The Shotgun Blog
« "Therapism" -- Additional Evidence That People Respond to Incentives | Main | "The Logic of Suicide Terrorism" »
Sunday, July 17, 2005
Terrorists kill regardless of involvement in US foreign policy
Remember Gwynne Dyer's Toronto Star column from last week in which he argued that support for American foreign policy toward the Muslim world, specifically in Iraq, was the root cause of terrorism? Alastair Gordon, vice president of the Canadian Coalition for Democracies, sent a letter to the Star (which they didn't print) that responds to Dyer's nonsense:
"So the cause of the Islamic terrorist attacks in London, Spain, Bali, Brazil and Turkey is, according to Gwynne Dyer, retaliation for supporting American foreign policy toward the Islamic world.
I hope Mr. Dyer will help me understand how Western foreign policy would explain the beheading of elected officials and farmers in Thailand, the murder of 140,000 Algerians, the massacre of southern Sudanese by the Muslim north, the murder of 300 school children in Beslan, the killing of Christians in the Philippines, the rape, torture and murder of Hindus in Bangladesh, the ethnic cleansing of 50,000 and the killing of 26,000 Hindus in Kashmir, bombings in Morocco, and countless other terrorist attacks, all committed by Islamic terrorists in dozens of countries that have nothing to do with American foreign policy.
Since Mr. Dyer implies that only countries who have joined the Americans in Iraq or Afghanistan have been targeted by Muslim terrorism, then he must be unaware that any of these atrocities happened. Will he revise his opinion now that he is better informed?"
Posted by Paul Tuns on July 17, 2005 in International Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d83423c77453ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Terrorists kill regardless of involvement in US foreign policy:
» Is Paul Martin Asking for Trouble? from Colbert's Comments
Before I begin let me remind you of some of the theories put forward by the left in the wake of 9/11.
Bush knew in advance of the attack on 9/11
The Bush Administration did nothing to stop the attacks hoping they would be a smokescreen to cover dom... [Read More]
Tracked on 2005-07-17 10:23:23 PM
» Quick Links from small dead animals
A busy day, so a few quick links will have to do for now; With the offensive in Iraq by Al Qaeda working hard to monopolize the news cycle, it's time for a counteroffensive - Chrenkoff's Good News From Iraq,... [Read More]
Tracked on 2005-07-18 8:27:16 AM
Comments
Professional busy-body and champion of lowest common denominator collectivist decion making, Mr. Gordon labors under a few misguided beliefs: a) that the muslim societies he refers to in his litany of atrocities are somehow ripe for his governance prescriptions; and b) that there is no American foreign policy influence in any of the said atrocities; and c) that such episodes never occur without muslim "terrorist" involvement and in areas where US realpolitik is present.
Somebody thank Mr. Gordon for coming out.
Posted by: JC | 2005-07-17 11:58:53 PM
Every time these terrorist scum attack they keep complaining about the death of muslums at the hands of the west. As though seeing their friends and family slaughtered or watching from afar as 112000 Iraqi civilians are murdered has anything to do with their motivations.
Terrorists are such liars.
Posted by: thoseliars | 2005-07-18 12:56:36 AM
Mr. Dwyer's column linked the London bombing to the British presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. He was very specific. He was not referring to Islamic terrorism anywhere else and therefore the criticism in the letter is hardly relevant.
So far no one here has made a convincing argument that this particular act of terrorism is not related to the British foreign policy as opposed to some random fanatical hatred or western freedoms and lifestyles. In fact, Mr. Gordon's letter sort of supports Mr. Dwyer's view that these acts of terrorism are not being committed because the terrorists hate freedom, but to address specific political goals and issues. After all freedom and the western lifestyle are not thick on the ground in any of the places on Mr. Gordon's list.
Mont D. Law
Posted by: montdlaw | 2005-07-18 7:34:50 AM
Islamic terrorism, like the London bombings, is a result of one thing, and one thing only: WAHHABI ISLAM. Ever heard of it? Perhaps you should try a Google search. Perhaps you should also try reading a little book called THE KORAN. To these people, the "root cause" of their terrorism is our very existence on this earth as non-Muslims. Whether America is engaged in fighting terrorists in Iraq or Afghanistan, saving Muslims in Kosovo, or retrenching into isolationism, it makes no difference: infidels are infidels!
Posted by: NCF TO | 2005-07-18 8:45:52 AM
The problem here is that we have to guess at why they did it. As the attackers do not care to negotiate on a set of reasonable objectives we need to assume the worst: that the similar attacks world-wide, are part of a plot to destabilize the planet and take it over.
Any motive-guessing and self-doubt is fatal.
Dyer has a history of picking only certain facts and mixing in mythology to support his ideologies. He is a pissant.
Posted by: greenmamba | 2005-07-18 9:04:17 AM
The comments will not let me post my entire message, so it will be in parts.
Part I
Wow, I just finish with one case of misrepresenting views and another pops up.
Dyer did not, as Tuns seems to think, argue "that support for American foreign policy toward the Muslim world, specifically in Iraq, was the root cause of terrorism?"
Once again, I urge everyone to read Dyer’s actual text (available through google news):
In this article, Dyer is talking explicitly about the London attacks, not about terrorism in general.
Furthermore, he never says that terrorism has a single root cause, nevermind saying that the single root cause is American Foreign Policy.
Instead, he says that there is "some causal link" between terrorism in London (and the US) and foreign policy. To say that policy in Iraq is A cause, it not to assert that it is the ONLY cause. In other words, the causes of terrorism are not a simple equation of poverty=terrorism or Western foreign policy=terrorism as the Left would believe, or Islam=terrorism as the right would believe.
The fact is, that Bin Ladin and his ilk DO use the attacks on Iraq (among lots of other things including the Russian presence in Chechnya, Palestine, historical events, etc.) as a means of recruiting new members, fundraising, justifying their acts, selecting targets, etc. Acquaintances the UK bombers explicitly mentioned that the bombers were upset about Iraq and viewed it is an unjustified attack on Muslims. Were they right about this? It doesn't matter - it is PART of the reason they turned to terrorism.
Posted by: Bob | 2005-07-18 9:17:36 AM
Part II
cont'd from above
Does this mean that the attacks in Iraq CAUSED terrorism in some uni-variate direct way? Of course not. But that is the Straw Man that Tuns would have you believe that Dyer is arguing.
But it is equally absurd to argue that the attacks in Iraq have ZERO effect - that it is solely because "they hate our freedoms". The attacks clearly contribute in some quantifiable way to everything from recruitment, to fundraising, to target choice.
The correct approach is not to deny that intervention in Iraq contributes in any way to terrorism. The correct approach is to say "so what?"; to say that when you are in a war, the other side will use attacks to motivate and recruit soldiers, and they will retaliate - we expected it; to say that this is only further evidence that we are doing the right thing by intervening in Iraq; to say that despite these attacks we must continue to build a free and democratic society in Iraq, etc.
Note this is not the same as saying that the attacks on Iraq are the ONLY cause. We also need to address democracy and freedom; we also need to encourage moderate Muslims to stand against terrorism and to erradicate the hateful ideology (I see another Fatwa against the terrorists was issued), etc.
Both sides in this debate set up ridiculous straw-men that pretend Islamic terrorism has a single root cause - for the left is it supposedly ONLY about poverty or foreign policy, for the right it is supposedly ONLY about lack of democracy or about nothing except for a hateful ideology. The fact is that the causes of terrorism are multivariate and complex, and the problem deserves to be addressed comprehensively, rather than through jingoistic, partisan, straw-man arguments in which both sides pretend the other side argues for a single "root-cause". Reducing a complex problem to a single variate never allows for a complete resolution.
Posted by: Bob | 2005-07-18 9:19:53 AM
Gee Bob, you are so deep - "nuanced", I think, was the word that John Kerry used when he pretended to be the intelligent choice in last year's election. John Kerry was wrong on just about everything, as is Gwynn Dyer, as are you.
The Madrassas that the London bombers attended, the ideology the London plotters follow; and the attacks Islamic terrorists have been carrying out against the West, began long before the US entered Afghanistan or Iraq. Before Iraq, the inspirations were Israel...and America's presence in Saudi Arabia...and Western decadence...and support for the Shah...the inspirations go on and on and back and back, long before 9/11 and America's response.
Posted by: NCF TO | 2005-07-18 9:35:38 AM
Bob: Excellent analysis. But the fact remains there is one fundamental cause of this jihadist terrorism (which has no clear political goals--unlike say Chechen or Kashmir terrorism--over which one could negotiate), and it is a certain interpretation of Sunni Wahaabism/Salafism (note there is no Shia campaign of terrorism, suicide or otherwise, against the West). How does one root out that ideology? I don't know if there is any simple answer, and whatever the answer(s) it will take some long time. There is a cancer in the body of Islam; what is the cure?
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins | 2005-07-18 10:05:08 AM
Bob: Excellent analysis. But the fact remains there is one fundamental cause of this jihadist terrorism (which has no clear political goals--unlike say Chechen or Kashmir terrorism--over which one could negotiate), and it is a certain interpretation of Sunni Wahaabism/Salafism (note there is no Shia campaign of terrorism, suicide or otherwise, against the West). How does one root out that ideology? I don't know if there is any simple answer, and whatever the answer(s) it will take some long time. There is a cancer in the body of Islam; what is the cure?
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins | 2005-07-18 10:06:36 AM
Sorry about the double post above. Regarding Mr Dyer, a letter to the Kingston Whig-Standard, unpublished as far as I can tell:
'Gwynne Dyer, in his article "London bombings are directly linked to invasion of Iraq" (September 15), writes of "the invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001". But, as Mr Dyer well knows, there was no "invasion" of Afghanistan. Before the fall of Kabul to the insurgent Afghan Northern Alliance in November 2001, and the consequent collapse of the Taliban regime, there were no foreign regular combat formations in Afghanistan. The Northern Alliance did receive air support and assistance from special forces (both U.S. and British); that however is not an invasion. Substantial foreign ground combat units--including Canadian--only entered the country after the Taliban had been deposed by indigenous Afghan forces, and most of the country was under the control of those forces. Foreign units entered with the agreement of the Northern Alliance.
Remember what Senator Kerry said during the September 30, 2004, U.S. presidential debate: "Unfortunately, [Bin Laden] escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora. We had him surrounded. But we didn't use American forces, the best trained in the world, to go kill him. The President relied on Afghan warlords and he outsourced that job too. That's wrong." Some invasion.
This is no mere semantic quibble. Describing what the U.S. and U.K. did in Afghanistan as an "invasion" tends to equate those actions in people's mind with the real invasion of Iraq. That equation implicitly and wrongly calls into question the legitimacy of American and British actions in Afghanistan.'
The Star seems to have edited out of Dyer's column (same as in the Whig) the reference to the "invasion" of Afghanistan. One would hope for reasons of accuracy, but suspects for reasons of length.
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins | 2005-07-18 10:11:38 AM
Sorry again: 'Gwynne Dyer, in his article "London bombings are directly linked to invasion of Iraq" (July/July 15)...'
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins | 2005-07-18 10:13:48 AM
NCF TO,
Help me, then, to understand in a non-"nuanced" way, what causes nice young British kids to adopt a radical, extreme, violent form of Islam? What causes anyone to embrace this ideology?
The fact that the ideology exists does not, in itself, explain why it continues to exist and why it appears to be expanding to citizens of non-Arab nations.
What are the conditions that allows it to propogate? Why do some people adopt it? What convinces them that it is "right"? Simply repeating that there are "no causes" is counter-productive.
Or, in your view, is it simply a random process: x% of Muslims (no matter where or how they are raised) will, by definition, turn into terrorists?
This is certainly not the view of Bush et al. who DO identify "root causes" in the form of lack of democracy, lack of individual freedoms, etc. If we foster democracy, so the argument goes, we will create a context in which radical extremism is unable to flourish. It is hard to argue against this approach, except to note that the four London bombers all grew up in a free and open democratic society. So what caused them to embrace this radical ideology?
It seems fairly clear that ONE (of the many) of the touchstones used by radical groups to recruit members is the war in Iraq, which they portray as an illegal and immoral attack on Islam. It appears that this argument - for whatever reason - resonates with a good number of people, including for whatever reason non-muslim lefties. Again, whether they are right or wrong is irrelevant - it is what they believe.
Now, you are certainly correct to note that if we hadn't intervened in Iraq, radical groups would have used other touchstones to use as recruiting tools - to greater or lesser success. And it is for this reason that the attacks on Iraq can never be implicated as THE cause of Islamic terrorism. And the point of my post was to demonstrate that, despite what Tuns and Gordon would have you believe, this is not at all what Dyer says in his article.
But it certainly appears as if the war in Iraq may have been A factor in the recruitement of these particular four individuals among many others. To pretend that there is absolutely no relationship is ridiculous, and prevents us from addressing the problem by, for example, doing a better job of convincing moderate Muslims (and sympathetic lefties) why the intervention in Iraq was a necessary and good thing.
I hope that isn't too nuanced for you.
Posted by: Bob | 2005-07-18 12:30:55 PM
Bob, you chose to ignore my point: that Wahhabism and the Koran provide all the "root causes" necessary to understand the Islamic terrorist mindset. The network of Madrassas, training camps, and radical clerics preaching hatred in mosques worldwide is the "root cause" of terrorism. An Islamic Reformation is needed to cut out this insidious death cult. Please refer to Irshad Manji's "The Trouble with Islam" - it takes a Canadian Lesbian Muslim to call a spade a spade and let us understand exactly what we are up against.
Looking for "root causes" in the behaviour of the victims (i.e. "American Foreign Policy") is as offensive to me as asking what the Jews did to provoke Hitler into genocide.
Posted by: NCF TO | 2005-07-18 3:02:18 PM
NCF TO,
I'm not ignoring your point at all, I'm saying it is insufficient.
Again, what causes people to embrace Wahhabism? I think that the answer to this question is the key to designing strategies to prevent more people from embracing this ideology.
If we recognize, as one example, that some young disaffected British Muslim youth are "converted" to Wahhabism by arguments that use the Iraq War as justification, it is necessary for us to counter those arguments and to demonstrate why the Iraq War is good for young British Muslims.
Again, to point out that radical groups successfuly use the Iraq war to recruit member, raise funds, select targets, etc., is NOT the same as saying that they are justified to do so, nor is it the same as saying it is the only element involved. It is, however, one way to identify means of preventing people from embracing the ideology.
Posted by: Bob | 2005-07-18 3:26:38 PM
Relating to your last point, Nazi Germany was not defeated solely by killing everyone who supported the regime, but also by simultaneously convincing the "silent majority" of Germans that the ideology they were passively supporting was wrong, and empowering them to actively reject it.
Part of the problem may be that we are talking past each other by discussing the "root causes" of different phenomena.
I'm talking about what causes people to embrace and enact a pernicious ideology, and how to counter this. While you seem to be talking about what causes the ideology in the first place.
Both are worthwhile conversations.
Posted by: Bob | 2005-07-18 4:05:25 PM
The biggest question mark coming from the offending death star article is WHY an age-of-Aquarius geo-political burnout like Dyer has any credibility at all? Where modern outlaw warfare is concerned, he, like Eric Margolais, have been demonstrably wrong on virtually every nutty theory they produce. It’s so obvious that all the pseudo intellectualizing they engage in is a smoke screen for hate-America, anti capitalism and anti western culture deconstructionist notions. I’ve never seen a pair of southpaw pontiffs so virulently guilt ridden over North America’s wealth, social stability and military success….or apologetic for terror as a legitimate political statement/tool.
Frankly, Dyer is very intellectually dishonest in this piece. He’s is trying to deceitfully sell the notion that IF England had not supported the US led coalition to attack the nests of rogue theocratic despotism that produce terrorists, they would not be victims of terrorists….he conveniently leaves out the fact that Britain and British citizens were attacked by Islamic Jihad for some 5 years prior to their involvement in Iraqi theater. He fails to delineate the true London terror bombing scenario; that the perpetrators were British CITIZENS who had a viable democratic way to make political statements and change foreign policy….. but the same extremist theocratic poison that the US/UK forces were rooting out in their foreign policy spread its toxic orthodoxies to those in a free nation and had them accept the murder of fellow citizens of their democracy as a legitimate political system for change….that is what Dyer is really advocating…that free-lance revolutionary urban warriors engaging in civilian murder is a legitimate tool for social/political change.
I mean, we heard all this paisley-clad bolshevism from the very same campus radicals 40 years ago...how long can Dyer shill this tired hippy world view in light of the stark global political realities which speak to the irrelevance of out moded utopianism that places blame for all the world's ills on capitalism and GWB.
Posted by: WLMackenzie redux | 2005-07-18 4:47:16 PM
WLMackenzie redux:
"how long can Dyer shill this tired hippy world view"
So long as the paisley clad bolsheviks (read: spoiled rotton boomers who's "progressive" ideas are nothing but rank-rejectionism of their parents ideals) are still alive. And, oh yeah,occuppying the editorial boards of virtually all media, large and small in Canada.
Posted by: ward | 2005-07-18 5:09:48 PM
Bob: There was no "convincing the "silent majority" of Germans that the ideology they were passively supporting was wrong, and empowering them to actively reject it." The silent majority, or close to it, supported Hitler to the end. They were utterly defeated militarily and occupied. Then they had no ideology--Christian or Nazi--promoting continued resistance by suicide attacks.
Germans recognized the reality of their defeat. Over time most of them came to realize the evil of the doctrine that so many of them had followed until the end. Good for them.
With regard to Jihadis: How do we comprehensively defeat them? And can Muslims as a whole--unlike the Germans before defeat--realize the evil of the Jihadis and act successfully themselves to help stop them?
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins | 2005-07-18 6:07:09 PM
Mark,
"Over time most of them came to realize the evil of the doctrine that so many of them had followed until the end. Good for them."
Do you really believe it was solely the fact that they were defeated militarily that caused them to reject the nazi ideology? Or were they also convinced, in part, due to the actions of the Allies both during the war and afterwards during the reconstruction of Germany? Was it purely Germans convincing Germans, or do you think the "outside world" might have played a role as well?
Note that I did not say that Germans were "converted" before the war ended, but that the "defeat" of the ideology (which is not the same as the defeat of the nation's army), involved both military actions and "cultural" actions that helped convince Germans that a nazi ideology was evil.
"With regard to Jihadis: How do we comprehensively defeat them? And can Muslims as a whole--unlike the Germans before defeat--realize the evil of the Jihadis and act successfully themselves to help stop them?"
I imagine it is impossible to "comprehensively defeat them", just as it was impossible to completely erradicate the Nazi ideology. However, I'm optimistic that Bush is probably on the right track by promoting democracy and individual freedom, etc. I'm also optimistic that moderate Muslims do "realize the evil of the Jihadis" and will "act successfully themselves to help stop them" There are positive signs everywhere you look. Perhaps not as quickly as some would like, but it is happening.
One that that is certain, is that simply saying "Muslim Terrorists kill because of an ideology of hate", does nothing to address the reasons WHY some Muslims embrace this ideology in the first place. Certainly for some individuals it is a matter of childhood upbringing. But for many others - including the 4 London bombers - it was a conscious decision made later in life. Why?
A successful strategy has to include preventing future people from embracing these beliefs, and this will involve more than simply military victories. To do so, it is necessary to attempt to understand the conditions in which individuals turn to these beliefs. Clearly there is a void in the life of certain individuals that they believe can be filled by embracing an extreme ideology - what is the nature of that void and how can we fill it with something else?
In any case, I don't think we will be able to solve this on a back of a napkin or in a blog comments section.
Posted by: Bob | 2005-07-18 6:44:35 PM
Bob has obviously never studied Islam...
Folks.....Islam is your root cause.....for 1400 years Islam when it could, was butchering and enslaving peoples as per the teachings of the Quran and Sunnah....until we realize this, we are not going to be able to defeat the forces of Darul Islam........the terrorists are not abberant in their understanding of what Islam is all about........indeed, the moderate muslims are the ones that are abberant.....
America and Israel could completely disappear from the world map and you would have the same problem.......Islam hates everything but Islam....
Until you read and learn what Muhammed was all about, you will be short selling yourself about what we really face....Islam has never quit its blitzkrieg against East or West........it only went too sleep for awhile....
Posted by: Albertanator | 2005-07-18 7:33:36 PM
Bob: "Do you really believe it was solely the fact that they were defeated militarily that caused them to reject the nazi ideology?": Yes.
"..the "defeat" of the ideology (which is not the same as the defeat of the nation's army), involved both military actions and "cultural" actions that helped convince Germans that a nazi ideology was evil.": I believe that military defeat was the only thing that mattered. Cultural actions during the war were irrelevant, and after the war the "soft" Western allied policies vs. the "hard" Soviet policy both produced the same result, in one sense, rejection of National Socialism. Proved a loser, so then look for something new.
Why is a horrific ideology taken up? One feels aggrieved and it makes one feel good. Satisfying the feelsing of being aggrieved cannot be dealt with rationally. See all the concessions on reparations to Weimar Germany, then the appeasement of Hitler.
"..it is necessary to attempt to understand the conditions in which individuals turn to these beliefs. Clearly there is a void in the life of certain individuals that they believe can be filled by embracing an extreme ideology - what is the nature of that void and how can we fill it with something else?"
It's not just individuals but whole societies. It is not up to "us" to fill their void; it is up to us to defend ourselves to the extent necessary. It is up to them to deal constructively with their own problems.
As the Germans, Italians and Japanese have mainly done. And the Russians and Chinese, sadly, have not. But they have not lost a major war recently.
Thanks for the discussion.
Mark
Posted by: Mark Collins | 2005-07-18 7:45:17 PM
To the Jihad apologists: Althoigh there are more rational and passive muslims than there are fundamentalist muslim extremists, Islam has never undergone the much needed liberal refermation of its church which western Christian church did. As a natter of fact the opposite occured. Islam was "radicalized" by it's only prophet.
The inquisition was a Christian "Jihad" of sorts where the active rooting out, torture and murder of "infidels" to the true faith was encouraged by the church of Rome's pontiffs....then many enlightened theologians in the faith saw the hypocrisy if this policy and demanded substantive reform...or they broke from the church of Rome and founded the many sects of liberal Chritianism we see today.
This much needed process of the rejecting fundamentalist extremism has never "officially" happened in the Muslim faith. Jihad is very much a part of their belief systems and only veries in degrees of intensity from benign prayer to the fundamentalist violence. Islam is long over due, and in great need of, their own Martin Luther.
Posted by: WLMackenzie redux | 2005-07-19 6:28:55 AM
Folks.....Islam is your root cause.....for 1400 years Islam when it could, was butchering and enslaving peoples as per the teachings of the Quran and Sunnah....until we realize this, we are not going to be able to defeat the forces of Darul Islam........the terrorists are not abberant in their understanding of what Islam is all about........indeed, the moderate muslims are the ones that are abberant.....
So then we loose. Because if you're correct the only way to win the war on terror is to kill every Muslim in the world. And we are several hundred years past that being a possibility.
Mont D. Law
Posted by: montdlaw | 2005-07-19 10:16:54 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.