data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/90351/903511e8bd209a816d3681efcb11ec37f932519e" alt=""
What could possibly have motivated these young men to give up their lives of ease and privilege and strike out blindly against the U.S. and its people?
Since 2004, the U.S. has carried out 129 acknowledged predator drone strikes in the Northwest Frontier Province of Pakistan. These have killed between 889 and 1,136 people, a third of whom were civilians.
As a strategy for dealing with terrorism, is bombing people in a country we're not at war with, and which is theoretically allied with us, an effective policy? Is the policy working for us, or putting us in greater danger? And why is it that people resent someone dropping bombs on them?
Are these predator drone strikes acts of terrorism?
I would, for about the thousandth time, encourage Americans to think for a change about what the word "terrorism" actually means, rather than just mindlessly parroting U.S. government, Pentagon, and law enforcement talking points and propaganda. What defines who is a terrorist? Was Faisal Shahzad's attempting bombing in Times Square an act of terrorism, or counter-terrorism?
If the richest and most privileged children of our allies want to kill us, is our strategy working? And why is it that when they bomb us, it's terrorism, but when we bomb them, it's warfare? Are our lives more valuable and legitimate than theirs?
Don't get me wrong -- I believe killing civilians is always wrong, and I'm glad the Times Square bomb fizzled. But at what point are we going to start seriously thinking about what we're doing? When will we acknowledge that we're not exceptional, and that God is not on our "side?" We're no different than the rest of the world's seven billion humans, whose actions always have predictable consequences.
2 comments:
Western culture winks at our schizophrenic civilization. Consider it as collective cognitive dissonance which causes dilemmas for people with moral sensitivity.
You're welcome.
DB
Post a Comment