Browsed by
Tag: UK

Deconstructing Neocon Propaganda on Terrorism

Deconstructing Neocon Propaganda on Terrorism

Comments 0 Comment

A must read: “The Clash of Civilizations Doesn’t Exist… Yet” by Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted September 1, 2006.

The neocons who are pushing a Clash of Civilizations are mirror-images of the terrorists that inspire their hyperbolic fear — they are just as irrational and just as great a threat to our security.

To the extent that some terrorist groups have recently turned their eyes to us, it’s not a matter of hating our freedoms or our women’s bare shoulders. It’s because we’ve supported many of those repressive regimes — often with troops on the ground — from Indonesia to Iran.

Consider this: in the epic struggle between East and West, some of our staunchest allies are the undisputed champs in spreading violent Islamic extremism. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan established fundamentalist, anti-Western madrassas all across the world, funneled gobs of cash to extremist groups, and nurtured and supported them in their infancy. It wasn’t just random individuals within those countries; Saudi Arabia made it a foreign policy priority to spread its brand of Wahhabism, mostly to counter the perceived threat of Pan-Arabism and other anti-colonial ideologies. Pakistan’s intelligence service, the ISI — sometimes called a “state within a state” — not only supported the Taliban in Afghanistan but funded, equipped and helped train some of the most notorious terror groups that grew out of that country in the 1990s. Talk all you want about Syria and Iran supporting Hezbollah, these are the great terror-sponsoring states, and they’re on the side of the Western democracies.

What’s more, the West isn’t all that unified in this great existential struggle to save itself from destruction. A recent poll of citizens in the United Kingdom, our most loyal ally and a country that largely believes the Clash of Civilizations meme, found that — “by a margin of more than five to one — the public wants Tony Blair to split from President George W. Bush and either go it alone in the ‘war on terror’, or work more closely with Europe.” Just 14 per cent believed “Britain should continue to align itself with America.” A Pew Global Attitudes survey in June found that in Spain, supposedly a target of “Islamic Imperialism” and the victim of one of the most spectacular terror attacks ever, “four times as many people oppose the war on terror as support it (76 percent to 19 percent).”

More

Islamic Fascists? Huh?

Islamic Fascists? Huh?

Comments 1 comment

I am very impressed with the Brits. Thank you, Lionheart, for protecting all those who fly between the U.K. and the U.S. Thank goodness there are still good minds working somewhere.

Here’s an odd thing, though. I was out of town and I just happened to catch the President reacting to this situation by saying that we are “at war with Islamic Fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation.” It’s my understanding that most of the people involved in this plot were actually British citizens?

Anyway, what caught me as being particularly unusual was the linking of “Islamic” with “Fascists.” Huh?

I mean, “what? come again?” I don’t think that means what he thinks it means.

Unless I’ve missed some very important new development, there is no real fascist streak involved in any of the militant Islamic fringe-groups. There are lots of other things that can be said about them, of course.

However, since we are the ones who are melding corporations with government, that is a really really strange thing for him to say. I haven’t heard anyone challenge the statement either.

Of course, it was to be expected that the Republicans would use this to try to make themselves look like something they’re not and to somehow imply that if Democrats were in charge, we’d all be in danger. They’re calling Lamont a radical now. Sheesh. Sickening, but predictable.

I’m sick of the whole thing, and am really thinking a lot lately about systems that have more parties. If we have three or four or five parties instead of the “2 plus other” then coalitions would have to be formed, cooperation would have to take place to get anything done. Maybe we’d even get more people who would represent the interests of actual segments of our population.

As it is now, it seems that corporations are able to throw much of their tax burden on the population at large while at the same time bribing our representatives in various ways to represent their interests, even to the point of determining our energy policy, and writing our laws, and getting their own people placed in what used to be watchdog positions.

Funny how more and more and more people hate us and want to kill us since Bush took office. Maybe for some of them it’s about our freedom – although there it would seem they have common cause with the anti-toleration pseudo-christian right in America who also consider our culture to be a decadent “whore of babylon.”

I think it would help enormously if we started acting more like the good guys who could responsibly represent freedom and liberty and justice. Perhaps the situations that have begun to cascade rather exponentially now might still he slowed and halted, even turned around, if America took a good look at reality and started acting like a grownup.

There are better paths than this one into which we have allowed ourselves to be manipulated. We’re finally sensing it. If we’re going to conserve the very things that we say we value, we had best get to it soon. The damage to our national soul is already substantial.