Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2001 21:48:54 +0100
Subject: Re: Different approach to terrorist threat - update




Hugh


Over the past months we have worked around many of the concepts that 
define 'globalisation' and sometimes its predecessors and even at times 
its future. Even at times discussing the distant future, as Lyotard 
discussed the heterotopian end of humanity as the Sun dies and the 
associated victory of the inhuman. But it is not necessary to believe 
that the psychotic idiots, which is what Bush, Blair and Cohan so 
patently are, need to be considered as acting consciously in the 
historical flux of globalisation/development.  Their goals are of course 
more limited and short sighted than this, the killing of a few 
terroists, revenge, the eradication of third world debt,  it's not clear 
that 'development' could ever be satisfied with such temporary goals. 
The most useful and utopian name for the opposition to development 
recently is of course the multitude, somewhat nomadically i'd include 
myself in that frame along with the Afghan man standing on the wrong 
side of the border wondering where to go to next...

To be sure of one thing they(Bush, Blair and Cohan) are not on the side 
of the 'history of liberation...'  what we are existing within currently 
is the dystopia of activities , painful, perhaps even relentless but 
certainly constructive and challenging for those who care to join the 
ontologically necessary challenge, with the result that perhaps even the 
'renewed world of life may be achievable...' and it's primary oppostion 
is not some psychotic terroist trained by the CIA but the psychotic 
idiots named above...

Personally since I am neither a liberal nor a conservative so I have no 
confusion of labels...
regards
sdv

hbone wrote:

> Steve wrote:
>
>  
>
> >What imminent attacks? - what evidence is there that with sensible 
> precautions they >could not have been prevented from carrying out the 
> acts of the 9/11. Moreover since we >know that the coalition states 
> will have killed already, and will cause the deaths of many >more 
> people than terroists can possibly achieve it is absurd to consider 
> that this in >anyway justifies military attacks on Afghanistan.
>
>  
>
> We can "believe" in imminent attacks or "dis-believe" in imminent 
> attacks.  The passage of time does not, per se, increase the 
> probability of attack, but increases its imminence
>
> as the date of execution approaches.
>
>  
>
> Before 9/11, warnings were given, but evidence was sketchy.  With 
> sufficient evidence, sensible precautions would have meant arrest and 
> detention of the 19 perpetrators.  With firm belief that attack 
> is imminent, but zero knowledge of the identity of the attackers, 
> sensible precaution would have included implementation of flight 
> security measures similar as those now initiated or contemplated.
>
>  
>
> As for other explanation of positions I have posted, there may be 
> change, ambiguity, inaccuracies, but I think we agree that poor and 
> disadvantaged people should have more control of the resources they 
> work with and use their right to vote. The U.S. is the Empire that 
> matters, money runs uphill to the wealthy, State slaughter of 
> innocents as "collateral damage" should be avoided if possible. The 
> U.S. record is deplorable.
>
>  
>
> The confusion of liberal and conservative labels increases.  Someone 
> said, a Liberal is a conservative who has just been robbed - a 
> Conservative is a liberal who has just been arrested. 
>
>  
>
> You may not believe in imminent robbery or imminent arrest, but this 
> Sunday afternoon, October 7th , both our governments believe in 
> imminent terrorist attack and are trying to prevent it  Of course they 
> may be mistaken, other countries and individuals may have a more 
> accurate vision of imminent events..
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Best,
>
> Hugh
>
>  
>
>  
>
>      
>

HTML VERSION:

Steve wrote:

 

>What imminent attacks? - what evidence is there that with sensible precautions they >could not have been prevented from carrying out the acts of the 9/11. Moreover since we >know that the coalition states will have killed already, and will cause the deaths of many >more people than terroists can possibly achieve it is absurd to consider that this in >anyway justifies military attacks on Afghanistan.

 

We can "believe" in imminent attacks or "dis-believe" in imminent attacks.  The passage of time does not, per se, increase the probability of attack, but increases its imminence

as the date of execution approaches.

 

Before 9/11, warnings were given, but evidence was sketchy.  With sufficient evidence, sensible precautions would have meant arrest and detention of the 19 perpetrators.  With firm belief that attack is imminent, but zero knowledge of the identity of the attackers, sensible precaution would have included implementation of flight security measures similar as those now initiated or contemplated.

 

As for other explanation of positions I have posted, there may be change, ambiguity, inaccuracies, but I think we agree that poor and disadvantaged people should have more control of the resources they work with and use their right to vote. The U.S. is the Empire that matters, money runs uphill to the wealthy, State slaughter of innocents as "collateral damage" should be avoided if possible. The U.S. record is deplorable.

 

The confusion of liberal and conservative labels increases.  Someone said, a Liberal is a conservative who has just been robbed - a Conservative is a liberal who has just been arrested. 

 

You may not believe in imminent robbery or imminent arrest, but this Sunday afternoon, October 7th , both our governments believe in imminent terrorist attack and are trying to prevent it  Of course they may be mistaken, other countries and individuals may have a more accurate vision of imminent events..

 

 

Best,

Hugh