Crime/War

Charles Brown CharlesB at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us
Mon Nov 26 07:39:15 PST 2001


What should we call September 11 instead of "terrorist"? It seems to me to be a fine description, not "crude" or "reductive" at all...

Brad DeLong

((((((((

CB: A fine description , but what do we make of it ?

Since the perpetrators of the Sept 11 murders are of sufficient status to have a war declared on them, shouldn't they be called "warriors" or "soldiers" ? Of course, soldiers and warriors are the greatest purveyors of terror in civiliization.

On the other hand, if these are only terrorists , how can one support a full war against them ? They don't rise to the level of a worthy opponent in war. They are mere violent criminals, terrorists. One can only have a war with soldiers.

The repetition of the word "terrorism" is sort of as if Bush just invented his own legal category of "Bloody murderers" , i.e. somehow worse than just "murderers". He keeps shouting "bloody murderers". But afterall, bloody murderers are mere murderers. Like Timothy McVeigh.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list