Your Most Trusted Source of Foreign
News and Views About the United States
|
By Baha'uddin Abu-Shiqqa
Edited by Rob Gibran
July 25, 2005
It is apparent, from all of the events that we've been witnessing, that the world has entered a dark tunnel with no end in sight. It is also plain to see that the United States is pushing every nation, even its closest allies, into murky uncharted waters; this due to its oppressive policies and its blatant disregard for international law since it crowned itself the only world superpower.
While
"Today, we are fighting a global war on terror. ... We're fighting against people who celebrate the suffering of the innocent. ... [The terrorists] are ideologues. They hate freedom. They reject tolerance. They despise all dissent. They have objectives. Their aim is to remake the Middle East in their own grim image of tyranny. They want to topple governments. They want to export terror. They want to force free nations to retreat. These people will not be stopped by negotiations. They're not going to be -- they won't change their mind because of concessions. There is no appeal to their reason. There is only one course of action. We will take the fight to the enemy, and we will stay in the fight until this enemy is defeated."
Bush's words are very nice and sweet, but
also hollow and empty and have nothing to do with the real world! Everyone
knows by now that these are words of deception: If all of this is really true
and the terrorists want to overthrow governments, then the
But come now, Mr. Bush, and please tell
us, who are these "suffering innocents" that your country is assisting? Does
If the Palestinians and the Iraqis and
the Afghanis are not the "suffering innocents," then who is? Or maybe Bush
is speaking of some other innocents who are suffering on some other planet;
Mars, perhaps. And what about the "human rights" that
Instead of reconsidering its policies and
atoning for its sins, the
In his speech, Bush said that there is
no way to reason with the terrorists other than to "take the fight to the
enemy." The question is, did Bush succeed in doing so? Did the London explosions take place on enemy soil? He should have
known that terrorism doesn't have a country or a religion, and that therefore
there is no battlefield on which to wage war with it. Bush should realize
that
This has been corroborated by the British
Royal Institute of International Affairs, who said that the decision by Prime
Minister Tony Blair's government to participate in the wars of
The Chatham House report, which came out after the first four attacks in London, added that the British government's ability to take anti-terrorism measures is hindered by the American administration, which always takes the most prominent role in presenting choices and policies in this regard. The report goes on to say that the invasion of Iraq provided the terrorists with ideal targets and a perfect training ground, and that blindly following an ally's policies (as Britain has) has "proved costly in terms of ... lives, military expenditures, and the damage caused to the counter-terrorism campaign."
Panic gripped the British capital after the second terrorist attempt, which prompted Blair to cancel many of his prior engagements to assess the situation. Blair said that the terrorist attacks were designed to cause fear, and that "we can't minimize incidents such as this, because they obviously have been serious."
What remains to be asked is: Until when will Washington control British decisions while victims of this damned terrorism pile up day after day? The rosy dreams that Bush has been spreading to the world have evaporated, and his daily promises of eliminating the boogeyman of terrorism have withered. The wait has become longer, the world constantly less safe, and who knows what tomorrow has in store.
The time has come for the
Will