|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Fantasy » alt.fan.tolkien » OT Re: master illusionists have us believing civilization is under attack
| OT Re: master illusionists have us believing civilization is under attack [message #90591] |
Sa, 23 Juli 2005 00:04 |
|
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:46:05 +0100, "oO" <o [at] o.org> wrote:
>The dehumanizing factor
>
>What makes a good magician? A strange question you may think, but then we
>live in strange times. Perhaps an essential ingredient of any
>self-proclaimed practitioner is the ability to pull off a good illusion. A
>glamorous assistant, a few tools of the trade, the compulsory pack of cards,
>and of course, sleight of hand. We all remember the party favorites. Pick a
>card, any card. Which cup is the ball under? Now that was an interesting
>one. No matter how hard you kept your eye on the cup with the ball, it
>always ended up elsewhere. All credit to the master illusionist then.
>
>And of master illusionists today, there appears to be no shortage. As we
>watch the media coverage of world events, listen to the statements of many
>an expert and generally do our best to make sense of the information we are
>being bombarded with daily, it seems we're party to possibly the most
>spectacular illusion of them all.
>
>There can be no doubt that the recent actions constitute an atrocity. The
>tears have yet to dry on the faces of those who lost their loved ones.
>Uncomfortable questions surface underneath the worn, pale exteriors. What
>did we do to harm anyone? Surely the perceived quarrel of those responsible
>was with others? Why harm innocent people going about their daily chores?
>And, inevitably, along with the questions there will be an acute sense of
>frustration and anger. An anger born of witnessing lives cruelly cut off.
>Dreams and hopes shattered in a matter of minutes, if not seconds. And
>frustration at not being able to comprehend the madness and terror that
>suddenly became all too real and palpable.
>
>Now, hands up all those who think I talk of the bomb blasts in London on
>July 7? In fact, the description refers, just as aptly, to another incident
>that I'll come to later.
>
>Since July 7's explosions we've seen a variety of responses. Perhaps the
>most telling were the reactions of political leaders in the immediate
>aftermath. British Prime Minister Tony Blair considered the attacks as being
>against the very values, fabric and structure of Western society. By
>implication, this is directed at nothing other than political Islam. That
>may seem like a very bold and, by some measures, a controversial assertion
>to make.
>
>However, to understand this better requires a reading of past statements,
>understanding of government policy, analysis by think-tanks, and so on. Many
>of them paint political Islam as being a new specter, replacing the
>communist threat of the past century. Even Hollywood has got in on the act,
>so to speak. Remember how James Bond was always up against some Soviet
>monster? Now it is "fundamentalist" Muslims, hell-bent on wanton
>destruction, featured in some capacity or the other. Executive Decision, The
>Peacemaker, Black Hawk Down, we could go on.
>
>The point being that only Islam is capable of providing a different, viable
>and distinct ideological model in comparison with the concept of Western
>liberal democracy and capitalist economics. For the West, preserving and
>strengthening the current status quo, vis-a-vis the hegemony over resources,
>super-power status and military and economic dominance requires neutralizing
>any perceived threats. Hence the Red Menace has been replaced with the Green
>Menace.
>
>So how do you curb this apparent threat? The usual stratagems apply. If we
>consider our own situation here in the United Kingdom, it includes the
>almost constant demonizing of Islam - not Islam as such, but rather
>political Islam. There is no problem with religion as long as it fits into a
>secular framework. Anything outside of this is considered distinctly
>unpalatable.
>
>No wonder we find the government desperate to construct an artificial line -
>those in the community it can do business with (the "moderates" and
>"reformists") and those it can't (the minority fringe, "extremists" and
>"fundamentalists").
>
>A recently leaked joint UK Home Office and Foreign Office report entitled
>"Young Muslims and Extremism" alludes to this explicitly. It is the latter
>grouping that the authorities are particularly keen to vilify. We've seen
>raids on houses, dozens of arrests, media hiatus about shadowy terrorists
>living in our midst, explanations of how fertilizer can be used in the
>bomb-making process, detentions in facilities such as Belmarsh, and so on.
>
>We've also seen these much-publicized events fizzle out when it transpires
>that there is a distinct lack of evidence. Needless to say, the media tend
>not to get so excited when this happens. It all adds up nicely for the
>government. A minority group living in a climate of fear. A public that has
>become more and more suspicious of that community. And, most importantly,
>the justification for errant foreign, and for that matter internal,
>policies. Thus, what could be better than to ensure blame for events such as
>July 7's are placed squarely at the doors of the unfortunate "extremists"
>from the very beginning.
>
>Let's examine some more reactions, again bearing in mind that these were
>before the revelations in the past few days. President George W Bush stated
>that the attacks justified the "war on terror". Dominique de Villepain,
>French defense minister, considered them an attack on all democracies. All
>of this is very interesting given that at the same time British Home
>Secretary Charles Clarke was making the point that there was no indication
>of the identity of those behind the attacks.
>
>What if it was another disturbed character, like Oklahoma bomber Timothy
>McVeigh, for example? Was his attack also considered an assault on democracy
>and Western values? Clearly not.
>
>Yet, without any evidence (bar a somewhat suspicious and dubious posting on
>the Internet) the focus turned quickly towards an organized "Islamic
>terrorist cell". Is this what many (from on high) wanted us to believe
>regardless? More telling, perhaps, are the irrational and persistent
>attempts to persuade the public that there was no link between the attacks
>and British foreign policy in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
>
>Even London Mayor Ken Livingstone, normally a brassy character, was at pains
>to make this point. He also opposed the Iraq war. Yet, in his mind, the
>terrorists were inhumane, intent on causing maximum destruction and didn't
>need a reason. It was a case of pure evil.
>
>Really? Given that investigations are still in progress, let's assume for
>the time being that the named suspects from Yorkshire were definitely
>responsible for the atrocities. Are we to believe they plotted these attacks
>in an effort to wipe out Western society and values or impose some form of
>Islamic government in Britain? What exactly is going on here? To attempt to
>link self-serving policies with July 7's events defies the most basic logic.
>What is more, one commentator mused that the terrorists were so debased that
>they dehumanized their victims.
>
>Unfortunately, I think there's only one leader in the dehumanizing business.
>We've had wall-to-wall coverage of the bombings, we've had political and
>religious leaders from all denominations standing together in condemnation,
>we've witnessed a concerted rescue operation and now an investigation to
>catch the perpetrators, we've seen radio phone-ins where people have shared
>their grief and sense of shock, we've had one and two-minute silences
>allowing us to remember and reflect.
>
>In contrast, I give one example, that of the incident I made reference to
>earlier in this article. The Saturday before last saw the bombardment of
>Chechal village in eastern Afghanistan by US forces. At least 17 people were
>killed in the air strike, including women and children. According to initial
>reports, the US Air Force indiscriminately bombed the village in retaliation
>for the US loss of a Special Forces unit. While some villagers went to help
>recover bodies and aid the wounded, the air force launched a second raid,
>killing in the process many of those who had gone to help. Later, ground
>troops were sent to find out who the victims were and determine if any of
>them had actually been "terrorists". A few days later, the US issued a short
>statement acknowledging that civilians had in fact been killed. No
>wall-to-wall coverage for the fathers, mothers, sons and daughters killed
>then. No strong, united protests of condemnation or impartial inquiries
>either. But it did make a few lines in the daily news. Dehumanize, eh?
>
>Perhaps we are all guilty of falling for the illusion that is the concoction
>of propaganda and concealment. Telling where the truth is and what the facts
>really are, admittedly, is an uphill struggle.
>
>But surely, if we have been asleep before, now is the time to awaken from
>the slumber. It is not a time for more spin, lies and the clever
>redefinition and application of terminology.
>
>Terror is terror, regardless of the means chosen to deliver it. As we have
>found out to our detriment, sometimes it is meted out with bombs on a train.
>And other times it adopts the guise of destructive weapons. We must have the
>honesty and integrity to call a spade a spade.
>
>Let us bring sincerity to a much-needed discussion. Let us debate openly the
>causes of terror and put under the microscope the policies of government.
>Nay, let us even ponder the values that Blair believes to be under attack
>and consider their real meaning and impact. It may be that under this
>critical analysis we begin to question their very suitability as a panacea
>to the problems of humankind. It is a beginning at least. And one would
>hope, by rising to this challenge, we may even confound the magician by
>turning the tables when it matters. Surely, that is a thought worth holding
>on to.
>
>Mohammed Hussain is an independent political analyst based in the UK.
>
>
>
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 13:08:22 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,02486 Sekunden |
