What bothers me, aside from everything else, is the fact that the entire idea of a “war on terror,” which has invited countless abuses under its rubric, is intellectually incoherent. Terror is a tactic; it’s not a pretty one, but neither is bombing people from planes or killing them and their families with drones. When people are willing to both kill and die for a cause, whatever we may think of it, their calculation is one of costs and benefits: Is what we call “terrorism” (or even more incoherently, “state terrorism”) likely to help you achieve your goals or undermine them? From bin Laden’s perspective, the 9/11 attacks got him and many members of his family killed, but he clearly won his war with the United States and the West many times over. Had we been smarter about fighting our genuine enemies, instead of declaring “war” on terror, we would today be a far healthier, wealthier, and a more respected and beloved nation. [my emphasis]He also names a few of the more famous individuals in the War or Terror who successfully profited personally from it. And reminds us of how the neocons were tossing out laundry lists of country they wanted to attack, including Egypt, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Lebanon, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Syria, the West Bank and Gaza. Some of those we did attack, some not. And that list doesn't include all of the countries that we did bomb or use American troops to attack real or imagined terrorists. Like Somalia, for instance.
Since we've hit the 10-year mark of the beginning of Occupy Wall Street, I'll repost this Nanci Griffith video that also features Maura and Pete Kennedy, which is what I'm referencing with Hell No (I'm Not Alright):
No comments:
Post a Comment