Skip to main content

I was never a huge Justin Trudeau supporter, nor am I at the present time.  With that said, I have developed a grudging respect for him stemming from the comments he made following the Boston Marathon bombing.  

Up until now, I rarely gave Trudeau much thought.  My sentiments, admittedly far from objective, were based on an assumption that Trudeau’s popularity was due solely to residual Trudeaumania.  In other words, I felt that Justin Trudeau’s rise to political stardom was resultant of riding on his father’s coattails rather than any real ability to lead the nation.  I mistook him for a fluff candidate, not really capable of pulling it off.  

In the aftermath of the Marathon bombing, Trudeau made the following statement.

“Over the coming days, we have to look at the root causes.  Now, we don’t know now if it was terrorism or a single crazy or a domestic issue or a foreign issue, but there is no question that this happened because there is someone who feels completely excluded. Completely at war with innocents. At war with a society. And our approach has to be, where do those tensions come from?

Yes, there’s a need for security and response, but we also need to make sure that as we go forward, that we don’t emphasize a culture of fear and mistrust. Because that ends up marginalizing even further those who already are feeling like they are enemies of society.”

As expected, Mr. Trudeau was thoroughly castigated by wannabe warmonger, resident King of Sussex Drive, Lord of the Manor, PM Stephen Harper.  Mr. Harper stated in response to Trudeau,  “when you see this kind of action, when you see this kind of violent act, you do not sit around trying to rationalize it or make excuses for it or figure out its root causes”.  

Surprisingly, I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Trudeau’s brutally honest statement.  If the United States government spent a little more time on retrospection and a little less time on threatening or actually waging war upon other nations, they would have fewer enemies, hence would face less threats to national security.  If those elected to office would begin representing the interests of the people, rather than the veracious appetite of the industrial military complex, the world, in fact, would be a safer place.  

As demonstrated by the Boston Marathon bombing, the United States’ war on terror certainly doesn’t keep the nation any safer. The overtly broad characterization of radical Islamization as the fundamental agent of terrorism is desultory and the security of the nation will continue to be at risk. Trudeau voiced the one question demanding an answer. What underlying festering wound causes human beings to distort a religion in order to invoke terror upon a civilian population?”  The United States very well understands the composition of this specific catalyst that once unleashed triggers a domino effect setting in motion a terrorist plot. Acknowledging what fuels terrorism and anti-American sentiment, would force the United States to acknowledge its’ own culpability, an unacceptable proposition to Eisenhower’s greatest fear, the industrial military complex.

Failure to honestly assess what drives terrorism and lay it at the doorstep of radical Islamization is as about as effective as treating a severed aortic artery with a Band-Aid. It would be prudent to actually address the elephant in the room, rather than assigning the all too convenient label, radical Islamization.  From the standpoint of those elected, reflection and self-awareness fails to serve their own self-interest.  Perpetual war will not survive anything beyond a cursory, superficial glance at the underlying etiology of terrorist threats that nation faces.

Since 9/11, the effort spent on retrospection pales in comparison to the costly effort expended upon aggression.   Attributing the root cause to radical Islamization is superficial and ineffectual.  Rather than curbing threats to the nation, is has an inverse effect on the intended result.  Assigning primary causation of terrorism to a religion practiced predominantly by 1.2 billion peaceful people only polarizes us and further marginalizes the already marginalized.  Adding the qualifying modifier “radical” to the religion of Islam doesn’t alter the inference of Islam as the underlying element to terrorism and it certainly doesn’t make friends.  One only has to look at the immediate aftermath where thousands of Muslims were rounded up and detained without due process to understand this.  State sanctioned terrorism as witnessed in North Pakistan via drone strokes, along with the actions of governmental agencies in post 9/11, paralleled with increased Islamophobia evidenced on the Internet, news media, lobby groups, websites and bloggers fails to delineate the word Islam from the words “radical” Islam. Any human being victim to injustice, hypocrisy, and violence by a government that claims to lead with these very principles (and tends to hold the bar much, much higher for others than they do for themselves), yet is guilty of violating these same said of the principles can easily be manipulated towards the very thing we rail against.  It begs to question what transforms the non violent into human beings willing to murder innocent civilians?  Is the radicalization of these people metastasized by those who recruit members via the bastardization of a religion giving moral cause to resultant violence as part of a political agenda or are the war mongering actions of the United States government perpetuated upon other human beings responsible?

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (10+ / 0-)

    Canadian mother of four, works at Canadian University, blogs and co-host of Blog Talk Radio's "Lies My Country Told Me" with co-host and love of my life, Fred Lemon.

    by mmayer on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 10:47:45 PM PDT

  •  the failure of the US to appreciate cause and (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sturunner, TexasLefty, Pluto, chimene, linkage

    effect is nowhere as obvious as our COIN program in Afghanistan or our drone programs in Yemen, Pakistan and Africa.  We are particularly tone deaf to the rest of the world when it comes to appreciating how some of our acts merely exacerbate a problem and breed the next generation of terrorists.  I would venture a guess, merely as an opinion, that our drone program has produced as many radicals as bin Laden's radical Wahhabi theology ever has

  •  A little historical perspective... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chimene, linkage

    It is not (or shouldn't be) too hard to see the causal relationships between America's military actions and the responses to those actions that our government and media label "terrorism." Mmayer does a nice job of it here, and other writers in other venues have pointed out very clearly that most attacks by Islamic terrorists have been in response to US foreign policy.
    One example:

    since Osama bin Laden declared war on America in 1996, no Islamist attacker or would-be attacker in the West has ever told the authorities after his arrest that he was motivated to attack by the West’s values, lifestyles, and freedoms. In addition, none of the recovered documents or taped statements by domestic Islamist attackers who died in action have yielded evidence of that kind of motivation. This sort of evidence consistently has shown that the attackers’ overarching motivation to be hatred for U.S. and Western foreign policy toward and intervention in the Islamic world.
    More importantly, we need to look at the longer-term historical foundations for radical Islamic nationalism in the Middle East and Central Asia. Much of the development of this particular political mode can be found in the Cold War, when the Us and its European allies systematically undermined, arrested, or assassinated two generations of post-colonial political leaders in that part of the world. At the height of the Cold War the US feared that these populist politicians were too Socialist and would ally their nations with the Soviets.
    The irony is that, having killed the secular politicians and supported the dictatorial rulers (Rehza Pahlevi in Iran; Saddam Hussein in Iraq; Nasser, Sadat, and Mubarak in Egypt) the only option for most people on the ground was to follow the local religious leaders. We killed democracy in those countries, and midwifed Islamic radical politics.

    Unfortunately, the extremely shallow historical memories of US politicians, journalists, and other citizens guarantees that we won't learn from these mistakes.

  •  Thank You - N/T (0+ / 0-)

    "Upward, not Northward" - Flatland, by EA Abbott

    by linkage on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 11:28:21 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site