Re: [Iraq] The real reason for the war

From: Jeff Davis (jrd1415@yahoo.com)
Date: Thu Jun 05 2003 - 16:37:34 MDT

  • Next message: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky: "Re: Alltheism was RE: The Simulation Argument again"

    --- John K Clark <jonkc@att.net> wrote:

    > I'm not blasé, I know it's a terrible problem but I
    also know that making nice to Islam will not reduce
    their anger one iota because the root cause of
    that anger was not any specific action committed by
    the west. They are angry at us for what we are not
    what we did.

    Allow me to present an alternate view. (Which is a
    gentle BUT RESPECTFUL way to say I disagree.)

    When the 911 attacks came, I thought "***NOW SURELY***
    people will ask 'Why?' " Then, before the question
    could be posed large in the forum of public discourse,
    Bush made his "You're either with us or your against
    us" speech of Sept 20, 2001, and disposed of the
    question (begged the question? deflected the
    question?, distracted us from the question? pre-empted
    the question?) He said the terrorists did this because
    they hate us because we're rich and free, and all they
    know is the will to power. (Strikingly, this seems an
    apt characterization of the attitude of the Patrician
    ruling class (of which the Bush cabal is a subset)
    towards the "loyal" opposition.)

    I realized then that we were screwed. That the
    question would not be addressed honestly--if
    ever--until the next, presumably larger, lethal event.
     How bad does it have to hurt before someone gets real
    about this? (Sidenote: Violence gets attention when
    seemingly nothing else will, but inflames reason and
    extirpates sympathy. It's counterproductive, and
    frankly, dumb. A credible threat of violence is more
    practical, but still comes from the same bitter menu
    of options. There is a better way.)

    > ...the root cause of that anger was not any specific
    action committed by the west. They are angry at us
    for what we are not what we did.

    No. Some segment of Islam--maybe even a very large
    fraction--may disapprove of western cultural values,
    but so long as we keep it here, and don't force it on
    them, it's probably not something they care a whole
    lot about.

    It's the aggressive intrusion of the west that
    inspires their antipathy. The crusades. The
    invasions of western "colonial" powers, most noitable
    and recently the parcelling up of the mideast by the
    Europeans (primarily the Brits) after the defeat of
    the Ottomans. The propping up of corrupt local puppet
    regimes for the dual benefit of control of a strategic
    resource (oil) and the theft(essentially) of the
    profits therefrom. And finally, the jewel in the
    crown, the poison pill, the knife in the back (or
    perhaps I should say the ice pick in the face) of the
    deliberate, overt, unashamed, and unrelenting
    "erasure" of Palestine and ethnic cleansing of the
    Palestinians, accompanied by their replacement by an
    ultra-aggressive, ultra-militaristic(which is to say
    threatening), and ultra-contemptuous
    Jewish state (where, despite declamations of its
    democratic nature, Jews are, by law, the privileged
    class).

    That is why they are pissed.

    Best, Jeff Davis

    "The nationalist not only does not disapprove of
    atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a
    remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them."

                                George Orwell

    __________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
    http://calendar.yahoo.com



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 05 2003 - 16:48:57 MDT