Thursday, July 07, 2005
Terrorists Shmerrorists
I woke up this morning to Google news telling me that terrorists had placed bombs throughout London and that 4 out of 6 of them had blown up, killing and hurting people. My thoughts turned to my friend Diane, who lives in London and takes the train every day to work about the same time as those explosions. Well, after many tries and getting the ole "All circuits are busy" recording in a British accent, I finally got through to her. Turns out she was in line at an underground train station on her route to work when the bombs went off, but at the time the station agents said that it was a power problem and that all trains were being shut down. Diane and the rest of the Brits waiting went above ground to get other transportation, but no one hardly realized where they were and how to get home because public transportation is HUGE there. People just hung out and tried to get directions to their homes or works from others around. Diane couldn't get through to anyone on her cell for a bit, since officials by that time had found out it was a bomb and had shut down cell communications (in case bombs were being detonated using cells). Finally, she got ahold of her boyfriend Hu (a tall Brit, not an Asian guy) who drove across town to get her. When she arrived back to her flat, she found out on the news that one of the train stations that blew up was the next stop on her route to work. Scary! Diane is fine, thank God. Stupid terrorists.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Wow, I'm glad to hear that Diane is okay, but at the same time I'm concern with the attitudes that I see the people around me taking...when it happened to us it was like we wanted everyone in the world to be upset and cry out against terrorism and now that's it's happened in two other country's (remember Spain last year) it seems as if we've turned a cold shoulder and that really sucks. Of course I'm just talking about the folks around me, not everyone in Amercia.
I know what you mean. People need to stand together during things like this. I wish people would stop blaming this on Tony Blair and George Bush.Terrorists have their own agendas, always have, and you could insert any country's president's name into the reason why terrorists keep bombing just to blame it on someone. If someone doesn't agree with a certain president's views or policy, fine, but don't fail to realize that the one main problem at the heart of the matter is the terrorist's fundametalist practice of their religion and them wanting to kill off any person who is not Muslim.
I'm not sure about the motivations behind yesterday's attacks, but it isn't realistic to say that these terrorist organizations only kill because they have a desire to kill anyone who isn't Muslim. Especially regarding the 9/11 attacks, the terrorists responsible explained their reasons very clearly, and it wasn't because they were on a mission to kill everyone who isn't Muslim.
Of course, these evil, terrible acts can never be justified, no matter what the explanation is. I'm just saying that to blame it on their religion (or to say that they "hate freedom" or other patriotic rhetoric) is to vastly oversimplify the issue.
Some would argue that it doesn't matter what their motivations are, because the actions are so wrong that their justifications are irrelevant. To some extent this is true, since there is no justification for these actions; but if you're trying to solve (or make progress on) a problem like this, it is vital to look at both sides of the issue.
A parable:
If Riley keeps bugging, poking, and prodding Emma until she finally punches him, and then he bites her to get back at her, who should get in trouble? Both will say "he/she started it", because in Riley's mind Emma "struck" first (the punch), but Riley is also to blame for both his response (biting) and for his initial provocation, even though it didn't justify the punch in any way.
I was speaking from what I just read in a Time Magazine article in which a suicide bomber was interviewed. He was sent by his leader and spoke candidly (heavily disguising himself of course) about his training and his mission. No where in the article did he mention the names Bush or Blair as the cause. He said (and I am paraphrasing here because I don't have the article in front of me) that his mission is to get rid of all the infidels, since the Koran says to cause terror on the infedels and Allah will remember those who do in heaven(and he did site the exact passage in the Koran). That's what I am talking about. These people on tv, radio, or the paper who are quick to directly blame the president of some country for the reason London got bombed, well, I think that they are being a little too unrealistic and are not looking at the whole picture. I didn't say that every Muslim takes what is said in the Koran literally, just like Christians don't stone their neighbor to death either. The problem lies with the fundamentalist Muslims who agree with what the terrorists are doing and are joining them.
I'm not stating, either, that I have any idea what the exact motivations are behind yesterday's events, I am just tired of those who, within a short time of the attacks, got on their high horse and started blaming Bush's or Blair's policies. "That's it! The bombers did it because Bush (fill in the blank)"...
There are people dead, regardless. It's not right no matter who is to blame or who started it (and that's where your parable comes in). You are right to say that we have to look at the WHOLE picture, but a lot of the time, those who hate Bush/Blair/Howard/Aznar are quick to point the blame directly at these leaders' policies. But the Time article did give me an insight into what the bombers are feeling and their motivations, and that is what I have on my mind.
I also would not say that Bush/Blair/whoever are to blame for the terrorist attacks, that is ridiculous. I haven't been listening to the "mainstream" news much, but NPR (which I consider to be pretty balanced) and even the more "progressive" (or some people would say "liberal") news sources and commentaries that I listen to aren't blaming Bush/Blair, etc for the attacks in London, so it's surprising to hear that some people are.
Also, I'm sure that there are some wackos like the guy in this interview that interpret their religion to tell them to do things like this, but I was just saying that it wasn't the case for 9/11, that's all. There is a lot of info out there about the complaints in the Mideast about the US that have much more to do with our foreign policy in that area in the last several decades and nothing to do with "hating freedom" or religious motivations.
Again, not that *any* reasoning justifies such horrible acts, but we should be careful not to lump all "terrorists" together and dismiss their sentiments as being irrational religious points of view.
In all the recent talk of "terrorism", there is very little mention of state sponsored terrorism, which is just as bad as small, "cell based" terrorism. To look at the world (and the Mideast especially) with the mentality of an old western (good guy/bad guy, white hat/black hat, etc.) is oversimplified.
The Israel/Palestinian conflict is a good example. Some "terrorist" groups use a large military force to oppress their victims, who in response use desperate terrorist measures such as attacking civilians, etc. because they are not capable of engaging in an old-fashioned military confrontation, and the cycle continues as each side responds, believing that they are "justified". Both are wrong and both should be condemned.
I agree with you. And in regards to the "state sponsored terrorism", I do wonder why the most of the world is focused on the mideast only instead of Congo, South Africa, and other countries in the African continent. Will terrorism (state sponsored or extremist groups) ever cease? Not in our or our kids lifetimes.
Sure it will; isn't that what the whole "war on terror" is about?
Soon we will be victorious! Then we can get back to the "war on drugs", something that we have just as good a chance at "winning". Then it will be on to the "war on human nature" after we realize that we are not perfect.
:)
Go us! I am going to plan a victory party!!!!
Hey Jared- I thought you didn't use smilies.....(!)
jaredb's parable:
If Riley keeps bugging, poking, and prodding Emma until she finally punches him, and then he bites her to get back at her, who should get in trouble? Both will say "he/she started it", because in Riley's mind Emma "struck" first (the punch), but Riley is also to blame for both his response (biting) and for his initial provocation, even though it didn't justify the punch in any way.
A question: If Riley secretly plans on murdering Emma, but only succeeds in crippling her, and then commits to continuing his attacks on her until she is dead, would you step in to protect her? Would you do what ever you could to protect Emma, considering Riley had made a solemn vow to kill her and no amount of reasoning could stop him? If Emma fought back to protect herself at any time, would you then focus your attention and criticizm on her behavior or would you rally with your wife and family to find out how to stop the attacks for good? Or would you tell Emma that the only thing she should do is start making plans to be vigilant. Like maybe she could wear bullet proof vests 24/7, and keep her light on all night, and you could place a perimeter alarm outside her room, and live in constant fear that maybe she hasn't done enough and sooner or later Riley is going to get her.
And one more question: Are you comparing the U.S. with Riley or Emma. Do you feel that the U.S. and the free world (Infadels and Zionists!) poked and prodded until they were punched? Or do you see terrorism and mass killing as poking and proding and the U.S.'s reaction to it as a "punch"?
One more question... What do you believe IS the motivation for the mojority of the terrorism that has been taking place, if it's not religious or phylosophical? Start with 9/11.
Islamo-fascists don't want to kill all infidels they want to beat them into submission so they can rule over them and collect taxes from them. They have been doing it for thousands of years.
Apparently you missed the point of the parable (the fact that they were both wrong). Your new parable is pretty ridiculous, so I won't bother commenting on it.
Yes, Riley was the US in the story. It's not surprising that you haven't heard about it given that the US media doesn't usually cover that sort of thing, but we have been getting our hands dirty in international affairs for decades. Aside from the recent (pre-9/11) buildup of military bases in the Mideast, you may remember a little thing called the "Iran Contra affair", but only because it was the most publicized incident - certainly not because it was isolated: Panama, Guatemala, El Salvador, Grenada, Nicaragua, the list goes on and on. These are the kinds of things I was generously calling "poking and prodding".
Speaking of our involvement in international affairs, you may have also forgotten (or never learned, depending on your age and willingness to look for unbiased sources of news) that Saddam was "our guy" in Iraq in the 80's; we both armed and financially supported him, even for years after the now often referenced gas attacks on his own people.
If you're honestly looking for the reasons behind the 9/11 attacks, I would suggest a good place to start would be what the terrorists themselves stated as their reasons. (Hint: it wasn't because they "hate freedom", as is repeated ad-nauseum by some people, or even religious reasons directly).
Incidentally, (since I brought up Saddam), don't forget that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and even the administration themselves admits this.
If you're asking for my opinion on the reasons for terrorism in general, I believe that some of it is from psychopathic people who use religion or other such arguments to justify their sick acts. But, as I tried to point out, it's not always that clear cut. Some "terrorism" is committed by official armies; just because they wear uniforms and drive tanks over houses instead of bomb them doesn't automatically justify what they do. Other forms of terrorism are often actions taken in response to this sort of military terrorism, and they fight "dirty" because they would never stand a chance in a direct military confrontation. Again, this IN NO WAY justifies the actions; I'm just trying to encourage people not to oversimplify the issue.
"Terrorism" is a very loosely thrown about (and redefined) word these days; I wonder if the "freedom fighters" of the American revolution would have been considered "terrorists", since they sometimes employed such evil techniques as non-uniformed attacks and not lining up in formation and "fighting fair".
I'm sorry that you think that your political "opinions" give you liscence to speak in demeaning tones to someone who might question you. You might want to consider (if you value your interpersonal relationships at all) that just because someone disagrees with you doesn't necessarily make them an uninformed idiot. And dispite your infinite knowledge of the historical "facts", in your effort to make me feel stupid by calling my parable rediculous, you still didn't answer the question, "What would you do?" You can sit there and rant and rave about how bad we are, and how evil America is, and how rediculous and uninformed we are, but how would you deal with it?
I apologize if my comments came off as demeaning; I certainly didn't mean it that way. I definitely didn't call you an "uninformed idiot", and I respect the opinions of people who disagree with me on any issue. I know there are intelligent people who feel differently on this issue in particular, although I haven't ever heard them explain why in a way that makes sense.
As for being uninformed, that was a general comment about americans in general, which I believe is true. Most americans (not saying you specifically, especially since I don't even know who you are) are less knowledgeable when it comes to world events than many other modern countries in the world. I'm by no means claiming to have superior knowledge of historical events, etc. In fact, my criticism is partially pointing to the failings in my own education process. For example, growing up during the cold war I was conditioned to think a certain way about communists (Russians in particular), but I later got the opportunity to go there and meet a lot of them, and realized that most of what I was taught was a load of crap, so from that point on I have tried to look to sources on international issues that are a little less biased. Of course every source inherently has some measure of bias, but you can only get a balanced view by weighing multiple sources against each other.
Also, I wasn't trying to make you feel stupid in your question regarding the adjusted parable, I just didn't think it was pertinent to the issue, since it is a bit of a stretch. To be fair, you didn't actually answer my initial question of who is "wrong" in the situation I presented. (I obviously would think that both are wrong).
For the sake of being friendly, however, I will attempt to answer yours. If two of my kids had vowed to kill each other, I'm not sure I would know what to do, even after thinking about it for a long time. One thing's for sure though, I *wouldn't* just kill Riley, especially not without exhausting every other possible avenue of resolution.
Also, I'm not saying that America is evil. I love living here and I greatly value the freedoms that we have. As a part of that freedom comes the responsibility to be a part of our government, which includes speaking out when you feel that they are doing something immoral.
As for what I'd do in response to the terror attacks, again it is a complicated issue, and there is no easy answer that I can outline here. As I previously mentioned, I think a big part of the solution is never letting the tensions build to the point where people in desperation are willing to cross that line (which I again reiterate is WRONG) and commit the attacks that we have seen. Again, one thing I wouldn't do in response to 9/11 is start invading countries which had nothing to do with the attacks (by the administration's own admission), and lie to the American people (re: WMDs) to justify the killing of tens of thousands of people and counting.
I'm sure this answer will probably not satisfy you, since most people want a quick and easy solution. This is probably why the administration has a decent support base for their actions, because a lot of people just want *something* to be done, regardless of whether it's the right thing to do, or if it actually makes them safer or not. If you believe that terrorist attacks on the US are less likely now than four years ago, I would beg to differ.
My answer also may not please you since I won't lay out a simple 3 point plan for dealing with terrorism (since I don't believe that's possible). You may say that if I don't have a solution to offer, then I have no grounds to criticize other solutions, but I would not agree. If I saw someone beating their kids, I could certainly say it was wrong, even if I knew nothing about proper parental discipline.
Again I apologize if my remarks came off as condescending; I truly do not mean in that way. I do find that I tend to not speak as "softly" with anonymous people than with someone I know, and that is a fault that I will try to work on.
I think that there was nothing demeaning in the post. Just defensively taken.
classic progressive position - full of criticism, empty on solutions.
So you'd rather have "solutions" that do more harm than good than no solutions at all? Interesting.
All I'm saying is that there needs to be thoughtful debate and consideration on these issues, not that there is no solution that could be proposed.
I'm open to hear anyone else's "solution", but don't pretend that what we've done so far is any kind of solution whatsoever.
Post a Comment