Evildoers

I really am tired of the press’s condescending attitude with the coverage of the London Bombings. And it is only day one.

What is really driving me crazy is the consistent usage of "the Terrorists" instead of "terrorists." This is the mistake the U.S. made with Communism – not all terrorists are the same or have the same goals or ideologies. Even Al Queda is so fractured that who knows how tapped in to the central network different cells are? To constantly refer to "the Terrorists" makes a huge assumption and blanket statements cause… well blanket destruction.

And Jesus-hell: NOBODY HATES FREEDOM. Maybe they just hate having white Christians occupying their homelands. And over and over again the TV spouted the usual passive-aggreesive stance of "Why do they hate me so much? Let’s go kill them!!" instead of saying how Al Queda got sparked in the first place: U.S. occupation of Saudi Arabia – right? And then the eventual occupation of Kuwait… and now the occupation of Iraq…

And the constant references to good and evil make me sick. Terrorism is evil as long as the U.S. isn’t sponsoring it. And I’ve blogged about this big lie before. We’ve rained hell down on other peoples all over the world just as it has rained down on us – and now (again) London. To apply the term ‘evil’ means to shut up discussion of nuances – of the geopolitical and socio-religious underpinnings of what is really going on. And I almost threw Ron’s telly out the window when some national security yutz said ‘then the terrorists have alreayd won.’

The War on Terror is as pointless as the War on Drugs, Poverty or any other concept. Declare war on a group of terrorists – not just a foggy notion of ‘They tried to kill mah daddy!’ It is perpetual war for perpetual peace and military spending with out end. Amen. 

But thank God for Ted Koppel who interviewed a form IRA terrorist, jailed for a car bombing, and the guy said yes this is terrible, but yes these people are desperate and even further yes: they love the clamping down on our civil rights like the PATRIOT Act. They don’t hate freedom – they love seeing ours taken away. 

Meanwhile, Bush fell off his bike. Did he forget his training wheels? The poor Secret Service – the eye-rolling must be out of control by now: I have to die for this douchebag?

How’s the price of oil doing? 

9 thoughts on “Evildoers

  1. Pingback: Fresh Outrage

  2. myke

    Andy,

    I’m going to have to disagree with you somewhat here. I think you’ve went a little to out on a limb with your assumption that the simple use of “the terrorists” vs “terrorists” makes any difference at all. I don’t think there’s any evidence at all that simple differentiation will cause any blanket level of destruction that wouldn’t have been there otherwise. I just don’t see your point with this. It doesn’t seem to hold water what you’re trying to say. Whether it’s “the communists” or “communists” … makes no difference. Really … that’s a bit of a stretch.

    Also, I’m going to have to firmly disagree with you on your assessment of the terrorists themselves. You almost seem to have some level of sympathy with them. I, on the other hand, do not. I do not care if it’s the IRA, Shining Path, Al Qaeda, Hamas, or any other organization that attacks civilians in ANY nation with car bombs and suicide bombers and subway bombs, etc. Whatever their greivance, whatever their cause … this will surely do NOTHING to advance any level of legitimacy to whatever has befallen them whether we or any other industrialized nation was at any level of blame at all.

    The “US occupation of Saudi Arabia” single handedly caused the creation of Al Qaeda? I think not only are you off base here but you’re really not representing the facts. Bin Laden and much of the Arab Islamic radicals built much of their initial hatred via the occupation of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union throughout much of the 80s. Also the Saudi Arabian government itself has for decades promoted a radical former of Islam, Wahabi, through state funded religious schools, or Madrasas (spelling?). I’m sure it hasn’t helped to have a continuing presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia but I don’t think you have true grounds to support your argument that we either a) occupy that nation or b) our bases their single handedly led to the rise of Al Qaeda. The reigning monarchy of Saudi Arabia has simply played both sides to achieve their own desires which largely seem to rest with remaining wealthy and in power. They need us as much for economic and security interests as we simply need a steady secure supply of oil. I’m not saying that’s a positive thing, but it’s certainly supportive via the facts.

    I’m no fan of Bush. I did not vote for the first one nor the son either time. Having said that, I do not have any sympathy for the terrorists or terrorists or bombers or whatever anyone wants to call them. Targeting civilians on buses or subways or in tall buildings or in shopping malls is heinous and evil. Period. The perpetrators in each case like that will achieve nothing other than strengthening the resolve of hawkish western leaders such as Bush. Lord knows the US government has did heinous things as well . Hell, our government was largely responsible for Saddam Huessein staying in power and building such a large, ruthless army for so long anyway as we simply hated him less than we hated the Iranians. I know that. I’m aware of the intricacies of where our own foreign policy has likely increased the target on our own civilians. However, it simply does not excuse it which your assumptions and those in the 2003 article you referenced seem to do. It’s almost as if you have sympathy for those who commit such acts as what was done in London just yesterday. I do not AT ALL. The only things they will garner from such actions are continued condemnation by western leaders, a strengthening of the resolve of hawkish leaders in the west, and a coalescing of allies against them.

    For the record .. it is clear to me that we entered Iraq under highly false pretenses. The whole WMD justification was a big, big lie. However, this does not mean that we should tuck and run now. We now, however unfortunate it is, an obligation to ensure that Iraq stablizes. We have an obligaton to each and every ordinary Iraqi citizen who simply want to leave normal, ordinary lives raising their families in peace just as most of us here want. If we were to wholesale remove every troop immediately, there would be an infinitely worse mess there as compared to when Saddam was in power and how it is now. At least at this point the Iraqi government appears to be trying to run the country and every single soilder is no longer running at every sign of battle. Perhaps they are truly on the road to a truly multi-ethnic, multi-relgious, thriving nation. They sure as hell won’t be, though, if we tuck tail and run. Unfortunately, Bush is right on this one thing even if it’s the only thing.

  3. myke

    One other thing .. the article you referenced via a link titled “US-sponsored terrorism” doesn’t support it’s own title. The vast majority of the references in the article are in relation to the US attempts to undermine the Castro regime thru the 60s & 70s and the US training Latin American soilders, some of whom later committed atrocities in their own nations. Their is nothing that supplies any link to the US encouraging or actually committing such atrocities themselves. Also, their isn’t any evidence anywhere to support that we planned, carried out, funded, or in anyway supported terrorists of any sort, of any nation, for any cause in efforts to massacre civilians by suicide bombings, taking down an airplane, or bombing a subway or other form of mass transit. Even the Amnesty International quote, though well worded, was not supported by any actual proof of what they attribute to the US.

  4. Andy

    I do not have sympathy with the terrorists at all. I only think that using phrases that immediately throw things into good versus evil excuses any discussion of nuances or past history. Just because someone does violence to someone else and those are to people we like doesn’t make them evil and by reflex us good. I think it excuses any kind of perspective on why these events are happening. It is really the framing of things as a moral war that irks me (on both sides of the conflict).

    I don’t think the U.S. created Al Queda – just that the occupation of lands considered sacred by Muslims by Christians are reasons cited for the anger directed at Westerners. These were reasons cited by Osama Bin Laden… we aren’t ‘to blame’ for terrorism in that sense. There are hundreds of other symptoms and reasons – as you cite.

    I think lumping all terrorists together as one big war ignores the vast differences in ideologies that each organization has. I use the communism reference to reference Vietnam where the Americans thought they were stopping the domino theory and the Vietnamese saw it as just another in a long line of civil wars. Now we are having the same idea of a domino theory with regard to democracy.

    Regarding the US supporting terrorist regimes – you point out some great detail – and I still think that for the US to claim complete innocence and righteousness when we don’t concern ourselves with liberty or freedom when it means dictactors are cooperative.. while the CIA and other government bodies (not to mention the weapons industry) gets great mileage out of paramilitary organizations and regimes. I think I did mis-state – I should have said that the US doesn’t support terorrism in a direct fashion that they have ever admitted – but we certainly turn a blind eye when installed regimes commit acts of mass violence – or support internal efforts to destabilize elected officials we don’t like.

    I don’t think we should just pull out of Iraq. I think we should cancel all of the business deals that are locking up generations of oil and resources away from the Iraqi citizens and let them decide what to do with their future. As long as it is mostly the US in there it is never going to be seen as a true humanitarian effort. Only through a true global effort will it be seen as an honest effort to help a broken nation – not a power grab.

    Totally on the money with the mention of Wahabism – I need to do more digging on this but it seems like one of the most oppressive fundamentalist sects out there. And with the monarchy playing both sides of everything to remain in power and wealth.

    I’m gonna dig up some more research tomorrow. Thanks!

  5. Andy

    Later… I feel that was a sloppy response. Was trying to hurry so we can watch Blade Trinity. More later on.

Comments are closed.