--- Samantha Atkins <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
But by our standards, when the CIA with little or no
oversight and using secret funds goes to various
countries and topples their elected governments using
a variety of means including those which cannot be
termed other than terrorism, torture, assasination,
sabotage and so on - is this somehow not criminal
but a reasonable function of the government?
It seems to me there is a bit of a double standard
here. As bad as WTC was we have been involved in
covert operations in countries we were not at war
with, even in countries we were supposedly friends
with that are every bit as horrendous.
Samantha's got it right, of course. And I suspect that
perhaps, after years of *almost* hearing this
unpleasant truth, off in the distance, whispered from
some corner, or heard but instantly expunged by inner
denial, it is time to grit one's teeth, and take it
in. Take it all. September 11th was a kind of end of
is a luxury that may have to be set aside temporarily,
till "the problem" of the wider world--the problem
which spilled over into Manhattan on Sept. 11th--is
To deal with a problem effectively, you'd best have
the facts--the truth. So maybe Chomsky's time has
come. I am NOT going to take it upon myself to be
Chomsky's tireless advocate on this list. The damn
planes did not plow into me, and, for all I care, the
world, including the US, can--and probably will--take
a little tour through hell before the sheeple go back
once again to merrily sniffing the crotches of the
rich and famous on the six o'clock news.
If YOU think it serves your quest for rationalism to
drink from the Chomskian well, you know where it is.
That said, you can expect me to occasionally offer up
something if it seems germane.
Here's one of the tributaries to the well:
and here's a sip, from:
To call it a "war against terrorism," however, is
simply more propaganda, unless the "war" really does
target terrorism. But that is plainly not
contemplated. Perhaps I may quote political scientist
Michael Stohl: "We must recognize that by convention
-- and it must be emphasized _only_ by convention --
great power use and the threat of the use of force is
normally described as coercive diplomacy and not as a
form of terrorism," though it commonly involves "the
threat and often the use of violence for what would be
described as terroristic purposes were it not great
powers who were pursuing the very same tactic," in
accord with the literal meaning of the term.
Best, Jeff Davis
"Everything's hard till you know how to do it."
Do You Yahoo!?
NEW from Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:12 MDT