I guess I really do not understand why it is not OK to think that al Qaeda is a real threat, but recognize that Bush is hyperbolically using the threat to push an aggressive brutal agenda. I can recognize that the US is a big threat, and still recognize that al Qaeda is a relatively smaller threat. Why do so many people want to make it an either/or question?
The same thing happens when talking about domestic state repression and US neonazi groups. Just because the US state has more guns, does not mean that we should ignore the dangers of armed White supremacists with a history of murder.
Isn't it the binary thinking that gets us into a jam?
-Chip Berlet
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Dennis
> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 10:40 AM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: Re: Rational Discussion of Threats and bush's deal
>
>
> > "Minor threat" is relative and subjective. The question that
> > occurs to me -- and recall that I have near-victim cred -- is
> > whether Al-Qaeda or the capitalist empire is a bigger threat.
> > I think it is obvious which one is likely to kill, maim,
> > impoverish or imprison a larger number of people in the next
> > ten years, regardless of whether the rhetoric of one is
> > kinder and gentler than the other.
> >
> > Of course this is treating them as separate entities, whereas
> > I think in fact they complement, reflect and energize one
> > another, as the U.S. and the Soviet system did in the era of
> > the Cold War.
> >
> > -- Gordon
>
>
> I agree completely, but I think many here feel that if they
> view al-Qaeda as
> a real threat, they are buying into the administration's
> propaganda --an
> administration that would use al-Qaeda to attack its other
> enemies if it
> needed to and could pull it off. (Vidal asked recently why
> Bush just doesn't
> buy off bin Laden, bribe him to cease and desist. "It worked
> for Julius
> Caesar," he said.)
>
> DP
>