The terrorist bombings in London were indeed a tragic event. Violence for violence breeds an endless cycle of destruction. But is it not terrorism when the U.S. and Britain launch a "shock and awe" attack on Iraq that leads to the death of over 100,000 civilians? The deaths in London are widely reported and mourned in the U.S. Just days before the London attack though, the U.S. killed 17 innocent civilians in a bombing attack of a village in Afghanistan. Are those tragic deaths reported and mourned with as much fervor in the U.S.? Are those lives any less important? Do the loved ones of innocents in Iraq or Afghanistan not consider their deaths an act of terrorism by the U.S. and Britain? Former chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kay, commented yesterday that, "We've now put a group of terrorists on steroids [in Iraq] and given them training. The easiest place for them to move, and there are signs they are moving already, is Europe." So has the war in Iraq made us more secure? Has the Bush and Blair plan to take the fight to the terrorists worked or have they only succeeded in making a colossal mess of the entire world?
posted by Bruce K. Gagnon | 11:53 AM
9 Comments:
So, Bruce, what would you have done differently after 9/11?
What would you have us do to counter Islamic terrorism in general -- assuming you believe there is such a thing?
If you suddenly found yourself in charge, what would you do to get us out of the "mess" you see?
And how much blame for the London attacks lies with the people who made, planted, and triggered the bombs? Any?
After 9/11 he would have started praying to the East in hopes of keeping his head attached.
***
We need to Nuke the subhuman animals who practice the religion of peace till they glow, then shoot them in dark.
Peace through superior fire power, works every time
But is it not terrorism when the U.S. and Britain launch a "shock and awe" attack on Iraq that leads to the death of over 100,000 civilians
It should be noted that the figure you cite is considered by most to be inflated. But no, the attack on Iraq is not terrorism by definition.
Of course if you DO still consider it so, then by all means include under the definition 'terrorism' that which Saddam inflicted on his own people - somewhere in the range of 300,000 to 400,000. At least per Molly Ivins.
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=19337
Former chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kay, commented yesterday that, "We've now put a group of terrorists on steroids [in Iraq] and given them training. The easiest place for them to move, and there are signs they are moving already, is Europe."
Yet .. the folks who we now think did the deed in London ... grew up in Leeds.
Not just grew up in Leeds - but were born in the UK. And not just born in the UK but of Pakistani origin.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,15922382-2,00.html
No doubt these clean cut kids from the middle-class felt solidarity with the Islamic facists murdering children in Iraq.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/12129733.htm
Sure.
But Brian, don't you know that it doesn't matter how many children get killed in Iraq by suicide bombers?
They are acceptable collateral damage, because the mujaheds are fighting a noble cause in their attempts to push out the oil-greedy Anglo-American imperialists. See, whenever an American raid inadvertently kills civilians, that proves that we don't care about those "brown people". It shows we don't really value their lives, despite our claims to be spending vast sums of R&D money and putting our own soldiers' safety at risk trying to avoid such collateral damage. We only care about keeping them poor and oppressed while we steal their oil to power our Gaia-raping SUVs with cheap gas.
One civilian killed by an American is a war-crime. A thousand killed by a noble mujahed is a statistic.
I believe that both sides (the U.S. and the extremist factions) have valid points in their justifications for their actions. We should all resolve ourselves to the fact that neither side is ever perfect in a dispute. Especially one with such history.
I have heard many times the counter to the statement "we shouldn't have gone to war in Iraq". The statement of course is "what WOULD YOU do then??". Perhaps humanity is finally wise enough to accept the fact that aggression is becomming less and less effective at settling our differences. I enjoy this trend because it will force us to become more creative with those who oppose us. I guarantee that on the U.S's current path, many more lives will be lost. It is simply too easy for our opposition to justify their resistance.
I implore all of us, if we truly believe in "Do unto others..." to take a close look at the lives of our enemies across the world. Put yourselves in their shoes. Personally, if I had grown up in that society and had been exposed to that way of life and teaching...I would certainly take up arms against us.
Our fight, if any, on this earth is against tyrannical leaders who seek power through manipulation, money and fear. We must look for ways to oppose them without turning the people under their influence against us. The damage this does is two-fold. First, it distracts them from their true oppressors (ie their leaders) and second, it transforms normally peaceful and loving humans, just like you and me, into killing machines with nothing left to lose.
I ask you all....if your child, your mother, your wife was killed as a result of an error of intelligence. Or worse, if they were killed because a regime was able to convince voters that your country had nukes when in fact they did not...what would stop you from exacting your revenge?
Let us learn the lessons of our ancestors. Let us heed the lessons of our great prophets. Let us be the first to embrace our enemy as we would our family.
Peace and love be with you my brothers. I look forward to the positive impacts that we will make in the future.
I believe that both sides (the U.S. and the extremist factions) have valid points in their justifications for their actions. We should all resolve ourselves to the fact that neither side is ever perfect in a dispute. Especially one with such history.
This is not a bad attitude to have. It starts to break down when one side believes that beheading is reasonable treatment to POWs and 'Death to infidels' a nuanced approach to foreign policy.
Indeed -- a desire for peaceful resolution is a noble thing to have, but it only works in practice when both sides are rational. Mutual rationality is the basis for cooperation and deterrence alike.
The problem in the present matter is the other side has goals and values completely at odds with our own. The aims of the fundamentalist Islamacists are not things we can appease or accommodate, since what they want is for us to convert to Islam, submit to dhimmitude, or die. If you would embrace them, it would be on those terms.
And is the desire for revenge something you really want to understand or condone? Revenge is the fuel of the blood feud, with each side seeking revenge for the revenge-motivated acts of the other. In other words, the very "cycle of violence" the left so frequently decries in these situations.
My understanding is that polls showed that a majority of the English public were opposed to war in Iraq, and that includes the majority of Blair's own party, which lost seats in Parliament in the recent election as a result.
In the view of many English, the problem is that Blair for a number of reasons does what the US tells him to.
Some English try not to be 'anti-American' just opposed to many aspects of US foreign policy: perhaps those working for Peace in the North Americal continent might try to return the favour?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home