I've been meaning to write something for some time about the reaction many seem to have to the September 11/01 attacks. I call it the 'root cause' argument, in which a condemnation of the murder of civilians is followed by a 'but' and an apology for the crime.

I've decided that I'll let someone else make my case for me. My pinch-hitter of choice is Christopher Hitchens, a British journalist living in Washington. He's an abrasive guy who has vilified the likes of Henry Kissenger, Mother Teresa and Bill Clinton among others. His per se condemnation of religion makes me uncomfortable, but his insights into the menace of fundamentalism are worth noting.

I will only add that I think one of the roots of the 'root cause' argument is a fear of losing control. ie. If someone attacks me because of my behavior, then I'm still in control; I just have to change my behavior, and thus so will their reaction be altered. There's something perversely comforting in this. Much less comforting is the idea that nothing I can do will stop them from wanting to destroy me.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011008&s=hitchens

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/09/04/1031115884039.html