frustrated musing

[verbicide]

In awful news, in case you haven't heard: a series of bombs on the London Underground have killed 33 people (so far reported). Allegedly al-Qaeda is behind the attacks.

Outside of feeling awful for the victims and their family, what drives me crazy about this sort of senseless horror is that it's only going to further perpetuate misinformation about Muslims everywhere.

I may be an atheist, but my family still practices and I grew up understanding very clearly that a large part of our religious belief system involved not hurting others. Acts of terror like these go quite against the tenets of Islam. You don't get to run around killing civilians, blaring "YAY ALLAH!"

No doubt that Bush will use this as an opportunity to sneer, "SEE! I told you so!! The sky IS falling!!!!"

On the one hand, our policies and actions (Patriot Act, frex) freak me out. But I have a fair amount of rage at terrorist groups that act outside of the religion they purport to believe in, and have achieved nothing but (to trivialize) bad PR. Not to mention the body count, which I have to compartmentalize, or I would get nothing else done.

I know there are arguments to be made about how our policies have bred this sort of action, and I can't personally image being in the desperate place some of these people are in. But it's frustrating all the same. I hate feeling so helpless and terrified that the next 'act of terror' is going to be somewhere where MY loved one is and I'm going to lose my mind. Makes me want to grab my family and friends and go hide someplace safe until all this is over. And yet, it eventually has to be over. This volatile state can't last forever.

Comments

[lietya.livejournal.com]

It really is so horrible.

Bush is already sneering; in fact, he's been claiming that he protected us from terrorist attacks (before now), while also insisting that the War on Terra must continue because of events such as these. I find profiteering off the dead to be revolting, frankly.

the problem is *fanatics.* People of all religions can become dangerous and violent when they tip over the line into fanaticism. This is not a popular worldview, though, because quite frankly it classes Bush right alongside the terrorists (someone who believes that violence in the name of religion is OK).

Muslim religious practice no more involves the necessity of killing civilians than Christianity does (not that thousands haven't died at *those* hands). The misconceptions drive *me* nuts; I can only imagine how scary and frustrating it must be for you to deal with people who don't know that.

[verbicide.livejournal.com]

To state the obvious, I agree that profiteering off the dead is revolting. I remember how disgusted Sarah and I were when the Bush presidential campaign included all these 9/11 references. It was sickening.

And you're right--it is always the fanatic, crazed-wing of any group that does acts like these. But what is so frustrating is that when something like Oaklahoma City happens, a lunatic is just a lunatic. When something like this happens, the lunatic is a representative of the religion. Grrr.

[lietya.livejournal.com]

This is not currently a society which welcomes "nuance" (remember how that was a dirty word during the election?). So every crazed Muslim or Arab or Jew or Buddhist who blows something up gets tagged as "representative of the religion," because otherwise people might have to stop and *think* about individual cases. But yeah, it's funny that even so, Christians who do such things are treated as individuals. I guess that's because "we're a Christian nation," so everybody knows Christians aren't really like that. *spit*

The sad thing is, it's counterproductive as well as bigoted. So long as people refuse to understand that the fanatics have reasons for doing what they do, we'll never be able to forestall them. (In other words, if we insist on saying "they're crazy because only a crazy person would do that," rather than realizing that there is actually a consistent and rational worldview behind it, we'll never be able to predict what they'll do next. You can't anticipate a madman, after all.)

(Not that "rational" means "reasonable," of course. But there *is* a logic-based thought process in the terrorists' heads, even if some of the premises may be false.)

[verbicide.livejournal.com]

I couldn't agree more.

Some people get so lathered up if you even try to discuss the concept that terrorists do what they do for a reason. This isn't a crime borne on sociopathic tendencies. They aren't doing it because they are inherently malicious individuals.

In no way do I excuse killing innocent people (done by either side, frankly) but to dismiss the cause and to react to the effect is the worst thing they could do. And they keep doing it!

I know I'm preaching to the choir, but it's just so frustrating.

[lietya.livejournal.com]

It is. And watching Bush et. al reiterate those same stupidities while using the bombings to make a political point is going to drive me NUTS.

"This isn't a crime borne on sociopathic tendencies. " Precisely, and a beautiful way of expressing it - the guy who keeps human heads in his freezer is crazy. The suicide bomber, isn't.

[verbicide.livejournal.com]

Well, you'll have some good solid company in the Going Nuts department.

[saavedra77.livejournal.com]

I'm saddened that so many in the U.S. seem to labor under the misconception that fighting terrorists "over there" (in Iraq) and "having to fight them over here" are mutually exclusive. Many conservatives think that Iraq will act as "flypaper" (their word) drawing all of the world's mad bombers so none of them come here. But the bombings in Bali, Istanbul, Madrid, & now London seem to indicate otherwise.

[verbicide.livejournal.com]

It makes me sad, too.

And it's disgusting to see Bush chortling that hey-- at least it didn't happen here! Because that's all that matters. (Not that he's right about it. It just hasn't happened here yet. Though it worries me that it will.)

As Sarah just emailed me. Be prepared to be 'embarrassed by the American media.'

[greyaenigma.livejournal.com]

Yeah, and they seem to be neglecting the evidence that (as predicted), Iraq is the best recruitment and training tool Al Qaida could have asked for.

Invade a country that provided no support or shelter to Al Qaida, and turn it into a terrorist breding ground? Way to go, guys!

I only hope that when the next attack happens in the Us, people will be finally willing to admit Bush wasn't actually doing anything to protect us, but I fear that's wishful thinking.

[verbicide.livejournal.com]

You know, I have to admit I'm cynical enough to say that I think it is wishful thinking. Any attack and Bush & Co. will spin it as, SEE! We were right to attack those monsters!

Did you see the Daily Show thing on how they don't bother promoting counter-terrorist departments with people who actually have counter-terrorist experience? Sheesh!

[greyaenigma.livejournal.com]

I think I did. Wait, Wait! Don't Tell Me! this weekend also had this painful quote from the new ambassador to Canada demonstrating his deep and profound ignorance of our neighbor to the north, as well as basic geography.

[verbicide.livejournal.com]

Ah lovely.

[greyaenigma.livejournal.com]

The great thing was that they openly said that his sole qualification was that he'd donated a lot of money to the Bush campaign.