London Terror: Bush vs Bin Laden speeches
Mr Bush stood solemnly behind his close ally in the war on terrorism Mr Bush, looking severe, as Mr Blair pledged to defeat the terrorists. "We shall prevail and they shall not." (FT) Bush's speeches always begin by frightening the audience to death with terrorism and finishes triumphantly by rousing them to patriotic confidence in their country's future victory - his June 28 speech use the words terror and terrorism 33 times! (see Fisk's commentary)
As long as we sanction arrogant and presumptuous attitudes from our leaders, rather than expecting them to address the root causes of terrorism, we can expect more violence. Ironically, it is true that the G8 agenda this time is one of the most humanitarian seen in a long time: African debt and global warming. But selling freedom with one hand and enslaving for petrol with the other will continue generating violence.
Solution: listen and address Bin Laden's concerns, which are not so unrealistic: "..neither America nor the people who live in it will dream of security before we live it in Palestine, and not before all the infidel armies leave the land of Muhammad". Make Palestine a reality; stop supporting authoritarian regimes of the Middle East for petrol. (full text) He concludes "Your security is in your own hands. And every state that doesn't play with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security." (full text)
On this, Denmark had its warning..
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
WikiTerror
Terror and terrorism are loaded words which officials and newspapers often abuse. This polarizes and deceives people, undermining at the same time the credibility of the messenger and turning the message into propaganda. From both Politiken and the Copenhagen Post covering Bush's birthday visit to Copenhagen today: "4000 Danish police will be assigned to protect the president. The increased protection is the result of the threat of terror attacks." (City braces for Bush)
If the increased security is to protect "random targets of opportunity" in the civilian population, then the term "terror threat" is applicable. If the increased security is solely to protect the president - which is undoubtly the case - then it is an "assassination threat".
There is debate around the definition of "terrorism". Though Bush and some governments tend to lump together all resistance to established authority as "terrorism", there is a general concensus around the UN academic consensus definition: "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrast to assassination — the direct targets of violence are not the main targets."
For a comprehensive definition and debate on terrorism, read on Wikipedia (Article:Talk) (This by the way is an online dictionnary editable by all. One can be surprised by the breath and quality of a global and open dictionary. If laws could be written so openly and democratically, the world would be a much fairer place..)
So, now that the world's number one terrorist is indeed one and in town, why demonstrate? The US military budget ($441.6 billion for 2006) represents more than half the discretionary US budget (the money the adminitration has control over and must decide to spend each year). The US spends almost as much as the rest of the world’s (totalling almost $1000 billion). It is an obvious waste and misuse of resources compared to: $6b for basic education for everyone in the world, $9b for water and sanitation, and the mere $10b all UN agencies and funds spend each year (more under the excellent Global Issues, article World Military Spending).
Preserving the 'Pax Americana' at the point of a unilateralist gun will only create more tension in the long run. It is a flawed and dangerous strategy (the full strategy at the New American Century (sigh).
Terror and terrorism are loaded words which officials and newspapers often abuse. This polarizes and deceives people, undermining at the same time the credibility of the messenger and turning the message into propaganda. From both Politiken and the Copenhagen Post covering Bush's birthday visit to Copenhagen today: "4000 Danish police will be assigned to protect the president. The increased protection is the result of the threat of terror attacks." (City braces for Bush)
If the increased security is to protect "random targets of opportunity" in the civilian population, then the term "terror threat" is applicable. If the increased security is solely to protect the president - which is undoubtly the case - then it is an "assassination threat".
There is debate around the definition of "terrorism". Though Bush and some governments tend to lump together all resistance to established authority as "terrorism", there is a general concensus around the UN academic consensus definition: "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrast to assassination — the direct targets of violence are not the main targets."
For a comprehensive definition and debate on terrorism, read on Wikipedia (Article:Talk) (This by the way is an online dictionnary editable by all. One can be surprised by the breath and quality of a global and open dictionary. If laws could be written so openly and democratically, the world would be a much fairer place..)
So, now that the world's number one terrorist is indeed one and in town, why demonstrate? The US military budget ($441.6 billion for 2006) represents more than half the discretionary US budget (the money the adminitration has control over and must decide to spend each year). The US spends almost as much as the rest of the world’s (totalling almost $1000 billion). It is an obvious waste and misuse of resources compared to: $6b for basic education for everyone in the world, $9b for water and sanitation, and the mere $10b all UN agencies and funds spend each year (more under the excellent Global Issues, article World Military Spending).
Preserving the 'Pax Americana' at the point of a unilateralist gun will only create more tension in the long run. It is a flawed and dangerous strategy (the full strategy at the New American Century (sigh).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)