Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

'told you so' vs 'nothing justifies this'

13:26 / 22.07.05

i have just finished reading this article by norman geras and find myself more than a little irritated.
its seems to be another example of the drive to paint anyone who tries to explain the reasons people might blow things up as apologists, and therefore part of the problem. included in this is the idea that one is dismissive of the dead, and perhaps even relishes the attacks.

what stops people from seeing that their anger at the deaths of their countrymen is analogous to the anger of other nationalities at the deaths of their countrymen?
why is it not largely acceptable to say that if 11/9 inspired the invasion of two nations by coalition forces that it seems fair to extend that same logic to the victims of other violence?

i dont like understanding the motives of terror being described as apologising for it.

battered left syndrome, or how the left loathe themselves, their country, freedom, the hand that feeds, etc...
a rebutal from znet, kinda.

15:02 / 22.07.05

I will say that I was impressed that the Mayor of London said 'hey, these people are pissed off because of US/UK policies over the past 25 years and marginalization of the Middle East and so-called 'Third World' ....'

To say things like that isn't EXCUSING terrorism, it's not APOLOGIZING for terrorism, it's just trying to UNDERSTAND why these people would actually choose to kill/blow themselves up/devote themselves to waging war on a certain group of people.

Unfortunately, right-wingers tend to hear this and say "terrorist sympathizer!"

someone can lose his mind and kill his wife in a fit of rage, and if the wife belitted and hurt him, cheated on him, treated him like crap, we can say after the murder 'well, this is what drove him to it' without approving of his murdering his wife. When you look at the politics of the US/West towards the MidEast and 3rd world countries, it's been a lot more than neglect and some abuse, people have died/been killed/starved at the hands of US foreign and economic policy. So like it or not, we have to admit that our actions had some role in creating this new wave of terrorism. Not to mention creating people like Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

Blair scolded the London mayor for saying this - but I think Blair isn't stupid enough not to realize that there is truth in it. But it would be bad politics for the leader of the US/UK to say "Gosh, we did screw up and sort of contribute to these people hating us so much, didn't we?"

15:36 / 22.07.05

its not just right-wingers, though.
my uncle, an eminently sensible and middle of the road sorta chap becomes horrifed if i attempt to describe suicide bombers as desperate people taking the only option they percieve against an aggresor.
as you say, you dont have to agree with the murder to understand the motive.
i suspect people fear being able to understand the killer because it makes them confront that how they would feel in the same situation is not all that different.
i might doubt i could murder anyone, but i can certainly imagine feeling some sympathy for my countrymen doing so if the people they murdered were demonstrably the ones trying to kill me and my family.
you only have to look at the mood around the shooting of the possible bomber today.
a lot of folks seem to me to feel quite good about seeing actual fighting going on on their behalf.
'met fires first shots in the war on terror', etc.
where it falls down, i guess, is how we all define 'demonstrable'.

Regrettable Juvenilia

15:39 / 22.07.05

Jesus, where does the Guardian find these fucking people? And why do they publish them? The Sun won't publish a nice rebuttal to its raving "out brave boys are being persecuted by political correctness whilst bombers' pal walks the streets!" headlines. Oh for a left-wing paper with the courage of its convictions.

All Acting Regiment

10:07 / 23.07.05

I suppose if the Guardian didn't auto-criticise it could be accused of lacking impartiality. Still, even if it did print only left wing views it would still be balancing the overall media opinion as opposed to skewing it to the left.

With regards to getting the right wing to understand the motives of terrorists (or indeed that they have motives other than being "hateful", "evil" etc), perhaps it takes a neutral -aligned body or commentator to make the case? But does such a position exist?

11:17 / 23.07.05

Oh for a left-wing paper with the courage of its convictions.

We've been here before, I know, but I think this underlies a misunderstanding of what the Guardian tries to do. It does not have a single left wing line. Rather, it tries to represent some spectrum of left wing opinion. And by any reasonable measure, Norman Geras is a left winger.

11:50 / 23.07.05

perhaps it takes a neutral -aligned body or commentator to make the case?

as flyboy and lurid have demonstrated above, one's categorisation of the views one comes across is not dependant entirely upon their content, but on one's own preferences.
any commentator who even comes close to explaining the motives of a suicide bomber would be seen as a left wing apologist by lots of folks in much the same way as flyboy sees geras as right wing for his opinions.
it wont work unless rush limbaugh starts talking about it, or maybe ann coulter...

13:56 / 23.07.05

Concurring with Ken Livingstone coming out of this saying the right thing. He is obviously pasionate about a lot of things, and shows a considerable intellegence in referring to more than just Iraq as a means for a reason (going back to the West's arrogence at it's treatment of Arab nations from the First World War onwards). On a personal note, I've been discussing this a lot with friends, and have found that the thing that rancors me most is the 'we condem the attacks, but you should have expected it' line that a lot of people have been throwing around - not apologising, not being perceieved as apologising but more the fact that this always seems to be cyclical, rather than saying, right this has happened, we need to do something it seems like the age old, yeah this has happened, but because you did this of world politics, which just leaves my mind screaming. Pakistan's PM has seemingly used to whole thing to his own ends, rhetoric of how we were asking for it to his people, while making a few arrests of people he doesn't like to make it seem like he's doing something. There was a fantastic clip on C4 news the other night, he was saying how England has brought it upon itself by upholding such beliefs as freedom of speach, human rights etc (and I'm slightly paraphrasing, but he did indeed say that human rights thing as though such a belief is a bad thing!). Yes the world is grey, but the rhetoric of politics and the media is so stupidly black and white as to be dangerous and infuriating in equal measure.

07:03 / 24.07.05

On a personal note, I've been discussing this a lot with friends, and have found that the thing that rancors me most is the 'we condem the attacks, but you should have expected it' line that a lot of people have been throwing around

i don't really see what the problem is with that, and i'm afraid i wasn't sure where you were going with it in the rest of your post. after years of shady foreign policy doings, surely Americans like myself should have expected (and in all too few cases, did expect) something like 9/11 to happen at some point? and just as surely British citizens should have expected this sort of retaliation for aiding and abetting us in Iraq, no?

to say that one should have expected something to follow as the logical and inevitable consequence of one's own actions is in no way meant to excuse anybody, but rather to get people to understand ways in which they may have contributed to a situation which then came back to bite them on the ass. preferably done with an eye on ways that those same people can perhaps take corrective action in the future and avoid producing future backlash with attempts at retaliation.

09:27 / 24.07.05

Well, Geras would probably reply that the expectation of a backlash isn't usually framed neutrally. I think he makes particular analogies to illustrate the point....what if we liberlised immigration policy and had a BNP backlash? Some would claim this was entirely predictable. But you can imagine that this "predictability" was really being used as a smokescreen for sympathy with the BNP. Geras thinks the same thing is going on here.

09:39 / 24.07.05

My problem with it is that there seems to be an inability to condem actions against innocents with out using it as a platform to make a point. Granted I'm not making myself very clear, but that's because this is something that is still being thought about by myself, but there does seem to be a sitting on the fence attitude adopted by a lot of people who are getting a vocal platform from these events, too much it's terrible and all, but... so that they make sure that they don't upset anyone. Plus rather than saying well you should have expected this, how about someone saying, right, that's wrong, then moving on to address it, rather than doing the whole looking to the past and blaming events ect. Plus if these attacks are supposed to be attacks against supporters of war in Iraq or the men who ordered these attacks, then maybe I missed the whole thing about commuters and office workers being pro- Bush, Blaire, Battles, Invasions etc. Frankly I find terrorism unjustifiable, whoever is undertaken it, whatever their reasons.

10:17 / 24.07.05

Some would claim this was entirely predictable.

i would.
it would be, though.
a bunch of known racists are quite definitely going to get upset by more people of races other than their own moving in.
i wouldnt be i any way supportive of the BNPs hypothetical anger. i would say, however, that you would be a fool not to expect it.
even if you think invading iraq was exactly the right thing to do (as geras does, hence his somewhat slanted analogy) you would be a fool not to expect some kind of backlash.
to deny only makes one appear blinkered and unaware.

Regrettable Juvenilia

12:26 / 24.07.05

Frankly I find terrorism unjustifiable, whoever is undertaken it, whatever their reasons.

Why did you feel the need to state this, when nobody has said otherwise?

15:39 / 24.07.05

Because the implication lies that in saying that we should expect terrorist relatiation for such and such historical reason, then at some level there is the suggestion that this is a justification for such an action. It may not be a justification in the sense that it is saying that it is fair, it is however suggesting that there is an understandable motive for such actions. My statement was made meerly to distinguish that, whatever my rhetoric, I lay on neither side of the posted fence, ie I am not saying that it is hardly suprising, nor am I suggesting that if you disagree you are against me. I am however saying, in line with my earlier statements, that I find the tone of the 'condemnation, however you should have expected it' rhetoric that many have used (mainly polititions) being un untrue one and one used simple to justify an arguement or to make a point that favours their ideology. I was not, however, as the tone of your question implies (though correct me if I'm wrong) attempting to adopt a moral high ground that suggests that anyone saying otherwise obviously condones the actions of a terrorist group.

Regrettable Juvenilia

16:30 / 24.07.05

So you don't see the value of analysis that take into account history, or global politics?

According to Miriam-Webster online, 'justified' means "to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable". Could you provide a couple of examples of politicians or commentators who have said that incidents such as the bombings in London were just, right or reasonable?

17:13 / 24.07.05

Flyboy, you misunderstand - I have said earlier about how I commend Livingstone's maturity in not just jumping on the it's because of Iraq band wagon, and mention the West's arrogence in it's treatment of the Arab nations over several generations, my point is that the rhetoric used is not analysis, it is the safe double speak of politics, it is the condemnation, but you should have expected it, which plays both sides safely. This does little to help any analysis. It's fair to look towards possible dangers, but when they occur it helps nobody to play the blame card, if the blame card is only to serve a face saving purpose. There are example of many what you may term militant minded people who have had plenty of column inches in the press for the last couple of weeks who have said that the actions were justifiable, that the west should expect such actions. Again, however, you misunderstand, I said that there is a suggestion that this is a justification for such an action. It may not be a justification in the sense that it is saying that it is fair, it is however suggesting that there is an understandable motive for such actions, a reasonable suppositon of purpose.

17:43 / 24.07.05

There are example of many[...]who have had plenty of column inches in the press for the last couple of weeks who have said that the actions were justifiable

can you show us links for that?

I said that there is a suggestion that this is a justification for such an action.

yes. you did.
i still dont get it.
are you suggesting that by explaining the connection between two sets of actions i am giving tacit support, however partial, to killing?
justification, as has been pointed out, is not the same as explanation. for me to say something is understandable may suggest to you that it is also laudable, but to me the two are seperate.

It may not be a justification in the sense that it is saying that it is fair, it is however suggesting that there is an understandable motive for such actions, a reasonable suppositon of purpose.

uh huh.
and?
to suggest that some people react badly under pressure and to go on to describe the pressure that led to a specific instance of extremely bad behaviour is to in some way support such behaviour?
i disagree, quite strongly.

please, clarify if i am mistaken.

Regrettable Juvenilia

18:18 / 24.07.05

Benny, I was trying politely to avoid having to come out and say "You obviously don't know what the word 'justified' means." Oh well.

You obviously don't know what the word 'justified' means.

18:32 / 24.07.05

1. Column inches, only in the papers, I will check websites around to see if there are links, but at present, no I don't.

2 and 3. I have not said that those explaining the link from action a to action b are suporting action b, I am saying that the manner in which rhetoric has been used to make a point without giving due cause and consideration to action a is what upsets me.

At no point have I meant to say that analysis of events or discussion about events is a justification of the events - I have said that the rhetoric of many employed, the 'we condemn the attacks, but...' approach, to be unsaviory to me, personally.

18:34 / 24.07.05

Flyboy, "suggestion" is the key here.

Regrettable Juvenilia

18:39 / 24.07.05

So... You don't think that the people behind the bombings had a motive? Or you don't think that there's any merit to be had in discussing that motive? Help me out here.

18:47 / 24.07.05

I haven't said either of those things - what I have said is that some of the language used suggests that taking the easy route of saying that action b was caused by action a implies that this is being used as a justification for action b. I am urging discussion of what action a is, as I have found the 'it was Iraq' line a little flimsy. My problem lies in the inability of many people to seeming condemn any action as they feel that such a condemnation shows weakness or support to one side or the other. It makes the 'we condemn these actions' line given by many seem empty if they are going to say 'but you deserved it' straight after without giving any thought as to a) why it happened b) what made somebody undertake such an action. My writting hasn't been too clear on this, obviously, but as I said, I am still mulling over this.

19:27 / 24.07.05

My problem lies in the inability of many people to seeming condemn any action as they feel that such a condemnation shows weakness or support to one side or the other.

i guess where this gets confused is when you say stuff like that without first aiming your text-gun.
did i say something like that?
i dont think i did, i dont think you think i did, but i am wondering who is making all these suggestions, showing support and giving the tacit consent.
are you talking about george galloway or something?
or maybe someone in another thread?
if you could be specific about it i might be able to pick through it withyou and find out where and how we agree more accurately.

i condemn violence aimed at innocent parties in the strongest terms possible, and that includes the violence which has been the motivating factor for the creation of such groups as al quaeda or, say, the tamil tigers.
while i condemn the actions of groups who attack innocent subjects of the country i live in, i feel that to ignore violence perpetrated by our own governments is morally indefensible and, as the ones making the decisions that lead to that violence are our representatives, someting we should seriously examine.

which is my position, or as close as i can get to it with this little sleep.

19:41 / 24.07.05

Ahh, sorry, I see now. I wasn't aiming my coments at any posters at all, it was more a thinking aloud about the thread summary and title (hence the 'finding it unjustifiable' line). I only read through quickly the previous posts.

I completely agree with you Toksik. My points were aimed more at the voices I was reading in the paper, a lot of the MP's and Muslim Council and the Pakistani PM and Saudi consulate's comments that I saw on the C4 news left me feeling very uncomfortable, the line in which the Pakistani PM said that the UK should expect such actions because of it's stance on freedom of speach and human rights was just amazing.

I know that my writting style is often misunderstood as I tend to ignore punctuation marks (especially when quoting) and it can be a little chatty, so sorry about that. But I do agree entirely that we need to look at the reasons why this happened, beyond the stance of some voices out there that say 'we should have expected it because of Iraq'.

Nobody should expect to be indiscriminately killed by another person as they attempt to go about their daily life.

19:56 / 24.07.05

perhaps i should have been clearer about the title.
i feel it is a false dichotomy, one that is often set up by commentators, and i wanted to highlight that.
some of those commentators would see me as justifying the attacks purely for examining the motive of the terrorists, i feel.

Regrettable Juvenilia

08:28 / 25.07.05

Denunciation doesn't work, says David Clark, in a piece clearly responding in part to Geras' piece. Worth reading, Benny.

No one doubts that the bombers are in the grip of an evil ideology. The question, unanswered in the acres of newsprint devoted to rubbishing the suggestion that terrorism is a political phenomenon, is why this ideology has grown in its appeal to young Muslims. To put it in the simplistic Manichean terms favoured by some, why is there more evil around than there used to be? On this there is nothing but silence.

The moral denunciation of terrorism is psychologically comforting, and no less necessary for that in view of the trauma suffered by Londoners. While it is important to stigmatise terrorism, that in itself offers little prospect of bringing it to an end. Do suicide bombers really care what we think of them? Those who indulge in condemnation to the exclusion of everything else have failed to produce a single useful policy prescription, or even the semblance of a coherent analysis, that might equip us to deal more effectively with the threat we face. They have nothing positive to contribute to the debate about what needs to happen next.