The nature of the new war

Borba100 at aol.com Borba100 at aol.com
Sun Sep 30 22:22:43 MDT 2001


In a message dated 10/1/2001 12:03:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
dwalters at igc.org writes:

<< Yes, but to argue that "anti-USA" terrorism doesn't exist is plain
 silly. It is YOU who will get no audience of consequence on this. >>

A) Walters,  I didn't say that the argument I criticized would get no
audience.  I said that it agreed with Bush, that it let the US leaders off
the hook for what is manifestly their action, and that it played into the
enemy's hands by justifying their policies ("Even the critics agree that
these were outside terrorist actions...")

BTW, TENC is getting so many hits we have to upgrade our service.

b) Watlers your examples: The ancient Weathermen (they have hardened arteries
by now so they're not as much of a threat) and the almost as ancient red army
faction and the semi-defunct militia.  THAT'S the anti-US terrorist menace?
The US leaders are shaking in their money.  And again: terror is good for
them.  That's why they invented it.

c) There certainly is a world terrorist apparatus. It's certainly not the
pitiful weathermen.  It is involved with drugs (death squads in Colombia, KLA
in Kosovo, islamists in Russia and Afghanistan, ISI in Pakistan, and so on)
and it is firmly intertwined with the U.S.  - hence the ISI is helping the US
fight - the Taliban, which it simulatenously "advises.".

This is a shell game.

 If one wants to win anybody over to seeing that fundamental change is needed
one has to put the blame FOR THE ACTUAL TERRORIST ACTION  on the people who
run this country.  If one tells people that those foreigners did this but
that it is understandable, one is doing great harm.  Better to say nothing.

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



More information about the Marxism mailing list