|
|
|
Articles
The Che's beret.
By Pilar Rahola
Sometime I write that the strategic target of terrorism isn’t, in first
instance, kill so much, but kill so much to be able to socialize terror.
Beginning from the moment that fear set up him in the core of a
democratic society, and with it set up the uncertainty about security
(maybe the most valuable possession of a free society), begins almost in
parallel the democratic restriction. We can say that in the basis of the
terrorism totalitarian actuation is, overall, the Hill to destroy the
freedom principles. And the free societies that have to fight with the
difficult challenge to not fall in the trap that the totalitarianism
pose to us, while we increase our security levels. This balance, that
Tony Blair has faced from the first day of the terrorist attack, with a
remarkable leadership capacity, is the key for get the double and
necessary objective: to defeat terrorism, and don’t destroy ourselves in
the process. It’s a complex discussion, with a lot of uncomfortable
ramifications, among them the necessary but ever polemic extension of
the police’s performance capability.
Personally I focuses in one aspect of this debate that I was deal in
some occasions in reference to the immigrants’ rights and duties that
arrives to our society, specially the immigrants with Islamic culture,
the control of the radical religious leaders. That is to say, the
performances that the democratic society have to do for guarantee the
worship freedom and its multi religious nature, and at the some time,
the determined protection against those that used G-d to teach hatred
the others, to denigrate freedom, to despise women and love dead. An
Imam that pries every Friday with his people in the Mosque is a man that
works the spiritual transcendence in a collective fashion. Not only he
isn’t a menace, but he enriches the pluralism. But, on the contrary, an
Imam that, whereas pry with his people, use the God’s name for destroy
the freedom system where he lives, is a militant, an ideology, in this
case of a totalitarian ideology. Ergo, is an enemy. Since this, his
Mosque isn’t a worship place, but a recruiting, training and
lobotomization center for citizens. As such, the democratic society has
to detect him, neutralize him and defend to the citizens from his
destructive work. How many years ago that some of us warned in this
sense? Have we to remember that in Barcelona’s Mosques they recruit
citizens to fight in Afghanistan in behalf of Al Qaedda? Have we
remembered that one of the first that died in Iraq against the allies
was a Barcelona’s citizen? Don’t stop to be tiring, at least, to us that
have write a lot and clear, to see the general surprise of our societies
at the fact that the English terrorists were born in England. What were
we waiting? At what we were surprised? Why we have to suppose that the
Islamic integrism don’t recruit people in the core of our societies,
where precisely the freedom system guaranteed them an extraordinary
movement capability? Worse of all, often form them, prepared them, gives
to them the technique and the capability and even subsidize them. The
killer of the film producer Teo Van Gogh received subsidies from the
Dutch government and in the trial, looking face to face to Teo’s mother,
he spits her scorn: “I don’t feel sorrow of you, because you are an
unbeliever”.
How is possible that we don’t see yet? When I hear the Spanish Interior
Minister, just after the Blair’s petition to control the radical Imams,
saying in a political correct grammar that “We don’t do this in Spain
because we respect the worship freedom”, I have the impression that I be
ruled by truly imbeciles. Or worse, by honest dreamers, whose
ingenuousness at last will be destructive. Sorry that I fall in the
temptation of quoting myself, that goes to the point. Many years ago I
said that there isn’t worst ignorant that a sincere ignorant. No Sir
Minister, no. This don’t deal with worship freedom, and haven’t nothing
to do with any romantic process of people emancipation, and we don’t be
in front of generous liberators, whose despair lead them to give their
lives. The Teo’s murder don’t fight because famine in Africa, and he
probably don’t know that in Zimbabwe they are destroying thousands of
homes in a brutal and unpunished process of generalized repression. The
Madrid’s murders haven’t the purpose of release any people; on the
contrary, they were moved by a fight in behalf a regime where any
freedom is possible. And, it results evident; the Al Zarqabi’s
terrorists don’t fight for Iraq’s freedom, but for subject the
population to a tyrannical regime. Were the Taliban liberators? Is Al
Qaedda? Despite the obvious of the negative response, our Society
continues distilling that kind of paternalist and romantic discourse
that draws the terrorist like that they were a kind of inheritors of the
past revolutionary epics. Many intellectuals and most of the left wing
politics, in the very Spain, have thrower themselves improvise and at
full speed to analyze the Islamic terrorist phenomena, a phenomena that
at now —despite the tens of dead that accumulate in years of murders
—don’t have trouble them. Excessively entertained pounding Israel and
United States. In this improvised analysis, almost no one of them has
take out the Che’s beret, and worst, they have given the beret to Bin
Laden. Libertarian myths against the imperialist oppression, heroes that
gamble their life, and the Empire, that always counterattacks. The weak
one fighting against the strong one…
The world is very unjust, and a substantial part of the injustices are
our blame. The critical thinking, is not only necessary, but is
essential. But all this that make sense by the democratic defense
perspective, have nothing to do with the Islamic integrism and with the
war that declares against us many years ago. We aren’t facing poor
people, but we are in front of very rich structures, sustained by
countries and fortunes perfectly delimited, and that at now they act
with total impunity. We aren’t facing a liberation fight. On the
contrary, we are facing a fight that looks destroy freedom. We aren’t in
front people that confront the imperialism. What kind of imperialism
they killed in AMIA, in Buenos Aires? What kind of imperialism among the
tens of dead in Bali? And this with a switch, the most convincing,
destructive, and, nowadays, effective imperialism is just the integrist
Islam.
Take a look to the Coranic (MADRAZAS), from Malaysia to Sudan, from
Pakistan to Syria. We aren’t in front to a religious fact. We are
confronting a totalitarian ideology that uses the religion to destroy
minds. If we don’t understand this phenomena like a supra national
ideology, totalitarian in its basis, and nihilist by conviction and
perfectly fixed in power structures, we don’t understand nothing. We can
go to Iraq and come back, we can take of the troops or bring them again.
We can behave ourselves so well that everyday we ask forgiveness, like
seems to do Zapatero each two weeks. Even we can do juggler plays in the
public square, to see if some circus hires us. But nothing that we do
have to do with the integrist nihilism’s interest. They use concrete
causes more or less attractive, but the only cause that move them is the
Islamic Revolution. And they declare war for this cause. Many decades
ago. As much as the dead preceding Madrid or London we don’t want to
count them. As much as never have disturbed us the victims from Buenos
Aires to Jerusalem, from Kenya to Turkey. Is the European history, to
look to the other side when totalitarianism faces to us. Chamberlain
believed that he can deal with the Devil. Until the Devil attacks
London.
Tra. Isidoro Winicki
|
|