Robert Sharp

I’ve just read an interesting post from Adloyada, musing on the clichés of ‘radical’ chic, after her daughter spotted some Che Guevara curtains in a Highgate shop:

Meanwhile my daughter is now thinking of silkscreening some blind fabric herself with an image of zionist-socialist pioneers…same sort of visual iconography, but with altogether more acceptable associations.

Of course, some people might find those patterns as offensive as Adloyada finds the Che iconography.

I was reminded of that other clichéd expression “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” this morning, listening to an edition of the BBC Radio 4 programme The Reunion, in which fellow political prisoners incarcerated on Robben Island spoke about their time there. There was a clip from the South African Prime Minister - either Vorster or Botha - taking the moral high-ground, saying they would not negotiate with revolutionaries. Their successor F.W. de Klerk did just that, however. Its heartening to remember that it was negotiation, and not blood-shed, which brought about a change in the system in South Africa.

A final, releated saying is: “Terrorism is the poor mans war; War is the rich man’s terrorism.” German artist Stephan Müller has produced Terrorism… & The War Against It; or: Corporate Design done with Dedication, a book of photograph, which explores the imagery of terrorism. He also created an accompanying icon set, downloadable as a free font set, which includes the logos for such popular armed groups such as Haganah, the IRA, ETA, Al-Qaeda… and the US Navy Seals.

I happened to catch an interesting CCN-IBN special news report this evening, discussing the aftermath of the bombings in Malegon three days ago, where a Muslim cemetary was attacked during Friday prayers. We were shown footage of a Hindu man returing to buy groceries from a stall opposite the blast site. Unafraid to visit the vicinity of the attack, and unwilling to disrupt his routine, he made a point of taking his eleven-year-old son along with him. There were also scenes of Hindus queuing to give blood, to help the Muslim victims of the blast.

Whatever the religion of the interviewees, the message was unianimous: “They are trying to divide us, and we won’t let them.”

On the fifth anniversary of the atrocities on the World Trade Centre, we will ask ourselves again: “What was the aim of the hijackers when they did this? What was Osama Bin Laden’s purpose?” The attacks on the world trade centre ignited a global conflict that has polarised world opinion, and ostracised an entire race of people. Sure, we didn’t start the conflict… but I cannot help thinking that we rose to the bait. When, on 14th September 2001, George W Bush named the ‘War on Terror’, it was seen as the beginning of the Fight Back. But it was also endorsement of the enemy’s terms of reference. That was the real defeat, and it happened after only three days.

At Comment is Free, Sunny asks why newspapers are beginning to turn against bloggers. Are they worried about competition? Is building something up then tearing it down just how newspapers work? Or are the columnists scared of the militant and unfettered argument?

One thing I’ve noticed is that blogs have become, for me, sign-posts to the newspapers, and not the other way around. Take a couple of articles on how to combat terrorism which I read online. My attention was drawn to them by bloggers, not headlines on the news-stand! First, I come to this opinion piece by Sam Leith via Tim Worstall:

The terrorists succeeded: they caused terror … More and more, I wonder about something. What if, after the attacks on the World Trade Centre or the London Underground, the West had taken a difficult and strange course of action, and done nothing at all? What if we had, as a society, turned the other cheek: mourned our dead, rebuilt our cities and allowed the senselessness of the attacks to stand exposed for what it was?

I’ve been whining for a more radical and unexpected, even counter-intuitive approach for a while now, although I have not had the guts to stand up and say that perhaps we should simply turn the other cheek. Leith fills that gap, Worstall agrees its something to consider, and there is an interesting discussion in his comments box.

Meanwhile, it is via Rachel From North London, in turn via Chicken Yoghurt, that the latest column by the fantastic Matthew Parris: “Let’s treat the plotters as common criminals, not soldiers in a global war”:

How sides seem to have been switched since the last century turned. Rebels and mutineers used to insist that there was a war on, and governments used to insist that there wasn’t. Hardliners took the view that people who blew things up were common criminals, to be dealt with case by case. Liberals argued that it was more useful to see them as idealists in a warped and misguided army … Now it’s the other way round. Hardliners see a war between opposing forces. Liberals see a more fractured picture, a rebel cast of dangerous but messed-up people, idiots, nutters and psychopaths, some organised, some clever, others out of control: essentially a matter, however grave, for the police.

Hopefully I will be another link in the chain, as people click through from here to read Parris’ thoughts in full.

Crucially though, I haven’t bought either The Telegraph (Leith) or The Times (Parris). I have, however, become extremely efficient at recieving the benefit of their wisdom, for free. Newspapers should be worried by blogs, because blogs increase the likelihood that the likes of me are essentially ‘free-loading’ on the papers’ good work. I’ve certainly bought less newspapers in the past year. Worse still for the newspapers, I think I have a right to do so. Newspapers form an important of public discourse, facilitating the democratic debate before any democratic vote. With the right to free speech comes the right to listen uninterrupted, and if they put their content behind an Independent-style firewall, they will hear me moan. The business side of newspaper publishing is hindered by their aspiration to facilitate the public good.

We might be able to tolerate this is the case of behemoths like the Telegraph Group and News International, who can in any case plug the leak by selling online advertising. But what of the chap who runs the corner shop below my flat? Selling copies of The Telegraph and The Times are an important loss-leader for him. My failure to buy the papers, and instead read the juicy bits from each from three-storeys up, could begin to impact upon his ability to stay in business.

I’m off to buy a pint of milk before he closes.

There is a word I know exists but cannot remember. One applies it to a piece of art, which inspires in the viewer those things described or otherwise portrayed by that art. Jack Kerouac’s On The Road provokes a spotaneity that emulates Dean Moriatry’s anarchic carpe diem. I read Nick Hornby’s Fever Pitch immediately before the 1998 World Cup, and I recall it had the effect of making a football obsessive out of me, when I hadn’t been before.

Whatever the name of this trait, I find it also applies to Terry Gilliam films. Fear And Loathing in Las Vegas is the best example for obvious reasons, and today I am beginning to think Brazil may be another. I saw it again on Saturday evening, and by Monday morning I was seeing totalitarian beuracracy everywhere.

So: Is it just me, or is the government’s threat graph designed for the sole purpose of striking fear into the population? It is very difficult to see what use it can be.

First, the system just gives a status, a ‘threat level’. It will not give any specifics, so the proles will not know where on these isles is at risk of attack. Second: In what ways should we act differently in the event of a heightened alert? If we are at Level 1, does that mean I can ignore those suspicious packages I find on the train? At what point should we stop using public transport altogether? Without context, it is useless information.

Most importantly, though, is that this system does half of the terrorists work for them. The system of threats without information will only serve to strike fear - terror, if you will - in the minds of the populous. At the very least, it will cause massive inconvenience for those trying to go about their daily business, to say nothing of the effect on commerce. To announce to the country that a terrorist attack is imminent, but then give no information as to its possible form or location, will surely breed suspicion and uncertainty in the financial markets.

The parallels with dystopian fiction are so startling, I’m surprised that Ministers aren’t more self-aware as they trot out lines from Brazil and its ilk. Ministers go on TV and announce banalities such as Vigilance Saves Lives. Then (as happened on BBC News 24 this morning) they talk about what their system will report when terrorists attacks increase (not if). And all the time, anonymous terrorists move among us. We don’t know or care why they might be attempting to blow us up, just that it could happen at any moment. When it does, we are told to “carry on as normal” and remained unbowed, despite the fact that ‘normal’ is now synonymous with a threat rating of ’severe’.

The publishing of these threat levels is yet another desperate action of a government that has lost the trust of the people. Whatever the pronouncements of Lord Hutton, the Kelly inquiry proved that intelligence service decisions are subject to political interference. When caught doing this, the politicians are without contrition. Jean Charles De Menezes proved that the security services make mistakes, and that when they do, no-one will take responsibility.

Does the government imagine that this system will be trusted? Do they really think that we will use it for anything other than rueful satire?

Plenty of discussion on the blogs and in the media about the london bombings, this time last year, notably from survivors such as the irrepressible Rachel and the idosyncratic Dave Taurus.

The bombings were a terrible punctuation to a bizarre week. The previous Saturday, I had worn white and joined the Make Poverty History march, along with thousands of others. It was a hot day, and we stopped half-way round to have a pint on George IV Bridge. We chatted to a couple who had taken a bus from Bristol to join in the event. The G8 summit was about to start, and there was a feeling of optimisim in the air. It was genuine.

Watching the ‘Live 8′ highlights on TV that evening, and later that week when another concert was staged at Murrayfield, it seemed to me that those events had a certain falseness. Jonathan Ross and his interviewees kept talking about what an historic concert Live 8 would be, before it had even begun. The whole event was a paean to the original Live Aid concert, a consolation prize for those who had missed it first time around. I remember saying that you cannot package and market those moments that will define a decade, and that history has a certain spontenaity - it does not take place at a pre-arranged meeting point.

Of course, the following day four guys went straight ahead and made some real history, at their own pre-arranged meeting point. Not only did they destroy lives and property, but they destroyed the sense of optimism, a rising tide of political activity and awareness, that had been swelling over the previous week. And do you know what? One year on, I don’t think we have regained that momentum. Instead we flounder in scandal and misdirection.

The US government suggests that the suicides at Guantanamo Bay were some kind of “asymetrical warfare”. Not Little England comments on the preposterous White House spin:

Well, there you have it. I mean, how do you win a war against a enemy who kill themselves before you get the chance? Frankly I reckon the US might as well throw in the towel right now…

And this succinctness from Pigdogfucker:

“Damn those evil terrorists, doing themselves in just to spite us,” say the Americans.

Although the language used is poor, the US Government have a point… in that the men in Camp Delta were trying to make a point themselves. However, the Bush Administration deftly sows another illogical idea: That by committing suicide in prison, they are comparable to suicide bombers. The US Government spokesman declared today that the bodies of the three men were being treated with respect, in accordance with religious practice. At the same time, they have been smeared as terrorists, despite having been charged with no crime. Any gesture towards religious customs is vaccuous.

Taking the American analysis of the situation at face value, we must conclude that the “warfare” waged by these prisoners was successful. It is clear a strategy must be developed to protect decent people from similar “attacks”. How about: guards on suicide watch; and of course, less suicidal conditions at Camp Delta? A time-table for trial or release of the remaining detainees would be a start.

To be fair, Gary, its the attitude that’s all wrong. Some have said that its better to get a result, than to play the game in the way its meant to be played. Now that attitude might go down well with some fans, but for the majority that excuse is just not going to cut it. The fact is, Gary, the opposition came out early, took us by surprise, and put us off our game. We’ve gone on the defensive, and the fans are saying “what’s going on here, I don’t recognise this team any more.” They’re not playing the kind of game that made the fans support them in the first place. Maybe you’ll get away with it if you’re playing school-boy stuff, Gary, but not at this level. The fans deserve the best.

At the end of the day, Gary, the manager is not handling this right. For the team to play so badly frustrates the fans, and for the manager to say “everything is fine” is just insulting. At the start of the season, Gary, the manager can, when all is said and done, rely on the fans to get behind him and the team, and if they slip-up once or twice, then they’ll take it on the chin and say “well, OK, this is our team, and they’re bound to make a few mistakes, but at least we’re trying to play properly.” And the fans have got to appreciate that mistakes might get made, its not going to be 101% right, 101% of the time. But when the manager says that everything is fine, but the fans can see for themselves that this is not quite right, well, you’ve got to question the manager’s judgement Gary. He can’t just say “trust me, I’m the manager” and do nothing, because the same mistakes are going to be made again. At some point, the fans are going to stop supporting the team, and when that happens, the opposition wins.

And then there’s this talk of a new manager. The fans don’t know who to look to Gary. You’ve got players going on press conferences and not knowing what to say. They don’t even know if they’re going to be in the team next week, or what position they’re playing. That’s not good for the side. Its not good for the fans. Its not good for the game.

You can’t simply say that we need to win this at any cost, Gary. This game doesn’t work like that. If you cheat, as we’ve seen some players do in the last few games, then the whole game gets devalued. The fans at home are going to switch off. Winning is important Gary, but you have to win right, even if that means going to extra time, or a replay. Its a beautiful game, Gary, but by the time we declare “mission accomplished” we want to be worthy champions. In spirit as well as letter, Gary. At the moment, I’m just wondering whether any fans will be left in the stadium to watch us lift the trophy.

The news channels are eagerly following the aftermath of the raid on a house in Forest Gate. Police officers are searching the house from top-to-bottom with massive vaccum cleaners, apparently.

With the talk of evidence gathering and ‘credible intelligence’ I cannot help thinking of the 90 day detention proposition that the government put before the House of Commons. If the police find evidence and proceed quickly to a charge, that would lend some weight to the suggestion that the police do not actually need 90 days worth of intrest free credit.

What if they don’t find the evidence? Does that validate the supporters, or opponents of 90 day detention? The former group would say that we’ve let a crimminal walk free. The latter group would suggest that the authorities had made a mistake, and thank goodness no-one has been detained for 90 days without trial.

It is obviously a set of un-falsifiable hypotheticals at present. But it will be interesting to see for just how long Messers Kahar and Koyar are detained.

I have always worried that a movie titled Twin Towers would become inevitable at some point. A woman working in Tower 1, say, with her fiance in Tower 2. Together with his brother the fireman, they hurry up the steps when everyone else is rushing down… starring Ben Affleck, and an array of computer generated reconstructions of the destruction.

Flight 93 is a different sort of film, I hope. It is the story of the people who overcame the hijackers of the plane which was on its way to Washington and the Capitol Building. However, The Daily Dish thinks it is too soon for a movies about their actions:

Sometimes, the greatest deeds, like the most monstrous acts, are best left unrepresented. They stand alone. They demand to be left alone. One day, commemmorate. But do not so swiftly represent. Shakespeare often left the greatest moments in his plays off-stage. They have more power there.

I imagine that one impact of their actions is that it is now virtually impossible to use a passenger aircraft to perpetrate an act of mass terrorism. This is not because of increased security on the planes, or better, tougher surveillance at the airports. Rather, it is because the fact of 9/11 changes the attitudes of the people on board hijacked planes. While the passengers of Flights 11, 175 and 77 believed that they might escape unharmed if they sat tight, the passengers on Flight 93 were under no illusion as to their fate. Using aeroplanes as a weapon of mass destruction became obsolete at half past nine that morning, while Flight 93 was still in the air.

Six months on from 7th July, Rachel from north London and her friends demonstrate how to combat terrorism:

The bomber hated us all, he didn’t care who died, he wanted to kill as many as he could. The more I know of people from my train, the more I look at strangers - anyone - and see in them a fellow passenger on a journey. One man on a train with hate in his heart and a bomb on his back, seeking to divide and kill, versus dozens of passengers drawing together, caring for each other, comforting each other, remembering the dead and injured and bereaved - and celebrating life with new friends.

Out of such terrible darkness, light has come.

As we said in the pub ‘Take that, terrorists. Cheers’

*clink*