Every reader of this newspaper is just one or two degrees away from someone who flew in early August. Everyone knows someone who couldn’t take a bottle of water, or saw someone taste breast milk. Many readers know someone who died on September 11, five years ago today. So overcome with fear, grief and anger, we do not ask “why?”

I was in South Africa, reading that 24 young men had been arrested in England, for allegedly plotting to detonate liquid explosives on board 10 planes between London and the U.S. Two days away from flying to New York, I imagined what it would feel like to plummet from cruising altitude to the North Atlantic in a fiery wreck. I thought about film recreations of that event, and it all scared me. One of those arrested was 17, and several of the men implicated are younger than I am. If they are guilty of what the British Home Office alleges, however, they sought to create what scared me, and in turn, kill me. The Home Office has since released half of the 24, but maintains that at least 10 of those arrested were trying to create the conditions I feared, and were willing to participate in that death plunge.

What were they thinking?

Between stories about travelers inconvenienced and the President insisting that we “are at war,” there really wasn’t much I could find anywhere about motives in the press. None of the talking heads ask, “What is the impetus for a 17-year-old to kill himself, and three hundred others, in a terribly frightening manner?” What on earth could inspire this self-immolation?

After 9/11, we didn’t ask this question. It was too easy to brand Osama bin Laden as “evil” or “Islamic fundamentalist,” and that seemed to explain it all sufficiently. When Bush declared “they hate us for our freedoms,” many people bought it. Many people still buy it. Attaching “Muslim” to anything seemed a sufficient explanation, a racist rationale that persists to this day. Instead of thugs, people are described as “Muslim thugs,” and dissidents become “Islamic” rather than political. Millions of words have been spewed on “clashes” of “cultures.” The argument was rooted in some fundamental difference between “us” and “them.” The papers seemed to tell me that something about this kid’s religion was important, but little more.

Is it likely that a 17-year-old guy in England wants to kill himself because of our “freedoms?” Think back to when you were 17, and consider the extent to which the “freedom” of foreigners incensed you. 17-year-old men, of all religious traditions and every language, are rarely homicidal. Instead of looking to his religion and ethnic background, can we look into the young man’s politics?

The American government remains steadfast in its determination to avoid changing the behavior that men like the 17 year-old say enrages them. This summer, Bush sent emergency supplies of bunker busters, extra jet fuel and laser-guided cruise missiles to Israel — at least twice — during its blitzkrieg on Lebanon. While every country in the world advocated an immediate cease-fire, three opposed it — the U.S., U.K. and Israel. Now ask yourself which countries this 17 year-old dislikes.

What would lead a 17 year-old to kill himself so that some Americans might die? The Independent of London ran a fantastic cover in early August. It showed two columns: in one, the flags of those three states, and in the other, every remaining country represented in the UN. Imagine that juxtaposition, and question your shock that the U.S., U.K. and Israel have so many enemies that their citizens can’t take bottles of liquid on planes. The first two decided to invade and occupy Iraq, against the wishes of the planet, and continue to occupy it, against the wishes of about 90 percent of Iraqis. Maybe the 17-year-old realized that non-violent resistance is suicide against cluster bombs.

Dick Cheney announced that supporting an anti-war Democrat in Connecticut would please Al-Qaeda; he also thinks that opposing some U.S. policy amounts to supporting bin Laden. He won’t ask why some people are willing to die to stop the U.S. and its allies, to get arrested while trying to dismantle nuclear weapons, to aim a plane at a symbol of U.S. militarism and say a prayer. But, unbeknownst to the Vice President, agreeing that the U.S. should leave Iraq doesn’t make me a terrorist. Those who oppose the war on Iraq aren’t, as Rumsfeld suggested, like those who appeased Hitler.

It is murderously foolish in every way — not bold, not courageous, and surely not religious — to assume we can be safe by continuing to do what has led teenagers to consider suicide. And it’s doubly moronic to argue that anything I do might “please” Osama bin Laden. One doubts he follows the Connecticut Democratic Primary, after all. The goal of an unoccupied Iraq inspires many billions around the world.

Bombs will escape screeners and weapons will slip though cargo manifests. This is inevitable. What is very much in our control, however, is our conduct, our choices, our decision to oppose a cease-fire when the majority of casualties are civilians, and the entire world thought Israel should use some restraint. By demonizing America’s opponents as “evil,” occupying a large country in the Middle East, threatening to destroy another and loading the guns that kill civilians in Lebanon, America’s murderous leadership has inspired 17 year-olds in the most perverse ways. After the towers fell, Bush said, “America was targeted for attack because we’re the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world.” This is ridiculious. Americans are targeted because of our government’s decisions — not because of the “freedoms” the President keeps offending (wiretaps, library records and habeas corpus … ).

Either we consider the motivations for 17-year-old suicide bombers from London, or we just try to catch them in the act. There is enough information on America’s crimes at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and Camp Baghram for every American to understand why some people think the only means to stop America is through explosives. This summer, 90 percent of Iraqis wanted the Occupation to end, and the entire world thought an immediate ceasefire in Israel and Lebanon was necessary, but our leaders and our armies did the bloody opposite. If our leaders have a moment of clarity, the “terrorists” won’t “win.” The world wins when the United States respects the world, the Iraqi people, the right of Lebanese aid convoys to travel unmolested and the U.S. population’s right to exist without its government regularly making our lives more dangerous.

Jeff Purcell is a graduate student in Africana Studies. He can be reached at jlp56@cornell.edu. Brutal Honesty appears Mondays.