Another term out there that slipped into the discussion is the notion that American interrogation practices were a "recruitment tool" for the enemy. On this theory, by the tough questioning of killers, we have supposedly fallen short of our own values. This recruitment-tool theory has become something of a mantra lately, including from the President himself. And after a familiar fashion, it excuses the violent and blames America for the evil that others do. It's another version of that same old refrain from the Left, "We brought it on ourselves."
As a former Leftist, this is dead on. I'm writing a book, and on this subject I wrote the following:
For people that became interested in politics and current affairs after and because of 9/11, they usually took one of two tracks. The first was that we, the Western world and the United States must have done something to warrant the attack, somehow we were responsible. The second was that we were now at war with radical Islam, and it could and should be treated as nothing other than that. Unfortunately, at first, I had come to wonder what we, the United States, had done to cause such an attack. Perhaps in retrospect this wasn’t altogether the worst outlook to take, given that it made me inquisitive about the world around me like nothing ever did.It's not an illogical position to take. I didn't want to believe that some people were just evil. I thought there must have been some fault on our part to warrant such an attack. But do rape victims deserve the horror that was wrought against them? The reasoning doesn't jive. But terrorism isn't a logical phenomenon. Why would people risk their lives to kill good and righteous people? Cheney's answer?
It is much closer to the truth that terrorists hate this country precisely because of the values we profess and seek to live by, not by some alleged failure to do so. Nor are terrorists or those who see them as victims exactly the best judges of America's moral standards, one way or the other.
As a practical matter, too, terrorists may lack much, but they have never lacked for grievances against the United States. Our belief in freedom of speech and religion … our belief in equal rights for women … our support for Israel … our cultural and political influence in the world - these are the true sources of resentment, all mixed in with the lies and conspiracy theories of the radical clerics. These recruitment tools were in vigorous use throughout the 1990s, and they were sufficient to motivate the 19 recruits who boarded those planes on September 11th, 2001.
4 comments:
The term leftist conjures up images of communism and Marxist guerrilla's and Maoists.
It seems that this term, at least as Cheney uses it, has lost much of its relevance.
Most opposition to the views of Cheney and Boehner and so forth seems to originate from the political center.
One mistake made in the last election by Republicans was overuse of the term "leftists" to define any political opposition at all.
Most people that voted for Obama don't consider themselves leftists, I think they consider themselves moderates.
Opposing torture does not make one a leftist.
Maybe it's an incorrect opinion,
maybe torture is a good thing and something the west should practice more widely.
I don't doubt that the Criminal justice system could secure more convictions and possibly apprehend more "potential" criminals if they tortured suspects.
One needn't be a leftist however to believe cruel treatment is wrong.
Or illegal.
If the Republican virtues are freedom and less government and traditional values, it seems to me, the present leaders, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Dick Cheney are doing a really poor job of presenting those issues as THE issues they are concerned with.
Certainly mistakes were made in the last administration, with their faults and their virtues, they were human, and people make mistakes.
It appears however that Republican leaders political thrust is merely to defend themselves and a philosophy, which, at least as they present it, does not seem helpful or even very moral to most Americans.
Great post.
To answer the question of what America "did" to bring about 9/11 and radical terrorism, I would say that there are two items of contention which the terrorists would offer up:
1.) Israel...and more specifically America's support of Israel. It can not be overstated that Israel is the infected thorn in the terrorists' sides, the entire Middle East over. By extension, America becomes another barb in that thornbush. The terrorists hate America because America supports their enemy, pure and simple.
2.) Christianity...and more specifically the force of Christianity which the terrorists see as an impediment to a worldwide conversion to Islam, which is of course their stated goal.
Here is the issue as I see it: Secularists will never fully grasp the concepts of terrorism and radical Islam because the war which Muslims wage is a religious war, a war between Islam and the rest of the world, starting with Judaism, then moving to include Christianty. This war will never end, but if it did end it would only be because every nation would have Islam as the state religion. Terrorists have been doing their acts to Jews since forever, and now in recent times they've branched out to America, which in their minds equals Israel-loving-Christianity.
In this, I take slight exception to Cheney's comment about our "values". If by values you mean "freedom" or "hard work" or "equality", these are slight annoyances to radical Muslims. But if by "values" you mean traditional Judeo-Christian adherence, then yes, Muslims hate America for those values.
Again, Islamists' hatred of America is fueled by our support for Israel, but even if we didn't support Israel, the acts would still keep coming because absent that support, we still remain a Christian nation (perhaps in name only, but that's another debate), the evil younger brother of the Jewish nation.
Soon, these same terrorists will begin working out their offenses against other nations with religions other than Judaism and Christianity, e.g., Buddhism, Hinduism. They will look for signs of "persecution" of the religion of Islam, thus freeing them to start destroying those countries and peoples too. This is already happening in India, for example.
Again, Secularists will forever be vexed to understand this war we're in because it is religion-based. Their well-meaning efforts to unite the people in Israel, for example, will never ever work because of that fact. People who believe that devout Muslims and devout Jews can get along are doubtless well-meaning, but ignorant of the white-hot core of hatred which Muslims have for anyone who isn't among their ranks. Do Jews have that same hatred? Perhaps, but there is only one group of people who are acting on that hatred by killing innocent people--Muslims. (And by the way, the Muslims do not see any bystanders they kill as "innocent"; the fact that those innocents were "there" is reason enough, and a perfect rationalization.) I would contend that secularist Jews and secularist Muslims generally have no problem with the other...it is only the radicalized ones which are at the root of this global problem. That said, you don't hear about acts of traditional jihadism perpetrated by anyone other than a Muslim. If there were such acts perpetrated by Jews or Christians, it would be instantly splashed across the media, which is largely comprised of leftists who have extended their belief system of the Bourgeoisie versus the Proletariat to include Christianity versus Islam. They would be ever so eager to air such stories.
Mr. Blackburn, I would disagree with you on your citation of Republican leadership. M. Savage is not our leader.
With re: to Rush and Cheney, you are closer to the mark. We are talking about conservative values here and they are, as you put it, "freedom, less government and traditional values." In this observation you are correct. Rush does an excellent job at promoting these ideals. Cheney to a lesser extent, but he does do a great job at articulating the conservative position on security.
It is probable that our disagreement comes from the definition of who terrorists are: criminals or soldiers fighting against us. if they are the former, then certainly they should be afforded the rights of any suspect. if they are the latter, then Rush and Cheney are quite clear in their characterizations and in articulating the conservative position.
MrTooBeRight,
I don't want people tortured in my name.
I have worked with the Police in my role as a firefighter, and I have seen countless confessions coaxed from criminals, using legal methods.
I don't think torture is necessary, I don't believe it is legal, either.
Again, I don't want to beat this point to death, but I believe that the characterizations of leftists that I hear most often from Limbaugh, etc, are inaccurate.
I think they confuse liberals and moderates with "leftists" who, at least are generally understood to be, as I mentioned earlier, Trotskyites, Maoists, Cuban and Algierian style rvolutionaries, and so on.
I would like to note, for the record,Sir, that I appreciate your civility in this discourse.
Bethany, too.
Post a Comment