Nobody Attacks Civilization

carlitos

Potential Star
Registered
Nobody Attacks Civilization

by Charley Reese

British Prime Minister Tony Blair and President George W. Bush went into their standard routine after the London bombings. This was an attack against civilization and all civilized nations, they said.

That's bosh and hokum, and it does a disservice to the people. The first step always in solving any problem is to define the problem correctly. There are no terrorists anywhere in the world whose goal is the destruction of civilization, Western or otherwise.

The terrorist attacks against the U.S., Great Britain and Spain are motivated exclusively by Western policies toward the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the presence of Western military forces in Islamic countries. Al-Qaeda, the ideological source of these attacks, has always been crystal-clear and specific about its reasons for declaring war against the United States.

You can't win a war unless you know who your enemy is, know why he is your enemy and know what his objectives are. Only then can you properly direct your military and political forces to combat him successfully.

Unfortunately, very early on, President Bush decided to create a mythical enemy of vague and ambiguous proportions and irrational motives. This was done to give carte blanche to the government to pursue policies that really had nothing to do with fighting al-Qaeda – e.g., invading Iraq, putting North Korea and Iran in the "axis of evil" and including groups on the enemies list that were in fact not our enemies.

The confusion this causes was illustrated by television coverage of the London attacks. Several commentators lumped together the terrorist attacks against public transport in Moscow, Madrid and London. However, the Moscow attack had nothing to do with the attacks in Madrid and London, or with us. Moscow is fighting Chechen rebels who want independence for Chechnya. Chechen attacks against Russia, like Palestinian attacks against Israel, are not directed at us. They are motivated by specific political objectives. Chechens and Palestinians have no desire to destroy civilization; they simply wish to take their place in the family of nations as independent countries.

You can't have a war against terrorism because, as many people have pointed out, terrorism is a tactic employed by people who have no real military power. It is not an entity. There is no worldwide terrorist organization.

Terrorist tactics work because we live in a wired world. Ten or 12 people can set off a few bombs in London, and the world turns its electronic eyes on the story and chats, discusses and shows video clips until some other event distracts it. The media attention and the inflated rhetoric of politicians magnify the terrorist act far beyond its actual import.

These attacks – pinpricks, really, in terms of any damage they do to national power – cannot be completely stopped. A few malcontents inspired by someone's rhetoric can get together and set off a bomb or two or shoot some people. Terrorists should be considered criminals, and their acts as ordinary crimes. Physically dealing with terrorists is properly ordinary police work. There is no war involved.

What the United States should be doing, instead of invading and occupying countries, is re-examining its foreign policy vis-à-vis the Islamic world. There is no natural conflict between the West and Islam. The followers and true believers of Osama bin Laden are a tiny minority. The best way to cut the ground out from under him is to develop and pursue policies that treat all of the Islamic countries with fairness and respect.

We don't do that at the present time. Because of the power of the Israeli lobby to skew our policy to benefit Israel, our Middle East policies are riddled with double and triple standards and reek of hypocrisy. Because of that, we are the best recruiter Osama bin Laden has.

But in the meantime, remember that terrorist attacks are primarily media events. You still have more to fear from the flu or accidents than you do from terrorists.

' U can fool some folks some of the time, u can't fool all the folks all the time..unless u'r one these religious illiterates who would quicker vote for bush if he even ran against Jesus..
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
(1) How about posting the URL to the articles. It allows those interested to read it for themselves, make judgments about the source, and possibly provides sources to new insight.

(2)
What the United States should be doing, instead of invading and occupying countries, is re-examining its foreign policy vis-à-vis the Islamic world. There is no natural conflict between the West and Islam. The followers and true believers of Osama bin Laden are a tiny minority. The best way to cut the ground out from under him is to develop and pursue policies that treat all of the Islamic countries with fairness and respect.
An interesting statement indeed. Many on and off this board have made similar statements. The author didn't go into any detail, but "re-examining ... foreign policy vis-à-vis the Islamic world [and] develop[ing] and pursue[ing] policies that treat all of the Islamic countries with fairness and respect" is, in my opinion, something we should be doing. Re-examination is easy ... but what should we be doing to treat all Islamic countries with fairness and respect ???

QueEx
 

Temujin

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
QueEx said:
(1) but what should we be doing to treat all Islamic countries with fairness and respect ???

QueEx

We as citizens could first develop an understanding of our foreign policy in relation to the Islamic world. Terrorism and safety was a major issue in the last presidential election however foreign policy was a non-issue. Unfortunatly it is the consensus among most conservatives that freedom and not foriegn policy causes terrorism. Americans have bought into this narrow (and quite childish) view of the world and terrorism so we like spoiled children refuse to look at our culpability in this disagreement. We assume terrorists are unrational and there is nothing we can do to solve this conflict. As long as the people continue to buy into these views we will have a perpetual state of war and a steady stream of excuses for imperialism which I think is what the administration was going for in the first place.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Temujin said:
We as citizens could first develop an understanding of our foreign policy in relation to the Islamic world.
When I said "WE" ... I was really referring to the United States. Nevertheless, your comments on we, as ordinary citizens, are well taken.

Terrorism and safety was a major issue in the last presidential election however foreign policy was a non-issue. Unfortunatly it is the consensus among most conservatives that freedom and not foriegn policy causes terrorism.
Aren't national safety and foreign policy matters of the same??? When the candidates debated our involvement in Iraq, were they not debating foreign policy ??? I agree that the statement, "they hate our freedoms" is a bit over the top and is probably just a one-liner used to cultivate national unity against Al Qaeda and its look-a-likes. But, exactly what is the problem with our (the United States') foreign policy vis-a-vis the Islamic world, particularly the fundamentalist or extremist Islamic world (because, it seems to me, not all of the Islamic world agrees with your assessment).

Americans have bought into this narrow (and quite childish) view of the world and terrorism so we like spoiled children refuse to look at our culpability in this disagreement. We assume terrorists are unrational and there is nothing we can do to solve this conflict. As long as the people continue to buy into these views we will have a perpetual state of war and a steady stream of excuses for imperialism which I think is what the administration was going for in the first place.
Our culpability is a conclusion. What, exactly, is our culpability ???


QueEx
 

Temujin

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
QueEx said:
When I said "WE" ... I was really referring to the United States. Nevertheless, your comments on we, as ordinary citizens, are well taken.


Aren't national safety and foreign policy matters of the same??? When the candidates debated our involvement in Iraq, were they not debating foreign policy ??? I agree that the statement, "they hate our freedoms" is a bit over the top and is probably just a one-liner used to cultivate national unity against Al Qaeda and its look-a-likes. But, exactly what is the problem with our (the United States') foreign policy vis-a-vis the Islamic world, particularly the fundamentalist or extremist Islamic world (because, it seems to me, not all of the Islamic world agrees with your assessment).


Our culpability is a conclusion. What, exactly, is our culpability ???


QueEx

Our foreign policy goes far beyond national safety. Americas foreign policy protects our economy way more than it protects our safety. Our stance in the Palestine Israeli conflict for one has little to do with national safety until it becomes a reason for terrorist attacks. I saw no candidate make that connection. I saw no canidate openly question why do we protect Israel when we know our protection leads to attacks on U.S. citizens. The presence of military bases in Islamic countries is not prompted by the need for national safety they are prompted by the need to protect economic interests.

The protection of these economic interests at the expense of the interests of the Islamic world is one of the reasons they hate us so much. This is our culpability. Our dependence on oil forces us to use military means to protect the supply. When we attacked Iraq the first time for invading Kuwait this had nothing to do with protecting American lives. It was about protecting Israeli lives and protecting the supply of Oil. When we attacked Saddam this time it had zero to do with protecting American lives from terrorism it had everything to do with continuing the war machine and promoting a war economy. Our foreign policy is purely economic yet its economic rationale has never been questioned. We are so caught up in this false fear of terrorism that we do not see what the rest of the world sees. The rest of the world sees America as an imperial power that uses its military to assure its economic domination of the world.
 

carlitos

Potential Star
Registered
You can't have a war against terrorism because, as many people have pointed out, terrorism is a tactic employed by people who have no real military power. It is not an entity. There is no worldwide terrorist organization.

MEDIA WILL SAY THIS OVER & OVER AGAIN,NEOCONS WILL SAY THIS OVER & OVER AGAIN.,WAR BENEFACTORS WILL REPEAT THIS OVER AGAIN,,.remember this,a lie when repeated over and over again,becomes the truth. Only those who sponsor terrorists will promote terrorists as being 'all over the globe'..
NOBODY ATTACKS CIVILIZATION..
 
Last edited:
Top