"Working together for a free Cuba"




The Che's beret.
By Pilar Rahola

Sometime I write that the strategic target of terrorism isnít, 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 donít destroy ourselves in the process. Itís a complex discussion, with a lot of uncomfortable ramifications, among them the necessary but ever polemic extension of the policeís performance capability.

Personally I focuses in one aspect of this debate that I was deal in some occasions in reference to the immigrantsí 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 isnít a menace, but he enriches the pluralism. But, on the contrary, an Imam that, whereas pry with his people, use the Godís 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 isnít 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 Barcelonaís 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 Barcelonaís citizen? Donít 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 donít 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 Teoís mother, he spits her scorn: ďI donít feel sorrow of you, because you are an unbelieverĒ.

How is possible that we donít see yet? When I hear the Spanish Interior Minister, just after the Blairís petition to control the radical Imams, saying in a political correct grammar that ďWe donít do this in Spain because we respect the worship freedomĒ, 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 isnít worst ignorant that a sincere ignorant. No Sir Minister, no. This donít deal with worship freedom, and havenít nothing to do with any romantic process of people emancipation, and we donít be in front of generous liberators, whose despair lead them to give their lives. The Teoís murder donít fight because famine in Africa, and he probably donít know that in Zimbabwe they are destroying thousands of homes in a brutal and unpunished process of generalized repression. The Madridís murders havenít 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 Zarqabiís terrorists donít fight for Iraqís 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 ódespite the tens of dead that accumulate in years of murders ódonít have trouble them. Excessively entertained pounding Israel and United States. In this improvised analysis, almost no one of them has take out the Cheís 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 oneÖ

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 arenít 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 arenít facing a liberation fight. On the contrary, we are facing a fight that looks destroy freedom. We arenít 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 arenít in front to a religious fact. We are confronting a totalitarian ideology that uses the religion to destroy minds. If we donít understand this phenomena like a supra national ideology, totalitarian in its basis, and nihilist by conviction and perfectly fixed in power structures, we donít 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 nihilismís 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 donít 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