21 April, 2007
BLOG SILENCE
I know full well this is not relevant to the UAE, but it is to blogging especially in light of the recent events at Virginia Tech. This is also not an advertisement, nor is the page in question making profit off it. For those interested, on April 30th 2007, the blogosphere will hold a daylong blog silence to honor the victims and to show respect toward those who lost their loved ones. Click on the image below for more information.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
30 comments:
While the events at VT are truly tragic and hit home as I have several close friends there, but a day of silence for the victims? What about the 100,000s of victims of the illegal US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan? Why are American victims worthy of a global day of silence, while "others" are barely acknowledged?
“the blogosphere will hold a daylong blog silence to honor the victims and to show respect toward those who lost their loved ones.”
So how many years of blog silence do we need to honor the victims of Iraq and to show respect toward those who lost their loved ones?!
Ah… I forgot… those who die in Iraq are not humans! Right, right…
How sarcastic! How disgusting!!!
Why are American victims worthy of a global day of silence, while "others" are barely acknowledged?
This reminds of the scorn expressed some months ago in reaction to the sympathy being expressed for a British and South African victim in a tragic car crash on Al Wasl Rd. Some type of public remembrance was announced and people complained, why this when there are dozens if not hundreds of less fortunate people who die in the UAE that no one honors.
These sorts of tributes arise not out of arrogance or due to the power of one social class or nation over others, they emerge from the grassroots. Someone, somewhere has an idea, they act on it in the moment and a movement results. That's it. The same sort of thing happened when Israel began bombarding Lebanon.
Sometimes an animal, a deer or something gets trapped on a frozen lake and it becomes an international media event to save the thing. What about the millions of animals that face peril in nature every single day.
Ash: Thanks for the link.
grass roots??? please! that's like labeling shoppers at Carrefour grassroots resisters to America's Wal-Mart! Such "memorials" date back at least to the yellow ribbons American first used in the first Iran crisis in '79. Ever since then, with every drop of American blood such memorials pop-up! They are nothing short of nationalistic consumption of victimhood! And the construction of Americans as victims is a political statement that feeds US imperialism. There is nothing natural or grassroots about them!
This is the age of the Internet. I takes nothing to start a website to promote this or that. If it is timely--just the right thing at just the right time--it gets picked up and crosses the globe. This is grassroots in the modern era. Do you remember the online petitions in support of Lebanon? It seemed to be the right thing at the right time. It picked up and spread. Do you remember all the raucous over the prophet cartoons? While it may not have been started at a grass roots level, it spread like wildfire once it got on the Net. This call for a Blog Silence is one more effort by someone, somewhere to use the power of the Net to focus attention on a subject they feel important.
Well said BD - I couldn't agree more.
IB - it wasn't just Americans who lost lives & loved ones - there were several nationalities.
Does it matter if there is a hour long silence - your thoughts and action for change for the victims and their families matter the most?
Ash - very thoughtful of you, I shall join you this day of silence for all those who've lost their lives and continue to face the risk of losing their lives.
Freaking hell.. what's with you people (eg. ibn battuta). You are like the people who say, "don't try to explore the space, we have people dying of hunger". It's too bad that no one has started doing something for those people you consider to be victims. Don't bitch if others care more than you do. Apparently you only care when you want to complain.
What have YOU done?
That's what I thought.
(and for the record, I'm not going to adhere to the one day without blogging -- condolences to those who lost loved ones, but life goes on).
fI mean no disrespect to the victims at VT. But I'm seeing more and more of these 'webmovements' on the net a lot these days.
They are nothing but pointless tributes on the net, where you are less obliged to even put your thoughts down on a piece of paper - you just click your way through.
You click and you forget it as soon as your browser closes.
A tribute to the victims is very much needed - but lets not take it to such foolish heights. Instead - Americans should learn to stop hating people like Michael Moore, watch 'bowling for columbine' yet again and use the power of the net to bring about some kind of gun legislation.
clap clap clap to comments moderation!
i support archer14's comment - use the net for something productive, not meaningless sappiness. a day of silence for an event everyone feels sympathy towards really accomplishes nothing, draws people's attention to no real issue. it's more about construction of a bourgeois-find- something-to-feel-good-about-the-world statement: it's a statement that says nothing.
the "consumption of victimhood" is a powerful national symbol. sort of like the flag, it comes to represent a particular identity of who we are in relation to others. not only is it a powerful symbol in the u.s., but in several other countries too, including india. here it is manifested as an anti-muslim statement, justifying many various pogroms and extensive discrimination.
"victimhood" and "sympathy" are social constructs. when we attempt to make such statements of "solidarity" we should at least be bold enough to critically question where such "feelings" are coming from. i would have thought a "fellow athiest" could comprehend a difference between "care" and critique, but i guess athiests have their own opiums too....
I agree with some of the comments above that there are more important things than memorials and grand acts of sympathy. In fact, even with 9/11, it is grand that people wanted to memorialize the victims, but it kind of misses the real tragedy of 9/11--that there are people out there with so much hate for America that they would do such a thing.
It would be a more valid tribute to the victims of such events to deal with the issues that led to their happening in the first place. In the case of 9/11 a good re-examination of foreign policy practices by the US was, and still is in order. In the case of VT, a re-examination of policies that allow wackos to get their hands on guns is clearly in order. But instead of this, politicians try to stand in line at memorial tributes only to show how sympathetic there are, without any real work on policy.
two wrongs don't make a right... hatem.. if u have a problem with that why don't u arrange a day of silence for iraq and afgahnistan..and kosovo.. and palestine.. and bosnia.. and all of africa..
don't criticise the positive actions of others by shooting them down.. why not pitch in and add to the positivity?
I suggest that we let the UAE Community observe the silence; maybe we could dedicate the silence to peace all over the world and remember all victims of needless murder whatever race or creed.
Peace and Love
Buj, I am also feeling sorry for the victims of this shooting, but I am frustrated from the everyday double-standard we are living. Someone dies in the US, the whole world is upside down while hundreds die everywhere else, and we barely know about them. I call it “double standard”. Check this website .
Before I leave, one victim was from my homeland also, and I feel sorry for all of them again, but I am asking for being fair, at least in our feelings! Is that wrong?
SD
"Iraq I'll grant you, Afghanistan I won't - the Taliban had it coming."
True but poor innocent folks are still paying the price.
Yeah I'll agree - but I think it's important that we don't blur Iraq and Afghanistan like America has done.
Afghanistan - or the Taliban regime - sheltered and even partnered with Al Qaeda terrorists who blew up WTC in a hostile act of war. Despite the mess that Afghanistan continues to be, I am glad the Taliban were at least partly overthrown, and I applaud and support continuing efforts to root them out and return normalcy and safety to Afghanistan, however small the success they have met with so far.
Iraq and the Baathists had nothing to do whatsoever with Al Qaeda or terrorism and had not acted aggressively (beyond its own borders anyway - Saddam's treatment of his own people was of course appalling). America had absolutely no business invading. It was a 100% illegal war, and I can only feel shame and disgust that the piece of grinning shit currently squatting on Britain's political throne - whom I have never and will never vote for - dragged my country into it as well.
I think that we outside America who have at least half a clue about world events should keep making this separation clear, because currently if you asked the average American why their government invaded Iraq, he or she would most likely say: "because of 9/11". And if you asked them what organisation Saddam belonged to/ran, I'll wager around 70% would say "Al Qaeda".
But you are right in that innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan are still the ones getting screwed.
One of the very, very, very few times that I like what you say, SD!
SD,
While it is true that there is no evidence that Iraq was involved with 9/11, it is not true that "
Iraq and the Baathists had nothing to do whatsoever with ... terrorism and had not acted aggressively (beyond its own borders..."
Saddam Hussein's government had a long history of supporting terrorists. And as for acting aggressively outside it's borders, how could you have forgotten the Iran-Iraq war, started by Iraq, and the invasion of Kuwait.
See brn - this is where I think you should apply similar logic at Vietnam, the support for Mujahadeen/Taliban against the Soviets, Iraq whom the US supported in it's war with Iran, Interfering in Iran in the 1950's -oh and ofcourse (icing on the cake) - Israel & Palestine.
Terrorists/terrorism "can" be quite subjective eh!
Rosh,
My only point is that SD's statement was wrong on its face, not that the US is always right. Regardless of your definition of terrorism, the Iraqi government supported it. It was aggressive outside its borders.
Brn - my point is that United States supported "terrorists" as well.
It plays down any credibly whilst having to call someone (perhaps rightfully) as terrorists - when the United States was in bed with the so called terrorists at a point in time.
I am making this point - 'cause your link is to The White House and to GWB's comments, which includes Palestinians as terrorists.
It sad to see a few Americans, inspite of having the opportunity to travel & live in the ME region -still take on comments from the present government at face value and rather blindly.
So you know, I think getting rid of Saddam was good – the aftermath is another story, and no I do not blame the US for it.
rosh,
I wasn't trying to get into an argument about any of these issues. I thought that my statements were pretty self-evident. They had nothing to do with defending the US or the war. But just as SD said about keeping the differences between Iraq and Afghanistan straight, it seems that we should keep straight the facts about Iraq.
On your points:
a) Even if, for the sake of argument, I were to grant you that the US has supported terrorist organizations, that doesn't change that the Iraqi government under Saddam did so.
b) So are you saying that if the Bush Administration says that Saddam supported terrorism, that is proof that he didn't? I would never take anything this or any US administration makes on faith, but how about looking at the individual claims made there. Which of them do you doubt? How about looking at the Council on Foreign Relations, hardly a neo-con think tanks:
"Has Iraq sponsored terrorism?
"Yes. Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship provided headquarters, operating bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups fighting the governments of neighboring Turkey and Iran, as well as to hard-line Palestinian groups."
c) Clearly some of this depends on your definition of terrorism. The UN has a pretty good one, it seems to me, here: '[A]ny action "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."'
If you will accept this one, then how is someone who *deliberately* tries to kill civilians to achieve a political goal not a terrorist? Labeling accurately the tactics used by such a person does not change the morality of their goal. The morality of a tactic is not related to the morality of the goal.
to hatem and everyone.. i'd say let's never ever get fed up or tired from doing good things. i wanna do good things for the people of africa, afghanistan, palestine, iraq, and yes america as well.
just because they happen to have bad policies with regards to our part of the world doesn't mean we cannot feel for their suffering.
sorry man.. that's just bad.. an eye for an eye will eventually make both of us blind.
i would have just liked people to have paid their respect (or their silence) and called it a day.
we're all human after all.
Brn - I do not disagree with most of what you've said in your second post. I do not think Saddam was any good – and feel he got what he deserved, nor do I think United States is all evil etc (am yawning given the rhetoric).
My comment was in reference to your initial link - the link to some diluted, crap of a message from the "White" house - they’ve cried wolf way too many times and have repeatedly exploited people's trust/vulnerability using "terrorism" & "terrorists" for self serving agendas. Hence please don't expect most, to buy into anything from the present white house.
Now please, let’s move on.
rosh,
Yeah, I really don't think that we disagree about this. I know from our past discussions that we don't agree about everything but also that you don't think that the US is the focus of all evil in the world.
If your complaint was that using the White House document as proof was a bad idea, then fine, point taken. I should have used something like the CFR link that I used in the second one.
SD said:
Iraq and the Baathists had nothing to do whatsoever with Al Qaeda or terrorism and had not acted aggressively (beyond its own borders anyway - Saddam's treatment of his own people was of course appalling). America had absolutely no business invading. It was a 100% illegal war, and I can only feel shame and disgust that the piece of grinning shit currently squatting on Britain's political throne - whom I have never and will never vote for - dragged my country into it as well.
I couldn't say it any better! period.
SD, it seems that your association with Matt (msk) of aqoul.com is paying off well!
Thanks!
It certainly isn't comforting to see how this got so political so fast. Tributes of the sort or others like it have no political or nationalistic ties and serve very little purpose in that direction, if at all. Any man with half a brain could tell you that. Innocent people getting killed is not right, anywhere. And I, for one, will acknowledge and pay tribute to the dying (usually in a way that is acceptable by the victims and their families) regardless of nationality and other such entities of a dividing nature. Even in wars, it's only the governments that win or lose, people always lose. For some to even suggest that do as America does and hope for world peace is all too amusing. Oh, no, not shame them or anyone into thinking us better human beings, but play pig for pig over something that has zilch to do with America's utterly vicious and unprincipled foreign policy. Oh, how ghastly! A debate only silence could generate.
Post a Comment
NOTE: By making a post/comment on this blog you agree that you are solely responsible for its content and that you are up to date on the laws of the country you are posting from and that your post/comment abides by them.
To read the rules click here
If you would like to post content on this blog click here