Enough Already
Please excuse me, but I'm going to rant for a few minutes. Before I do, I want to personally thank the people in the U.K. who foiled the latest terrorist plot. You deserve to be knighted.
Dear Mr. Terrorist:
I am sick and tired of you and your attacks. You're not scaring me. If I had the time I'd jump on a plane today just to thumb my nose at you. You're not making me convert to your religious beliefs. If anything, it makes my belief in God stronger. You're not making me change my 'capitalist' ways. I still have a strong desire to have a bigger car (have you not been reading my posts?), bigger house and make more money. I will go to work this morning and do what I need to in order to fulfill my desires. You have accomplished nothing.
The only thing you've proven to me is that you don't possess the ability to think independently of others. You swallow the propoganda handed to you like it's a life-sustaining pill. If you'll stop ingesting the hatred you'll see that people everywhere are basically the same...we're all just trying to live our life in the best way possible.
If you feel the need, keep planning your attacks. You're not changing anything...except maybe the time it takes me to get through the airport. It's ok, our men and women in uniform stuck out in the desert will take care of you soon enough.
In closing....feck off!
Dear Mr. Terrorist:
I am sick and tired of you and your attacks. You're not scaring me. If I had the time I'd jump on a plane today just to thumb my nose at you. You're not making me convert to your religious beliefs. If anything, it makes my belief in God stronger. You're not making me change my 'capitalist' ways. I still have a strong desire to have a bigger car (have you not been reading my posts?), bigger house and make more money. I will go to work this morning and do what I need to in order to fulfill my desires. You have accomplished nothing.
The only thing you've proven to me is that you don't possess the ability to think independently of others. You swallow the propoganda handed to you like it's a life-sustaining pill. If you'll stop ingesting the hatred you'll see that people everywhere are basically the same...we're all just trying to live our life in the best way possible.
If you feel the need, keep planning your attacks. You're not changing anything...except maybe the time it takes me to get through the airport. It's ok, our men and women in uniform stuck out in the desert will take care of you soon enough.
In closing....feck off!
posted by xwy at 8:09 AM
20 Comments:
ummm, i was hoping for an HNT pic. it IS National Underwear Day... ;) great post though, i agree with you and Denny.
Denny - I try to see both sides of any issue but in this instance I have to take the stand that my way (tolerance) is the right way...period.
JD - National Underwear Day? You didn't send me that memo. I'll just have to celebrate tomorrow. ;)
Um, not to throw water on a perfectly nice rant, but do you think that there's a chance that the problem of terrorism isn't what we think it is?
Think Reichstag.
Well said, feck off indeed! Goes double for me!
X - Have you seen the movie Syriana? I truly think the issue outlined in the movie is the reason behind terrorism. Governments in these countries make millions of dollars off the sale of oil. That money isn't reinvested into the country's infrastructure but spent on $50k/night hotel rooms and luxurious homes. That's why there's such there are only 2 classes in these countries...the super rich and the extremely poor.
The government controls the money and keeps the people oppressed. These extremists pop up because they are tired of the oppression and their hatred is mis-directed to the purchasers of the oil rather than their own governments for keeping them oppressed.
Now, who exactly is perpetuating this mis-directed hatred is up for debate. I'd be extremely interested in hearing your thoughts on the matter.
Cakes - I think we need t-shirts..."Feck off, Mr. Terrorist!" lol.
Excellently put! :)
I like that rant. I really do.
I think the suicide bombers should take their actions very seriously and should go out into the desert to practice a few times before a live run.
well I'm getting on a plane from NYC to DC in a couple hours and I can't wait to thumb my nose at them!
Jazzi, safe travels. i'll be thinking about you and hope you get home safe and sound. :)
PQ - Thank you very much!
Kira - Thank you too!
Grant - Wouldn't that be nice?
Jazzi - Hey girl! Please be careful!
I agree with Angie's explanation to X..
I also believe that some of these people are very jealous of the west...I think they believe that because the US is a prosperous and free country that everyone here has it so easy and we can all have whatever we want, etc...and it makes them insanely jealous and angry...and they take it out on us and those who help us...(not to mention The Chief Idiot pissing off the entire world)...but they fail to see there are many here, struggling, and dying too..many problems...it's not 'paradise'...
RG - It could be jealousy. I tend to think it's a mixture of proganda and racism...which could be fueled by jealousy. Interesting...
Christian - and fanatic British sympathizers, and fanatic U.S. sympathizers...and the list goes on and on. RG said Chief Idiot she could be talking about anyone. Besides, the only bush I allow to be discussed around here is mine! lol.
Do you have a bush? Or shaved? Oh....I see, just kiddin about discussing your bush....I see
But I do agree with Christian; can't we just stay focused on the emeny and not invent ones of our ideologic scapegoat convenient choosing?
Angie...
One word.. BRAVO!!!!
Tammyj
Well, this site is finally living up to its name.
I don't have pat or glib responses to your question, I'm afraid. To short-cut the issue would lead to misunderstanding.
I will say this: there is a mythology forming around terrorism that gives very concise and clear answers as to (a) the identity of terrorists, (b) the purpose of terrorist acts, and (c) how we should regard or say about people who ask difficult questions.
The mythology may have some basis in fact. What it lacks, however, is evidence. It's credibility does not come from evidence, but rather from repetition, especially from authoritative sources--not just government officials, but public figures, media, and even entertainment (google the term "Wisner's Wurlitzer" to see what I mean).
The reasons given by the current occupant of the Oval Office for 9/11--the terrorists hate our freedom--is rather absurd on the face of it. They would face less risk and less cost if they simply lashed out against repressive governments. Of course, since Osama Bin Goldstein is/was a prince, he doesn't really strike me as part of he oppressed masses. Neither do the other mujahadin.
Arundhati Roy said it best: "America has a history, about which the vast majority of Americans do not know." We can know, actually. But if it's not fed to us on the nightly news, or playing at our local cinema, we tend to ignore it. Unfortunately, the victims of US covert/military actions have a little more interest.
IF the official version of terrorist events is true, then one would have to see them as the failure (strategic, moral, & economic) of Western economic policies (not specifically by govenment, but business as well).
Yet, this version has very serious flaws. As I said, I don't have room to discuss them here. But one last thing: Chase Brandon, the director of public relations at the CIA, spoke publically (on "Good Morning America," for starters) about the movie "Syrianna," to explain why the Agency didn't assist the film in a material way (as they would for an episode of "Alias"). Although coy about citing any reason why the Agency didn't help the movie, Brandon conveyed pleasure with the effort, and made clear that some of what would have seemed like controversial points, were, in fact, fairly accurate AND acceptable to the CIA--after all, the Agency has been criticized by people who really know how to do it.
Perhaps Brandon understood that the last thing a propaganda film needs is the taint of CIA backing.
Of course, US films never stoop to the level of propaganda. Forget I said that:-)
Tammy - Thank you, my dear. Doesn't really solve anything but sometimes it helps to just say "enough already!"
X - "America has a history, about which the vast majority of Americans do not know." I'd think "do not care to know" is probably a better synopsis of the situation. Now, we may need to discuss this propaganda issue via email. I think I'm misreading your intent. Clooney's been fairly outspoken about his disdain for the war. I'm not sure I could picture him as involved in a propaganda film. Unless, you view it as 'disinformation'?????
X - Let me clarify...not that I don't think they use the studios to make propaganda films....I just question his involvement in it.
Because of time constraints, I had hoped to forego any long analysis on the subject. But since I guess I'm still not clear, here goes.
While many well-informed people realize that such neo-conservative think tanks as The American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Manhattan Institute form and develop neo-conservative and conservative opinions. Such is obvious, of course. What many people do not realize, however, is that these foundations also form, develop, and write liberal opinions as well.
I first became aware of this myself in the spring of 2002 when writing an article about Edison Schools. In tracing the "talking points" references back to their original source, I found them in the three organizations above. There were minor differences between the think tanks' stated conservative position (mostly in wording). But there were also liberal opinions (labelled as such) on Edison schools listed on these institute's websites. In short, the liberal views were not those actually held by any leftist I have had contact. Rather, these were simply a straw position, a mock-up of what liberal opinion might be. Such opinions had even more holes than the ultraconservative ones, but that was the point, I believe. They were meant to be paraded as leftist ideas--ideas easily torn down.
On a deeper level, however, the forming of liberal opinion has the added advantage of framing the issue. Nine times out of ten, we're talking about a binary framing. (I've actually posted about this at The X-Spot. It's an excerpt from my last novel, but the content is based on an actual excercise I ran when teaching my media courses at Hunter College here in NY.) I have little doubt that Clooney is actually who he purports to be, and that his opinions are honest ones. Whether or not Clooney is genuinely openly for or against the current war or war in genera, however, is simply unimportant.
My opinion is that Brandon might have salivated over Syriana even if it were anti-CIA. Why? Because the movie affirms the tenets of pro-war advocates: (1) the identity of the terrorists as Muslim, Arab/Persian, and external to US controls; and (2) the motive of the terrorists as only tangetally connected to US foreign policy (the feeling that we didn't create these guys).
Syriana does the following:
(1) It provides us with the George Clooney character, the protagonist, is the CIA agent (Brandon said he had no problems with the assassination scene, incidentally). We can identify with him, and his worries about sending his son to a good college, etc.. Basically, he's the good guy. Not perfect, but good.
(2) It shows us that there are reform-minded princes/governments in the middle east (despite my affection for Siddig el Faddil) who will help with energy policy reformers after their sons die in the monarch's house, although they stupidly ally with the wrong crowd (in this case, the Chinese), and inadvertently drive the poor workers displaced by communism into the evil clutches of blue-eyed Egyptian terrorist recruiters.
Syriana does not show:
(1) US backing of weapons, arms and intelligence to the Mujahadeen starting in 1980 (the attempt to dispel the USSR from Afghanistan). Incidentally, AQ simply means "The Base." Although some conservative pundits try to deny that the US funded the base at any time, they are simply playing semantic games. The US does admit to actually funding freedom fighters, however, who just so happen to include Bin Goldstein and his minions.
(2) The long-term destabilizing effects of US policy on the middle east.
(3) Any hint that current terrorism may be caused by other, or additional sources.
(4) Such facilities as the School of the Americas (Ft. Benning, GA) have trained thousands of people to carry out the specific types of terrorist attacks that have recently graced our headlines.
As a matter of terrorism, the current attacks are bizarre in that they don't reflect the strategy and goals of terrorism. If you are trying to terrorize to promote a viewpoint, you have to clearly articulate that viewpoint and claim responsibility for your actions. In the London subway bombing incident last year, a group claiming to be AQ of Europe took responsibility for the hit--but as it soon became apparent, the group didn't exist. It was a forgery. Or what is technically known in spy lingo as "a false flag operation."
Other terrorist acts have never been claimed. No agenda has been outlined. True, media and governments might have held back such reports in order to frustrate an external terrorist threat. Yet, no one controls the Internet yet. No messages have surfaced at the present time.
Terrorist strategy also attempts to create an atmosphere of harrassment that will lead citizens to use what pressure they have to force politicians into ordering concessions to the terrorist group (that's why they have to claim responsibility).
Note your own reaction to terrorism. I haven't seen massive drives to change US foreign policy from anyone not previously committed to doing so before the Iraq war. In fact, most people ball their hands into metaphoric fists, wave them in the air and say "We'll get you terrorists," or "Screw you, terrorists," or whatever.
In other words, if actual terrorists are behind these plots, then they are screwing up nine ways to Sunday. Okay, these might be actual, incompetent middle eastern terrorists. Problem is, we don't have evidence that this is the case. What we have instead is a megaphone that repeats talking points ad nauseum.
Since we don't question the source or motivation of invisible terrorists, we keep making the same binary choices over and over. Are you for or against terrorists? Are you willing to sacrifice personal freedom for the good of the Homeland?
Note: these are all questions, framed by someone who wants a "did you beat your dog" kind of yes or no response.
Post a Comment
<< Home