It seems like only yesterday when Ron Paul was nearly guillotined on live television for suggesting that 9/11 was caused by this thing called "blowback." It was 2007, and the Republicans were jockeying for the position of frontrunner during the national debate season. Rudy "9/11" Guliani, never one to pass up reminding everyone of a national tragedy so we'll forget what a horrible, little human being he really is, lept for Paul's jugular.
Salivating, Rudy made a series of unchallenging commonplace remarks: "That's really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attacks of September 11th..." (Pause for awed silence...two...three...four) "..that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq."
Of course, Paul was right. The attacks on September 11, 2001 were carried out by a group of 19 hijackers (15 of whom were Saudi Arabian), and Al-Qaeda clearly cited their principal grievances as:
1. America's unwavering support of Israel.
2. America's military presence in the Middle East, particularly near holy landmarks.
Instead of learning a valuable lesson from 9/11, America (led by its mainstream media, political hawks, and overinflated military) seems hellbent on inviting more cases of blowback. As Paul mentioned way back in 2007, America has built an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. But that probably won't pissed anyone off. ...Right?
Now, certain hawks, led by the ever vivacious John Bolton, are discussing a ground invasion into Somalia as retaliation for the kidnapping of Richard Phillips. Bolton wants to do this with - I shit you not - "a coalition of the willing."
Can I pay someone to beat John Bolton with the 9/11 Commission Report?
"We need to look at what we do from the perspective if someone did it to us," Ron Paul said that fateful night. This simplistically beautiful sentiment called the principle of universality often invites the sneering rebuttal: "So you're saying we (or the victims) deserved this?" That was the question the moderator posed to Paul during the debate.
Paul's response: "I'm suggesting we listen to the people who attacked us."
Surely, this is the only way to break the cycle of violence. If we refuse to listen to our enemies, then we don't know their grievances, and we can never make amends. We've learned that bombing and bullying alone cannot build bridges between us. Iraq taught us this, and Afghanistan will teach us the same lesson.
Somalia waits to offer us the same lesson (yet again.) As anyone with even a basic understanding of history could have predicted, the killing of the three pirates may set off a domino effect of retaliations.Waiting to reenforce the message are a slew of angry Somali pirates, who vowed to avenge their fallen comrades. "This could escalate violence in this part of the world, no question about it," said Vice Admiral Bill Gortney, the commander of United States Naval Forces Central Command. The New Zealand Herald reports
Abdullahi Lami, one of the pirates holding a Greek ship anchored in the Somali town of Gaan, said: "Every country will be treated the way it treats us. In the future, America will be the one mourning and crying. We will retaliate [for] the killings of our men."
To put it another way: Blowback.
On Tuesday, armed pirates attacked an American cargo ship in the Gulf of Aden. The Times article concludes with a quote from John Wick, the director of International Security Solutions, a maritime security firm in London: "Somali pirates have typically not mistreated their captives." Of course, now we've killed three of their guys. That may change their policy toward American hostages. Such is the danger of letting men eager to make war make our policy decisions.
My last piece, in which I sought to explain the causes of Somali piracy, inspired some colorful hate mail. Americans seem comfortable with the mainstream media's cartoonish depiction of villainous pirates, and they aren't interested in humanizing the three men who were just executed by Navy snipers.
The media certainly isn't helping to explain the Somali situation. Apart from Democracy Now, most newscasters and journalists seem comfortable with recycling the old explanation for these acts of aggression: terrorists hate our freedom, brown people are incapable of running a functioning state, etc.
Determined to repeat the same sick exercise that led the American citizenry, blind, into an illegal war, the mainstream media spent the day after the pirate executions drooling over the awesome awesomeness of the US military. Aren't they great, everyone? Those bullets just pierce flesh so wonderfully!
Even the progressive messiah, Rachel Maddow, called the spectacle of the US Navy shakily standing-off against four poorly armed pirates "riveting." Maddow further commented that the Navy-Somali standoff had Americans brushing up on their, "How freaking impressive are Navy Seals-ology?"
(Really glad that 9PM slot on "liberal" MSNBC went to someone aggressively challenging America's bloated military. Oh well, what can one expect when Ms. Maddow operates on a network owned by G.E., which manufactures some of the very weapons used by the navy?)
I explained in my original article that Somali pirates claim their motives stem from the West overfishing in their seas, and then dumping nuclear waste in their waters. Unable to sustain themselves with traditional modes of employment, they have turned to acts of piracy out of desperation. The nuclear waste dumping charges have been confirmed by the United Nations envoy for Somalia.
Though the mainstream newspapers have documented the Somali's qualms with western powers, they have not gone the extra step to link these grievances with acts of piracy. Furthermore, most of the major network conversations about Somalia are worryingly moving toward a place of militarism. I always grow concerned when news networks break out their extra spiffy graphics during War Game time: showing Navy snipers shooting faceless bad guys, troop deployments in a "theoretic" ground invasion of Somalia, etc.
It reminds me of the lead-up to Iraq. The chatters starts to sound like war drums.
Everyone needs to take a deep breath. If Americans can collectively act like adults and think past the next thirty seconds, they'll see that a ground invasion into Somalia is an awful idea. Another awful idea would be bombing Somalia's coastline, which is roughly as long as the eastern seaboard of the United States. Imagine blanketing such a huge swath of land with bombs. Imagine how many innocent women, children, and young men will die. Yet another terrible, terrible idea would be to harass innocent fisherman and profile all citizens because of the acts of a minority of young men.
All of the above terrible, terrible, terrible ideas breed blowback. The opposite of these mind-numbingly stupid plans comes from addressing the Somalis' grievances and offering them aid and support as they try to rebuild their country. Western states need to end their overfishing and the dumping of hazardous waste.
If America fails to understand the world's grievances with its militaristic, imperialist agenda, then it is destined for decades (maybe centuries) of blowback. America must break this endless cycle of blowback if only to finally (please God) stop the pirate puns.
Cross-posted from allisonkilkenny.com. Also available on Twitter and Facebook.
Not to take away from your argument, you quoted Al Qaida's **stated** reasons for the 9-11 attacks. Like politicians, this particular band of jihadist-terrorists has an agenda: They seek to inspire and orchestrate the overthrow of governments in Muslim-majority countries and place them under a single, global caliphate and they believe that the US stands in their way. Their intention to attack the US on its own soil may well date back to 1979, when Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahri met in Afghanistan and fought against the USSR with the backing of our very own CIA.
Oh what a tangled web we weave...
Like politicians, this particular band of jihadist-terrorists has an agenda: They seek to inspire and orchestrate the overthrow of governments in Muslim-majority countries and place them under a single, global caliphate and they believe that the US stands in their way.
/quote
Well, that's the narrative of the Bush administration, and considering Bush, Jr's extraordinary debt to the Saud royal family for bailing him out of his failure to find oil in Texas [http://dir.salon.com/story/books/feature/2004/03/12/unger_2/index.html], and the Bush family's many other documented dirty dealings with the least civilized country in the Persian Gulf, I'm more inclined to believe Osama bin Laden than anybody in the Bush crime family.
The Maersk ship is registered in Virginia, where Maersk Lines, ltd. is based. It is American-flagged, American-crewed with workers representing three different maritime unions. The Alabama is part of the DoD's Maritime Security Program (MSP) fleet. Maersk has nine ships in the MSP fleet. Several other US-based companies have ships in the fleet.
Here is a link to bulletins from the Office of Naval Intelligence. These detail the worlwide threat to shipping. You'll see that attacks are frequent. Are they all carrying nuclear waste?
http://www.nga.mil/portal/site/maritime/?epi_menuItemID=3e37041ec7a4546e36890127d32020a0&epi_menuID=e106a3b5e50edce1fec24fd73927a759&epi_baseMenuID=e106a3b5e50edce1fec24fd73927a759
You might find the US story hard to believe, but piracy is a real threat to mariners in some parts of the world, regardless of when you first heard about it.
Instead
Destroy their attack boats, outboards and marine diesel engines. That will really hurt them and then they will have to spend money to resupply. I'm not saying strand them at sea, but eliminate their offensive capability... No more "mother" ships = no more pirate attacks at sea; if weapons are found then eliminate the weapon carrying mother ship.
These are not random Pirate attacks, they are Somali TERRORISTS being directed by "Other" well financed Terrorists that have good ($) reason to make sure that US AID does not arrive because that will make them look bad! The way to deal with this is to establish a complete NEWS blackout around the Pirates/Terrorists, send the ship on it's way at it's best speed and apply maximum press coverage on the plight of the starving folks that are being denied this food by these Pirates/Terrorists and those that finance them!
Second, there is a difference between accepting the concept of blowback and capitulating to it. I can accept that if I stick up for the old woman being harassed on the bus that I may suffer some harm for doing so. That doesn't mean it is right to avoid a confrontation merely because it would create a blowback situation. The US has nothing to apologize for in expecting to deliver humanitarian aid to Kenya free from thugs with automatic weapons holding those delivering aid hostage. There are many things the US (and many other nations) can be blamed for, but this is not one of them.
Blow back is sometimes justified even though it is seldom rational.
To the contrary the US ship was delivering aid to impoverished Africans, and the US takes in many Somali refugees and spends millions of dollars in medical, welfare and other benefits.
Yeah, I understand the concept of blowback but to suggest that we should simply count our blessings that more Americans aren't victimized by these pirates or that our military leaders don't see them as people is ridiculous! They know they are young, impoverished, and desparate, and guess what: I don't care! If you are going to take it upon yourself to victimize American citizen's in international waters simply because you feel you can, then you get what's coming to you! Something is really wrong if anyone expects me to have a care for individuals who feel that their issues are so big that it is okay for them to violate anothers soverignty. Now you can debate how equel 3 dead pirates are versus the 100's of millions thay are paid in ransom or the impact they unleash onto the families of their victims all you want, all I know is that in this case if you leave us alone, we'll gladly do the same. However, if you want to put our citizens and sailors in harms way, you can expect a response that will make you think twice before doing so again. This is not a game they want to play and neither do we; however, we will if you make us!
I for one am not advocating invading Somalia or bombing their towns, but to not respond to violence against us is just dumb. While I may sympathize with the causes of their plight, that doesn't mean I won't defend myself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_Civil_War
It ain't simple, new or unique; these are very poor, 3rd world, mostly starving people, and I seriously doubt that most of them know much of anything other than the fact that they need to eat tomorrow, and that basic survival is the constant primary concern....
Meanwhile, a small percentage are striking out at the only symbol of prosperity that crosses the horizon of their dire, deadly and mostly hopeless lives: ships off of their coast.
Why do they do this [other than the obvious gain from taking ransom]? Perhaps most of these pirates are old enough to remember that the US & UN forces came in, helped make a bad situation worse, and then ran away without helping to resolve ANYTHING.
This is an excerpt from this lengthy essay
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/04/13-6
“Yes, nuclear waste. As soon as the government was gone, mysterious European ships started appearing off the coast of Somalia, dumping vast barrels into the ocean. The coastal population began to sicken. At first they suffered rashes, nausea, and malformed babies. Then, after the 2005 tsunami, hundreds of the dumped and leaking barrels washed up on the shore.”
© 2009 The Huffington Post
Here is another
http://rshdc.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=59:env&catid=3:newsflash
Fishing rights extend 200 miles.
AT bottom is a U Tube video worth watching
http://www.sfbayview.com/2009/somalis-speak-out-why-we-don%E2%80%99t-condemn-our-pirates/
Gotta link for that claim?
1) You do not know all, and...
2) That your conclusions in the moment are wrong or otherwise flawed -- before you can set a course away from any current location of insanity...of self-defeating behavior that extracts a heavy and tragic toll.
You have to appreciate the expanse of that not known in relationship to that known to be able to see beyond boxes that limit vision.
Flimsy bombastic and hyperbolic rhetoric is what some might retort. We shall see. Meanwhile, I keep a flame lit for peace, for love, for flowing prosperity for all.