OK - my apologies to the list - I took advantage of a prior posting to
respond with my own take on things. One last point however, I did get quite
a few off-list notes of agreement - virtually all from listmembers outside
the U.S. And while I apologize, I feel torn about that - we in the u.s. are
so insular, that a list like this offers a rare opportunity to really hear
other points of view - I wonder if U.S.'ians are just a lot less tolerant of
such things? But Roy, your point is taken. I desist.
jeanne
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Roy Poses
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 9:49 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: FW: Chomsky on The New War Against Terror (fwd)
The value of the EBH list has been that it provides a forum for all manner
of facts and opinions related to evidence based health, which up to now has
been pretty free of irrelevant content.
Therefore, I am concerned about the recent set of long, one-side posts about
political matters not obviously related to EBH. These posts provide at
best,
ongoing distraction, and at worst, risk turning the list into an organ of
propaganda.
I would suggest those who want to argue about politics take their argument
somewhere else.
---------------------------------------------------------
Roy M. Poses MD
Brown University Center for Primary Care and Prevention
Memorial Hospital of RI
111 Brewster St.
Pawtucket, RI 02860
USA
401 729-2383
fax: 401 729-2494
[log in to unmask]
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
After reading O. Doctorow's comments - I wonder if we read the same Chomsky
article posted on the EMB list? Let's start with definitions. Certainly,
you've heard the adage, "One person's terrorist is another person's
liberation fighter." But we shouldn't be too glib about that. What does it
mean? It means that Osama bin Laden was a "freedom fighter" according to
the CIA and the Pentagon when he was our boy, on our payroll - as was Papa
Doc Duvalier, Suharto, Marcos, Mobutu, Trujillo, Somoza and a long, bloody
string of thugs.
Of course, no one in the CIA or Pentagon is calling bin Laden a "freedom
fighter" any longer. But if we are true to a definition of terrorism as
someone or some group attempting to rule or gain control through fear and
force and the use of violence directed against non-combatants - then we must
consider quite a few U.S. actions are "terroristic" including the support of
ex-Cubans to down a Cuban plane killing over 100 civilians (shall we bomb
Florida for harboring these known terrorists?); or what about the U.S.
backed overthrow of democratically elected leaders in Guatemala and Chile
and the support of widespread and vicious thuggery in El Salvador, Southern
Africa and many other parts of the world.
What Chomsky was pointing out was not that "Eastern behavior" is beyond
reproach (per O.D.'s suggestion) or that one must 'sit on the tiger' - he
was simply pointing a very positive (and not at all 'depressing')
viewpoint - that the U.S. has played a role in creating some of the very
problems now haunting us. The enormously positive aspect is, therefore,
that something can be done to reduce the violence. Of course from Chomsky's
viewpoint (and my own) that 'something' lies more in the myriad other ways
we can attempt to effect international change rather than a military
response which is about as responsible (and effective) as bombing Florida
because of the ex-Cubans or D.C. because of the President's horrific
policies of supporting dictators.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|