|
first, the letter linked in the op is a good thing--i do not understand why this sort of act was not undertaken long ago--but maybe it was and it got little coverage in the states because hysteria was at a higher level---i know that i have read parallel statements many times over the past few years, i have heard parallel statements from many many sources over the past few years--in itself there is little new about it, but it is nonetheless a very good development that this statement is getting some press attention. it is about bloody time.
on this thread:
geez...another ustwo pronouncement, another repetition of the same old same old, another repetition of the the republican campaign slogan of the moment (have you read about the new gop advert that will start airing this weekend? it is essentially trying to beat the dead horse of conservative hysteria once again in order to scare people into voting for still more obviously failed rightwing policy...)
if the point ustwo makes gets demolished in one thread, he simply moves to another and repeats it. this one at least shows that he read the op (because of the complaint about the scrolling--boo hoo)
after a pretty disastrous period, the "these quotes would be a riot" thread ends with a conversation about the exact point that ustwo makes--that his claim of "substanital support" is so vague as to be meaningless and "for terrorism" is even more vague and so approaches absolute zero in terms of meaning.
there is no doubt a significant population--not just within islam, but around the world--including within the united states--that opposes the policies of the bush administration.
they are very easy to oppose.
is ustwo really saying--still--that everyone and anyone who opposes the lunatic policies of the bush administration is a terrorist?
thing is that much of this opposition is POLITICAL that is it is about SPECIFIC policies and their outcomes--and opposition can mean many things: it can be a kind of attitude--it can be a passive cheerleading sort of support for various kinds of actions, political or even military--it can be active support for these actions---there is no way to tell because there is no coherent data--and even if there were, NONE of the types of opposition would be "support for terrorism"--simply because the category terrorism does not mean anything beyond "actions the american administration in power does not like"--it can extend to all kinds of things, from flying an airplane into the trade center to the sandanistas to any and all political actions undertaken by palestinians--and there is nothing in common that links these types of actions except that republican administrations (in the main--clinton used the category as well, but not with the same--um--marketing fervor) designate them "terrorism" for their own internal marketing purposes.
this problem--the reliance of the conservative set on the empty category "terrorism"--has been debated over and over and over in this forum and the conservative set has consistently been unable to defend it--but there is never any movement amongst them--they continue to pretend that this term is meaningful. perhaps this is a little echo of why the right continues to try to support cowboy george despite the catastrophic outcomes of his nitwit policies around the world and at home--he too refuses to acknowledge complexity, refuses to acknowledge problems--he too "stays the course" no matter what the degree of fiasco that course is entailing--and this stubborn refusal to think perhaps explains why the right is crumbling from the inside as you read this...
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|