This is a commentary from the guardian about some of the reaction, in the self-same paper, to 7/7, however it could equally apply to much of the American political discourse, or indeed, that found in the D&D. http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1532738,00.html -- There are apologists amongst us The 'We told you so' lot have been bleating on about Iraq ever since the atrocities of 7/7 - it is time to fight back Norman Geras Thursday July 21, 2005 Guardian Within hours of the bombs going off two weeks ago, the voices that one could have predicted began to make themselves heard with their root-causes explanations for the murder and maiming of a random group of tube and bus passengers in London. It was due to Blair, Iraq, illegal war and the rest of it. The first voices, so far as I know, were those of the SWP and George Galloway, but it wasn't very long - indeed no time at all, taking into account production schedules - before the stuff was spreading like an infestation across the pages of this newspaper, where it has remained. No words of dismay, let alone grief, could be allowed to pass some people's lips without the accompaniment of a "We told you so" and an exercise in blaming someone other than the perpetrators. No sense of what such a tragedy might call for or rule out on the first day. Exactly as if you were to hear from a distraught friend that her husband had just been murdered while walking in a "bad" neighbourhood, and to respond by saying you were sorry about this but it was foolish of him to have been walking there by himself. We had the same after 9/11; still, one nurtures the illusion that people learn. Evidently some don't. It needs to be seen and said clearly: there are, among us, apologists for what the killers do.They make more difficult the fight to defeat them. The plea will be - it always is - that these are not apologists, they are merely honest Joes and Joanies endeavouring to understand the world in which we live. What could be wrong with that? What indeed? Nothing is wrong with genuine efforts at understanding; on these we all depend. But the genuine article is one thing, and root-causes advocacy seeking to dissipate responsibility for atrocity, mass murder, crime against humanity, especially in the immediate aftermath of their occurrence, is something else. Note the selectivity in the way root-causes arguments function. Purporting to be about causal explanation rather than excuse-making, they are invariably deployed on behalf of movements or actions for which their proponent wants to engage our indulgence, and in order to direct blame towards some party towards whom he or she is unsympathetic. A hypothetical example illustrates the point. Suppose that, on account of the present situation in Zimbabwe, the government decides to halt all scheduled deportations of Zimbabweans. Some BNP thugs are made angry by this and express their anger by beating up a passer-by who happens to be an African immigrant. Can you imagine a single person of left or liberal outlook who would blame this act of violence on the government's decision or urge us to consider sympathetically the root causes of the act? It wouldn't happen, because the anger of the thugs doesn't begin to justify what they have done. The root-causers always plead a desire merely to expand our understanding, but they're very selective in what they want to "understand". If causes and explanation are indeed a serious enterprise and not merely a convenient partisan game, then it needs to be recognised that causality is one thing and moral responsibility another, though the two are related. The fact that something someone else does contributes causally to a crime or atrocity doesn't show that they, as well as the direct agents, are morally responsible for that crime or atrocity, if what they have contributed causally is not itself wrong and doesn't serve to justify it. Furthermore, even when what someone else has contributed causally to the occurrence of the criminal or atrocious act is wrong, this won't necessarily show they bear any of the blame for it. The "We told you so" crowd all just somehow know that the Iraq war was an effective cause of the deaths in London. How do they know this, these clever people? For what they need to know is not just that Iraq was one of a number of influencing causes, but that it was the specific, and a necessary, motivating cause for the London bombings. If it was only an influencing motivational cause among others, and if, more particularly, another such motivational cause was supplied by the military intervention in Afghanistan, then it's not the case that the London bombings wouldn't have happened but for the Iraq war. Ever on the lookout for damning causes, the root-causers never go for the most obvious of these. This is the cause, indeed, which shows, by its absence, why most critics of the Iraq war or of anything else don't murder people when they are angry. It is the fanatical, fundamentalist belief system which teaches hatred and justifies these acts of murder. That cause somehow gets a free pass from the hunters-out of causes. There are apologists among us, and they have to be fought intellectually and politically. They do not help to strengthen the democratic culture and institutions whose benefits we all share. Because we believe in and value these, we have to contend with what such people say. But contend with is precisely it. We have to challenge their excuses without let-up. Norman Geras is professor emeritus in government at the University of Manchester; a longer version of this article can be found at www.normblog.typepad.com
There are many apologists among us for the unjustified mass killing in the Iraq War. They don't even reallize that they are apologists for mass killing as it seem so natural to them.
There are root causes for everything, whether we choose to ignore them or not is up to us. Those who want to deny any possible connection between what countries do and the reaction they get are disingenuous at best. Saying that there are "root causes" for a particular action is not providing justification for it, it's not being an apologist for terrorism. Some like to ignore inconvenient truths, I can understand that. But if you think those who believe the 7/7 bombings (or the Madrid ones before it) were connected to the IRaq war are "appologists", then our best friend and most steadfast ally Tony Blair is an appologist. Look, if it makes you sleep better at night believing that "they hate us for our freedom", then more power to you.
I guarantee that there are people out there in this country that don't like the US policies in the Middle East who are smugly pleased when bombs go off in the US, Spain and the UK and kill innocent civilians. Those people are out there without a doubt, and are the first ones to offer excuses for the terrorists. Sickening in every way.
There is a difference between wanting know why terrorists do something, and justifying what terrorists do. We can want to understand why terrorists or those who join up with terrorists do something, but not think it is ok for terrorism to occur, and still want to rid the world of these terrorists. There is a lot I really like about the article. However, I'm not sure that many if any don't want the terrorists destroyed, or that many if any are happy when terrorists kill people.
Sickening, yes. Absolutely, and without question. However, free speech is a part of the Constitution, and the Constitution is the framework for our great country. I do not like some of the US policies in the Middle East, but I am never pleased when bombs go off anywhere and innocent civilians are killed. Freedom of speech is part of our way of life. The problem is that sometimes you have to hear things you do not like or agree with. You can choose to ignore them, or you can choose to confront them. It's your call as an American citizen. It's been going on forever, and it will as long as the USA exists.
So how many innocent civilians in Iraq/Afghanistan has YOUR war killed? I'm sorry, I forgot YOU don't do bodycounts.
Of course there is a root cause for everything. however there were many attacks before Iraq (9/11, Cole etc.) Its not like the attacks will stop if we pull out of Iraq tomorrow. Let's look at this realistically, short of pulling out middle east completely and leave Israel out by herself, I don't see anyway this is going to stop.
This is the crux of it. Those of us who think that it is constructive to look for the "root causes" are not necessarily assigning moral responsibility, despite the venomous rantings of the people like this author who want to paint the "root causers" as apologists for the terrorists. There is a massive difference between finding the root causes of atrocities like 9/11 (root causes including US policy in the ME) and 7/7 (root causes including the invasion of Iraq) and assigning moral responsibility, which belongs entirely to the monsters who perpetrated these acts. However, this entire thing goes in reverse in some situations as well. The root cause of the war in Iraq is definitely 9/11, as Bush would never have had support for such an action in the absence of said event. However, moral responsibility for the problems in Iraq belongs with the administration and only the administration as all of these problems were detailed in advance while the people who detailed them were ridiculed, publicly eviscerated, and dismissed from their positions while the people who simply went along with the Bushies got promoted, got medals, and got accolades from administration officials. There are apologists, but accusing the left of being apologists for the terrorists is as inaccurate as saying the John Holmes should have been nicknamed "pencil d!ck."
Did I say that? I'm just making a point that not everysingle man, woman, or child who died in Afghanistan and Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 or 7/7.
First of all, your tone is disgusting. Second, there is a huge difference when the US bends over backwards to protect the lives of innocents in war and when terrorists *target* innocents. When the terrorists hide in neighborhoods and mosques, it is all but impossible to extract them without some type of collateral damage -- despite best efforts to protect civilians. You casually put the US on equal footing with terrorist killings, despite these key differences. That is incredibly disgusting and frankly ignorant.
no actually in the past 3-4 years the US lead wars have caused the death of thousands of more civilians than the terrorists. and given most of us pay taxes to the US govt and have some respect for human life we do have high expectations for our govt. statistics really dont lie all the time. even conservative estimates say in iraq 25 thousand people have died. more proper estimates put the number at over a 100 thousand. now granted the US didn't kill that many, the US is in charge of iraq and this is happening on the US watch. who should be accountable for the safety of the iraqis?
So now you are blaming the US troops (the courageous Americans soldiers who are in Iraq to protect Iraqis) for people killed by homicide bombers who target civilians. Unbelievable. Typical though.
