Thursday, May 23, 2013
Woolwich
Two things seem to be missing in the discussion so far.
1. Why the fuck wasn't the soldier carrying a gun? If he was armed, why the fuck didn't he defend himself? The attack wasn't a surprise ambush; it apparently took a couple of minutes, with lots of verbal warning from the attackers. Has England completely lost the whole concept of self-defense?
2. Linkage seems to be a confused matter. All the authorities are saying you can't link the action to Islam, and you can't link it to British foreign policy. Nonsense. The links are there. Don't ignore the links. Instead, try to understand the links correctly, and draw the correct active conclusions.
On the link to Islam: Sheikh Osama has made his purposes clear. He was acting as a paladin for the Arab people, and he was using their Islamic beliefs as a sort of accelerant. If most Arabs had been Buddhist, he would have used their Buddhist beliefs as an accelerant. Osama's war is against foreign interference with Arab nations, not about Islam vs Christianity. The neocons (ie Israel and its slaves) have propagandized us into believing that it's all about Islam.
On the link to foreign policy: You have to ask the cost vs benefit question. UK and US have been interfering with Arab nations for a long time. UK since 1920, US since 1950. What benefit have we received for fucking around in the Arab world? Zero. What's the cost to us? Thousands of soldiers directly killed in the wars, billions of dollars wasted, thousands of civilians killed by Arabs angered by our fucking around.
Zero benefit, huge cost. Answer: Stop fucking around. BRING EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE HOME.
¶ 3:58 AM 
