I don't see why we need another word for terror

USUK does deliberately target civilians

It targets individuals it deems legitimate targets and murders numerous
others along the way - tens of thousands have been targeted and murdered;
and often the bombs arent particularly targeted or are not as accurate as it
is said

The legitimate targets are often not who the killers think they are

I wouldnt be bothered to evaluate the moral superiority / inferiority of
either

_in order to destabilize liberal societies_ begs a lot of questions; and it
is the assumptions that I was going for, not what you thought you were
talking about

In summary the problem is the basic proposition of the war against terror,
which you are still restating

They are all terrorists

But have it your own way

It's all snowball's fault

political science is quite easy isnt it

and I have also learned that malice is NOT a special of ineffable evil

well, well

I blame George Galloway for not telling me that

L


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dominic Fox" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: London calling


I think that our enemies believe themselves to be our enemies as an
objective fact: that - their hostility towards us - is what makes them
our enemies. Their malice and desire to kill is not sui generis, a
species of ineffable evil that comes from some dismal region beyond
the pale of human sympathy - indeed, on a certain level I sympathise
with it very much - but it is a real motivating force.

Given an appropriate cause, and reasonably adroit handling, you could
probably have recruited me into a terrorist organisation in my late
teens. "This world sucks - let's blow it up!" would have made perfect
sense to me on a gut level; all that would have been necessary would
have been to legitimate the gut feeling by wrapping it up in a
sufficiently persuasive ideological framework. Fortunately the
deconstructionists got to me first, rendering me practically harmless
during the period of greatest moral danger (that is, up until the
point where I managed to find myself a girlfriend). Failing that, I
imagine my considerable cowardice and unreliability would have kept me
out of causing any serious trouble.

With regard to "root causes" I wasn't talking about "terror"; I was
talking about the failure of the leadership of the Stop The War
Coalition to articulate a morally and practically coherent critique of
US/UK military actions. That failure *does* have a root cause, and it
is SWP opportunism. Everything they touch turns to shit (if I may
continue the excremental theme), and they absolutely can't keep their
nose out of any popular cause they think they can hijack and
capitalise on. After a while, I'm afraid, shouting them down is about
all anyone can be bothered to do. Although I don't think Aaronovitch
was ever what you might call a man of reason.

As to what I guess is the pivotal question, "Is there a war on?", I'd
say that it certainly looks that way. "Terror" names a means, not an
end; if you want to call the necessarily foul means that the western
powers have employed in pursuit of their war aims "terror" too, then
fair enough: we'll have to find some other word for the deliberate
targeting of civilians in order to destabilize liberal societies,
provoke them into reactionary measures, and radicalise the communities
that they then place under the cosh. ("See! You can't live peacefully
as a Muslim in this kuffir society after all!"). It's still something
to be resisted, though, and likewise the ends that it serves.

Dominic