.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Born at the Crest of the Empire

Friday, July 28, 2006

How does "freedom" stop terrorism?

I was rereading the Bush-Blair press conference, and that's what popped into my mind. The mantra has been repeated enough by the administration and its supporters that this equation has gained enough weight to be passed unchallenged through the media.

If you look through recent history, there have been plenty of counter examples to this credo. The IRA, Greece's November 17, Bader Mainhoff and the Red Brigade in Germany, Aum Shinrikyo in Japan, Tim McVeigh in the US, just as a few off the top of my head examples.

All of these existed within very western, very open societies. For god's sake, the London tube bombers.

As this belief that "freedom" defeats terrorism is the underpinning justification for the entire radical Bush foreign policy that has led us to where we are now, why does no one ask the president to explain the freedom/terror relationship as he understands it?

How exactly does freedom defeat terrorism?

(Josh Marshall has a Youtube video up of the relevant section.)

posted by mikevotes at 6:15 PM

11 Comments:

  • Good point Mike.

    By Blogger Cartledge, at 7:07 PM  

  • I've wanted to do a ana anlysis of this myself. I have no idea how they relate--your examples are good ones. Besdies, there's a difference between freedom and liberty. I think it's the latter that Bush might be referring to--but who knows?

    By Blogger Faustus and FrankenKitty, at 7:16 PM  

  • Thanks Cartledge.

    And, Cynic. Even so, how does liberty change the equation? (or democracy as is alternately injected.)

    You could have a liberated society where individuals are still driven to violence by US presence on Saudi soil, or by the actions of the Israelis towards the Palestinians.

    I've entertained the idea that maybe Bush is referring to state sponsored terrorism, but if you look at US policies in Central America in the 80's, even our "ideal" democracy can promote and supply violent civilian killing militias.

    I just don't see it at this point.

    The only way it makes sense is if Bush is using freedom as a euphemism for the American way of life, and that somehow we could get all the terrorists eating cheese puffs, watching American Idol, and buying status symbols.

    And if that's the case, that's pretty scary, both that that's what he considers freedom, and also the naivete that that would work.

    Mike

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 8:44 PM  

  • The only way it makes sense is if Bush is using freedom as a euphemism for the American way of life, and that somehow we could get all the terrorists eating cheese puffs, watching American Idol, and buying status symbols.

    I'm afraid that's exactly what he's thinking - Keep 'em dumb, fat, happy, and entertained.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:28 PM  

  • It works here, eh?

    Mike

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 9:42 PM  

  • I'll go out on a limb and suggest that terrorism is MORE likely to exist in "free" societies than under tyrannies. Dictators have a way of stomping it out (e.g., what terrorism existed in Iraq under Saddam?).

    By Blogger Motherlode, at 3:07 AM  

  • Pretty good point.

    Mike

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 6:08 AM  

  • Injustice and desperation breed terrorism. So dealing with the undelying problems may actually work. But that's too complicated.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:16 AM  

  • But which injustice? The restrictive Egyptian government or corporate power and trade policies?

    Mike

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 1:07 PM  

  • Yes. And no doubt many more, like the displacement and humiliation of the Palestinians.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:29 PM  

  • Bush will rather run out of the conference room, crying like a little girl before putting together two coherent sentences, reticulating his thoughts.

    But can we blame him?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:56 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home