I like Russel Brand and he has a point. On the other hand this article in the Atlantic I thought was a shocking analysis of how in fact Islamic theology and texts do in fact support what Isis is doing. I wonder what others think. http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
I think Brand is almost completely wrong here. Yes he does get right the fact that the term terrorism is pretty vague and waging a war on terrorism is simply impossible. When the Bush administration used that term instead of something like 'jihadism', it left the US wide open to look foolish. Not all terrorism is a problem for the US. The IRA used to collect donations in the Port Authority Bus Terminal in NYC, the IRA may be a terrorist organization but it didn't act in the US and didn't kill Americans in Europe. The US needs to replace the concern with vague terrorism with 'jihadism' or something else. You see in the Obama administration the way they have promoted ISIS into the nominal enemy. It overstates their importance but it is better than a 'war on terror'
The incident in the US against 3 Muslims is simply not a major issue for most Americans, unlike the one in Denmark, there is no evidence it was organized. In this case it appears to be more of the kind of incident that happens when someone is infected with gun worship.
Significant difference, though both incidents are evil. The Denmark attacks are an echoing attack on the cartoonists, motive is to keep other cartoonists from doing the same, trying to terrorize them into a specific action.
The Chapel Hill attack is pure outright hate of Muslims. Same concept as the Nazis did to the Jews in WW2.
Both are heinous, horrible actions that would be war crimes in a declared war. And Chapel Hill is a major issue to me, an American.
I like Russel Brand and he has a point. On the other hand this article in the Atlantic I thought was a shocking analysis of how in fact Islamic theology and texts do in fact support what Isis is doing. I wonder what others think.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
I think Brand is almost completely wrong here. Yes he does get right the fact that the term terrorism is pretty vague and waging a war on terrorism is simply impossible. When the Bush administration used that term instead of something like 'jihadism', it left the US wide open to look foolish. Not all terrorism is a problem for the US. The IRA used to collect donations in the Port Authority Bus Terminal in NYC, the IRA may be a terrorist organization but it didn't act in the US and didn't kill Americans in Europe. The US needs to replace the concern with vague terrorism with 'jihadism' or something else. You see in the Obama administration the way they have promoted ISIS into the nominal enemy. It overstates their importance but it is better than a 'war on terror'
ReplyDeleteThe incident in the US against 3 Muslims is simply not a major issue for most Americans, unlike the one in Denmark, there is no evidence it was organized. In this case it appears to be more of the kind of incident that happens when someone is infected with gun worship.
Significant difference, though both incidents are evil. The Denmark attacks are an echoing attack on the cartoonists, motive is to keep other cartoonists from doing the same, trying to terrorize them into a specific action.
ReplyDeleteThe Chapel Hill attack is pure outright hate of Muslims. Same concept as the Nazis did to the Jews in WW2.
Both are heinous, horrible actions that would be war crimes in a declared war. And Chapel Hill is a major issue to me, an American.
Mike Conder
I love Brand's logic
ReplyDeleteSusie thanks for posting this. Russell Brand has a great mind and certainly speaks the truth on this subject.
ReplyDeleteJust read the blog, im from denmark and the boy Omar were mentally sick. It was not terror just a sick kid who could no longer contain his demons :-(
ReplyDelete