0 notes "You’ll get over it…” It’s the clichés that cause the trouble. To lose someone you love is to alter your life for ever. You don’t get over it because ‘it” is the person you loved. The pain stops, there are new people, but the gap never closes. How could it? The particularness of someone who mattered enough to grieve over is not made anodyne by death. This hole in my heart is in the shape of you and no-one else can fit it. Why would I want them to?"
70 notes "Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget
falls drop by drop upon the heart,
until, in our own despair,
against our will,
through the awful grace of God."
— Aeschylus as quoted by Robert F. Kennedy in his speech announcing the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. (via nakedpersons)
9 notes "I had this side to my nature which saw reason in all things. I was the one who had an earnest and serious air at school, which he would imitate and mock. You understand, of course, I was far less serious than he was, it was just that I hated confrontation. It didn’t stop me doing whatever I wished or doing things the way I wanted to. Quite early on I had discovered the overlooked space open to those of us with a silent life. I didn’t argue with the policeman who said I couldn’t cycle over a certain bridge or through a specific gate in the fort—I just stood there, still, until I was invisible, and then I went through. Like a cricket. Like a hidden cup of water."
— The English Patient, Michael Ondaatje (via verkur)
36 notes "No doubt some acts of terrorism are quite indiscriminate and specifically designed to spread fear and demoralization; but what then of Dresden, Hiroshima, or Nagasaki, in which the major purpose of the exercise was to terrify and demoralize — in modern parlance, to create “shock and awe” to win the conflict? All of these questions are directly relevant to multiple crises in the Muslim world — and outside. There is nothing at all “Muslim” about these situations — except that Islamic solidarity may well strengthen the will to resist.
Despite these questions, it would be wrong to simply define away the existence of terrorism through facile and slippery definitions of relative justice. Terrorism does exist and is a scourge upon society. People who commit terrorist acts are often brutal and psychotic, on the fringes of society, engaged in criminal activities, or powerfully driven ideological zealots. But not all, by any means. Severe conditions such as oppression and war elicit a violent response from undesirable social elements, as well as from many other citizens. The definition chosen for terrorism must be consistently applied. Washington’s self-serving & selective use of the term casts doubt over its legal, analytic, and persuasive validity and largely undermines its case in the eyes of the world, not to mention in the Muslim world.
Most Muslims fighting in the name of nationalist grievances, like other nationalists, must not be treated as “terrorists” but as political opponents whose needs require some kind of political treatment or negotiation. Insurgency may be “illegal,” but it is the essence of human response to unjust conditions.
To label them strictly as “terrorists” is analytically crude and counterproductive. Authorities endlessly repeat they “will never negotiate…” — until they do; “we will never recognize..” — until we do … The nub of the problem is that we recognize as “resistance” eventually is a political call, depending on whether one favors the authority or the resisters. Major governments around the world talk about principle, but end up choosing their definitions of who is a “terrorist” in accordance with their own transient interests. If we are hung up on the idea that all these movements are driven by some implacable radical Islamic agenda, then we will never find ways to reduce the problem. Nearly all of the movements have nonreligious, ultimately negotiable goals."
— A World Without Islam, Graham E. Fuller