David Shemano writes:
The majority of the comments are what I expected. Utter moral
confusion.
Futile attempts to fit the events into your preexisting world views.
=====
The above statement tells us a lot about your own preexisting world
views. And who wouldn't be morally confused in this situation? What I
find disconcerting, to say the least, is the rush to bear weapons before
the dead have even been buried.
Here's a good example of utter moral confusion. Today is a national day
of mourning in the US. Flags are flying at half mast here in Finland. At
1300 hrs there will be a three minute silence in honour of the victims.
Yesterday there was an outpouring of grief in the streets of London
(played for all it was worth by the BBC, a la Princess Diana), and we
can expect more. What exactly are we saying to the many millions of
people around the world about our priorities, about the value hierarchy
that we employ when ascribing worth to human life? Clearly, there is at
least a very large potential for many justifiably aggrieved people, who
have experienced significant loss, hardship, suffering and injustice, to
conclude that, for us in the rich North, their troubles merit absolutely
no recognition whatsoever -- even when our governments and business
leaders are directly responsible for them. Who cares about the appalling
conditions inflicted upon the populations of, say, Iraq, Afghanistan,
Palestine, Vietnam, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Colombia, Angola,
Mozambique, Congo/Zaire, Rwanda, Russia, etc., etc. Who cares indeed.
My "moral confusion" stems from a recognition of this situation, and a
simultaneous acknowledgement of the awful gravity of Tuesday's events
together with the extensive catalogue of actions and inactions that
provided the rationale (however twisted) for the perpetrators to act
accordingly. The truly morally confused are those who have been quickest
to rattle sabres and threaten unmitigated doom to all who *might* be
behind this act, whilst effectively ignoring the immediate tasks of
grieving, comforting and taking stock of the situation.
You continue:
Conflict can exist, but there are lines. For instance, Americans
understand
the Beirut bombing in 1983, or the Cole bombing, and even embassy
bombings.
It seems strange to say, but those were within the lines, because they
were
military targets outside of the United States -- in other words, they
were
symbols of American imperialism and unwanted involvement in foreign
affairs.
=====
MK: I have been trying to compose a suitably worded riposte to this
sophistry. But its bankruptcy should be self-evident, and others here
have responded very eloquently to your original message, particularly
Justin, in his defence of class analysis. All I can say is that, if
Americans (and here I take it you mean US citizens) truly understood the
Beirut bombing of 1983 or the Cole bombing, there would be a far greater
public acknowledgement of the mess that is US foreign policy and the
heavy responsibility borne by successive US administrations for having
put the safety of US citizens at extreme risk. Never mind those of other
countries. Exporting the problem yet again is merely symptomatic of the
pathological inability of the US power elite (and those that buy its
media-relayed "explanations" of events) to grasp the fundamental import
of US hegemony and its consequences.
Michael K.
