7.08.2005

hypocrisy all around

Some of you may have missed yesterday's heated discussion.

LonePrimate fleshed out his position on his own blog.

B.W. Ventril, who used to live across the street from where the London bus blew up, shares his thoughts on Camus and London mayor Ken Livingston.

RobfromAlberta makes a simple statement of empathy.

G muses on the cycle of violence.

For me, there's no contradiction between loathing Bush's imperialist policies, and feeling deep sympathy for the victims in London and the people who love them. My heart breaks for the people of Falluja, and Tel Aviv, and Kabul, and London, and New York.

I see no reason why in condemning George Bush's actions, I must condone the actions of the bus bombers.

The people of Iraq and Afghanistan have every right to live in peace, and to live in whatever kind of society they choose.

The people of London have the same right.

I can easily imagine how the people of London feel today, because I've been there. I can well remember how I felt on September 11, 2001, and in the days and weeks thereafter. Yes, in Iraq every day is 9/11. I agree. But our anger over the senseless deaths in Iraq shouldn't numb us to London's pain. I see far too much of that from "our" side.

Why do we have to choose? Can't we stand in sympathy with all victims of violence? When your sister is blown to bits, what matters the political affiliations of her murderer? Does the murderer's claim to victimhood make your sister any less dead? If your sister lived in a country where her leaders were hell bent on senseless war, must she pay the ultimate price for their stupidity?

After 9/11, I was horrified by the war-talk that raged through the US. But I was equally horrified by the victim-blaming streaming from certain sectors of the left.

The people in the World Trade Center that morning had no more control over U.S. imperialism than the people who hijacked the planes. It's ridiculous to say "this will keep happening until we demand an end to US imperialism," or the like. The ordinary people killed by terror do not have the power to affect that change, and should not be made to suffer for it.

And what makes the terror-apologists so sure that it would end? This is part of the hypocrisy. By implying that the Islamist terrorists are merely reacting to Western policy, the apologists demean the very people they urge us to understand. Am I to believe that if only the US and Israel would leave them alone, the Islamic Fundamentalists would all be chanting peace prayers? Bullshit. People have their own agendas. Are we so arrogant to believe that the actions of all the world are only reactions to us? George Bush is a murderer - for sure. But there are other murderers in the world, with their own independent agendas.

The people on that London bus, the people in the World Trade Center, and the people of Falluja - none of them deserved it. It's all barbaric, it's all unjust, and it all must be condemned.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

It is all barbaric, on both sides.

Newspapers in many parts of the world are showing pictures of the attack under the headline "Barbaric". I, and many others I'm sure, would like to see that same headline in tomorrow's papers with photos of Baghdad.

There is nothing to say that if you condemn one act, you must condone the other. The problem is, many people do that. We see it every day, in the "collateral damage" shrug-off to accounts of civilian deaths in Iraq as compared to the sadness and horror that shows only when civilians belonging to the West are killed.

Every life counts. Every life carries equal weight. And I wish more people believed that rather than just saying it to be politically correct. But that's not the case.

I have a friend who supports Iraq, who recently justified the tens of thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq (mostly women and children, btw) by shrugging and saying, "they live there, that's the risk". A horrible view, but sadly, a common one. Then he calls me yesterday to express his rage over London and his hope that we 'tear apart the world to get the bastards who did it'. Again, shocking view, but sadly, one that is in fact quite common.

And that, my friend, is hypocrisy. And we will be hearing a lot of it. Because somehow, in the West, our lives are just that much more important that only the deaths of our people count. Only those we feel. The rest, well, whatever, we'll say, too bad, couldn't be helped, it's a war, after all. Because the war is Over There, we don't have to feel.

Well fuck that. I want to feel. I weep for all those who die unjustly. Everyone who died solely because they happened to be there.

In London yesterday.

In Madrid last year.

New York four years ago.

Iraq every day.

laura k said...

And that, my friend, is hypocrisy.

There's no shortage of hypocrisy, that's for sure. Plenty to go around.

I'm used to the hypocrisy from the right that brings us the "collateral damage" mentality you so rightly deplore. It's truly sickening.

On the other hand, I expect more from people who purport to care about others, and who ought to know better. I hold them to higher standards.

laura k said...

Newspapers in many parts of the world are showing pictures of the attack under the headline "Barbaric". I, and many others I'm sure, would like to see that same headline in tomorrow's papers with photos of Baghdad.

Yes, that was my first thought this morning, too.

Kyle_From_Ottawa said...

::Sigh::

The talking heads are at it again. Now we get to listen to endless diatribes about how necessary it is to give the government more powers, to "wake up", blah blah blah blah....

Oh, and of course they bring up the mother of all fear mongering, bioweapons and nukes.

Quite frankly, its stupid reasoning. First, if I was a terrorist and I could by a nuke even for the bargain basement price of say $50000 U.S., why would I when a bomb made of $50 household items would have the same effect? Especially if I know the immediate reaction of the U.S. would be to nuke Mecca off the map.

And also then there's the tradoff between freedom and security, which the general public doesn't seem to understand. They also don't seem to undestand that there's never a point where you reach 100% certainty that you can't be attacked. After you pass a certain point, you can greatly increase security and get a negligible increase in safety.

And finally, life involves risks everyday. Every time you sit in a car you stand a far greater risk of death or injury then anything Osama can throw at you. In 1998 1.1 million people were killed in car accidents, and 38.8 million were injured. Yet, how many people would be willing to give up the freedom of being able to drive (excluding Sierra Club types) in return for preventing 40 million injuries.

Stephen said...

Similar thoughts occur to me when natural disasters strike close to home. For instance people are shocked and horrified when about 65 died in the 1989 San Francisco earthquake. While the 2004 earthquake in Iran claimed 40,000+ lives and didn't have nearly as much emotional impact.

laura k said...

I've seen studies on risk and how people are afraid of "the wrong" things. Being afraid of events that have a tiny chance of happening, while being laissez-faire about everyday risks. (Wish I could think of an example right now...)

But people aren't rational. Fear is especially irrational. Fear drives us easily. People who are will afraid do anything to feel safe.

And doesn't the US govt count on that...

Niobium said...

Great post and great comments. You were able to articulate what I couldn't.

laura k said...

Why thank you! Welcome to wmtc.

laura k said...

LonePrimate, I listened respectfully, then respectfully asked you to let it go. You are now lecturing and hectoring. Please stop.

barefoot hiker said...

I didn't realize your questions were rhetorical. My bad.

laura k said...

Perhaps you missed my earlier comment.

barefoot hiker said...

I'm sorry. Sincerely. That last comment was snarky. I do regret making it. I don't come here to upset people; I like the people here and they're highly engaging. I'll lay off this topic because I can see my orbit on this is way too eccentric. I'll keep reading but I'll keep it buttoned. :)

barefoot hiker said...

Perhaps you missed my earlier comment.

I did, actually, yes. Till just now.

laura k said...

Hey, we're all entitled to be snarky now and again. Goddess knows I am.

I hope you do know I agree with much of what you're saying. There's a point where we diverge, and I find that point - not specifically from you, from anyone making this argument, which is familiar to me - disturbingly callous.

But I am not turning away without listening.

laura k said...

Perhaps you missed my earlier comment.

I did, actually, yes. Till just now.

That explains it. :-)