In his first public statement on the matter, he referred to
it as ‘an act of terrorism.’ He then went on to say that there was no clue yet
as to the perpetrators of the atrocity, but he’d already used the term ‘an act
of terrorism.’ This causes me concern for two reasons.
Firstly, ‘terrorism’ has a fairly specific definition,
something along the lines of ‘the deliberate arousal of terror within a defined
population in furtherance of military, political, or ideological ends.’ Since
the perpetrators aren’t known, Obama has no basis on which to make the
assumption. If, for example, some crazed person had planted those bombs to take
revenge on the people of Boston
for some perceived grievance, it wouldn’t be terrorism, but a matter of personal vengeance. This is important
because terrorism is a major concern these days, and it needs to be understood by
everybody if it is to be effectively addressed.
On a more human level, however, a greater concern
stems from the fact that terrorism has become indelibly associated in the minds
of people in the west with Islamic extremism, and too many people fail to make
the distinction between the generality of a religious belief system and the
extremist end of it. In consequence, I’ve little doubt that there are people in
America – and maybe other parts of the western world – who will translate Obama’s
statement as ‘the Muslims did it.’ That isn’t right; it’s the sort of thing
that can inflame the lynch law mentality.
So does the President know more than he’s admitting to, or
was he simply guilty of unconscionable carelessness in his choice of words? If
it’s the latter, then I have to say that one has a right to expect better of a
man in his position.
5 comments:
I agree that it's incorrect to label it an act of terror at this time. As for your other point - while true, it's not really Obama's fault that some people think all terrorism is committed by Muslims. Those kind of people are going to think that Muslims did it no matter what the president says. In fact, they might be even more suspicious if Obama didn't call it terrorism - that might mean that he's covering up for the terrorists, because he's a Muslim too!
(Our country is nuts.)
OK, maybe I was a bit hard on him. I was glad he won too, you know.
And I suspect that our country is also about to become nuts. The way the present administration is going, I'm waiting for a latter day Wat Tyler to emerge. Different problem, of course.
Obama has a rough gig. He might be the most heavily scrutinized president of all time. Of course, all presidents should be heavily scrutinized - it keeps them on their toes. I scrutinize Obama too. He's not perfect. On the other hand, a lot of the time he's stuck between a rock and a hard place.
I find it interesting that when our Margaret Thatcher (a.k.a. Ronald Reagan) died, the U.S. went into deep mourning, and people still think very fondly of him. But when your Ronald Reagan (a.k.a. Margaret Thatcher) died, not so much.
Maybe it's this simple:
Americans still seem to be caught up in the euphoria of successful rebellion against the Brits. We have a long history of rebellion against our leaders.
Or maybe it's THIS simple:
I remember remarking back in the 80s that Regan and Thatcher had one thing in common: they were both bad actors. I think RR was probably the better of the two.
Besides, Reagan successfully negotiated an assissination attempt. No doubt that endeared him to the heart of American history.
And I do realise that Barack is treading a very difficult line.
Now that I'm not under the influence...
A lot of the current displays of hatred towards Thatcher come from the lower levels of British society where her policies created a definable underclass similar to the American model. This is a class characterised by underprivilege, frustration, drug dependency, welfare dependency, crime, gang culture etc. A whole generation has been trapped in it.
By contrast, they also created a small, super-priviliged elite of wealthy people at the top, which frustrates just about everybody. This was all to do with her shifting the economy from a mixed model based on manufacturing to a free market one based on retail. In effect, she made Britain into a near-American clone.
Others were disturbed by the fact that she denigrated almost everything apart from wealth and 'family values.' The arts suffered, for example. Her famous quotation was 'There is no such thing as quality literature. There are books that sell and books that don't.'
So, a lot of people have reason to think lowly of Mrs T. I could go on.
And I do know how to spell 'assassination.' I used it to describe Thatcher's removal from power by her own colleagues when they realised she was becoming a liability.
Post a Comment