Saturday, June 24, 2006

Terrorism


I think we all agree that terrorism (the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments, in order to establish a political thought) is wrong. After the 2001 attacks in America, terrorism was given an ubiquitous exposure, as it was the most shocking attack on a more economically developed country at the time, which was supposed to be one of the world's political heavyweights.

I don't want to go into a detailed history of terrorism and how wrong it is, since it's blatantly obvious - but what I want to look at is the concept of 'two-way terrorism'. It's become glaringly obvious that the USA has taken great liberties in 'curing' the world of terrorism in the interests of 'freedom' and 'democracy'. They instill 'freedom' by stomping over a third-world country, rooting out the bad guy, and at the point where they should stop, they just keep on going, trampling civilians in the way. You would have thought they would have learned their lessons from Vietnam, but, unfortunately, they haven't.

Is this 'two-way terrorism'? Can we call the Bush administration a bunch of terrorists? They are forcefully imposing their view on others, using destruction and violence - and that's terrorism. When you hear people saying that the US created Al-Qaeda, they're not joking, it was the US who supplied them weapons to drive the Soviets out during the Cold War. In Vietnam, the French and the US more or less created the VietCong, provoking a reaction by sticking their noses into what they shouldn't have, each successive president sinking deeper and deeper into horrific military escalation, all in the good name of 'freedom'. As they did with Japan following the Second World War, I believe that the US is trying to make Iraq a physical barrier to the middle east, some sort of bulwark for long-term plans. To those at the top, losing civilians is inconsequential.

I do believe that terrorists like Osama bin Laden, Hitler and Stalin should be persecuted for unelashing destruction on humans. But the response should be treated with care. Why roll over the innocent civilians in the crossfire? No one seems to care about them. They have lives, just like the soldiers and the terrorists pumping bullets into their bodies.

Thoughts?

7 Comments:

Blogger Singer Gazelle said...

"America bashing" is a term coined by a very naive Nation to deflect criticism. If the rock won't break then you DO have to keep bashing it. America is a great country full of really great people (just like every other country).

But.

They have one enormous problem and I think it's a problem of scale and proportion. Politically (as a society, educationally and economically) America is very childlike. By that I mean that they are the absolutely unquestioned centre of their universe and are quite prepared to scream and scream until they're sick.

America seems to me to see the globe as being made up of America and ONE other "country" which is a lot smaller than America, less interesting, less valid, less rich, less diverse, less developed - and less important. This other country, the one that's smaller than America in every sense, is called "The Rest of The World".

The "Rest of The World", in it's way, seems to look past Asia, Australasia, Europe, Africa, Canada and South America and see the wild, wild west with Chevrolets and PDAs where once, some weeks ago now, their history had them in covered wagon-trains and sidearms.

America, in my view, is a country that wants to be good but doesn't know how and, up to now, it hasn't HAD to be good to its neighbours.

Political puberty is a painful thing.

Another painful thing is resisting the way America HAS created and funded terrorism. When America suffers one of its so far TWO on-soil terrorist attacks I'm supposed to run over with sticking plasters and sympathy. All I actually feel like doing is to remind America, for example, of the decades they spent giving money to the IRA so that Britain could enjoy bomb after bomb on our soil. I hail from the north of England so, thanks, America (and New York in particular), for Manchester and Warrington.

For those who don't remember or know, Manchester (a city where I spent many a happy evening for a decade), had its heart blown out by a massive bomb, and Warrington which I remember especially because my brother and sister-in-law only survived the bombing because they lingered in Boots Chemist at the back of the shop instead of strolling outside (the bomb was immediately outside).

Love and kisses America, I'll see you again when you're a little bit older and wiser... until then, please stay at home...

2:14 pm  
Blogger Annelie..xox said...

Whilst America Bashing has become almost cliché now-there is valid reasoning behind in. The key about the September 11th tragedy is that it was an attack on a MEDC. Not only is the US an MEDC but the worlds' superpower. Terrorism is unquestionably wrong but it seems insulting almost, that as SOON as there was an attack on the United States in become a world problem, whereas many parts of that small other country, The Rest of the World, have been going through this for decades.

It cannot be forgiven nor should be forgotten that the United States invaded Iraq thus going against the orders of the United Nation, supposedly the organization created to maintain global peace and security. If the United States goes against the UN they are basically deaf to the rest of the world, yet the must find the weapons of mass destruction (alleged).

I completely agree that terrorist should be persecuted however at whose cost. Thousands of civilians have died in Iraq and the death toll rises daily, however what we see on TV is the funeral of two or three American or British soldiers. These deaths are tragic however these men (or women) have chosen to fight in most cases, yet the civilians have had their lives invaded by a foreign force, who even after reigning their terror and not finding WMD have not left the country to piece together their fast crumbling country.

Looking at the definition of terrorism -the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments, in order to establish a political thought- what exactly is so different about what President Bush and his government are doing to ‘coerce’ Iraq into developing the ‘right’ government.

Just my thoughts…

7:52 pm  
Blogger ras said...

My dear Prophet. I think you and I were thinking along similar in both our last posts.

We need answers!

9:26 am  
Blogger Political Teenager said...

I think it is entirely logical to call both Blair and Buch terrorists. They could be said to be starting illegal wars which kill innocent people for their own gains.

1:37 pm  
Anonymous Electra said...

i dont remember who, but someone said one person's terrorist is someone else's freedom fighter. and that's just the way it's always going to be.

war will never be fair and terrorism will never be justified, no matter who's engaging in it.

what we need to remember is that these authorities, be they terrorists or despots or otheriwse, like the bush regime, the al qaeda, they only represent a small portion of the people. they only represent one ideal, they offer no alternatives and aren't truly backed by as many people as they claim to represent.

terrorism is a futile thing, but most often you will find that those committing it are driven to it by other extreme situations like discrimination. it's a fight for freedom and justice, in their eyes. what's worse, if that's possible, then is those of them like the bush regime, that have absoloutely no good reason to terrorize others, except for simple and pure displays of power.

7:07 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great site loved it alot, will come back and visit again.
»

12:50 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I find some information here.

12:41 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home