In yesterday's column Peter Worthington wrote:
In Britain, police now shoot suspects. Good.
By yesterday Worthington had had lots of time to find out that the suspect killed by British police was an innocent Brazilian. In today's column he spends the first few paragraphs backpedalling like crazy without ever admitting that he was applauding the death of an innocent - just like the terrorists. Then he comes out with this:
Mere suspicion, in these days of suicide bombers, can get you shot by accident.The ones to blame for this perilous policy are Muslims -- not that all Muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists these days are Muslim.
Notice how he makes the simple declarative stereotype first and then scurries to qualify it. Guess which part of that sentence Worthington wants to stay with you.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that things are just a bit more complicated than Worthington (or for that matter, Spouting Thomas Friedman*) would have us believe. Certainly there's a hard core of Islamist fundamentalists like Bin Laden whose terrorist activity predates the war on Iraq. And certainly the answer isn't to negotiate with them or offer them understanding, although trying to understand them might just pay off if it helps to anticipate their next move.
But there is a larger group of more recent recruits whose motives for turning terrorist might just include the war in Iraq, the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo and other reasons we aren't hearing about from pundits like Worthington. And beyond that there's an even larger group of soft, passive supporters and potential recruits whose motivations might be even more varied.
In short, there might be things we could consider doing to isolate the Bin Ladens, to further soften that soft support instead of hardening it. But you won't hear that from the Friedmans and the Worthingtons. Instead it's all the fault of the other. No need for even a moment's introspection or a moment's consideration about how to meet the threat of terrorism other than to say it's someone else's problem and someone else's fault.
It's enough to make you thing that Worthington wants the conflict to escalate. I guess he assumes his side will win.
I wonder what winning looks like.
* Friedman would have qualified for Wanker of the Week if he hadn't written that last week.
Have you read today's TorStar editorial on the subject?
Excertp:
"The admission by London police last week that they had killed an innocent man... and a warning by Ian Blair, the city's police chief, that the force's shoot-to-kill policy means 'somebody else could be shot' have only heightened the debate.
As frightening as this new reality may be, particularly to minorities who feel they will be unjustly targeted, it is not unreasonable that police should adopt such a policy....Regrettably, tragic mistakes sometimes will happen."
I think the intent of his comment is worse than you say. He is not offering a partial qualification or backing away from the declarative at all. He's saying we should assign blame to all muslims even though they are not terrorists.
Worthington is saying we _should_ assign responsibility for the actions of radicals to the broader group. He offers that some people will be accused (and presumably may be punished) for actions and beliefs they don't condone or support but he doesn't say that is a bad thing.
They are them and we are us. That wouldn't be bad if being a violent radical made you one of them. Sadly for Worthington -- and too many other people -- being one of them is determined by religion and not by a more honest criteria.
This is another foul example of the "us and them" thinking that is characteristic of bad and of simple men.
"Regrettably, tragic mistakes sometimes will happen."
Indeed.
I think the real question is how many innocents are you willing to allow the government to kill in order to prevent the terrorists from killing someone?
Keep in mind when you answer the question that there will be many more suspected then actual terrorists.
I hadn't read Worthington in a while, but that really is kitchen-sink journalism (as in "everything but the ..."), isn't it. The CBC, the Khadr family, PM the PM and the Liberal party, and Muslims in general. All in that tiny space. It takes a very peculiar talent to do that.
Kevin Brennan is pointing out one obvious thing that Worthington didn't manage to squeeze in: this one police murder of an innocent has been a boon to any terrorist-trainers out there. It has dealt the investigators in London a serious blow, undermined Blair's credibility terribly. It seems to demonstrate that terror accomplishes precisely what it means to accomplish: to shake democrats so badly that they will quickly and easily sacrifice their own values, and begin to devour their own.
The rationalizations for what happened to that innocent, cornered man are disgusting. I ache for anyone walking those streets and riding the Tube these days; I've been following each attack on my wee maps; but who can't stop his mind and mouth for a few minutes, imagining how it felt to an innocent to be caught in such a mad trap all of a sudden, out of nowhere? And to pay him a little respect.
Friedman is now beneath contempt, I think. He is talking about drawing up lists of dissenters, of mere critics. Feh.
The Star's editorial gains many many stupid points. For one thing, it claims that terrorism is "changing" because it's targeting civilians instead of government and military targets.
Argh.
First, this is not new in any way whatsoever. Second, when you attack government and military targets IT ISN'T TERRORISM!
Does Worthington still think that Fox News was banned in Canada?
Myself, I'm not interested in innocents getting killed.
Because of that, there's a slight chance some terrorist op will be more likely to succeed.
Such is the price of freedom.
Being a Vancouverite, I'm unfamiliar with the Worthington fellow. So I clicked on your link. Ah, I see he, um, writes, for the Toronto Sun. I remember that rag. Slightly more absasive, and less absorbent than toilet paper, yet able to hold much more shit.
Assholes like him, and papers like the Sun and Vancouver's equally craptastic Province, should just be ignored. Ignore them. They write to offend and inflame. They publish to make snarky, dumb, and narow minded comments that get a reaction. Don't give them one.
Oh, but a serious campaign to put gum ina ll the coin stots of their boxes, that would be constructive.
i just dont know why the guy ran like mad from the cops. my guess, being from north burnaby, is that his big coat was holding drugs or some other contraband...
Interesting that people can still mention the words democracy and freedom when talking about the West. Anyone read the Patriot Act or our own Security Act? With the shooting of this innocent man the score is Terrorists 1, Freedom 0.
We have given up freedom for security and through the above mention Acts, we end up with neither. It is not the terrorists who have changed our way of life that our leaders are so fond of ranting about, it is those self same leaders who, in their terror, have put a noose around our collective necks and are tightening it with every new threat.
Who really are the terrorists here?