NP - Fighting the Forces of Invisibility

[Otto]

Rushdie:

"Terrorism is the murder of the innocent"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55876-2001Oct1.html

This is no statement exclusively on the WTC-attack, this is a general
statement by Rushdie. So he logically says the accepted death of those
500.000 Iraqui kids (worth the price, just an inevitable collateral damage
according to Dave Morris) was terrorism too.

Lot of hypocrisy in these pro-war posts, unable to take a wider perspective
by simply blaming the "stupid" pacifists for terrorism and war. Some voices
are echoing in my head:

>
> Are you equating an unprovoked direct massive attack on civilians at
> the WTC with the loss of human life inevitable in the course of a war?
>
>
> Because we want other countries to be terribly afraid of the United States
> and its weapons.
> >
>
> P.S. This said, I wouldn't really mind if the persons responsible
> for yesterday's attack were incidentally slowly tortured to death.
>
>
> The terrorists have nothing but scorn and contempt for
> your weak-kneed liberalism and "prayers for peace."
> They count on them, in fact, and this turns you into
> their dupe and unwitting accomplice.
>
> ah, that's
> your anti-globalization movement ... folks without ideas and guts ...
> the wish to  stand on the right side is not enough ... neither is your
> 'emotional pacifism' ... the political and moral level of such silly
> statements is about the same our german peace-movement (...).
>

("snipped" from 14 unsent re-posts of mine within the last three weeks)

I'm criticising those posts (or parts from them), not the 'actual' political
reaction which seems more reasonable to me than anything I would have
expected (before) from Mr. Bush. My main information about him were the
usual things I don't want to repeat here & now and the fact (?) that he had
signed a lot of death sentences as a governor. So I repeat my demand to
abolish the death penalty, just to say that the position of the USA & the
World is morally & justified, not mere revenge & retaliation. To give this
guarantee to the Taliban would make clear to the world that the Taliban is
not only hiding bin Laden and his network but are members (even if only in
spirit) of the conspiracy behind the WTC-attacks. They still wouldn't
deliver him, they cannot because they're involved. And if they do before the
weekend -- well, this would be even worse for Afghanistan because they maybe
could stay in power. I don't think that a repetition of the Gulf War/Saddam
Hussein-experience would be a satisfying result of the actual crisis.

Doug, some things shouldn't be forgotten: the attacks have required complex
and difficult preparations I guess, so they were planned quite some time in
advance. This proves to me that *whatever* "our" policy regarding to the
Israel-Palestine conflict might have been in the past, let' say, three to
five, maybe ten years -- the attacks would have occured anyway, sooner or
later, one way or another, because the fundamentalists are arguing from an
ideological position that leaves no place for Israel in the Middle East.
This is unacceptable.

And their cruelty is increasing: we've done hijacking, we've done suicidal
bombings, why not combine these two tactics.
Just see the Hamas, Islamic Jihad- or Hizbollah suicidal bombings in general
and the latest Hamas-killings in special, every time a little bit of
negotiation takes place, even when people of good will like Mr. Perez,
Yassir Arafat and Joschka Fischer are trying to use the grief and the horror
of those WTC-attacks, taking up the opportunity to push the Middle East
peace
process. Because of American pressure even Ariel Scharon could not stop
this.

How shall we negotiate with a fundamentalism which isn't anti-semitic
because of *any* Israeli politics but because of the mere existence of
Israel? Contrary to Saddam Hussein or the Taliban Scharon will be *elected*
out of office one day, not killed by his successor or chased by force.

For the future we have all the right to question our governments about
funding undemocratic countries, but I fear that there's no way avoiding this
war on terrorism now. I think I would rather follow Mr. Fischer in that
doing nothing would be the greatest danger. Fischer decided that being on
Mr. Bush's side of the line he'd drawn in the sand is the best way to keep
influence. I think it's a good sign that the Afghani are mainly regarded as
victims of this conflict too and that even the mainstream media are linking
social questions with the causes of the war. In the NYT you get images of
the terror as well as of the refugees.

I think the Great Quail made some good points in his Open Letter, I liked
especially this one:

"I also think all these "warlike" things in full knowledge that we
helped create this situation, and I hope that we do eventually find
better policies than supporting lunatics merely because they are the
enemies of our enemies. And yes, I also know about the elephant in
the room, but until I am ready to live off the grid, I recognize that
I am complicit in our need for oil, and I accept that responsibility.
It's all part of the moral ambiguity of living in the real world, in
the heart of Empire."

Otto

but still:

"In the name of Shakespear and Dante! that I should be an outlaw of the
world! I had no part in making any of this! I have never in my life desired
the death of anyone. I have wanted that all men live beautifully and purely
on a free earth. (...) To whom do I speak? (...)
I speak for my own kind.
For those who love the warm fields in summer sunlight; for those who love .
. . yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, Goddam it to hell . . . poetry, music,
Nijinsky, Spinoza . . ."

(Kenneth Patchen, "The Journal of Albion Moonlight" [1941], New Directions,
New York 1961, pp-93-94.)