The idea that dare not speak its name
Philadelphia-area freelance writer John Grant says he can't get this passage published in a newspaper op-ed (h/t Attytood reader BB). Well, shoot -- I'm happen to print it here:
There is no indication Shahzad calculated becoming a citizen to pull off a terrorist act. His decision to kill seems to have come later, a combination of his life coming apart and anger at US drone attacks in northwest Pakistan where he was raised.
Discussion of this case often assumes the interests of the Pakistan Taliban to attack America occurred outside history, that somehow the change in their attitude is not a result of our escalating drone attacks and our pressure on the Pakistani military to assault northwest Pakistan. It's as if the United States is exempt from history and our actions don't have consequences.
It's exactly the same brand of denial that pushed 50 years of military and political intervention and oil exploitation in Saudi Arabia from the minds of Americans as to why 16 Saudis drove planes into our buildings on September 11th.
It's appalling that any newspaper wouldn't publish this, because this is a conversation we desperately need to have. In fact, two more homegrown terrorists were arrested this weekend. Do we pursue policies that create more terrorists and thus make us less safe, the opposite of what those policies are intended to achieve? Or is the wretched art of terrorism merely people waking up on the evil side of the bed and deciding they hate our freedoms? The answer could be a life-saver, but not if we censor the question to begin with.