Posted on 07/20/2005 7:38:30 PM PDT by Pikamax
There are apologists amongst us The 'We told you so' lot have been bleating on about Iraq ever since the atrocities of 7/7 - it is time to fight back
Norman Geras Thursday July 21, 2005
Guardian
Within hours of the bombs going off two weeks ago, the voices that one could have predicted began to make themselves heard with their root-causes explanations for the murder and maiming of a random group of tube and bus passengers in London. It was due to Blair, Iraq, illegal war and the rest of it. The first voices, so far as I know, were those of the SWP and George Galloway, but it wasn't very long - indeed no time at all, taking into account production schedules - before the stuff was spreading like an infestation across the pages of this newspaper, where it has remained.
No words of dismay, let alone grief, could be allowed to pass some people's lips without the accompaniment of a "We told you so" and an exercise in blaming someone other than the perpetrators. No sense of what such a tragedy might call for or rule out on the first day. Exactly as if you were to hear from a distraught friend that her husband had just been murdered while walking in a "bad" neighbourhood, and to respond by saying you were sorry about this but it was foolish of him to have been walking there by himself. We had the same after 9/11; still, one nurtures the illusion that people learn. Evidently some don't.
It needs to be seen and said clearly: there are, among us, apologists for what the killers do. They make more difficult the fight to defeat them. The plea will be - it always is - that these are not apologists, they are merely honest Joes and Joanies endeavouring to understand the world in which we live. What could be wrong with that? What indeed? Nothing is wrong with genuine efforts at understanding; on these we all depend. But the genuine article is one thing, and root-causes advocacy seeking to dissipate responsibility for atrocity, mass murder, crime against humanity, especially in the immediate aftermath of their occurrence, is something else.
Note the selectivity in the way root-causes arguments function. Purporting to be about causal explanation rather than excuse-making, they are invariably deployed on behalf of movements or actions for which their proponent wants to engage our indulgence, and in order to direct blame towards some party towards whom he or she is unsympathetic.
A hypothetical example illustrates the point. Suppose that, on account of the present situation in Zimbabwe, the government decides to halt all scheduled deportations of Zimbabweans. Some BNP thugs are made angry by this and express their anger by beating up a passer-by who happens to be an African immigrant. Can you imagine a single person of left or liberal outlook who would blame this act of violence on the government's decision or urge us to consider sympathetically the root causes of the act? It wouldn't happen, because the anger of the thugs doesn't begin to justify what they have done. The root-causers always plead a desire merely to expand our understanding, but they're very selective in what they want to "understand".
If causes and explanation are indeed a serious enterprise and not merely a convenient partisan game, then it needs to be recognised that causality is one thing and moral responsibility another, though the two are related. The fact that something someone else does contributes causally to a crime or atrocity doesn't show that they, as well as the direct agents, are morally responsible for that crime or atrocity, if what they have contributed causally is not itself wrong and doesn't serve to justify it. Furthermore, even when what someone else has contributed causally to the occurrence of the criminal or atrocious act is wrong, this won't necessarily show they bear any of the blame for it.
The "We told you so" crowd all just somehow know that the Iraq war was an effective cause of the deaths in London. How do they know this, these clever people? For what they need to know is not just that Iraq was one of a number of influencing causes, but that it was the specific, and a necessary, motivating cause for the London bombings. If it was only an influencing motivational cause among others, and if, more particularly, another such motivational cause was supplied by the military intervention in Afghanistan, then it's not the case that the London bombings wouldn't have happened but for the Iraq war.
Ever on the lookout for damning causes, the root-causers never go for the most obvious of these. This is the cause, indeed, which shows, by its absence, why most critics of the Iraq war or of anything else don't murder people when they are angry. It is the fanatical, fundamentalist belief system which teaches hatred and justifies these acts of murder. That cause somehow gets a free pass from the hunters-out of causes.
There are apologists among us, and they have to be fought intellectually and politically. They do not help to strengthen the democratic culture and institutions whose benefits we all share. Because we believe in and value these, we have to contend with what such people say. But contend with is precisely it. We have to challenge their excuses without let-up.
· Norman Geras is professor emeritus in government at the University of Manchester; a longer version of this article can be found at www.normblog.typepad.com
He forgot to mention that the Guardian is the leading voice of the apologists.
"He forgot to mention that the Guardian is the leading voice of the apologists"
No, no, he points it out right at the start when he says "...the stuff was spreading like an infestation across the pages of this newspaper, where it has remained."
I think he makes the very best point here: "The root-causers always plead a desire merely to expand our understanding, but they're very selective in what they want to "understand".
That really nails these folks, past, present, and future versions. Excellent post Pikamax!
he first voices, so far as I know, were those of the SWP and George Galloway, but it wasn't very long - indeed no time at all, taking into account production schedules - before the stuff was spreading like an infestation across the pages of this newspaper, where it has remained.
It is absolutely stunning -- and quite welcome -- to read this in the Guardian. My fellow FReepers, I think things are going to change on the PC-"moderate" Muslim front...especially if terrorists attack London again. The apologists are steadily losing their room to manuever and obscure the truth.
Why does it have to wait for the next attack?
"Why does it have to wait for the next attack?"
Unfortunately, a lot of people out there need a few thousand -- hundred thousand, million, millions? -- to see what's in front of their face. Unfortunate, but what are you going to do. They're like children. Logic and reason and warnings don't work. They have to get their hands burned on the stove before they get it.
The same goes here. When our next hit comes...PC will be dead and buried. The leftist will crawl back under a rock for fear of their safety if they do the cr@p they're doing here now.
The next hit, ad nauseum. Now I think it's our job to get the Anglosphere into purge and protect mode. If the attacks continue, it'll be proof that we couldn't filter out our populations properly.
Very surprising to see this in The Guardian.
Cultural suicide.
The problem is they want the rest of us to die with them.
We out number them by a long shot. However, not until we take another major hit, will those who are sleepwalking through this appeaser and apologist phase finally wake up to the dangers we have been screaming about for years.
Positively stunning......
From the Guardian? Could the PC crap finally be ending?
Dare I hope?
I wonder if it's really going to take another hit. That's such a pessimistic view. I think something changed in a lot of people when Knight's Crossing ocurred. We talk among ourselves here as if the average politically uninvolved American doesn't care. But some of the ones I know are starting to say things like, "I get it, why don't our leaders?"
With all my heart and soul...yes.
I'm not talking about 3,000. Those numbers will pale in comparison to the carnage that will be visited on our nation the next time. It is then...we will be allowed to fight the war on terror the way it should be fought...no holds barred.
It's a shame. I've thought of the contingencies: we need to develop protocols with Russia on this, and we need to round up at least the outspoken Muslims and intern them SOON. We can stop this if we have a counterstrike plan and our zealots pooled (and swamp draining in progress).
The left and the aclu wouldn't allow it. We will have to sit and wait for another hit before the government gets serious about the WOT. As long as PC reigns, our hands are tied.
It's really up to congress, don't you think? If (and it's a big one) they could be persuaded to recognize the seriousness of our twin problems -- the domestic enemy and the foreign arms/idelogical proliferation, they might act.
Our domestic enemies are laying the ground work for the terrorist here in this country. It's only a matter of time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.