Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - How should the Democrats address Islamic Terrorism?

roachboy · 01-04-2005, 10:13 AM

you missed what i was saying it seems...

first, i do not see why you imagine that the rightwing view of terrorism, whatever that is, is now dominant enough that all other political positions are obliged to play ball on their grounds. i dont see it--what argument could you make that the situation is otherwise?

second, i think you underestimate the extent to which the last election was won through better grassroots organization as much as through the manipulation of questions like "terrorism"

third, i am not at all--at all--convinced that the rightwing stance on its pet issue of "security" is either effective or rational--in the last election, what you got much more often was purely negative claims--cheney in particular, as noted above (which, sadly, was not much of a paraphrase). i dont see much of anything effective or logical in the bush response, which keys on the word "resoluteness" (an old heideggerian term, a reference i am sure bush does not know about) the bush response appears to me to be the theater of a response, surrounded with self-confirming "proofs" (no new attacks=effect of theater: but the 9/11 attacks succeeded because they were unexpected--if i were organizing another attack, i would wait a while to do it, until the theater of preparedness wanes a bit--you cant maintain such a pointless relation to possibilities forever, despite what you may believe)

a far more rational appraoch to "terrorism" would be to work to eliminate causes--something which the right is totally incapable of doing as they cannot bring themselves to pose any coherent questions about causes at all.

fourth, i do not understand what you construe as being the democratic party--you know full well that move on is not affiliated, is well to the left of the flaccid, centrist democratic party--the only reason i expect you lump them in is for redbaiting purposes. but that is fantasy on your part. but you know this. same kind of thing with michael moore. but you know this too. why pretend otherwise?

[[i use the terms right/.rightwing/conservative to avoid this kind of goofiness--the republican party is but a part of a much larger ideological machine in the states, one that is not identical with the party itself--i am not convinced of the utility of the conservative vision of what it opposes]]

fifth: the right is in no position to talk about "the american public" as if it was a single entity--51-49% remember?---so i do not know what you are talking about really when you say "it didn't impress the american public too much..."--do you know what you are talking about in that sentence? care to explain?

01-04-2005, 10:13 AM	#5 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	you missed what i was saying it seems... first, i do not see why you imagine that the rightwing view of terrorism, whatever that is, is now dominant enough that all other political positions are obliged to play ball on their grounds. i dont see it--what argument could you make that the situation is otherwise? second, i think you underestimate the extent to which the last election was won through better grassroots organization as much as through the manipulation of questions like "terrorism" third, i am not at all--at all--convinced that the rightwing stance on its pet issue of "security" is either effective or rational--in the last election, what you got much more often was purely negative claims--cheney in particular, as noted above (which, sadly, was not much of a paraphrase). i dont see much of anything effective or logical in the bush response, which keys on the word "resoluteness" (an old heideggerian term, a reference i am sure bush does not know about) the bush response appears to me to be the theater of a response, surrounded with self-confirming "proofs" (no new attacks=effect of theater: but the 9/11 attacks succeeded because they were unexpected--if i were organizing another attack, i would wait a while to do it, until the theater of preparedness wanes a bit--you cant maintain such a pointless relation to possibilities forever, despite what you may believe) a far more rational appraoch to "terrorism" would be to work to eliminate causes--something which the right is totally incapable of doing as they cannot bring themselves to pose any coherent questions about causes at all. fourth, i do not understand what you construe as being the democratic party--you know full well that move on is not affiliated, is well to the left of the flaccid, centrist democratic party--the only reason i expect you lump them in is for redbaiting purposes. but that is fantasy on your part. but you know this. same kind of thing with michael moore. but you know this too. why pretend otherwise? [[i use the terms right/.rightwing/conservative to avoid this kind of goofiness--the republican party is but a part of a much larger ideological machine in the states, one that is not identical with the party itself--i am not convinced of the utility of the conservative vision of what it opposes]] fifth: the right is in no position to talk about "the american public" as if it was a single entity--51-49% remember?---so i do not know what you are talking about really when you say "it didn't impress the american public too much..."--do you know what you are talking about in that sentence? care to explain? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 01-04-2005 at 10:16 AM..