A hesitant and shy intellectual debate is slowly starting to emerge on very few independent western media. However it is destined to occupy more space day after day. The debate may apparently be angled on the Syrian dilemma, but in reality it is focusing on the reason for which repeated individual attacks on random western targets are more frequently occurring.
When on this past May 25th a French security soldier in normal patrol service was stabbed by a man, later arrested, and of whom was published only the name, Alexander, but not the nationality; the French President rushed to assume a connection with the prior bloody attack which took place in Woolwitch England claiming the life of a British soldier by the hands of two British citizens from Nigerian origin.
Mr. Holland’s assumption gave way to the initial phase of that bashful debate, posing the question: “Were those merely two casual incidents?”!!
Massimo Fini, of the Italian daily ‘Il Fatto Quotidiano’, argues that: “Muslims are ruminating the frustration of seeing their countries invaded, bombarded and occupied; and they avenge as they possibly can”.. According to Fini “given the huge technological imbalance (in terms of logistics, intelligence and armaments.. nfa) among the forces in the fields; how it would be possible to combat a Drone remotely controlled from 10000miles away? Or to defend one’s village against the bombs released from the belly of the latest B2 Spirit Stealth Bomber flying way above the range of the modest home made primitive artillery already silenced on the ground with no warning before impact?”.
The answer will automatically be: “then the Muslims will bring war into Western territories, as the West have brought it into their homes, and with whatever arms in disposition”!
Fini continues his argumentation wondering whether or not to consider as ‘Terrorism’ that of the CIA. For, as Sergio Romano of ‘Il Corriere Della Sera’, writes “.. instead of acting as a normal agency for intelligence services, it became a ‘Shadow Army’ licensed to commit everything, anywhere and anyhow; from abduction to torture to assassination?”.
Joining the debate, Antonin Scalia the US Supreme Court Judge, declared: “the Geneva Convention is applicable in case of war and not towards whomever decides to explode a school or a high-rise building”!!
At this point Fini lays another angle of his argument, questioning the undeclared wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya or Malì.. Wars that his country, same like other members of NATO except the USA and France, didn’t declare.. Wars, where a Drone even though by mistake eventually kills 30 children, should be considered equaling the attacks on a school or a high-rise building.
He then adds a courageous statement: “..aren’t those the ambiguous solutions rising from the ‘Peace-Keeping, Humanitarian or Democratic Missions’? Where, by definition, only one side possesses the right to hit when the other can only lie down and silently suffer the consequences.. And should he opposes, then he IS the criminal!”.
Fini concludes by underlining his conviction that the French and English episodes, for now, could just be considered as isolated individual acts; yet they loudly pre-announce the inevitable “Clash Of Cultures”* should the west continues to ignore the pain it has caused and refuses to admit the wrong doings it has committed over centuries not just few decades.
A conflict where it is not taken for granted that the super-dominantly armed West, yet still void of every value, would come out a winner.
I think that in the end this is only a debate among intellectuals who have nothing in common with ambitious politicians, with greedy bankers or with anxious soldiers. No matter how loud the debate could rise its tones, it will not be able to out-level the thunderous pitch of the bombs nor the gentle jingling of the gold or the delirious frenzy of power.
Pass on The Word.*in 1996 Huntington pre-coined the term.