It seems to me that his logic was sound, but he had one faulty assumption. And that assumption is promoted by our own governments because it gets them elected.
His logic:
1. Islam is in competition with the west. More or less true. Pretty much everyone is in competition: every business, every government every culture, every animal. Cultures always evolve. Some groups win some lose. Doesn't have to be that way, but it has been that way for millennia. Just ask the Native Americans, or the Welsh.
2. The west could drive them out if we wished. This is true. We could. I think it would be a very bad idea, but it is certainly an option if enough people want it.
3. Small acts of terror can change the world. This is the flaw in his logic. Terrorism kills fewer people than almost any major disease you care to mention. It destroys less property than any major economic cause (recession, arson, hurricanes, etc.) It cannot change anything, so it is not a logical course of action...
...except our governments make it a logical act by rewarding terrorists with exactly what they want: fear and publicity. 9/11 did not change the world (more people die of hunger every 3 hours than died from 9/11), but the reaction to 9/11 was what changed the world.
Our reaction is the problem,. Our reaction is what makes terrorism a logical choice for extremists. If we did not react out of proportion then the logical course for extremists would be to get involved in conventional politics instead. But why should they when we reward them so handsomly for planting bombs?
Next time somebody dies in a bomb, I want it reported on the news - after all the people who have died in car accidents, disease, accidents at work, malnutrition, and so on. Those other deaths are just as painful, just as unpredictable, but they kill more people. If compassion and saving lives are our priority we should act accordingly. in my opinion.
31 Jul 2011, 4:59 pm
