NP Terrorism (Was Re: No, I'm Doug

[Tiarnân Ô Corrâin]

On Tuesday 30 October 2001 21:46, jbor wrote:
> ocorrain at esatclear.ie wrote:
<snip>
> So you're saying that an anti-globalist might resort to terrorism because
> she or he feels powerless to achieve her or his ends by peaceful means, and
> that the "U.S." or "the West" (or any authority for that matter) are
> therefore legitimate targets of campaigns of terror?

The USA, Europe, Russia and China do not seek to achieve their ends by 
peaceful means. 

<snip>

> Nothing can excuse the attack on the World Trade Centre,
> > just as nothing can excuse what the United States is now doing, like a
> > playground bully, in Afghanistan. There is no need to counterpose the
> > clauses in the last sentence and find a contradiction.
>
> It's not a playground. The metaphor is inappropriate and offensive. And
> it's not just the U.S.

The metaphor is a metaphor. And therefore, perhaps, inappropriate. And no, 
it's not just the US. But I wasn't trying to apportion blame. In fact, that 
was the point of the email.

<snip>

> > In its anger, and its foolishness, America has decided to personify its
> > grief. It has named bin Laden as the Satan du jour. Unfortunately, the US
> > army, designed to wage war on the Soviet Union, is sadly ill-suited for
> > this kind of job. So bin Laden must be given a country, and who better to
> > chose than the hapless (and barbarous) Taliban, the world's most publicly
> > reviled regime. So the people of Afghanistan are subsumed by the Taliban,
> > and the Taliban are subsumed by bin Laden. Bin Laden must die, and so
> > therefore the Afghan people must die too.
>
> This is a twisted perspective of what has happened. The Taliban, in word
> and deed, confirmed their allegiance to Osama and his Jihad against the
> U.S. The people of Afghanistan have been *oppressed* by the Taliban. To
> conflate the two things ("subsumed") is rhetorical nonsense.

Do you really think that the people of Afghanistan make the distinction? Or 
that anyone other than apologists for this war do? Bin Laden did declare his 
allegiance to the Taliban, but do you hold the Taliban responsible for Sept 
11?

> > This is terribly unjust, as unjust as the attack on the World Trade
> > Centre. Innocent and ignorant people will die, so that these prehistoric
> > monsters can continue clawing at one another, incapable of communication.
> > The hundreds of years old United States, in all of its indisoluble
> > continuity, and the millenarian war-hounds of Islam.
>
> It is still not a case of Islam vs. the West, despite what propagandists on
> both sides of that particular false divide, such as yourself here, are
> saying. I hope that it doesn't come to that. Do you?

Well, I wouldn't consider myself to be a propagandist for either side. 
Perhaps you think I'm a propagandist for fundamentalist Islam? Or for the 
Taliban? I assure you I'm neither.

However, in Britain (at least) some of the Muslims do see it as Islam vs the 
West (or American hegemony, take your pick of vague descriptions). That's why 
they're joining up. Don't imagine that what the US government says is true in 
the Muslim war. Don't assume that what the USG *says* about the West vs Islam 
is true.

Remember, Osama (if it is he) and his boys have the initiative here...

> best

Cheers

Tiarnan

-- 
Tiarnán Ó Corráin       <ocorrain at esatclear.ie/ocorrain at yahoo.com> 
Q:      How many supply-siders does it take to change a light bulb?
A:      None.  The darkness will cause the light bulb to change by itself.