We have been told since at least 9/11/2001 that terrorists strike America because they hate us for our freedoms. And if that is true, then the only way to stop terrorism is to go after the terrorists, which means more war, most spying, more torture, and more violations of human rights. (The other option is to stop being free, which means terrorism should have already stopped based on what the government has done since 9/11.)
In the 2007/ 2008 presidential race, there was one particular moment in one Republican debate that really began a new dialogue in this country, at least for some people. Ron Paul pointed out the concept of blowback. He said that the terrorists attack us because we are over there. The term "we" is actually a reference to the U.S. government.
Rudy Giuliani acted like he was outraged by the comment and he said he had never heard that before. So it is an accepted doctrine by the establishment and the so-called mainstream media that the terrorists hate us for our freedoms. Because if that isn't the case, then it means they hate us for what the U.S. government has been doing for decades. That would mean that we could stop terrorism by simply adopting a policy of non-interventionism.
When the report on the CIA torture was recently released, there were warnings of a higher risk of terrorism. There were extra precautions being taken due to the increased risk of attacks.
By why would this be so? I thought the terrorists attacked us because we are free and they don't like our Western culture. Why would they be motivated based on some CIA report? That would mean that they hate us for more than just our freedoms.
With these reports of tightened security, has there been any reporting on the fact that people attack the U.S. because of how the U.S. government has been treating others? Is there any mention that many American people promote these policies or ignore that they are happening?
This is not a justification for terrorist attacks, as some would like to accuse. But it is a reason for terrorist attacks. And Americans have to stop believing that the government that claims to represent them can go overseas and kill people, occupy lands, torture people, and destroy property without there being any blowback.
Amazingly, there are still many Americans who are defending torture. They think, quite naively, that it is just bad guys being tortured, so who cares. But who determined that these are bad guys?
These were suspected terrorists being tortured. The key word is "suspected". They didn't get a trial. And the word "terrorist" has become completely meaningless when used by the U.S. government. It could just mean living in Afghanistan and being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It could mean being falsely accused by someone else being tortured.
If we knew for a fact that these were really bad guys and that no mistakes could be made about their guilt (which is impossible), then perhaps we could have a discussion about whether torture is moral or appropriate.
But we aren't even close to that situation. Many of these people who were tortured were completely innocent. Some of them died being tortured. The CIA was supposedly trying to extract information out of people that probably didn't have any information to give.
The CIA is an evil organization. John F. Kennedy realized this early in his presidency and began to take a stance against it. We all know how that worked out.
But most Americans will pretend this didn't happen or won't care about it. They will keep voting for their representatives to go to Washington DC to continue funding the CIA, the NSA, and all of the overseas wars and interventions.
Even if terrorists did hate us for our freedoms, I don't think we need to worry too much about that any more.