# We don't need to 'understand the issues that led' to Tuesday's atrocities
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-dont-need-to-understand-the-issues-that-led-to-tuesdays-atrocities/82167
**Category:** The BBQ Pit
**Created:** [September 17, 2001, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-dont-need-to-understand-the-issues-that-led-to-tuesdays-atrocities/82167 "2001-09-17T15:20:22Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 11
### Author:  [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)
#### Post date: [September 19, 2001, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-dont-need-to-understand-the-issues-that-led-to-tuesdays-atrocities/82167/201 "2001-09-19T01:30:14Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Fenris \*
> \*\*Should this thread be moved to GD? It seems to be one. It’s the gawddamned most _civil_ pit-thread I’ve ever seen.
>
> (Is there a precident for moving things _from_ the Pit _to_ GD? Or would that violate some sort of natural order? :D)
>
> Fenris \*\*
Well fuck you, and your hairy ape asshole, for wanting to discombobulate the natural order of things.
Smegma lips.
Ain’t NO way it’s goin’ to GD now… 😃
---
### Author:  [@CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrankyAsAnOldMan)
#### Post date: [September 19, 2001, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-dont-need-to-understand-the-issues-that-led-to-tuesdays-atrocities/82167/202 "2001-09-19T01:30:45Z")
When I grow up I wanna be Cervaise. First he figures out the movie A.I. for me, and then he says what I’d like to say, but I lack the words. Thank you for a contribution to the argument that helped to bridge the gaps between what we’re saying and what we mean.
And Jodi, you’re correct he wasn’t just addressing you. I do believe, if memory serves, that others did indeed express a desire to dig in our heels lest terrorists think that extreme violence “works.” And the words appeasement and other things Cervaise addressed were also put out there by other Dopers.
I want to compliment those of you who have kept this going without name-calling or derision. The few of you who keep coming back to that exasperated, let’s-talk-about-the-other-side-like-they’re-not-here derisive crap, leave it at the door. I don’t care if it is the Pit. Some of us are having a conversation, dagnabbit.
---
### Author:  [@CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrankyAsAnOldMan)
#### Post date: [September 19, 2001, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-dont-need-to-understand-the-issues-that-led-to-tuesdays-atrocities/82167/203 "2001-09-19T01:32:11Z")
Oh, and I didn’t mean the joking insults, of course.
Imagine my horror when I smugly, sanctimoniously press “SUBMIT” and then see beagledave rip Fenris a new one as a joke.
---
### Author:  [@CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrankyAsAnOldMan)
#### Post date: [September 19, 2001, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-dont-need-to-understand-the-issues-that-led-to-tuesdays-atrocities/82167/204 "2001-09-19T01:44:26Z")
Say, I just ran across something that is sort of a middle ground. It talks about the need for non-violent solutions to terrorism, BUT alleges that the timing has to be right (and there is such a thing as “too soon”), which is a point that Jodi has repeatedly been making.
FWIW:
[http://www.usip.org/oc/sr/sr990525/sr990525.html](http://www.usip.org/oc/sr/sr990525/sr990525.html)
---
### Author:  [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)
#### Post date: [September 19, 2001, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-dont-need-to-understand-the-issues-that-led-to-tuesdays-atrocities/82167/205 "2001-09-19T01:55:54Z")
BTW, is it true that Bin Laden’s family basically disowned him and thinks he’s nuts as well?
---
### Author:  [@Sterra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sterra)
#### Post date: [September 19, 2001, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-dont-need-to-understand-the-issues-that-led-to-tuesdays-atrocities/82167/206 "2001-09-19T02:12:53Z")
> [@](#):
>
> This nicely encapsulates two fo the chief flaws in these arguments. First, it assumes, without any evidence, that we have made “mistakes” that are amenable to correction. Bin Laden is on record as telling his followers to kill Americans wherever they find us, without regard to age, gender, or innocence. This is because he believes that American society is corrupt and decadent and evil – the so-called “Great Satan.” So then what would you suggest we do to prevent that “mistake”? Stop being Americans? Stop being tolerant of others’ choices regarding religion, sexuality, and personal freedoms? Because those are the sort of “mistakes” we are talking about. Second, it assumes – insultingly, though I assume you meant no insult by it – that some “mistake” we made could “cause” them to kill 5500 people – as if anything we might have done could ever justify such a thing.
I suggest that we realise that even though it is not justified it did happen. Therefore we should take steps to stop it from happening again before we seek out justice. No, appeasement will not help any and I don’t see why you suggest it.
> [@](#):
>
> Damn right. Some choose to lie down, and some choose to stand up. It should be obvious which choice I would prefer. I see no justice to the victims in lying down. And as must be clear by now, I value justice over peace.
I said some choose to leave. They usually are better off than the people who then try to seek justice because they don’t have any more chance of being hurt. Sometimes they have to fight, but those who seek to place justice in their own hands are the ones who continue to get hurt only because they want to hurt others. I value protecting America and its freedom over my own sense of justice.
---
### Author:  [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)
#### Post date: [September 19, 2001, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-dont-need-to-understand-the-issues-that-led-to-tuesdays-atrocities/82167/207 "2001-09-19T02:27:49Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by beagledave \*
> \*\*Well fuck you, and your hairy ape asshole, for wanting to discombobulate the natural order of things.
>
> Smegma lips.
>
> Ain’t NO way it’s goin’ to GD now… 😃 \*\*
You bastard…
This had the chance to be the first Pit-thread moved _to_ GD and you destroyed it!
I’ll get you for this **Dave** …
…and your little **beagle** too!
😉
Fenris
---
### Author:  [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)
#### Post date: [September 19, 2001, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-dont-need-to-understand-the-issues-that-led-to-tuesdays-atrocities/82167/208 "2001-09-19T02:49:27Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by beagledave \*
> \*\* said nothing about Great Britain type support. Your “must read” source has some significant facts quite wrong…
\*\*
He did say it would take that kind of support, and that would be the point of his essay. In addition, he has not “some” significant facts wrong, in fact, I’d say he hasn’t gotten any…
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*
> cite?..
> \*\*
Everything I heard about that, I \* heard, \* meaning it was part of the constant drone of the tv, which has been switching between 8 channels for the past week, so i don’t have the exact quotes right at my fingertips, however…
from [http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/south/09/18/pakistan.fm/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/south/09/18/pakistan.fm/index.html)
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*
> He [the Pakistani leader] has been increasingly under pressure to find a resolution to the mounting crisis that balancing both the demands of the United States and \* \* Pakistan’s own Islamic population, many of whom have expressed support for the Taliban.
> \*\*
From a Face the Nation transcript: [http://www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,311567-412,00.shtml](http://www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,311567-412,00.shtml)
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*
> And just to underline the delicacy of all of this - and Colin Powell referred to this this morning - there is a large fundamentalist group in Pakistan which could well topple the government that’s now in power. And what sets Pakistan apart from other countries where there are these large terrorist cells, they have nuclear weapons.
>
> BILL COHEN, Former Secretary of Defense: I think what we have tried to point out is that we have to be very careful in what we ask for publicly, especially what we are demanding that we release in terms of our public statements from the Pakistanis.
> Whatever private assurances they have given should, I think, remain that way.
>
> Otherwise, we’re going to create a real serious situation for President Musharraf which could in fact result in the toppling of his government.
> \*\*
From ABC:[http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/dailynews/pakistan\_profile.html](http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/dailynews/pakistan_profile.html)
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*
> But cooperation carries risks for the leadership. Anti-Western sentiment is strong in Pakistan, and many of its top military commanders are sympathetic to the fundamentalist Islamic regime in neighboring Afghanistan, where the ruling Taliban has been providing haven to indicted terrorist Osama bin Laden.
> \*\*
None of the above is as strong as what I heard on television, but it’s the best I can do and it confirms what I heard. (I believe I may also have read something similar, but if I did it was in one of about 8 periodicals, and I’m not gonna go searching for something I can’t link to anyway)
stoid
---
### Author:  [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)
#### Post date: [September 19, 2001, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-dont-need-to-understand-the-issues-that-led-to-tuesdays-atrocities/82167/209 "2001-09-19T02:55:37Z")
You know, there’s nothing wrong with re-examining your role in the world, and trying to learn from present events.
However, it dismays me that so many people’s _first instinct_ was to immediately try to claim some sort moral equivalency, or to immediately look at what America had done to ‘deserve’ the attack. Not just people on this board, but public figures like Michael Moore.
This is not the time for it. Even to entertain those ideas now is to put them on the same scale as what just happened in New York and Washington, which is offensive in the extreme. And publically venting such conflicting viewpoints at a time like this gives fuel to the kinds of people who did this. If they see an America morally divided even after something this catastrophic, it makes them think that not only are they right, but that America has no stomach for a war. That will simply lead to more violence.
And anyway, if America IS going to change its behaviour in the Middle East, it can NOT be done now, for that will look like capitulation. Terrorists must never be lead to believe that acts of terror result in reforms beneficial to their cause.
A better response would be to say something like, “I wish these terrorists hadn’t done what they did, because there was a shred of reality in their grievances. But what they’ve done is so horrible as to wipe out any past injustices that we MAY have been responsible for. They have shut the door to reform, and merely sealed their own doom.”
---
### Author:  [@Spavined\_Gelding](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spavined_Gelding)
#### Post date: [September 19, 2001, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-dont-need-to-understand-the-issues-that-led-to-tuesdays-atrocities/82167/210 "2001-09-19T05:06:02Z")
I expect that this thing has been civil because it is important and because the people involved are pretty much rational. I haven’t seen any one blathering on about seeing space alien created anomalies in any of the photographs of the WTC, but I suppose that will come.
At any rate, this nations first duty is to protect its territory and its people. Both have been attacked by what can be fairly regarded as a foreign power. Having been attacked, it ought to make little or no difference that the attackers think themselves justified. Germany, after all, convinced itself that it was justified in attacking Poland in 1939, to use the infamous Hitler analogy. With the appropriate motivation and a little obtuseness, any one can persuade them that their own actions are justified, even praiseworthy.
The trick is convincing the guy you have just sucker punched that he had it coming. This is something that is all to often seen in cases of wife beating when the poor woman announces that she knows he really loves her and it is all her fault because she made him angry. The poor woman then goes into a fit of anxiety trying to figure out just what it is that she has done that could possibly made the brute angry. In the case of the poor woman and in the case of our friends who want it figure out how it is that US policy and action could have irritated bin Laden and the boys enough to do this thing, the exercise is an escape from confronting the reality that something has got to be done now, before it happens again, to deprive the abusive husband/ bin Laden of the ability to do it again. What needs to be done is pretty obvious. Bin Laden and his organization need to be destroyed.
All we have to understand is what is the best way to take bin Laden, his organization and the governments that overtly and covertly support his activities out of commission. This is not an intellectual exercise. This is a real question of the government’s first duty and a pragmatic problem of how best to carry out that duty.
---
### Author:  [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)
#### Post date: [September 19, 2001, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-dont-need-to-understand-the-issues-that-led-to-tuesdays-atrocities/82167/211 "2001-09-19T06:56:48Z")
**CrankyAsAnOldMan**
> [@](#):
>
> I can’t speak for anyone else, but the phrase “empathy for terrorists” is extremely distasteful to me. It is either a twisting of my words, or I misspoke myself badly.
I was not trying to twist anyone’s words. the phrase represents quite plainly the call to acheive a greater understanding of the motives and desires of those who perpetrated the attacks and those who support them. If that is not your position then the description does not apply to you.
**stoid**
> [@](#):
>
> For my own part, my objection to going to war with any country is that so far as we know, no country is at war with us.
Correct. Has somebody in this thread advocating declaring war on Afghanistan (or any other nation)? On the flip side, if a nation chooses to harbor those responsible for the attacks do you feel America should act in force regardless of territorial boundaries?
> [@](#):
>
> [The Afghani] people have absolutely no control of any kind, they are complete victims of their governement. So we will victimize them further and call it justice?
Well, the link **Guinastasia** posted presented a slightly different view of how the Afghanis view (or are repressed by) the Taliban. To answer your point, though, if we use military force to strike military targets to achieve a just objective then, yes, I could call it justice. If you are talking about something else then you will have to provide specifics.
> [@](#):
>
> I want this treated as what it is, a crime.
I see it as both a crime and an act of war. Thus, I want it treated like a war crime.
> [@](#):
>
> I have yet to see a shred of evidence that bombing anyone stops any terrorism anywhere.
Nor has war stopped aggression nor policing stopped crime, yet we maintain both a military and a police force. I do not believe it is possible to stop terrorism. I do believe it is possible to stop specific groups of terrorists.
> [@](#):
>
> Didn’t we all learn that 2 wrongs do not add up to justice when we were children?
Please tell me explicitely what the second “wrong” in your equation is. Are you saying “not learning more about the motives of these terrorists” is a moral wrong?
**Balduran**
> [@](#):
>
> I can see a possible reason to understand their motivations however if it means we can tailor our response to be more acceptable to our reluctant allies and to more ambivalent observers in the region.
Perhaps I am missing something. Wouldn’t it be better to acheive an understanding of the reluctant allies and ambivalent observers themselves, if this is our goal?
> [@](#):
>
> Let’s assume that we think our foreign policy is wrong and it should be changed, if not, the point is moot. It would have been good if it was changed before, but we are often creatures of self-interest. The question then becomes when do we change it?
Well, to follow your hypothetical lead–when we have brought each and every principal behind the attack upon our citizenry to justice (or retribution, if justice was not an achievable goal).
**Cervaise**
I think your post best embodies the contextual shift I mentioned. It seems to me that you are arguing a very different point from the one that **Jodi** has staked out and with which I agree. I will answer your points out of courtesy, but I hope you can see that they are addressing a separate debate.
> [@](#):
>
> I’m rather disturbed by the notion that we should dig in our heels and refuse to change a single aspect of our behavior simply because it would be a “victory” for the terrorists.
I do not argue that we should not change a single aspect of our behavior. I do argue that we should not change a single aspect in a manner which can be perceived as favorable to the aims of our enemies for so long as those enemies remain at large. Neither of your “logical parallels” actually parallels the situation at hand. We did not initiate a new probe of Ruby Ridge in the first weeks after the Oklahoma City bombing, for instance.
> [@](#):
>
> It’s a logical fallacy to equate an examination of the incident’s background with a statement of justification, to say that “we deserved it.”
Yes. however, it is not a logical fallacy to note that some of those calling for the former use language which hints at the latter. **Jodi** pointed out just such a case in **Sterra’s** analogy of the abused woman. This does not make the logical equation you any more valid, but in a discussion of what people _should_ consider, emotional nuance cannot be discounted.
On a related note, it is also a logical fallacy to equate the position that futher examination of the motivations of these terrorists serves no purpose with the position that we should act with complete disregard for the desires of all nations and people in the region.
> [@](#):
>
> it is not intellectually invalid to simultaneously condemn the evil acts of whomever carried out the attacks while examining the international scene that encouraged the development of such killers. Admitting the one does not in any way excuse or justify the other, and I’m tired of people asserting that this is so.
You are correct. I note, however, that you chose the word “admitting” to summarize the result of “examining the international scene”. It seems an odd word choice, given nothing but the context of this paragraph.
> [@](#):
>
> Many aspects of U.S. foreign policy have been, and continue to be, short-sighted and destructive. They should have been changed a long time ago, and they still need to be changed. This is separate and apart from the criminal acts of the terrorists.
Then any such discussions should be separate and apart from discussions of how we should respond to this attack. If you have a reason why that separate discussion should be held simultaneous with discussions of our reaction to these attacks, please state it specifically.
> [@](#):
>
> And incidentally, to those who wonder where the discussion of changing foreign policy was before now, how on Earth did you miss the drumbeat of criticism regarding the post-Desert-Storm sanctions against Iraq? Hussein stays in power, his people suffer, and Muslim extremists everywhere spin this for recruitment purposes.
This is an excellent example of an occassion when US respect for established national borders and the rule of international law backfired against us. I agree that we should keep it in mind as we consider our potential responses.
I do agree, though, that voices of criticism have been raised against America’s policies in the Middle East prior to this event. More to the point, I do not feel that even if someone had been silent before they should stay silent now.
> [@](#):
>
> Another fallacy in this argument is the notion that “understanding” the political realities is somehow tantamount to appeasement, that what is being discussed is a touchy-feely therapy session . . .
The fallacy that I see is your attribution of this attitude to this argument. I see **Jodi’s** position as being absolutely grounded in political reality. She has asked repeatedly what purpose other than appeasement might be acheived through a particular examination of the motives driving the terrorist groups responsible for these attacks. If she has received a response which was likewise grounded in political reality I am afraid that I missed it.
> [@](#):
>
> As an aside, don’t forget that we have extremists of our own, people who are just as unreasonable and beyond communication.
As an aside, if David Duke slaughtered thousands of people in Afghanistan would you argue that the United States should shield him from extradition and prosecution?
As a direct response, who gives a rat’s ass? I remember that some dinosaurs were no larger than chickens, too. Both facts have equal relevance to the issues being discussed.
> [@](#):
>
> Our current conflict is with these extremists . . .
President Bush has stated that our conflict is also with those who willfully shield, supply, aid, and abet such extremists. As a matter of _realpolitik_, I find that position persuasive. Do you disagree?
> [@](#):
>
> There are millions of people around the world who may not have been willing to fly the planes themselves, or who are horrified by the act of mass murder, but who simultaneously say to themselves that it’s nice the United States was “taken down a notch.” Do you lump these people in the same camp as the terrorists?
No.
> [@](#):
>
> If so . . .you commit the same crime as did the terrorists: judgement by community.
The crime committed by the terrorists was murder on an obscene scale. Murder. Not “judgment by community”.
> [@](#):
>
> We stand at the crossroads of history. We can commit the same grave error of moral judgement as did the terrorists, and paint huge numbers of people with one brush merely because it’s easier to think about that way. Or we can recognize that, in point of fact, we are fighting not one but two wars.
[ul][li]Everyone has always stood at a crossroads of history.[/li][li]Moral judgment is not a grave error, it is a moral responsibility. Particular judgments can, of course, be erroneous.[/li][li]We are, in point of fact, not fighting any wars at the moment. It is my personal hope that that status continues.[/ul][/li]
> [@](#):
>
> we must realize that we are simultaneously fighting a second war: a war for the hearts and minds of those around the world who sit on the fence, those who do not support the terrorists’ attacks but who simultaneously cannot bring themselves to ally with the United States because of decades of abuse and oppression.
I disagree that we are, or should, be fighting a war for the “hearts and minds of fence-sitters around the world.” As a matter of practical necessity, we require political alliances in certain strategic locations. In the context of the present situation, we need to be aware of how populations in the region will likely react to our actions and prepare for teh consequences thereof. As a driving force behind international diplomacy, "winning the “hearts and minds of fence-sitters” doesn’t make my top 10. On a personal level, I find the description “decades of abuse and oppression” to be quite illuminating when presented as objective fact. Did you forget to include the word “perceived”, or is it your position that this is an accurate summation of American international relations in the Middle East?
> [@](#):
>
> But we must – must – realize the spectrum of perceptions around the world, because more than ever perception will become reality as millions of people are forced to choose sides.
Realize the spectrum of perceptions? We must realize the practical consequences of our actions (or inactions). Some of those consequences are predictable as a matter of perceptions within a population. Many are not. The assumption that we–must–make ourselves popular with many/most/all populations of countries in the region does not follow. I fail to see international popularity as a practical (or necessarily desirable) objective of American diplomacy.
> [@](#):
>
> if we overstep our bounds, senselessly bombing Kabul into rubble (even though, after decades of war, that’s all it is anyway), we may very well find ourselves facing a united Muslim enemy. And then our only alternative will be to kill every Muslim on the entire planet, erasing their faith from the globe – and I don’t want to live in a world where that’s the only option.
I find both the premise and conclusion of your doomsday scenarion to be unbelievable.
> [@](#):
>
> And it’s important to realize that none of this says we’re required to change a damn thing. We have, however, done a piss-poor job explaining ourselves, engaging and communicating with the Muslim moderates who are as yet uncertain which side to choose.
I see. The reason that we are not popular in the region is because we have not explained our position well enough. What about those “decades of abuse and oppression”? Were they really just silly little misunderstandings that we can now clear up without “changing a damn thing”.
I am confused. Perhaps you could explain exactly what resentments toward teh US you see as resulting from poor communication rather than actual policies?
> [@](#):
>
> This is the second war,war of thoughts and ideals and philosophies, a war in which we win allies not through threats and ultimatums but by reason and compassion.
I am not a historian, but I confess that I am unable to think of examples of conflicts won by alliances of reason and compassion. Most of the alliances I recall were founded upon things like economic benefit, shared cultural heritage, and ideological agreement.
I am having a hard time seeing this “battle for hearts and minds” as anythin other thanm “if we get them to like us they’ll stop bombing us.” Is that actually what you are trying to say?
> [@](#):
>
> This is why I advocate understanding and thoughtful response, because the alternative is simply unthinkable.
I have not seen anybody argue that we should not seek to understand the reaction which moderate Muslims might have to any proposed US action. I agree that it is a prudent thing to do.
**capacitor**
We have been seeking an active party in the Israeli/Palestinian situation for many years. How exactly do you think understanding the motives of the WTC terrorists will further illuminate that situation?
Now apply the above question to the internal stability of the current Pakistani regime.
**sterra**
Some of the fallacies behind you r model have already been pointed out. Rather than repeat **Jodi** , let me address
> [@](#):
>
> Sometimes they have to fight, but those who seek to place justice in their own hands are the ones who continue to get hurt only because they want to hurt others.
Options for battered woman:[ul]
[li]Run. Abuser remains free, ready to abuse again.[/li][li]Go to police.[/li][li]Take justice into their own hands. (continue to get hurt because they want to hurt others? I don’t know what you mean by that phrase.)[/ul][/li]Options for a nation which has been attacked:[/list]
[li]Run. Nope. Nowhere to hide 280 million people and their stuff. Metaphorically this could be a model for appeasement. I reject that option, too.[/li][li]Go to police. Nope. No effective international force exists to combat terrorism on the scale we have just witnessed.[/li]Take justice into their own hands. Yep. That is the only place it can be, given the realities of our world.[/list]
---
### Author:  [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)
#### Post date: [September 19, 2001, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-dont-need-to-understand-the-issues-that-led-to-tuesdays-atrocities/82167/212 "2001-09-19T06:59:58Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Sterra \*
> \*\*If your mainly concerned about justice then no you don’t need to know. If you want to prevent future similar occurences then yes you should. You should examine the actions you have taken before and you should make sure that you don’t repeat the same mistake that caused him to kill your children. \*\*
That really sounds like “We’d better make damn sure we don’t do anything to piss this psycho off”. A policy that would put the psycho in charge of the situation, IMO.
---
### Author:  [@Balduran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balduran)
#### Post date: [September 19, 2001, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-dont-need-to-understand-the-issues-that-led-to-tuesdays-atrocities/82167/213 "2001-09-19T11:53:42Z")
**Spiritus**
> [@](#):
>
> Perhaps I am missing something. Wouldn’t it be better to acheive an understanding of the reluctant allies and ambivalent observers themselves, if this is our goal?
Yup, in my ham-fisted way this is what I was trying to say. Understanding the terrorists motives is only useful if we could not understand the region through other means, but there are plenty of other means.
I think this is one of the main sticking points. Some seem to be equating “understanding the terrorists’ motives” as “understanding the people in this regions’ issues”. This is dangerous because they are not the same and it also makes the unintentional link that the people in this region are terrorists.
---
### Author:  [@Balduran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balduran)
#### Post date: [September 19, 2001, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-dont-need-to-understand-the-issues-that-led-to-tuesdays-atrocities/82167/214 "2001-09-19T12:26:26Z")
Your other point **Spiritus**
> [@](#):
>
> Well, to follow your hypothetical lead–when we have brought each and every principal behind the attack upon our citizenry to justice (or retribution, if justice was not an achievable goal).
I think people will still see the causal link even after justice has been served. In fact, it may even paint the terrorists as martyrs. “They sacrificed themselves for their people”
I do agree with those who are arguing that this is not the time to change these policies. However, if these same policies must be changed to reduce resentment and improve prospects for long term peace (and if they are the moral thing to do), it must be done sometime and the sooner the better. Is there a way out of this damned if we do or don’t scenario?
---
### Author:  [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)
#### Post date: [September 19, 2001, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-dont-need-to-understand-the-issues-that-led-to-tuesdays-atrocities/82167/215 "2001-09-19T12:55:04Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi \*
> \*\ ***CrankyAsAnOldMan**
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > I can’t speak for anyone else, but the phrase “empathy for terrorists” is extremely distasteful to me. It is either a twisting of my words, or I misspoke myself badly.
>
> I was not trying to twist anyone’s words. the phrase represents quite plainly the call to acheive a greater understanding of the motives and desires of those who perpetrated the attacks and those who support them. If that is not your position then the description does not apply to you.\*\*
Hey **Jodi** , here’s someone else for you to jump on. This is the same assertion I made to you, and you characterized it as bullshit.
---
### Author:  [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)
#### Post date: [September 19, 2001, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-dont-need-to-understand-the-issues-that-led-to-tuesdays-atrocities/82167/216 "2001-09-19T13:03:26Z")
Sorry, sorry, sorry. That was posted in a moment of bad grace. I either have or haven’t disgraced myself in this thread, depending on your point of view, and in any case I apologize for the ruckus and I think I’ll just quit the thread entirely.
---
### Author:  [@CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrankyAsAnOldMan)
#### Post date: [September 19, 2001, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-dont-need-to-understand-the-issues-that-led-to-tuesdays-atrocities/82167/217 "2001-09-19T13:19:47Z")
I had to go grab a dictionary to make sure I wasn’t reading too much into this word. It claimed that empathy means an _intimate_ understanding. I guess that’s not too terribly far beyond what I meant (although I see **no need for intimacy** –I’d prefer that our understanding come amidst rational objectivity), but there’s something about the word that still makes me cringe. It’s never one I’d use to advocate my own desire to have the U.S. understand the Middle East better.
Looks like it’s time for me to drop it. 🙂 Sorry if I went overboard on one stupid word. But I’d be a happy woman if I didn’t see it again re: this topic!!
---
### Author:  [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)
#### Post date: [September 19, 2001, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-dont-need-to-understand-the-issues-that-led-to-tuesdays-atrocities/82167/218 "2001-09-19T14:16:58Z")
> [@](#):
>
> _ **Jodi** posted (in response to **Cervaise** :_
> As for the rest of it, you appear to be addressing arguments I did not make (“the notion that we should dig in our heels and refuse to change a single aspect of our behavior simply because it would be a ‘victory’ for the terrorists;” “equate an examination of the incident’s background with a statement of justification;” “the notion that “understanding” the political realities is somehow tantamount to appeasement”). So I will allow whomever made such assertions to defend them, though frankly I’m not sure anybody did.
What got us started is the fact that those very statements _were actually made_ at the beginning of this thread. Many of the initial statements have been modified or expanded on, but the initial impression is still being argued against.
Probably those of us in the “knowledge is good” camp should back off and realize that’s not being disagreed with. And probably those of you in the “stop telling me to _understand_ those thugs” camp should back off and realize we haven’t advocated changing foreign policy to _placate_ terrorists, merely to more effectively pursue our national interests.
[/quote]
On _“the notion that we should dig in our heels and refuse to change a single aspect of our behavior simply because it would be a ‘victory’ for the terrorists”_, we have:
**Jodi** ’s initial remarks “If we do _one thing_ differently regarding our foreign policy because of this, then the terrorists have won… IMO this is PRECISELY the time to maintain the status quo in foreign policy, agree with it or not.” and “In the immediate wake of this event, any deviation from the staus quo is a capitulation.”
**Jodi** later clarified this: “If policy needs to be reexamined, then it needed to be reexamined before, for good and independent reasons other than acts of terror. I am not saying such reexamination is a bad idea; I am simply saying that I disagree with those who would link it to recent events…”
Rather than continue to respond to **Jodi** ’s first hardline stance, it would have sufficed to point out that all our actions for the next decade are going to be linked to recent events whether we like it or not.
[/quote]
On _“equate an examination of the incident’s background with a statement of justification”_,
**Jodi** said “The problem with linking the events of the past week to a need to ‘understand’ our policy in the Middle East is that the clear subtext of such linking is that problems with the latter somehow justify or excuse the former.”
**Jodi** , however, made sure to say that: “America has room for lots of opinions, and I will try to respect even those with whom I cannot agree, and I will _never_ imply that disagreement equates to a lack of caring or a lack of patriotism.”
(Which actually set the classy tone this thread has managed to maintain.)
[/quote]
On _“the notion that “understanding” the political realities is somehow tantamount to appeasement”_, we have:
**Jodi** saying “To change our stance in the wake of this atrocity sends a clear message that such tactics are in fact effective. That in turn puts us all at greater risk of reoccurrence the next time some fanatical group disagrees with national policy.”
**Fenris** saying “And we absolutely must not change our actions any time soon, lest we teach these monsters the lesson that if they kill enough of our people, we’ll listen to them.” and “The terrorists want us to (in part) change our policy towards the Middle East. The minute we do, we’re giving the terrorists what they want. QED.”
Later, **Jodi** clarified. “We all know in the most general of terms why this was done. What I and some others object to is the idea that we as a nation must examine _our_ actions, and think about changing them, in the wake of this and because of this.”
To which my answer must be “our actions in the wake of these tragedies must be in our best interests, which requires that we must be prepared to do things differently if doing so will more effectively prosecute our interests.”
---
### Author:  [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)
#### Post date: [September 19, 2001, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-dont-need-to-understand-the-issues-that-led-to-tuesdays-atrocities/82167/219 "2001-09-19T14:34:16Z")
**balduran**
> [@](#):
>
> I think people will still see the causal link even after justice has been served. In fact, it may even paint the terrorists as martyrs. “They sacrificed themselves for their people”
Undoubtedly. I posited a “no ealier than” time; it was not intended to imply that as soon as that standard was met any change became acceptable. The unfortunate truth is that eery policy shift in the region now has to be seen through the filter _“does this create the impression that the terrorists have been succesful”_. I wish it were otherwise; the issues in the Middle East are already too complex and emotionally volatile, but that is the world we now live in.
> [@](#):
>
> I do agree with those who are arguing that this is not the time to change these policies. However, if these same policies must be changed to reduce resentment and improve prospects for long term peace (and if they are the moral thing to do), it must be done sometime and the sooner the better.
Well, I am leary of speculating about a hypothetical policy shift that might “reduce resentment and improve the prospects of long term peace”. Those are not the only goals of US policy in the region, nor should they be.
> [@](#):
>
> Is there a way out of this damned if we do or don’t scenario?
Again, it depends upon the specific policy shift under discussion. In a general case, though, no–I can’t think of one.
**cranky**
I am not wedded ot the word. If you have others that you would prefer I will try to use them.
---
### Author:  [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)
#### Post date: [September 19, 2001, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-dont-need-to-understand-the-issues-that-led-to-tuesdays-atrocities/82167/220 "2001-09-19T14:34:28Z")
**balduran**
> [@](#):
>
> I think people will still see the causal link even after justice has been served. In fact, it may even paint the terrorists as martyrs. “They sacrificed themselves for their people”
Undoubtedly. I posited a “no ealier than” time; it was not intended to imply that as soon as that standard was met any change became acceptable. The unfortunate truth is that eery policy shift in the region now has to be seen through the filter _“does this create the impression that the terrorists have been succesful”_. I wish it were otherwise; the issues in the Middle East are already too complex and emotionally volatile, but that is the world we now live in.
> [@](#):
>
> I do agree with those who are arguing that this is not the time to change these policies. However, if these same policies must be changed to reduce resentment and improve prospects for long term peace (and if they are the moral thing to do), it must be done sometime and the sooner the better.
Well, I am leary of speculating about a hypothetical policy shift that might “reduce resentment and improve the prospects of long term peace”. Those are not the only goals of US policy in the region, nor should they be.
> [@](#):
>
> Is there a way out of this damned if we do or don’t scenario?
Again, it depends upon the specific policy shift under discussion. In a general case, though, no–I can’t think of one.
**cranky**
I am not wedded to the word. If you have others that you would prefer I will try to use them.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-dont-need-to-understand-the-issues-that-led-to-tuesdays-atrocities/82167.md?page=10)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-dont-need-to-understand-the-issues-that-led-to-tuesdays-atrocities/82167.md?page=12)