From: "Dave Coull" <d.y.coull-AT-dundee.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 15:00:14 GMT
Subject: Re: US-information warfare & KLA


Roger wrote

>what i object to is the continuing attempt by you and Nico 

Nico can speak for herself. 
The only person who speaks for Dave Coull is me.

>to minimize the actions of the serbian security forces
>in their nazi-style actions in kosovo 

I have made no such attempt

>and the constant attempts to blame the victim.  

I have not blamed the victims. What I  _have_
done is to point out that there are more 
than one set of villains. That is what 
you are objecting to.

> unlike you, i refuse to say that if a military force 
>intervened effectively i would condemn them.  

On the one hand you condemn "Teutonic" efficiency,
and on the other hand you welcome "efficient"
military force. Well, NATO is certainly the most 
"efficient" force on the planet. But no anarchist 
can possibly welcome that fact. I say that NATO 
throwing its weight about (and that is   _all_  
it is doing, it is not helping the victims of tyranny) 
is bad news for the people of this planet as a whole. 

The only kind of force whose intervention 
I might welcome is a non-governmental
one, preferably a consciously libertarian
one, one which positively refused to co-operate
with governmental bodies or forces. To welcome 
armed forces of a state or states is to place your faith 
in government. I don't condemn people for putting 
their faith in government, after all the vast majority
of people on the planet do and I am not about to condemn
the vast majority of the human race, but I  _do_  point 
out that, if anybody who does so calls themselves 
"anarchist", then there is a clear contradiction.

Now, I am not  "calling"  for an anarchist
initiative. I'm not convinced that this would
be a useful thing for me to do. But if  _you_
want to try to do something along these lines,
good luck to you. However, I should point
out that, in a previous post you asked me

>>>why was it ok, indeed "heroic" to fight fascism in spain 
>>>in the 30's but not so to fight it in serbia in the 90's?

and I pointed out some of the (obvious) differences

>>Because in Spain in the 30s it  _wasn't_  just a case
>>of fighting against fascism. Because in Spain in the 30s
>>there was something to fight  _FOR_ . Because if you
>>are going to risk death in a foreign country, it is not enough
>>just to be avoiding something terrible, there has to be 
>>the possibility of achieving something wonderful. Because 
>>in Spain in the 30s it was quite clear that there was a side 
>>that was fascist and a side which (at least where the anarchists 
>>were concerned) wasn't. (Now you may think that is the case today, 
>>but surely it must be clear to you that a lot of people, a lot of
>>anarchists, myself included, disagree with you about that.) Because
>>those, such as George Orwell for instance, who went to fight in 
>>Spain did so  _without_  the support of their government, indeed 
>>positively discouraged by their government, and not as part 
>>of a multi-billion dollar war machine. 

As for you saying that

>*The* anarchist attitude on anything isn't something 
>a real anarchist would give a flying fuck about

You say that you are worried that anarchists 
should disagree with you about this war, yet 
you also say you don't give a shit what anarchists 
think. Both statements can't be true. 

Of course a real anarchist doesn't automatically
stand by what any anarchist "greats" of the past 
(or present) say. But,  although this is obviously
true, nevertheless, it is true that there is such a thing 
as (for instance) the anarchist attitude to the state 
(we're agin it) and the anarchist attitude to war 
(war is the health of the state). 

The idea that you can hold absolutely  _any_  
kind of view and call it anarchist is just not 
an anarchist idea. It's Alice In Wonderland
  -  "Words mean whatever I want them to mean".


Dave