> ``It is was only a matter of time; Marxism, Foucault, Heidegger, and
> Bin Laden together.'' Jacob Segal
>
> [ref. `Postmodern Jihad, What Osama bin Laden learned from the Left,'
> Newell, WR, Prof pol sci/phil, Carleton Univ, Ottawa.]
>
> -----------
>
> And yet, despite some sleight of hand in misconstruing some of the
> literary references, I don't find the essay particularly wrong
> headed. The only trouble with it is the failure to mention the other
> side: the dominance of the current US political spectrum by a
> reactionary, racist, neoliberal, Christian fundamentalist
> rightwing---the twisted spawn of related events in the US [related
> relative to Paris '68].
>
why just christian fundamentalism? these attempts to take shots at postmodernism with whatever negative associations one can make (as the fish article that doug forwarded also made clear) seems contrived in the light of richard dawkins' simple question about why we ignore the 800-pound gorilla: religion, which one can hold accountable not just for this event but for the worldwide culture that leads to such events? why always the disclaimer about this being a "perversion of islam" etc? are these disclaimers used for the worthwhile effort to defend practitioners of the religion against discrimination? if not, dawkins' [what seems to me] sound arguments show that the error is in pinpointing just one religion (whether true or perverted) as the problem.
am i right in being suspicious that the use of 9/11 to attack postmodernism is promiscuous?
--ravi