Selective Memory

[Otto]

Richard Fiero:
>
> The Great Quail wrote:
> >>>From: "barbara100 at jps.net" <barbara100 at jps.net>
> >>>
> >>>I'm not sure exactly how many died in the WTC attack, but I
> >>>heard it reported yesterday on the radio that the numbers of
> >>>civilian casualties in Afghanistan have now surpassed the
> >>>number in the WTC attack.
> >>>I guess that makes it an official 'eye for an eye.'
> >
> >Barbara, this is the kind of statement that tends to undermine
> >your position, because it points to, more or less, a lack of
> >context as well as reason. No one thinks that we have launched
> >a bombing campaign against Afghani civilians, no one things
> >the terrible casualties are the result of an "official" eye
> >for an eye policy. You know very well that the war is an
> >attempt to break down and destroy the al-Qaeda terrorist
> >network, in hopes that they will be unable to plan, fund, and
> >carry out more attacks in their escalating campaign against
> >the United States and its civilian population. There is no
> >reason at all you can't maintain an anti-War stance and yet
> >refrain from this sort of unreasonable evasion of simple fact,
> >this emotional reductionism, where you flatten facts into some
> >brutal equation that you contend is the entire basis of
> >foreign policy. If you are going to protest the war, at least
> >make an effort to place your argument within some sphere of
> >reason! I hate to "lecture" you, and I suppose I am, but
> >really, it only makes your "side" look foolish, as foolish as
> >any hawkish redneck who says "bomb them all."
> >
> >--Quail
>
> Sure.  See
> http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1113-03.htm
> "A conservative academic group founded by Lynne Cheney, the
> wife of Vice President Dick Cheney, fired a new salvo in the
> culture wars by blasting 40 college professors as well as the
> president of Wesleyan University and others for not showing
> enough patriotism in the aftermath of Sept. 11. "
>
> Quail, Quail, Quail.  I simply cannot follow your argument
> above.  I'm at a complete loss as to what the "loss of context"
> might be.  It seems to me that an ever-widening context would
> include a very large number of dead civilians at the hands of
> the U.S. and its proxies in the prosecution of war by other
> means.  I really don't think you'd want any mention of the
> total context.  I believe that you have dissociated yourself
> from those ugly details yet your tax dollars supported those
> efforts and your elected representatives planned and
> implemented those acts.  Oh, right.  Your take on Chomsky is
> negative because Chomsky reduces the supposed complexity to
> simple motives and bodies rather than over-intellectualizing
> and abstracting them away as Foucault did.  The folks in power
> are not hawkish rednecks but opportunists of the first order
> who have emptied the public treasury, suspended the Bill of
> Rights and are fighting terrorism with unspeakable
> terror.  Well, that's one way to do it.  The undeclared war
> proceeds and is constantly referred to as a "war against
> terrorism"  but appears more as a contest as to who holds a monopoly on
terror.
>
>
>

"Homo homini lupus est"

Richard, it goes without saying that I disagree with Barbara and mainly
agree with Quail (I'm looking forward to see him on the screen), but your
considerations have to be taken seriously.

Your last remark about the "monopoly on terror" is interesting because there
is indeed such a thing though I wouldn't necessarily call it that way. In
German it's called the "Gewaltmonopol des Staates" (power-monopoly of the
state). It means in the actual situation that nobody gave OBL the authority
to mastermind such a crime as he did (and today's video hopefully will make
that clear once and for all), but Mr. Bush is the elected president, under
what circumstances whatever, who has the duty to and may use this force
legally to prevent further attacks.

All this makes me think of the proverbial wolf, the original "terrorist" to

human society. We've made him a domestic animal to keep his wild ancestors
away but saw the necessity too to give some of his destructive power to some
members of our society whom we call soldiers or policemen. Seems as if it's
common opinion that without this there would be no civil society at all.
I've learned a new acronym after 9/11: TINA - there is no alternative.

I share your concerns about the civil rights situation but does Lynne Cheney
really have the power to supend the Bill of Rights? All those academics are
free to speak up and criticise the government, to defend themselves &
explain what they mean. They're not fired because Mrs Cheney has ordered
that, or? The police-chiefs in several cities who refuse to aid the FBI in
questioning thousands of American Muslims without a suspicion won't loose
their jobs automatically. America is still (much) different from the former
USSR or East-Germany.

I don't think that I can agree with your description of the actual
"campaign" as "unspeakable terror" -- you seem to forget that it has freed
Afghanistan from the Taliban-rule. No matter what comes out of it in the
future, but it has put a broad-based multi-ethnic government with even
female members into power. Well, maybe not totally into power yet, but it's
likely to happen under the supervision of the British-lead
peace-implementing force. If I may become "personal" for a moment, for the
Afghan children who must be fed and housed and shoed and educated and so on
from my personal experience it's not the worst thing being born under the
protection of British soldiers. My tax money is spent on the Balkans which
is ok for the sake of the Bosnian and Albanian children I had to drive to
the refugee camp outside of town in the recent years.

Otto



_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com