NP Terrorism

[jbor]

on 31/10/01 12:06 PM, Tiarnân Ô Corrâin at ocorrain at esatclear.ie wrote:

> 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. 

I think there's an important distinction, or several, that you're not
making. I can't get away from the feeling that you're defending the recent
terrorists attacks by classing all governments as "terrorist", in what I
think is a rhetorical sleight of hand. Maybe you don't see it that way, and
I know that others are arguing from this standpoint too. Maybe if the logic
behind it could be spelled out a bit more clearly.

Mainly, I guess, I don't think this argument is a useful avenue to seeking a
solution to the immediate issues, which to my mind are the threat of more
terrorist attacks like those of 11/9, the plight of Afghan refugees, the
possibility that the military intervention in Afghanistan will escalate into
a larger war, and the danger that individuals and groups from ethnic
communities will be persecuted and murdered (as occurred in the U.S. in the
immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, and in Pakistan a day or so
ago.)

[snip]

>> 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?

Yes, I do think that many people in Afghanistan are opposed to both the
Taliban and Osama, and that they would welcome the overthrow of the one and
the removal of the other from their homeland. I make the distinction, and
international governments have made the distinction.

> Bin Laden did declare his
> allegiance to the Taliban, but do you hold the Taliban responsible for Sept
> 11?

And the Taliban to bin Laden. No, I don't hold the Taliban directly
responsible for September 11, but I certainly think there is complicity
after the fact. As well, it is a tyrannical, brutal regime.

I can provide statistics about Afghanistan, if you're interested: refugee
numbers, female life expectancy &c. I think that this aid agency's statement
provides a reasonable and representative indication of the UN and other
humanitarian agencies' attitude to the current crisis:

http://www.care.org/info_center/afghanistan/index.html

http://www.care.org/info_center/afghanistan/afghanistanpolicy.html

best