“Americans are asking, 'Why do they hate us?' They hate what we see right here in this chamber: a democratically-elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms – our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.”

President George W. Bush, during an address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American people, United States Capitol, Washington, DC, September 20, 2001.

"This is not a battle between the United States of America and terrorism, but between the free and democratic world and terrorism. We therefore, here in Britain, stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our American friends in this hour of tragedy."

Prime Minister Tony Blair, during an address to the British people on September 11, 2001.

When, exactly, did this happen? How did this mindless conflation – of ‘democracy’, ‘freedom’ and ‘values’ with the events of 9/11 – occur? Perhaps most importantly of all, why did we allow it to happen instead of crying foul as soon as it was first brought up?

If we are to learn any lessons from 9/11, and if the deaths of nearly 3,000 innocent people are not to be in vain, we must be very cautious in assessing exactly why the attacks occurred. Dismissing them as the work of suicidal fundamentalist maniacs, hell-bent on ascending to some kind of notional paradise and motivated by nothing more than an irrational hatred of Western values, may be the simple and convenient way out; however, it also smacks of intellectual cowardice, self-righteous bluster and a latent disregard for the truth.

There are several reasons why the asinine “They hate us for our freedoms!” gibberish has been allowed to flourish – even though now, nearly six years after September 11, 2001, few astute onlookers actually believe it – and they’re well worth enumerating here as the anniversary of the attacks approaches.

The first problem lies with George W. Bush himself and his oft-lamented lack of mental agility. To my mind, there are two basic possibilities at hand: firstly, Bush may understand that the events of 9/11 have rather more complex antecedents than simple freedom-hating, but he is just too stupid to comprehend them fully; or, secondly, that he truly believes his own rhetoric in this regard. If the former is true then it’s safe to assume that his speechwriters – who, following the ‘election’ of Dubya in 2000, had to figure out a way of dumbing-down their output in order to render it suitable for a president who is incapable of uttering anything of more than ten syllables in length without the aid of phonetic cue-cards – came up with the ‘freedom’ angle as a form of political soundbite, the kind of trite over-simplification with which even Bush could deal. If the latter applies, it’s far more likely that Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld and co. simply told Bush that “the terrorists hate our freedoms”, aware that attempting to explain anything more complicated would probably necessitate the use of a sock-puppet and a can of Alphabetti Spaghetti.

Had Bush been less lacking in the IQ department, we may never have been force-fed this trivial nonsense about freedom-hating terrorists who resent our way of life. As things stood, however, it was inevitable that the whole complicated issue would have to be simplified for Bush’s consumption, a process which then infected the world as a whole.

A second problem lies with the covert nature of post-Vietnam US foreign policy. Chalmers Johnson, a CIA consultant between 1967 and 1973 and professor emeritus at the University of California, San Diego, was interviewed by Eugene Jarecki for his 2005 documentary Why We Fight. Here’s what he had to say:

“Blowback. It’s a CIA term. ‘Blowback’ does not mean simply the unintended consequences of foreign operations; it means the unintended consequences of foreign operations that were deliberately kept secret from the American public, so that, when the retaliation comes, the American people is not able to put it in context, to put cause and effect together. Then they come up with questions, like, ‘Why do they hate us?’ Our government did not want the forensic question asked, ‘What were their motives?’, and instead chose to say ‘They were just evildoers.’”

The term ‘blowback’ – first deployed in March 1954 in a (recently declassified) CIA report and pertaining to an operation geared towards overthrowing Mohammed Mossadegh’s Iranian government the previous year – is instructive. Indeed, such covert operations, hidden from the view of the American public after the interventionist PR nightmare that was the Vietnam War, lie at the heart of the 9/11 issue.

The aforementioned operation, along with many others, served to cement the USA’s reputation in the Muslim world as a loathed and implacable enemy; the stationing of American troops in Saudi Arabia, propping up an oppressive regime in one of the holiest Muslim lands, was the final straw. It was all but inevitable, then, that some form of retaliation would ensue… and so it proved. Castigatory attacks upon American embassies and military targets became the norm during the 1980s and 1990s, but 9/11 represented the ultimate realisation of the al-Qaeda ideal. Thanks to the clandestine manner in which the USA perpetrated their policies, however, the public was willing to buy into the ‘freedom-hating’ spiel in lieu of a more obvious, more legitimate explanation for these assaults. Indeed, American public support for their government was at an all-time high following 9/11, a fact which Bush exploited to the hilt when mapping out his ‘War on Terrorism’.

A third key issue in understanding 9/11 and its aftermath must lie at the door of New Labour. When Bush espouses a point of view, his speech littered with clumsy malapropisms and laced with that perpetual redneck drawl, intelligent people of all ages, shapes, colours and sizes remain unconvinced; however, when a well-educated and infinitely more eloquent man such as Tony Blair repeats the same sentiments, they appear to have a far greater sense of validity, superficially-speaking. Accordingly, when Blair proved himself willing to repeat Bush’s crude and one-dimensional claptrap parrot-fashion, the idea of shadowy cartoon villains, dwelling in caves and hating us for our freedoms, didn’t seem quite so ridiculous to some. Blair must, therefore, bear some of the culpability for a catalogue of idiotic pronouncements which must, in truth, have made the Oxford-educated Prime Minister wince with embarrassment.

Fourthly, bin Laden himself has to accept a portion of the blame for this crass state of affairs. Admittedly, he does make some effort in his videotaped messages to explain the role played by US foreign policy in bringing about the attacks he sponsors, and last year’s referencing of William Blum’s excellent book Rogue State was a particularly unique way of drawing attention to this factor, but all too often he descends into the same over-the-top speechifying which marks Dubya’s public addresses. People may be less inclined to buy into Blair and Bush’s pseudo-explanations for events like 9/11 if their perpetrators were clearer about their motives, but the excessive religious dogma of which OBL is so fond tends to render his (few) reasonable points utterly moot.

Quite aside from anything else, as both Bill Maher and David Cross have been quick to point out, if the terrorists really hated ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’ then the Netherlands – to use Cross’s pithy phrase – “would be fucking dust” by now. American society is not the beacon of autonomy which George W. Bush and his ilk like to proclaim. It never has been, in truth, but it has probably never been further from this naïve ideal than it is today, courtesy of the Patriot Act and sundry similar draconian measures undertaken by the neocon incumbents. Why would America be the target of the terrorists’ ire if freedom were the only thing they hated, when there are many nations across the globe which enjoy a far greater degree of actual liberty? It just doesn’t make sense.

Having covered the fraudulent reasons given by our leaders for the events of 9/11 and the hatred felt for Westerners by Islamic fundamentalists, let’s briefly examine some of the actual grounds upon which their antipathy was built.

I’ve already mentioned the colossal role played by US foreign policy in bringing about this state of play, so rather than explaining why it’s so bad I’ll just list a few of the most egregious examples thereof, in addition to those described above. For instance, following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which prompted the USA to provide financial and tactical support to mujahideen rebels until the Soviet forces were defeated, the American leaders soon removed their support and left the country a devastated wreck. Osama bin Laden, one of the rebel leaders who had benefited from CIA assistance, was infuriated, and the seeds of 9/11 were irrepairably sown. In addition to the aforementioned military presence in Saudi Arabia and the ongoing interference in Middle Eastern affairs, especially those of Iran and Iraq, this is perhaps the most significant cause of anti-Western sentiment on the part of al-Qaeda and its affiliates. Let’s not forget the August 1998 bombing of the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, partly motivated by alleged (and still unproven) ties between the plant’s owners and al-Qaeda, which caused unimaginable suffering to the people of the region who were denied access to fundamental medical supplies as a result of the attack.

One must also acknowledge the pernicious influence of hard-line Islam, which dictates the need for holy war in order to convert all apostates to the teachings of Allah and the Prophet Mohammad. While this extremist attitude is by no means common to all Muslims – and while it will never equate to anything as trivial as freedom-hating, no matter how often Blair and Bush try to claim otherwise – it does serve to explain, at least to some extent, the reasoning behind attacks such as those carried out on 9/11. As long as there are those who seek to enforce these fundamentalist ideas, there will be terrorist atrocities.

These didactic crusaders may not be overly-keen on freedom, at least in the sense of women’s rights and the ability to choose one’s religious beliefs (or lack thereof), but the issue runs far, far deeper than Bush’s spin-laden soundbites would suggest and it’s simply ignorant to imply otherwise. Besides, are the fundamentalist Muslims really any more or less objectionable than the fundamentalist Christians who currently dominate the USA, led by Bush himself and manifested in other repugnant personalities such as Ann Coulter and her ilk? Let us pause to consider this quote from George Bush Senior, made at a formal news conference in Chicago, IL, on August 27, 1987:

“I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.”

What, really, is the fundamental – no pun intended – difference between George H. W. Bush’s ill-disguised intolerance and that espoused by, say, bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri or the (now-deceased) Abu Musab al-Zarqawi? Admittedly, there are degrees of fundamentalism and, when last I checked, Bush hadn’t hijacked a plane in a suicidal bid to force his bigoted beliefs upon others, but one has to acknowledge that the conflicts being fought across the globe today are, first and foremost, religious in nature. This isn’t a case of democracy vs. totalitarianism, or freedom vs. oppression; it’s a case of two different sets of rigid and pious ideologues facing off against one another over who has the best imaginary friend in the sky. Really, at this stage of our species’ evolution, that’s beyond sad.

Before you put fingers to keyboards and send a few bits of ill-thought-out hatemail in my direction, please be aware that I in no way condone the cowardly mass-murder perpetuated by al-Qaeda on 9/11, any more than I condone the subsequent invasion of Iraq or the sectarian civil war which has erupted in the war-torn country since Blair and Bush sent in their troops. (Indeed, I condemn all these events in the strongest possible terms, this being no place for moral ambivalence.) I do feel, however, that this simplistic ‘freedom-hating’ nonsense is an insult to those who died, to their families and friends and to us, the people who have already been asked to support two wars as a result of what happened that fateful day (with another one on the horizon, if Bush’s constant sabre-rattling with Iran is anything by which to go).

As the sixth anniversary of the attacks is fast approaching, we could do worse than remind ourselves of the issues which led to the deaths of 2,972 blameless civilians – issues which, incidentally, are more rife today than ever before – and avoid allowing ourselves to be swayed by the childish rhetoric espoused by New Labour and the Bush administration.

PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN BY GARY TAUSTINE, PICTURE #2216, HOSTED AT THE SEPTEMBER 11 DIGITAL ARCHIVE AND CONTRIBUTED ON SEPTEMBER 10, 2003. THE ORIGINAL CAN BE VIEWED HERE.