Reply With Quote
characterizing every conflict as terrorism is a marketing tool.
what we did in ireland is the product of another people violently forcing their will upon us.
It has dawned on me over the course of the past few years that the September 11th attacks have been widely misunderstood by the vast majority of the world, with Americans being especially oblivious to the events of that day.
Terrorism is an endemic part of human society. Britain, Ireland, Spain, Russia, Germany, France, India, Pakistan, Latin America, the Middle East, and large swaths of Africa have all been dealing with the effects of terrorism for the majority of this past century. The United States has historically sought integration over marginalization (with the obvious caveat that some groups are integrated much faster than others) and litigation over violence. The fact that Americans have never experienced an organized and systematic terrorist campaign is primarily a product of the construction of American national iden y and the way marginalized groups seek empowerment in American society.
The precise definition of a “nation” is the geographical area that encompasses an ethnic or cultural population. The United States does not have a monolithic ethnicity, and American nationalism is better understood as glorified statism. The cult of the enlightenment that our founding fathers developed between 1776 and 1789 is the ideological bond that informs the American conception of national iden y, and this overarching ideology has manifested itself in the cons utionalism we know today. This unique brand of nationalism has created a culture in which state validation has far more psychological power than cultural validation, and it is the reason why ethnic, class, and social minorities have sought governmental recognition instead of societal recognition. This trend is exemplified by the civil rights movement, the feminist movement, and in contemporary society, the gay rights movement.
In most other societies, where national iden ies have no overarching connection with the framework of the state itself, marginalized groups are more likely to challenge the state or dominant cultural norms violently. This is because a society that lacks ins utions like the Supreme Court or the Cons ution, ins utions that all segments of society are ideologically connected to, has more trouble producing centralized normative statements that effect genuine shifts in cultural at udes.
On September 11th, 2001, terrorists from across the world organized to destroy the greatest symbol of American economic hegemony (aptly named the World Trade Center) and to partially destroy the greatest symbol of American military power, the Pentagon. In the 7 years since, not only has the US failed to destroy terrorism, but it has managed to cripple itself militarily through misguided wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Tools the government has sought in response to terrorism, such as the Patriot Act and the FISA amendment, have served to roll back the crux of American national iden y, enlightenment idealism, and the American economy is on its knees. In the mean time images of American planes dropping cluster bombs on poor villages in Afghanistan, and American mercenaries blindly shooting up crowded market places in Iraq have given fresh generations of poor, desperate people in the Middle East many new reasons to hate America. None of them have to do with our “freedom.”
The reason Bush was able to convince everyone that terrorists were attacking us because they hated freedom is due to fear and parochial obliviousness, as this at ude is clearly not a rational or empirical evaluation. Bush does actually believe that Islamic terrorism is little more than freedom hating, but this is the product of a snap judgment made in a time of immense personal trauma, and it was shaped primarily by Bush’s limited understanding of the world in 2001 and his lack of intellectual curiosity. The real truth is, Islamic terrorists come from many of the most oppressive societies on earth. Actual political freedom is laughable in these parts of the world, and most of the world’s Muslims are more concerned with survival than tangible political rights. Whether or not we chose to admit it, the world system that we Americans benefit from is thought to come at the expense of these people. Even if you don’t think this is true, you ought to know that those poor Palestinian kids who grow up knowing little besides violence do believe it, and these days they have all the more reason to.
Americans will have to realize that terrorism cannot be defeated with bombs before we can get ourselves out of this mess. The Global War on Terror is not a war, it’s misguided military adventurism. I just hope a smarter America will be more rational the next time a major terrorist attack occurs, because we cannot afford a bigger mess than the one we have now.
Last edited by RobinsontoDuncan; 12-08-2008 at 08:35 PM.
characterizing every conflict as terrorism is a marketing tool.
what we did in ireland is the product of another people violently forcing their will upon us.
That was extremely well said.
I strongly agreecharacterizing every conflict as terrorism is a marketing tool.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. If by we you mean Americans, I'm not sure how we were involved.what we did in ireland is the product of another people violently forcing their will upon us.
If by we you mean Irish Catholics or Irish protestants, than I agree--both sides were being played by the British through their oldest, and most effective tool: divide and concur.
Thanks.That was extremely well said.
For whatever reason my posts on these forums tend to be ignored, so I wouldn't be surprised if few people actually comment on this thread--but I feel like this is the kind of discussion we Americans need to have.
I was hoping that Obama would take the opportunity to originate this discussion at some point, but my misguided judgment that his hawkishness was merely a cover to induce the center to vote for him is proving false.
Perhaps the mere passing of time will suffice--Americans were scared after September 11th and they reacted in a way that reflected that blind fear. Now that we see that TERRORISM is in fact terrorism (little more than a momentary disruption in the cycle of real life) perhaps we will begin to react differently when new crises hits.
Living in the shadow of fear only envelops the world in violence. Learning to overcome fear is what allows us to create a better future. Mahatma Gandhi's greatest triumph was his ability to dismiss fear...Fear of the other, fear of violence, fear of death, and the fear of evil.
3 billion people live on $2 a day. If half the world is barely scrapping by, Americans need to ask themselves “What in the are we so scared of?”
very good open perspective.
i from belfast. the "troubles" were not the "real" problem.
And after peace was established we found out what that problem was-- the perpetuation of inequality which was based on a blind hatred of one's neighbors.
This is how history can be a powerful tool of disorder. When we live our lives vicariously through those that have been wronged in the past we forget to make the world better for the innocent of the future.
When I hear the words "we must never forget it" in regard to the holocaust, I think the world learned the wrong lesson. We must forget the holocaust. We must forget all of it, the bigotry, the atrocity, the unimaginable evil of it all. We must forget it and make sure that we don't continue to live it.
The problem with remembering IT the way we do, is that we nostalgisize it. We problematize the atrocities of this world to such a degree that we find ourselves thinking that we would do anything to go back and "fix it." We have to "fix" the holocaust so we will do anything to make sure Israel is always absolved of any real guilt in the Palestinian concentration camps. We have to "fix" September 11th so we make sure to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.
How many times have you heard World War II and Hitler invoked as a justification for some irrational action today? When was the last time you heard someone compare the Sudanese government to the Third Reich? I bet that number (if there is one) pales in comparison to the number of times you have heard Saddam Hussein compared to Hitler.
Last edited by RobinsontoDuncan; 12-10-2008 at 09:44 AM.
Big government will do far more damage than any foreign terrorist could.
I was afraid you'd miss this thread with your 1-3 sentence tibit of poorly placed information. You fit in perfectly in a soundbite driven nation.
You wasted a lot of time writing that drivel. Time you could have spent fighting terrorists.
I hope this post is heaped in sarcasm, otherwise...
You wasted a lot of time writing that drivel. Time you could have spent fighting terrorists.
So, what should we have done?
Should we have hit Al Queda in Afghanistan? - cluster bombs in villages are an inevitable consequence of that, after all.
Iraq is another question, obviously - and EVEN Bush has admitted recently that over-estimating Saddam's WMD stockpiles is a great regret of his.
So, are you piling on Iraq, or are you debating EVEN the response in Afganistan? One of those positions is very debatable, the other doesn't fit within what you originally posted - because, ultimately, the "Global War on Terror" comes down to two military campaigns.
Sadly you overlooked the fact that he made a good point...in one sentence. Talk about poorly placed information.
Nuclear war will do far worse damage than big government.
I make great points. Score one for me.
You've been doing so well lately with looking at the big picture. I've even thought of turning the page to a Manny B2B friendship and then you go right back down the narrow pipe of stupidity again.
The sun exploding will do far worse damage than nuclear war.
I can do this all day.
Now that makes sense.
Of course it makes sense. Its an extremely good point. And anyone here who thinks Obama is going to successfully stop the Sun from exploding is out of their minds.
He didn't say Obama he said "big government". Have or are we not seeing the bad side effects of large government right now.
I never said he said anything about Obama. What we're seeing today isn't as a result of "big" government. But what is really stupid is how big government had absolutely no place in thread. Its like me dropping into a Tpark dating thread and all of a sudden dropping a one line remark about how Tpark dying of AIDs would be worse then missing out on a BJ from a chick from A&M. And then after my remark when someone points out how re ed my post is you come in and post "Well Amy has a good point, and he made it in one sentence".
Thread hijack complete btw.
He pointed out the destructive nature of "big government" in a thread about the destructive nature or lack thereof with Terrorism and notions around it.
How is that not relevant.
I know I'm enormously bored.
Good original post though. I liked what the man/women had to say.
Well then what will do more damage than the sun exploding?
I am not convinced of a lot of this. Do terrorists come from the most oppressive societies? I do not think OBL was much oppressed.The real truth is, Islamic terrorists come from many of the most oppressive societies on earth. Actual political freedom is laughable in these parts of the world, and most of the world’s Muslims are more concerned with survival than tangible political rights. Whether or not we chose to admit it, the world system that we Americans benefit from is thought to come at the expense of these people.
I do not think terrorists are fighting against oppression and for freedom. It seems they just want different groups to be oppressed.
Most of world's Muslims concerned with survival? It's not clear to me that this is the case or that Muslims are especially poor compared to other groups.
I think a lot of it is that Islam is going through (again?) an Enlightenment phase, which is opposed by many. People's sufferings are blamed on not being fundamental enough. To fix it, you need to force society to adhere to your version of Islam. The problem is that corrupt and inept governments are not offering appealing alternatives.
Question for the OP:
Why? Why did the hijackers do what they did on 911?
Your post is very verbose, but doesn't say much.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
