From: Hiswimr-AT-aol.com Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 13:41:21 EDT Subject: some random thoughts --part1_15d.ddc0fa.28d0f841_boundary Dear List Members: First, I would like to thank those who have been posting messages and trying to create a dialogue about yesterday's events; it was helpful in situating my own feelings about the incident. For a good part of the day yesterday I was glued to the TV set watching the events unfold, but for the most part I was unmoved. By rote, I called family in New York to learn if they were ok and called overseas to inform relatives that I was unharmed (typically I call them to see if they are ok). I was hypnotized by the images on TV but I was not upset; I was in shock at the extent of the attack (they were almost as accurate as cruise missiles) but not truly saddened. To some of you this will, no doubt, seem an utterly heartless reaction from any human being at the destruction of innocent lives (those people who were killed in the WTC for the most part ARE innocent; they play no greater role in American imperialism than I do). But the reason I watched unaffectedly as the events unfolded, as if it were a billion dollar Hollywood production, is because I have been exposed to this type of violence and destruction on a large scale for so many years now. As a former resident of Sri Lanka, and one who reads the Sri Lankan news on a daily basis, I have come to know the effects of suicide bombs intimately. How can I not when the human bomb is part of daily life in that country, where it is the weapon of choice, and when for the last several years almost every day is marked by casualties in the on going war? Civilian deaths are a common occurrence and large scale destruction a consistent reality in other parts of the world. So should America be immune? Doesn't this, in the most bloody manner, make the world truly one? My initial reaction to this attack on WTC was that "Terrorism IS terrorism wherever and whenever it happens." When the same acts that were committed in NYC occur overseas, in some cases the terrorists are construed as freedom fighters and CNN dedicates about 10 seconds to cover the entire story. For some time now, American policy has been that as long as terrorism happened elsewhere it has been ignored and relegated to the nonwestern or third world as a local problem, even when, in some cases, they sponsor it. But then I thought (and have known for some time now) that although violence can never bring peace to the world (although Americans have insisted on this in relation to Hiroshima and Nagasaki) there are reasons why humans transform themselves into bombs. And although the state apparati both in the US and Sri Lanka would like to characterize the suicide bomber as the product of fanaticism, it is undeniable that there are specific factors and conditions that have produced this relatively new and rapidly spreading phenomenon. Some of those factors and conditions have already been mentioned by members of this list serve. So while I can begin to understand the "meaning" behind this "senseless" act, I feel compelled that violence, no matter who is behind it, should be rejected categorically. So while I condemn acts of American violence, I must also condemn those who target civilian populations whether it be the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka, or any state government (whether it be American, Sri Lankan, Israeli, and so on). I refuse to accept that terrorism is acceptable (or to be condoned) when carried out by the oppressed and the dispossessed, because, contrary to general opinion--that it makes us aware of injustice--it blinds far too many people. Or at the least, it makes us all so indifferent (like I was) when we see grown men and women jump to their death from the 80th floor of a burning building. Call me naive if you wish, and I'm acutely aware that this is indeed a possibility, but I cling with desperation to the notion that we can still learn of the countless iniquities in our world and begin to address them in some way without piling destruction upon destruction. Do we not promote violence as a perpetual way of life if we condone it when the cause and the executor suit our purpose? If we do, what hope do we have for the future? Or do those words (hope and future) even mean anything anymore? Nalin J. --part1_15d.ddc0fa.28d0f841_boundary
HTML VERSION:
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005