Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: The rise and rise of a pity-for-Osama lobby

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/10493/
Friday 6 May 2011
The rise and rise of a pity-for-Osama lobby
The chattering classes’ ‘uncomfortable feeling’ with the killing of
bin Laden is underpinned more by moral cowardice than political
principle.
Brendan O’Neill
How did ‘I hate bin Laden and I’m glad he’s dead’ become the most
shocking thing one can say in polite society?
This week we have shuttled from an atmosphere of congratulation, even
muted celebration, over the killing of OBL to what Rowan Williams,
Archbishop of Canterbury and High Priest of the Chattering Classes,
describes as a ‘very uncomfortable feeling’ about the killing of OBL.
Those who dare to celebrate his death – mainly young American jocks –
have been denounced as ‘abhorrent’ and ‘sickening’, and now the main
way you advertise your decency, your membership of the civilised,
upstanding, oh-so-unAmerican classes, is by wondering out loud if poor
old OBL shouldn’t have been arrested and put on trial rather than
having a bullet planted in his head.
This pity-for-Osama lobby, this bishop-led congregation of
‘uncomfortable’ moral handwringers, might pose as radical, denouncing
America’s military action in bin Laden’s compound as ‘Wild West-style
vengeance’. Yet in truth it is fuelled by self-loathing more than
justice-loving. These critics are not opposed to Western intervention
in principle – indeed, most of them have demanded ‘humanitarian’,
political or legalistic intervention in other states’ affairs at one
point or another. No, it is a discomfort with decisive action, a fear
of what such action might lead to in the future, and a belief that
people in the West should douse their emotional zeal and learn to be
more meek, which motors the creepingly conformist anti-Obama and pro-
Osama (well, almost) brigade. There is little, if anything, in this
outburst of concerned liberal moralism that is worth backing.
The most striking thing was the speed with which the great and the
good of the Western liberal elite sought to distance themselves from
those vulgar, excitable Yanks and to express a more erudite and PC
view of OBL’s demise. Barely 24 hours had passed since the dumping of
bin Laden’s body in the sea before observers were describing President
Obama as a ‘mobster’. ‘Are we gangsters or a Western democracy based
on the rule of law?’, asked has-been mayor (and wannabe mayor) Ken
Livingstone, who is so used to doing politics in the rarefied environs
of London’s mayoral office that he doesn’t realise that the rule of
law might not be so neatly applied during a shoot-out in a compound in
Pakistan. Elsewhere the killing of bin Laden has already been
described as a ‘war crime’ (isn’t everything these days?) while human
rights campaigners say it would have been a better advert for Western
values if justice against OBL had come ‘from a legitimate court of law
rather than the end of gun’.
It didn’t take long for these apparently decent lovers of justice over
violence to expose their real fears: that the sight of a few young
Americans chanting ‘U-S-A!’ in response to OBL’s death might invite
even more Islamist retribution upon us. One writer described this
‘frat boy reaction’ as ‘abhorrent’ – it is ‘sickening’, she said, and,
more revealingly, it has ‘no dignity’. A British columnist said the
anti-OBL shindigs were the products of a ‘patriotic reflex’ – that is,
a nationalist kneejerkism amongst America’s unthinking classes – which
is apparently ‘intense and pervasive’. In response to the chant of ‘We
killed bin Laden!’, the columnist said: ‘If “they” killed bin Laden in
Abbottabad, then “they” also bombed a large number of wedding parties
in Afghanistan, “they” murdered 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha and
“they” gang-raped a 14-year-old before murdering her, her six-year-old
sister and their parents near Mahmudiyah.’ Yep, that’s right – if you
celebrate the killing of OBL then you are also implicitly celebrating
American atrocities overseas, including rape. Gang-rape-loving
dunderheads.
The most telling phrase in that article was ‘they’, which was used
again and again, always in quote marks, to refer to ordinary
Americans. Because much of the ‘uncomfortable feeling’ over the
killing of bin Laden is really an ‘uncomfortable feeling’ with, if not
outright disgust for, ‘them’, the people who make up America, and for
the ideals of modern America itself. This is ‘very much the American
style’, sniffed Livingstone about the anti-OBL get-togethers (which,
by the way, were only relatively small, party-style expressions of a
fleeting emotion). Other commentators have said that they ‘recoiled’
at the ‘gloating that Americans went in for’. Behind the high-falutin’
expressions of passion for justice over shoot-to-kill, much of the
pity-for-Osama lobby is really concerned with expressing its moral
superiority over apparently vengeful Americans. Where ‘them’ Yanks
still have an attachment to nationalism and war, ‘we’ Europeans are
post-nationalist, cosmopolitan, empathetic rather than vengeful, and
are far more comfortable with having a man in a wig rather than a man
with a gun sort out our moral and political problems.
Of course, such anti-Americanism is not confined to Europe. As we have
seen in the 10 years since 9/11 it is rife within America itself,
where the better-educated classes have long had an ‘uncomfortable
feeling’ in relation to the antics and emotions of the American
masses. And so it was that Time magazine, in keeping with the modern
trend for explaining away every emotion as a product of evolution or
of involuntary brain activity, said that human beings are ‘wired to
perceive the punishment of rule-violators as rewarding’. In seeking to
explain the appearance of frat boys outside the White House, Time
cited scientific research showing that ‘when people witnessed snitches
receiving painful electric shocks, the pleasure regions of their
brains were activated (but only in men)’. Of course, some people – not
‘them’, but ‘us’ – are immune to this hardwired desire for vengeance
and can rise above it to express a more considered ‘uncomfortable
feeling’ with OBL’s death.
This is an explicit attempt to delegitimise the political and moral
response of some American people to the killing of bin Laden. Their
joy seems so alien to the better-minded classes that it can only
possibly be explained as a ‘reflex’, an unfortunate ‘evolutionary
trait’. It has ‘no dignity’, we are told, but rather springs from a
base and instinctive ‘human taste for vengeance’. It is extraordinary,
and revealing, how quickly the expression of concern about the use of
American force in Pakistan became an expression of values superiority
over the American people. The modern chattering classes are so utterly
removed from the mass of the population, so profoundly disconnected
from ‘ordinary people’ and their ‘ordinary thoughts’, that they
effectively see happy Americans as a more alien and unusual thing than
Osama bin Laden. Where OBL wins their empathy, American jocks receive
only their bile.
There is nothing principled or properly anti-imperialist in the
speedily rising critique of the killing of OBL. Indeed, many of those
currently attacking Obama would have preferred it if bin Laden had
ended up in one of the international courts, which themselves are
political theatres for the expression of Western superiority over
foreign peoples (usually black ones). If Obama’s troops really did
mete out ‘military vengeance’ against someone they judged to be evil,
then these courts continually serve up ‘legal vengeance’ against
people judged to be war criminals. Also, it is striking that many of
the critics of Obama express concern about the alleged emotions behind
American militarism – vengeance, Wild West fury, a lack of basic
decency – rather than being concerned about the moral question of
whether America should have the right to intervene in other states.
It’s the sentiment they hate, more than the use of military force
overseas per se.
No, the now widespread ‘uncomfortable feeling’ with the shooting of
bin Laden is really an expression of moral reluctance, even of moral
cowardice, a desire to avoid taking any decisive action or expressing
any firm emotion that might have some blowback consequences for us
over here. It is the politics of risk aversion rather than the
politics of anti-imperialism, the same degraded sentiment that fuelled
the narcissistic ‘Not in my name’ response to the Iraq War in 2003.
So these critics fret that the killing of bin Laden, and the ‘scenes
of jubilation’ it gave rise to, might heighten the threat of another
terror attack. Watching Americans celebrate OBL’s death, Ken
Livingstone said: ‘I realised that it would increase the likelihood of
a terror attack on London.’ This is really a call to elevate
precaution over action, meekness over passionate political feeling,
staying at home over taking risks, all in the name of protecting
ourselves from any possible future action by a hot-headed Islamist. In
this sense, the disdain for America and its people is really an
expression of angst about what America is perceived to represent:
confidence, cockiness, self-possession, a willingness to take risks
(little of which is actually accurate). The post-OBL ‘uncomfortable
feeling’ is really a quite craven sentiment, a fear-fuelled desire for
self-preservation over anything else, which is dolled up as a
principled critique of American militarism.
Look, if you want to have a real debate about Western intervention in
Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq, bring it on. spiked bows to no one in
the implacability of our principled opposition to foreign meddling in
other states’ affairs. But if you want to tell me that bin Laden was
treated badly, and that the allegedly morally unhinged reaction to his
death might invite more terror upon us, then I have only one thing to
say: ‘Fuck bin Laden.’


Passare immediatamente a ICRC, per competenza.
-- 
Io non gufo l'Inter. Le spacco le corna.

 
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/10493/
spiked is endorsed by free-thinkers such as John Stuart Mill and Karl
Marx
AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAV
CHE PIRLA NAHUM!

 CHE PIRLA NAHUM!
His journalism has been published in ...Abortion Review and the
Catholic Herald in Britain
http://brendanoneill.co.uk/private/407749501/tumblr_kybhc44MHa1qzl21l
AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH

 > C
Bombacci non conosce la differenza tra giornali di opinione e organi
di partito - e quando legge di un incaprettamento parla di diversita'
di vedute.

 Bombacci non conosce la differenza tra giornali di opinione
cosa c'entrano i giornali di opinioni con l'idiozia che ho quotato? E
coi toni inquisitori del resto dell'articolo, che sono perfetti non
per un libero pensatore, ma per uno che scrive, non a caso, sull'
Abortion Review e il  Catholic Herald? E che tu, altrettanto non a
caso, hai citato, wannabe Torquemada col taglio

 Abortion Review e il  Catholic Herald?
e che secondo te sarebbe consustanzialmente ...

 e che secondo te sarebbe consustanzialmente ...
quella è una TUA cazzata, non provarci.....

 quella è
quindi riconosci che le opinioni di un cattolico possano essere
valide. Sicche' non e' chiaro perche' si dovrebbero squalificare (come
tu sostieni poco sopra) le opinioni di Tizio, in merito ad una
faccenda che con l'aborto non c'entra nulla, solo perche' Tizio scrive
sul Catholic Herald
Bombacci, ti sei incaprettatto da solo. Che novita'.

 valide.
io sì, tu no. Ergo che TU citi uno che scrive per la stampa abortista
(ovvero il peggio del cattolicesimo, perchè ci sono anche molti
cattolici che se ne fregano del porco tedesco) è patetico

 io sì, tu
io ho citato senza problemi un articolo di un tale che manco sapevo
fosse cattolico - e la cosa non mi interessa punto. Tu invece, in
mancanza di argomenti per ribattere a quell'articolo, provi ad
attaccare la persona.
Che figuraccia, Bombacci.

 fosse cattolico
la puzza di merda dell'inquisitore si sentiva lontano un miglio.

 la puzza di merda dell'inquisitore si sentiva lontano un miglio.
perche', per te inquisitore e cattolico sono sinonimi?

 perche', per te inquisitore e cattolico sono sinonimi?
gli inquisitori sono un sottoinsieme dei cattolici, ma sono tutti
cattolici. E questo parla come un inquisitore, ergo è abbastanza
evidente che sia cattolico

 cattolici.
e l'altro sottoinsieme sono i catto-comunisti. Quelli sono i buoni,
sono i santi rivoluzionari, come Gesu' che combatteva contro i
farisei, sono l'esempio con cui identificarsi. Sei cattolico dentro,
Bombacci.

 e l'altro sottoinsieme sono i catto-comunisti
e questa è una tua personale interpretazione.


ben fondata nelle scempiaggini che scrivi, come la distinzione tra
cattolici - inquisitori e non.


se te lo dici da solo, sarà sicuramente così.


annotate l'ora, Bombacci e' appena scivolato dallo specchio.