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 think it is in how terrorist acts are immediately described with language that show our tendency to jump into Us versus Them when the Them might not be as united against Us as we think. At the same time, I jumped to conclusions with Al Qaeda – I hadn’t checked the news since the morning last so I am not sure if we really know what group is responsible for the London bombings. I had referenced the US confusion that all Communists were the same, leading to the ‘domino theory’ that made us see the Vietnam war as containment while the Vietnamese saw it as just another shitty civil war.
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.
I think what I was trying to say is this: (former Brisith MP George Galloway)
…it would be entirely dishonest to pretend that this came out of nowhere, inexcusable, but not inexplicable. Sadly, all too explicable and explained, even before we did it, by the anti-war movement. We said this would not make the world a safer place, it would make the world a more dangerous place. And just like all of the other things we said about the war in Iraq, sadly, we have been proved right again yesterday, as we have been so many times.
(this quote of course is less valid if the London bombings were not connected with setniments about the Iraq occupation – but that seems to be the trend so far – like I said – haven’t checked the news in about a day)
Just like you, I don’t have sympathy with any group that ‘attacks civilians in ANY nation with car bombs and suicide bombers and subway bombs, etc.’ But I also don’t have much respect for any sovereign nation that does the same thing. True, we don’t use car bombs – but surgical strikes were never as exacting as we were meant to believe. Along with ‘shock and awe’.
Myke makes great points about Saudi Arabia and the Wahabiist sects as ideological fountains of anti-Western sentiment.
the Saudi Arabian government itself has for decades promoted a radical former of Islam, Wahabi, through state funded religious schools,
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.
Again – I was sloppy. I don’t find the U.S. occupation/installation on Muslim/Arabic nations as the cause of Al Qaeda… just that the connection isn’t ‘inexplicable’.
Myke and I share similar views on the war so I’m not going to hash those.
Regarding U.S. support of terrorism: I quoted an article in a hurry that is less relevant than I thought it would be. The hair we are slicing is terrorist acts commited by a countries leaders versus similar acts by ‘freedom fighters’/insurgents/’resistance’/terrorist groups – and U.S. support/arming of these groups/leaders.
It is such a shithole problem. That is what is ultimately maddening. We shouldn’t have gone – but we did – so we better clean it up but as long as it looks like it is just us (plus a few others) it looks like a bleeding of a war-torn people. Further military action seems to increase terrorist acts but retreating makes us look compliant. It is such a terrible no-win, no-heroes situation – just the thing that the factions involved need to keep these conflicts going.
Lastly – am I the only one in the world still spelling Al Qaeda with a ‘u’? Sheesh. I didn’t get the memo.
Thnx Myke for engaging me on this stuff – I need to tighten my writing and am glad I had the opportunity to do so.