nettime's signalist on Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:09:27 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> Re: Wrong Signals [2x] |
Table of Contents: The "wrong signals" debate "E. Miller" <subscriptionbox@squishymedia.com> From Baghdad: Reactions to an arrest Gita Hashemi <gita@ping.ca> ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:06:23 -0800 From: "E. Miller" <subscriptionbox@squishymedia.com> Subject: The "wrong signals" debate As an American I can't help but notice that the perspectives expressed in this debate mirror the rival ideologies currently characterizing debate in the US. It's a lot easier to ignore the difficult issues in the middle and just stick to flag-waving rhetoric (in this case, your choice of the US flag or the Palestinian flag.) Not to single out anyone in particular, but here are some questions I don't see people seriously addressing, largely (in my opinion) because some of the honest answers don't easily fit into the prefab ideological frameworks. For the right: how exactly was Saddam connected to terrorism? Did those hypothetical connections justify violating sovereignty by invading? What's the plan from here? Will we still support democracy if the voters decide on theocracy? How do you justify suddenly 'promoting democracy' when we've spent the last century supporting repressive dictatorships in the region? If international justice is such a big moral priority, why not negotiate to join the ICC? If we're so committed to eliminating terrorism why are we almost completely ignoring Afghanistan, particularly in the tribal regions straddling the Pakistani border? If it weren't for oil and Israel do you think we'd pay the Mideast any more attention than we pay to sub-Saharan Africa, a region arguably more deserving of humanitarian intervention? Speaking of Israel, how is our support of occupation and repression of the Palestinans congruent with our proclaimed values? For the left: when was the international community going to actually do something about Hussein's murderous and repressive regime instead of just passing unenforced UN resolutions? How can we reconcile secular western Enlightenment-based societal values of tolerance and inclusion with intolerant repressive expansionist movements like Wahhabism? Similarly, how is theologically motivated terrorism even remotely justifiable in a tolerant polytheistic global society? Should western society accept intolerant, misogynistic, repressive societies as cultural equals? Personally, I'm of the opinion that we're never going to make progress on these debates until we understand and agree that our current ideological perspectives are hampering progress. Which leads me to my most depressing conclusion: the neocon right (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz) does a better job intellectually of confronting these questions, it's their ham-handed, ideological, profiteering, imperialistic implementation that is so repellent. Until we agree that 20th century ideologies inadequately address the complexity of 21st century realities we're doomed to flail around helplessly mired in the tractionless mud of hypocrisy. Eric ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:39:58 -0500 From: Gita Hashemi <gita@ping.ca> Subject: From Baghdad: Reactions to an arrest Re: <nettime> wrong signals the text below is forwarded with the author's permission. gloat less, think more. be well. gita - ---forwarded text--- The day they caught Saddam, or a few days later According to one theory circulating in Baghdad, we are not living the few days following the capture of Saddam Hussein. Saddam was caught many days, maybe months, ago, as that rumor goes. It has just become more convenient for the Americans to catch him now. And there are other theories, of course. It is not really Saddam who was caught. It=92s him but the only reason he didn=92t put up a fight is that he was drugged; they gassed his hiding place before catching him. No matter what the truth is, capturing Saddam no more has any practical consequence. It wouldn=92t have had any even if it happened months ago. The important thing is that Iraq fell to the invading army and is now under American (although maybe disguised in another name) control. And the other truth is that the Iraqis know that very well. Day after day all they care about is what is happening to them now and what is going to happen tomorrow. Life is getting harder day after day and the security situation is not improving. When I asked one of the perpetrators of the first theory, why would the Americans stage the capture as it happened this week, he said that he and his family, although adamant haters of Saddam who were delighted when the Americans came and toppled the regime, have, as of a month ago, started to lose patience with the occupation. The attention given to the capture operation at this point serves only one purpose: diverting attention from the problems on the ground and improving - although superficially - the image of the American administration. As for the Iraqi people, even the groups who were brutalized by him and his regime, the way the capture operation was portrayed and his humiliation throughout just added insult to their injury. To them he is still and Iraqi and a tough one for that, and his humiliation by foreigners is a humiliation to them all. Ehab Lotayef, Baghdad, December 15, 2003 # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net