As every true to himself biker, I used to get much enjoyment by following at the beginning of each year the tough, spectacular and often dramatic Dakar raid. It’s coverage by the media brought closer to me the tension and the effort some people are willing to put themselves through in order to be able to say: “I’ve been there, I’ve done that” and I admire this.
I am not talking here about the impressive factory teams, the professional riders and their small support “armies”, although, even being highly backed-up this rally-raid is massively difficult. Who are the people my heart always stood by during this race were the many “anonymous” riders, the private small teams, the guys who sometimes put their entire lives on the line only to be, at least once, part of this mythical adventure.
And here came 2008, with the bewildering announcement that the Dakar is canceled! And why!? Because of terrorist threats!!!
The organizers, based on intelligence gathered by the French (and allied) secret services, revealing serious threats by Al-Qaeda targeting the event, decided to give in and pull the plug on the event. Immediately two major streams of opinion emerged: the one that with sad bitterness saw the victory of terror over freedom and acknowledged the organizers right to decide not to put through the risk of armed attack the participants to the race, and the other, more belligerent, that loudly stated that one shouldn’t give in to terrorist threats because if one does, there is no other outcome than loss. And there is truth in both points of view, but “truth” must always be seen in its context.
On one side, as organizer of an event one is responsible for at least its peaceful and “as close to the plan” undergoing. Can you imagine a teacher taking his class on a trip to a Zoo where he knows the lions, venomous snakes and rhinoceros have escaped their cages and are roaming free on the premises? By no means I want to compare the brave people embarking on the Dakar adventure with a group of helpless school children. All I want to point out is that being aware that absolutely nothing in this world is 100% risk free, when responsible for the well being of others one is entitled and should firmly and responsibly decide how far is he willing to risk it all for the sake of the project. And the argument that this rally-raid is not “safe” in the first place is not a valid one, on the simple grounds that the otherwise numerous risks the participants would face throughout the race are totally different in nature than the ones that led to this year’s event cancellation. It’s like saying that free-climbers should be left as targets to snipers and sharpshooters only because going up a rock mountain face without safety cords, relying only on your hands, feet strength and sense of balance is already dangerous, so why bother... So, as “owners” of the project, the organizers were fully entitled to say: “We do not want to undertake this risk. We do not want to be responsible, even only morally, for the injury or loss of even a single participant to this race, caused by terrorist actions.” And it is their undeniable right to do so.
On the other hand how do you fight this plague? Certainly not by giving in to threats, because there is no end to this pit. As many of the people angry with the organizer’s decision have noticed, what would prevent the same or other terrorist organization, to reiterate the same threats next year, and the following, and so forth... This is undeniably a valid point, but does not work as a counterpoint to the organizers autonomous right to decide what they are willing to accept as risk factors for their undertaking. If this kind of risk will prove in the future to be as real as it was considered this year to be, then at the expense of loosing it forever, the people organizing this legendary race, are as entitled as they were this year, to cancel it again and again. And as in how I see it, this would be everybody’s loss. And I mean everybody!
What I am not at all clear about, mostly because of my lack of detailed information on the area’s geopolitical configuration and the altogether lack of interest on the general terrorist matter, is Al-Qaeda’s motivation for such action. Do they hold a grunge and want to sabotage Mauritania, and along with it all other African countries that year after year had seen substantial economic benefits from this event? Do they need the hatred of the poor African people that every year since 1979 made a little profit on the side of this race, added to the otherwise already general despise of the western world?
Adventures, world travelers, rally-raid riders and the much more numerous common people looking up to them, are among the more tolerant, opened minded and peaceful people in an otherwise brain washed, consume ridden, self-centered western world. How would alienating and antagonizing this otherwise non-confrontational , potentially friendly category, help your goals, as narrow minded and hateful might they be?
Pushing my tolerant attitude to it’s extreme, I could understand the motivation (but NEVER accept the actions) of terrorist groups, as violent and murderous acts being their only claimed efficient means to make themselves heard. But this would only be understandable if they would to represent and look after the interests of some massive, silent majorities of underprivileged, exploited masses that no one at the world power table listens to because they possess no leverage to make their voice heard. And please don’t tell me about the UN... But as it seems to me, at the present time, terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda only seem to represent an infinite minority of demented fanatics who have decided to terrorize with their primitive violence, resulting from their dumb incapacity to negotiate, the entire civilized world. And this is not acceptable by any standards or under any circumstances.
Don’t let this make you understand that I am an unconditional advocate of what I previously named “the civilized world” because I’m all well aware of it’s (sometimes grave) faults and shortcomings. I am one of the first to acknowledge and point an accusatory finger to it’s selfishness, it’s self indulging blindness for the sufferings in other (vast) parts of the world, to the lazy incapacity of it’s majority to empathically understand that human beings are the same all over this (still) wonderful world, and that the weak, the hungry, the ill and altogether the underprivileged need the solidarity and assistance of the strong and wealthy.
How much wealthier the “civilized” world must get and how much squalid misery the rest of the world must endure until some will stop squeezing other for their last resource and some will stop the mindless random killing of innocent, just to make a point?
I don’t know, but I think that when the Dakar rally-raid will be back on, a step further to a better world will had been made.
I am not talking here about the impressive factory teams, the professional riders and their small support “armies”, although, even being highly backed-up this rally-raid is massively difficult. Who are the people my heart always stood by during this race were the many “anonymous” riders, the private small teams, the guys who sometimes put their entire lives on the line only to be, at least once, part of this mythical adventure.
And here came 2008, with the bewildering announcement that the Dakar is canceled! And why!? Because of terrorist threats!!!
The organizers, based on intelligence gathered by the French (and allied) secret services, revealing serious threats by Al-Qaeda targeting the event, decided to give in and pull the plug on the event. Immediately two major streams of opinion emerged: the one that with sad bitterness saw the victory of terror over freedom and acknowledged the organizers right to decide not to put through the risk of armed attack the participants to the race, and the other, more belligerent, that loudly stated that one shouldn’t give in to terrorist threats because if one does, there is no other outcome than loss. And there is truth in both points of view, but “truth” must always be seen in its context.
On one side, as organizer of an event one is responsible for at least its peaceful and “as close to the plan” undergoing. Can you imagine a teacher taking his class on a trip to a Zoo where he knows the lions, venomous snakes and rhinoceros have escaped their cages and are roaming free on the premises? By no means I want to compare the brave people embarking on the Dakar adventure with a group of helpless school children. All I want to point out is that being aware that absolutely nothing in this world is 100% risk free, when responsible for the well being of others one is entitled and should firmly and responsibly decide how far is he willing to risk it all for the sake of the project. And the argument that this rally-raid is not “safe” in the first place is not a valid one, on the simple grounds that the otherwise numerous risks the participants would face throughout the race are totally different in nature than the ones that led to this year’s event cancellation. It’s like saying that free-climbers should be left as targets to snipers and sharpshooters only because going up a rock mountain face without safety cords, relying only on your hands, feet strength and sense of balance is already dangerous, so why bother... So, as “owners” of the project, the organizers were fully entitled to say: “We do not want to undertake this risk. We do not want to be responsible, even only morally, for the injury or loss of even a single participant to this race, caused by terrorist actions.” And it is their undeniable right to do so.
On the other hand how do you fight this plague? Certainly not by giving in to threats, because there is no end to this pit. As many of the people angry with the organizer’s decision have noticed, what would prevent the same or other terrorist organization, to reiterate the same threats next year, and the following, and so forth... This is undeniably a valid point, but does not work as a counterpoint to the organizers autonomous right to decide what they are willing to accept as risk factors for their undertaking. If this kind of risk will prove in the future to be as real as it was considered this year to be, then at the expense of loosing it forever, the people organizing this legendary race, are as entitled as they were this year, to cancel it again and again. And as in how I see it, this would be everybody’s loss. And I mean everybody!
What I am not at all clear about, mostly because of my lack of detailed information on the area’s geopolitical configuration and the altogether lack of interest on the general terrorist matter, is Al-Qaeda’s motivation for such action. Do they hold a grunge and want to sabotage Mauritania, and along with it all other African countries that year after year had seen substantial economic benefits from this event? Do they need the hatred of the poor African people that every year since 1979 made a little profit on the side of this race, added to the otherwise already general despise of the western world?
Adventures, world travelers, rally-raid riders and the much more numerous common people looking up to them, are among the more tolerant, opened minded and peaceful people in an otherwise brain washed, consume ridden, self-centered western world. How would alienating and antagonizing this otherwise non-confrontational , potentially friendly category, help your goals, as narrow minded and hateful might they be?
Pushing my tolerant attitude to it’s extreme, I could understand the motivation (but NEVER accept the actions) of terrorist groups, as violent and murderous acts being their only claimed efficient means to make themselves heard. But this would only be understandable if they would to represent and look after the interests of some massive, silent majorities of underprivileged, exploited masses that no one at the world power table listens to because they possess no leverage to make their voice heard. And please don’t tell me about the UN... But as it seems to me, at the present time, terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda only seem to represent an infinite minority of demented fanatics who have decided to terrorize with their primitive violence, resulting from their dumb incapacity to negotiate, the entire civilized world. And this is not acceptable by any standards or under any circumstances.
Don’t let this make you understand that I am an unconditional advocate of what I previously named “the civilized world” because I’m all well aware of it’s (sometimes grave) faults and shortcomings. I am one of the first to acknowledge and point an accusatory finger to it’s selfishness, it’s self indulging blindness for the sufferings in other (vast) parts of the world, to the lazy incapacity of it’s majority to empathically understand that human beings are the same all over this (still) wonderful world, and that the weak, the hungry, the ill and altogether the underprivileged need the solidarity and assistance of the strong and wealthy.
How much wealthier the “civilized” world must get and how much squalid misery the rest of the world must endure until some will stop squeezing other for their last resource and some will stop the mindless random killing of innocent, just to make a point?
I don’t know, but I think that when the Dakar rally-raid will be back on, a step further to a better world will had been made.
No comments:
Post a Comment