blamebrampton (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
blamebrampton) wrote2011-07-24 10:37 pm
blamebrampton) wrote2011-07-24 10:37 pm
(no subject)
I'm having to avoid the news today ... I need a processing day or two. I suppose that Breivik's confession is something ... but ...
I remember back when the Port Arthur Massacre occurred, one of my housemates ran upstairs and said, 'Put the radio on, there's something horrible happening in Tasmania.' We sat around the radio, and later the television, for hours, feeling utterly powerless. It was the same feeling that had come a few months before, when Rabin was assassinated, and would come again years later as planes fell on New York and Washington, when clubs were blown apart in Bali, as trains were ripped open in Madrid, and then again in London.
There is something about the willful evil of human beings that is more horrific than the devastation of nature. Which is ridiculous on one level, since even comparatively minor natural disasters often have death tolls higher than those of acts of mass murder. The Asian Tsunami dwarfs all acts of terrorism and mass murder in the last 50 years. And yet ... And yet the idea that people can choose to act so vilely is not one that most of us can understand.
And tragically, it does seem to be terrorism, even though it was one man, not an organisation. The targeting of Labour party workers and youths, coupled with Breivik's anti-Left and xenophobic rantings makes his political intent clear.
I know it's not at all PC to say this, and I await the defriendings, but what makes the attacks in Norway so utterly awful is that they are not even the sort of terrorism that one can get one's head around a bit. Because some terrorism, I sort of get.
I look at Umkhonto We Sizwe, and I think, yeah, necklacing was well out of order, but given you had no vote, that the media was cut off from reporting conditions for your people and that activists managed to beat themselves up in their cells before falling out of windows – I can sort of understand why you had a bombing campaign.
To me, this sort of terrorism makes some sort of sense. It's territorial terrorism, if you like, and it led to the formation of modern South Africa, of the state of Israel, of the Irish Republic, India and Pakistan, too, I suppose. I cannot support such actions, but to this day, when I see groups that lack political power, media coverage or wealth turning to violence, I can at least see some reasoning behind their actions.
The other sort of terrorism, tanty terrorism as I accidentally called it in a term that has stuck in this house, I will never get. It's the sort of fundamentalist bullshit that refuses to acknowledge anyone's rights or views but one's own. From the lone bastards who murder doctors at abortion clinics, to Marc Lépine, who murdered women to 'fight feminism' Montreal's Ecole Polytechnique, to Osama bin Laden's decades of utter fuckery against the US and the West in general, and now Breivik, too – it's a list of people who sincerely believed that people who disagreed with them had no rights whatsoever, not even to live.
And of all centuries, in all of history, you would think that ours would see with most clarity just how hollow and hideous that sort of thinking is.
I remember back when the Port Arthur Massacre occurred, one of my housemates ran upstairs and said, 'Put the radio on, there's something horrible happening in Tasmania.' We sat around the radio, and later the television, for hours, feeling utterly powerless. It was the same feeling that had come a few months before, when Rabin was assassinated, and would come again years later as planes fell on New York and Washington, when clubs were blown apart in Bali, as trains were ripped open in Madrid, and then again in London.
There is something about the willful evil of human beings that is more horrific than the devastation of nature. Which is ridiculous on one level, since even comparatively minor natural disasters often have death tolls higher than those of acts of mass murder. The Asian Tsunami dwarfs all acts of terrorism and mass murder in the last 50 years. And yet ... And yet the idea that people can choose to act so vilely is not one that most of us can understand.
And tragically, it does seem to be terrorism, even though it was one man, not an organisation. The targeting of Labour party workers and youths, coupled with Breivik's anti-Left and xenophobic rantings makes his political intent clear.
I know it's not at all PC to say this, and I await the defriendings, but what makes the attacks in Norway so utterly awful is that they are not even the sort of terrorism that one can get one's head around a bit. Because some terrorism, I sort of get.
I look at Umkhonto We Sizwe, and I think, yeah, necklacing was well out of order, but given you had no vote, that the media was cut off from reporting conditions for your people and that activists managed to beat themselves up in their cells before falling out of windows – I can sort of understand why you had a bombing campaign.
To me, this sort of terrorism makes some sort of sense. It's territorial terrorism, if you like, and it led to the formation of modern South Africa, of the state of Israel, of the Irish Republic, India and Pakistan, too, I suppose. I cannot support such actions, but to this day, when I see groups that lack political power, media coverage or wealth turning to violence, I can at least see some reasoning behind their actions.
The other sort of terrorism, tanty terrorism as I accidentally called it in a term that has stuck in this house, I will never get. It's the sort of fundamentalist bullshit that refuses to acknowledge anyone's rights or views but one's own. From the lone bastards who murder doctors at abortion clinics, to Marc Lépine, who murdered women to 'fight feminism' Montreal's Ecole Polytechnique, to Osama bin Laden's decades of utter fuckery against the US and the West in general, and now Breivik, too – it's a list of people who sincerely believed that people who disagreed with them had no rights whatsoever, not even to live.
And of all centuries, in all of history, you would think that ours would see with most clarity just how hollow and hideous that sort of thinking is.
Still 'ere.
Re: Still 'ere.
Re: Still 'ere.
no subject
(no subject)
no subject
Because you have it right. "Territorial Terrorism", as you call it, asymmetrical warfare (as the US called it until recently), guerrilla warfare, partisan action, or even a bunch of bowmen hiding out in some forest are all degrees of the same thing - depending on who's side you are on. I am sure the Reich would have cheerfully called the French Partisans "Terrorists", if they had thought of it, as, no doubt, the Sheriff of Nott would have.
"Tanty Terrorism", though, is just that. And for that, there can be no sane justification.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
(no subject)
no subject
♥
(no subject)
no subject
(no subject)
no subject
(no subject)
no subject
no subject
*hugs*
*adopts 'tanty terrorism'*
We (being the people here in my home), contemplating the why of this horror, found ourselves wondering if it was a lone lunatic or a gaggle of them for which this man 'took one for the team' a la Timothy McVey. I thought I would feel better to know it was a lone idiot, but somehow, though I'm glad there's not an organized group celebrating this somewhere, I don't feel any better at all.
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
The voice of reason amidst the cacophonous voices is what you are.
And clearly there are different kinds of terrorism and understanding why there are suicide bombers in Tel Aviv does not, in fact, signal approval.
Breivik's legacy will be that he destroyed one of the last peaceful refuges of the West and added himself to an ever lengthening list of psychopaths and madmen.
A tragic day for Norway and another sad day for us all.
Peace,
Bubba
no subject
I cannot believe the victim blaming going on here, in mainstream media spaces. (Herald Sun I am looking at you.) I've actually avoided twitter because of the stuff being linked (by socialists in a "look at what fascism is being given oxygen by the press" way, but omg it's vile.)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
*hugs*
Guerilla fighters =/= terroristsOn a completely different note, I effing hate how the U.S. government evokes 9/11 to justify a whole bunch of "security" b.s. =/
no subject
Thanks for putting into words what I've been trying to say. :)
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
There are, indeed, your 'tarty terrorists', but another way of phrasing that is 'idealistic terrorism.' The cause or ideal they are fighting for may be shitty - or, indeed, it may not - but it is a cause or an ideal nonetheless.
As for territorial terrorism - well, one man's terrorist has always been another man's freedom fighter. The problem is that often the fight isn't against an oppressor, but over tribal rivalries. Rwanda? The Ivory Coast? Somalia? Palestine?
no subject
Not only don't I understand the "One True whatever-the-fuck" attitude, I don't want to understand it. I want to be able to force Legilimency (or something) on these people and get them to understand what exactly their tanty terrorism (and I love that name) is doing to their victims and everyone else.
no subject
I was shocked when I saw the news about the bomb. Something like that just couldn't happen in Norway. I didn't hear about the tragedy at the camp until I read the newspaper the next morning. It was really hard to read when I had tears in my eyes the whole time.
The father of the killer had been interviewed. He lives in France. He said he hadn't seen his son since 1995. So he had abandoned his son when the boy was only sixteen. I cannot help wondering how much that had to do with what the son did. No, I'm not blaming the father for what the son did but...
I also raid about a female couple who saved about 40 young people from the island by their boat. Even though the killer tried to shoot the swimmers as well. Those women are true heroes.
no subject
no subject
This was an interesting read (including the comments) at a time when everyone is trying to come to terms with what has happened. Having grown up in Sweden as a german immigrant child of refugees from the GDR (my parents wanted us to grow up in democracy and freedom), made it feel uncomfortably "close to home", although I now live in France.
We humans seek for explanations, for order in chaos. However, for certain acts there exists no excuse. It´s like the german band "die Ärzte" (the Doctors) sang after a neo-nazi assault on an immigrant centre where people were killed in the fire; after having ironically counted all the complaints of young neonazis in eastern germany (there are lots of them, just as in Sweden) about having no job, their parents treating them oh so badly, etc.: "Arschloch!" ("asshole")
Excuse me, but I can find no excuse for that kind of thing.
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
no subject
thank you for your post, as always.
no subject
Agrees with what you said!
no subject
I do, however, think there's an important distinction between terrorists and freedom fighters, though both terms are used to great effect by different sides in a conflict. I quite agree that the actions of some 'terrorists' are understandable - when people have been forced into a situation with nothing to lose, it is entirely reasonable for them to fight back against their oppressors. Where this steps across a line is when the fight broadens from 'legitimate targets' to those who are not legitimate, with the aim of promoting terror in the wider community.
I lived through the IRA's bombing campaign in the Uk in the 70s and 80s - to my mind it was legitimate for the IRA to attack the British army as an occupying force; it became an act of terrorism when they started bombing shopping centres and places of worship. By that an analogy, the French Resistance were not terrorists, since to my knowledge, they only ever attacked military and strategic targets.
Similarly while I don't condone it it in the slightest, I do understand the people who kill abortionists - it's exactly the same rationale for the Allies dropping nuclear bombs on Japan in WWII - you have to kill someone in order to save lives. Twisted logic, I know, but it's the same twisted logic that has fueled a million conflicts, including those that Australia, the US and a great many other nations are involved in now.
Ultimately, the only the solution is the toughest one of all - the extreme pacifism that says that it's better to die than to kill. It sounds completely insane and unworkable, but as far as I can work out, it's the only thing that has ever really worked, at least some of the time.
(no subject)
no subject
no subject
This mirrors exactly how I think too, and is much clearer than what I've managed to suss out from the morass of my brain.
Wilfully evil human beings are frightening enough singly, but it scares me more to know that some of these excessively evil people have charisma, the kind that encourages listening and following.
no subject