Does the US share some blame for the London Bombings?

Great Debates
121

Larry Borgia,

With all due respect (I know that now this sounds like an introduction to disrespect, but I assure you, it isn’t), I disagree with you entirely.

In assigning responsibility, America is judged under a different light. America defines itself as the land of the free. It always has -your consitution laid down a couple hundred years ago- proclaimed equal rights for all, the right to choose, nondiscrimination, and individual freedom. The Ottoman Empire held no qualms as to the murder and destruction of innocents. But America by definition is expected to protect and uphold its principles. We could go into a debate concerning whether or not American practice verifies American ideals, and we could debate human nature and whether or not it would allow such altruism, but you’d agree with me that this is beyond this thread.

This is why American history in the Middle East is important. It shows whether or not America bears responsibility, judged by its own values in a teritory where it had the complete upper hand -no Viet Cong in Saudi.

122

John, would you be willing to respond to my examples in post 106? I think they bear pretty directly on the question at hand.

Daniel

123

Such AS…? Give us examples, please? Where are your Havels, Valesas, Sakharovs?

You complain US was blindly anti-socialist in ME. Didn’t US support Nasser during Suez crisis? Didn’t US support Saddam during his war with Iran fundamentalists? There are other examples. Whose fault is it that so many socialist leaders tend to become dictators?

Btw, Israel gov’t is the only Real Democratic Socialist in the whole of ME. Why do you oppose US supporting it? For religious or racial motives?

124

I don’t see that this is any different than the original question. The “leaders” in #1 are responsible for witholding important information about a crime (assuming they knew it was to take place), but not for the crime itself. Same in #2, except you’re making a pretty big leap in assuming that the government wasn’t making a tradeoff that it felt it had to make. But still, the people who placed the bombs are responisble for that act, no one else.

As I said earlier, I think the disagreement is a fundamental one in how we look at personal responsibility. Most libertarian leaning folks begin with the premise that we are all independent moral agents, able to choose our actions freely. The folks on the liberal side, as I assume you are, start with a different assumption-- something like our moral choices are shaped by the environment we grow up in. Not determined 100%, but shaped to some degree. While libertarians would recognize that people certainly are influenced by society, they (as adults) are solely responsible for their own moral choices. Hence the different application of those assumptions to this situation.

We can debate until we’re blue in the face over this particular issue, but as long as we hold on to our fundamental assumptions, we’ll never agree.

125

It may be a matter of fundamental differences, but I’m not so sure. Let me give it one more crack.

Consider this thought experiment.

Scenario #1: I’m a roadie at a crowded rock concert. There is a wooden plank stretching across the rafters, over the crowd. For expedience, I place a heavy cinder block on top of this beam and walk away, even though I estimate that there is a 10% chance the plank will snap under the weight, in which case someone in the crowd will almost certainly be killed by the falling block.

Scenario #2: This is our gun/thief example from before. For the sake of simplicity, assume that the thief will be unable to get a gun from some other source. Again, I estimate that there is a 10% chance that he will wind up killing someone with the gun.

In both cases, the 10% chance comes through and somebody is killed.
I’m going to assume that you’d agree that I am responsible for the death in the first scenario, but you would say that I’m not responsible for the death in the second, because only the thief is responsible.

The obvious difference, of course, is that the plank is inanimate, whereas Scenario 2 brings a second will into to the equation. However, my question is this: from my point of view, why does that matter? Haven’t I made the same choice in both cases?

Yes, everyone is solely responsible for their own choices, but that responsibility doesn’t end at the first variable. What we “liberals” are talking about isn’t a backward-looking analysis (‘that guy shouldn’t have sold me a gun, so he shoulders some of my blame’) but a forward-looking one, in which we are responsible for all likely outcomes of our choices, including our effect on the actions of both other people and wooden planks.

126

I think liberals are looking for that in very specific contents, when people of very specific political persuasions are the actors. Otherwise, it is one of the few times I’ve seen liberals advocating for personal responsibility and blame for all ramifications of an individual’s decisions.

I say this not to mock liberals, but to make a point, in that the liberal theory of not pretending that an individual can know everything, or be punished forever for an imperfect decision, has its advantages. It is difficult to see the exact results of a decision, and people need to be able to make mistakes and move on. Otherwise, stupid teenagers who have babies, people who don’t finish high school, people who quit their jobs and don’t find another, etc. might as well end it for themselves.

127

If you’re implying that liberals are biased, that is true, of course. It is also true that, on balance, conservatives are biased in equal measure.

So goes the stereotype, but I think that’s based un an ungenerous reading of what liberals tend to say about personal responsibility – but opinion among liberals is varied, of course.

Anyway, only very loosely can the viewpoint be described as “liberal” (or be given any other political label). I just needed a term for people advocating this kind of ethical thinking, and that was the word John used.

I agree. I’m just talking about ethical decision-making, and good faith efforts to consider the consequences. That effort gets much harder the further we get from immediate consequences.

128

In response to the claim that the British people voluntarily chose to enter the Iraq War, they did of course elect the politicians who made that choice. But you can’t just pretend to ignore the fact that the United States was the main driving force behind the decision to attack Iraq. The United States was the first to call for the invasion, put tremendous pressure on other countries to join in, organized the collection of misleading evidence about Saddam’s non-existent WMDs, and provided the largest share of the troops. To say that all countries involved share equally in the decision to invade Iraq and the blame for the results ignores the facts.

As for all the examples of personal activities brought up for comparison’s sake, I won’t play that game. Decisions do not unfold at the international level the same way they do at the personal day-to-day level. When world leaders make decisions there is an endless chain of possibilities that might result, with big consequences. While no one can anticipate everything that might happen, world leaders are still capable of making reasonable inferences. For instance, one can infer that if you start killing tens of thousands of Iraqis in a war based on false premises, that would awake the ire of the entire Muslim world. While one couldn’t say for sure beforehand that it would lead to the bombing of London, one might, for instance, say:

The point is that the Iraq War not only destabilized the region, but also strengthened Islamofascist movements, aided terrorist recruitment, undercut the hunt for bin Laden, and aided pro-terrorist countries (most notably Saudi Arabia). And those countries that started the Iraq War, most notably the United States, bear a share of responsibility. One can still argue that the Iraq War was worth the cost of the consequences, but by definition of responsibility the United States does have responsibility for the results of the war.

129

I think it’s a matter of degree more than a matter of a fundamental difference. To go back to the example, you say that the Islamic leaders who didn’t cooperate with the authorities were responsible for withholding information about a crime, but not for the crime itself. From my view, that’s just semantics.

The reason it’s bad to withhold information about a crime is because people get hurt as a result of your withholding information. The reason it’s bad to commit a crime is because people get hurt as a result of your committing a crime.

Yes, choosing to commit a crime is a worse choice than choosing to withhold information, but both choices result in the same consequences, the same people getting hurt. That’s why I phrased my guideline carefully: people share responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of their choices.

For the person who withholds information about violent cults* within their community, one foreseeable consequence is that those violent cultists might go hurt someone. That’s exactly the same foreseeable consequence as for the violent cultist who goes and hurts someone. I hold both the silent party and the cultist responsible for that foreseeable consequence.

Note, again, that I do not hold the cultist less responsible for the consequence: where you say that people are solely responsible for their actions, I say they are fully responsible. And that cultist is fully responsible.

The person who withheld information is not as responsible as the cultist: the consequences of their choice may have been foreseeable, but certainly not as foreseeable as the consequences of the cultist’s choice.

But if you blame the person for withholding information, why do you do so, if not because of the consequences of that choice? And in what way is the consequence of that choice relevantly different from the consequence of the bomber’s choice? Aren’t we talking about exactly the same corpses?

Daniel

  • “Cults” and “cultists” are probably accurate terms to use here, but more importantly, they draw the clear line I want to draw, and besides, they remind me of my D&D games, where cultists make fantastic villains.
130

Well stated,** SteveG1**, and absolutely dead on target.

131

After this whole thread, I’m left shaking my head in disbelief that some of you sstill have such blinkered opinions.

No-one’s saying it’s entirely the US’s fault. But the administration are* partly* culpable. These aren’t isloated incidents done for kicks and laughs. Life is not black and white, goodies and baddies. My six-year-old is just learning that now - looks like some adults still haven’t!

132

I didn’t know that either. Who made that claim?

The Jakarta attack is believed to have been carried out by an affiliate of al-Qaeda rather than by the AQ central group. The attack in London will likely turn out to be something similar.

That obstructed the war in Iraq. The whole point of this thread is that the bombings in London are partly America’s fault because the U.K. supported the war in Iraq. Well, Turkey didn’t.

I never said that all Muslim terrorist groups were connected to AQ and I never said there were no non-Muslim terrorists.

Chechen terrorists have bombed civilian airliners, perpetrated the Nord Ost slaughter and carried out the Beslan massacre to name a few. I think you can drop the quotation marks from the word “terrorism.” I do not believe AQ was involved in any of these attacks. AQ has, however, warmly praised the attacks (notwithstanding Russia’s opposition to the war in Iraq).

The overwhelming majority of al-Qaeda’s victims have been non-military.

My wife actually got to see a man die in a terrorist attack once. An Iranian soldier standing on the same street as Mrs. Murdoch was killed by a grenade tossed from a passing car. The attack was carried out by the MEK an Islamic terrorist group not affiliated with AQ. The victim was a soldier though, so I guess you could say no terrorism occurred. By the way, the Iranian government blames all MEK attacks on, guess who? Right! The U.S.! They say the U.S. secretly bankrolls the operation.

I didn’t say they have no motives. I said they want us to die. Nothing we can do will stop this.

Where is the gray area here? Al-Qaeda has never retracted that position and no group affiliated with them has ever tried to distance themselves from it.

133

With this post I hope I can shed some light on the motives of Al Qaeda, as they view them.

First of all, and I know this will antagonise a few, AQ does not seek death to all. The first premise for AQ attacks on America was to force American troops to exit the holy places of Islam, and cease its support to Israel. Namely, American troops are present in Saudi Arabia, where the two holiest places of Islam, Mecca and Medina, are present. The third holiest place is Jerusalem, which, under international law, has half of it occupied by Israel.

I think it was Sharq Al Awsat newspaper that published a series of articles by one of the senior commanders of AQ, who was present with Usama in Afghanistan. According to that piece, which I read in Arabic and now cannot find, the idea behind the attacks in Somalia, the embassies (Nairobi and Dar e Salam), and Sept 11th was to strike America so hard that it would not think of attacking AQ. Ossama had seen that the American army, when bombed hard enough in Beirut, would retreat. The same happened in Somalia. After the embassies, . In their delusional minds, they thought that they could win. Then came the attacks against American bases in Saudi Arabia, which were intended to pressure America into leaving. With America gone, the armies of Islam would naturally defeat the Zionist state and its ragtag army that only ranks forth in the world.

According to Ayman Al Zawahiri, al Qaeda, after its experience in Afghanistan, in which, in its belief, it elevated the status of Islam and Muslims by living true to Islam under the Taleban, found that it was losing the fight for the hearts and minds of the Muslim Umma (nationn). Thus it sought to prove itself through attacking Islam’s enemies (in their view, again) in the most spectacular manner. Hence the attacks on USS Cole and Sept 11th. One was against a powerful military vessel, the other in the American heartland. AQ hoped that through such strikes it could gain recognition as the force fighting for Islam (this is from a talk by Gilles Kepel, though I have yet to find the book in which he publishes it)

Ironically enough, the American invasion of Iraq, and Al Zarqawi’s prominence in the insurgency, validated the last point. In the eyes of many Muslims, seeing the pathetic excuses for the invasion (the absence of any WMD), AQ became indeed the force fighting for the wronged Muslims.

Afghanistan’s Jihad had ended. The Taleban were viewed even by Muslims as mindless f***s. Thus the ability to recruit Jihadis was diminished, seeing as there was nowhere to fight. Iraq provided a new fresh ground, a cause to which Muslims could be rallied. After all, if we were to think like AQ, we’d remember that General Powell had gone to the UN and claimed Iraq had WMD and was a threat to the world. America then retracted and said there were none. What reason could there be for the invasion other than attacking the Muslims? And Blair following so blindly meant that it was a conspiracy by the new crusaders against the Muslims. Did not Bush use the word crusade in one of his speeches. And the only one to be fighting these new crusaders was AQ. It could rally Muslims as it pleased.

This is how I perceive AQ’s impression of the world. Moreover, in their view, the West, through its support of Israel and Arab dictators, had wronged them greatly. The West had colonised Muslim nations, and, while it brought benefits, it had also abused its authority terribly. The deterioration of the Muslim world is blamed on the West by AQ. So the natural response is to free the holy places of Islam and re-establish a Muslim caliphate, from there march to Jerusalem. Usama would become the new Saladin.

And that is the end objective, in their view. To free Muslim lands of none Muslims, and, in those lands, to live in accordance with Muslim law. Seeing how well the Taliban did in Afghanistan, as an Arab, all I can say to America is, don’t you dare leave Iraq without cleaning that mess.

It is because of this mess that AQ decided to attack London. After all, they had never provoked the British. The last conflict between a Muslim nation and the UK was in 1956. Why would Britain, often a critic of Israel, decide to attack Iraq with America? The same applies to Madrid. In one of Usama’s messages, he answers that question, saying that if AQ sought violence for the sake of violence, why did it not attack Sweden? The truce he offered the Europeans, in exchange for withdrawing their forces from the Middle East, is another example.

One problem with this analysis is the attacks in Phillipines, perpetrated by Abu Sayyaf (a Phillipino) Group. Another one is Bali. They could be explained as seperate incidents with more focus on the Phillipino government and the Indonesian government. I really don’t know how to fit these in.

One possibility could be that these bombings are done by organisations that had been of a violent nature even before AQ’s prominence, and only surfaced so violently after they received funding and support from Al Qaeda, itself trying to expand its network and expertise. Thus it is understandable that the Islamic Jama’a in Indonesia and Abu Sayyaf in the Phillipines would continue in their agenda whilst cooperating with AQ. I don’t know.
Captain Murdoch, their problem with France is about banning the hijab. Norway has troops in Iraq.

134

I apologise for the typos. I wanted to press preview but ended up with submit.

135

AlQ was using Iraq as a propaganda tool against the West long before second Iraq invasion.

Causes of 9/11: U.N. Sanctions on Iraq?

Poison gas attacks in London Tube were planned before second Iraq invasion.

Madrid bombers’ cell was set up before 9-11.

136

I would agree that nothing we should do will stop this, but the above seems like an odd thing to believe. See my third post on this page (#114). It could be an elaborate deception on the part of AQ, but I see little reason not believe them on this point.

137

Norway does NOT have troops in Iraq. Selenus.
Whatever made you think that?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3267451.stm

138

Iskander,

I would never argue that AQ enjoys high consistency. Hatred of the West is definitely part of its motivation. However, there’s a difference between setting up sleeper cells, which is, as far as they’re concerned, part of their strategy, and actual attacks.

I would doubt that there’s a Western country where AQ has not tried to set up cells. That’s a wise strategy on their part. They would have access to different countries, different banking systems, sources of finance, and would be able to acquire a wealth of travel documents from various countries that would allow them higher mobility. This is different from attacks. They’re simply taking advantage of anything available.

True, sanctions against Iraq, their death toll on the Iraqi population and inefficacy against the Iraqi regime, have been used by AQ to condemn the West. But until Iraq turned into a battleground, that condemnation could not translate into a call for a new jihad, and if it did, it lacked the impetus of an actual battlefield when it came to attracting fighters. That’s an important distinction, in my view.

Let’s try to agree on a couple of premises. AQ’s ideology is not consistent with its actions. True. They are a band of murderous thugs, true. But they still do have an ideology. They are not merely a bunch of thugs out to kill us all, though they have no qualms about who they kill. To give them credit for a wise and lucid ideology would be stupid, agreed. But to deny the presence of any ideology that is capable of being used as a powerful recruitment tool, and that is partly legitimate, is a dangerous oversimplification. No one kills just for the sake of killing, there’s always a reason, whether we think it’s justifiable or not. In dealing with them, one must address two levels. First, the leaders, masterminds, bombers, and fighters should be arrested and tried. Second, their support base should be eroded through addressing whatever legitimate grievances that support base has. It’s not one or the other, it’s both.

Keep in mind Iskander, I am not trying to justify or defend Al Qaeda. People like me are next on their list, take my word on this one. But this discussion is futile if one does not take into account their point of view, and the rhetoric that they use to justify themselves and gain support. This is what I’m trying to clarify. In this discussion, the objective is not to argue whether they’re right or wrong. It’s simple, they’re wrong. But since Usama is not going to put on a suicide vest and blow himself up, it pays to understand the motives of those who do, no?

139

Gum, how about this

and this

It’s a nominal contribution, I know. I never said AQ were reasonable. Read my post above. I submitted it before seeing yours. Apologies

140

Certainly there is an ideology; certainly they don’t “kill just for the sake of killing”. However, I’m sceptical if there is any real popular “support base”.

Let’s go back to the roots of modern terrorist movements, which originated in Russia, second half of XIX century. First young Russian revolutionaries were from good families university educated types. They formed an idea that to change things they needed to take their message to the peasants and started “going into the People” movement.

So the movement was a total failure. But what did the young revolutionaries do next?

So that’s how fanatical revolutionary minds work: frustrated by regular people refusal to support them, they form “secret terror societies”, proclaiming themselves as agents of “People’s will”.

I think Czarist Russia terrorism example is still relevant to understanding modern Islamic terrorism. I don’t understand ObL well, because he is a “sheik”, and I have little insight into “sheik” mentality. But I think I understand regular middle-class university-educated radical mentality quite well. Most AQ followers are just that, like Russian terrorists before them. And just like them, it’s quite possible that AQ has little real connection to masses of Islamic people.

They are simply too educated and, yes, even idealistic. Their message is Marxist infused by Islam. They don’t want to convert anybody to Islam, they want to liberate people all over the world. As Qutb said in “Milestone”:

So Islamic Jihaad is only the weapon to free a man from oppression by man and establish God justice on Earth.

I don’t believe it resonates at all among the fellahin.

Let’s face it, if AQ commanded active support of at least 0.1% of Ummah (=1,000,000 people), we’d be in much bigger trouble by now.