[FoRK] Ugh. "Don't Feed The Terrorists!"
owen at permafrost.net
Mon Mar 15 10:12:06 PST 2004
jbone at place.org wrote:
> On Mar 15, 2004, at 9:01 AM, Owen Byrne wrote:
>> Wouldn't Al Qaeda/Taliban circa 9/10/2001 qualify as a state?
> The Taliban itself --- distinct from Al Qaeda --- is a tricky case.
> They're more like an insurgency that never fully *became* the
> establishment. (NB, I also think of insurgencies / rebels in internal
> civil war conflicts as being distinct from both states and terrorist
Well how about the American Revolution? Terrorists are just
revolutionaries who haven't won yet.
>> What about "state-sponsored terrorism?"
> State sponsors of terrorism are still states --- and the terrorists
> are still terrorists. The fact that they get funds from a state
> doesn't make them part of a state. Good thing, too, or one could
> claim that Al Qaeda is (was at one point) just a part of the US
> military. :-/
>> I think presuming that the bombs changed the results of the election
>> is pretty typical American chauvinism.
> Oh, please. Cheap shot. C'mon, man, I'm with you most of the way on
> most of these issues, and indeed, Americans are chauvinists in many
> ways. But you can't claim that assuming the bombs had an impact on
> the election in Spain has anything to do w/ such chauvinism. It's a
> simple matter of looking at the fact that the party that had the lead
> prior to Madrid --- did not in fact win. You see a correlation like
> that and then ask "why?"
> Let's reserve the anti-Americanism for where it's warranted / actually
> makes sense, okay? Otherwise you cheapen it.
Course I can. Its the typical rest of the world is worth my attention
for 5 minutes attitude. Perhaps I'm overqualified having lived in Spain,
but it was obvious to
me that ETA was being hyped for political purposes. I had seen on Friday
and Saturday and asked "why?" - so when the election result came in, the
result was obvious. Americans just didn't notice that amidst the
mourning, there was some complaining going on. Not so much because of
their individual chauvinism as much as the Media Monopolies that spin
everything to fit the party line. So I guess its the people who run the
media who I'm calling chauvinist.
More information about the FoRK