From: "Steven Snell" <04048675-AT-brookes.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Osama is working for Bush then
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 15:05:37 -0000


Steve --

By semantically weakened I was referring to the post-9/11 definition of 
"terrorism", which apparently opened the doors to pretty much anything that 
goes against state authority, i.e., protests, sit-ins, rallies, football 
matches, whatever.

Steven.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk>
To: <lyotard-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 7:42 PM
Subject: Re: Osama is working for Bush then


> Steven
>
> I'm interested in the idea that 'terror' has been semantically weakened - 
> could you explain why you believe this to be the case ?
>
> The phrase 'actually existing democracy'  is a small and recent joke at 
> the expense of those who argued that notions like socialism and communism 
> could be intellectually discarded on the basis of the murderous  actuality 
> of 'actually existing socialism'. If  marxism must be discarded because of 
> that murderous imbecile Stalin then shouldn't democracy be discarded 
> because of it's even more murderous history ?
>
> steve
>
> steve
>
> Steven Snell wrote:
>
>> Steve/all -- you have presented me with a great break down of terrorism. 
>> I am going to go through your email sentence by sentence and extract 
>> other useful bits or information (apology for going about it this way).
>>
>> The majority of terror has always been carried out by state sponsored
>> groups. WHAT SEEMS KEY HERE IS 'STATE SPONSORED' AND NOT THE STATE IN 
>> DIRECT. A vast number of  actions which I would classify as worthy of the
>> name  'terror' have been carried out by groups sponsored by democratic
>> states. TERROR, ESPECIALLY POST 9/11 SEEMS SEMANTICALLY WEAKENED. BUT 
>> AGAIN, FUNDING IS A MAJOR ISSUE AS IN DEFINING WHO IS CARING OUT THE 
>> ACTION AND WHO IS 'KEEPING THEIR HANDS' LESS DIRTY, OR SO TO SPEAK. As a 
>> consequence of this I  can't agree that terrorism is predicated
>> on jealosy - because normally it is structured on the basis of  the 
>> powerful
>> oppressing  others. THIS QUESTION COULD LEAD DOWN A ROAD OF ONTOLOGY, OR 
>> MORE SO, A POSTMODERN CONCEPT OF WHAT IS KNOWLEDGE -- OR GOOD/CORRECT 
>> KNOWLEDGE. I AM REMINDED HERE OF THE SOKAL HOAX AND MO VS. POMO 
>> KNOWLEDGE. WHAT I MEANT BY JEALOUSLY WAS AN ADMITTED BIASED WESTERN 
>> EPISTEMOLOGICAL STANDPOINT. PERHAPS THE 'WESTERNISED' ACCESS TO KNOWLEDGE 
>> VIA SCIENCE HAS LIFTED THE BURDEN OF A COMPOSED MYTH OR NARRATIVE 
>> EXPRESSING WORLD TRUTH OR GOODNESS. This is not to suggest  that 
>> terrorist groups  do not
>> exist but that in each case they have quite specific social and political
>> reasons for existing.
>>
>> These days I would probably argue that actually existing democracy is not
>> the solution but part, even the major part  of the problem.  After all 
>> it's
>> record in supporting and enabling liberty is absolutely appalling. I'M 
>> NOT SURE IF I CAN OVERLY AGREE WITH THIS. MUST OF WHAT I SEE SHOWS THAT 
>> HUMANS DO NEED TO BE GOVERNED, LED. SOMEWHERE BETWEEN ANARCHY AND FASCISM 
>> SEEMS TO OFFER THE BEST POSSIBILITIES AS I SEE IT.
>>
>> This doesn't answer the nation-state question but I don't know how this 
>> can
>> be addressed without some discussion of the globalisation  issue. 
>> GLOBALIZATION OR RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE?
>>
>> CHEERS,
>>
>> STEVEN.
>>
>> steve
>>
>>> All --
>>>
>>> Just a brief comment/question. Can there actually be a war on
>>> terrorism? For  a crude definition, terrorism seems to be predicated on
>>> a notion of  jealously. Does a long and sweeping war campaign decrease
>>> jealously? I don't  wish to suggest that liberal democracy is the "end
>>> of history," nor am I  suggesting that all societies of the world will
>>> get along in some sort of  grand utopia when everyone embraces
>>> democracy. But more simply, why can't  nations stop provoking other
>>> nations? Is this perhaps a behaviourist  questions?
>>>
>>> Steven.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Judy" <jaw-AT-earthlink.net>
>>> To: <lyotard-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
>>> Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 9:34 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Osama is working for Bush then
>>>
>>>
>>>> steve, all--
>>>> that sounds plausible.  bringing back memories of when the Iranian
>>>> ayatollahs helped Reagan get elected.  the US has had a working
>>>> relationship with bin Laden for a long time.  wasn't he first
>>>> recruited by  the CIA to take on the progressive socialist government
>>>> of Afghanistan in  the early 80s, drawing the Soviets in, and
>>>> depleting their strength?  and  he is recruited again, by the
>>>> Pentagon, to assist the Islamic
>>>> fundamentalist faction in Bosnia with al Qaida mujahadin in the 90s,
>>>> to  overpower and subjugate the alliance of Serbs and moderate
>>>> Muslims. Hard  to read what's going on of course, but i would not rule
>>>> out anything. Judy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Glen/steven/all
>>>>>
>>>>> The tape has been broadcast everywhere - I just wondered if the
>>>>> neo-cons,  whose relationship to religion is much the same as the
>>>>> Islamists, that is  to say Bin-Laden's, might have paid for them
>>>>> escalate the fear quotient in  the hope of gaining a few votes...
>>>>>
>>>>> Terrorism is by definition centralised, for it mirrors the history of
>>>>> the  centralised state. Has there ever been a terrorist group that has
>>>>> not been  infiltrated by the states secret services? It is not just
>>>>> that the USA  helped create the current islamist groups with both
>>>>> money and arms,  it  seems probable that just as in previous terrorist
>>>>> campaigns they will have  infiltrated their own agents into the
>>>>> groups...  This is normal practice,  hence my wondering whether
>>>>> Osama's controller might have told him to  intervene and issue the
>>>>> tape for George. That doesn't mean it will work  after all these
>>>>> people are imbeciles.
>>>>>
>>>>> Looking at the US election from afar it's clear that actually existing
>>>>> democracy is a terrible system....
>>>>>
>>>>> best
>>>>> steve
>>>>>
>>>>> Glen Fuller wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Steve, do you mean because of the recent tape of Osama that has been
>>>>>> broadcast on CNN repeatedly over the last day or so? ciao,
>>>>>> glen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So that's it then Osam Bin Laden he really is working for Bush...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and vice versa... obviously
>>>>>>> s
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed --- This message
>>>>> may  have contained attachments which were removed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
>>>>>
>>>>> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative
>>>>>  text/plain (text body -- kept)
>>>>>  text/html
>>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>