<underfire> disappearance

[Allan Siegel]

Hello

Says Steve: “The point is that acts of state terror have never have  
been invisible, indeed the opposite is true because the acts are  
paraded in front of the world as 'worthy acts'.” If this were in fact  
true, than tribunals such as that sitting in The Hague would be  
redundant. And, instead of investigators we would just need fact- 
checkers. It would be useful to define exactly what are ‘acts of  
terror’ – state or otherwise. Mainly because the use of certain terms  
without an explanation of what lies behind them is not always so  
clear or obvious. My point is that acts of state terror arrive in all  
forms and with different objectives and many clearly intended to be  
hidden.

Individual acts of terror (suicide bombings and other acts conducted  
under the auspices or sponsorship of quasi-governmental or political  
bodies) and institutionally or militarily organized acts of terror  
are political weapons are they not? On one level they are simply  
distinguishable in the choice of weaponry and scale. In either  
situation there is an ideological basis for their utilization. There  
is a lengthy time span that marks the evolution of these strategies  
just as there is sequence of occurances relating to a ‘critical  
disappearance’ in regards to resistance. More specificity, it would  
seem to me that those with the wherewithal (and analysis) should be  
thinking more in terms of a critical re-appearance and ultra- 
visibility rather than the opposite.

The purpose/s of the  “machinery of the state” (“the postmodern  
state”) are not quite so difficult to comprehend; certain machines  
are deliberately secret and invisible (and easy to fetishise).  
However, the objectives regarding the deployment and utilization of  
this apparatus is not so obscure. Isn’t this part of the ‘shock and  
awe’ strategy that was supposed to bring democracy to Iraq? Stealth  
fighters, drones, the full arsenal of hi-tech weaponry is utlized  
daily in Iraq and Gaza; for what final purpose and with what success?

As I commented earlier, what is problematic in Irving’s formulation  
(regardless of its interesting observations) is the absence of  
context and the sweeping assumptions. What I fail to see is its  
applicability in terms of other points that have been raised here.  
More specifically: what State? What democracy? Where or how one can  
engage (resist) specific govermental policies can no longer be bound  
by one dimensional portraits of contemporary reality. There are, as  
Alain states various, ‘zones’ – “zones forming constellations of  
democracy or free market…  zones in crisis, zones of barbaric  
violence, social wastelands and slow or rapid genocide”  -  they are  
in a state of constant flux.

Two brief addenda here: Thank you Michael for bringing ‘liberation  
theology’ into the discussion about evangelical internationalism (the  
treatment of Ernesto Cardinal and Camillo Torres by the Catholic  
Church could amplify this area since I believe the rise of  
evangelical movement in parts of central and latin america coincides  
with the suppression of liberation theology).

Also, Steve, though I know who Levinas is I can’t say that I have  
read him.

Thanks all
a.s.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://underfire.eyebeam.org/pipermail/underfire/attachments/20061119/89448667/attachment-0001.html