You are reading things that are not there! You are wholly mistaken in your interpretations given in (a) and (b) above. Those thoughts you attribute to me never entered my mind, if you must know.
The Guardian article offered just that - a consideration of the "other side", as opposed to the US viewpoint. Everyone hopefully will recognise that is going to be a multi-faceted debate, of which the Guardian article offers one of a multitude of views.
The article seems to imply that there will always be some form of terrorism "until the injustices and inequalities that produce them are addressed". This sounds dangerous to me. What if the injustices and inequalities are addressed, but not deemed to be addressed to the satisfaction of those posing the terrorist threat? How can a threat of terrorism ever be a legitimate way to get one's way? If the world is such an awful place that the only recourse to injustices and inequalities is terrorism, then all hope is lost. I really do not believe we are at that point yet.
I think it's fair to say no one is attempting to justify what happened?! My point is - who will protect us against those who simply feel that they have some grievance and then use the terrorist route to instill fear? We can, and it is right to at least attempt to rationalise "why people might have been driven to carry out such atrocities, sacrificing their own lives in the process" But, just suppose for a minute there was not anything to rationalise - are we already discounting that possibilty?
I am also emphasising the distinction between the US political regime and the US civilian population. People who mercilessly and in cold blood murder the latter to make some political point (we assume) against the former are plainly and simply cold blooded murderers.
I would in fact violently disagree with any sentiment that says - "just because you are not supporting a particular political leader, means you are siding with the enemy". I believe in the free societies, certainly in the UK, you can choose not to support the political leader of the day, and you wouldn't be automatically deemed by the authorities as an enemy of the State, unlike dare I say, in Afghanistan?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2001-09-13 12:16 pm (UTC)The Guardian article offered just that - a consideration of the "other side", as opposed to the US viewpoint. Everyone hopefully will recognise that is going to be a multi-faceted debate, of which the Guardian article offers one of a multitude of views.
The article seems to imply that there will always be some form of terrorism "until the injustices and inequalities that produce them are addressed". This sounds dangerous to me. What if the injustices and inequalities are addressed, but not deemed to be addressed to the satisfaction of those posing the terrorist threat? How can a threat of terrorism ever be a legitimate way to get one's way? If the world is such an awful place that the only recourse to injustices and inequalities is terrorism, then all hope is lost. I really do not believe we are at that point yet.
I think it's fair to say no one is attempting to justify what happened?! My point is - who will protect us against those who simply feel that they have some grievance and then use the terrorist route to instill fear? We can, and it is right to at least attempt to rationalise "why people might have been driven to carry out such atrocities, sacrificing their own lives in the process" But, just suppose for a minute there was not anything to rationalise - are we already discounting that possibilty?
I am also emphasising the distinction between the US political regime and the US civilian population. People who mercilessly and in cold blood murder the latter to make some political point (we assume) against the former are plainly and simply cold blooded murderers.
I would in fact violently disagree with any sentiment that says - "just because you are not supporting a particular political leader, means you are siding with the enemy". I believe in the free societies, certainly in the UK, you can choose not to support the political leader of the day, and you wouldn't be automatically deemed by the authorities as an enemy of the State, unlike dare I say, in Afghanistan?