I certainly doubt that an election would sanction a response less bellicose than the
one we are likely to get. I also agree that the ethics of terrorism and war are
worth thinking about. I fear that the (understandable) anger of Americans may result
in policies as immoral as those we have pursued in Iraq. More specifically, I an
afraid that the (justified) attempts to locate and destroy the perpetrators will
result in a slaughter of the people of Afghanistan. I suspect that the responses of
the Taliban to US requests to expel will increase this likelihood.
Erik Hoogcarspel wrote:
> 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/
> > > ************************************************
one we are likely to get. I also agree that the ethics of terrorism and war are
worth thinking about. I fear that the (understandable) anger of Americans may result
in policies as immoral as those we have pursued in Iraq. More specifically, I an
afraid that the (justified) attempts to locate and destroy the perpetrators will
result in a slaughter of the people of Afghanistan. I suspect that the responses of
the Taliban to US requests to expel will increase this likelihood.
Erik Hoogcarspel wrote:
> 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/
> > > ************************************************