Enter your email address to be notified of new blog entries:



06/05/2007 - 11:15pm

Does Anyone Actually Question "Blowback"?


    del.icio.us

During the second GOP debates, Ron Paul opened the eyes of anyone intelligent enough to think about what he had to say. Since 9/11, the whole event has been reduced to "We're good, they're evil," and it just doesn't work that way. The administration has so entrenched us into thinking that we need more intervention and militarization in order to protect ourselves, when in fact it is exactly those things that have put us in danger in the first place.

Ron Paul has encouraged people to research and listen to what these "terrorists" have to say about why they attacked us. Unlike what some of the other GOP candidates or mainstream media would like to have you think, this is not the same as saying that he "blames America" for these attacks. When a murder is committed, we don't blame the victim, but we still try and determine the murderer's motives.

So I've done just that. And it's amazing how easy it is to find this information when you start looking for it. Here is the transcript of a video released by Osama Bin Laden regarding the 9/11 attacks:

The events of September 11 are but a reaction to the continuous injustice and oppression being practiced against our sons in Palestine and Iraq and in Somalia and Southern Sudan and in other places like Kashmir and Assam. This matter concerns the whole Islamic nation (Ummah).

It is incumbent on the people to wake up from their sleep and rush to devise a solution to this disastrous problem that threatens mankind entirely today. As for those who condemned these operations looked at the event in isolation and failed to connect them to past events and did not look at the causes that lead to this result. So their point of view is narrow. Their attitude is not in accord with and not based on either a religious, legal, or even a rational perspective. They just saw America and the media criticizing these operations so they stood up with them in criticism.

Their example is like the story of the wolf that saw a newborn lamb. So it said to this lamb, "You were the one who dirtied my water last year!" The lamn replied, "It was not me." "It WAS you", the wolf insisted. So the lamb told him, "Wolf, I was born this year!" The wolf said, "So it must have been your mother!" and ate the lamb. And what could the poor mother do when she saw her son being torn into pieces between the teeth of the wolf? But in the passion of motherhood she butted the wolf. Of course the wolf was not affected at all however it shouted out, "look at this terrorist!" So thse parrots joined in, repeating what the wolf said and saying, "yes, we condemn the ewe's butt against the wolf." Where have you been when the wolf ate the son of this sheep? So those blessed and successful strikes are but in reaction to what happened in our lands -- in Palestine and in Iraq, and in other places.

After watching the video where this dialog came from, I started thinking about what I would do if I were in their position. Think about this; if you were part of a group of people that was being oppressed and inteferred with over and over again, you'd probably be pretty darn pissed. So much so that you might even act in ways you never would even think of acting in a free society.

While the US hasn't necessarily been the oppressors, we've had an indirect impact by being the ones that put the oppressors in place and allying ourselves with them.

One thing that is certain is that if we want to continue to have such national security threats and be the target of terrorist attacks, our best plan is to maintain our presence in Iraq and the Middle East.



Comments
Add Comment

Posted by: nobody
07/21/2007 6:09am

"After watching the video where this dialog came from, I started thinking about what I would do if I were in their position. Think about this; if you were part of a group of people that was being oppressed and inteferred with over and over again, you'd probably be pretty darn pissed. So much so that you might even act in ways you never would even think of acting in a free society.

"While the US hasn't necessarily been the oppressors, we've had an indirect impact by being the ones that put the oppressors in place and allying ourselves with them."


While I disagreed with some of your ideas about the Federal Reserve and the gold-standard and the usefulness of social programs, I found myself agreeing with what you wrote here. Before you feel to good about that, I also agree with these words: "It is incumbent on the people to wake up from their sleep and rush to devise a solution to this disastrous problem that threatens mankind entirely today." That's more or less the same thing Noam Chomsky wrote a book about in "Hegemony or Survival" (recommended).

And I disagree that "the US hasn't necessarily been the oppressors." In many cases we have, especially in the Middle East since WW2 and South America since the 1800s. The term oppressors doesn't fit the US people, but it fits the US commercial interests that have dictated our foreign policy, mostly unbeknownst to the people, who are distracted by silly subjects, like abortion, gay marriage, illegal immigration and the tyrannical injustice of social programs. At the following link you can find a pretty good summation, from a Muslim, showing just a few of the most glaring examples of perceived US oppression in the Middle East in the article titled "Bush's Vision for Mideast." As an aside, you can also find something that most pro-war people claim doesn't exist, an article by a Muslim condemning terrorist acts by Muslims in the article titled "Wrong way of addressing one's grievances." It's not that such articles don't exist, but that the Western press doesn't publish such articles, as they are not conducive to the war effort, and pro-war readers don't wish to acknowledge that they exist.
http://www.arabview.com/articlelist.asp?author=26

At any rate, I said I agree with most of what you said here but then went right into what I disagree with, didn't I? Oops! I agree that most Americans tend to wear blinders when contemplating world affairs, or perhaps it's more accurate to just say most Americans do not contemplate world affairs very deeply. A little consideration on the subject can go a long way, as in your case, when you just "started thinking about what I would do." It doesn't take a genius level IQ to realize that you would feel a lot of anger towards the USA if you lived in a nation where most of the people believed that the USA was responsible for hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dying from starvation or inadequate medical attention in the 1990s or if you believed the USA had a bad habit of installing brutal dictators in your own country or the countries around you, causing oppression and instability in practically all Muslim countries. And if one thinks about it a little further, you can see why middle-easterners feel anger at all western cultures, not just Americans, as the major European powers did the same thing for centuries before the US became a super-power. I can empathize with these people. That doesn't mean I like what they do any more than I like what we do, but I can see where they are coming from. It doesn't take a lot of effort to do that, in fact, I think it takes effort not to. But many Americans seem to have perfected the skill of evading their faculty to empathize, and are even quite skilled at projecting entirely inaccurate and backwards emotions and beliefs onto those that they call their enemies.

"One thing that is certain is that if we want to continue to have such national security threats and be the target of terrorist attacks, our best plan is to maintain our presence in Iraq and the Middle East."

Neither Chomsky, bin Laden nor myself have put that any better.

Posted by: Shiek Jim Jones
09/12/2007 3:46pm

On the one hand, Zoe Falkenberg (Flight 111), was four years old. I would rip Bin Laden to shreds with my bare hands for killing her and 2,700+ other innocent human beings on 9/11/01.

On the other, the USA has such an abysmal record of human rights violations - past and present - from installing and supporting the child torturing Shah, supporting Israeli crimes (a bomb on a bus is terrorism, a missile from an F16 that kills 13 child bystanders is "a right to self-defense"), supporting then opposing the mosnter Saddam, etc etc etc etc.

I guess, thinking out loud, "two wrongs don't make a right." Bin Laden should be crushed and the American people need to educate themselves on the horrors and atrocities our governemtn has wrought across the world and demand change and reparations.

In a way, the two are not related and neither justifies the other.

Posted by: Nick Coons
09/15/2007 1:08am

I don't think anyone is claiming that the 9/11 attacks are justified by our actions over there, just explained.

When a homicide is committed, investigators look for a motive to explain why the crime has occurred. But a motive doesn't justify the crime, it just explains the "why" behind it. It escapes me why so many people don't understand this concept.

Add Comment





Copyright 2004-2017 Arizona Paths

Arizona Paths Weather Button