Submitted by media girl on 8 July 2005 - 9:13am
...is that if they are brutal, horrific and malevolent enough, then "we" would back down. Why is that always the case? Why do men so often seem to fall into this trap of thinking?
What we see in al-Qaeda is a fundamentalist extremist movement with all the perqs of supreme patriarchy attacking western capitalism with its own patriarchal power structures. On both sides, the leaders seem to be determined to do two things:
- Never understand the other, at all costs, and
- Throw haymakers as hard as they can, blindly hitting whatever they can.
Karl Rove actually ridiculed the idea of wanting to understand our attackers. Apparently he finds virtue in ignorance. Judging by the support rallying around him since he uttered that foolishness, the bulk of the Republican Party leaders also find comfort in not knowing who or what we're up against.
We have a new front in this "war," and it's being fought not with armies in Iraq but with police in Europe. (If you missed the Frontline "The New Front" last night, you can watch it online.)
Al Qaeda seems to be comprised of bunches of angry, frightened men who seem to think the world must be ruled by them according to their twisted version of pseudo-Islam, where women are treated as property with virtually no rights. In this endeavor, they seem to seek martyrdom so they can frolic with virginal women in heaven.
From my own perspective, our own pseudo-Christian fundamentalists differ only in degree. They too thrive on hate, feel the world oppresses them, consider women property, and believe they should be ruling the world.
What al Qaeda apparently did in London had the likely effect of strengthening the right-wing factions in the west. Will they like the response? Probably, because whatever we do seems to strengthen their own standing in the world. (Especially when we go and do something like occupy an Arab country.) Our own threats against Iran have reaped the rewards there of their electing a fundamentalist nationalist who was one of the embassy hostage takers. Was this part of the plan, Mr. President?
We cannot back down to criminal terrorism. We cannot back down to the amorphous opponent, al Qaeda. But I don't care what Rove says, it's time we got a little smart in this conflict. While we bleed blood and treasure in Iraq, Afghanistan seems to be in chaos, unsafe even for our special forces, and our own security measures at home go underfunded. (I heard on the NewsHour last night we've spent $200 million on rail security nationwide. The BushCo flack said, The question is figuring out how we're going to fund this effort. At $136 billion a year, which divides up to over $15 million an hour, spent in Iraq, I think we go through $200 million in eight 13 hours. [Serves me right for attempting math before coffee.])
With the London death toll at 50, with more bodies perhaps still in the wreckage of the bombing sites, it strikes me as just so pointless. Need I mention that these kinds of death tolls happen every day in Iraq, sometimes due to insurgent actions, sometimes due to our own?
Are we so sure this Iraq quagmire is making us safer? How many more have to die before we start focusing on al Qaeda? Before we start focusing on ourselves?
Boys?
Comments
2 comments postedthough "monotheist thugs" is probably more accurate. It doesn't matter which side of the fight you want to look at - they are both symptoms of a festering patriarchy that is, I hope, in its death throes. I hope that the improved communications we have in our culture effectively shows that fundamentalism is a mental disease. I'm not knocking religion in general - I am clergy in my own religion and I believe humans need some form of organizing, inspirational belief system. Fundamentalism, though, is dangerous. It's the idea that your idea is the ONLY idea and that because your idea is "divinely inspired" you have the right, or even obligation, to impose your idea on others through legislation or violence. Being incapable of admitting that you might be mistaken is pathology, plain and simple.
One who claims to know that which cannot be proven, may or may not be correct. As Michel de Montaigne once said "It is rating our conjectures too highly to roast people alive for them." Our history is rife with examples of pious Christians willing to bake, boil or fry anyone it decided was deviating from their concept of proper behavior, and we are now seeing a group that will plant bombs to object to non-conforming behavior taunt a group who will use torture, tanks and napalm to oppose them right back (more or less...). Both reactions are sick. Both are doomed to fail. Both are being led by entitled rich boys who think they have a direct line to the Almighty. The irony is that their own doctrines share a common origin and both state implicitly that killing is forbidden. Do they believe their own scripture or not? They can violate the word of "God/Allah" when it serves their purpose, so why can't the rest of us make our own decisions as well?
I don't believe any divine force is speaking to George Bush or Osama Bin Laden, but I could be wrong. It's not my place to deal with their connection to a spiritual force that may or may not exist in whatever form it has or has not. I have my own Goddess to deal with and She and I don't need anyone else to tell us what to believe. See how arrogant that sounds, guys?
The difference is, while I believe I am right, I will acknowledge that I could be wrong. I'm not going to kill anyone who disagrees with me. I don't believe I have a divine right to discriminate against an Atheist, or a Buddhist or even a monotheist like Bush. I don't feel the need to have Her name on my money, or display the Wiccan Rede in public buildings; I can get along quite nicely without praying to Her before public meetings and sporting events. She's not jealous, so you can call Her by any name you want - She'll still listen and get back to you.
Now I know that your scripture says that your "God" is a "jealous god", but you aren't supposed to be making graven images, so why do you keep tying up our courts trying to force them on the rest of us? Why can't you take Jesus' advice and "go into your closet and pray"? You worship your way and I'll worship mine. Hey, that's a great idea - somebody write that down! Maybe it should be in the Constitution... oh, wait...
Are we safer than we were before we attacked Iraq - hell, no. Is bombing the tube going to make Western women adopt the burka? Hell, no. Is either Bush or Bin Laden going to accomplish his goals? I'm not sure we know what those are, but I'm pretty sure this isn't the way to go about anything.
Morgaine-ism© #8
"A Woman's Sexual and Reproductive Autonomy is Sacred and Absolute."
It always works that way.