The morning after the murders, the people of Paris queued up to open their veins. In the days after terrorists from the apocalyptic cult calling itself Islamic State had slaughtered 129 people in Paris and 43 people in Beirut, ordinary Parisians queued for hours to give blood, even though the number of donors outstripped the number of wounded.
"What Isis wants is a holy war between two violently homogeneous civilisations, and the only way it will get that is if the West starts to behave like one."
First, can "what ISIS wants" truly be known--and recognized--by a press devoted to demonizing this organization?
Second, like two magnets drawn towards one another TO clash, it is hardly just ISIS that wants a violent contest between religious ideologies.
Have you visited a Fundamentalist Christian church lately?
This, Ms. Penny, is beautiful and profound:
"We cannot say for certain that opening Europe’s borders would not allow a few terrorists to cross over into our cities along with hundreds of thousands of needy innocents. What we can say for certain is that closing those borders would allow the terrorists into our hearts."
So is this... although ISIS is hardly the only entity guilty of using shock, awe, trauma, and violent forms of militarism to obtain its ends:
"Kindness, diversity and decency are weapons that can only be brought to one battlefield, and it happens to be the one territory that Isis cannot afford to lose. It is the territory of the collective human imagination, and it has no borders at all."
And while it may be ISIS that indeed has set up this network of simultaneous Terrorist events, it is dangerous to frame ISIS as the sole agent of terrorist activities. After all, is it any less a show of terrorism when U.S. drones bomb a Doctors Without Borders hospital for 2 hours only to claim later that it was a mistake? Or that so many other "mistakes" are so quickly forgiven under the guise that it's just part of business-as-usual for the Make War Apparatus known as the M.I.C?
In seeking to avoid the frame of "us" (State terrorism) versus "them" (ISIS), you may have fallen into your own trap. The paradigm that consigns "terror" only to one side is itself based in a dangerous fallacy.
It is indeed despicable to exploit the grief of others to further an agenda of prejudice and hatred. The West certainly should not do that. The West certainly should not be prejudiced or hateful. However, the sense of human rights of the West should not allow people who have no respect for human rights to spoil the West.
The terrorists that have committed crimes such summary executions, eviction from home and taking women and girls as sex-slaves on the weak Yazidi people are not like that because of the West. They are like that because of their religious brainwash that called for an Islamic State that would have no non-Muslim. The terrorist members of the Pakistani military that went into poor Hindu villages of East Bengal in 1971 to kill anyone they could find and to torch all the little houses were not like that because of any exploitation. They were like that because their objective was to have a country that would be only for Muslims.
With their tiny minority status in the overall population of the West, Muslims have already been demanding the barbaric Islamic Sharia laws in quite a few of the Western countries/cities. Sensible people of the world need to realize that religious fanatics/terrorists do not grow in vacuums. Even today, in the West there are Islamic ghettos that have been producing people who are willing to give up good lifestyle in the West for an Islamic Caliphate in Syria and Iraq with an aim of expanding that to all over the world. The West should not be heartless to the refugees, but should be pragmatic enough to ensure that the new entrants do not create ghettos of inhumanity or fertile grounds for creating terrorists that would be willing to not only kill but also to die for pleasing their God.
It is unlikely in the extreme that the inhabitants of any ghetto have been the ones choosing to live in encircled, contained, marginalized, attacked and impoverished ghettos.
This is a very simple restatement of the editorial earlier by Nafeez Ahmed. Thank you Laurie Penny. And a further development of the even earlier article by John Atcheson that instead of going to factional pieces what humanity needs more than anything else is to come together.
Your shallow comment brought to mind a line from a song:
"Skating away on the thin ice of a new day."
This poster also does all of the following:
- Reinforces the "us versus them" narrative
- Demonize Muslims
- Ignore the fact that imperialism BY the West--primarily the U.S. & N.A.T.O exacerbated internecine conflicts leading to so much carnage
- Ignores the fact that the American Christian Taliban is just a notch or two more advanced than the Islamists who keep women under cultural House Arrest
And this narrative that's meant to come off as chivalry reminds me of the same false pretenses used to invade Afghanistan. Instead of removing the Taliban and improving the status of women there, U.S troops have mostly succeeded in leaving so much destruction in their wake that the Taliban--being centrally organized--has filled the gap by offering some basic services. Meanwhile, they keep women in chains and as is now well known, shoot a young girl in the FACE for daring to want a basic education!
So, you think the barbarian atrocities on the nonviolent Yazidis or Hindus do not matter! The fact of the matter is that Islamic brainwash has been making monsters out of humans. While the Western policies in many parts of the world over centuries can be legitimately criticized, how would you explain the fact that to spread Islam and to establish an Islamic world there are people who have been committing the most heinous crimes on a lot of weak and nonviolent people who certainly do not shape Western policies?
Are you denying the fact that the so-called moderate Muslims in many parts of the Western countries are demanding Islamic laws? Or are you comfortable having Islamic laws for "them", if not for "us", in "our" countries; or for "them" in "their" countries?
Here is another fact, almost a fifth of the US population do not identify themselves in terms of any religion. Didn't that take a lot of Christians to turn apostates? Did they invite murderous acts from Christian fanatics lately? If not, there is a huge difference between Islamic fanatics and Christian fanatics. So, I would not criticize Muslim fanatics and Christian fanatics in the same breath.
Please advise how the US military could have removed the Taliban, short of total and utter mass genocide of the sort carried out by people such as Hitler and Ghengis Khan? And even then , there would be a few left lurking under some boulders somewhere.