Quote of the Day
Over the years [Muslim] extremists have used a litany of excuses for violence -- the Israeli presence on the West Bank, or the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, or the defeat of the Taliban, or the Crusades of a thousand years ago. In fact, we're not facing a set of grievances that can be soothed and addressed. We're facing a radical ideology with inalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world. No act of ours invited the rage of the killers -- and no concession, bribe, or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans for murder.Hat tip Powerline
~ President Bush, October 6, 2005
posted by Seth at 5:47 PM
5 Comments:
Really, I thought it was because they ahted freedom.
This is typical of Bush's (and the right wing's in general) ahistorical, irrational attitude to the world; the belief that things happen for no reason and all we can do is strike out at random. The idea that there are no genuine grievances held by the Muslim and Arabic worlds against US policy is what will ensure this 'war on terror' continues until the last ounce of oil has been burned up.
Bush's point isn't that there are no valid claims against the U.S. by the Muslim world, but that those claims are not the true basis for Islamic terrorism. And even if they use them as such, there still would be no excuse for the evil they commit against the innocent.
hence the phrase "inalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world."
Who gives a fuck why bin laden does what he does? Nobody! And no Muslim country will stand it if he tries to take over. The important thing is to know why people follow him and millions more sympathise with his struggle even if they don't participate in acts of violence.
By focusing on dismissing a small band of insane criminals as such is to focus on the Manson family while ignoring everyone else who breaks that law.
Loyal, your statement “Who gives a fuck why bin laden does what he does” doesn't seem to fit with your prior statement dispar aging “the belief that things happen for no reason and all we can do is strike out at random.” In the first instance I thought we were supposed to be quite concerned with people’s motives, but in the latter case apparently not. So I’m not sure what you’re thinking.
About the Manson case: I'm confused about your analogy. The US is combating terrorism on many fronts but focusing on the most egregious cases. It seems like this is parallel to the way that the police fight crime on many fronts, but focus on the most egregious cases. That sounds pretty reasonable.
Keep in mind that Bush explicitly referred to “Muslim *extremists*” not all Muslims who he’s been quick to say (rightly or wrongly) are in general peaceful folk. I took his thesis to be that these people can’t be reasoned with or appeased, so our only choice is to let them destroy us or defend ourselves against them.
Here's another relevant comment by Christopher Hitchens, who argues that Islamic terrorism is not a reaction to the imperialist western policies, but rather irrational:
Consider this, look again at the awful carnage in Bali, and shudder if you ever said, or thought, that the bombs in London in July, or the bombs in Baghdad every day, or the bombs in Bali last Friday, are caused by any "policy" but that of the bombers themselves. Note the following:
1) East Timor was for many years, and quite rightly, a signature cause of the Noam Chomsky "left." The near-genocide of its people is an eternal stain on Indonesia and on the Western states that were complicit or silent. Yet Bin Ladenism wants not less of this killing and repression but more. Its demand to re-establish the caliphate is a pro-imperialist demand, not an anti-imperialist one.
2) Random bombings are not a protest against poverty and unemployment. They are a cause of poverty and unemployment and of wider economic dislocation.
3) Hinduism is considered by Bin Ladenists to be a worse heresy even than Christianity or Judaism or Shiism, and its adherents, whether in Bali or Kashmir, are fit only for the edge of the sword. So, it is absurd to think of jihadism—which murders the poor and the brown without compunction—as a movement against the rich and the "white."
So, what did Indonesia do to deserve this, or bring it on itself? How will the slaughter in Bali improve the lot of the Palestinians? Those who look for the connection will be doomed to ask increasingly stupid questions and to be content with increasingly wicked answers.
Post a Comment
<< Home