when the US was attacked by terrorists on september 11, 2001, the whole world was at a standstill, including me. while watching the footage on cnn, i thought, “if it could happen to them, it could happen to anyone. no one is safe anymore.” so, i was relieved to hear president bush declare a war on terrorism shortly afterwards.
in hindsight, i should have thought more about what he meant by a “war on terror”, instead of cheering: “way to go, george! it’s about time someone ends this whole terrorist business.”
and when the united states invaded iraq in 2003, i thought, “suit you right, saddam. who asked you to kill those people on 9/11?” meanwhile, the bush adminstration said it would be a fairly straightforward mission. drop a few bombs here, another missile there. get saddam scared enough to surrender. war over; terrorism dead. (strangely enough, i wasn’t the only one who forgot momentarily that osama, instead of saddam, was the head honcho of the al-qaeda network.)
well, three years on, the iraq war is still grabbing headlines across the globe. but, wait, does it remind anyone of that incident in vietnam gazillions of years ago?
when a recent report claimed that 655,000 people have been killed since the invasion, president bush, of course, vehemently denies. and rightfully so. if i were the dude who initiated a war that eventually killed more than half a million of people – and more deaths to come – i wouldn’t want people to start calling me lucifer either. after all, i was supposed to be the world leader that wanted nothing more than saving “millions of american lives” by eliminating the “axis of evil”.
never mind those 2,786 american soldiers that have died in iraq as a result of the operation; they died trying to save “millions of american lives” too. and all those innocent iraqi civilians who have died were probably trying to save “millions of american lives”, though it would have been more polite to, at least, give them a taste of the american dreams before their premature deaths.
so, to keep the ball rolling, president bush signed a bill on tuesday to pass “one of the most important pieces of legislation in the war on terror”, which, to quote AFP, legalises “secret CIA prisons, harsh interrogation practices and military trials as weapons against suspected terrorists”.
suspected terrorists are just as dangerous as their more experienced, i-have-bombed-many-places counterparts. in order to prove they are hardcore, al-qaeda sympathisers, all we need is to beat… err… i mean, obtain a confession from them without having to resort to a “cruel and unusual” method of interrogation.
it is certainly more viable than randomly selecting a country to invade for supposedly possessing weapons of mass destruction. besides, iraq war is still ongoing. and where are those darn nukes, anyway? wait! what’s that noise? sorry, false alarm. it’s just north korea showing off their weapons of mass destruction.
will the bush administration realise their dream? ever? now that they have a more refined counter-terrorism measure, surely, it must mean a step closer to victory, right? i mean, it’s not like president bush ever said “war on terrorists”, which according to BBC’s john humphrys, would “require specific victories such as the capture of Osama bin Laden to justify its existence”.
so, go on now, mr bush. wipe terrorism off the face of the earth. while you’re at it, dump more of ‘em suspicious looking people in your secret CIA prisons and throw ‘em keys away. after all, you once so eloquently said, “it’s in our country’s interests to find those who would do harm to us and get them out of harm’s way.”