Slow Motion.

A few days ago, I wrote about the language of terror. My intent is not to excuse the actions of the terrorists – what they did was wrong, there’s no doubt about that. The problem, however, is the absolute refusal of mainstream media and discussions to explore the reasons why these people felt they had to resort to violence in such a public, large-scale manner. I think it’s absolutely daft to bury our heads in the sand and not look for answers. I would think that after being attacked, one of the first questions people would ask once the dust had settled is why?

The unfortunate thing is that there seems not to be much information out there as to why these people want our attention. It seems like to seriously ask ‘why’ is to somehow mark yourself as a ‘terrorist sympathiser’. As though engaging in discussions and diplomacy with the terrorists is a cop-out to all the people that have died, and an admission that we’re weak, because we’re willing to listen.

Well, excuse me, but that’s bollocks.

If talking to the terrorists will help us stop the needless killing of more civilians, then I’m all for it. If diplomacy and sensitivity is what it takes, then why aren’t we trying?

So this is the question: why? Why did the terrorists attack the US on that day? What is the purpose they are trying to achieve? What do they want from the US, and from all of us?

That’s the question I’m asking, and the question to which I’ll be searching for answers.

Meanwhile, here’s an excerpt from the book, in which Richard Jackson quotes from Peter Bergen’s book, Holy War, Inc.: Inside The Secret World of Osama bin Laden, then comments on it:

[From Bergen’s book:] “In all the tens of thousands of words that bin Laden has uttered on public record, he does not rail against the pernicious effects of Hollywood movies, or against Madonna’s midriff, or against the pornography protected by the US Constitution… bin Laden cares little about such cultural issues. What he condemns the United States for is simple: its policies in the Middle East… the continued US military presence in Arabia; US support for Israel; its continued bombing of Iraq; and its support for regimes such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

The hijackers who came to America did not attack the headquarters of a major brewery or AOL-Time Warner or Coca-Cola, nor did they attack Las Vegas or Manhattan’s West Village, or even the Supreme Court. They attacked the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, preeminent symbols of the United States’ military and economic might.”

And Jackson’s comment on this quote:

In other words, bin Laden attacked America for clearly defined political reasons, in the belief that just as the 1983 suicide bombings drove American forces out of Lebanon, and just as a sustained terrorist campaign drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan, so too would terror attacks force America to change its policies in the Middle East. Within this alternative narrative, the reasons America was attacked take on a whole new meaning, and the attackers actually emerge as rational and complex political actors rather than one-dimensional hate-filled anti-modernists.

I would argue that seeing the terrorists in this light actually makes them scarier than the alternative: irrational and simple-minded religious extremists. To see them as being rational means that each time they strike a target, it’s with a specific intent and purpose. They have objectives, and killing civilians is a part of that.

Writing them off as irrational religious extremists, then, is a dangerous line to take as it oversimplifies the issue.

Instead, we need to be asking the questions, and engaging in dialogue with the terrorists and their leaders, to find out what they want. It’s not good enough to simply assume we know – this isn’t a game. Real people’s lives are at stake, and it’s not worth the pride of a politician to jeopardise that.