Waters is off the deep end

by Mike McInnis

I respect Roger Waters as an insightful writer of social commentary, and I certainly respect his right to hold (and express) whatever crazy opinions he wants. But in saying that he understands the motivations of the terrorists who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks on the New York and Washington, Waters goes too far.

I remember reading those comments on Echoes, a Pink Floyd fan e-mail list, back in October 2001, and I remember quite well the sense of outrage that many fans--both American and non-American--felt about them.

Sure, this was the same Roger Waters who has attacked Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan and George Bush and a host of other conservative political figures, and I don't have a problem with that. I tend to agree with him on those points. The part that bothered me--and a lot of other fans--was the fact that the Roger Waters of old would have been the first to denounce the terrorists attacks as wanton, and needlessly destructive, and disrespectful of the lives of those who were killed.

Just like the US's bombing of Tripoli (as described in "Late Home Tonight") or Britain's fairly pointless war in the Falklands to repel the invading Argentinians (as described in The Final Cut), the attacks on the US were ugly, horrible acts of violence that have no place in a civilized society. To say that you understand the motivations of the attackers sounds a lot like a justification and acceptance of the attacks.

What hurt even more was the timing of the comment. Think back to the general sentiment in the air during those days and weeks following the attacks. We--as a united global population, largely--felt shocked, and frightened, and a little unsure of what to expect next. We seemed to stagger about in a daze, going through the motions of or daily routines, but largely bewildered and traumatized. It felt like the world could never be the same as it had once been. I distinctly remember a late night talk show host, on his first night back on the air, saying that the show was going to be pretty serious for a while, and that he wasn't sure if we would ever feel like laughing again. And I remember knowing exactly what he meant.

Two years later, most of those wounds have healed. Even though there is still a lot of wretched, regrettable fallout from 9/11 going on (in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and elsewhere), our lives have indeed returned to their crass, self-centered pre-9/11 status. But Waters' words still sting a little. Calling America's response to the attacks 'isolationist' and 'infantile' is unacceptable. An attack of that magnitude--against unsuspecting civilians and without any real goal to be attained or cause to be furthered--is absolutely senseless, and should be mourned, rather than used as a opportunity to snipe at the victim.

Is the US perfect? No. Has the Bush administration run roughshod over the rights of its citizens and over the international community in the last two years? Absolutely. Did the war in Iraq make the world a better place, where old heroes can shuffle safely down the street? Almost certainly not. But to stick our collective head in the sand and pretend that there aren't evil people in this world who want nothing more, apparently, than to inflict pain upon Americans for no other reason than the fact that they are American is not wise.

Many noted left-leaning celebrities such as songwriter Neil Young and Nobel laureate (and Holocaust survivor) Elie Wiesel spoke out strongly against the terrorists in the wake of 9/11. But Roger Waters has changed over the years, no doubt about it. The Roger Waters of old would not be condoning terrorism and murder, no matter what political cause the terrorists were supporting. The Roger Waters of old would morn the fact that a lot of little kids in New York City are growing up fatherless just because some unhappy zealot decided that flying a jumbo jet into daddy's office building was a nice way to make a statement.

Was it for this that Daddy died?

Mike McInnis is a staff writer for Spare Bricks.

Waters is right on

by Chris Hogan

"You zap and maim with the bravery of being out of range." After decades of lyrics with similar sentiments, you'd think by now people would be aware of Roger's views on armed warfare. Yet every time he elaborates his opinions in interviews, there always seems to be a group of people who are either surprised or outraged. Most recently, his comments on the 'War On Terror' have invited all sorts of harsh criticism--none of which, in my view, is entirely justified.

For a start, if the 'War On Terror' really is about protecting and furthering democracy, then surely the people who support the War should be welcoming Roger's comments, since free speech is one of the things we're supposedly fighting for. Suppressing the views of the general public is one of the methods used by dictators like Hussein to help maintain their hold on power. It seems strange that people can support the right of the Iraqi citizenry to free speech, yet at the same time they chastise those at home who exercise the same privelege.

Besides, most of what Roger said has been taken grossly out of context, or been misquoted. As far as I'm aware, Roger has *never* come out in support of Al Queda or Saddam Hussein, and he has never said that America deserved to be attacked. A Brazilian journalist did write that Roger 'understands the motivations of the hijackers of the planes'. This is not a direct quote, so it may be creative paraphrasing on the interviewer's part. But even if it is representative of how Roger feels, it still doesn't make him a terrorist sympathiser. Surely it's possible to understand why something happens without condoning it? In the very same interview Roger said that he thought the attacks were 'terrible'.

Roger probably also understands why the US reacted to 9/11 by bombing small countries, but he doesn't support that, either. He called the Afghanistan exercise an 'unjust war', and pointed out that the money could have been more productively spent elsewhere, like upgrading security at home. In my opinion, Rog is right on the mark here. The attack on Afghanistan cost around $40 billion. According to the U.N., that's enough to provide the essentials of life to everyone in the world. In particular, the invasion of Iraq cost around $50 billion. That's enough to give over $2000 to every person living in Iraq.

And speaking of Iraq, Rog pulled out all stops earlier this year when he said he believed the recent attack on the country to be solely motivated by oil. We can all draw our own conclusions on that one. If the US really wanted to oust Hussein, why did they wait 20 years to do it? If the attack was motivated by a regard for the Iraqi people, why is nothing being done to improve their lot now that the conflict is over? If they wanted to storm Hussein's palace and force regime change, why did they spend the first two weeks of the invasion securing the oil rich fields of Basra? Why did they broadcast messages urging the Iraqi people not to destroy the oil wells? Why was the attack planned only after Baghdad announced that it would switch its oil transaction currency from the US dollar to the Euro?

I'm sure that nobody was upset to see Hussein thrown out of power, but that doesn't mean that skepticism for the US Government's motives isn't warranted--especially since the 'Weapons Of Mass Destruction' have proven elusive, and Tony Blair's infamous dossier has since been shown to contain information that is up to fourteen years old--dating from a time when the US considered Hussein an ally, before the first Gulf War and the subsequent disarming of Iraq.

But more than anything else, I believe that Roger is right to criticise the US government's policy because ultimately, the two major invasions since 9/11 have both been utter failures. Both have failed to stop terrorism and neither have brought the guilty to justice. Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are still free men. It's the 12000+ innocent people who were blown apart in their sleep who have paid the price of America's freedom.

Chris Hogan is a staff writer for Spare Bricks.