Review of Dining With Terrorists, by Phil Rees.
I am suspicious of news and media that insists on fitting as complex an
unfolding history as our world's into tiny sound-bites and paragraphs.
Whether or not modern media contains bias when reporting about
international issues - and whether the reasons for this bias are
political, financial or ideological - is sidelined by the simple fact
that there is not enough time and space to flesh out issues like
terrorism outside of a fairly large book.
On my commute home one night, I saw a short review of "Dining With
Terrorists" in a free tabloid paper and tore it out. I was intrigued by
the idea that a journalist would undertake this sort of project,
and curious about what he had discovered.
I expected the book to be sympathetic to the perspectives of the people
with whom Rees dined. I also expected to be left with a burning sense
of injustice about the current implementation of US foreign policy, and
the blind complicity of the UK and Australian governments. I was
mistaken. By chronicling his at times tense and emotional travels over
the past fifteen years in an as concise and documentary way possible,
you feel left with intense experience.
It covered:
- The theocratisation (so awkward a non-word) of political battles in countries
-
Governments killing more citizens than "terrorists"
-
The changing definition of terrorism over time
-
His own conclusion about the inability to define and use the word "terrorism" without implicating nation states
-
The use of terrorism for achieving political aims
-
Religious groups helping poor people and finding support as a consequence
-
The incitement of rage by imams travelling through muslim countries on
travelling roadshows showing (sometimes doctored) photos and articles from western media
It made me question my own definition of terrorism, and willingness to use the word in everyday conversation.
It gets 2 memorability points out of 5, and 3 motivating points out of 5.