(no subject)
I've just been made aware of the website TerrorismAwareness.org.
Suffice it to say I'm pissed off.
Infact, no; that will not suffice. I'm now going to rip it a new arsehole.
It calls itself the Terrorism Awareness Project, when really its more like the Muslim Bashing Project, since it mentions absolutely no other religion, or terrorist group.
It is headed by someone called Stephen Miller, who, by the briefest of glances at his introductory "About the Project" letter, is somewhat grammatically incompetent.
I know it is considered bad form to point out sub-par grammar when arguing against someone's beliefs, as ad hominem attacks are almost always merely diversionary, and I do so on this occasion only to illustrate how inattentive to detail this Stephen Miller apparently is. I think you'll agree that, in the case of a website full of supposed facts seeking to disparage an entire religion, flawlessness should be of the highest importance.
"...America, the world’s beacon of liberty and the guardian its (sic) freedoms."
"We will provide informational literature [...] and panel discussions s (sic) whose purpose is to make our fellow students aware of the Islamic jihad..."
This is just sloppy; a discouraging first impression to those who might otherwise take the project more seriously.
Remaining with the letter, let's now examine the factual inaccuracies and dubious ideological assertions.
"On September 11th 2001 America suffered the worst and bloodiest attack in its history. Nearly 3,000 innocent civilians were brutally murdered in the unprovoked assault."
I don't think there are many sane people in the world who truly believe that 9/11 was utterly unprovoked. Morally unjustified? Yes. Unprovoked? No. But don't take my word for it - Miller himself even alludes to this fact two paragraphs later!
"This threat did not begin with 9/11. [...] Missiles were launched into Afghanistan and Iraq by the Clinton Administration..."
So there you have it. Clinton bombed Arab countries yet we are supposed to believe that the young Arab men who were so brimming with hatred did not consider this, and many other examples of aggression, a provocation? To some people, this might come down to a "chicken or egg?" analogy. Who started it? Who attacked whom first? But an act as simple as opening a history book will show that the Middle East and parts of Africa have for centuries been occupied on and off by Western imperial forces. During World War One, India was considered "Britain's most valuable possession", without a hint of irony surrounding the idea that maybe, just maybe, India should actually belong to the Indian people.
It is very easy to see, when looking neutrally, where this all started.
"The cost of continued complacency will be lethal. The terrorists will attack us again."
I'm actually at a loss to understand this statement. What complacency? The complacency that took us into aggressive war, complacent toppling of the Iraqi government and the resulting complacent occupation? Not to mention the complacent treatment of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison and the complacently illegal Guantanamo Bay naval base? If that's what he's referring to, then, yes, that's exactly the kind of complacency that will encourage "the terrorists" to attack us again.
The final quote I'm going to lift really exposes beautifully the sine qua non of this kind of rabid, imperialist racism.
"... defending America, which is under siege both abroad and at home."
The definition of the word "siege", according to dictionary.com, is "the act or process of surrounding and attacking a fortified place..." Ergo, it is impossible for "America" (a fortified continent with clearly defined borders) to be under siege "abroad".
What Miller is attempting to say, of course, is that American soldiers are being attacked abroad. This is a very different thing, considering that they are part of an aggressive, invasive and occupying force in the country that belongs to the Iraqi people. The idea that one can violently invade another's land and set about propping up a puppet government (which is clearly in contravention of international law, anyway) and still have the audacity, when the citizens and rightful owners of that land rise up in opposition to you, to claim it is an attack of your country, which lies thousands of miles away across the Atlantic, is a disgraceful, obscurantist tactic and an incredibly unapologetic, elitist, ideological stance.
Suffice it to say I'm pissed off.
Infact, no; that will not suffice. I'm now going to rip it a new arsehole.
It calls itself the Terrorism Awareness Project, when really its more like the Muslim Bashing Project, since it mentions absolutely no other religion, or terrorist group.
It is headed by someone called Stephen Miller, who, by the briefest of glances at his introductory "About the Project" letter, is somewhat grammatically incompetent.
I know it is considered bad form to point out sub-par grammar when arguing against someone's beliefs, as ad hominem attacks are almost always merely diversionary, and I do so on this occasion only to illustrate how inattentive to detail this Stephen Miller apparently is. I think you'll agree that, in the case of a website full of supposed facts seeking to disparage an entire religion, flawlessness should be of the highest importance.
"...America, the world’s beacon of liberty and the guardian its (sic) freedoms."
"We will provide informational literature [...] and panel discussions s (sic) whose purpose is to make our fellow students aware of the Islamic jihad..."
This is just sloppy; a discouraging first impression to those who might otherwise take the project more seriously.
Remaining with the letter, let's now examine the factual inaccuracies and dubious ideological assertions.
"On September 11th 2001 America suffered the worst and bloodiest attack in its history. Nearly 3,000 innocent civilians were brutally murdered in the unprovoked assault."
I don't think there are many sane people in the world who truly believe that 9/11 was utterly unprovoked. Morally unjustified? Yes. Unprovoked? No. But don't take my word for it - Miller himself even alludes to this fact two paragraphs later!
"This threat did not begin with 9/11. [...] Missiles were launched into Afghanistan and Iraq by the Clinton Administration..."
So there you have it. Clinton bombed Arab countries yet we are supposed to believe that the young Arab men who were so brimming with hatred did not consider this, and many other examples of aggression, a provocation? To some people, this might come down to a "chicken or egg?" analogy. Who started it? Who attacked whom first? But an act as simple as opening a history book will show that the Middle East and parts of Africa have for centuries been occupied on and off by Western imperial forces. During World War One, India was considered "Britain's most valuable possession", without a hint of irony surrounding the idea that maybe, just maybe, India should actually belong to the Indian people.
It is very easy to see, when looking neutrally, where this all started.
"The cost of continued complacency will be lethal. The terrorists will attack us again."
I'm actually at a loss to understand this statement. What complacency? The complacency that took us into aggressive war, complacent toppling of the Iraqi government and the resulting complacent occupation? Not to mention the complacent treatment of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison and the complacently illegal Guantanamo Bay naval base? If that's what he's referring to, then, yes, that's exactly the kind of complacency that will encourage "the terrorists" to attack us again.
The final quote I'm going to lift really exposes beautifully the sine qua non of this kind of rabid, imperialist racism.
"... defending America, which is under siege both abroad and at home."
The definition of the word "siege", according to dictionary.com, is "the act or process of surrounding and attacking a fortified place..." Ergo, it is impossible for "America" (a fortified continent with clearly defined borders) to be under siege "abroad".
What Miller is attempting to say, of course, is that American soldiers are being attacked abroad. This is a very different thing, considering that they are part of an aggressive, invasive and occupying force in the country that belongs to the Iraqi people. The idea that one can violently invade another's land and set about propping up a puppet government (which is clearly in contravention of international law, anyway) and still have the audacity, when the citizens and rightful owners of that land rise up in opposition to you, to claim it is an attack of your country, which lies thousands of miles away across the Atlantic, is a disgraceful, obscurantist tactic and an incredibly unapologetic, elitist, ideological stance.