Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

"Not Open For Debate or Discussion"

Frances Farmer

19:33 / 21.09.01

The title of this thread is in fact an exact quote from Bush's address last night @ 9:00P EST. I'm announcing context, but I know everyone here is frighteningly aware of that.

The Taliban has requested the U.S. present evidence of Osama's guilt prior to extradition. If you ask four out of five Americans on the street weather or not this is reasonable, they'll most certainly answer enthusiastically in the affirmative.

But this doesn't set well with me - Not at all. Were a U.S. citizen fingered as the ring-leader of an anti-Taliban terrorist group, it's my hunch that no amount of evidence would be sufficient for Bush to hand them over for extradition.

While I posted a little bit yesterday, saying "Whoa, hold your horses," on this whole 'U.S. takes Carte Blanche to destroy the entire world in economic holy war,' or whatever outlook ... I just don't know anymore. Jury is still out, sure ; but I'm with Grant on this one - I hope like I never have before that this is all just posturing.

If it's not, I'm afraid we're fucked.

In light of that, I've created this thread to allow for the collection of ideas.. Ideas that might help us try and prevent this, ideas that might allow us to survive when the entire planet resembles Frank Herbert's "Dune"... Ideas. I think we need to start talking about what to do if the shit hits the fan, and I don't know where to start. Anybody?

[ 21-09-2001: Message edited by: Frances ]

19:56 / 21.09.01

I've got a gas mask. It's grey, stretchy, quite scary-looking. Has a removable hose attached to the intake. Very cipherman.
I also have the filter for it. Both are at the foot of my bed.

Next week: bomb shelter.

18:04 / 22.09.01

Personally I'm taking refuge in the idea that consciousness transcends matter and survives the loss of the body.

05:57 / 16.10.01

o_o

05:57 / 16.10.01

Currently, I am (1) electing to believe that Those In Power are smarter than stand-up comics, my friends, my parents, and I generally give them credit for -- after all, if I say snide things about U2 purely because they're popular, perhaps I say snide things about governmental officials for similar reasons. (2) I am taking a personal crash course in magic to (a) help in forestalling the worst and/or (b) assist in rebuilding civilization after the H.G. Wells/Mad Max/Terminator "Plot Device War".

[off-topic]I didn't want to accidentally bump the thread, so I wanted to say, "You're a genius" here, Frances, for coming up with the Keep-Track.[/off-topic]

[ 16-10-2001: Message edited by: doubting thomas ]

10:17 / 16.10.01

i'm aware that if i don't word this right this could sound really crummy BUT: people in other parts of the world have been living/dying in civil wars, suffering really shitty regimes, car bombs, massacres etc etc. now that this kind of thing has touched/may touch us (i'm in london) we (people in general) have finally thought about how dreadful a state of war is.... they're running scared and saying how terrifying it all is. because it's happening to us for a change. i KNOW that the scale could potentially be BIG, but i can't help feeling that an awful lot of people in other countries will be saying here, 'welcome to OUR world'.

saying that, i feel an even bigger longing to piss off to the middle of nowhere and just be away from it all.... but as someone once sang, 'take the toys from the boys' - all the macho bullshit going on, someone's got to stop it.

[ 16-10-2001: Message edited by: shortfatdyke ]

12:52 / 16.10.01

That's an extremely good point, shortfatdyke, except that, well...

A friend told me that his father was hired by the park service to hunt down and kill bears wounded after Mt. St. Helens blew its top. Why? Because, so he claimed, wounded bears go into berserk killing frenzies.

I'm not particularly scared about becoming a victim to some sort of terrorist action (I'm American). I'm scared that my country is a wounded bear, with nukes.

14:46 / 16.10.01

Hate to potentially sound too much like Mr. Blair's speech a few weeks back, but how exactly does one negotiate with a ruling body that throws a soccer team in jail and shaves their heads for wearing shorts to the game? How does one negotiate with people who beat the crap out of women for wearing jeans under their burqua when it's cold? How does one negotiate with people, who, when faced with the question "Don't you think it's wrong to use a stadium that was paid for by the United Nations in order to be used for soccer as an excution ring?" Answer, "Well, maybe if they built us another soccer stadium we could have soccer matches again." How do you negotiate with people who see no problem - in fact see a needed benefit - in blowing up thousand year historical (at the very least) statues?"

I'm not all gung-ho about the U.S. and their military actions at the moment but I really don't know how it is possible to have diplomatic relations with a group such as the Taliban.

A few weeks ago I was reading a quote from a Taliban spokesperson that said the attacks on the U.S. were a result of the erroneous actions of our government. Now, on the one hand I do feel that there is some truth to that statement. On the other, however, I just feel like, "What-EVER. I'm going to listen to the advice a of a ruling body who would kick my ass if they a)saw me reading this paper, b)knew I could read and c)was not covered 'modestly.'

[ 16-10-2001: Message edited by: Cherry Bomb ]

Jack The Bodiless

16:04 / 16.10.01

Not for a moment do I condone anything that the Taliban, as a ruling body, has said or done. But they aren't alone. One might equally say, "How do you negotiate with the Israelis, who've used helicopter gunships to destroy Palestinian police stations and shot Palestinian children in the streets?" "How do you negotiate with the US, who provided the gunships and bullets in the first place?" You negotiate because you have to. It's what diplomacy is about. But there have been no attempts at diplomacy here. We gave them an ultimatum, which we refused to compromise and ignored any attempts to do so, and then started blowing them up. The Taliban's human rights abuses aren't at issue here - no one's denied they've taken place.

16:11 / 16.10.01

I hear you, J the B, and after I wrote that I thought perhaps it had been a bit too narrow. See, I'm pretty much more anti-taliban than anything, but I was way before this shit started.

I don't know if any of you saw the footage of W on Sunday but damn was he cocky (and he pretty much reiterated the "no negotiation").

I will say I don't know why the U.S. can't even CONSIDER bin Laden's release to a third country. Why not England? We're certainly pretty in bed with each other at present. Or perhaps Jordan? It's a Muslim country. I guess the big problem is who decides to which country bin Laden is released. The UN?

16:16 / 16.10.01

Ack, Taliban this, Taliban that. I haven't heard anyone talking about the Northern Alliance yet. What's their history?

16:28 / 16.10.01

quote:Originally posted by Enamon:
I haven't heard anyone talking about the Northern Alliance yet.

then read this goddamn thread and linked article. and then compare it to this take on the taliban which is utterly off the map of normal US experience.

[ 16-10-2001: Message edited by: Mystery Gypt ]

20:56 / 16.10.01

I have a former boss, who I briefly discussed Frances' point with.

He said 'Shark, you know what they do to women wearing the wrong clothes over there?'

I said 'I shoot them in the head.'

He said 'You know what they do to any narcs, snitches, or informants even remotely implicated in the evidence?'

I said 'What about the truth, justice, and the American way - you know, innocence until proven guilty?'

He said 'Lemme paraphrase that one African leader - Truth is determined by the size of you gun.'

I said 'Is endangering one a lotta innnocents worth a narc?'

He said 'You willing to gamble all those narcs on the chance the next Al Quaeda bomb kills you?'

Fear. A great way to run a nation.
PT Barnum once said no one ever lost money underestimating (the taste of) the American public.

I had to pray on that one.

05:42 / 17.10.01

doubting thomas - i agree with the 'wounded bear' thing. this worries me enormously.

i also notice that the same country that is ensuring 'enduring freedom' has just jailed for life a gay bloke for having oral sex with a 17 year old.

Regrettable Juvenilia

11:29 / 17.10.01

On the subject of the lack of debate or discussion or dissenting voices, I found the following paragraph from this article by Jonathan Steele in The Guardian rand very true:

quote:The second sad aspect is the unwillingness of so many in the pro-war camp to engage in argument. I have been amazed by critics who know I supported military action in Kosovo but call my opposition to the Afghan war "pacifist". Some opponents of this war are genuine pacifists, and I respect their position. Others are fiercely "anti-American" in that they rarely approve of US policy (though they make a distinction between America's vibrant civil society and the actions of its government). The war lobby prefers these opponents since they can be dismissed as "absolutist".

Those who oppose the bombing out of pragmatism are more threatening. Our arguments have to be evaded in other ways. In these columns some writers have accused the war's critics of flailing around with no alternative policies. They are attacked by Tony Blair in caricature fashion - "after September 11 the idea that we're going to sit back and do nothing is absurd". In fact, they offered numerous options. These were all the things the prime minister later did, except for military action: improved security measures, more intensive intelligence-gathering, and political pressure on states which harbour terrorists or support Bin Laden, in particular Pakistan. But rather than revenge and force, we advocated patience, cool thinking, and international police work.

13:25 / 17.10.01

There was an excellent article in The Nationthis week about the Northern Alliance, their portrayal in western journalism contrasting with their actual history. Unfortunately it's not available online.

Another interesting article by Naomi Klein on the effects of Sept 11 on the anti-globalization movement is.

quote:After September 11, politicians and pundits around the world instantly began spinning the terrorist attacks as part of a continuum of anti-American and anticorporate violence: first the Starbucks window, then, presumably, the WTC. New Republic editor Peter Beinart seized on an obscure post to an anticorporate Internet chat room that asked if the attacks were committed by "one of us." Beinart concluded that "the anti-globalization movement...is, in part, a movement motivated by hatred of the United States"--immoral with the United States under attack.

This could be better in its own thread, however...

14:52 / 17.10.01

Got one already, Cherry: http://www.barbelith.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=5&t=000129