London plotters show that Bush is making world more dangerous, not less.
It is being reported that President Bush is hoping to extract some political capital from the plans thwarted yesterday in London to blow up 10 planes as they crossed the Atlantic.
Tony Snow and Dick Cheney were quick to point to Lieberman's fall from Democratic favour as somehow signifying that the Dems had gone soft on the war on terror - a further reason why the public must re-elect the Republicans come November.
This hogwash deserves to be attacked full on.
Whilst it is admirable that the British security forces managed to intervene before lives were lost on a horrific scale, the real story behind yesterday's news was that, after five years of fighting, the war on terror is being lost.
This is because there has been no serious attempts to ever ask what is behind it, why are all these young Muslims so angry that they are willing to sacrifice their own lives to kill us?
It would appear to me that anyone seriously out to protect us, as Bush and Blair claim to be, would have this anger as the starting point for any discussion on this subject. It goes without saying that if we remove the source of the anger then we simultaneously remove any need to act upon that anger within the Muslim community.
So why are they so angry?
If you ask young Muslims they come up time and again with the same answers. Palestine, the US invasion of Iraq and the West's proclivity for ensuring the survival of corrupt Arab regimes. And, I am sure to that litany we should certainly add the hideous acts of violence being perpetrated against the people of Lebanon and Bush and Blair's complicity in allowing it to carry on for such a shameful period of time.
I have no doubt I will be accused of playing the game of "blaming ourselves". However, I would simply point out that I have never in my entire life hated anyone for no reason, and can't think of anyone else who would.
Therefore, opinions across the Muslim world should serve as a good indication of whether we are dissipating that anger or whether we are inflaming it. And it stands to reason that, if we are inflaming it, then we are going in the wrong direction.
The day after 9-11, Jean-Marie Colombani summed up the feelings of the entire world in an article entitled, "We Are All Americans Now". In Europe we sat glued to CNN and Sky and we wept for our cousins across the pond and for the tragic events that had wounded a great nation.
Opinion polls from that day to this, however, have shown America's popularity in sharp decline, especially in Muslim country's, the very places where common sense would indicate we should be attempting to produce the opposite effect.
Therefore I find it stunning that the Republican Party can peddle the lie that they are strong on security whilst the Democrats are not.
The lesson that comes from the intentions of yesterday's bombers, hoping to kill thousands of us half way across the Atlantic, is that the Republicans are taking the west in the wrong direction, making the world more dangerous, not less so.
We can thank British intelligence and probably the security forces of Pakistan for managing to stop the bombers before they carried out their horrid deed, but the last person we can thank is George Bush who has given idealised young Muslims more reasons to want to kill us and not less.
And that's just not bloody clever.
Tags:
5 comments:
Yes the "strong on security" rhetoric is interesting because it was the Republicans in office at the time of 9/11.
Should not this phrase be modified to "strong on reaction", "strong on revenge" or "strong on repaying evil with evil"?
Exactly, Alex.
I just don't get how Bush is supposed to be strong when it comes to fighting terrorism. He's making every mistake in the book.
Even Blair said in Los Angeles that the war on terror is being lost. It's being lost because Bush and the neo-cons insist on seeing it as a problem that can be conquered militarily.
Britain tried that nonsense with the IRA. It only helps them recruit. You have to address the causes of terrorism. These people are supported within their own communities for a reason. People agree with their overall aims.
We, of course, refuse to even consider what their aims are. They are simply "evildoers, doing evil, evily".
Informed, welcome to OT.
I think your views will fit in perfectly. At the moment, under Bush, we are not even allowed to ask why people might want to attack us. We simply have to accept them as "evil". It's mind numbingly dull.
Kel, you know exactly how I feel about this latest election year terror plot. I will not waver in my commitment to calling a pattern a pattern. This was a false flag operation, designed to evoke a visceral response in the public, and I am downright sick and tired of the tactic. I don't give a damn where my credibility flies.
However, I agree on all your stated observations. If real terror exists, it's because our fabulous governments encourage it intentionally and at every turn.
I can't even talk about this one. I mean the whole "liquid" thing was chosen just so people would notice it greatly at the airports. No contact solution, no water bottles for the thirsty, no nothing. People notice that. They get uncomfortable, and they transfer their ire towards those the government presents, i.e., the Muslims.
I could spit.
Musclemouth,
We have said it before, but you are such a Laurel to my Hardy - or vice versa.
I am willing to listen to their theory until, for me, it falls apart.
But even if it's true, it's the fault of the Bush logic that has made us less safe.
Post a Comment