Many people rail what they call my hostility to US; however, nothing could be further removed from the truth, the more so as ,in a sense,US does not exist, does not yet exist.Those initial settlers on the American continent were certainly looked upon as the dregs of Mankind .For a very long time, what was to become known as US was a haven only to those who had been, somehow or other, been driven away from Europe: they were the outcasts of Europe, those whom Europe did want of, or who could not really internalize the European frame of mind,its inherent philosophy,and its modus vivendi.But at the same time, those people could not, especially after they had come into contact with other people, other races as some would say,but view themselves as Europeans, spontaneously identifying themselves with those very people who had kicked them away, maybe because they thought that they might thus emulate them in their confrontation with the Red Indians. Since the very beginning, an element of amphibology characterizes the US : it is as friendly an as hostile as possible, at the same time , to the European spirit.The European spirit is something it would fain know nothing about, but then that's impossible,it's like a shirt of Nessus that keeps clinging to the flesh of its soul; it's equally something it would like to replicate and perhaps even to improve, very much like the country bumpkin who dreams of outdoing the city aristocrat, but it would shy away from any attempt, out of shame, out of an in-bred inferiority complex, out of fear of ridicule and failure.
This incapacity of US of being itself and its inability to transcend its past have dogged it constantly throughout its history, as it vigorously strove to be itself , to grow up, haunted by what it admires and rejects at the same time.They probably offer the best explanation to the dilemma of the US spirit,a spirit in the making, still prisoner of its past, and I'm not even ,here, referring to the genocide of the Red Indians, slavery, racism and segregation, colonialism, expansionism , all of which are , since the very beginning , the basic constituents of the US genome,if I may say so, unable , albeit its mighty and very real efforts, which have very often culminated into ridicule, as exemplified by the gigantism of US architecture and a general propensity for whatever is huge to the point of deformation , to assert itself as an autonomous entity.They equally account for neurotic nature of US and its unrelenting aggressivity, the symptoms of an uneasy mind and a disturbed spirit.
If we take the War of Independence for example, nothing could be more alien, in spite of its Lockean inspiration, to the European spirit, but ( curiously?) the heroes of the Revolution, people like Jefferson, Madison, and even Franklin, were still Europeans , one might even add: primarily Europeans, in spite of their being clearly representative of a newly -emerging spirit.One could have thought or even hoped that US would be the negation, the undialectic antithesis of Europe, and for all anyone knows, that may well be what US is fundamentally, promises to be, but what it certainly is not; so far at least.At best, US can so far only be considered as being the fulfillment, the realization of Europe, but a fulfillment such as to be the harbinger of Europe's imminent destruction;I certainly don't have in mind the material destruction of Europe, but of what it represents, symbolizes, stands for.
However this fulfillment, which is equally a destruction, is yet to take place;or rather to reach its final stage, because what has been going on since the days of the War of Independence in the US , which here serve as a rough and practical milestone, is probably nothing else than a multifacetted,heterogeneous process ,operating at different speed levels , of disintegration of Europe.This disintegration is not unlike what Heidegger describes in his interpretation of the History of Western metaphysics ; it is a process that is constantly dying ,but never dead.It would seem that Europe, the Europeanization of the planet------------and what we call globalisation, equating with the US, is verily the very latest , and perhaps the last, gasp of Europeanization,-----------were that strange beast , born during the Renaissance , ushered into maturity with the rise of Protestantism, which can only live as long as it is moribund and agonizing.Its sickness is the source of its strength, and its strength is the ultimate purveyor of disease, suffering, and death.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Saturday, December 20, 2008
The Land of freedom and of endless opportunities
It is commonplace to speak of the US as being a land of boundless freedom, one of opportunities galore for every one and any one.One would , seemingly , simply have to proceed to the US and, provided one is laborious and patient enough,one is bound to succeed, to transcend all difficulties, brush aside all obstacles before enjoying the rewards of hard work.Whilst this is not totally untrue, it is basically flawed;it's nothing more , and probably much worse, than a cheap myth which, as most myths, is designed to lure,to lull, to cheat and to trick.Wherefore is it so ?
Before trying to answer that question, it were not inappropriate that we tried, however summarily, though not cursorily, to take a look at the history of the US.Much has been said and made of the Mayflower and of people fleeing persecution.Gore Vidal ,who certainly knows what he is speaking about, suggests that those people who settled on the banks of the Roanoke were not so much fleeing persecution as they were looking for people whom they would be able to oppress. A most disturbing suggestion indeed, and even more more disturbing if it were to be found worthy of any consideration.
Regardless of what Gore Vidal's suggestion may be worth , the truth may be even more disturbing.Ever since the beginning of what would one day become the USA,there's been something which, ever since,has enjoyed tremendous currency , something which would later be called the American way of life, that's the concept of Manifest Destiny .How on earth this concept, or rather this pseudo-concept managed to work its way up to recognition will certainly strike future generations as being something absolutely incomprehensible, unless they choose to think , and they would be absolutely wrong , that we are/were complete morons, something which would be to a large extent true, but not entirely . Not every one of us,within the Us or otherwise subscribes to the rubbish of Manifest destiny, but we need perforce to acknowledge that this notion, this folly has been instrumental in the creation of the future USA, the Universal Shame of AAAAAAAA
Following the notion of Manifest Destiny ,invented by the rogues, vagabonds, and criminals who had more or less been kicked into the New World, and drawing on a shallow interpretation of the Bible ,there was ( practically) nothing to which the settlers were not entitled, just as there was no extremity,however harsh and cruel, to which others were not, are not to be subjected for their sake.Given this frame of mind, the ensuing doctrine could only be that of a chosen race, chosen by God himself of course, and necessarily so by the Christian God----------and every one knows what Voltaire had to say of this god---------------, a superior God for a superior group of people., whose role it is to dominate, to crush, to exploit,and to kill.In case anybody should find this outrageous,I 'd like to point out that if and when is convinced , be it out of sheer madness, of one's superiority over the rest of creation, it is perfectly logical to treat others as if they were the scum of the earth, perfectly logical to claim the right to the whole world.It is my view that the pseudo-concept of Manifest Destiny is the combined product of fear ,greed, and evil-mindedness,in other words, the rotten fruit of a severe and incurable inferiority complex.
Embedded within the pseudo-concept of Manifest Destiny are the notions of imperialism and expansionism; naturally enough ,for if it is one's destiny to reign and reign alone, to be served, one really achieves the ultimate goal when one rules over every one and every thing, and when one is the master of every one and the owner of every thing on earth.This , however, could not be accomplished by a single individual, nor without a foe , a foe to be constantly invented and reinvented.Necessarily, for without a group, a strong group,and without a foe, the notions of domination and expansionism would be irrelevant,pointless.
The initial settlers were not to be hindered by any problem : they were , confronted to people whose custom it was, and still is, to be hospitable to foreigners, strong, incredibly strong, the more so as they were heavily armed,and they did have a foe ,namely those peaceful red-skinned savages whom they could too easily massacre.The stage was set for the genocide of the original inhabitants of North America.And what a genocide it was: the Red Indians mass murdered, their wives and children raped, their lands stolen.Horrible as the genocide of the Red Indians may have been, it is to be noted that, until very recently,the US has been violently reluctant to acknowledge that anything wrong had been done to the Red Indians. No one probably summed up better the attitude than the ignoble John Wayne who had the obscene audacity of affirming that he did not think that the US had done anything wrong , given that 'these people had been keeping the land selfishly to themselves . ' Well, John Wayne was no intellectual , he was just an ordinary actor , and yet he came to symbolize what the US stood for, stands for.This alone should have been sufficient to summarize what US is , a country where qualmless morons tend to have it their way.
Of course, with the decimation of the Red Indians, the settlers enjoyed the freedom of stealing their land-------------Did anybody ever wonder why US is so fond of Israel ?---------- and they had at hand opportunities more than they could manage. This was indeed a land of wonderful opportunities, but for those whose manifest destiny is to conquer, to rule, to dominate, there could never be sufficient land; consequently new frontiers would always have to be found.
The possession of vast territories initially raised the problem of their exploitation,
but with the availability of free labour thanks to the slaves brought by force from Africa, this was soon solved.The children of God, for whom a manifest destiny had been reserved, a destiny so manifest that it was not manifest at all, that it had had to be constructed and imposed------------incidentally I should like to remark that this notion of election can only be dreamt of by people who are too conscious of their everlasting inferiority, for it is only the inferior who need to show that they are not the jerks that they really are,but that they are superior people,------------could turn their attention to the conquest of new lands and new slaves.And it could not be otherwise.
How were they to achieve this ?To this end ,they resorted to two instruments which would validate ,in their own eyes and , to some extent, in the eyes of others too, whatever decision they took, whatever action they undertook : democracy and Christianity.The notion of democracy gained currency amongst them especially when they fought the so-called war of Independence against the British.However, they were in favour of democracy for themselves alone : no democracy for the Red Indians or for the slaves who toiled till death for them. Furthermore, the concept of democracy, whatever that may mean, was, and still is, a winner: no one wants to have the reputation of not being democratic, especially when one is violently against it. Whatever is done, really or purportedly, in the name of democracy, is sure to obtain the approval of one and all. Under the cover of democracy and freedom, its twin sister, many a crime has been committed.Since democracy is so laudable, one simply have to brand his rival, the other one, within whom an enemy is always lurking , an opponent of democracy , to have good reason to go to war against him and to bomb him into democracy,in other words into submission to the dictates of the children of Providence who happen ,not only to be ardent advocates the best form of government , but also to adhere to the sole good religion on earth, Christianity.In such circumstances, no wonder that they kept looking for more and more opportunities.
It is not inaccurate to affirm that the US is a land,if not the land of freedom and of innumerable opportunities, provided one adds that it is so only for certain categories of persons.For sure , these categories have not, over the generations , remained stable and static;with time and with demographic expansion, more and more people would be admitted within the fold,not so much because there prevailed a spirit of openness, but rather because it would thus be easier to ensure control over others.The growth of democracy,which was in fact the growth of an oligarchy ,had to be conducted in such a way as to constitute a solid army of members of the club, from which others would necessarily be excluded,but not without their having been brainwashed in to believing that they would equally have their chance.One day; provided,of course, they showed themselves worthy of it. By being obedient and cooperative, by toeing the line, by furthering the interests of the oligarchy.
But what about those who, in the US or/and elsewhere,think that they ought not to cooperate ?Well they had better cooperate,unless they want to be buried beneath a carpet of bombs.Let's make no mistake about it :the US is and will continue to be a land of freedom and of endless opportunities,but only for a few, and for the doom of the rest of Mankind.For a long time.Unless we choose and manage to change it from within.
Before trying to answer that question, it were not inappropriate that we tried, however summarily, though not cursorily, to take a look at the history of the US.Much has been said and made of the Mayflower and of people fleeing persecution.Gore Vidal ,who certainly knows what he is speaking about, suggests that those people who settled on the banks of the Roanoke were not so much fleeing persecution as they were looking for people whom they would be able to oppress. A most disturbing suggestion indeed, and even more more disturbing if it were to be found worthy of any consideration.
Regardless of what Gore Vidal's suggestion may be worth , the truth may be even more disturbing.Ever since the beginning of what would one day become the USA,there's been something which, ever since,has enjoyed tremendous currency , something which would later be called the American way of life, that's the concept of Manifest Destiny .How on earth this concept, or rather this pseudo-concept managed to work its way up to recognition will certainly strike future generations as being something absolutely incomprehensible, unless they choose to think , and they would be absolutely wrong , that we are/were complete morons, something which would be to a large extent true, but not entirely . Not every one of us,within the Us or otherwise subscribes to the rubbish of Manifest destiny, but we need perforce to acknowledge that this notion, this folly has been instrumental in the creation of the future USA, the Universal Shame of AAAAAAAA
Following the notion of Manifest Destiny ,invented by the rogues, vagabonds, and criminals who had more or less been kicked into the New World, and drawing on a shallow interpretation of the Bible ,there was ( practically) nothing to which the settlers were not entitled, just as there was no extremity,however harsh and cruel, to which others were not, are not to be subjected for their sake.Given this frame of mind, the ensuing doctrine could only be that of a chosen race, chosen by God himself of course, and necessarily so by the Christian God----------and every one knows what Voltaire had to say of this god---------------, a superior God for a superior group of people., whose role it is to dominate, to crush, to exploit,and to kill.In case anybody should find this outrageous,I 'd like to point out that if and when is convinced , be it out of sheer madness, of one's superiority over the rest of creation, it is perfectly logical to treat others as if they were the scum of the earth, perfectly logical to claim the right to the whole world.It is my view that the pseudo-concept of Manifest Destiny is the combined product of fear ,greed, and evil-mindedness,in other words, the rotten fruit of a severe and incurable inferiority complex.
Embedded within the pseudo-concept of Manifest Destiny are the notions of imperialism and expansionism; naturally enough ,for if it is one's destiny to reign and reign alone, to be served, one really achieves the ultimate goal when one rules over every one and every thing, and when one is the master of every one and the owner of every thing on earth.This , however, could not be accomplished by a single individual, nor without a foe , a foe to be constantly invented and reinvented.Necessarily, for without a group, a strong group,and without a foe, the notions of domination and expansionism would be irrelevant,pointless.
The initial settlers were not to be hindered by any problem : they were , confronted to people whose custom it was, and still is, to be hospitable to foreigners, strong, incredibly strong, the more so as they were heavily armed,and they did have a foe ,namely those peaceful red-skinned savages whom they could too easily massacre.The stage was set for the genocide of the original inhabitants of North America.And what a genocide it was: the Red Indians mass murdered, their wives and children raped, their lands stolen.Horrible as the genocide of the Red Indians may have been, it is to be noted that, until very recently,the US has been violently reluctant to acknowledge that anything wrong had been done to the Red Indians. No one probably summed up better the attitude than the ignoble John Wayne who had the obscene audacity of affirming that he did not think that the US had done anything wrong , given that 'these people had been keeping the land selfishly to themselves . ' Well, John Wayne was no intellectual , he was just an ordinary actor , and yet he came to symbolize what the US stood for, stands for.This alone should have been sufficient to summarize what US is , a country where qualmless morons tend to have it their way.
Of course, with the decimation of the Red Indians, the settlers enjoyed the freedom of stealing their land-------------Did anybody ever wonder why US is so fond of Israel ?---------- and they had at hand opportunities more than they could manage. This was indeed a land of wonderful opportunities, but for those whose manifest destiny is to conquer, to rule, to dominate, there could never be sufficient land; consequently new frontiers would always have to be found.
The possession of vast territories initially raised the problem of their exploitation,
but with the availability of free labour thanks to the slaves brought by force from Africa, this was soon solved.The children of God, for whom a manifest destiny had been reserved, a destiny so manifest that it was not manifest at all, that it had had to be constructed and imposed------------incidentally I should like to remark that this notion of election can only be dreamt of by people who are too conscious of their everlasting inferiority, for it is only the inferior who need to show that they are not the jerks that they really are,but that they are superior people,------------could turn their attention to the conquest of new lands and new slaves.And it could not be otherwise.
How were they to achieve this ?To this end ,they resorted to two instruments which would validate ,in their own eyes and , to some extent, in the eyes of others too, whatever decision they took, whatever action they undertook : democracy and Christianity.The notion of democracy gained currency amongst them especially when they fought the so-called war of Independence against the British.However, they were in favour of democracy for themselves alone : no democracy for the Red Indians or for the slaves who toiled till death for them. Furthermore, the concept of democracy, whatever that may mean, was, and still is, a winner: no one wants to have the reputation of not being democratic, especially when one is violently against it. Whatever is done, really or purportedly, in the name of democracy, is sure to obtain the approval of one and all. Under the cover of democracy and freedom, its twin sister, many a crime has been committed.Since democracy is so laudable, one simply have to brand his rival, the other one, within whom an enemy is always lurking , an opponent of democracy , to have good reason to go to war against him and to bomb him into democracy,in other words into submission to the dictates of the children of Providence who happen ,not only to be ardent advocates the best form of government , but also to adhere to the sole good religion on earth, Christianity.In such circumstances, no wonder that they kept looking for more and more opportunities.
It is not inaccurate to affirm that the US is a land,if not the land of freedom and of innumerable opportunities, provided one adds that it is so only for certain categories of persons.For sure , these categories have not, over the generations , remained stable and static;with time and with demographic expansion, more and more people would be admitted within the fold,not so much because there prevailed a spirit of openness, but rather because it would thus be easier to ensure control over others.The growth of democracy,which was in fact the growth of an oligarchy ,had to be conducted in such a way as to constitute a solid army of members of the club, from which others would necessarily be excluded,but not without their having been brainwashed in to believing that they would equally have their chance.One day; provided,of course, they showed themselves worthy of it. By being obedient and cooperative, by toeing the line, by furthering the interests of the oligarchy.
But what about those who, in the US or/and elsewhere,think that they ought not to cooperate ?Well they had better cooperate,unless they want to be buried beneath a carpet of bombs.Let's make no mistake about it :the US is and will continue to be a land of freedom and of endless opportunities,but only for a few, and for the doom of the rest of Mankind.For a long time.Unless we choose and manage to change it from within.
Friday, December 19, 2008
The perpetual war against one individual
Guantanamo Bay had been a scandal, albeit to most people unknown , for quite a long time, when it came into the limelight thanks to the evil genius of dirty people like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, et alii.
Among the specious arguments brought forward to justify the ignominy of Guantanamo, in fact central to it, is what can be called the 9/11 argument.No one will question the fact that something did take place on 9/11, but what that something really is may be a slightly more difficult question to answer.The members of the Bush Administration, probably because they knew what had really taken place, and which we may have to wait some fifty years to know, were quick to assert right away, even before the smoke had subsided over the Twin towers , that Al-Qaeda was responsible for the attack. Clinton ,who was at the other extremity of the globe,in Australia , was not less prompt to assert that it all had to do with Bin Laden.How on earth he could know that may well be one of those eternal mysteries compared to which Fermat's theorem might seem mere child play.
And (almost) everyone rushed in to join the chorus;a French weekly immediately referred to a match between Allah and Jesus.Without an iota of proof, without a shred of evidence, without anything to validate any element of suspicion, the affirmation was roared that Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the three being treated as if they were synonymous, were not only responsible , but guilty of the so-called 9/11 attacks.And the US government demanded that the Afghan government, which no one should lightly and casually identify with the Taliban or Al Qaeda, even if the cooperation,not to say the complicity between the then government of Afghanistan and Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Oussama Bin Laden , cannot be overstated , hand over Mr Bin Laden.
Even in the absence of prima facie evidence or of any proof, the Afghan government did accept that Mr Bin Laden be tried ,in a neutral country,like Pakistan.But this would not satisfy the US which ,in violation of international law and of all diplomatic conventions, insisted that the head of Al Qaeda had to be delivered to them.Why they insisted only on Bin Laden is another of those mysteries whose solution may never be revealed.
Anyway, just imagine any country requiring from any other country , without offering any proof whatsoever, but on the basis on assumptions and affirmations only, that it hand over one of its nationals or residents, because he is thought to be guilty of a particularly horrendous crime;such a request would be treated with both mockery and contempt.But not so in the case of the US, presumably because the US are always so right , so just, so infallible that others are supposed to do as they say, should that imply transgressing their own national laws and international conventions, as admirably exemplified by LBJ's eloquent reply to the Greek ambassador in the US : ' Fuck you and fuck your Parliament !'
The Afghan government naturally refused; some have suggested that had they done so, this would have saved Afghanistan from an invasion.But the fact is that the US was bent, no matter what------------the same thing was to be seen shortly after in Iraq--------------, on invading that poor country.In case that strikes anybody as being mere affirmation, I'd like to understand why it may ever be necessary to invade an entire country, to indiscriminately bomb it to rubble, to murder its civil population on such a grand scale, to therein install a puppet government, to ,immediately after the invasion, shower contracts on US companies, when one is only looking for one single person.
Oh ,but the Afghan government was clearly an accomplice of Bin Laden, of Al Qaeda, and of the Taliban too, and that surely warranted some kind of action. Including action against the civil population which was hostile to Al Qaeda and the Taliban ? Including the wholesale destruction of a country ? The wrecking of its entire infrastructure notwithstanding the ensuing risk of disease and epidemics? the death of countless children, women, aged and disabled persons ?Everyone knows what a civilized person would reply.
But why would the US want to invade Afghanistan at all costs ? There are a few valid answers to this question.I'll simply state that for a country , whose history is one aggression, annexation, plunder,invasion,of imaginary enemies,the invasion of Afghanistan is to be regarded as something which is in perfect harmony with the US philosophy, which can be summed up by the words conquest ,domination ,and exploitation. For a country which believes in its manifest destiny , it is perfectly natural to ,with or without any reason, to kill other people,to bomb their countries,otr to transform them into slaves.Except for the blind, the US obviously longs for world hegemony, because US cannot think of human relations otherwise than in terms of confrontation.
What is particularly with the attack on defenseless Afghanistan is the fact , so great had been the horror inspired by 9/11, that everyone readily agreed that the US had every right to defend itself.
Was the US defending itself, was it under any kind of attack when the bombs and missiles started to rain on Kabul ? At best, if I may say so, US was retaliating, but in fact it was committing a most despicable aggression. And to justify it, the US had to pose as a victim, to amplify the disaster of 9/11, and to portray the Taliban as being the ultimate symbols of evil.Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, the Taliban being incarnations of the Devil,nothing less than the gulag of Guantanamo Bay would be necessary and appropriate to deal with them.People from the US and from elsewhere had been coaxed, convinced , coerced into thinking that Guantanamo was absolutely right, that torture , especially when applied to newly-invented categories of individuals, was totally legitimate, and that the war on terror was not a war of terror fro the domination of the planet, but a just war, and an endless one too, for the preservation of democracy and the promotion of the free market.
The war which had started as the war against one man could not be indefinitely prolonged as such;it had to evolve into a war against Al Qaeda, and more urgently,into a war against terror.But at the same time , that superlative personification of terror had to remain elusive,not to say immortal , thus rendering possible the equation between the war against one man and the war on terror, and the one between the war on terror and the war against one man.One of the corollaries of those dubious equations would be the vindication of Guantanamo,of torture, of renditions, of kidnappings, of unlawful arrests, of the large scale criminalization of would-be and likely suspects, regardless of the rule of law, the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof,etc.But then this the US, which knows no laws except that of its own whims, caprices , and obsessions.
So far, in spite of some suspects , some so-called suspects whose names have been mentioned ,amongst the authors of 9/11, prominent above all, Mohamed Atta, nothing even remotely convincing has been adduced to allow to confidently point the finger of blame to anyone whomsoever. Something did happen on 9/11;that was something horrible, though probably not more horrible than what takes place elsewhere, but whenever I think of 9/11, I tend to think of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, of Operation Mongoose, of Operation Northwoods.Everyone has been so eager to believe that Bin Laden is behind 9/11 that even if it were ,one day, proved to be true,there may well be no one to grant any credence to his guilt.
However, I don't think that Bin Laden is, directly or indirectly,linked to 9/11;I don't mean that he'd not have liked to be responsible for it.He would have certainly relished the idea and boasted about what he'd done .But that was not the case; for somebody like Bin Laden, 9/11 is something to be proud of.If he had had anything to do with it, he'd assuredly have let it be known, before going into hiding to prepare other attacks. Is it not strange that there were no other attacks after 9/11? Usually any group would have, after such a dramatic success, indulged in a string of attacks to further damage the morale of the enemy. It remains yet to be proved, but the most plausible conjecture would be that US needed to have an element of justification to start the thousand years' war, not that US really needed one, but they probably thought that it were better for them to have be it but a semblance of legitimacy.
And this semblance of legitimacy would be possible only if the attack on the US were to strike the imaginations beyond limits, to fill with unspeakable horror, and inspire a fathomless desire for revenge, precisely what 9/11 accomplished, so much so that even those who would have rejoiced to see the US in smoke and ruins acknowledged that ,after what had happened, the right to retaliate was absolutely legitimate and warranted.Since US had been attacked, since US was the victim,no matter what it decided,including all-out war against Mankind----------which,incidentally ,is precisely what US is covertly engaged in,------------would have to be approved and accepted.No less an institution than the UN, apparently created to preserve future generations from the scourge of war, was instrumentalized and made to endorse the criminal actions of US and NATO in Afghanistan.Acting ex post facto, the UN provided the stamp of legality which transforms the most illegal act into a legal and moral one, probably the darkest day so far in its history.( There was still worse to come though.)
If the US can wage a war of aggression ,of conquest and of colonial occupation and have it endorsed by the major actors on the international scene on the grounds that it had been defending itself, if it can endlessly perpetuate a war by inventing an invisible figure( in the present case, the other Bin Laden not to be identified with the real one,just as there is ,apart from the real Al Qaeda , another one which belongs more to the realm of fantasy or propaganda and the invention of which is more operational in the so-called , bogus war on terror ,)which it equates with a country, there is absolutely no reason for it to give up that line of strategy, the more so as it is reaping benefits.
The war against one person ,demonized in the extreme, is major strategic asset in that it will have people think that the war is not being waged against the people of a country, whereas the very opposite is true. Future generations will wonder how on earth people came to welcome that murderous notion of collateral victims, how they readily espoused the idea that to get rid of one person, or even of one group, it would be necessary to wipe out a whole population, to raze an entire country, to bomb its population into disease and suffering ,or out of existence.
This disgusting policy has already claimed too many victims,essentially innocent ones.It were time it were recognized for what it is : an unscrupulous trick to perpetuate war with a view to ensuring domination and hegemony.It's the entire world,including the US, which is at risk.
Among the specious arguments brought forward to justify the ignominy of Guantanamo, in fact central to it, is what can be called the 9/11 argument.No one will question the fact that something did take place on 9/11, but what that something really is may be a slightly more difficult question to answer.The members of the Bush Administration, probably because they knew what had really taken place, and which we may have to wait some fifty years to know, were quick to assert right away, even before the smoke had subsided over the Twin towers , that Al-Qaeda was responsible for the attack. Clinton ,who was at the other extremity of the globe,in Australia , was not less prompt to assert that it all had to do with Bin Laden.How on earth he could know that may well be one of those eternal mysteries compared to which Fermat's theorem might seem mere child play.
And (almost) everyone rushed in to join the chorus;a French weekly immediately referred to a match between Allah and Jesus.Without an iota of proof, without a shred of evidence, without anything to validate any element of suspicion, the affirmation was roared that Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the three being treated as if they were synonymous, were not only responsible , but guilty of the so-called 9/11 attacks.And the US government demanded that the Afghan government, which no one should lightly and casually identify with the Taliban or Al Qaeda, even if the cooperation,not to say the complicity between the then government of Afghanistan and Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Oussama Bin Laden , cannot be overstated , hand over Mr Bin Laden.
Even in the absence of prima facie evidence or of any proof, the Afghan government did accept that Mr Bin Laden be tried ,in a neutral country,like Pakistan.But this would not satisfy the US which ,in violation of international law and of all diplomatic conventions, insisted that the head of Al Qaeda had to be delivered to them.Why they insisted only on Bin Laden is another of those mysteries whose solution may never be revealed.
Anyway, just imagine any country requiring from any other country , without offering any proof whatsoever, but on the basis on assumptions and affirmations only, that it hand over one of its nationals or residents, because he is thought to be guilty of a particularly horrendous crime;such a request would be treated with both mockery and contempt.But not so in the case of the US, presumably because the US are always so right , so just, so infallible that others are supposed to do as they say, should that imply transgressing their own national laws and international conventions, as admirably exemplified by LBJ's eloquent reply to the Greek ambassador in the US : ' Fuck you and fuck your Parliament !'
The Afghan government naturally refused; some have suggested that had they done so, this would have saved Afghanistan from an invasion.But the fact is that the US was bent, no matter what------------the same thing was to be seen shortly after in Iraq--------------, on invading that poor country.In case that strikes anybody as being mere affirmation, I'd like to understand why it may ever be necessary to invade an entire country, to indiscriminately bomb it to rubble, to murder its civil population on such a grand scale, to therein install a puppet government, to ,immediately after the invasion, shower contracts on US companies, when one is only looking for one single person.
Oh ,but the Afghan government was clearly an accomplice of Bin Laden, of Al Qaeda, and of the Taliban too, and that surely warranted some kind of action. Including action against the civil population which was hostile to Al Qaeda and the Taliban ? Including the wholesale destruction of a country ? The wrecking of its entire infrastructure notwithstanding the ensuing risk of disease and epidemics? the death of countless children, women, aged and disabled persons ?Everyone knows what a civilized person would reply.
But why would the US want to invade Afghanistan at all costs ? There are a few valid answers to this question.I'll simply state that for a country , whose history is one aggression, annexation, plunder,invasion,of imaginary enemies,the invasion of Afghanistan is to be regarded as something which is in perfect harmony with the US philosophy, which can be summed up by the words conquest ,domination ,and exploitation. For a country which believes in its manifest destiny , it is perfectly natural to ,with or without any reason, to kill other people,to bomb their countries,otr to transform them into slaves.Except for the blind, the US obviously longs for world hegemony, because US cannot think of human relations otherwise than in terms of confrontation.
What is particularly with the attack on defenseless Afghanistan is the fact , so great had been the horror inspired by 9/11, that everyone readily agreed that the US had every right to defend itself.
Was the US defending itself, was it under any kind of attack when the bombs and missiles started to rain on Kabul ? At best, if I may say so, US was retaliating, but in fact it was committing a most despicable aggression. And to justify it, the US had to pose as a victim, to amplify the disaster of 9/11, and to portray the Taliban as being the ultimate symbols of evil.Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, the Taliban being incarnations of the Devil,nothing less than the gulag of Guantanamo Bay would be necessary and appropriate to deal with them.People from the US and from elsewhere had been coaxed, convinced , coerced into thinking that Guantanamo was absolutely right, that torture , especially when applied to newly-invented categories of individuals, was totally legitimate, and that the war on terror was not a war of terror fro the domination of the planet, but a just war, and an endless one too, for the preservation of democracy and the promotion of the free market.
The war which had started as the war against one man could not be indefinitely prolonged as such;it had to evolve into a war against Al Qaeda, and more urgently,into a war against terror.But at the same time , that superlative personification of terror had to remain elusive,not to say immortal , thus rendering possible the equation between the war against one man and the war on terror, and the one between the war on terror and the war against one man.One of the corollaries of those dubious equations would be the vindication of Guantanamo,of torture, of renditions, of kidnappings, of unlawful arrests, of the large scale criminalization of would-be and likely suspects, regardless of the rule of law, the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof,etc.But then this the US, which knows no laws except that of its own whims, caprices , and obsessions.
So far, in spite of some suspects , some so-called suspects whose names have been mentioned ,amongst the authors of 9/11, prominent above all, Mohamed Atta, nothing even remotely convincing has been adduced to allow to confidently point the finger of blame to anyone whomsoever. Something did happen on 9/11;that was something horrible, though probably not more horrible than what takes place elsewhere, but whenever I think of 9/11, I tend to think of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, of Operation Mongoose, of Operation Northwoods.Everyone has been so eager to believe that Bin Laden is behind 9/11 that even if it were ,one day, proved to be true,there may well be no one to grant any credence to his guilt.
However, I don't think that Bin Laden is, directly or indirectly,linked to 9/11;I don't mean that he'd not have liked to be responsible for it.He would have certainly relished the idea and boasted about what he'd done .But that was not the case; for somebody like Bin Laden, 9/11 is something to be proud of.If he had had anything to do with it, he'd assuredly have let it be known, before going into hiding to prepare other attacks. Is it not strange that there were no other attacks after 9/11? Usually any group would have, after such a dramatic success, indulged in a string of attacks to further damage the morale of the enemy. It remains yet to be proved, but the most plausible conjecture would be that US needed to have an element of justification to start the thousand years' war, not that US really needed one, but they probably thought that it were better for them to have be it but a semblance of legitimacy.
And this semblance of legitimacy would be possible only if the attack on the US were to strike the imaginations beyond limits, to fill with unspeakable horror, and inspire a fathomless desire for revenge, precisely what 9/11 accomplished, so much so that even those who would have rejoiced to see the US in smoke and ruins acknowledged that ,after what had happened, the right to retaliate was absolutely legitimate and warranted.Since US had been attacked, since US was the victim,no matter what it decided,including all-out war against Mankind----------which,incidentally ,is precisely what US is covertly engaged in,------------would have to be approved and accepted.No less an institution than the UN, apparently created to preserve future generations from the scourge of war, was instrumentalized and made to endorse the criminal actions of US and NATO in Afghanistan.Acting ex post facto, the UN provided the stamp of legality which transforms the most illegal act into a legal and moral one, probably the darkest day so far in its history.( There was still worse to come though.)
If the US can wage a war of aggression ,of conquest and of colonial occupation and have it endorsed by the major actors on the international scene on the grounds that it had been defending itself, if it can endlessly perpetuate a war by inventing an invisible figure( in the present case, the other Bin Laden not to be identified with the real one,just as there is ,apart from the real Al Qaeda , another one which belongs more to the realm of fantasy or propaganda and the invention of which is more operational in the so-called , bogus war on terror ,)which it equates with a country, there is absolutely no reason for it to give up that line of strategy, the more so as it is reaping benefits.
The war against one person ,demonized in the extreme, is major strategic asset in that it will have people think that the war is not being waged against the people of a country, whereas the very opposite is true. Future generations will wonder how on earth people came to welcome that murderous notion of collateral victims, how they readily espoused the idea that to get rid of one person, or even of one group, it would be necessary to wipe out a whole population, to raze an entire country, to bomb its population into disease and suffering ,or out of existence.
This disgusting policy has already claimed too many victims,essentially innocent ones.It were time it were recognized for what it is : an unscrupulous trick to perpetuate war with a view to ensuring domination and hegemony.It's the entire world,including the US, which is at risk.
A change for real ?
One may wonder if the closing down of Guantanamo, if indeed it takes place, will,would change anything to US policy .The US undoubtedly hope that ,by so doing, they will somehow rehabilitate themselves, kick away Guantanamo, and eventually Abu Ghraib too , into oblivion, and regain their image, that of a democratic , free and just country.
However , there is no such thing as a free, democratic, and just US ; those notions of freedom, justice, and democracy are nothing but cheap propaganda upon which generations have been fed and which, out of laziness and/or silliness, they have preferred to accept as being true.There is but one moment in the history of the US which can be termed glorious, that's the War of Independence ( a misnomer by the way, for it's not as if the British had colonized a territory of the Yankees had been the natives).
On the very territory, the stolen territory of the US, there are countless Guantanamos, though they may be less spectacular and, perhaps, less violent , where thousands of people, regardless of their nationalities, whether they are US citizens or not, and most of them are US citizens, are ritually and systematically subjected to the worst, the most cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment imaginable.
Let us not blind ourselves to the harshness of an unpalatable reality:the closing down of Guantanamo, if it does stake place, will be but a cynical show.Thousands of Guantanamos will keep proliferating in the US, and elsewhere too with the blessings of the US.
But Guantanamo is no fatality;it has been created against the will of the people.So much in the US has been done done , carried out in the name of the people, but in fact against the will of the people.
It will first and foremost be the task of the people of the US to make sure that Guantanamo be relegated to where it belongs, to the museum of horrors and errors of Mankind.
However , there is no such thing as a free, democratic, and just US ; those notions of freedom, justice, and democracy are nothing but cheap propaganda upon which generations have been fed and which, out of laziness and/or silliness, they have preferred to accept as being true.There is but one moment in the history of the US which can be termed glorious, that's the War of Independence ( a misnomer by the way, for it's not as if the British had colonized a territory of the Yankees had been the natives).
On the very territory, the stolen territory of the US, there are countless Guantanamos, though they may be less spectacular and, perhaps, less violent , where thousands of people, regardless of their nationalities, whether they are US citizens or not, and most of them are US citizens, are ritually and systematically subjected to the worst, the most cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment imaginable.
Let us not blind ourselves to the harshness of an unpalatable reality:the closing down of Guantanamo, if it does stake place, will be but a cynical show.Thousands of Guantanamos will keep proliferating in the US, and elsewhere too with the blessings of the US.
But Guantanamo is no fatality;it has been created against the will of the people.So much in the US has been done done , carried out in the name of the people, but in fact against the will of the people.
It will first and foremost be the task of the people of the US to make sure that Guantanamo be relegated to where it belongs, to the museum of horrors and errors of Mankind.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
About Guantanamo
There are few,if any ,comments referring to the fact that Guantanamo Bay ,which is in Cuba, is illegally occupied by the US, through an act of sheer brute force and in open violation of international law.
Even now that Guantanamo has shown to the entire world what US really is means,no one seems to be willing to be attentive to the lawlessness of that country.
Right now, a lot of fuss is being made about Guantanamo being a stain on what would otherwise be an unblemished record.However, Guantanamo is certainly no stain or blemish, it is perfectly consistent with the past and present history of US, a history characterized by violence, deceit, plunder, aggression, occupation, racism, sheer brutality.
The US is alien as can be to any notion of democracy or to the concept of the rule of law;the present hegemony of US has its roots in this utter contempt for others, starting with the 'ordinary inhabitants' themselves.US knows only the law of brute force, does not belong to the civilized world.
However, difficult as that may be, I'd suggest that we forget the past, and even the present, and try to think out how we may rid US of its pernicious features, for its own sake and ,more importantly for the sake of peace and harmony.
I'm well aware that the US is not the only country to represent a threat to world peace, but no one will, I'm pretty sure, question that that country, and we all know how the US came into existence, is the most horrendous danger in the face of Mankind.
Even now that Guantanamo has shown to the entire world what US really is means,no one seems to be willing to be attentive to the lawlessness of that country.
Right now, a lot of fuss is being made about Guantanamo being a stain on what would otherwise be an unblemished record.However, Guantanamo is certainly no stain or blemish, it is perfectly consistent with the past and present history of US, a history characterized by violence, deceit, plunder, aggression, occupation, racism, sheer brutality.
The US is alien as can be to any notion of democracy or to the concept of the rule of law;the present hegemony of US has its roots in this utter contempt for others, starting with the 'ordinary inhabitants' themselves.US knows only the law of brute force, does not belong to the civilized world.
However, difficult as that may be, I'd suggest that we forget the past, and even the present, and try to think out how we may rid US of its pernicious features, for its own sake and ,more importantly for the sake of peace and harmony.
I'm well aware that the US is not the only country to represent a threat to world peace, but no one will, I'm pretty sure, question that that country, and we all know how the US came into existence, is the most horrendous danger in the face of Mankind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)