Hot News‎ > ‎

It’s OK to bomb Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza, Libya... but not Bahrain?

posted Apr 4, 2011, 10:19 AM by Esther Matharu   [ updated Apr 4, 2011, 10:45 AM ]

The tools that sustain and normalize the hypocrisy, deceptions, lies and double standards surrounding our predatorial wars just get better and better. Each time a war plane sets off to show its strike capabilities in a land, preferably deserted and archaic, the world is bombed by the media's take on the wobbly spin of should we should we not, weighing the 'moral' versus the 'immoral', the teleological and deontological dilemmas of whether war (violence, death, destruction) is a bad right or a good wrong, we, the 'sane' ones who abhor war and see right through its horror, are left speechless and frantic. As Brendan O’Neill, the editor of spiked has written:

"In terms of the so-called coalition in the West, its ‘humanitarian’ instincts mean that it has launched a war without leadership, without war aims, and without any tangible endpoint. Motored by the humanitarians’ narcissistic desire, not to win territory or create pro-Western political movements, but simply to advertise their values of decency and morality, Cameron, Sarkozy and Obama (and our own Mr. Harper) rushed into a bombing campaign without giving a second thought to what its consequences might be. This recklessness, this fatal rashness on the part of Western leaders, is a direct product of the ‘humanitarian’ outlook: the elevation of values over territorial ambition, of moralism over realpolitik, of narcissism over old-style political gain, creates a situation where wars are launched for effect, to send a message, with little analysis or intelligence about what might happen later. Libya has been transformed, not into the latest outpost of any kind of Western Empire, but into a stage for the amateur yet deadly dramatics of Western politicians and hacks desperately seeking moral momentum".

To read Brendan's full article, click