… from a non-North American whom I trust to be thoughtful … Dina Mehta. I’ve been reading her material for a couple of years now, and know that she is thoiughtful and considered.
She was comparing, and trying to understand, some comments received in response to Arundhati Roy’s very critical examination of recent Bush Administration doings in Iraq. Some of the commenters were very heated in their criticisms of Roy, and suggested Roy was a terrorist, rather than Bush. This type of logic seems similar to much of what I observe going on in the U.S., with real divisiveness continuing to grow as any criticism of Bushco’s grand adventures is typoically turned upside down … the critics are told that they “hate freedom”, or don’t appreciate Dubya’s far-seeing wisdom (I am so tired of the continued use of the phrase “history will show whether Bush is right or not” … that can be said about absolutely anything, and is NOT in any way a logical support for having invaded Iraq.
Apropos Dina’s (longer) post here, I have read much of Arundhati Roy’s recent work, and readers will know that I have no fondness whatsoever for George Bush.
I found the points of view she has uncovered, and her subsequent exploration of them, very interesting to read and think about. Thanks, Dina.
Am excerpt from her longer blog post:
Its interesting to see how there seems to be a blurring here of who the aggressor is and who the victim. And who is to blame - the perpetrators of atrocities resulting from war or the initiators of the war itself ? And finally who is a terrorist or an enablor of terrorists ? Bush as Arundhati Roy says … or Arundhati Roy as Shanthi suggests ?
I am curious like some of the other commenters at her post about several issues. I asked some questions - where did you get the impression that Arundhati Roy supported the killers of Margaret Hassan ? And what in your perception makes her a terrorist-enabler ? Is that just a counter-argument to her calling Bush a terrorist at some point in time? And more basic - am terribly curious to know why you hate her so ? What harm is she doing ? And at a broader level, is there a subliminal link between those that hate her and those that are pro-Bush (never mind for now about pro-BJP) ?
I digress here, but in comparison, it must be said that many Indians i know feel Bush is a terrorist - and many others around the world do too. That Bush should be tried in a world court for his atrocities. I wonder what or who gave him the right to become the watchdog for the world ? To decide for the people of Iraq that war is better than Saddam ? Or that Iraq will be better without him ? Or the audacity to wage war per se ? No guerilla attack like so-called terrorists wage - but blatant massacre nonetheless, a more despicable form of in-your-face terrorism. Is there justification for the world’s largest super-power world going on a witchhunt in the middle-east ? Cleansing again ?
Frightening.
And if the people of Iraq resist this invasion are they terrorists ? Or are they victims who are resisting terrorist attacks ? And what is wrong in Arundhati Roy saying - “One wasn’t urging them to join the army, but to become the resistance, to become part of what ought to be non-violent resistance against a very violent occupation,” she said, adding that the term resistance needed to be redefined. “We can’t assume that resistance means terrorism because that would be playing right into the hands of the occupation,” she said”