We don't need to 'understand the issues that led' to Tuesday's atrocities

[Jodi]

MAGDALENE –

If the man sneaking into your house were part of a larger group that planned to sneak into your house and attack you every week for the forseeable future, wouldn’t you want to devote some time to investigating the group as a whole and what the hell they want with your house so you can better defend yourself and better track them down? What if this group were linked with other groups who swore to continue the intrusions as part of their mission statement?

The bottom line is that I don’t care what they want in my house. They are entitled to nothing within it. I would want to know as much as possible about the group to defend myself, yes, but that does not IMO include needing to comprehensively understand why they act. I need to be able to predict their actions; I largely do not care about their motivations. I have no obligation under such circumstances to examine those motivations except to the extent it will assist me in defending myself or punishing them.

I know my post can be seen as “America-bashing” (and a at a “time like this” that’s unpopular and probably doesn’t help my arguments). I “trotted out the grievances” for one reason - I keep getting that fucking 1973 Gordon Sinclair speech about how much good America does in the world, and running into wide-eyed folks who ask “why would anyone hate us? we’re the good guys, right?” Not everyone in the world thinks of us as the good guys. Not everyone in the world should or HAS to think of us as the good guys.

With all due respect, MAGDALENE, surely you can see that these events have engendered a need in many to emphasize what is good about our country and what we can be proud of. I do not personally equate that with anyone saying we have never, in the history of the world, done anything wrong. Of course we have, but so what? It cannot justify or excuse what has now happened to us.

Our self-image is that we always wear the white hat, but in some parts of the world our actions have spoken otherwise. There are people in the world who feel that they’ve been fucked over by the United States, and some of them have reason. You can argue that they are manipulated by their leaders, that they don’t know the whole story, that they are blinded by prejudice and hatred, but to many people in the world the U.S. is seen as the promise of freedom and justice for everyone except themselves.

This is all true, but I wonder at the utility or desire to express it now. To return to the earlier analogy, to me it’s as if, in the wake of having my child killed, I run into people who say “Well, you hit people, you know. Slap 'em upside the face. Perhaps you should think about whether you should do that.” WTF?? My child is dead. Turning that death into an assertion that I need to look at what I have done wrong – it can appear to be an attempt to justify the actions of the killer of my child. Surely you can see that.

Maybe we had good reasons for doing everything we’ve ever done that are or were clearly in the national self-interest at the time, and if given the choice we would do them all again. As a U.S. citizen, I support and understand that. I’m also lucky enough to live in a country where I am free enough to say “yeah, we might have fucked up back there. Once we’ve dealt with the immediate threat, let’s see what we can do to not fuck up again.”

I truly don’t understand this. As if 5000 dead Americans indicates a fuck-up on our part. Really – I don’t get it.

Disagreement with American foreign policies do not translate into any justification for Tuesday’s attack.

But, you see, if you use last Tuesday’s attack as the catalyst for that disagreement, then, yes, it at least appears to be a justification for the attack. I realize completely that you are not saying any such thing, but I also hope you could see how, to the less careful reader or thinker, that might appear to be exactly what you are doing. That is why – again – I personally would be so careful NOT to link any reevaluation of policy with the attack. There should not be even a whisper of cause and effect.

However, if we blindly pretend that anti-American sentiment in the world doesn’t exist, or has absolutely no basis, we cripple ourselves in dealing with future threats.

No one here is advocating blindness. We are saying that justice does not require empathy with our attackers nor the assumption of one iota of blame for the attack. Certainly it helps to anticipate future attacks to know who is mad at you; I just do not agree that it is as useful or necessary to know the details of why.

I link “understanding” with retaliation because knowing your enemy is the only way to defeat him. Understanding is also the only way to avoid repeating the mistakes in the future. It doesn’t mean backing down from policies that we believe in or capitulating to terrorists.

What “mistakes” are you referring to? Again, if you link discussion of this horrendous attack with discussion of “mistakes” American has made in the past, you run the real risk (and I would think, the obvious risk) of coming across as an apologist for the attack. (“Yes, this terrorist attack took place, but it was in part because they are mad at us for X and Y.”) I UNDERSTAND COMPLETELY THAT THIS IS NOT WHAT YOU ARE DOING, but I’m sure you can see that the line between “explaining” and “defending” is a very, very fine one.

[Crafter_Man]

magdalene:

I’m not against intelligence gathering. But we do not have a CIA because we desire to “understand” why Muslim extremists want to destroy us. We have a CIA because it makes it easier for us to defeat them.

I may be wrong, but I don’t believe we have a federal agency devoted to “understanding” what drives our enemies to do what they do. Again, the CIA NSA, et al. could care less “why.”

[magdalene]

Thank you for a clear reading of my posts, Jodi. I do not want to come across as any kind of apologist or empath for terrorists, and I can see how my posts might come across that way.

One of the most frightening things about the attack is that it was done without anyone claiming responsibility and without any clear demands - making it all the more senseless - and giving us all the more reason to try to understand who these fuckers are.

I can see how you think that it’s in bad taste to talk up American blunders right now, as if they are somehow linked to the attack. Like I said, I am hearing so much wide-eyed innocence and ignorance from people (not necessarily on these boards) who have never had to think about events outside their borders in their lives before. So part of my intention is to say “wake the fuck up, America, and pay attention to the world out there, and don’t be so sure that we always know how to run it!” With the obvious exception of military personnel and their friends and families, most people in my generation (I’m 27) have had a choice about the extent to which we think about events outside our borders - a choice which we certainly don’t have now, and probably a choice that we never should have had.

Once the immediate threat to security is removed and the people responsible for last Tuesday are dealt with, I would like to see the U.S. as a country make future foreign policy decisions from a more educated place, to see voters question some of our conduct abroad, and see our leaders do a better job of explaining and justifying actions to the public. I would submit that questioning the motives and practices of one’s country, especially this country, is an act of patriotism.

[magdalene]

Crafter-man - how do you define “understanding”?

You make it sound like I’m suggesting that Osama Bin Laden just needs a hug and that we should have a special agency for this purpose, which is a cheap and BULLSHIT reading of my posts.

CIA gathers intelligence - who, what, where, how, and WHY. Are you suggesting we stick to the first 4 from now on?

[Olentzero]

*Originally posted by Scylla *
Are you seriously suggesting that pounding an enemy into nonexistence doesn’t solve the problem with that enemy?

OK, maybe you get one enemy out of the way. Other enemies show up to take its place. Your example of Rome is an excellent one. Just because it dealt with one enemy didn’t mean it stopped making enemies after that. Not that they exterminated their enemies anyway (is that not what pounding into nonexistence means?) - they just took 'em over and ran things their way.

Are you proposing vengeance from the grave?

No, I’m saying vengeance is a stupid way to go about things.

From your limited base of examples, you grant me the Confederacy, but say that didn’t pound Japan and Germany into nonexistance?

Only on the technicality that the Confederacy as a geopolitical entity ceased to exist after 1865. Japan and Germany certainly didn’t.

We pounded the axis powers at least as hard as the Confederacy, and probably harder. I got news for you as well. We obliterated them. The fact that the islands of Japan, and a country by that name, populated by people called “Japanese” are in existence, does not dispel the fact that we completely pounded our enemy into nonexistence.

The Japanese were ruined economically and militarily at the end of the war, and their Emperor ceased to be acknowledged as a god. The US did not wipe the Japanese off the face of the earth, therefore the Japanese were neither obliterated nor pounded into nonexistence. Same for the Germans. The Nazi party was removed from power, the economy and the army were decimated, but the Germans were not obliterated or pounded into nonexistence.

The Japanese armies, navies, and most of the Damn cities ceased to exist, along with a good percentage of the population. When they surrendered, we occupied their island with our forces and remade them in ouir own image.

The Japanese learned modern business skills and organization, and the United States spent most of the 70s and 80s quibbling with the Japanese about unfair competition. The US rebuilt the Japanese economy and then ended up bitching because it outperformed their own. Doesn’t sound like they were pounded into nonexistence, it sounds like they got serious help from the US in order to maintain an American sphere of influence in the Pacific.

The Japanese enemy was pounded into nonexistance. What was left were Japanese people. Same for the Germans.

So what is the difference between the Japanese people and the Japanese enemy? Was everyone who died an enemy, and everyone who lived part of the ‘Japanese people’?

You also present examples where we did not obliterate them, which tells us nothing about cases where he have, and is therefore a useless example.

My point was that I couldn’t think of any examples where the United States pounded an enemy into nonexistence, which thus argued for the invalidity of your assertion. So I ask again - whom have we pounded into nonexistence?

**I doubt the Aztecs or the Branch Davidians would disagree. **

As I recall, the Aztecs were wiped out at the hands of the Spaniards, and not because of an act of war but because they were colonized and enslaved. The Branch Davidians didn’t exactly have a firm grip on reality, but they didn’t declare war on the United States either.

You got any better examples?

[Stoid]

** Cranky, xeno (as always), magdalene, wring, lieu ** and more… you warm my heart.

May your words and thoughts about this spread throughout the land. And I think they will as time goes on.

I was alternately relieved and mortified last night as I listened to learned men and women on various channels explain that this is not about a “war” per se, this is about the US basically joining the list of countries, (Ireland, Isreal) that are periodically nailed by some horrible act by some maniac group, and we are just going to have to deal with it.

This is a situation that *** cannot ** * be cured through brute force alone. Understanding is crucial. Examining our own behavior is crucial. Finding new ways to acheive our objectives in other countries is crucial.

I love my country and I always have. I always will. But I don’t for a minute think that everything we do is great, or even good.

And I’ve seen this as similar to a situation with a psycho serial killer. Being a psycho serial killer is unacceptable, it must be dealt with, the killer must be stopped. However, in the course of the trial we learn that the serial killer’s parents beat him and fucked him in the ass every day of his life. Well, this information doesn’t let the serial killer off the hook, certainly, but does the fact that the serial killer has killed let his parents off the hook? I don’t think so.

In the same way that trying to make changes * to appease the killer * is not the answer, I am not advocating that we go to terrorists and ask: “How should we change? We’ll do anything you say, just don’t be mean to us!” But neither do I think that our pain should be taken as a license to beat the kids a little harder, either.

stoid

[Crafter_Man]

*Originally posted by magdalene *
**Crafter-man - how do you define “understanding”?

You make it sound like I’m suggesting that Osama Bin Laden just needs a hug and that we should have a special agency for this purpose, which is a cheap and BULLSHIT reading of my posts.

CIA gathers intelligence - who, what, where, how, and WHY. Are you suggesting we stick to the first 4 from now on? **

That’s correct.

There is very little (if any) reason to ask “Why?” when evaluating the actions of our enemies during a time of crisis. It serves no purpose. Asking “Why?” insinuates that we might be doing something wrong, which is not a good thing to ask when you’re at war. I’m not saying we should never ask “Why”; at the very least we should wait until the dust settles, after which sociologists, intellectuals, historians, and anthropologists can knock themselves out. But until then, our entire focus should be on destroying our enemy.

[xenophon41]

An unintended consequence of Roman policies was the elimination of ideological growth; Rome’s eventual decadence was insured once their cultural meme became unchallenged. What are the unintended consequences of unilaterally crushing Afghanistan? What are the consequences of a series of tactical strikes? What are the consequences of parallel political and economic actions we might take? We need to have a good idea what those consequences might be before we act, and that means understanding how we got to this pass.

The reason “why” matters, not so that we can second guess our past actions, but so we can know what to expect from the actions we’re planning right now. Knowing the consequences may not change our short range plans, but they’ll sure help us structure those plans to facilitate longer term solutions, won’t they?

[magdalene]

Crafter_Man, well, I guess I know where you stand.

I’d argue that the U.S. needs both action and understanding, ESPECIALLY in times of crisis. It needs people who can make tough decisions about attacks and loss of life and war AND people who understand the whats and the whys. I don’t know why people find this so mutually exclusive.

If we as a nation don’t ever admit to ourselves the possibility that we are doing something wrong (WHICH IS NOT TO SAY THAT I THINK WE ARE) what good does that do? Rent Failsafe sometime. Ooh, War Games is another good one.

[Olentzero]

*Originally posted by Crafter_Man *
There is very little (if any) reason to ask ?Why?? when evaluating the actions of our enemies during a time of crisis. It serves no purpose. Asking ?Why?? insinuates that we might be doing something wrong, which is not a good thing to ask when you?re at war.

I disagree. Everything ought to be questioned, especially at the time it’s being done. Otherwise we really run the risk of causing disaster.

I?m not saying we should never ask ?Why?; at the very least we should wait until the dust settles, after which sociologists, intellectuals, historians, and anthropologists can knock themselves out. But until then, our entire focus should be on destroying our enemy.

The problem with that is there’s the potential for a chain of events that won’t leave anyone around to answer the questions after the dust settles. “Shoot first, ask questions later” is not a good idea at this point.

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

In your first response, you actually put your finger on exactly the conundrum that I feel at times. A big part of me hates that my attitude could mean the terrorists are “getting what they want.” They want America to change, and I want America to change, and I want to puke that we have that much in common.

But it doesn’t change my sense that America has been pretty unjust in its dealings with that part of the world. I didn’t need an airplane slamming into a building to tell me that. I knew it long ago. And I don’t want my anger of what those cowardly murderers did change my sense of right and wrong. I hate that my words might make them think they’ve accomplished something, but at some point I gotta set aside my need for America to look like it can’t be bullied and devote some attention to what we could do better in the future. For the collective pysche of the U.S., the betterment of the world, and the prevention of future whackos targeting our innocent civilians.

Like rickjay said, I think we can do both. I’d like to kick some goddamn terrorist ass. And then I’d like to kick the ass of anyone who is oppressing people in the world, regardless of whether or not they are our “friends.” That’d be a fucking welcome change.

[Scylla]

Olentzero:

If you wish to argue that Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan were not destroyed, than that’s your perogative.

I don’t have the desire to debate such idiocy as appears to be your bread and butter.

[Gatopescado]

this is a lot like the war on drugs or the search for a cure for AIDS. the enemy is not easily identified and can change and respond to ongoing attacks. just when you think you got it nailed, it morphs itself into something totally different. you have to study the enemy in order to put up an effictive fight, but at some point you get dimininshing return on the study. we cannot be so ethnocentric to dismiss as unimportant the reasons these shitstains perpetrate their violence. to do so would be a grave taticle error. knowing why they do what they do can help prevent future acts.

[Jodi]

MAGDALENE –

I can see how you think that it’s in bad taste to talk up American blunders right now, as if they are somehow linked to the attack. Like I said, I am hearing so much wide-eyed innocence and ignorance from people (not necessarily on these boards) who have never had to think about events outside their borders in their lives before. So part of my intention is to say “wake the fuck up, America, and pay attention to the world out there, and don’t be so sure that we always know how to run it!”

Again, my only quibble in this is that I personally think it’s remarkably bad timing for these sorts of discussions. To me, it’s like dealing with a friend who’s just been attacked by her boyfriend and saying “well, you never were that nice to him anyway. You know there were several things you could have done differently.” Yes, people are talking up America now. That doesn’t mean they think it’s flawless; it means they feel the need to be reminded of all the good in it at this particular moment in time – to feel that we are united and that the country stands for something positive. You may feel that it is your obligation in the name of eradicating ignorance to combat such one-dimensional sentimentality, but I feel considerably more tolerant of it, given the circumstances.

Once the immediate threat to security is removed and the people responsible for last Tuesday are dealt with, I would like to see the U.S. as a country make future foreign policy decisions from a more educated place, to see voters question some of our conduct abroad, and see our leaders do a better job of explaining and justifying actions to the public. I would submit that questioning the motives and practices of one’s country, especially this country, is an act of patriotism.

I have no quarrel with this. I object only to the implication that a cause and effect exists, such that this horrific crime should lead our country to contemplate what it has done wrong – and the obvious implication that it could have done anything so wrong as to justify the crime. To me, it smacks of “You were raped, huh? Well, we’ll certainly try to catch the guy who did it, but in the meantime maybe you should give some thought to how you were acting before you were attacked.” I object to the implication of blame implicit in such linkage. That is all I object to; decry foreign policy to your hearts’ content, just don’t link it to this attack.

I think STOID’s signature (“If you hate those who hate, you become like them. You add to the violence and the destructive energy that now fills our world.”) nicely sums up the attitude I view with such distaste – the idea that by despising those who would do such a thing, we are somehow to blame for their actions. It is insupportably facile, and it is offensive, both to the memory of those who died and to those of us who loathe the ones who killed them.

OLENTZERO says:

The problem with that is there’s the potential for a chain of events that won’t leave anyone around to answer the questions after the dust settles. “Shoot first, ask questions later” is not a good idea at this point.

I think that depends entirely upon what questions are to be asked. If I am investigating a crime, I need to know how the criminal accomplished it, where he is located, and how I can apprehend him. I do not need to know his motivation for the crime (if I am otherwise sure he did it). I do not need to know if he had a bad childhood, or a bad day, or a long list of grievances against the victim. And I certainly do not tell the victim that the immediate aftermath of the crime is an excellent time for him to search his heart for personal wrongdoing.

CRANKY –

But it doesn’t change my sense that America has been pretty unjust in its dealings with that part of the world. I didn’t need an airplane slamming into a building to tell me that. I knew it long ago.

Then why weren’t you talking about it long ago? The obvious subtext to “Well, they did have some legitimate reasons to hate us . . .” is " . . . and that to some extent (major or minor) justifies what they did." I realize that is not what you are saying, but as I have said, it is a fine line to draw. (Think about how it would sound to you if you heard a friend had been stabbed by an abusive boyfriend and then someone said “Well, you know she wasn’t very nice to him.”) That is one of the reasons I wouldn’t be revisiting such topics right now. The other is, as I have said, that I would not give the terrorists the satisfaction of knowing that they have succeeded in forcing America to do anything, including rethink foreign policy.

Again, I am not saying that foreign policy could not be revisited. I just wouldn’t do it right now. And I would avoid yoking the attack with some perceived need for soul-searching, in order to avoid even the implication that we as a country did something “wrong” to deserve the visitation of such evil.

[lieu]

As we drive in comfortable cars down smooth paved roads through green and planted fields, past strip malls bursting with low priced staples and luxury items while listening to uncensored radio on our way to air conditioned buildings before lunch at the all-you-can-eat diner that we’ll put on our expense account, we wonder how anyone could have so much hate in their heart to have done this deed.

Recognition that the person might have come from a dust-choked, camel-riding, hovel-dwelling, goat-herding, medicine-starved, information-lacking, ammunition-laden stinkhole will hopefully allow us to start to put the inhumanity of this event into perspective and begin to heal from it.

• No, his plight is not our fault.
• No, we shouldn’t feel guilty about the wonderful civilization we enjoy.
• F*ck no, it doesn’t excuse his savage, despicable act.
• No, we should not change foreign policy to appease his sorry ass.

I would like to see it given some consideration in our search to find an solution to this act. I would like to see it given some consideration in our search to find an end to all terrorism. I think we’ve got to understand why they hate if we hope to ever stop it’s propagation.

I really don’t know anymore. All this has made me really confused, tired and sad. It makes me think of the Peanuts banner I had in my bedroom as a child on which Linus is exclaiming “I Love Mankind, It’s People I Can’t Stand.”

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

*Originally posted by Jodi *

Again, my only quibble in this is that I personally think it’s remarkably bad timing for these sorts of discussions. To me, it’s like dealing with a friend who’s just been attacked by her boyfriend and saying “well, you never were that nice to him anyway. You know there were several things you could have done differently.”

CRANKY –

Then why weren’t you talking about it long ago? **

Point # 1:

I don’t the discussion is akin to saying “Oh, you brought it upon yourself.” I think it’s more akin to saying “We need to evaluate how the relationship deteriorated to the point of violence.” There was a woman stabbed to death here in Ann Arbor by her boyfriend two years ago. It immediately started coversations about abuse and abusers. What makes them abuse? How can we raise our sons (and duaghters) to not abuse? How can we help people in abusive relationships? How can we encourage them to get out and not tolerate that sort of treatment? It wasn’t pissing on her grave, it was doing something immediately proactive to make sure this sort of thing didn’t keep happening. It immediately asked what we could learn from one tragedy. Sure, part of it meant revisiting police response to incidents (which I think relates to our security discussions–and by the way, no one is saying it’s wrong/disrespectful/bad timing to admit we’ve fucked up there. Big time). But another part of it meant looking at it from a societal/psychological standpoint. On the international level, I’d say its analogous to a foreign policy review.

Maybe that’s semantic. I don’t mean to be saying “But we ASKED for it, people!” I’m saying “Let’s look at the bigger picture so we can start to figure out what needs to change”

Point #2, jeez, Jodi, I’ve always loved your posts and your fantastic logic, but why are you laying this at my feet? Maybe I didn’t personally do enough to influence U.S. foreign policy. No, I haven’t contacted my representatives about this particular issue. I didn’t jump in on GD threads about this. But that’s my personal decision, and I don’t think that means I’m wrong for using my voice now. Lots of people are posting things they’ve never posted before. I feel a little stung that you’re turning this on me personally. I’m just sharing my views, and expressing that it wasn’t 19 madmen on hijacked airplanes that brought me to this point.

[Fenris]

*Originally posted by CrankyAsAnOldMan *
**I’m saying “Let’s look at the bigger picture so we can start to figure out what needs to change”
**

But for me, the answer is "I’m not willing to change anything they want.(See my post on the prev. page for my understanding of their basic demands/complaints). I won’t even discuss the possibility of the consideration of the merest hint of the thought of compromise on any of those points. So now where does the discussion go?

Fenris

[magdalene]

Fenris, where’d you get that list of what Bin Laden wants?

How do you know that this attack was based on those specific things, and not release of certain prisoners, lifting of Iraqui sanctions, or an attempt to consolidate Bin Laden’s position in the Muslim world?

I’m not saying that we would or should change anything, but how do you know that’s the right list of demands? There could be another goal entirely that we don’t know about.

For those who are so against “understanding”, why DON’T you want to know as much as you can about these people? What do you lose by understanding, assuming that we still take the actions that nobody in the “understanding” camp is disputing that we must take?

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

*Originally posted by Fenris *
**
But for me, the answer is "I’m not willing to change anything they want.

Fenris **

My friend, I completely understand the sentiment. God yes, I want to dig in my heels and say “hell no, assholes, if you wanted us to do something, you blew your fucking chances with that disgusting stunt on Tuesday.” There’s a part of me which wants to tell them that they can take even reasonable suggestions (should they have any) and ram them up their ass sideways.

But there’s another part of me that thinks that we might, independently (or with the help of our supporters across the globe) figure out some things that we, ourselves, as a nation, want to do differently in the way we conduct foreign affairs. And run our airports. And act on knowledge of terrorist whereabouts. All those things. In the first instance, it’s entirely possible that some of the things we choose to do will be things that the terrorists would have approved of. But we can’t be contrarian and act against our own best interests simply for the sake of never giving them any satisfaction. We can independently decide that we, as a powerful, intelligent, leader country of free, just, educated people, are going to change our role somewhat. Screw them.

[Jodi]

LIEU –

Recognition that the person might have come from a dust-choked, camel-riding, hovel-dwelling, goat-herding, medicine-starved, information-lacking, ammunition-laden stinkhole will hopefully allow us to start to put the inhumanity of this event into perspective and begin to heal from it.

How? I’m serious. Recognizing that the terrorist come from a world of squalor changes the “perspective” on 5000 dead how? It heals it how? See, I see no where to go with these sorts of arguments except to attempt to empathize with the terrorists. I do not want to empathize with them. I gain nothing by doing so. I don’t care how horrible their lives mights have been; that cannot explain or justify what they have done. To me, the inquiry is academic and useless, and dangerously close to falling over the razor-thin line and blaming the victims. I see no healing there.

I would like to see it given some consideration in our search to find an solution to this act. I would like to see it given some consideration in our search to find an end to all terrorism. I think we’ve got to understand why they hate if we hope to ever stop it’s propagation.

Sigh. There is no solution to this act. There is only justice. Motivation has nothing to do with justice unless you are willing to consider motivation as a mitigating factor and possibly reduce the punishment accordingly. For a crime of this scope, I personally am not willing to do so. Again, I do not care why they did it and I do not need to know why they did it; it is sufficient for me to know that, to a reasonable degree of certainty, who did. That person should be punished to the ultimate extent of the law. As for knowing the motivation to prevent it from happening again – what good is that unless we intend to change our behavior to prevent such acts? But that is exactly what giving into terrorism is, and we should not do it. If we need to change our foreign policy for other reasons (like it sucks, as some of you apparently think), then change it for those reasons. But we should do nothing different as a result of terrorism.

CRANKY –

There was a woman stabbed to death here in Ann Arbor by her boyfriend two years ago. It immediately started coversations about abuse and abusers. What makes them abuse? How can we raise our sons (and duaghters) to not abuse? How can we help people in abusive relationships? How can we encourage them to get out and not tolerate that sort of treatment? It wasn’t pissing on her grave, it was doing something immediately proactive to make sure this sort of thing didn’t keep happening.

But the difference is that the conversations I object to are not about terrorism generally – i.e., what makes people commit acts of terror? How can we raise our children to not be terrorists. No, they are specifically about past actions of the United States – the victim – engendering grievances against it. If the conversations you heard were that specific – what the woman had done to piss off her attacker – would you find them as constructive?

Point #2, jeez, Jodi, I’ve always loved your posts and your fantastic logic, but why are you laying this at my feet? Maybe I didn’t personally do enough to influence U.S. foreign policy.

I didn’t mean to attack you personally. My point is that if you are talking about this now, and you didn’t before – well, then the terrorists sort of achieved their goal, didn’t they? I mean no insult by saying this, but it seems to me that if you didn’t consider America’s sins to be insupportable before, why have they suddenly become so now, when we have done nothing – when we are the victim? (And I mean “you” in the wider sense, not you personally.) As I have said, I don’t object to the discussions so much as the timing, which I think is awful. If it’s worth talking about, it should have been worth talking about before. If it’s worth talking about, it’ll be worth talking about later. But to concentrate on America’s perceived wrongs now – at this point in time – can only serve to remove the focus from where it ought to be now, which is on the evildoers who did this.

MAGDALENE –

For those who are so against “understanding”, why DON’T you want to know as much as you can about these people? What do you lose by understanding, assuming that we still take the actions that nobody in the “understanding” camp is disputing that we must take?

I think it is incorrect to construe us as “against understanding.” It is rather that we do not feel it is necessary to understand motivations to condemn actions, nor appropriate to change our actions in light of their motivations. The question therefore is why we should be obligated to look into the hearts of such people when there is no practical use to it and when it distracts from the true task facing us at the moment, which is to bring these people to justice. So the question is not what I lose by “understanding,” but what I gain. As far as I can see, I gain nothing of any practical value – much like knowing that a murderer had a tough childhood may further my true “understanding” of him but isn’t really relevant to the question of whether he committed the crime, and how he should be punished.