Pointing the Bone
Pamela Bone is a journalist I admire. She's a writer on the left who understands the nature of poverty, justice, and the ideology which is slowly destroying out world. Best of all, the wisely avoids the indulgent Western self-criticism which has driven many of her colleagues to desperate seeking morally equivalancy for every fundamentalist excess when none exists. Here's a sample of her fine work from The Age today:
Exactly.
Those searching for the "root causes" of terrorism might do well to listen to the terrorists themselves. The leadership of al-Qaeda has said many times that its aim is to set up a global Islamic state. They want a worldwide Islamic theocracy ruled according to sharia law; a world in which women must conceal their faces, where they may not work or be educated, may not go in public without a male relative; a world in which women are under the total control of men. They want a world in which women do not have the option of rejecting them.
Exactly.
Comments
Which islamic homelands were the US occupying before 9/11?
As for the situation in Saudi Arabia, the US has military bases or troops stationed in many countries at the request of the governments of those countries, (e.g. Germany, Australia and Japan). Many people in these countries are opposed to the US military presence, but they don't become terrorists.
As a moderate lefty, I think Pamela Bone makes a very good point about Al-Qaeda's motivations and goals (this doesn't mean I endorse or agree with George W Bush or John Howard's foreign policies). Al-Qaeda are a bunch of crazy theocratic fascists, and a lot of the debate on how western governments should deal with their actions ignores this point. I don't see how anyone can claim to be trying to truly understand the "root causes" of Al-Qaeda's terrorist actions while ignoring this point.
-Daniel.
-Daniel.
by Robert Pape may be worth a look. The author, who's studied every recorded suicide bombing, backs Jeremy (and myself) in arguing that western foreign policy is fundamental to Islamic terrorism, and that until we acknowledge this fact we will not make progress against it. Pape wrote a piece for The Age opinion section a month or so ago summarising his thesis.
Those who've read the Iraq piece on my blog or the comments to Ari's post on Pilger's Racism will be familiar with the argument that we're now faced with a far wider phenomenon than al-Qaida and its agenda. Attacks against western interests are now being conducted by individuals throughout the Muslim world, including Muslim communities in western countries, who have no substantial connection with al-Qaida; the Iraqi insurgency and the London bombings are the two most high-profile examples. The only feasible explanation is that the west has turned itself into a legitimate target through its foreign policy - not just invasions of Muslim countries, but the obvious failures to rebuild them or demonstrate that this is not being done for western political and economic interests.
Isn't Pamela Bone being rather simplistic? The root cause of the spread of terrorism must be the support given to the likes of OBL by people who see the terrorists as their only viable means of fighting occupation or other, often imperialistic, forces whether political, economic, military, or cultural.
The USA certainly gave support to OBL during the Afghan conflict allowing him to set up recruitment centres in 3 major US cities in order to fight Russian occupation. Any of you who happened to catch the recently screened Russian documentary about that period would have seen terrorism in full flight. To see Russian soldiers recounting through their tears stories of schools being decimated and teachers raped and killed for teaching without headscarfs was sobering.
That we do not want to see or fail to recognise the moral equivalencies does not mean that there are none. Most of us realise we will never be able to bargain with the perpetrators of terrorism nor should we attempt to but unless we try to understand why they are given support in certain communities then this will go on escalating.
Here is a token "moral equivalency" question, is an Iraqi cleric supporting the setting off of a nuclear weapon in a major US city the same as a US congressman echoing a call from some in the Christian right to nuke Mecca? Are both supporting terrorism or does the delivery method matter?
Cheers
Cameron
Cameron, any person who advocates the nuking of Mecca is certainly advocating terrorism - that's completely disgusting and their views should be totally condemned - they'd probably end up locked up here in Victoria for religious vilification.
Jeremy, I do agree with Ari, I think it's completely appalling to claim that the actions of a few thousand nutcases world-wide are an understandable response to alleged western occupation of islamic homelands (especially when you have OBL saying that he wants a global islamic state, and that Australia deserves to be attacked for its role in an independent East Timor) when the overwhelming majority of Muslims do not support terrorism. I don't think that suicide bombers are sane or reasonable people. I think it's fine for Ari to ascribe insane reasons to them (as you state in your post) because they are demonstrably insane.
Plenty of people are opposed to US foreign policy but they don't turn into terrorists. Why are the terrorists different from all the people who don't become terrorists but don't like US foreign policy?
You're saying that the terrorists they are crazy and irrational yet they're also understandable (which implies a rationality to their actions). Is it understandable that these few thousand people turn into terrorists because they don't like western foreign policy (ignoring the millions living under the same evil dicatorships who don't turn into terrorists)?
Surely if your theory that terrorism is caused by a twisted idealogy fostered by autocatic regimes in the middle east is true then George W Bush is addressing the root causes by removing middle eastern dictatorships? Maybe we should go invade Syria and Saudi Arabia next (as they are big sponsors of terrorism).
Lets say your theory is true? What should we do to stop terrorism? Withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan immediately? Take away East Timor's independence? Kick all the Jewish people out of Jerusalem? Punish the Spanish for the Crusades?
Just to make it really clear - I don't agree with either of those two options above, and I'm certainly not pretending to have the answers on how to stop terrorism.
I do think that a lot of analysis of the issues are based on the whole clash of civilisations idea - which I don't think is true. Look at places like Indonesia and Turkey, where although things are far from perfect, but you have democratic governments where the overwhelming majority of people are able to get along and respect each others differences. I think most people in the world want to live a peaceful, safe and prosperous life, and reject terrorism. I think we need to treat terrorists as criminals who need to be brought to justice. I don't think that their actions should dictate anyone's foreign policy. That doesn't mean I agree with the Bush Administration or the Howard Government's foreign policies or their decision to invade Iraq.
What I do think is that any analysis of the problem that simplifies it to being about "western occupation of islamic homelands" will not come up with any lasting solutions to the problem of terrorism.
I also think that any analysis of the root causes of terrorism while dismissing Al-Qaeda's stated goals such as a global islamic state ruled by sharia law is going to be missing vital facts, and will present a distorted picture, and I think that Pamela Bone makes a very good point about pointing this out.
She also makes a very important point about the need for us to support women who are standing up against abuses of their fundamental human rights.
I will let Tom Tancredo, republican congressman for Colorado know that you consider him a terrorist.
Cheers
Cameron