Re: Jihad

[Giorgio Menon <menon(at)pd.infn.it>]

M. Kolar wrote:

> Dear Georges,
>   I have still been re-reading and thinking especially about your
> Jihad page. How do you for example reconcile your recommendation to
> use secret services to solve the world's problems with your claims of
> organizing workshops seeking consensus among the Arabs and Jews for 30
> years???
>
>   You say "I did not even start to investigate the nature of the
> conflict."
> Shouldn't one start with this investigation before offering solutions???

Hi Mirek,
and thanks for your heartfelt thoughts. In order to offer a betterr
understanding of what terrorism means i want to add this simple
definition of it:

"If they do it, it's terrorism, if we do it, it's fighting for freedom."
Anthony Quainton, U.S. Ambassador to Nicaragua, 1984: Anthony  Quainton
Source: Off the record response of the Ambassador to a group of
concerned U.S. citizens when asked to explain the difference
between U.S. government actions in Nicaragua and the violence it
condemns as terrorism elsewhere in the world.

Mr Quainton reveals the relativistic nature of terrorism.

>   I think that the nature of the conflict is clear: it is the remnants
> of "tribalism" still prevailing in most countries, which also clearly
> emanates from your Pax Americana pages. The inability to see that the
> people on the other side of any conflict are the same as your "tribe",
> they also want to defend their country, way of life, traditions, do
> not like being given orders by others.
>   If one looks on it from distance, for example you PLO agent was no
> worse or better than you - he also was doing what he thought was the
> best for his side.
>   Then you must arrive at the conclusion that there is no military
> solution. Citizen army and police is a good idea, but it should be
> just a temporary measure while armed conflict are still continuing.
> Strictly as a protective measure for the defence of one's territory,
> never to be used for "preemptive" strikes.
>   The long-term solution is to eliminate and prevent military
> conflicts: to change foreign policy, respect others, do not "civilize"
> them on your own terms, do not meddle into the internal matters of
> others, decentralize, give local autonomy, transfer huge amounts of
> means now spent on arms production and military solutions into
> peaceful diplomacy, economic cooperation, cultural exchanges, ....
>
>   Such a different perspective on the questions of war and peace can
> be found on my antiwar pages: http://www.mkolar.org/antiwar/


This another important thought that can help anyone to understand what
wars work for pointed out by Hermann Goering at the Nurnberg trial:


"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why
would some poor
 slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can
get out of it
 is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people
don't want war;
 neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in
Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who
determine the
 policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along,
whether it is a
democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people
have some say in
 the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United
States only
Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can
always be
brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do
is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of
patriotism and exposing
 the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

This is the most englighting critique i've read in recent times.

Best regards

Giorgio

PS: Please note that the above statements do not come from no-global
activists, lefty fanzines et similia. They come from the core of the
political intellighentzia who makes the "right" decisions above our heads.

> E.g., http://www.mkolar.org/antiwar/discussion_war.html  ends with:
>
> I am an optimist. I hope that a positive product of globalization will
> be a world-wide planetary identity. When all the people of the Earth
> will consider themselves one big "tribe", there will be nobody left to
> agitate against, and nothing else for the warriors than to play some
> games.
>
> Mirek
>
> P.S. You say:
>
> > Let's remember that opposing government decisions in time of war has
> > a name: "treason".
>
>       Every German citizens and then citizens of all the countries
> occupied and annexed by Germany (including yourself) who were against
> Hitler were also guilty of "treason", right?