The intellectual roots of terrorism lie in three philosophical ideas
which, ironically, are peculiarly Western: popular sovereignty, self-
determination and ethical consequentialism. The diffusion of political
responsibility that results from popular sovereignty, the belief that
every group has a right to its own state, and the decline in the
belief in absolute human rights have together fostered a hospitable
intellectual climate for terrorism.
On Aug 7, 10:37 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Principles of TerrorismJohn Glaser, August 07, 2012
> Charles Davisnotedon Sunday PresidentObama's statementon the act of terrorism committed by a man shooting up a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. The President "mourn[ed] this losswhich took place at a house of worship" and killed six people. By contrast, Davis writes, Obama did not mourn a similaract of terrorism he committedin a drone strike which "hit a village mosque" in Pakistan and killed "at least ten people." Davis sums up the moral of the story: "Whether or not massacring people in a house of worship as part of a self-styled 'war on terror' is morally right or wrong depends on geography."
> Today, Glenn Greenwaldnoteda savage suicide bombing in southern Yemen in which amember of Al Qaedaattacked "a funeral serviceattended by members of civilian militias," killing up to 45 people. Those sadistic Islamo-fascists! Except that, as the Bureau of Investigative Journalism hasdocumented, "The CIA's drone campaign in Pakistan haskilled dozens of civilians who had gone to help rescue victims or were attending funerals." And as theNew York Timesreported in June 2009, US airstrikes "killed at least 60 people at a funeral"and"as many as 45 were civilians, among them reportedly ten children." Glenn sums up the moral of the story: "the same act that is the hallmark of repulsive savagery when done by Al Qaeda, Assad, and the Hutaree militia is transformed into a moral and noble act when done by the Government of the United States of America."
> Two principles are evident in almost all discussion of US foreign policy: (1) acts of violence by people is "terrorism," while acts of violence by the state is "foreign policy;" (2) acts of violence by Washington are justified to keep us safe, while acts of violence by other governments we don't like are crimes.http://antiwar.com/blog/2012/08/07/principles-of-terrorism/
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment