Monday, 15 April 2013

'RIGHT-WING EXTREMISTS' RESPONSIBLE FOR BOSTON BOMBINGS, SAYS CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST [VIDEO INCLUDED]



I wondered how long it would take before the Boston Bombings became partisan.  It is amazing that such an event, in a civil society, can even take such a turn.  When people should stand united petty politics is still playing out.  Here’s what happened:

'RIGHT-WINGERS' might be responsible for the Boston
Bombings, says CNN contributor Peter Bergen
CNN national security analyst Peter Bergen told host Jake Tapper that the Boston explosions might be the work of Al Qaeda terrorists in as much a way as they might be the work of ‘right-wing extremists’.  Of course, because the streets are filled with those ‘right-wing extremists’ planting bombs, aren’t they?  And why ‘right-wing extremists’, could it perhaps be ‘left-wing extremists’ (after all, most revolutions and terrorist attacks of the last century have come from the Left). 

I need to make a point here.  When Bergen talks of ‘right-wingers’ I am assuming he means ‘conservatives’ (it would be the natural connection, particularly in the United States where ‘left’ and ‘right’ are so clearly defined).  But (and this is important) bombing, and other acts of terrorism, are by their very nature, very *un-conservative*.  Conservatism is a *reactionary* philosophy that developed following the French Revolution.  Conservatives of that time included the well-known Edmund Burke, who wrote in his book Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790) ‘that men of intemperate minds cannot be free.  Their passions forge their fetters’.  In other words, revolution (and revolutionary behavior, such as bombing) is to be detested, for it can only have worse consequences.  Conservatives are *against* such acts.  This was why, equally, the Norwegian mass-murderer Anders Behring Breivik could not have been a ‘conservative’, as so many people, including the British Prime Minister David Cameron, kept suggesting.  For no real conservative would act like such a socialist revolutionary – no conservative would desire a revolution of any sort – in fact, revolution is the exact opposite of conservatism, as it does not seek to ‘conserve’ nor does it maintain the peace and encourage social stability.  



No comments:

Post a Comment