See other War, War, War Articles
Title: Terrorism and America's Way of Life
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2010-05-05.asp
Published: May 6, 2010
Author: Jacob Hornberger
Post Date: 2010-05-06 06:23:10 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 157
Comments: 11
In a press conference yesterday about Faisal Shahzad, the Pakistani-American who allegedly tried to blow up the car bomb in Times Square, Attorney General Eric Holder stated, “The reality that there is a constant threat from those who wish to do us harm simply because of our way of life.” We haven’t yet heard any public statements from Shahzad himself. But my hunch is that the “way of life” that allegedly motivated him has to do with what the U.S. government has been doing to people in the Middle East. Consider Iraq, a country that never attacked the United States or even threatened to do so. How many Iraqi citizens have been killed and maimed in the U.S. government’s invasion and occupation of that country? While the estimates range from a hundred thousand to a million, actually no American can answer that question with any degree of certainty. The reason? Early on, the U.S. government announced that while it would keep track of the number of U.S. soldiers killed and injured, it would not do the same with Iraqis. They just weren’t important enough. Moreover, consider the cavalier attitude toward Iraqis that U.S. officials have maintained ever since those infamous WMDs failed to materialize. Their attitude has been this: that any number of deaths of Iraqi people are worth bringing democracy to Iraq. Indeed, consider the fact that not one single Iraqi who was tortured, raped, sexually abused, and incarcerated at Abu Ghraib had anything whatsoever to do with 9/11. Every one of those victims was innocent of that crime. But it’s all justified under the notion that we’re bringing democracy to your country. Isn’t that nice? We will invade your country and kill you, your spouse, your children, your parents, or your friends and neighbors, but actually you should be grateful for our performing this service for you because in the long run your nation will have democracy, which is beautiful. And get this: there has never been an upward limit on the number of Iraqis who could be killed in the pursuit of this illustrious goal. No number of Iraqi deaths and injuries could ever be considered too high, given the benefits of democracy. How nice. How cavalier. This Bush-Obama attitude toward Iraqi life was no different during the Clinton administration, when the brutal sanctions were being enforced against Iraq for more than 10 long years. When Clinton’s Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright was asked in 1996 (five years before the sanctions expired) whether the deaths of half-a-million Iraqi children from the sanctions were “worth it,” she replied that they were “worth it.” Her reply perfectly encapsulated the mindset of U.S. officials, both then and now. Perhaps it’s just a coincidence that the Times’ square attempted bombing took place after the U.S. government’s repeated acts of assassination in Pakistan, but I doubt it. My hunch is that there is as much anger over those assassinations as there was during the time that those brutal sanctions were killing all those Iraqi children. The U.S. government justifies the assassinations by saying that the people they’re targeting are “terrorists.” But how many of those people who they’ve assassinated had anything to do with 9/11, which, let us not forget, was the purported reason for invading Afghanistan in the first place. We don’t know the answer to that question because the U.S. government won’t answer questions on its assassination program. But my hunch is that 99 percent of the people they’ve assassinated in Pakistan had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and that the only reason they were labeled “terrorists” is because they were opposing the foreign occupation of Afghanistan, a neighboring country, just as the U.S. government, working with Osama bin Laden and others, were trying to end the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan during the 1980s. In fact, my hunch is that 99 percent of the people they’ve killed and maimed in Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11 and are simply considered “terrorists” because they oppose the foreign occupation of their country. Moreover, notwithstanding the standard apologies that are issued after wives, children, grandparents, friends, and neighbors are killed in those drone assassinations in Pakistan or in the military attacks in Afghanistan, any reasonable person can surely understand why such deaths have served to swell the ranks of would-be terrorists, especially when such “collateral damage” is calculated in advance of the attacks to be worth it. Supporters of the death and destruction in Afghanistan and Pakistan repeat the old canard that the Taliban gave sanctuary to Osama bin Laden and, therefore, that all this death and destruction is justified to keep the Taliban from returning to power. But there are big problems with that claim. One, the U.S. government has never provided one iota of proof that the Taliban and al Qaeda conspired to commit the 9/11 attacks. Let’s not forget, after all, that some of the 9/11 hijackers were living in Saudi Arabia and, well, also here in the United States, before the attacks. In other words, the simple fact that a suspected terrorist is living in a particular country prior to an attack doesn’t necessarily mean that the government of that country has conspired with the terrorist to commit the attack. Two, before attacking Afghanistan the Bush administration asked the Taliban to unconditionally extradite bin Laden to the United States. If the Taliban had actually participated in the 9/11 attacks, would Bush have bothered to make such a request? Three, prior to his invasion of Afghanistan Bush was negotiating with the UN Security Council to give him permission to invade Afghanistan. Would he have done that if he had proof that the Taliban had participated in the 9/11 attacks? Let’s face the truth: U.S. troops are killing and injuring people in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, not out of a sense of justice for 9/11 but simply out of the long-term U.S. foreign policy of installing and maintaining U.S.-favored rulers in foreign regimes. And it doesn’t matter whether the regime is totalitarian, democratic, authoritarian, or whatever. All that matters is that U.S. foreign policy dictates that it be a U.S-approved regime. That’s what Holder undoubtedly is referring to when he says that terrorists want to do us harm because of “our way of life” — a “way of life” that involves empire, interventionism, sanctions, embargoes, invasions, occupations, torture, bombings, foreign aid, support of dictatorships, and assassinations. As long as Americans permit their government to pursue such an immoral, cruel, brutal, destructive, and hypocritical “way of life,” they had better come to terms with the virtual certainty that there will be victims of this “way of life” who will do their best to retaliate.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Ada (#0)
As long as Americans permit their government to pursue such an immoral, cruel, brutal, destructive, and hypocritical “way of life,” they had better come to terms with the virtual certainty that there will be victims of this “way of life” who will do their best to retaliate. Holder's "way of life" is iron-fisted communism. Since when exactly has that been OUR way of life ??? While I don't trust Glenn Beck, he's right about progressives and their agenda. The key to all of the destructive agencies and agents is funding. The FED RESERVE creates the money that funds the communists/progressives. Any politician or pundit that refuses to speak out against the FEDERAL RESERVE AND The State of Israel is a liar by omission.
"April 15th is really April FOOL'S DAY."
Here's what the mideast wars are really about....
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. "You've got to put right and wrong above legal and illegal. Because when tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty; and it is not rebellion at all, it is submission to the higher law that our government is in rebellion to. We're not the rebels, they're the rebels."
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. "You've got to put right and wrong above legal and illegal. Because when tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty; and it is not rebellion at all, it is submission to the higher law that our government is in rebellion to. We're not the rebels, they're the rebels."
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. "You've got to put right and wrong above legal and illegal. Because when tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty; and it is not rebellion at all, it is submission to the higher law that our government is in rebellion to. We're not the rebels, they're the rebels."
Let's just pretend for a moment that this is true. Just pretend. The question is then begged, what precisely is "our way of life"? Are we free, by any classical liberal standard? Do we actually own our own property? No (property tax means that you don't own it kids). Do we use a commodity based currency as required in the Constitution? No, we use unbacked paper. Do we have little to no taxation? ROFL! Does our government have restraints on it, where we are the master and it is the servant? Oh, puh-leez, hah, no, not even close. Do we have very few laws, and what laws we have are common sense and based on our culture and customs? ROFL! Do we have a system of voluntary state militias, no standing army and have no entangling alliances? ROFL! Can I travel unimpeded and unregulated by the government? Only if I walk on foot. Do we enter into military conflicts only after sober consideration and a declaration of war by Congress, and exit the war and countries in question as quickly as possible after the conflict? ROFL! So they clearly don't hate us for *our* freedoms. Take a good hard look at exactly what we have, what we do, what the results are, and what those results support and ask yourself why you, yourself, are not against "our way of life" too. I have an intense dislike of Islam (and most other religions, to be honest), so I'm not defending those door knobs in the least. But let's be real guys, we're not only not free, we're living in a nation where the President jokes about killer drones attacking American citizens and we're supposed to laugh, we live in a nation where warfare is constant, unwarranted domestic surveillance is commonplace, taxation is outrageous, regulation is so far out of control that there's no way to not break a law, and we have two classes of citizens - plebes and rulers. Who wouldn't be against that?
MapQuest really needs to start their directions on #5. Pretty sure I know how to get out of my neighborhood.
While I have lost respect for Beck primarily because of his treatment of Medina, and there are other issues, I won't throw the baby out with the bath water. He says some of the right things !
"April 15th is really April FOOL'S DAY."
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. "You've got to put right and wrong above legal and illegal. Because when tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty; and it is not rebellion at all, it is submission to the higher law that our government is in rebellion to. We're not the rebels, they're the rebels."
A huge Amen! to that.
Glenn beck does not even give a right history of the beginnings of Progressivism because he seems to be stuck in the 20th century and the Administrations of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson(actually a Pinocchio for a Rothchild agent named "Colonel" Edward Mandel House). Progressiveism in America and Nazism/Fascism in Europe was actually founded with a Socialist novel titled Looking Backward by Edward Bellamy in 1888. This novel proposed creating a totalitarian socialist state by first allowing big business to continue its monopoly trends of the time in a "regulated" manner until it became a single monopoly over all economic activity that would eventually merge with the state to create the totalitarian socialist state. This novel was the "bible" of so called "Nationalist" and "Bellamy" clubs that arose in the wake of its publication in the remainder of the 19th century that eventually became the "Progressive" movement of the 20th Century and 21st Centuries.
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. "You've got to put right and wrong above legal and illegal. Because when tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty; and it is not rebellion at all, it is submission to the higher law that our government is in rebellion to. We're not the rebels, they're the rebels."
That’s what Holder undoubtedly is referring to when he says that terrorists want to do us harm because of “our way of life” — a “way of life” that involves empire, interventionism, sanctions, embargoes, invasions, occupations, torture, bombings, foreign aid, support of dictatorships, and assassinations.
#2. To: Ada (#0)
#3. To: Ada (#0)
#4. To: noone222 (#1)
#5. To: Googolplex (#2)
#6. To: Ada (#0)
“The reality that there is a constant threat from those who wish to do us harm simply because of our way of life.”
#7. To: Eric Stratton (#4)
But Glenn Beck has no claim to originating that thought.
#8. To: noone222 (#7)
#9. To: Eric Stratton, 4 (#5)
Increasingly this world is becoming a place that is becoming less and less desirable to live in.
#10. To: Eric Stratton (#4)
The Fed EXPOSED!!! The FARO RESERVE BANK!!!
#11. To: Coral Snake (#10)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest