For those who think "they hate our freedom"

Originally posted to eSchwa BBS:

There was not an act of terrorism by Islamic/Arab terror organizations against Americans that was NOT related to our support of Israel before Pan Am 103, and that was largely considered recompense for the bombing of Libya in 1986. That was the first act of terror by an Islamic group against the US that involved large-scale loss-of-life. And all subsequent such attacks (involving many dead) have been carried out since the First Iraq War, and the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia.

So, in looking at terrorist acts against the US prior to 1986 we can see those as rooted in our support of Israel, because they were carried out by groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad which were focused on the struggle in Israel/Palestine. That's not about culture, that's about foreign policy.

As pointed out, Pan Am 103 was about retribution, not about culture. That brings us to the acts since 1991. Khobar Towers, the Kenyan and Tanzanian Embassies, the USS Cole, 9/11; all carried out by an organization that has as its number one goal to get US troops out of the Middle East. That is far more about politics than it is about culture. In fact, in the 14 years since the First Iraq War, one could argue that the US's culture has grown more conservative and pious. The role of religion in public life has grown stronger. We have added ratings systems to TV programs and video games to allow parents to monitor how much sex and violence their kids are exposed to, if they are so inclined. Teenagers are taking "abstinance vows" and we've thrown up all sorts of restrictions on abortion. We've allegedly (re-)elected a president on the basis of the "values vote." Our culture is arguably LESS decadent than when al-Qaeda's focus fell on us. And yet they still attack us. They don't attack Canada, which has legalized same-sex marriages. They haven't attacked Spain since they did such as well. They've never attacked the Netherlands; infamous home of legalized prostitution, pot-smoking and same-sex marriages.

I don't see how even a part of this is about western culture when it's quite obvious that terrorism in the past was about politics, and al-Qaeda's stated reasons for attacking us are rooted in politics. "Terrorism" is a political tool, used in an attempt to sway international policy, going back to the establishment of the State of Israel, and the IRA bombings of the 1970s and 1980s. Using it in an attempt to mold culture is unreasonable, because even laws cannot restrain the tides of cultural change. Right now there are at least 38 states with laws against same-sex unions. Polling shows that 3/4 of 18-24 year olds support same-sex marriages. Even our own laws cannot change that support, and one day the younger generations who support these cultural changes will change those laws. "Terrorism" is an ineffective tool to work these changes, as you're as likely to instill defiance in your targets as you are to inspire fear. It makes no sense to use "terror" to affect cultural change; and if there's anything that I think should be evident here, it's that bin Laden is a rational, intelligent man. So why bother expending your human resources to affect a change that you cannot hope to succeed in? It's much better to affect the change that you can make, and that is to try and affect policy.

(Incidently, the reason for the "we don't negotiate with 'terrorists'" rhetoric of Reagan and his successors is that in legitimizing "terror" as a political tool we encourage its further use. Conversely, if they're not able to succeed in their goals, they will decide it's not worth expending their resources. On the other hand, went our actions are making it easier for organizations to recruit willing "soldiers" to act against us, each act that doesn't affect the desired change is less costly in the past, because human resources aren't as limited. Our presence in Iraq and Saudi Arabia are making terrorism against the west less costly for the groups who want us out. But our government views pulling out as legitimizing the use of "terror" as a tool, so they won't do the one thing that may end the use of that tool. It's a nifty little catch-22 situation.)

Addendum to the above post:

Yes, groups like al-Qaeda DO have specific goals for what an Islamist state should be that are in conflict with our ideals for a democratic state. They use the Iranian model, which is certainly not an ideal. If you know about what happened with their recent parliamentary and presidential elections, you would understand why. If not, the short-form is that a council of "elders" (made up of clerics) have to approve the candidates who are standing for election before they can appear on the ballot. Imagine that candidates for office in the US had to be vetted and approved of by a council of Catholic bishops, televangelists, and other religious figures. You can see where the problem is within that model. Yet, in the 15 years between the death of the Ayatollah Khomeni and the parliamentary elections last year, Iran has liberalized tremendously. While their rights are not what the could or should be, women enjoy more freedom than they had before 1989. Change has been slow, but that's the preferable way to find a desired equilibrium. Radical change inspires radical response.

While it is understandable that we would not want to see the Muslim world, particularly in Northern Africa and the Middle East, molded the way in which bin Laden would like it to be, it is also not in our interests to prop up equally repressive regimes already in place. Prior to last year, women had more rights in Iran than in Kuwait, and they still have more rights than women in Saudi Arabia. And if this were all really and truly about culture, al-Qaeda would be attacking Abu Dhabi and Dubai, which exhibit all of the decadence of western culture, and right there on the Arabian Peninsula.

A case against mistaken identity

Ever since 11 September 2001 we have heard about the need for "security". We have to give up some of our rights in order to be secure. And at the same time we hear about how it is ridiculous to stop white-haired grandmothers from the Midwest, as they aren't "terrorist threats." That when we passed freedom-infringing laws like the USA PATRIOT Act, that they really shouldn't be enforced against people who aren't obvious threats, but instead against those who "look like" terrorists, according to same people, anyway.

But what does a "terrorist" look like? If you asked Americans, you'd probably find at least 4 out of 5 who believed that a terrorist would look like an Arab or South Asian, male, probably between the ages of 20 and 50 (and more towards the younger end of that spectrum). And this doesn't even get into the religious portion of the profile, since you can't tell one's religion from outward appearances. And while that profile may have fit the hijackers of the late summer of 2001, let's look at some other acts of "terrorism" from the 1990s.

1993 - World Trade Center, New York - Mohammed Salama - fits the profile
1995 - Murrah Federal Building, Oklahoma City - Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols - neither fits the profile
1996 - Centennial Olympic Park, Atlanta - Eric Rudolph - doesn't fit the profile
1997 - bombing of lesbian nightclub and abortion clinic, Atlanta - Eric Rudolph - see above
1998 - bombing of abortion clinic, Birmingham, AL - Eric Rudolph - see above
1998 - murder of Dr. Barnett Slepian, Buffalo - James Kopp - doesn't fit the profile

So, of a minimum of seven acts of "terrorism" within the United States during the 1990s, only one was carried out by the "typical" "terrorist"; young males from the Middle East or South Asia. The other six were carried out by four young or middle-aged white men born in the United States (two of whom are avowed "born-again" Christians!). So why is our profile such a narrow profile? Especially in a nation where a century-long campaign of "terror" was carried out by an organization of protestant Christian white men against men and women who were black, Jewish or Catholic. One large orchestrated act of terror committed by 19 Arab men suddenly pushes that demographic to the fore as the "typical" "terrorist" profile, in spite of what history tells us is true.

And why are these profiles so dangerous? Let us consider the case of the man that London police gunned down in a subway car on 22 July, a day after the copy-cat "bombs" were set in the Underground. On that day it was widely reported that he was a suspect in the prior day's failed "terror" attacks. Then this afternoon the London police have come forth and said "oops, he wasn't a suspect. Dreadfully sorry. We wish would could take back the actions. Pardon the mistake."

The man was followed from his apartment building, which was under surveillance as part of the investigation into Thursday's "attacks". His clothing and behaviour were "suspicious", so the police followed him into the subway, and onto a train. It was there that the police shot him, in front of a train full of passengers.

Shooting innocent people because they fit a profile. It's a new wave of "terror", one that targets minorities, and carried out in front of other citizens, with disregard for their safety, supported by the authority of the government.

A quick rundown

Since it is late in the day and I'm just going to make a quick post to get started, here's a run-down on some of the most contentious issues of the day.

1. London bombings - Okay, so the first attack, two weeks ago, was likely al-Qaeda or an affiliate. Today's probably weren't. They were so slapdash, so completely not in al-Qaeda's MO (they don't pull the same attack twice, particularly not within two weeks), at the wrong time of day, and not involving a suicide angle. There is no way this was al-Qaeda. It may have been an unaffiliated Muslim group, but I doubt it. It may have been IRA, but I don't think so. I think there a better chance that an ultra-nationalist group like the BNP hired people, possibly even Muslims, to plant the bombs and run away. The BNP has been benefitting from the attack two weeks ago. Keeping the populace worried about Muslims will continue to benefit them. Therefore they seem a more likely suspect to me than al-Qaeda.

2. Karl Rove - Whether or not he actually said her name, whether or not he knew she was actively being shielded by the CIA as a covert agent, the fact of the matter is that he did out a CIA undercover agent, and he should lose his job, at the very least. He had seen high-security memos with discussion of the agent before he revealed her. At the very least this means he violated his security clearance, or someone else did by showing it to him (but how he's working in the post he is without a highest-level security clearance would be beyond me). Therefore he should lose his job, his clearance, and he should not ever be able to get a high-level security clearance in the future. I don't care if he goes to prison or not, but what he did was as bad, if not worse, than Geraldo Rivera going on the air and discussion troop positions during the invasion phase of the war in Iraq. And considering that the president had once said that he'd fire the person responsible for the leak, if Bush is the "man of his word" that he claims to be, he should be following through and canning Rove, rather than lowering the bar so that Karl can clear it.

3. John Roberts - Probably not the most qualified person to nominate. Probably not someone I could support, since he seems to think that it's okay for the cops to cuff, process, take shoelaces from, and jail a pre-teen kid for eating a single french fry in the DC Metro. This sort of offence would garner most adults an on the spot citation. However, this little girl was arrested and jailed. I wonder where Roberts would have fallen if he were on the Singapore court that sentenced Michael Fay to a caning for vandalism. Perhaps he would have supported cutting the kid's hand off. After all, if simply eating one fry can land you in the pokey, why shouldn't vandalism cost you a hand? Add in the fact that, despite protestations made to the contrary during his Court of Appeals hearing process only two years ago, he's rabidly anti-abortion, anti-contraception and anti-privacy. He loves the PATRIOT Act. He supports indefinate detention of uncharged "suspects" at Guantanamo Bay. Of course, during the debates last fall Bush said he would appoint a strict constructionist to the court, and he has followed through on the threat promise. Alas, all we can do now is try and swing 5 Republicans over to our side of the argument. There's a good shot at getting 3, but probably no more.

So, here is my first time up on the soapbox. I thank you all for indulging me in this brief run through the top issues on my mind.

Introduction

This blog is going to be a left-wing, politically-oriented blog. The topics will be federal, state and local in nature, for the most part. There will be some discussion of international politics, but even many of those will focus on the role of the US in the world. It's kind of hard to ignore the impact that the US has on the world when you discuss international politics, anyhow.

All that said, I'm 33, a left-wing, non-straight individual from a "red state" (Ohio). It's not an easy position to be in, but there are worse, too. At least I'm white, which is something of an advantage.

So, without further ado, that is my brief introduction, and when you next see a post from me, you can be assured that it will be political in nature. *grins*