just ain't gonna work with those guys.

Andy - The jihad has caused many deaths, and it wants to cause many more. It’s a well-financed organization with global influence. That’s why they’re more of a concern to us, at the moment, than the French & Belgian-caused mess in the Congo.

The Congo is still a concern, though.

Mao and Stalin were carrying out a war without rules against members of their society. This is a standard feature of dictatorships – they feel that they have the right to impose their will on anyone they please, kill anyone they please. They deliberately target the defenseless. That’s why dictators, like terrorists, destroy societies.

Today’s suicide bombers are part of an organized paramilitary army. They’re similar to the Japanese kamikazes – part of a larger organization. I have no idea what causes these kind of cults to form. I don’t know why millions of people believed in the Thousand-Year Reich, I don’t know why a bunch of hippies joined Jim Jones’s ‘People’s Temple’. I’d just like to know how to prevent these groups from gaining influence.

Ross - According to non-Muslim scholars like Daniel Pipes, there’s a difference between fundamentalist Islam and ‘moderate’ Islam.

But when actual Muslims like Irshad Manji criticize Islam, they criticize all of Islam. As far as I know, they don’t make any distinctions. I’m not sure why that is…

If you’d like to learn more about Islam and the rules governing daily life (food, relationships, politics, toilet etiquette – apparently, Allah is everywhere) there's Ask The Imam Online Fatwa Questions and Answers - with responses certified by the Fatwa department.

Andy:

"grandma":

Implicit all through your argument that grandma is a legitimate target is the idea that the Palestinians are suffering because they are the innocent victims of Israeli oppressors. This is false. Suppose the KKK had enjoyed more popular support, and had embarked on a nationwide reign of inidiscriminate terror. Suppose further that the resulting conflagration had utterly destroyed the economy of the South. Klanners would now be claiming that they are committing acts of terror because they are poor and suffering, but in reality their situation would be their own fault. If they had been willing to give up their white supremacist dreams of domination and exploitation, they would be well off. That is the situation today in the Middle East.

I would also like to point out that Palestinians (and other Muslim terrorists) do not confine their targets to Israelis or even to Zionists. There have been plenty of incidents where they have deliberately murdered even anti-Zionist Jews.

Furthermore, your argument that citizens of a democracy become legitimate targets if they do not fight on behalf of the terrorists. (Or is vote sufficient for you, and if so how would the terrorists know who voted which way?) This smells suspiciously like arguments I frequently heard back in the 60's and 70's from various sorts of Marxists, from Maoists to "progressives" who defied categorization. One of the fundamental ideas of a free society like ours is the right to choose how to live one's life. If I want to "throw away the paper, blow up the TV, move to the country" like that old John Denver song, that is my legal and moral right. In fact, there are segments of the Christian community who deeply believe that getting involved in politics is so morally dangerous that they choose to not do so. Are these people all legitimate targets? And if so, at what age does one become a target? After all, I was only beginning to understand the world in college, and it wasn't until my thirties that I began to substantially abandon the foolish liberal and leftist ideas of my youth. And at what age does one cease to be a target? At some point people may just be tired, and want to disengage to some degree. And how about people who recognize that they just don't understand, and don't want to take a stand if they cannot be confident that it would be wise? Finally, consider that America's foreign policy affects nations all over the world. Am I supposed to become an expert on every nation, religion, ethnic group, dispute and war in existence? One person cannot even know the entirety of, say, contemporary American poetry, not even if it's their profession. How could I possibly find time enough to adequately study all that would be necessary?

In short, I reject your argument as inherently totalitarian. Communists have been arguing for that in service of universal consription, extortion and terror, and I reject it utterly. The right to be left alone is a right worth fighting for.

"not Palestinian/Israeli" but "in general why do people commit terrorism":

Again, you are evading the issue. Jenny spoke specifically of that conflict, and dishonestly at that. (Trent, Armed Liberal, mary, myself and others have argued at length why we believe she was so wrong, so I won't repeat.) You can discuss the question in general, but when you cite specific wars, as she and you did, you had better be prepared to deal in facts. If you look at the culture of the Middle East, especially of the Palestinians, and compare it to various others, such as Israel, America, etc., you will find vitally, fundamentally important answers to the question of why the Palestinians are so willing to commit terrorism.

Furthermore, you cannot hope to get anywhere in studying the problem of terrorism and tyranny if you are not willing to deal in specific cases. The answers will not be found in theoretical speculations on the nature of humanity, but in careful attention to the actual behavior of individuals and societies. One of the reasons that the twentieth century was so bloody was that so many people were so eager to force the creation of radically new societies built on fatally flawed ideas of human nature.

"I was not psychoanalyzing mary."

Actually, I was responding to Ross, who had called her "psychotic" and a "frothing extremist" who is "uninterested in dialogue," but "only rage and revenge" and who likes to "dehumanize" and who has a "victim complex" and is lacking in "compassion." That was what I was calling dishonest and utterly reprehensible. Particularly since Mary was supplying the facts that Ross seemed to think she was uninterested in.

"Jihad is no more terrible than Western support for [dictatorial] regimes":

Again, the reasons for jihad are conquest, domination, oppression, exploitation. The reason for American support of various dictators was to counter the menace of an expansionist Communist totalitarianism. Those dictators were terrible, but not as terrible as what we were fighting (unless hundreds of million dead and a billion lives ruined means nothing to you.) War is a terrible thing, but if we are going to live in the real world we have to face whatever situation is in front of us, and do the best we can. Frequently this means choosing the least-bad alternative.

Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany suffered greatly in World War II, with many of their cities reduced to rubble. But bear in mind that they started the war with their dreams of world conquest and enslavement and genocide. The fire bombings of Tokyo and Berlin were a response to Japanese and German brutality and fanaticism, born of fear, disgust, and an awareness that enslavement was not an acceptable option. Terrible as it was, Japan and German reaped what they sowed.

Running through some of your comments there seems to be the belief that people like Mary and me are lacking in compassion and are consumed with thoughts of vengence and destruction. This is not the case. (I don't like to speak on others behalf, but I think I can safely do so in this case, Mary. ) For a sense of how I, at least, feel, I suggest that you start with a couple books by the historian Victor Davis Hanson:

- The Soul of Battle: From Ancient Times to the Present Day, How Three Great Liberators Vanquished Tyranny

- Ripples of Battle: How Wars of the Past Still Determine How We Fight, How We Live, and How We Think

You will find that he doesn't see anything wonderful about war, and he does not glory in revenge and destruction. Neither to I. And neither do most American soldiers. In fact, if you want to understand American soldiers, I suggest that you seek out the many blogs run by soldiers and veterans.

On the matter of the morality of war: Going back at least as far as Saint Augustine, you can find serious thinkers wrestling with the question of when is war morally justified, and when it is justified, how may it be fought morally. The following recently-published book draws on the Christian ideas of Just War Theory to explore how the West can morally fight its Islamofascist enemies:

- Just War Against Terror: The Burden of American Power In a Violent World, by Jean Bethke Elshtain

Further reading:

by historian Bat Ye'or:
- The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam
- Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide
- The Decline of Eastern Christianithy Under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude

by historian Bernard Lewis:
- The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror
(he has written many other valuable books.)

by Iraqi exile Kanan Makiya:
- Cruelty and Silence: War, Tyranny, Uprising, and the Arab World
- Republic of Fear: The Politics of Modern Iraq

by Fouad Ajami:
- The Dream Palace of the Arabs: A Generational Odyssey

by David Pryce-Jones:
- The Closed Circle: An Interpretation of the Arabs

by Daniel Pipes:
- The Hidden Hand: Middle East Fears of Conspiracy

edited by Lawrence Harrison and Samuel Huntington:
- Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress

edited by Ibn Warraq:
- Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out
(essays on the historical record and scriptural justification for oppression, numerous testimonials, and an extensive appendix listing further resources.)

by Sally Denton:
- American Massacre: The Tragedy at Mountain Meadows, September 1857

I include the "American Massacre" for two reasons: First, it was a premeditated religiously motivated massacre of innocent, peaceful people which took place in America, not in the Middle East, and Second, because early Mormonism had significant similarities to Islam: Not just polygamy, but violent intolerance and a totalitarian ideology and practice. Very interesting, and not at all pleasant to read.

Paul

** Thanks for your note about the psychoanalyzing. I misread your original comment.

** The Palestinian people are not entirely innocent victims as you rightly point out. They have done some terrible things too. The history of the Israel-Palestine goes back into the ages. I think at this point it is largely irrelevant to apportion blame as to who started it all (not that you are necessarily doing this). I think what is important now is to look at the situation as is, recognise that both sides have committed war crimes, and move on from there. It is important to note when Palestinians commit crimes, just as it is to note when Israelis do so. But the key thing, hard (impossible?) though it may be, is to try and move forward. The crimes of one side may truly be greater than the crimes of the other. But the cycle of blame could continue forever. And blame has so far got us precisely nowhere. We must look to the future rather than the past if we wish to end this conflict.

I know that sounds preachy and cliched. But that is because it is true.

** I think we will disagree forever on what the responsibilities of a citizen are under democracy. You come from a tradition where individual freedom is stronger than mine, perhaps that has something to do with our disagreement. However I truly believe that you have a responsibility to do what is right. If not under God, then do it under your own moral code. And I also truly believe that we are responsible for the actions of our governments. If you believe in what your government is doing, accept that you are supporting your government in a war, and accept the risks that go with that.

It is not acceptable to abjure those responsibilities, even if there is no specific written law that says that they exist. If you take on the benefits of being a member of that society then you must also take on the duties that come with it as a part of the social contract.

Again, I wonder if our different citizenships impact on this debate. (I am assuming you are American). American citizenship is based far more on an idea than European citizenship, which are based more on geography. It is far easier to imagining withdrawing from American society than it is to imagine withdrawing from, say, British society. I cannot reject being British. There is no ideology to being British. There is no way there could be a committee on un-British activities in the UK, because you cannot be un-British. You, on the other hand, can reject being an American.

** You say that Jenny Tonge spoke dishonestly. I can't accept that. No matter what your views on the validity of her statement, it was a statement of her beliefs. You may think she was misguided, or just plain wrong. But there was no intention to decieve. An argument may be based on a misinterpretation of the facts, but please do not assume that an argument that opposes your own is based on lies. (If I'm misinterpreting your use of the word 'dishonestly' here I apologise. However, where I come from it only has the one meaning.)

** Please accept that others do view American actions as conquest, domination, oppression and exploitation. From the point of view of some it can really seem that way. I know you think (and probably know) that America is a force for good in the world. But please forgive those who have endured tougher times than you for being a little cynical about your motives. They don't know America like you do. They know a history of only conquest, domination, oppression and exploitation. You have to prove yourself to them. If you don't, they will assume the worst out of pure self-defence.

** You say that a theme underlying my comments here is that I think you (& Mary) are "lacking in compassion and are consumed with thoughts of vengence and destruction." Sometimes it is hard not to think that. Some of your positions on policy do sometimes seem that way to me. But I know that you aren't. By the same token, the same theme seems to run through a lot of the criticisms of my position. I would hope you don't think the same of me. I believe in justice, just like you. We do, however, sometimes differ in our conception of what justice is.

I entirely agree that there is no glory in war. I know, having spoken to a few US soldiers recently, that they are doing what they are doing because they genuinely believe that what they are doing is right. I may not agree always with what they are doing, and the methods that they use, but I do appreciate that they believe in that they are doing it for the greater good, and that they are not trying to do harm.

I would ask that you extend the same courtesy to your opponents also. Yes, some of them are no doubt doing it for religious reasons that you would call glorifying war. But the majority are doing it for causes they genuinely believe in, right or wrong. This includes regulars in military uniform, and irregulars, out of uniform. It may even include some of those who you accuse of terrorism. Respect that their motivation can be pure, even if you do not belive it is correct.

Yes, I know that there are some of your enemies that glory in war too. I'm talking about those that don't. And I ask you also to recognise that a (very small) minority of US soldiers also go to war for the wrong reasons.

** Finally, your conviction that the Japanese and German people (civilians) received the justice they deserved looks exactly the same as my argument. By saying that they reap what they sow, you are saying that the civilians of those countries were the direct target of the Allied bombing, and deserved to die because they were not innocent.

Our only difference is who we think is committing the crimes today.

Paul - what are you trying to do? Drown me in homework so I don't have time to drown you in insightfully provocative comment?

I will look at some of them though.

Andy

I thought I'd pass on this link, which I thought was pretty relevant.

http://www.tjm.org/articles/msg00275.html
'Lessons from a statistical analysis of suicide terrorism.' Robert A Pape

I've read some of his books and he does some pretty rigorous statistical analysis. I've read a couple of his books and, to me at least, he doesn't come across as someone with a leftwing view to put across.

His overall conclusion here is that, of the 188 suicide bombings between 1980 and 2001, a significant portion were committed by non-Muslims. In fact the largest single group of suicide bombers were Tamils in Sri Lanka. He concludes that "little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any religion for that matter."

It would be really fascinating to see the raw figures he is working from. Hopefully he'll produce something more substantial soon. (If he already has, and I've missed it could someone please let me know.)

Anyway, food for thought.

"Palestinian people are not entirely innocent"

Not entirely innocent? Could you manage to understate matters any more?? This goes to the heart of our disagreement. You repeatedly refuse to recognize that the roots causes of the conflict lie overwhelmingly in the Palestinians themselves and in Arab Muslim society in general. Oh how "progessives" love to talk about "root causes," until confronted by actual facts. Then the bearer of unpleasant news is accused of perpetuating the "cycle of blame" and you try to change the subject.

If you persist in evading and obfuscating this matter, how can we possibly have any sort of productive conversation? And how can I take you seriously, either intellectually or morally?

I had endless arguments of this sort in the 70's and 80's with leftists of various sorts who wished to defend and justify the Soviets, Red Chinese, Vietnamese Communists, as well as Pol Pot, Castro, and so on ad nauseum. The facts stand against you. I find it entirely unsurprising that I once again find myself arguing with someone who seems to have an infinite capacity for sympathizing with fascists.

Another point: In a certain sense I don