FW: NO RUSH TO WAR!/O'Reilly Factor/FOX/13Sept2001

Louis Proyect lnp3 at panix.com
Fri Sep 14 13:07:56 MDT 2001


Jim Craven wrote:
>This is disgusting. Francis Boyle got eaten alive by O'Reilly which is
>exactly what happens when "radicals" want to appear so "reasonable" when
>dealing with/getting exposure in the bourgeois media. Why not talk about the
>U.S. and Canadian "State-sponsored terrorism" against Indigenous and other
>Peoples every day and give some examples? Why not ask O'Reilly if he had
>protested the alliance between the U.S. and Taliband/bin Laden during the
>war against the Soviets in Afghanistan?

I can't say that I am surprised that Boyle caved in. Only this morning an
old friend, who is a long time Nation subscriber (for better and for worse)
asked me what "we" should do about terrorism. I gave him what seemed to be
a reasonable explanation about getting to the root of the problem and
creating a alternative foreign policy based on social justice. But he kept
insisting that I give him a "reasonable" answer based on the premise that I
was President of the USA. I kept explaining that I was not interested in
figuring out how to solve the problems of the capitalist system, but how to
achieve socialism.

This morning I had to show my ID to a security guard standing at the
doorway of Columbia Teacher's College, where my office resides. The notion
that this training ground for kindergarten teachers, etc. has to be
defended against Arab terrorism is simply insane. Yesterday I saw what
might have been an undergraduate walking along Broadway with an American
flag in one hand and a smaller flag pinned to his shirt. In the cafeteria,
the cashier was playing "God Bless America" on a boom-box near the cash
register.

Let's be clear about something. Escalations of terrorism and
counter-terrorist excess has a very deadly logic. With the availablity of
tactical nuclear weapons on the marketplace through the collapse of the
USSR or growing technical capability in Pakistan, it is only a matter of
time before such weapons get considered by the warring parties. Just
yesterday George Bush (the original) told the press that he wouldn't rule
out nuclear weapons. If somebody flies a passenger plane into the WTC,
would they stop at detonating a nuclear device in NYC? Who wants to take
that risk?

The Francis Boyles of the world, the people who write for the Nation and
read it, the "soft left" in general have a hard time facing up to the
deadly implications we are confronted by. That is why Mark Jones's post was
so important yesterday. It did not shy from the deadly logic that faces us.
Mark had a reputation among the "soft left" as being some kind of
"apocalyptic" thinker. As it turns out, he is the realist.



Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org

=======
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message



More information about the Marxism mailing list