Apparently Class is Still Out
I was disappointed that the editorialist of one of my favorite newspapers still doesn't get it fully.
It's not Al-Qaida against whom we struggle, in the main. It's a larger, more diffuse and thus more difficult enemy: radical Islam.
In a sense, it is unjustifiable to assign these suicide-bombing terrorists to Islam, for they actually have little association with the central teachings of the noble religion that brought the world many of the initial scientific discoveries upon which modern society is built. On the one hand, you can't argue with the radicals: If they say they are from Islam, then they are. On the other, they really do not represent Islam.
Why is it in the United States that deaths by terrorism in London so transfix us while deaths in Sharm el-Sheik or Baghdad are recorded but not tarried over? The difference in reaction should inform us about human nature, and allow us to understand other perspectives. Life isn't cheap for any culture, but loss of life is more comprehensible, more immediate, if it is from within our own culture -- no less for others than for those from the West.
Most of all what these attacks should tell us is the folly of the Bush administration's approach to terrorism -- a conclusion we reach without rancor or a desire to score political points. The Bush administration has long pooh-poohed the notion that fighting terror will be mostly a struggle of intelligence and law enforcement and international cooperation. Senior officials in the administration want mightily to believe that attacking state sponsors of terrorism will suffice, but it will not.
People are more frightened, more suspicious, more tentative. The challenge is to get through this new phase of terror without turning on each other. We must pull together. And for young men like the bombers from Leeds, the time has come for choosing: Either they are British or Spanish or Egyptian or they are not; their first identity must be clear.
While some of the opinions expressed are quite clearly correct, such as the view that a purely military solution will not suffice, the writer fails to take into account a history that goes further back than 9/11/01. Abhinav K. Aima, a journalism instructor at the University of Minnesota, Duluth gives a more reasoned analysis here
From press reports it seems that many people agree with the slaying of Menezes – better one dead “terror suspect” than dozens of innocent commuters. And so it is that the logic of colonialism, for this tactic of shooting “terror suspects” dead comes most recently from Israel, has visited upon British soil. The great colonizer is now treating its own people and its foreign residents exactly as it treated “terror suspects” in its colonies a mere fifty some years ago.
The reason why the West was largely successful in defeating terrorists such as the Red Brigades, the Baader-Meinhof group or the Symbionese Liberation Army is precisely because their grievances failed to find a sympathetic ear among any sizeable section of their community. But it is exactly these successes that have blinded some thinkers in the West to the inherent flaws in their approach to anti-colonial terrorists, who actually do have a political platform of genuine grievances. If the West genuinely wants to defeat terrorism then the need of the hour is to provide for the economic, cultural and political freedom, the sovereignty, which will empower and allow Muslim population states to exercise their will – even if it means the free election of Islamist leaders. As long as the West, and specifically the United States, continue to rule their economic colonies through dictators, kings and rigged elections, they continue to empower the political platform of terrorists.
And killing innocent brown people, in colonist styled police operations, because they are “terror suspects” does not help extend the cause of the U.S.-British alliance among their target audience. [Emphasis added]
The new western colonialism is simply an extension of the old colonialism of centuries past, with the added and complicating factor of the need for oil in an energy-hungry world. Until the West recognizes what that means, it will, by its every action, continue to radicalize the people of the Middle East.
It's not Al-Qaida against whom we struggle, in the main. It's a larger, more diffuse and thus more difficult enemy: radical Islam.
In a sense, it is unjustifiable to assign these suicide-bombing terrorists to Islam, for they actually have little association with the central teachings of the noble religion that brought the world many of the initial scientific discoveries upon which modern society is built. On the one hand, you can't argue with the radicals: If they say they are from Islam, then they are. On the other, they really do not represent Islam.
Why is it in the United States that deaths by terrorism in London so transfix us while deaths in Sharm el-Sheik or Baghdad are recorded but not tarried over? The difference in reaction should inform us about human nature, and allow us to understand other perspectives. Life isn't cheap for any culture, but loss of life is more comprehensible, more immediate, if it is from within our own culture -- no less for others than for those from the West.
Most of all what these attacks should tell us is the folly of the Bush administration's approach to terrorism -- a conclusion we reach without rancor or a desire to score political points. The Bush administration has long pooh-poohed the notion that fighting terror will be mostly a struggle of intelligence and law enforcement and international cooperation. Senior officials in the administration want mightily to believe that attacking state sponsors of terrorism will suffice, but it will not.
People are more frightened, more suspicious, more tentative. The challenge is to get through this new phase of terror without turning on each other. We must pull together. And for young men like the bombers from Leeds, the time has come for choosing: Either they are British or Spanish or Egyptian or they are not; their first identity must be clear.
While some of the opinions expressed are quite clearly correct, such as the view that a purely military solution will not suffice, the writer fails to take into account a history that goes further back than 9/11/01. Abhinav K. Aima, a journalism instructor at the University of Minnesota, Duluth gives a more reasoned analysis here
From press reports it seems that many people agree with the slaying of Menezes – better one dead “terror suspect” than dozens of innocent commuters. And so it is that the logic of colonialism, for this tactic of shooting “terror suspects” dead comes most recently from Israel, has visited upon British soil. The great colonizer is now treating its own people and its foreign residents exactly as it treated “terror suspects” in its colonies a mere fifty some years ago.
The reason why the West was largely successful in defeating terrorists such as the Red Brigades, the Baader-Meinhof group or the Symbionese Liberation Army is precisely because their grievances failed to find a sympathetic ear among any sizeable section of their community. But it is exactly these successes that have blinded some thinkers in the West to the inherent flaws in their approach to anti-colonial terrorists, who actually do have a political platform of genuine grievances. If the West genuinely wants to defeat terrorism then the need of the hour is to provide for the economic, cultural and political freedom, the sovereignty, which will empower and allow Muslim population states to exercise their will – even if it means the free election of Islamist leaders. As long as the West, and specifically the United States, continue to rule their economic colonies through dictators, kings and rigged elections, they continue to empower the political platform of terrorists.
And killing innocent brown people, in colonist styled police operations, because they are “terror suspects” does not help extend the cause of the U.S.-British alliance among their target audience. [Emphasis added]
The new western colonialism is simply an extension of the old colonialism of centuries past, with the added and complicating factor of the need for oil in an energy-hungry world. Until the West recognizes what that means, it will, by its every action, continue to radicalize the people of the Middle East.
posted by Diane at 6:20 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home