sorry for some of the tone of that
i shouldnt have
L
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lawrence Upton" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Poetryetc provides a venue for a dialogue relating to poetry and
poetics" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: London calling
> 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
>
>
>
|