Charles Brown wrote:
>
>
>
> CB: Interestingly, Sept. 11 marks a point at which the vulnerability in sitting at one's desk in a tower ruling the world is vastly increased. So, the emperors are striking out in fear and defeat as well as triumph. Sept. 11 is a crisis for imperialism , not a victory.
The thrust of this is probably correct, but your wording is unfortunate. Sept. 11 did _not_ reveal any "vulnerability in sitting at one's desk in a tower ruling the world," because no rulers were directly attacked. Like the U.S. terror bombings of Iraq or Vietnam, Sept. 11 struck not at the rulers but at the ordinary citizens (mostly workers) of the nation attacked. The ambivalent response of oppressed peoples around the world marks how many of them grasp the contradiction: that the attack does not directly harm the rulers but only the ruled on the one hand; on the other hand the oppressed seemingly have no other way to strike back except through such indirect attacks. And moreover, those who organized the attacks, while enemies U.S. imperialism, are not really friends of the oppressed but candidates for becoming the new oppressors.
None of these contradictions or complexities justify the ravings of the defenders of imperialism (represented on this list by Brad), but neither should we deny that the contradictions exist.
Carrol