Terrorism's Root Causes

[Ed_in_Az]

Terrorism's root causes
By Cal Thomas
July 11, 2005


PORTSTEWART, Northern Ireland - British politicians and much of the U.K. media are engaged in a familiar Western practice following a terrorist attack. They think they can explain it using Western standards.

Many Americans blamed the race riots of the 1960s on racism and unemployment, which contributed to hopelessness they said only equality and prosperity could solve. That most unemployed blacks did not riot escaped the mainly white sociologists and commentators who desired a "nonjudgmental" explanation for lawless behavior. Having abandoned a sense of personal responsibility for one's actions, the explainers and excusers of evil and illegal acts in America 40 years ago have been reincarnated in Britain.

Now it is unemployment and hopelessness among Muslims that are the root cause of terrorism. Finding jobs for them so they can drive nice cars, live in upscale flats and attend West End theaters supposedly will convert them to the British way of life.

Or maybe it is evil America that caused the terrorist attacks. If only the Americans had not invaded Iraq and dragged Britain along, perhaps Britain might have been spared the bus and tube bombings.

Sometimes it takes an outsider to bring people to their senses. Former Israeli Prime Minister (and current Cabinet minister) Benjamin Netanyahu told BBC's "Breakfast" program Sunday that Iraq and other actions by Britain and America are the consequences of terror attacks, not the cause.

He said to blame Britain and the United States for causing terrorism is "reverse causality." Netanyahu recalled the numerous terror attacks before the Iraq war and prior to 9/11, noting there was Islamic terrorism before 1948 when Israel became a modern state. If recent Israeli, American and British policies cause terrorism, how does one explain earlier terrorism?

In the U.K., The Sunday Times carried a front-page story exploding the myth of a causal relationship between terrorism and poverty among Muslims. The newspaper reported on leaked Whitehall documents that show "Al-Qaeda is secretly recruiting affluent, middle-class Muslims in British universities and colleges to carry out terrorist attacks" in Britain. The targets of the "extremist recruiters" are students with "technical and professional qualifications."

These are not Muslims without a future. These are bright and educated students who, if they wished, could be productive and prosperous members of British society. But many are embracing a false theology and a god who requires them to kill "infidels."

No amount of G8 aid to the "Palestinians," nor a resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, will pacify these current and potential killers. Even if Israel were obliterated (the goal of much of the Muslim world), the terror would continue until the entire non-Islamic world is under their control.

This is not the belief of an "Islamophobic" bigot. This is what they say in their sermons and media, teach in their schools, and believe in their hearts. It matters little that "the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not terrorists," to quote a familiar Western mantra. It matters a great deal that most terrorists are Muslims. The sooner Western leaders and Western media begin stating what is obvious to most people; the quicker the real root cause can be dealt with.

The excuses given by Westerners and many Muslim clerics for terrorism are just that: excuses.

If Britain and the West are guilty of failing to adequately address the "oppression" of Muslims in Kashmir and Chechnya, do they earn points for intervening in Bosnia to protect Muslims and sending billions to the Palestinian Authority, money that went down a rat hole of corruption?

Do America and Britain win friends among Muslims for allowing them to practice their faith openly (no Muslim country offers the type of religious tolerance that Muslims enjoy in the U.S. and Britain). Why must America and Britain be held accountable for every perceived and actual slight against Muslims, but beheadings of Westerners receive little more than pro forma condemnation and are soon forgotten?

More than 25 years ago, then-British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher famously noted that we in the West make a mistake when we transpose our morality on those who don't share it. Terrorists do not share and cannot be made to share our morality.

There will be no detente, entente or peace treaty between the forces of darkness and those of light. As much as Western politicians may wish to avoid the true root cause of this war, they do so at the peril of their citizens. This is a religious war. The terrorists understand it as such. Too many in the secular and wimpishly religious West do not.

[Old Mr. Wilson]

Bill Clinton said it was base rooted in "The Crusades". Ok. So let's store up some beans and rice, ammo stacked to the ceiling, a cow in the freezer and "get ready to rock".

[davipu]

[banner]

I thought Beans are mexican food and Rice is generally Asian


What the heck kinda an american foodpile is that?

Thats too multiracial for me....

[yamahonkawazuki]

stock food like that, youll end up with a gas bomb next to your ceiling high ammo stockpile

[goat]

stock food like that, youll end up with a gas bomb next to your ceiling high ammo stockpile

supposedly people get gas after eating beans becuase their digestive tracts are not used to digesting them. So if you only ate beans and rice until the end of time, you'd eventually stop getting gas. You would get used to them, or you would blow yourself up as yama suggested. Either way, it would stop at some point in time.

[The Buddha]

See what really ticks off muslim radicals ... is to see Muslim moderates living amongst people of other faiths ... and they also cannot stand the other 1/2 of the muslim population ... sheites and sunni's ... Iraq VS Iran in the 70's ... Ironically ... Iraq was moderate ... and yea terrorism started long before Israel came to be ... Its just a freaking excuse. Religion and politics are a lethal combo ... To get votes or a foot hold of power these morons will just strike against anyhting that they can paint as a threat ... India has a lot of muslims who have lived there for 1000's of years. That in fact Pakisthan views as its biggest threat.
Cool.
Srinath.

[Stephen072774]

[callmelenny]

Here is a piece that should provoke a discussion:

I don't really see anything to discuss. There is nothing in either column that is original or insightful.  The discussion of "reverse causality" is logically flawed and is the usual misdirection employed by politicians of all leanings.

Some people here will lump people into large categories with labels and assume that all people in the group have the same ideals and actions.

Others can use the the "exception proves the rule" arguement and point to the fact that the labels are artificial and that the motivations are as individual as the people.

Terrorism is employed by the weak against the strong. It is not unique to any race, religion, or creed.  It removes many advantages of the strong, particularly when  employed in an urban setting against a  strong aggressor with little tolerance for "collateral damage". Insurgencies only end when the local populace no longer supports the actions of the terrorists.

Just my $0.02

[Jake D]

How wrong was in it in that movie "Team America: World Police" when all the terrorists spoke gibberish?

"Derka derka.  Derka derka derka."

Hint: that was so wrong!

[Stephen072774]

Some people here will lump people into large categories with labels and assume that all people in the group have the same ideals and actions.

Its obvious that all don't share the same ideas and actions.  But when the leaders of the moderates don't take a hardnose stance against the "insurgents" I fail to see just where they do stand :dunno:

[The Buddha]

[Jake D]

I do agree that the moderates within Islam should start to police themselves.  They stand to gain alot by making an effort to pull back the radicals.  I understand that this is what the new Iraqi police/millitary are charged with, but it needs to be done on a global scale.  

It is as if the moderate Muslims watch as their brothers and sisters blow themselves and everyone else to bits and then say, "Well, don't look at me!"

C'mon.  Get off your ass and help.

[callmelenny]

Its obvious that all don't share the same ideas and actions.  But when the leaders of the moderates don't take a hardnose stance against the "insurgents" I fail to see just where they do stand :dunno:

I guess my answer would be that those "leaders" are just politicians of another sort. They generally mince their words carefully in order to stay in power. That is where most of them stand.

Think of Southern politicians during the civil rights era. Some were/are true believers in the segregation system. They never faltered in their rhetoric supporting the "old south'. The majority walked a tightrope, condemning the most outrageous bombings and lynchings but also complaining about "outside agitators" and "states rights". Ultimately, many simply changed sides when it became a political necessity (e.g. Byrd and Thurmond). They stand wherever they need to to get re-elected.They either lack morals or don't apply them to their political stance regularly.

I think many in the Muslim world like to focus on the injustice they see in Palestine/Israel rather than examine their own faulty governments. Again, I think this is a general pattern of human behavior not something unique to this situation. It is much more comforting to blame a nameless outsider for your problems than to point the finger at family member or neighbor.

If you ask pro-life Christians about clinic bombings and doctor murders a few will condemn them outright while many others will say they are wrong but then qualify the statement about the violence of abortion.

[Stephen072774]

Well, I see your point, but I must still disagree.  The fact that politicians change their view/vote based on popular opinion is exactly what I would expect them to do.  They are, in fact, elected representation.  This has nothing to do with religious leaders that are "supposed" to know more than the average follower and 'teach' the masses of their particular religion.  Not to mention that the insurgents claim to be "fundamentalist", which means that they, and only they, are following the true Islam.

In a way, I guess you could argue that the entire Nation of Islam is being held and controlled by terrorists.  If you're either for us or against us, and I have a bomb, you'd tell me you were for me (at least to my face).

And Christians preach pro-life, anti-murder and to follow the laws of our country.  That's the stance by the BMA (Baptist Missionary Assoc.), and the ABA (American Baptist Assoc.)  There is no wavering on the subject by the Associations.  Thats what I'm talking about here, a stance from the guys at the top.

[callmelenny]

And Chistians preach pro-life, anti-murder and to follow the laws of our country.  Thats the stance by the BMA (Baptist Missionary Assoc.), and the ABA (American Baptist Assoc.)  There is no wavering on the subject by the Associations.  Thats what I'm talking about here, a stance from the guys at the top.

I don't mean to be argumentative and I think we generally agree but I want to clarify one thing. I don't think you are making a fair comparison in your statement. I don't doubt the position of the organizations that you cite but surely you agree that I could find plenty of groups that label themselves "christian" that have different views. You are comparing two specific groups to a smattering of muslim groups that are reported in the media (hardly a representative sample)

I think it is important to make statements as specific as possible. Saying that the mosque at 123 maple street preaches hatred and terrorism is very different than saying islam is a terrorist organization.

I would agree that there is a struggle in the Muslim world between zealots and moderates and that it is quite different than the Christian world. We in the Christian first world have gone through similar struggles in the past. I think the real challenge that we face as a nation is whether it is better to support undemocratic regimes like Pakistan that try to play by international rules or let them succumb to internal forces that may play out in unpredictable ways. I think the recent history of Iran/Iraq suggests there may be no clear answers.

In the end I think it is important to focus on the fact that terrorism/insurgency is the most effective strategy for a weak group that feels it needs to fight. It is not something that can be hunted down and wiped out. History indicates that killing more people doesn't help end it.