Sunday, January 22, 2012

More "Ideal Illusions"

More Ideal Illusions
P. Schultz
January 22, 2012

Edward Peck, deputy director of Reagan’s White House Task Force on Terrorism, had the following to say:

“In 1985, they asked us…to come up with a definition of terrorism that could be used throughout the government. We produced about six, and in each and every case, they were rejected, because careful reading would indicate that our own country had been involved in some of those activities….One of the terms, ‘international terrorism,’ means ‘activities that…appear to be intended to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.’…Yes, well, certainly, you can think of a number of countries that have been involved in such activities. Ours is one of them. Israel is another.” [pp. 240-241]

Author Robert Fisk wrote the following:

“What did that eyeless, dead Israeli child ever do to the Palestinians? Could not the Palestinian bomber, in his last moments on earth, recognize this child as his daughter, his baby sister, his youngest cousin? Alas, no. He was too far down the road of his own death, too buried in his own people’s tragedy. His was not an act of ‘mindless terror,’ the words Israeli spokesmen use as they try to deceive both the world and their own people. He was the logical product of a people crushed, dispossessed, cheated, tortured, and killed in terrible numbers. The pressure cooker of the West Bank was his sauna. And he passed through the door.” [p. 266]

And Michael Sheuer said in an interview:

“We paid a great price for demonizing the Taliban. We saw them as evil because they didn’t let women work, but that’s largely irrelevant in Afghanistan. They provided nationwide law and order for the first time in 25 years; we destroyed that and haven’t replaced it. They’re remembered in Afghanistan for their harsh, theocratic rule, but remembered more for the security they provided. In the end, we’ll lose and leave.” [p. 258]

And lastly, here, from James Baldwin:

“It is true that two wrongs don’t make a right, as we love to point out to the people we have wronged. But one wrong doesn’t make a right, either. People who have been wronged will attempt to right the wrong; they would not be people if they didn’t. They can rarely afford to be scrupulous about the means they will use. They will use such means as come to hand. Neither, in the main, will they distinguish one oppressor from another, nor see through to the root principle of their oppression.” [p. 262]

No comments:

Post a Comment