Leuchtturm: „The scariest thing about Brussels is our reaction to it.“

Bildschirmfoto 2016-03-25 um 10.12.54

Simon Jenkins,  Kolumnist des Guardian und der Huffington Post, hat den wütenden Artikel geschrieben, den ich selber gerne geschrieben hätte: „The scariest thing about Brussels is our reaction to it.“ Dazu ein Untertitel: „Paranoid politicians, sensational journalists – the Isis recruiting officers will be thrilled at how things have gone since their atrocity in Belgium.“

Selbstverständlich ist der ganze Artikel lesenswert, Satz für Satz. Hier einige Ausschnitte:

 „The atrocities in Brussels happen almost daily on the streets of Baghdad, Aleppo and Damascus. Western missiles and Isis bombs kill more innocents in a week than die in Europe in a year. The difference is the media response. A dead Muslim is an unlucky mutt in the wrong place at the wrong time. A dead European is front-page news.“„Osama bin Laden set out on 9/11 to depict western nations as feckless and paranoid, their liberalism a surface charade easily punctured. A few explosions and their pretensions would wither and they would turn as repressive as any Muslim state.
By Tuesday evening, such a feeding frenzy was in full flood as the security lobby piled in.“

„… on Tuesday the TV news channels behaved like Isis recruiting sergeants. Their blanket hyperbole showed not the slightest restraint (nor for that matter did that of most newspapers). …  It flashed horror across the airwaves continually for 24 hours, incanting the words “panic”, “threat”, “menace” and “terror”. Vox pops wallowed in blood and guts. One reporter rode a London tube escalator to show possible future targets, to scare the wits out of commuters. It was a terrorist’s wildest dream.“

„With the ground thus prepared, the politicians entered on cue. France’s President Hollande declared “all of Europe has been hit”, megaphoning Isis’s crime. His approval rating immediately jumped.“

„Everyone involved in this week’s reaction, from journalists to politicians to security lobbyists, has an interest in terrorism. There is money, big money, to be made – the more terrifying it is presented, the more money.“

„We can respond to events in Brussels with a quiet and dignified sympathy, with candles and silences. To downplay something is not to ignore it. The terrorists have specific aims, deploying their atrocities for a political cause. There is no sensible defence in a free society against atrocity. But there is a defence against its purpose. It is to avoid hysteria, to show caution and a measure of courage, not Cameron’s lapse into public fear. It is not to alter laws, not to infringe liberties, not to persecute Muslims.“

„Those who live under freedom know it demands a price, which is a degree of risk. We pay the state to protect us – but calmly, without constant boasting or fearmongering. We know that, in reality, life in Britain has never been safer. That it suits some people to pretend otherwise does not alter the fact.“

Jenkins erinnert daran, dass Grossbritannien in den 70er- und 80er-Jahren einen gefährlicheren Terrorismus dank einer unaufgeregten Strategie gemeistert hat, die heute genauso zur Bewältigung des islamistischen Terrors angezeigt wäre:

„During the more dangerous and consistent IRA bombing campaigns of the 1970s and 1980s, Labour and Conservative governments insisted on treating terrorism as criminal, not political. They relied on the police and security services to guard against a threat that could never be eliminated, only diminished. On the whole it worked, and without undue harm to civil liberties.

„The menace of Brussels lies not in the terror, but in the reaction to the terror. It is the reaction we should fear.“

This entry was posted in Europa, Freiheit, Gewalt, Internationale Politik, Islam, Journalismus, Krieg, Naher Osten, Terrorismus. Bookmark the permalink.

Schreiben Sie einen Kommentar

Ihre E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert.