Why is There a Refusal To have An Honest Discussion About Terrorism and Extremism?

As expected, the condemnation machinery that went missing during the Ankara and Istanbul attacks reappeared, expressing vociferous condemnation and massive grief for Brussels.

Yet people still ask me why i am skeptical towards politicians.

And again, the refusal to have an honest discussion about terrorism and extremism is stark.

Let’s not kid ourselves, one’s (selective) condemnation of terrorism will not reduce terrorism. But a critical appraisal of the issues surrounding it, might. So when one engages in the former but not the latter, then ultimately, we know one’s interest is not in getting to the heart of the matter.

And when it is all said and done, let us not forget the role of Tony Blair in all of these: the man who basically sold the Iraq War to the world, the devastating war, the ramifications of which we still feel today. Yes, Bush started it, but Bush could barely pronounce ‘Iraq War’, let alone sell it. History must eventually be honest about the role of Blair and Bush in destabilizing Iraq and the entire Middle East, creating a vacuum in which Daesh and other terrorists have thrived.

Let us be honest, and not be selective in our condemnations, our analyses of the causes of terror, and our reading of history.

 

Source: Walid J Abdullah

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *