On May 13 this year I was reading the Herald Sun opinion column and Alan Howe had written a response to some comments of someone who he describes as 'Monash University lecturer and media commentator Waleed Aly, among Australia's best-educated and best-known Muslims'. The article was called 'Irritating? Most of us would call it murderous. Here is a link to the article. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/irritating-most-of-us-would-call-it-murderous/story-e6frfhqf-1226640607985
I don't know Alan Howe very well. I don't read the paper much but I think this article paints a clear picture of who Howe is - an idiot. It got under my skin so much that I've decided to vent my frustration here. Here are the parts of the article that pissed me off the most...
'"Let's clear something up," he began. "Our responses to terrorism are not about the loss of innocent life . . . it's never really about the victims. It's about us."
He added that he believes we see ourselves as interchangeable with the killed and injured.
Really? I don't. I've never met Waleed Aly, so I can safely say that neither does anyone I know feel other than for the victims of Islamic terror when they blow up innocents, bring down buildings, or blade away at the necks of Westerners to provide content for the gloating audiences of Al-Jazeera.'
Why don't you just say what you mean? 'ALL MUSLIMS ARE BARBARIC, BEARDED, LIMB CHOPPING, WIFE-BEATING FUCKTARD TERRORISTS!'. Actually there are plenty of types of terrorism that don't involve Muslims so I'm bit put off that the article repeatedly embellishes Islamic terrorism and doesn't even bother to mention that other types exist. Off the top of my head the IRA, the Tamil Tigers, abortion clinic bombers, eco terrorists, repeated mass shootings in the USA, the invasion of Afghanistan and Israeli war crimes against Palestinians.
Also, you say that you don't react to victims because you identify with them and then immediately say that you feel bad for all the 'westerners' who got their heads cut off by Islamic radicals. Not all the people. All the westerners. But there's no chance Aly has a point about you reacting because you identify with the victims?
'Aly then comes to an absurd conclusion: The "sober" coverage of the Boston killings means we (for that read "the West") are "maturing" in the way we handle terrorism. There is a "pragmatic recognition that terrorism is a perpetual irritant".
Self-loathing Muslim extremists trying to kill innocents in large numbers might be a common occurrence, but like our endless road toll it still makes news.
Try telling the families of the 3000 men and women vapourised at the Twin Towers that terrorism is an irritant. Or that the 202 people, including 88 Australians, killed in Bali were executed by irritants.'
Groan. Groan. Groan. Alan, you're surely not REALLY still furious about 9/11 are you? That was people you don't know, in a country that isn't yours 12 years ago. If you're still angry about that then you need a therapist. Waleed Aly never said that if your family is killed or you are killed that terrorism is supposed to be an irritant to THEM. If your family dies then OF COURSE it's more than an irritant. It's supposed to be an irritant to people who are not personally connected to it like you, who has no personal connection to the tragedy and therefore no reason to be angry. The fact that you are angry shows you either have mental problems or you just like needlessly stirring up hate.
If you are furious about this, then you should be just as furious about every tragedy. 9/11 and the Bali bombing were awful but they weren't the worst catastrophe ever to have happened. Incidents that kill people like that road toll you mentioned happen all the time.
I agree with Aly. What do you expect would happen if I DID tell a 9/11 family member that the attack was merely irritating to me? Apparently in your mind they'd be pissed off that I don't stay up late at night fuming about an incident 12 years ago that had nothing to do with me.
Then there's the irony that Aly says the west is maturing in reaction to terrorism and you respond by immediately putting words in his mouth that make him look like a callous lunatic. Well... Our maturity apparently doesn't extend everywhere.
'Terrorists, according to Aly, kill "relatively few people".
So do redback spiders, but I spray every one I see.'
Oh my god! Not only are you putting words in his mouth but you're being painfully transparent about it. Aly clearly was not trying to suggest that we shouldn't bother doing anything about terrorism yet your response implies that he did. Do I need to say more?
Don't think I don't know what you're trying to imply here. You're thinking 'Of COURSE Waleed Aly LOVES terrorism. Just listen to the sound of his weird, foreign, terrorist-sounding, different-sounding name. He wants to blow up and chop up WESTERNERS like ME! Fucking 9/11! THE HATRED DRIVES ME DAY AND NIGHT! IT'S WHAT MAKES MY LIFE WORTH LIVING!'
'I'D prefer it that Waleed Aly took a more sensible and constructive approach. You know, acted positively.'
Fuck you, you condescending, hypocritical, bigoted wank-tard!
In fairness however, it does end with promoting the idea that charities and community involvement are a good way to help victims of terrorism. Howe says that he started that in relation to a Muslim terrorist attack in Beslan, Russia. A redeeming quality to an article which is otherwise pushing a lot of hate and fear.
No comments:
Post a Comment