NP Propagandada

[jbor]

on 25/10/01 4:54 PM, Mike Weaver at mikeweaver at gn.apc.org wrote:

> 
>> blinkered, knee-jerk anti-U.S. govt. stance Mike Weaver
> 
> I've been into American culture and an interested observer of U.S. affairs
> for over 30 years now. That's one hell of a knee jerk! The U.S. government
> has pursued some kind of imperialist course since the Monroe Doctrine.
> During the last 50 years that course has intensified. The current mess
> cannot be saparated from that history.

Why not? I agree that prior U.S. foreign policy has been despicable:

http://zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/interventions.htm

But this was an entirely different situation, the first time the American
mainland has been violated, so brutally and unexpectedly, by an invading
force. Ever. Or since 1776 at least. Comparatively speaking, if not
generally so, the U.S. response has been both rational and moderate. This
seems patently obvious to me, and I admit that I'm suspicious when others
refuse to acknowledge it.

> For us the main propaganda war is not between the supporters of the Taliban
> and the supporters of the U.S. but the latter and their critics.

And this has something to do with "your" purpose, which as I've commented
before is firmly fixed on deposing Bush. As I've said, I think it's
deplorable to exploit the tragedies in the U.S. and Afghanistan for this
end. And I also think that political upheaval in the U.S. at this juncture
would be one of the worst things that could happen.
 
>> Mike Weaver sounds throughout
>> as if he wants Pakistan to be destabilised, as if he wants more terrorists
>> to be recruited, as if wants America to be destroyed.
> Only telling how I see it, not what I want - I want Amerika brought under
> democratic control by America. And I want America to take reponsibility for
> being top dog. (And I gotta go to work -byee)

As I said, I think the first distinction is a false one. As for your second
point I think that the U.S. has shown encouraging and commendable signs of
doing just that.
 
>>> The only force capable of suppressing terrorism is a force on
>>> the same side of dialectic as the terrorists, but a constructive one.
>> 
>> 
>> This is a contradiction in terms, and it conflates Islam with terrorism,
>> which is inaccurate and extremely offensive.
> 
> Terrorism cannot be defeated by being attacked, only by having its "fuel"
> channeled into more constructive forms of resistance. The Terror campaigns
> against Tsarist power in Russia only ceased with the growth of the
> revolutionary socialist party. I'm saying the U.S. will face terrorist
> campaigns  until there is something more attractive to the people who get
> recruited by the terrorist organisations.

I don't think this applies to the mindset of these particular terrorists at
all. Instituting social reform to placate terrorists will only justify
terrorism as a political instrument and thus breed more terrorist
organisations and terrorist acts.

>> If the anti-globalisation protesters had
>> their way there would be no chance for *any* type of international
>> co-operation.
> 
> When will you get it into your skull that what you call
> "anti-globalisation" is actually anti corporate control of the global
> economy. The "left" has been pro internationalism for a very long time

I'm fully aware of this, but am surprised that you can't see or won't admit
the irony of the fact that in being simply anti-globalisation full stop many
of the self-proclaimed "Left" protesters are aligning themselves with the
extreme right and national corporate interests.

Whatever, I don't think that that "dictatorship of the proletariat" is ever
really gonna happen, and I think that if it did it'd be as corrupt and as
big a stuff-up for "the people" internationally as it has been nationally.

best