Guest-blogging at normblog, Eve Garrard looks at the root causes argument so often used to exonerate terrorism.
PJ Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that PJ Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. Please note that comments are reviewed by the editorial staff and may not be posted immediately. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pjmedia.com.
Blair wants to have a conference on Islamic terrorism.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050720/ap_on_re_eu/britain_bombings/nc:716;_ylt=Ah4iJTi7Q1RzwGYa5YBdlqp34T0D;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
And . . . British Muslim leaders want a judicial inquiry into what “motivated” the four “homegrown” suicide bombers. I wonder what good it will do to hold the inquiry. We already have a pretty good clue – likely those preaching hate in the community, in which all these leaders have to do is take a much firmer, concrete stand and be proactive, physically if needs be, to toss these speakers out.
That is a lucid and coherent exegesis and amplification of the moral intuitions of most of us who have begun to see the world differently since 9/11, and probably of many who had been wise enough to wake up even before that terrible day.
Jamie Irons
Excellent essay, well thought-out and thought-provoking.
The problem with appealing to the “root causes” of violence to explain them is simply that our brains are complex, the things that influence how and what we think are myriad and interact with one another in ways that we can only predict at the most gross statistical level, and the percentage of variance that remains unexplained is 99.99% (I made up the number, but you get the idea).
We can’t even agree that the root cause of eating is hunger – Oprah will tell you that, like as not, you eat to fill a spiritual hole. Or maybe you are under stress. Or maybe you have a serotonin deficit.
So how the heck can we point to a person and say “the root cause of his violent act was X“?
Freedom and democracy are associated with a reduced tendency to commit acts of terrorism (we think), but how? I don’t know. Maybe the cause is direct, maybe the two have a common cause, maybe there is some chain of conditions that leads from one to the other, maybe the association is a fluke. As far as I know, fewer terrorists have come from repressive Communist China than from Democratic Ireland, despite the roughly 325:1 discrepancy in population size.
The only “root cause” argument that I really accept is an appeal to the moral and conventional restraints placed on our behavior by the expectations of those with whom we interact. Even that only explains some of the variance. Beyond that, we respond to situations in highly idiosyncratic ways.
Well to hear the mayor of London tell it the root cause of terrorism is the CIA and American foreign policy.
I thought about sending that idiot an email and explaining to him that the CIA did not create Osama that weird religion of his did, but then I thought why bother? Why interfere with his comforting little narrative?
blame America
blame America
the root of all evil.
I read that Osama hated the CIA and America twenty years ago as much as he does now.
Maybe it has nothing to do with us. Maybe we are just handy.