First, I think the article is absolutely correct about one thing. This
"war" has been going on for some time. We just ignored it until Sept. 11.

Second, I think there is an understandable -- please note that I'm not
saying acceptable or even reasonable -- basis for their hatred of the
U.S., and I think the article touches on a small part of it. But only a
small part of it.

Examples of bad foreign policy affecting Muslims abound. For example,
many people found it more than a little hypocritical of the U.S. to rush
to the aid of oil rich Kuwait while we did nothing about the ethnic
cleansing of Muslims in Bosnia under Father Bush. Yet I doubt that such
things could engender this type of hatred by themselves. After all, we
supported ruthless dictators in the name of the free world during cold
war. It may not have won us friends, but it didn't spark suicide bombers
either.

Rather, I think they hate us because we are winning. Our cultural values
are prevailing, and not just in Europe. Democracy, liberalism, and
materialism appear to be the wave of the future for the entire world.
Personally, I think it's a good thing that we are winning. And it's all
the more amazing when you consider that we are winning on a basis other
than military conquest of territory.

I think we will continue to win. The only way we will lose is if we give
up our values of tolerance or give in to the urge to trash our civil
liberties, etc., in response to their acts of terrorism. I'd say the
responses to Dan's posting show we have little to fear.

Norm


On Friday, September 28, 2001, at 05:36 PM, DANIEL HERRON wrote:

> I must say that my initial reaction upon reading this article was that
> I was reading the old, pathetic rationalization that "a victim of rape
> must have done something do deserve the rape."  But, I think what gnaws
> at me is the degree of hatred the terrorists must have toward the U.S.
> And, it doesn't ring true to me, at least intuitively, that these are
> just evil people who hate freedom, goodness, and apple pie.  Maybe I'm
> looking for some kind of pyscho-social-political basis for this
> unthinkable kind of behavior.
>
> Dan
>
>>>> [log in to unmask] 09/28/01 16:51 PM >>>
> I swear Frank took the concepts right out of my brain, and in the same
> order. How did he *do* that? But I;m not accusing him of plagarism or
> anything. There was no reduction to a fixed medium of expression.
>
> The opening premise is right out of the ritualistic language of bullies
> to
> make victims feel like perpetrators. "She deserved it." "The _____
> (fill in
> the blank) had it coming." In countless context, victims of persecution
> are
> invited to feel responsible for their victimhood. And sometimes they
> actually buy into the idea.
>
> And the idea that el Qada (uhh -- I didn't get the spelling down) is
> attacking us for our human rights violations is simply bizarre.
>
> Ginny
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Frank Cross" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 4:35 PM
> Subject: Re: Attached article
>
>
>> I don't find the article very compelling.  First, its thesis is:  "No
>> one
>> steers a jet into a skyscraper unless he feels he's been seriously
>> aggrieved.  One could just as easily say  "No one sets out to
>> exterminate
>> the Jewish population unless he feels he's been seriouly aggrieved."  I
>> think the statement doesn't mean much.
>>
>> Then, the article emphasizes: "What we've been doing, according to both
>> professors, is supporting governments and institutions that violate
>> human
>> rights in a manner grotesque enough to make someone want to hijack an
>> airliner and smash it into the Pentagon."  Our hands are not clean.  We
>> have historically supported bad guys.  But the absurd part is that
>> those
>> who hate us have much less respect for human rights.  Nations like
>> Afghanistan and Iraq are the worse violators.  They don't hate us
>> because
>> we have failed to respect human rights, they hate us precisely because
>> we
>> do respect them and give women rights, recognize free speech and
>> religion,
>> etc.  Our support for the Shah was bad, but it's also decades in the
>> past
>> and can't explain this.
>>
>> The conclusion is: "We should reconfigure our foreign policy to
>> emphasize
>> equity and decency"  Nice but meaninglessly vague.  Does it mean
> abandoning
>> Israel?  Does it mean letting Iraq take over Kuwait and other nations?
>>
>>
>>
>> At 04:04 PM 9/28/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>>> Attached is an article that you may find disturbing; the title
> immediately
>> explains my characterization..."Did the U.S. Ask for It?" So, delete
>> this
>> email if you're weary and not in the mood for an intellectual argument
>> about this horrific event. (Who could possible blame you?!?)
>>>
>>> My question to you, my academic and professional colleagues, is how
>>> does
>> someone answer the allegations in this article?
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>> Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Article.doc"
>>>
>> Frank Cross
>> Herbert D. Kelleher Centennial Professor of Business Law
>> CBA 5.202
>> University of Texas at Austin
>> Austin, TX 78712
>>