Alice, ET AL,
Are the hate mongers such as the Right Wing Shock Jocks and political
opportunists such as Donald Trump, responsible for the growing
violence in our nation?
Despite the angry hate rhetoric spewed by a few loud mouths, doesn't
much of the responsibility rest upon the backs of the people who allow
themselves to be whipped into a mindless frenzy?
I was raised to believe that I am responsible for my actions. Are
American Working Class Citizens really willing to say that they are
not responsible for theirs? Have we given over to mindless mouthings
and violent actions against innocents? The Donald Trumps and the
Adolph Hitlers depend upon people's deep seated prejudices and fears.
They understand instinctively that disenfranchised people will rise up
in violence against their oppressors, usually the Government or the
Super Wealthy, and allow themselves to be manipulated and used by the
Hate Mongers.
Only the People can put an end to this growing insanity. To believe
that if we were to rid ourselves of those Shock Jocks and Crazed
Politicians we would bring an end to this violence, is to deny our own
responsibility.
We Americans can become our worst Terrorists, or we can become our
greatest strength. The choice is ours.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/11/15, Alice Dampman Humel <alicedh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I don’t think that radicalization, keeping the seemingly accepted
terminology, is only the result of outside influences as the article
accuses. But I do think that amassing an arsenal and shooting a bunch of
people who have nothing to do with all the causes and conditions that the
author addresses does. And, indeed, what are all those conditions and causes
that the author addresses but outside influences? There might be resentment
and anger at those conditions, but, again, that’s not why the radicalization
question is being examined. The radicalization question would not be asked
if, taking Paris and San Bernadino together, over 100 people were not dead,
100 people who have no blood on their hands.
Radicalization, if you so will, can be seen in the zealots and orthodox and
fundamentalists of every ideology and religion. The perversion and
distortion of ideas is everywhere in the minds of sane and insane alike.
I agree with the author’s contention that the terrible injustices, the
oppression, the invasion of their lands and regions, the externally imposed
poverty, the sometimes externally, sometimes internally imposed
disenfranchisement, and all the rest are justifiable reasons for anger,
resentment, a desire to strike back, to fight against the behemoth oppressor
with so much power and such a long reach. .
I also have been doing a lot of reading, and while I agree that we must
confront the atrocities perpetrated by “our” (and that is in quotation
marks) side, we can not whitewash or minimize the atrocities of the “other”
(also in quotation marks) side. Daesh is not made up of a bunch of innocent
choir boys, and I am fairly convinced that if they had the ability and
power, the carnage would be much greater than it has been. They are also
responsible for much killing and suffering among their own people, not only
Paris, Mali, to name only the two most recent events outside the Middle
East.
BTW, I thought Taibbi’s article about Trump and TV was right on. As I think
Abdullah started to say, the problem is not so much Trump, it is Trump’s
supporters who, believe it or not, take Trump’s ideas even further than he
himself does, and murder Muslim cab drivers, throw rocks through Muslim
families’ windows, harass and murder people at Planned Parenthood clinics,
etc. Although the degree of the causes is vastly less than what the author
describes in this article, the actions of these “terrorists” (again, in
quotation marks, because if the media and government is going to label
Muslims as terrorists, then they should label the white killers as
terrorists, too) are fueled also by anger, resentment, a desire for revenge,
defense of an ideology, no matter how distorted, and fear…oh, yeah, and gree
in their own heads.
On Dec 10, 2015, at 11:44 AM, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
‘When were they radicalized?’ is not the right question
Middle East
Rev. Graylan Scott Hagler on December 9, 2015
Tashfeen Malik and Syed Rizwan Farook were photographed at Chicago's
O'Hare International Airport in 2014.
The big question these days dominating the airwaves is when was Syed
Farook and Tasheen Malik radicalized; or who radicalized them; and how
were they radicalized? This question is a perplexing one because it
assumes that without outside influence everything would be all right and
that there are no valid grievances, or anger, and no desire for revenge or
justice no matter how misguided those desires might be manifested.
This is a strange line of query because it presupposes that without
external forces radicalization would be impossible. This line of
questioning illustrates a blind patriotism of empire proportion that
believes that anyone upset and acting out is either demented or has fallen
under the influences of a political/religious ideology that exploits the
weak minded or the mentally deranged. To even ask the question is to make
the assumption that everything is ok around us and in our world and would
be regarded as such if it were not for outside influences. But this
perspective has a tendency to ignore the realities of what so many people
live under and have to endure daily. It is often from personal
experiences, relationships with those impacted by what most of us don’t
see or care about are the radicalizing factors. The present queries act as
if there are no valid grievances, no real anger, and as if there is
innocence on the part of the powerful, the US and others. But this is not
the way that peoples of the Middle East, North Africa and Asia see the US
or the West.
The US and its partners have been at war for more than 14 years in
Afghanistan. The US began an unprovoked war in Iraq in 2003 and virtually
destroyed the country where today ISIL is filling part of the vacuum
created by that war, and the President of Afghanistan literally is
presiding over nothing but the capital city of that country, Kabul. The
US under the cry of removing President Bashar Hafez al-Assad in Syria by
helping to orchestrate and sustain a civil war has created a displacement
crisis of epic proportion and caused the deaths of more than 250,000
people. Conditions in many countries have worsened under the wars and the
remaking of the Middle East and North Africa in the West’s image. Our
continual military support of Israel against Palestinians challenges the
view that everything is ok without the influences of “outside agitators”
radicalizing people and calling them to arms. According to Ha’aretz, an
Israeli newspaper, in an August 2014 report it states concerning military
aid to Israel,
“Since it began in 1962, American military aid to Israel has amounted to
nearly $100 billion. For the past decades The United States has been
regularly transferring aid of about $3 billion annually. In recent years,
the aid has been solely for defense purposes. Additionally, The US has
been giving Israel generous military aid for projects important both to it
and Israel.”
Even in light of Israel’s continued human rights violation Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu in November 2015 traveled to Washington, DC to request
an increase to the amount of aid his country receives from the US.
Then there is also the US drone program designed to make killing more
antiseptic and distant. However in a 2013 speech before the National
Defense University President Obama said,
“It is a hard fact that US strikes have resulted in civilian casualties.”
He did not go on to cite numbers or further details, yet Micah Zenko, a
scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations and lead author of a 2013
study of drones, is quoted in an April 23, 2015 New York Times article on
drone strikes, in reference to the President’s 2013 comments,
“Most individuals killed are not on a kill list, and the government does
not know their names.”
The program has not been as clean as government leaders would have liked
for us to think. Or lastly among many examples, a November 2014 article
in the Guardian cites:
“A new analysis of the data available to the public about drone strikes,
conducted by the human-rights group Reprieve, indicates that even when
operators target specific individuals – the most focused effort of what
Barack Obama calls “targeted killing” – they kill vastly more people than
their targets, often needing to strike multiple times. Attempts to kill 41
men resulted in the deaths of an estimated 1,147 people…”
The assumption that “radicalization” is not based in some reality is an
empire or White supremacist notion where everything is ok save for those
rabble-rousers, outside agitators, and purveyors of hatred. Every time I
hear some newsperson or pundit drone on (excuse the pun) about when, how
and who did the radicalization I am reminded of J. Edgar Hoover, former
Director of the FBI during the Civil Rights era and the status-quo
politicians of the time looking under every rock for communist agitators
from Moscow who had inflamed and radicalized the Black folks to march,
demonstrate and rebel! It is an empire and White supremacist notion to
believe that all is fine save for outside influences. The assumption is
‘who would not be happy with our way of life, our agendas, or ways we see
the world.’
Keep in mind that I am not condoning acts of violence by any side or
carried out in any name of God or nationalistic identifications. I am
simply pointing out that it is real conditions and experiences that have
given credence to the so-called “radicalization” process. There are
agents recruiting and organizing people to join their cause, but it is
recruitment based on some stark and harsh realities produced by war,
greed, and attempting to fashion entire regions in the United States’
political image.
Therefore it stands to reason that to combat so-called radicalization the
US and its partners need to ethically evaluate it motives and initiatives
and stand to be judged in a world court where warranted. The US and its
allies need to allow countries and regions to develop without
interference, manipulation or control. The mechanisms of radicalization
would be muted and impotent if the US and its partners addressed human
rights violations carried out around the world by itself, its partners and
its allies. There would be no fertile ground to recruit from if people
felt the processes were fair and just rather than exploited by a few
nations and corporations at the expense of everyone else. This is a part
of what needs to happen to thwart radicalization. The US and its allies
must right the wrongs they have done and attempt to restore regions and
people to govern their own selves no matter how those structures might
look in the end.
As far as who, when and how Syed Farook and Tasheen Malik and the
countless others were radicalized? The answer to this question is found
in a world that has been ravished by war and greed; in the conditions of
despair that has been created; in the powerless feeling pushed around by
the powerful; and it is there in refugee camps and at funerals from drone
strikes that we will find the agents of anger that breeds radicalization
that we claim we do not understand.
‘When were they radicalized?’ is not the right question
Middle East
Rev. Graylan Scott Hagler on December 9, 2015 28 Comments
• Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid.
• Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid.
• Adjust Font Size
Tashfeen Malik and Syed Rizwan Farook were photographed at Chicago's
O'Hare International Airport in 2014.
The big question these days dominating the airwaves is when was Syed
Farook and Tasheen Malik radicalized; or who radicalized them; and how
were they radicalized? This question is a perplexing one because it
assumes that without outside influence everything would be all right and
that there are no valid grievances, or anger, and no desire for revenge or
justice no matter how misguided those desires might be manifested.
This is a strange line of query because it presupposes that without
external forces radicalization would be impossible. This line of
questioning illustrates a blind patriotism of empire proportion that
believes that anyone upset and acting out is either demented or has fallen
under the influences of a political/religious ideology that exploits the
weak minded or the mentally deranged. To even ask the question is to make
the assumption that everything is ok around us and in our world and would
be regarded as such if it were not for outside influences. But this
perspective has a tendency to ignore the realities of what so many people
live under and have to endure daily. It is often from personal
experiences, relationships with those impacted by what most of us don’t
see or care about are the radicalizing factors. The present queries act as
if there are no valid grievances, no real anger, and as if there is
innocence on the part of the powerful, the US and others. But this is not
the way that peoples of the Middle East, North Africa and Asia see the US
or the West.
The US and its partners have been at war for more than 14 years in
Afghanistan. The US began an unprovoked war in Iraq in 2003 and virtually
destroyed the country where today ISIL is filling part of the vacuum
created by that war, and the President of Afghanistan literally is
presiding over nothing but the capital city of that country, Kabul. The US
under the cry of removing President Bashar Hafez al-Assad in Syria by
helping to orchestrate and sustain a civil war has created a displacement
crisis of epic proportion and caused the deaths of more than 250,000
people. Conditions in many countries have worsened under the wars and the
remaking of the Middle East and North Africa in the West’s image. Our
continual military support of Israel against Palestinians challenges the
view that everything is ok without the influences of “outside agitators”
radicalizing people and calling them to arms. According to Ha’aretz, an
Israeli newspaper, in an August 2014 report it states concerning military
aid to Israel,
“Since it began in 1962, American military aid to Israel has amounted to
nearly $100 billion. For the past decades The United States has been
regularly transferring aid of about $3 billion annually. In recent years,
the aid has been solely for defense purposes. Additionally, The US has
been giving Israel generous military aid for projects important both to it
and Israel.”
Even in light of Israel’s continued human rights violation Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu in November 2015 traveled to Washington, DC to request
an increase to the amount of aid his country receives from the US.
Then there is also the US drone program designed to make killing more
antiseptic and distant. However in a 2013 speech before the National
Defense University President Obama said,
“It is a hard fact that US strikes have resulted in civilian casualties.”
He did not go on to cite numbers or further details, yet Micah Zenko, a
scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations and lead author of a 2013
study of drones, is quoted in an April 23, 2015 New York Times article on
drone strikes, in reference to the President’s 2013 comments,
“Most individuals killed are not on a kill list, and the government does
not know their names.”
The program has not been as clean as government leaders would have liked
for us to think. Or lastly among many examples, a November 2014 article in
the Guardian cites:
“A new analysis of the data available to the public about drone strikes,
conducted by the human-rights group Reprieve, indicates that even when
operators target specific individuals – the most focused effort of what
Barack Obama calls “targeted killing” – they kill vastly more people than
their targets, often needing to strike multiple times. Attempts to kill 41
men resulted in the deaths of an estimated 1,147 people…”
The assumption that “radicalization” is not based in some reality is an
empire or White supremacist notion where everything is ok save for those
rabble-rousers, outside agitators, and purveyors of hatred. Every time I
hear some newsperson or pundit drone on (excuse the pun) about when, how
and who did the radicalization I am reminded of J. Edgar Hoover, former
Director of the FBI during the Civil Rights era and the status-quo
politicians of the time looking under every rock for communist agitators
from Moscow who had inflamed and radicalized the Black folks to march,
demonstrate and rebel! It is an empire and White supremacist notion to
believe that all is fine save for outside influences. The assumption is
‘who would not be happy with our way of life, our agendas, or ways we see
the world.’
Keep in mind that I am not condoning acts of violence by any side or
carried out in any name of God or nationalistic identifications. I am
simply pointing out that it is real conditions and experiences that have
given credence to the so-called “radicalization” process. There are agents
recruiting and organizing people to join their cause, but it is
recruitment based on some stark and harsh realities produced by war,
greed, and attempting to fashion entire regions in the United States’
political image.
Therefore it stands to reason that to combat so-called radicalization the
US and its partners need to ethically evaluate it motives and initiatives
and stand to be judged in a world court where warranted. The US and its
allies need to allow countries and regions to develop without
interference, manipulation or control. The mechanisms of radicalization
would be muted and impotent if the US and its partners addressed human
rights violations carried out around the world by itself, its partners and
its allies. There would be no fertile ground to recruit from if people
felt the processes were fair and just rather than exploited by a few
nations and corporations at the expense of everyone else. This is a part
of what needs to happen to thwart radicalization. The US and its allies
must right the wrongs they have done and attempt to restore regions and
people to govern their own selves no matter how those structures might
look in the end.
As far as who, when and how Syed Farook and Tasheen Malik and the
countless others were radicalized? The answer to this question is found in
a world that has been ravished by war and greed; in the conditions of
despair that has been created; in the powerless feeling pushed around by
the powerful; and it is there in refugee camps and at funerals from drone
strikes that we will find the agents of anger that breeds radicalization
that we claim we do not understand.
