On 7/17/05, Chris Doss <lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> For example, in the case of the British bombers, we
> have people assuming that they must have been
> motivated by the Iraq War, because, since they are
> Muslims (weak group vs. stronger group), they are in
> the "oppressed" class and their violence must
> therefore be an epiphenomenon upon the violence of the
> "oppressor."
Increasingly, there seems little doubt that Iraq was, at the least, one of the motivations. It _may_ well have been the tipping point for the persons in question.
At the very least, it would appear that the Brit govt was aware of this -- The Times report of Jul 10 on the report commissioned by Blair on young Muslims and extremism said: "The Iraq war is identified by the dossier as a key cause of young Britons turning to terrorism. The analysis says: "It seems that a particularly strong cause of disillusionment among Muslims, including young Muslims, is a perceived 'double standard' in the foreign policy of western governments, in particular Britain and the US." And this is given further credence by the recent report in the NYT.
Anyway, why dump on "the left" in the west as if it were so peculiar prone to think that the violence is an "epiphenomenon" -- I take it to mean "reactive"? It's a widely shared view, at least in the part of the world I come from -- but that hardly means that people must therefore also approve of it: heck, London is a world city, many have been there, and the first reaction to an attack on the London underground is a shudder. But for many, no less of a shudder for the destruction of cities, towns, villages and infrastructure in Iraq and elsewhere -- and I (and others) would also dearly love to have that two minute of silence to remember those destructions. Instead, we are now to be "condemned" forever to annual remembrances of 9/11 and 7/7 -- somehow, I don't think the Madrid bombing is going to get the same treatment, but I may well be wrong.
It's perhaps best not to confuse an analytical view -- namely that such violence is "reactive", whatever one may think of it -- with a moral one -- that "reactive" violence is "good" or even efficient/effective. It's more than possible to hold such an analytical view and simultaneously evaluate such violence as bad, immoral or, pragmatically, inefficient and ineffective.
As for racism -- which is not a point that you, Chris, raised -- why is the religious community being held to account? Rest assured that the asymmetry of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Bagram, etc. being attributed to a few "bad hats" will -- indeed, probably has -- been noted, further feeding the sense of injustice.
kj khoo