I don't think elections have anything to do with it. (BTW I enjoyed the soap of
last U.S. elections, although it didn't impress me as a sign of democracy. Well,
nobody is perfect.) Anyway, I think that terrorism is just a method to achieve
something. Nobody, not even a terrorist would say that terrorism in itself is
something which should become common practice. Some people think however that
they have an ultimate goal which justifies any method. In effect this is
something most 'hard-liners' have in common. Think of Hitler, Stalin, Poll Pot
etc. They all wanted to achieve some kind of political stability, but with
unethical and disastrous methods. A retaliation is, I think, unavoidable,
because many people in the U.S. are afraid and need to see some U.S. counter
violence in order to reestablish their self-esteem. It's very hard to take a
loss, it's much harder to take such a great loss as the instant death of maybe
30.000 countrymen. This retaliation will not prevent terrorism in the long run.
To achieve this, U.S. policy will probably have to change. It must become more
respectful, more supportive, and more polite, less directive, less hypocrite and
less selfish. Self-respect is easy and useless, you have to earn respect from
others. This is very difficult for a country full of cowboy and countryboy
sentimentalism, full of obsession by violence and small town protestantism. I
think the change has to come from education..
In fact this is disaster a great opportunity. Most countries would understand
some form of revenge. The U.S. has some respect now, being the victim of a
horrific act of terrorism. If the revenge would be controlled and elegant, it
will enhance the amount of respect and lessen the amount of hatred. If the U.S.
governement will go on with its rude, simplistic and noisy behavior. I'm afraid
it will remain an attractive target for frustrated terrorists; it might even
evoke terrorism and so it will contribute to the spread of terrorism.
erik
"Larry W. Chappell" wrote:
> There is something odd about chastising "Americans" for arrogance and
> then instructing us on how to conduct elections. No advice on elections
> for Afghanistan? There is also something peculiarly arrogant about
> thinking that the FIRST response to a vicious attack on civilians should
> be to rethink foreign policy.
>
> The distinction between state-sponsored and non-state sponsored terrorism
> is porous. Surely a list where the distinction between private and public
> decisions in capitalist societies is treated with skepticism should show
> similar skepticism about terrorists who could not flourish without being
> harbored by a host country.
>
> Please note: I am offering no conclusions about how to think about
> foreign policy -- just offering some comments about how to put policy in
> context.
>
> Clare O'Farrell wrote:
>
> > Let me begin by emphasising how shocked and horrified I am by the
> > loss of life in the recent events.
> >
> > I really worry with Bush at the head of the US at present. Listening
> > to him is like watching a bad right wing propaganda film from the
> > 1950s. All this stuff about 'attacks on democracy' when it's really
> > about attacks on US foreign policy. Neither is a question of an 'act
> > of war' - it is a terrorist attack not an attack by another state. As
> > one Arab leader said the US really needs to reexamine its foreign
> > policy.
> > The administration and government needs to examine why the US is
> > generating so much hatred and do something about it. I think one of
> > the things that annoys non Americans (not just the Arab world) most
> > about the US is its insularity and lack of respect or even awareness
> > of the rest of the world and the fact that it thinks it knows best
> > how other nations should conduct their affairs. Bush has been pretty
> > disastrous so far. I think the US would benefit from the introduction
> > of compulsory voting at elections which might induce people to vote
> > for someone sensible and educate themselves politically and about
> > what is going on in the rest of the world!!
> >
> > What also really worries me is the hatred that this event will
> > generate on both sides and that people will start thinking that all
> > Arabs are inhuman terrorists. As Foucault says terrorism merely
> > entrenches those attacked in the conviction of their rightness.
> > Terror invokes terror and blind obedience. The state will use it as a
> > means of bringing dissident voices into line. It must be said as well
> > that Islamic fundamentalism is a major problem for everyone including
> > for more moderate Islamic people.
> >
> > Can I recommend this excellent site by American journalists trying to
> > speak out in opposition to the overwhelming media jingoism?
> > http://www.workingforchange.com/
> > --
> > Clare
> > ************************************************
> > Clare O'Farrell
> > email: panopticon1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > website: http://home.iprimus.com.au/panopticon1/
> > ************************************************
last U.S. elections, although it didn't impress me as a sign of democracy. Well,
nobody is perfect.) Anyway, I think that terrorism is just a method to achieve
something. Nobody, not even a terrorist would say that terrorism in itself is
something which should become common practice. Some people think however that
they have an ultimate goal which justifies any method. In effect this is
something most 'hard-liners' have in common. Think of Hitler, Stalin, Poll Pot
etc. They all wanted to achieve some kind of political stability, but with
unethical and disastrous methods. A retaliation is, I think, unavoidable,
because many people in the U.S. are afraid and need to see some U.S. counter
violence in order to reestablish their self-esteem. It's very hard to take a
loss, it's much harder to take such a great loss as the instant death of maybe
30.000 countrymen. This retaliation will not prevent terrorism in the long run.
To achieve this, U.S. policy will probably have to change. It must become more
respectful, more supportive, and more polite, less directive, less hypocrite and
less selfish. Self-respect is easy and useless, you have to earn respect from
others. This is very difficult for a country full of cowboy and countryboy
sentimentalism, full of obsession by violence and small town protestantism. I
think the change has to come from education..
In fact this is disaster a great opportunity. Most countries would understand
some form of revenge. The U.S. has some respect now, being the victim of a
horrific act of terrorism. If the revenge would be controlled and elegant, it
will enhance the amount of respect and lessen the amount of hatred. If the U.S.
governement will go on with its rude, simplistic and noisy behavior. I'm afraid
it will remain an attractive target for frustrated terrorists; it might even
evoke terrorism and so it will contribute to the spread of terrorism.
erik
"Larry W. Chappell" wrote:
> There is something odd about chastising "Americans" for arrogance and
> then instructing us on how to conduct elections. No advice on elections
> for Afghanistan? There is also something peculiarly arrogant about
> thinking that the FIRST response to a vicious attack on civilians should
> be to rethink foreign policy.
>
> The distinction between state-sponsored and non-state sponsored terrorism
> is porous. Surely a list where the distinction between private and public
> decisions in capitalist societies is treated with skepticism should show
> similar skepticism about terrorists who could not flourish without being
> harbored by a host country.
>
> Please note: I am offering no conclusions about how to think about
> foreign policy -- just offering some comments about how to put policy in
> context.
>
> Clare O'Farrell wrote:
>
> > Let me begin by emphasising how shocked and horrified I am by the
> > loss of life in the recent events.
> >
> > I really worry with Bush at the head of the US at present. Listening
> > to him is like watching a bad right wing propaganda film from the
> > 1950s. All this stuff about 'attacks on democracy' when it's really
> > about attacks on US foreign policy. Neither is a question of an 'act
> > of war' - it is a terrorist attack not an attack by another state. As
> > one Arab leader said the US really needs to reexamine its foreign
> > policy.
> > The administration and government needs to examine why the US is
> > generating so much hatred and do something about it. I think one of
> > the things that annoys non Americans (not just the Arab world) most
> > about the US is its insularity and lack of respect or even awareness
> > of the rest of the world and the fact that it thinks it knows best
> > how other nations should conduct their affairs. Bush has been pretty
> > disastrous so far. I think the US would benefit from the introduction
> > of compulsory voting at elections which might induce people to vote
> > for someone sensible and educate themselves politically and about
> > what is going on in the rest of the world!!
> >
> > What also really worries me is the hatred that this event will
> > generate on both sides and that people will start thinking that all
> > Arabs are inhuman terrorists. As Foucault says terrorism merely
> > entrenches those attacked in the conviction of their rightness.
> > Terror invokes terror and blind obedience. The state will use it as a
> > means of bringing dissident voices into line. It must be said as well
> > that Islamic fundamentalism is a major problem for everyone including
> > for more moderate Islamic people.
> >
> > Can I recommend this excellent site by American journalists trying to
> > speak out in opposition to the overwhelming media jingoism?
> > http://www.workingforchange.com/
> > --
> > Clare
> > ************************************************
> > Clare O'Farrell
> > email: panopticon1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > website: http://home.iprimus.com.au/panopticon1/
> > ************************************************