signals from a parallel universe...
The following are excerpts from comments to a post on another blog. I've brought them here to continue a debate with Parallel, should s/he choose to do so. The debate so far:
Gerry: Read my blog. If, after reading my most rabid rants you don't "get it" about the spurious "war on terror", or if you don't understand what a diabolical distortion of the global political playing field the spinmeisters of Bush, Blair and Howard have wrought (snip)
Parrallel: I have only had a quick glance at your blog, and I wouldn't want to evaluate your position just on that as I might do you an injustice.
One thing I did notice... you only used the term "terrorist" in scare quotes, but several times referred to "freedom fighters". So I want to know, were the Beslan attackers terrorists in your view? Or would you decline to be so judgemental?
Oh, I also noticed your remarks about fundamentalist zionists / christians. They seem to worry you a lot, so to reassure you, perhaps I should let you know that Bush is an Evangelical (Methodist, I believe) and not a white supremacist and Sharon is, if anything, a mellowed nationalist and I suspect an atheist. They are not, actually, the source of all evil.
You can accurately call me a Zionist, though - in that I believe that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state.
Gerry: 1. I define "terrorist" in my very first blogpost. Defining one's terms is imortant, don't you think? "Shock and Awe" was "terrorism" but they called it Operation Iraqi Freedom, i.e. they call themselves freedom fighters. Are we getting this yet, noname?
2. If you think the Bush regime is not controlled by fundamentalist extremist Zionist Christians and Zionists, that Israel's foreign policy is not controlled by ultra-right extremist Zionists, and the "terrorists" are not extremist fundamentalist Moslems, then I cannot help you, noname.
3. You can accurately call me a Zionist too. Especially after you read my blog in greater depth. Skimming is _so_ superficial, don't you think, noname?
Parallel: (snip) you already appear to becoming uncivil just because someone stands up to you, I'd hope that doing it in public may restrain you.
1) Your definition of "terrorist" - thanks for the pointer - is meaningless. No exclusion for self defence? And you will always claim that anything the US does is for political/economic reasons and hence "terrorism"... but strangely, the Iraqi Baath/Shia fanatics are "freedom fighters" even though their aims are avowedly political...
You appear to see no moral difference between shooting fleeing six-year-old kids in the back, and bombing the training camp where fanatics are indoctrinated to do the shooting. They are both "political", after all...
2) I quite agree that you can't help me, or anyone who does not already share your absurd Chomskyite fantasies. Can't really have a discussion when one party is so close-minded.
3) You give me no reason to think that reading your blog in depth would repay the effort. As for questions, the most important one I asked - whether you consider the Beslan attackers to be terrorists - seems moot.
And now I'll continue - by firstly re-stating my definition of terrorism: The term as it is used here defines a terrorist as anyone who uses any means to kill or maim _anyone_ to further their political, strategic, economic, or religious aims. It follows that all acts of war are acts of terrorism.
So you see, Parallel, that "self defence" is an obfuscation to this issue. All sides claim "self defence" anyway. All sides see themselves as fighting for their "freedom", or to "protect their interests" or "their way of life". That goes without saying.
We're talking here about whether the "Shock and Awe" mass-bombing of Baghdad, the nuking of Hiroshima, the fire-bombing of Dresden, the cluster-bombing of vast swathes of rural landscape on which civillians will be randomly blown to bits for years to come, long after the "military action" has ended, etc, is any less "terrorising" or "immoral" than what you distinguish as "terrorism". It is you who seems to be sucked in by the idea that one form killing civillians is less terrorising than another. I make no such distinction.
As to being closed minded. I used to be. I used to blindly justify why murdering more than three million Vietnamese people was the "moral" thing to do. I used to blindly believe that all acts of US aggression and intervention were obviously morally right. I used to dismiss as "left-wing pinko crap" any criticism of US foreign policy. And just like you, I used to dismiss Chomsky. And then I opened my mind. I started reading stuff with an open, analytical, non-partisan mind. And huge slabs of stuff fell into place that previously had been dismissed by my bigotry as worthless. I've only just begun my real self-education, my de-programming.
Yes, the Beslan tragedy was an act of terrorism. Yes, yesterday's attack on the Australian embassy in Jakarta was an act of terrorism. Yes, 9/11 was an act of terrorism. They were also acts of war. All acts of war are acts of terrorism.
All that's left now (if you want to get partisan) is to debate whose acts of war are more moral. Or whose acts are more heinous. When you've finally seen enough death, when you're finally sick of justifying the killing, when you're finally sick of doing the killing (have you ever killed anyone, Parallel, have you seen them die horrible, slow, painful deaths, their eyes pleading with you to the end?), you might become a pacifist. But you cannot become a pacifist whilst you insist that one side is justified.
Maybe one day your mind will open enough to see this. Till then, if it gets you through the night, feel free to see me as the bigot and yourself as the ultra-educated, open-minded, übermensch. No skin of my nose, cobber. Coooee.
Gerry: Read my blog. If, after reading my most rabid rants you don't "get it" about the spurious "war on terror", or if you don't understand what a diabolical distortion of the global political playing field the spinmeisters of Bush, Blair and Howard have wrought (snip)
Parrallel: I have only had a quick glance at your blog, and I wouldn't want to evaluate your position just on that as I might do you an injustice.
One thing I did notice... you only used the term "terrorist" in scare quotes, but several times referred to "freedom fighters". So I want to know, were the Beslan attackers terrorists in your view? Or would you decline to be so judgemental?
Oh, I also noticed your remarks about fundamentalist zionists / christians. They seem to worry you a lot, so to reassure you, perhaps I should let you know that Bush is an Evangelical (Methodist, I believe) and not a white supremacist and Sharon is, if anything, a mellowed nationalist and I suspect an atheist. They are not, actually, the source of all evil.
You can accurately call me a Zionist, though - in that I believe that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state.
Gerry: 1. I define "terrorist" in my very first blogpost. Defining one's terms is imortant, don't you think? "Shock and Awe" was "terrorism" but they called it Operation Iraqi Freedom, i.e. they call themselves freedom fighters. Are we getting this yet, noname?
2. If you think the Bush regime is not controlled by fundamentalist extremist Zionist Christians and Zionists, that Israel's foreign policy is not controlled by ultra-right extremist Zionists, and the "terrorists" are not extremist fundamentalist Moslems, then I cannot help you, noname.
3. You can accurately call me a Zionist too. Especially after you read my blog in greater depth. Skimming is _so_ superficial, don't you think, noname?
Parallel: (snip) you already appear to becoming uncivil just because someone stands up to you, I'd hope that doing it in public may restrain you.
1) Your definition of "terrorist" - thanks for the pointer - is meaningless. No exclusion for self defence? And you will always claim that anything the US does is for political/economic reasons and hence "terrorism"... but strangely, the Iraqi Baath/Shia fanatics are "freedom fighters" even though their aims are avowedly political...
You appear to see no moral difference between shooting fleeing six-year-old kids in the back, and bombing the training camp where fanatics are indoctrinated to do the shooting. They are both "political", after all...
2) I quite agree that you can't help me, or anyone who does not already share your absurd Chomskyite fantasies. Can't really have a discussion when one party is so close-minded.
3) You give me no reason to think that reading your blog in depth would repay the effort. As for questions, the most important one I asked - whether you consider the Beslan attackers to be terrorists - seems moot.
And now I'll continue - by firstly re-stating my definition of terrorism: The term as it is used here defines a terrorist as anyone who uses any means to kill or maim _anyone_ to further their political, strategic, economic, or religious aims. It follows that all acts of war are acts of terrorism.
So you see, Parallel, that "self defence" is an obfuscation to this issue. All sides claim "self defence" anyway. All sides see themselves as fighting for their "freedom", or to "protect their interests" or "their way of life". That goes without saying.
We're talking here about whether the "Shock and Awe" mass-bombing of Baghdad, the nuking of Hiroshima, the fire-bombing of Dresden, the cluster-bombing of vast swathes of rural landscape on which civillians will be randomly blown to bits for years to come, long after the "military action" has ended, etc, is any less "terrorising" or "immoral" than what you distinguish as "terrorism". It is you who seems to be sucked in by the idea that one form killing civillians is less terrorising than another. I make no such distinction.
As to being closed minded. I used to be. I used to blindly justify why murdering more than three million Vietnamese people was the "moral" thing to do. I used to blindly believe that all acts of US aggression and intervention were obviously morally right. I used to dismiss as "left-wing pinko crap" any criticism of US foreign policy. And just like you, I used to dismiss Chomsky. And then I opened my mind. I started reading stuff with an open, analytical, non-partisan mind. And huge slabs of stuff fell into place that previously had been dismissed by my bigotry as worthless. I've only just begun my real self-education, my de-programming.
Yes, the Beslan tragedy was an act of terrorism. Yes, yesterday's attack on the Australian embassy in Jakarta was an act of terrorism. Yes, 9/11 was an act of terrorism. They were also acts of war. All acts of war are acts of terrorism.
All that's left now (if you want to get partisan) is to debate whose acts of war are more moral. Or whose acts are more heinous. When you've finally seen enough death, when you're finally sick of justifying the killing, when you're finally sick of doing the killing (have you ever killed anyone, Parallel, have you seen them die horrible, slow, painful deaths, their eyes pleading with you to the end?), you might become a pacifist. But you cannot become a pacifist whilst you insist that one side is justified.
Maybe one day your mind will open enough to see this. Till then, if it gets you through the night, feel free to see me as the bigot and yourself as the ultra-educated, open-minded, übermensch. No skin of my nose, cobber. Coooee.
posted by The Editor at
8:59 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
==========
<<<<< Home
==========