|
i am simply suspicious about the links between the attackers and al qeada.
it is not that i exclude the possibility--i just view claims about the link with a bit of suspicion.
it seems to me that the attacks were a self-evidently symbolic act that required no further elaboration--the symbols of american economic and military hegemoy (plus a field in pennsylvania).
it seems that bin laden et al moved symmetrically with the bush administration into the frame set by the narrative and that both have marketed the hell out of that.
the curious thing is that none of the narrative has to be true for the narrative to operate effectively. it seems to me that the story floated to "explain" the attacks were almost entirely about enabling a response of some kind, no matter how incoherent, first and then became a device to advance the administration's policies and the administration itself.
in the play "the man in the glass booth" the main character is a jewish guy who pretends to be eichmann and who is arrested as eichman and put on trial as eichman. in the context of his tesitmony, a question is asked concerning the appeal of fascism for "eichman" the response is: "he told us what it was that we were afraid of"
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|