Thursday, January 8, 2015
In condemnation of the Paris attack and cowardice, real cowardice
The attack in Paris against a satirist is contemptible and a threat to free speech that should be condemned.
I’m sure many good Muslims will agree even if they don’t like the satires against Mohamed that doesn’t mean they think that support this kind of action to intimidate people and free speech. I hope that when some of the more rational ones do come out to condemn terrorism it isn’t only because they want to be portrayed as the good Muslims that deserve tolerance.
However if they do it6 is understandable since in the past there have often been retaliation against those that aren’t quick enough to condemn terrorism or even those that are.
This retaliation should also be condemned.
I notice that many people have condemned this cowardly attack already; however I don’t condemn this because it is a cowardly attack; instead I also condemn real cowardice along with terrorism that is designed to intimidate people that try to use their free speech.
After all this wasn’t necessarily a cowardly attack.
Just ask Bill Maher; he could tell you.
Well I don't know if he would tell you that now; but if you could travel back in time to 2001 and ask him he would have told you then.
Shortly after 9/11 he said "We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, that's not cowardly. Stupid maybe, but not cowardly."
When he said this he didn't intend to speak out in support of terrorism anymore than I am but he was speaking out against the distortion of the English language for propaganda reasons. We now routinely condemn people who attack us as cowardly even though we are the ones with far greater military might and even if it is foolish and counterproductive to use violence against us or our allies it isn't cowardly now anymore than it was when Bill Maher first said this.
I could go on and on about a long list of events where the United states attack Muslims or supported tyrants that did so for the benefit of either the United States or their allies. This includes the support of the Shah that tortured thousands, supplying arms to both sides of the war between Iran and Iraq during the eighties, supporting the Mujaheddin which later became the Taliban and Al Qaeda and much more; including after they attacked the U.S. and killed almost three thousand people at the world trade center including many innocents the U.S. bombed both Afghanistan and Iraq which wasn't involved and killed many more innocents.
When the U.S. killed innocents it wasn't considered mandatory for many people to come out and loudly condemn violence as part of a the support against violence.
Instead criticism was relegated to the fringes.
Barack Obama condemns attempts at censorship including those against "The Interview" which seems like a terrible movie that incites hatred. He's not condemning calls not to demand shooting of cops, and rightfully so; I have been among those criticizing the excesses of the police but I haven't been calling for that.
When Lupe Fiasco sang the following song at his inaugural he wasn't so concerned about criticizing censorship either:
I'm not as fan of rap or Lupe Fiasco any more than I support Islam; but he had a good point and it seems as if the only censorship that we're supposed to condemn is the censorship that the establishment isn't conducting.
The real cowardice that needs to be condemned is the cowardice of those in power when they bomb people all over the world knowing that the media won't cover the best criticism of them and that if the victims fight back they can be condemned as terrorists even if they don't kill nearly as many people as the U.S. government and everyone will feel as if they should remain silent about the actions that preceded any given attack.
The knife attack in the U.K. where people said is was because the west was killing thousands of Muslims wasn't that long ago; nor was the Boston Bombing.
When the U.S. was bombing innocents around the world they called it collateral damage if they had to mention it at all. It was considered justified for the U.S. to describe it this way and retaliate however if Timothy McVeigh or Muslim terrorists refer to U.S. citizens as collateral damage and justifies it as retaliation it is outrageous as it should be both ways.
The U.S. wasn't willing to acknowledge the bombing of innocents when it was happening but now that it is being used as evidence in the Boston Bombing trial as motive they acknowledge it as a motive for the attack without acknowledging the fact that they're retaliating just like the terrorists.
It is cowardly to maintain and obvious double standard because the U.S. has a more powerful military and propaganda machine and that is the real cowardice that needs to be condemned.
Even though I condemn the terrorist attacks I also know that as long as this double standard remains there will be more extremists that will feel as if they have nothing left to lose until those with the most political power stop condemning they smaller atrocities while ignoring the bigger ones they commit.