Are there reasons?
In the previous post, I just mentioned one of the central tenets of wingnuttia: the idea that jihadists hate us solely for what we are, not what we do. And Dadahead, writing at The Liberal Avenger, has talked about the same thing:
Since 9/11, too many on the left have been hesitant to analyze the “why” of Islamic terrorism, intimidated by Republicans who they fear will call them part of the “Blame America First Crowd” (it’s always a “crowd”).
We can’t afford to act this way any longer. It’s time to start talking about things like grownups.
Terrorists aren’t zombies [see Pandagon]. They act in very predictable ways for very tangible ends. In a word, they act rationally, despite what Christopher Hitchens and the rest of the right-wing war mongers say. …
Terrorism is used as a means for a very specific goal - removing the armies of the US and its allies from Muslim lands. See the interview with Robert Pape in American Conservative for a detailed explanation.
Now, you might argue that they are acting irrationally because their chosen means are not likely to satisfy their ends. And this may or may not be true. But again, this isn’t what Hitchens et al. are saying; they’re saying that terrorists don’t act with any ends in mind at all. And this is simply, demonstrably, not true.
Why does this matter? Because if terrorists are attacking for a tangible, specific reason, we can effectively end this kind of terrorism by taking away that reason - i.e., by removing American troops from Iraq and other Muslim countries. If Republicans truly wanted to put an end to terrorism, they would be trying to remove the catalyst for it.
To be sure, the simple fact that doing X would put an end to terrorism does not, by itself, dictate that we ought to do X. For instance, if it were true that terrorists really “hated us for our freedoms” - it’s not true, but if it were - it wouldn’t follow that we ought to abandon those freedoms in order to save ourselves from future attacks. However, when X is something that we shouldn’t be doing in the first place - like, say, conducting unprovoked wars of aggression - it makes absolutely no sense to insist on doing X.
It’s no good pretending jihadists want to kill us just because “they hate freedom.” That line of thinking is going to end us in an all-out war with the entire Muslim world if we’re not careful.
8 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks are automatic. Your email address is never displayed.
Do not paste an entire article or blog post into here: create a link to it (or at least create a tinyurl) instead.
The following HTML tags are allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
July 20th, 2005 @ 07:16
You are talking in circles - standard for liberals.
We were attacked in New York BEFORE we went into Iraq.
Are you suggesting we pull every American and our business interests out of all Arab countries? Is that what you are saying is the solution?
Do you know that United States women - showing their faces, wearing thongs, voting and even protesting in a pro-abortion rally - are cause enough for Jihad muslem to kill all of us? In their eyes we have insulted Allah and the teachings in the Koran.
Somehow the left in this country similtaneously attacks Christian symbols in this country as religion forcing itself on people - but wants to surrender to the will of a fanatical religious sect that would kill the liberals in this country FIRST if given a chance. Amazing.
July 20th, 2005 @ 19:07
Yes, we were attacked in New York before we went into Iraq. This pointless war in Iraq is a major grievance, certainly the number-one grievance they have against us now, but it’s obviously not the ONLY one. You think I suggested otherwise?
You are grossly oversimplifying, and putting words in my mouth - standard for right-wingers.
You don’t know what you’re talking about, plain and simple.
July 21st, 2005 @ 11:23
Hey moron, we will be attacked whether we are in Iraq or not.
We would be attacked if we flat out surrendered.
We would be attacked if we took away women’s right to vote.
I read your diatribe of stupidity. I’m waiting for your solutions.
Mine is to kill the muslim extremists everywhere they exist. You may disagree, but at least I take a position.
You - you gutless wonder - cannot take one.
July 21st, 2005 @ 13:06
Fucking wingnut loser????
We don’t use swear words at LQ.
Please refrain or we will delete your post next time.
We have a liberal - Yellow Dog - who uses the exact same phrase on us.
Is this phrase in the DNC talking points somewhere?
As far as your heros Dada and Lib Avenger - in case your common sense has not registered it yet - those two are socialists at the very least and probably communists.
You served in our military and quote those two traitors???
Listen, there is one group of Americans destroying the Constitution and siding with our enemies in the world. Now this group has several names - Democrats, progressives, environmentalists, pro-abortionists, activists, leftists and members of the media and press. We put these traitors all in one group - liberals.
Now - hear is a test you can take yourself.
Name one liberal solution that has solved the problem it set out to fix?
After you realize there are none - you may want to re-think the people you follow.
July 21st, 2005 @ 18:26
I have replied to Dagny’s request for “my position” at Liberal Quicksand, in the comments to the post London Attacks Should Remind Us All - Except Liberals.
In reply to the previous comment, I will say:
Yes, I served in the military, and yes, I almost always agree with Dadahead and the people who write at Liberal Avenger, for the simple reason that they tend to be right about things.
I don’t like to make some big fucking deal out of my military service. It doesn’t make my opinion any more or less important than anybody else’s. I brought it up only in response to your personal insult, specifically your label of “coward.” In future, I will not be so easily baited, now that I know what to expect from you.
July 21st, 2005 @ 22:02
Still waiting for the first liberal solution that worked. Since your socialist and commie buddies are always right (your words - not mine), this should take you like two minutes - right?
There are not any. Never have been - never will be.
But you vote that way? Interesting.
If those two socialists are right, maybe they can help you find a liberal policy success story.
July 21st, 2005 @ 23:07
You want an example, huh? I assumed your question was rhetorical, a tactic of which you seem overly fond. Have you ever heard of the New Deal? You know, Social Security, the Fair Labor Standards Act, FDIC?
I imagine you consider these to be communist abominations, though, and not successes.
It strikes me, in fact, that you, Dagny, consider pretty much anything that doesn’t involve killing something (other than a fetus or a blastocyte, that is: those are sacrosanct) or abrogating someone’s rights (in the name of “freedom,” to be sure), to be “socialist” or “communist” in nature. So there’s really not much point in rising to your bait, as I said before. You know as well as I do that we agree about almost nothing. What you want is a belligerent pissing contest. That’s what you want for yourself on the Internet, and it’s what you want for your country in real life.
July 22nd, 2005 @ 08:30
You are the most intellegent liberal I have run into. That means you are salvagable.
But you went right to your happy place with your answer. Other liberals have gone there - and failed.
The New Deal slowed the recovery of the nation - and all economists since admit it.
Social Security is a dismal failure as Ponzi schemes always are. And your Democrat - LBJ - stole the SS fund a long time ago and put IOU’s in it’s place.
Fair Labor Standards Act??? Minimum wage is a joke and only brings unemployment to the most unemployable among us. Again, economists agree minimum wage is irrelevant at best and hurts citizens and businesses at the worst. To go a step further, unions were formed by communists - for communists - to eliminate capitalism in the United States. It is stated right in their first charter. LQ’s mainsite has many articles on this. The book has an entire chapter for your education.
FDIC? LOL. There you go - running to government again for security and protection so your financial mistakes are covered. Listen, all the government can do is take money from other Americans who were not as foolish or unlucky as you and give some of your money back to you. Plus, they will just print more money, making everyone else’s money worth less. This just spreads pain. It is not fair to those who did not trust whatever institution others trusted their money to. I thought liberals were all about ‘fairness’?
We have an entire article devoted to liberal failures.
Check it out. http://www.liberalquicksand.com/libsuccesses.htm