I have always been sensitive to words that lose their functional meanings and instead become insults or terms of condemnation. The world "liberal" comes to mind. Whatever the legacy of conservative rule in the United States may be the demonization of the term "liberal" is one of them.
Will the already, we are told, historic Presidency of Barrack Obama embrace the term "liberal" or will the legacy of conservative demonizing the term continue to rule the minds of those who many of us hope will be liberal? Anyway what does liberal mean? The meaning is lost once the term is primarily used to condemn and shut down any real dialogue and any real liberalism!
The term "terrorism" has a certain utility. Sometimes people use the term to mean something specific and clear, like a particular tactic or form of warfare. Yet most of the time the term is used in a way that confuses. The "War on Terror" is one ridiculous example. Terror is not terrorism! I can be terrified by anything and even though some scholars have actually been goofey enough to define "terrorism" as anything that frightens or terrorizes someone that definition is obviously absurd.
Or consider how the term Al Qaeda is used to refer to anyone who sets off a bomb and shares a certain religious identity. Yet, as we now seem to have discovered in India Kashmiri-Pakistani group was behind the attacks in Mumbai. It isn't AQ. Lashkar Al Taiba was deployed like Bin Laden to the war against the Russians decades ago. Then the Pakistani government sent them to fight in Kashmir. Now for whatever reason they murdered a hundred civilians in Mumbai. But it is another group, not AQ.
And what about the "connection" between this or that group or individual and Al Qaeda? What does "connection" signify? What is a connection. I have a connection with Muhammed Ali, I walked past him as a small child and he said HI! What does such a connection mean, not much.
Then we are told that all people are a few degrees, perhaps six degrees separated from one another. That is to say that a link of six people in a chain of acquaintances can link anyone up to just about anyone else. Such a connection is therefore commonplace and hardly worth mentioning. So when I the term "connection" used without any facts or any explanation I am pretty skeptical about the usefulness of the statement. indeed, such a use of the term "connection" is usually misleading.
Incompetent, ignorant and manipulative folks like to confuse and polarize with terminology. Hopefully we can try to use these terms that are so polarizing and infused with emotion in a responsible way if at all.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Monday, December 1, 2008
CERTAIN OBVIOUS FACTS AND MEANINGFUL QUESTIONS
How destructive were these attacks, really?
We have a few hundred dead and a similar number injured. Obviously the casualty figures indicates something other than a typical battle. About ninety people were mowed down at the train station.
How many people die in India from such attacks a year? What percent of the total killed and wounded in this single attack? Is it even one percent?
How many people die from other causes in India every day? Accidents in traveling for example, house fires, domestic violence, nonpolitical crime, etc.?
Was this a military victory for someone?
The terrorists were pretty destructive for fifteen purported assailants.
Still it is no miracle that automatic weapons and grenades can kill a lot of
people in a few minutes.
Ironically, they seem to have been allowed to rampage throughout the area without immediate confrontation. Did they take out existing security officials or were such people absent from the scene until the occupation of the buildings? Or was there just an arrogant sense of invulnerability in that part of the city?
Obviously the stupid destructive mission of these executioners was successful at least in terms of killing a bunch of civilians. Not much of a trick really, massacring scores at a railway station.
Yet at the end of the day the militants were slaughtered and one taken captive. Perhaps five got away. Apparently the source of the attack will be discerned from the captive and an abundance of other evidence.
Mumbai is pretty much back to normal.
Was this a distraction?
The whole event seemed designed to be a spectacle and to a large extent it succeeded in that regard. The refusal of the Indian government to negotiate may have reduced the propaganda value of the mission leaving us with a pile of corpses and not even a crumby excuse for yet another heroic act of martyrdom or maybe something else.
Perhaps someone with bad news elsewhere wants to change the subject.
Was this a provocation?
Many might take it that way but who is doing the provoking? What are the demands of the terrorists. Do we know anything about them or are we just not being told what they want?
If this is just an introduction to some new group it might be thought of as more of an introduction. The Deccan Mujahadeen, is it real, is it really new?
If this is a provocation who would benefit from war between India and Pakistan. Perhaps some Kashmiri groups think they would, perhaps some of the various Islamic militias somewhere, like Pakistan or India think it might achieve some result for them. I suppose AQ will let us know where they want us to think they stand on Mumbai. Elements in Israel or even the United States might like this, don't you think?
What about China? Do they want peace with India, a major economic and political rival? Just asking.
Just another attack in India?
There are so many bombings and militant attacks in India every day that this attack in Mumbai stood out in that it was even noticed outside of India. Of course the targets included Indian and foreign elites so these
people mattered to the corporate media more than the usual targets of such violence. It was good for cable news ratings and perhaps imperial propaganda.
It could be just another attack that was a homicidal outlier, a statistical anomaly. Somehow these dudes were just more potent than many attackers.
,
A region of heavily armed folks.
There seems to be an abundance of light arms and explosives in South and West Asia. Militias are all over the place in Pakistan, India and Afghanistan. So it should come as no surprise that folks can get a bunch of grenades and AK's and kill folks if they really want to do that.
INDIA ROARS ONWARD
Perhaps we can learn from the Indians not to let this sort of tragedy
drive us crazy. We don't need to make terrorist attacks worse than they are by trying to make everyplace a police state. Mumbai is bustling again and life continues. India is basically not afraid and we shouldn't be afraid either. It is enough to die once, no?
We have a few hundred dead and a similar number injured. Obviously the casualty figures indicates something other than a typical battle. About ninety people were mowed down at the train station.
How many people die in India from such attacks a year? What percent of the total killed and wounded in this single attack? Is it even one percent?
How many people die from other causes in India every day? Accidents in traveling for example, house fires, domestic violence, nonpolitical crime, etc.?
Was this a military victory for someone?
The terrorists were pretty destructive for fifteen purported assailants.
Still it is no miracle that automatic weapons and grenades can kill a lot of
people in a few minutes.
Ironically, they seem to have been allowed to rampage throughout the area without immediate confrontation. Did they take out existing security officials or were such people absent from the scene until the occupation of the buildings? Or was there just an arrogant sense of invulnerability in that part of the city?
Obviously the stupid destructive mission of these executioners was successful at least in terms of killing a bunch of civilians. Not much of a trick really, massacring scores at a railway station.
Yet at the end of the day the militants were slaughtered and one taken captive. Perhaps five got away. Apparently the source of the attack will be discerned from the captive and an abundance of other evidence.
Mumbai is pretty much back to normal.
Was this a distraction?
The whole event seemed designed to be a spectacle and to a large extent it succeeded in that regard. The refusal of the Indian government to negotiate may have reduced the propaganda value of the mission leaving us with a pile of corpses and not even a crumby excuse for yet another heroic act of martyrdom or maybe something else.
Perhaps someone with bad news elsewhere wants to change the subject.
Was this a provocation?
Many might take it that way but who is doing the provoking? What are the demands of the terrorists. Do we know anything about them or are we just not being told what they want?
If this is just an introduction to some new group it might be thought of as more of an introduction. The Deccan Mujahadeen, is it real, is it really new?
If this is a provocation who would benefit from war between India and Pakistan. Perhaps some Kashmiri groups think they would, perhaps some of the various Islamic militias somewhere, like Pakistan or India think it might achieve some result for them. I suppose AQ will let us know where they want us to think they stand on Mumbai. Elements in Israel or even the United States might like this, don't you think?
What about China? Do they want peace with India, a major economic and political rival? Just asking.
Just another attack in India?
There are so many bombings and militant attacks in India every day that this attack in Mumbai stood out in that it was even noticed outside of India. Of course the targets included Indian and foreign elites so these
people mattered to the corporate media more than the usual targets of such violence. It was good for cable news ratings and perhaps imperial propaganda.
It could be just another attack that was a homicidal outlier, a statistical anomaly. Somehow these dudes were just more potent than many attackers.
,
A region of heavily armed folks.
There seems to be an abundance of light arms and explosives in South and West Asia. Militias are all over the place in Pakistan, India and Afghanistan. So it should come as no surprise that folks can get a bunch of grenades and AK's and kill folks if they really want to do that.
INDIA ROARS ONWARD
Perhaps we can learn from the Indians not to let this sort of tragedy
drive us crazy. We don't need to make terrorist attacks worse than they are by trying to make everyplace a police state. Mumbai is bustling again and life continues. India is basically not afraid and we shouldn't be afraid either. It is enough to die once, no?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
