October 21, 2004
-
JW: Of the Vietnam movies you've seen, what's the most accurate? And your favorite? JK: The most powerful Vietnam movie, to me, was The Deer Hunter, which was more about what happened to the folks who went, and about their relationships... and about what happened to this small-town [Polish!!!!, ed] community. I thought it was a brilliant movie, because the metaphor of Russian roulette was an incredible way of capturing the fatalism about it all: the sense that things were out of your control.
-
JK: Look, there's no negotiating with these guys. They don't hold territory; they don't have a kingdom; they don't have a government; they don't have a guiding philosophy -- they just hate. They hate what they are not. And they want everything to be what they are, and they want that kind of control. Bullshit. These statement don't even jive with each other. If they don't have territory or a kingdom, then it's damn easy to negotiate with them. If the part about them wanting control is true then it'd be damn simple to negotiate. And if it's true that they just hate, then obviously they have a guiding philosophy. If they want everything to be what they are, then they have a guiding philosophy. But like you said earlier, it's much more complex than that. You're doing the same thing as Bush, oversimplifying things to the point of absurdity. If you really need things over simplified before you can understand them, John Kerry, here you go: Quit dropping bombs on their babies. That's the important first step in the negotiation process.
-
I hear this "Rolling Stone" is the voice of the counterculture!
-
I think what Kerry is saying in Rolling Stone is that there are some "folks" a world away from most of us whose take on a religion is so incredibly out of step with the massive inertia of the Western hemisphere and the moneyed north and its overwhelming whiteness (and a thousand thousand tons of paper money) that they are just spinning off it, and the hyper-speed spin they've attained is tremendous and incomprehensible to anybody watching it from this slow and steady but suddenly very slippy side. These bright, tiny and too hot stars see in their own light and feel in their manic momentum what they interpret as massive perfect faith and they act upon this faith as an excuse for God, with unlimited hubris and no humility. What we see in their brilliance (and felt from the sparks of September 11) is a bewildering hatred and obvious denial of our excuse for God. And we are incapable of letting go of our faith, we are addicted to it, and we think we can defend it with our money, so we will and we must. Vegas or bust. Now, if you are an intelligent man, how exactly do you explain that to Americans (via the "media") when you are trying to get elected to the American Presidency against the incumbent appointee George W. Bush and his Karl Rove? I'd like to see you try without talking in circles. You have to be stupid to try and make sense of this to everybody at once and in simple terms. It's impossible to talk about fighting a war when you are veritibly lying naked and intenesly allergic beside the governing power of yourself, your country, America. It is analagous to a mental illness, a partisan psychosis, a sickness that will take a long, long time to heal and will leave lasting and permenant scars. Your judgement of Rolling Stone as an echo of its past glory I can live with 'cause I agree, but I will remind you of this: you won't see anyone in the current administration sit down for an unscripted interview like this. They could, but they won't because they can't look you in the eye: they do have a conscience and they do know what is right, and they won't look you in the eye and admit they are wrong because for them that is tantamount to losing, and they will win at all costs. /rant
-
Good rant!
-
That's a real basic way of communicating to anyone that if Bush wins, the world is fucked... Why? because believe it or not the American machine plays THE central role in keeping the world balanced. who put us there, you ask? all of you. NOW, you tell me with a straight face that the balances in the world haven't shifted for the worse since he took presidency, and I swear that I'll cast my vote against Kerry. Kerry may not be the best candidate, but he's the reset button that we all need to push, and after checking all the numbers and figures, there's really no argument against that.
-
Kerry may not be the best candidate, but he's the reset button that we all need to push, and after checking all the numbers and figures, there's really no argument against that. What an excellent, succinct way to put this year's elections.
-
<excerpt> What do you mean when you say you know how to do it? I have not seen this information "out there" like this before and I don't know why it hasn't been emphasized in the past. People know he fought in Vietnam and then demonstrated against if after his return, but his resumé highlights have not been emphasized well like is was in those simple paragraphs.
-
Monkefilter: the reset button we all need to push.
-
\Monkeyfilter *how embarassing*
-
Jerry_Garcia writes: These bright, tiny and too hot stars see in their own light and feel in their manic momentum what they interpret as massive perfect faith and they act upon this faith as an excuse for God, with unlimited hubris and no humility. Excellent writing, but that description applies to anyone who freely substitutes "gut" or "faith" for logic and facts, including the current resident in the White House.
-
I like Kerry, even when he tried to seem hip by proclaiming to be a Jimmy Buffett fan! But he is obviously tailoring his message for different audiences- in the debates he seemed to love Reagan, but here he is targeting a different audience (I have no idea who actually still reads Rolling Stone or why, but I guess they are presumed liberal) As for Al Quaida, I read an excellent article once (forget where) that described their philosophy as "nihlistic." They have never made any formal demands or even claimed repsonsiblity for 9/11. They have never said or even implied "do X and we will stop attacking you." I would also question how much "religion" really plays into it. Their version of Islam is at the heart of their rhetoric, but I see it more as a motivational thing for the foot soliders. Anyone who actually spends years building intricate plots is not totally motivated by blind rage or faith, or Bin Laden himself would become a suicide bomber.
-
I see it more as a motivational thing for the foot soliders. Maybe. Islam is pretty much at its heart a pure cultural expression. Its very much (ironically) like Judiasm, which seems more about ritual than worship, which is to say that the ball of wax is all centered around a community and a culture, and less around the particulars of God. So Kerry is simplifying things — dumbing it down for the Comfortable Left — but not too much. East/North and West/South really are in what each think is a winner-takes-all culture war. The "bombing of children" etc. is a symptom of that war, more than its cause, but it is also true our drop-bombs-until-they-surrender strategy is hurting us in the long run, if we want reconciliation.
-
But we still don't know, what do they want from us? Do they want all 350M Americans and all westerners to convert to Islam and their way of life? Or, like a Bond villain, do they not want us to do anything but die? It is truly puzzling. Historically terrorists groups have had stated goals (i.e. IRA = "English out of N. Ireland") and claim responsibility for attacks in order to try to convince their enemies to give in. It is implied that Al Quaida wants US troops out of Saudi Arabia and for us to stop supporting Israel, but as far as I know they have never come out and demanded this.
-
...what do they want from us? Ultimately, exactly that which you mention: they want changes in US foreign policy that they feel are an attack on traditional Muslim culture, an attack with the intent to replace that culture with American pseudocapitalist and "democratic" values. Their desire is for withdrawal of American troops from Saudi-located holy lands and a less insular relationship with Israel, particularly where Palestinian refugees are concerned. There is deep anger about the treatment of Muslims in Chechnya and Bosnia. All this motivates their hatred of Americans and desire to inflict death and suffering. The danger is not so much Al'Qaeda but the effect their fatwahs and activities now have on mobilizing otherwise indifferent, midde-of-the-road Muslims to think that America is all about destroying their way of life. Bush is burning many bridges that will take generations to sort out, if ever. The question to ask, which you point out, is whether our activities are making the problem worse, in making it easier to recruit terrorists. The neocon Right would argue we are taking the battle to terrorists in Iraq, and a devil's advocate might suggest, "better there than on US soil". Everyone else would probably argue that the problem is being made worse and there's no end in sight. Further we're sacrificing a number of domestic civil rights that do not make us safer. It is a compelling and reasonable argument, given the mess we have in Iraq today, both politicians' desire to get troops out of there as soon as possible, and the stifling effect of the Patriot Act on free speech and -- what was -- public behavior.
-
Their desire is for withdrawal of American troops from Saudi-located holy lands and a less insular relationship with Israel, particularly where Palestinian refugees are concerned. I'm not sure it's that simple. If every US soldier left KSA tomorrow (and some think that was part of the motivation in taking Iraq, to move them there), I seriously doubt Bin Laden and friends would drop everything and make nice. My personal view is that terrorism will always be with us in one form or another- it is essentially a crime, like murder. Thinking we can win a "war" on terror is as absurd as winning a war on drugs. And it is very misguided to think of safety as a "right," which is what I've been hearing. In a free society you take certain risks, like being the victim of a crime. These risks would be far less in a totaliatarian state like the USSR where everyone was being spied on. I think we all just need to have the courage to face the miniscule risk of being a victim of terror. For most of us, it is very very small. When I think of all the sacrifices people have made throughout history for freedom, it hardly seems a lot to ask. In reality, Kerry's "terror as a nuisance" comment was right on and accurate. But no wants to hear "we just have to live with it" in an election year. But we do.
-
I think you're having trouble with the concept that someone can be clever, practical, and driven by a genocide-tinged set of religious views, but tell you: it is the case. Karen Armstrong does a good job of trying to express the mindset in exploring the Crusades, because it's one that's cultural alien to many post-Enlightenment Westerners, where we're used to associating "smart" and "religious" with the more sophisticated, open, liberal interpretations of Christianity that range out to guys like Spong and Geering. We're used to strong faith being associated with being ill-educated and not terribly clever. There's an important distinction here. bin Laden and people with a fellow-thinking mindset, no, wouldn't. Heck, would-be refugee Zaoui makes it fairly clear that he has nothing but contempt for the notion of a secular society, and that while he deplores the violent methods of a bin Laden, his ultimate goal is a global, Islamic world, where Islam means shaira law applied universally. There isn't really much room for compromise with people who "know" Islam is the way everyone has to live, any more than there was with people who "knew" Marxism was the solution, or people who "know" Christianity is the solution. And, indeed, giving such people an inch leads them to see weakness and seek a yard. Herein lies the rub: their friends don't view it that way. Many Muslims who might back al-Qaeda when they talk about Palestine, or US troops around Mecca, but you know what? Those people really will be placated by us butting out of their holy places, or seeming a little more impartial when it comes to matters Israel/Palestine. Muslims who supported Zaoui in Algeria because they live there and wanted an Islamic state probably don't give a shit whether New Zealand becomes a theocracy, but he's pretty clear about his global ambitions. And you know what? It's the friends who give these people power. Let me point to the example of IRA: some people in the IRA are extremists to the point where regaining Northern Ireland (against the will of the majority of people who live there) would only be the beginning, in their view; overthrow of the government of Eire would be next. But that's a small group of people. What made the IRA powerful was the tens, hundreds of millions of dollars from sympathisers abroad, and the popular support of Irish Catholics in both Eire and Northern Ireland. Once they started losing that, due to botched attacks that killed civilians and genuine peace proposals from Britain, they simply became less and less powerful as money and, most importantly, Irish sympathy dried up. They've managed to get Sinn Fein playing a part in Northern Irish politics, but that's it.
-
I would also question how much "religion" really plays into it. Their version of Islam is at the heart of their rhetoric, but I see it more as a motivational thing for the foot soliders. Exactly, and more's the pity for the recruits in their misguided mission. Simply stated, they've been had, and for their sake I hope there is a Heaven that the hijackers of September 11, 2001 can share with the jumpers from the World Trade Centre. The greatest advocates for peace are all dead: the soldiers and civilians who have died in war, but they still have voices in imagery and written words and maybe they will save us yet if we learn to read. So far as I can see the West is largely illiterate. Thanks to George Bush and Osama bin Laden I regard every "person of faith" I meet with a great deal of suspicion, a suspicion that verges on hostility when I drink and end up a partisan. I'll never in my lifetime rid myself of this religious bigotry thanks to the current geopolitical literary criticism of Jesus and Allah. These are foolish and dangerous men who each have a favourite book and we, as humans, need to put a stop to it right now.