No Safety From Terrorism
My cynicism has taken over. Should I be surprised about the American reaction? In the wake of the recent London bombings, US Homeland Security Department chief Michael Chertoff proclaimed this to reassure the "cowed" masses in America:We have been in direct communication with officials at the state and local level and with public and private sector transportation officials.
We have asked them for increased vigilance and additional security measures for major transit systems. We do not have any specific intelligence indicating this type of attack is planned in the United States, but we are constantly evaluating both intelligence and our protective measures and will take whatever actions are necessary.
Yeah, right. "Whatever actions are necessary" sounds bit too much like "what actions are necessary?" for my comfort. There is no comfort, however. There are ways to mitigate the chances of a terrorist attack, but like so many things, there is no way to prevent terrorism. As long as someone has a cause and enough twisted resolve to carry them out, that person is unstoppable.But that is the purpose of terrorism, right? To terrorize a population, to put fear into a large group of people so that every day someone is looking over their shoulder or turning in their neighbor to the local witch-burner. The purpose of putting fear into people is to divide them and reduce their mental capacity to that of a scared child. Fear for self also increases selfishness and greed, reducing nobler ideals into violence and retribution.
The irony is in that feeding that violence and retribution, the stakes jump exponentially higher. Every death encourages another hundred more into combat. What was once an issue between small radical groups, explodes into a global war. Time creates more wounds than it heals, and the ranks grow larger on both sides until ... Enough of that, I'm scaring myself.Let me end with this: the feud must end. As history has proven, there are only two ways to end one. Destroy the enemy or come to an agreement that both sides can accept. Neither Al Queda and associated Muslim fundamentals nor America and its coalition partners seem willing to build any kind of peace. Both sides claim there is no negotiating with the other. The barbed-wire has been laid out and any side that steps into no-man's land will breathe their last.
So, thus New York, Madrid and London are only the beginning. That is if we ignore Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's resolve in evacuating the Gaza Strip. It can't be easy, though many claim the way of peace is that of a coward or traitor. But there needs to be more world leaders who are willing to take the harder path of peace rather than the slow descent into war.
I will say this for Sharon. In twenty years time, if the maelstrom of terrorism has abated much at all, it will be because of peacemakers like Sharon. The warmongers will be thought of as the same, regardless of which side they were on.
Or so it should be.
posted by the prisoner @ 12:53:00 PM
4 Comments:
Because appeasment always worked in the past. Terrorists will always be able to find an excuse and a 'justification' for their acts of barbarism no matter what the civilised world does. Time to take off the tinfoil hat and recognise the real enemies.
Terrorists will always be able to find an excuse and a 'justification' for their acts of barbarism no matter what the civilised world does.
The suggestion that the IRA was behind today's bombings is ludicrous. But 10 years ago it wouldn't have been. Why?
Because the IRA, the Orangemen, the Irish and British government sat down and worked out a ceasefire. If you claim that there is no common ground between the terrorists and us , you have already admitted defeat. You are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy that will lead us to the brink of nuclear war.
But hey, that's all right if we're all dead. Because it's the cause not the effects that count, right?
If you claim that there is no common ground between the terrorists and us , you have already admitted defeat. You are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy that will lead us to the brink of nuclear war.
As long as the Arab world continues to persue a "Jüdenrein" policy in their region there will always be an excuse for terrorism - and lets not delude ourselves into thinking otherwise. Do you really want us to throw Isreal to the pigs in exchange for peace at home?
You laud Ariel Sharon for his withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. However, the only way to ensure safety will be creating a wall and an air-tight border between Israel and Palestine.
Air-tight? The current West Bank Barrier is anything but "air-tight." And the only reason the US supports this Israeli response is under the condition it is temporary and is for safety, not used as border control (for it extends beyond the 1967 Israeli borders). The West Barrier doesn't include Gaza nor is there any concrete wall on Israel's western border, well at least not yet.
So since there's no hug wall there (though there is no doubt some border control, not unlike US' Southern border), your point is moot. I don't believe border control will save any nation in the long-run. Despite Israel's "big freaking wall" (as you put it), Israeli-Palestinian violence has not subsided. It won't. Moats nor castle walls ever stopped determined people from seiging it, though it does make it more difficult.
Listen, I'm no diehard fan of Sharon. I felt he was a hard-line fool before he sanctioned the Gaza withdrawal. But especially for him to make an about-face on this key issue and embrace the common humanity between his people and those on the other side should inspire other leaders to create peace, not war.
Intelligence, military, and police action are appropiate against the terrorists when they are in attack or planning one, but to destroy the homes of innocent civilians such as US contractors and troops in Iraq is insane. To push Al Queda underground in Afghanistan and trust the Pakistani army to help is ludicrous.
But ultimately none of these ideas support long-term goals. We need leaders who think in terms of twenty -fifty years from now. The "flypaper" theory shouldn't even be a consideration. That's my point.
Thanks for the trackback comment. It's done.
Post a Comment
<< Home