The Myth of 'Terrorism' and the Woolwich Attacks
A soldier killed in a suspected terror attack in south-east London is expected to be named later, while two men remain under arrest in hospital.The soldier's family have been informed.
Shortly after the killing in Woolwich, one man - his hands covered in blood- was filmed by a passer-by, saying he carried out the attack because British soldiers killed Muslims every day. - bbc
The following are comments by ed at various locations.
Don't ask me whether i support the 'terrorists' or the 'west'. The only side i'm taking is the commonsense one. Now all we have to do is to figure out what that is. Hope you can help.
The War on Terror' is just a clash between two peoples resulting from two conceptions of what nationality means. One believes in a sense of family based on geographical boundaries, and the other, one that transcends it.
The day the UK joined Americas war on those who took the americans to task for doing unto them what the americans wouldn't want done unto themselves, I could only shake my head with disappointment - being quite the Anglophile most of my life.
That made all that transpired thereafter 'retaliation'. I may not like it. But it is what it is. Logically speaking that is.
....Though I'm sure it is most self-absolving and comforting to think that the west were just sitting there minding their own business when the big bad turburned wolf came over from the middle-east and started lashing out at them. Wish that were true, then right would be so easily distinguished from wrong, and we can know for sure that the term 'terrorist' has been accurately applied.
I don't support what happened in Woolwich, just as i don't support that which incited it.
The best defence against war/terrorism is to not cast the first stone.
The BBC reporter reporting on this said that the attacker was 'Muslim in appearance'. Later, he said that he was just quoting the police. My question is, what is 'Muslim in Appearance'. Perhaps people ought to take a trip to Mecca, and realise, like Malcolm X did, that Muslims come in all shapes, sizes, appearance, and fashions.
For myself, i thought the bloke looked like a rapper.
People might think I was a Muslim - though i'm Catholic. Perhaps i ought to invest in a big-ass Crucifix and dangle it around my neck. But then again, i'll have to watch out for those atheist fundamentalists whom are staunchly against religion.
What i'm going to say about the Woolwich attacks is going to be quite disconcerting, but it's logical, so has to be said.
As i said to an English friend of mine in town the other day, if there were enough Indians in the UK during colonial times, would the British military have massacred as many as they did in India? Or would the British elite have caused the deaths of millions of Indians in their demand for cash crops. No. They would be fearing a backlash by Indians living in the UK. Hence, they would be more mindful of what they do elsewhere given the fact that they do not have a 'safe zone' behind their borders to retreat to after doing what they do overseas right.
Globalisation challenges the comfort zones of pre-globalised periods where people always had the option of taking cover in foxholes delineated by the nation's borders.
Given the fact of globalisation, and the increasing movement of peoples from all over the world to all over the world, people anywhere are deprived of the 'safe zone' option. In other words, Globalisation is straining against the fetters of the nation-state's idea of the Family.
I take this as an opportunity to take on a more vigilent and responsible role in checking on the activities of our democratically elected governments.
This whole 'terrorist' thing is just an attempt by the global populace to contend with the phenomenon of globalisation. Basically, globalisation challenges the comfort zones of pre-globalised periods where people always had the option of taking cover in foxholes delineated by the nation's borders. Given the fact of globalisation, and the increasing movement of peoples from all over the world to all over the world, people anywhere are deprived of the 'safe zone' option. In other words, Globalisation is straining against the constraining fetters of the nation-state's idea of the Family.
Predictably, people are choosing the easiest option and calling for, 1) the expulsion of those whom maintain cross-national allegiances, 2) demanding that foreigners become 'moderate' as opposed to 'extremists'. With regards to number 2, the two terms can be paraphrased with moderate=nationalised and extremists=transnational. Like i wrote just after 11/9, "the War on Terror' is just a clash between two peoples resulting from two conceptions of what nationality means. One believes in a sense of family based on geographical boundaries, and the other, on that transcends it."
In other words, to be 'moderate' is to basically mean that one severs all connections with those they see as brothers and sisters though they may not share the same nationality.
However, this is a one-sided argument because the UK, for instance, did not see a problem joining the americans in their 'war on terror'. So i have to wonder why they think it a problem when some British Muslims joined their counterparts in other parts of the world in their 'war on (western) terror'. The west, i have to say, is being petulantly juvenile about this whole thing actually. I take this as an opportunity to take on a more vigilent and responsible role in checking on the activities of our democratically elected governments.
That's it for the logical take on the Woolwich attacks. I wrote the above not because I agree with it, but because I can't prove it to be wrong.
Live Long and Prosper. Nanu Nanu.