queerbychoice (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
queerbychoice) wrote2001-10-07 01:12 pm
queerbychoice) wrote2001-10-07 01:12 pm
CBS News Coverage
CBS had some surprisingly pretty sane moments just now. They talked to a reporter stationed in Pakistan who put extreme emphasis on the importance of not killing any innocent Afghan people or else what little tentative support the U.S. has in Pakistan will crumble. Unfortunately they didn't quite go so far as to point out that the U.S. can't very well drop bombs on a city of over a million people without having killed innocent ones; but even so, it was a step in the right direction. I like it when they talk to reporters stationed in the Middle East; those people seem more aware of the lives at stake here.
They also showed enough of an excerpt of Osama bin Laden's videotaped message for bin Laden to get across some references to the atrocities committed by the U.S. government in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Palestine. Obviously most Americans will just patriotically ignore this, but I think they broadcast enough that some of the more intelligent (albeit ignorant) Americans might be motivated to start researching U.S. foreign policy a bit more closely.
I look forward to seeing a transcript of bin Laden's complete speech posted online, since it was hard to judge from this tiny excerpt to what extent the atrocities committed by the U.S. are just excuses he brings up when really he might well want to kill people for other, less rational reasons anyhow. When a person can rally massive numbers of people to die for his cause, that means his rhetoric must be tapping into some experiences and feelings which are (though I hate how both bin Laden and Bush are manipulating common feelings to suppport mass murder) very common, and in need of being addressed (and so we need to figure out what those experiences and feelings primarily are in order for us to come up with a nonviolent attempt to address these people's issues). So I'd like to be able to at least hear the complete set of rhetoric bin Laden is using, in order to get a better sense of what rhetoric has been most effective at motivating people to join his terrorist groups.
They also showed enough of an excerpt of Osama bin Laden's videotaped message for bin Laden to get across some references to the atrocities committed by the U.S. government in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Palestine. Obviously most Americans will just patriotically ignore this, but I think they broadcast enough that some of the more intelligent (albeit ignorant) Americans might be motivated to start researching U.S. foreign policy a bit more closely.
I look forward to seeing a transcript of bin Laden's complete speech posted online, since it was hard to judge from this tiny excerpt to what extent the atrocities committed by the U.S. are just excuses he brings up when really he might well want to kill people for other, less rational reasons anyhow. When a person can rally massive numbers of people to die for his cause, that means his rhetoric must be tapping into some experiences and feelings which are (though I hate how both bin Laden and Bush are manipulating common feelings to suppport mass murder) very common, and in need of being addressed (and so we need to figure out what those experiences and feelings primarily are in order for us to come up with a nonviolent attempt to address these people's issues). So I'd like to be able to at least hear the complete set of rhetoric bin Laden is using, in order to get a better sense of what rhetoric has been most effective at motivating people to join his terrorist groups.
Re: But what do we do in the meantime?
Also, new questions:
(1) It seems to me that, if you're a pacifist, you must be quite Kantian. You should always tell the truth, right? Even in the famous thought experiment where you're in the Netherlands during WWII and you're hiding a Jew in your basement and a Nazi knocks on your door and asks if you have a Jew in your basement--or for fun let's make it a Queer this time--and you say..."Yes." Because you always tell the truth, even if it hurts everyone beyond any worldly repair, even if it fails to serve a larger truth, it is important to uphold the system itself (which is the dirty secret of all Kantians). It is not so much that the Truth is inviolable. It is that the simplified system of truth is inviolable. And not admitting the messy complexities and attendant responsibilities of life's tough decisions. Really, a Kantian is
about the closest you can come to a-theistic fundamentalism. Such a noble philosophy has at it's dark heart the drive to be right.
(2) What good is peace without war? I mean it. In practical, political terms, but also in a much broader meta-philosophical way. Without the real
possibility of war, peace has no use-value politically. And without the feeling, the memory and/or experience of war, we have no way of appreciating peace. Would you do away with war altogether if you could? Would that be possible? Eventually, after forgetting war for so long wouldn't we stumble back into it somehow, as if by accident aching out our boredom in this imperfect world.
Why is there violence and hate in this world? What's the point of it?
Do you think that because you know that you yourself have such a super-liberal philosophy, you're a bit more free from the consequences of what you believe? I mean, in the way that a woman is much more free to be a pacifist right now or a queer is, because they have less at stake--they won't be called up for service in the military in which they could lose their lives. Some people who believe what you abhor would be willing to give their lives to fight for your freedom and security. Are you willing to give your life for peace and how are you currently arranging for this?
Okay, take care!