Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 18:09:37 +0100
From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-tiscali.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Different approach to terrorist threat




Hugh,

How to respond, given that a response seems necessary to say why the 
supportive or at least accepting response towards the behavior, beliefs 
and ideologies of the government (which for you is the US govonment) but 
which for me would be the European governments, is wrong. It is in these 
very circumstances that people should scruntinise the behaviour of the 
local and more distant governments. We may be subjects of the state but 
that does not mean that we should support it when they respond in the 
psychotic fashion of the powerful responding to an event. It is 
impossible to plan for all  events tragic or not, and we should not 
consider that the state, which is something invented in a particular 
moment of history, (I personally think of it as a technology invented at 
the time of the first neolithic industrial revolution to control the 
suddenly exploding human population), as a 'good' it just happens to be 
there, and is fundementally reactive to the new and the unknown.

It is true that democratic debate is difficult in these circumstances, 
however it is at these moments that it is essential that negation, 
refusal is supported.

The current evidence against Bin-Laden and the Taliban will not, I'm 
told, stand up as sufficient to find Bin-Laden guilty in a European 
Court. In the final analysis how will you respond when Bin-Laden is 
found to be 'not guilty' of the WTC events after he has stood before a 
non-USA court.... Which I have been told is a possible compromise...

Only two decadesof terroism? (On a personal note Fascists tried to blow 
me up in the mid-70s in London) I am not an expert in these matters but 
terroist activity has been carried out ever since the modern concept was 
invented in the 19th C.

If there was mass hysterical revulsion against state terroism I might be 
impressed by these events, but this unpleasent action against the 
Taliban and Bin-Laden will pass, and the best we can hope for is that 
not to many Afghanstan people will die in the process...

As I type Blair is explaining the 'trap' around the Taliban is closing, 
that humanitarian aid for the Afghan people is being shipped volumes and 
so on... 'Military action will be proportionate and not aimed at the 
Afghanistan people...' Perhaps he believes this? Perhaps it is not an 
example of 'Cynical Reason' run riot, perhaps the introduction of 
Coca-Cola and McDonalds is really  the answer - but forgive me if I 
insist on doubt. I think it is disgusting that the G20/Blair are/is 
defining the future for the people of Afghanistan.



regards#
sdv

hbone wrote:

>In the best of all possible worlds, the best of all possible governments
>would promptly execute pre-determined procedures to ameliorate a tragic
>event and prevent a recurrence.
>
>On September 11, firemen and police ran into a hellish conflagration, saved
>thousands of lives, lost hundreds of their own.
>
>Six days after the event, Sontag meditates on history and the future while
>an anguished citizenry prays for deliverance from impending horror.
>
>Democratic debate in a burning town hall is impossible.
>
>Two decades of terroist  disasters, from the failure of Carter, the lives
>lost in Beirut by an inept  Reagan Administration, civilians killed in
>hi-jacked planes, kidnapped hostages held for years in the mid-east, and the
>documented disasters under Clinton,  were insuffcient to arouse the public
>to demand action.
>
>One hour on September 11 changed the equation.
>
>The public demands prevention now.  Changing the U.S. global presence and
>long-term policy in the manner intimated by Ms. Sontag will have to wait.
>
>Her courageous advocacy against the State terrorism of Milosevic was timely
>and
>contributed to a solution.
>
>September 11 commenced a new conflict, absolute conviction of vulnerability,
>a terrible urgency.  The government we have is our only weapon, we must
>support it.
>
>Hugh Bone>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>>>Let's Look Reality in the Face. By Susan Sontag
>>>
>>Monday, September 17,
>>2001
>>
>>>(Le Monde )
>>>
>>>For a terrified and sad New Yorker, America never
>>>
>>seemed to be
>>further
>>
>>>away
>>>from recognizing reality than facing the monstrous
>>>
>>dose of reality of
>>
>>>Tuesday, September 11.
>>>
>>>The gulf which separates what occurred and what one
>>>
>>should
>>understand,
>>on
>>
>>>one hand, and the sheer deception and self-satisfied
>>>
>>nonsense peddled
>>by
>>
>>>practically all the leading public figures of
>>>
>>American life, and its
>>
>>>television commentators, is stupifying and
>>>
>>depressing.
>>
>>>The voices authorized to keep track of the events
>>>
>>seem to be joined
>>in
>>a
>>
>>>campaign aimed at treating the public like children.
>>>
>>Who has
>>acknowledged
>>
>>>that it wasn't a matter of "cowardly" aggression
>>>
>>against
>>"civilization,"
>>
>>>or
>>>"freedom," or "humanity," or the "free world," but
>>>
>>an aggression
>>against
>>
>>>the
>>>United States, the self-proclaimed world superpower,
>>>
>>an aggression
>>which
>>
>>>is
>>>the consequence of specific American actions and
>>>
>>interests? How many
>>
>>>Americans know about the continuation of American
>>>
>>bombings in Iraq?
>>And
>>
>>>since we're using the word "cowardly," shouldn't it
>>>
>>be applied to
>>those
>>
>>>who
>>>kill from high in the sky, out of the range of
>>>
>>possible reprisals,
>>rather
>>
>>>than to those who are willing to die in order to
>>>
>>kill others?
>>
>>>As for courage -- a morally neutral virtue --
>>>
>>whatever one can say of
>>
>>>those
>>>who perpetrated Tuesday's slaughter, they were not
>>>
>>cowards.
>>
>>>At all costs American leaders want to make us
>>>
>>believe that everything
>>is
>>
>>>all
>>>right. America is not afraid. Our resolve is not
>>>
>>broken. "They" will
>>be
>>
>>>hunted down and punished (whoever "they" might be).
>>>
>>We have a
>>
>>>robot-president who assures us that America always
>>>
>>has its head held
>>high.
>>
>>>A whole range of public personalities, vigorously
>>>
>>opposed to the
>>foreign
>>
>>>policy of this administration, apparently feel free
>>>
>>to say nothing
>>but: we
>>
>>>are all united behind president Bush.
>>>
>>>We've been reassured that everything was going along
>>>
>>well, or close
>>to
>>it,
>>
>>>even on a day marked by the stamp of infamy, and
>>>
>>even if America was
>>now
>>
>>>at
>>>war. Yet all is not well. And this isn't Pearl
>>>
>>Harbor. Considerable
>>
>>>reflection is going to be necessary, maybe it's
>>>
>>being done now in
>>
>>>Washington
>>>and elsewhere, on the colossal failure of American
>>>
>>intelligence and
>>
>>>counter-intelligence, on the possible options for
>>>
>>American foreign
>>policy,
>>
>>>in the Middle East in particular, and on what
>>>
>>constitutes an
>>intelligent
>>
>>>program for military defense.
>>>
>>>But those in charge of official functions, those who
>>>
>>wish to be and
>>those
>>
>>>who have been in the past, have decided -- with the
>>>
>>willing
>>complicity
>>of
>>
>>>the major media -- not to ask the public to bear too
>>>
>>great a part of
>>the
>>
>>>burden of reality. The complacent and unanimously
>>>
>>lauded platitudes
>>of
>>a
>>
>>>Congress composed of one Soviet-like party appeared
>>>
>>contemptible. The
>>
>>>unanimity of moralizing rhetoric, aimed at masking
>>>
>>reality, poured
>>out
>>by
>>
>>>leading Americans, and the media, in recent days is
>>>
>>unworthy of a
>>mature
>>
>>>democracy.
>>>
>>>Leading American figures, and those who would like
>>>
>>to be, have let us
>>know
>>
>>>that their duty is only one of manipulation: to
>>>
>>impart confidence and
>>
>>>manage
>>>the pain. Politics, the politics of democracy-which
>>>
>>involve
>>disagreements
>>
>>>and encourage sincerity-have been replaced by
>>>
>>psychotherapy. Let's
>>suffer
>>
>>>together. But let's not be stupid together. A little
>>>
>>historical
>>conscience
>>
>>>can help us understand exactly what happened, and
>>>
>>what might continue
>>to
>>
>>>happen.
>>>
>>>"Our country is strong", they keep telling us. For
>>>
>>my part, that
>>really
>>
>>>doesn't console me. Who can doubt that America is
>>>
>>strong? But America
>>
>>>should
>>>not be only that.
>>> --- hbone <hbone-AT-optonline.net> wrote: > For what
>>>
>>it may be worth,
>>
>>>Harry Browne writes on the subject, more
>>>installments to follow.
>>>
>>>http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24787
>>>
>>>
>>>Hugh
>>>
>>>
>>____________________________________________________________
>>Do You Yahoo!?
>>Send a newsletter, share photos & files, conduct polls, organize chat
>>
>events. Visit http://in.groups.yahoo.com
>
>

HTML VERSION:

In the best of all possible worlds, the best of all possible governments
would promptly execute pre-determined procedures to ameliorate a tragic
event and prevent a recurrence.

On September 11, firemen and police ran into a hellish conflagration, saved
thousands of lives, lost hundreds of their own.

Six days after the event, Sontag meditates on history and the future while
an anguished citizenry prays for deliverance from impending horror.

Democratic debate in a burning town hall is impossible.

Two decades of terroist  disasters, from the failure of Carter, the lives
lost in Beirut by an inept  Reagan Administration, civilians killed in
hi-jacked planes, kidnapped hostages held for years in the mid-east, and the
documented disasters under Clinton,  were insuffcient to arouse the public
to demand action.

One hour on September 11 changed the equation.

The public demands prevention now.  Changing t
he U.S. global presence and
long-term policy in the manner intimated by Ms. Sontag will have to wait.

Her courageous advocacy against the State terrorism of Milosevic was timely
and
contributed to a solution.

September 11 commenced a new conflict, absolute conviction of vulnerability,
a terrible urgency.  The government we have is our only weapon, we must
support it.

Hugh Bone>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Let's Look Reality in the Face. By Susan Sontag

Monday, September 17,
2001

(Le Monde )

For a terrified and sad New Yorker, America never

seemed to be
further

away
from recognizing reality than facing the monstrous

dose of reality of

Tuesday, September 11.

The gulf which separates what occurred and what one

should
understand,
on

one hand, and the sheer deception and self-satisfied

nonsense peddled
by

practically all the leading public figures of

American life, and its

television commentators, is stupifying and

depressing.

The voices authorized to keep track of the events

seem to be joined
in
a

campaign aimed at treating the public like children.

Who has
acknowledged

that it wasn't a matter of "cowardly" aggression

against
"civilization,"

or
"freedom," or "humanity," or the "free world," but

an aggression
against

the
United States, the self-proclaimed world superpower,

an aggression
which

is
the consequence of specific American actions and

interests? How many

Americans know about the continuation of American

bombings in Iraq?
And

since we're using the word "cowardly," shouldn't it

be applied to
those

who
kill from high in the sky, out of the range of

possible reprisals,
rather

than to those who are willing to die in order to

kill others?

As for courage -- a morally neutral virtue --

whatever one can say of

those
who perpetrated Tuesday's slaughter, they were not

cowards.

At all costs American leaders want to make us

believe that everything
is

all
right. America is not afraid. Our resolve is not

broken. "They" will
be

hunted down and punished (whoever "they" might be).

We have a

robot-president who assures us that America always

has its head held
high.

A whole range of public personalities, vigorously

opposed to the
foreign

policy of this administration, apparently feel free

to say nothing
but: we

are all united behind president Bush.

We've been reassured that everything was going along

well, or close
to
it,

even on a day marked by the stamp of infamy, and

even if America was
now

at
war. Yet all is not well. And this isn't Pearl

Harbor. Considerable

reflection is going to be necessary, maybe it's

being done now in

Washington
and elsewhere, on the colossal failure of American

intelligence and

counter-intelligence, on the possible options for

American foreign
policy,

in the Middle East in particular, and on what

constitutes an
intelligent

program for military defense.

But those in charge of official functions, those who

wish to be and
those

who have been in the past, have decided -- with the

willing
complicity
of

the major media -- not to ask the public to bear too

great a part of
the

burden of reality. The complacent and unanimously

lauded platitudes
of
a

Congress composed of one Soviet-like party appeared

contemptible. The

unanimity of moralizing rhetoric, aimed at masking

reality, poured
out
by

leading Americans, and the media, in recent days is

unworthy of a
mature

democracy.

Leading American figures, and those who would like

to be, have let us
know

that their duty is only one of manipulation: to

impart confidence and

manage
the pain. Politics, the politics of democracy-which

involve
disagreements

and encourage sincerity-have been replaced by

psychotherapy. Let's
suffer

together. But let's not be stupid together. A little

historical
conscience

can help us understand exactly what happened, and

what might continue
to

happen.

"Our country is strong", they keep telling us. For

my part, that
really

doesn't console me. Who can doubt that America is

strong? But America

should
not be only that.
 --- hbone <hbone-AT-optonline.net> wrote: > For what

it may be worth,

Harry Browne writes on the subject, more
installments to follow.

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24787


Hugh

____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send a newsletter, share photos & files, conduct polls, organize chat

events. Visit http://in.groups.yahoo.com