> ravi wrote:
>
>> i am once again puzzled by this line of reasoning, since i do not see
>> "fall silent" as the next act to what michael writes (or what other
>> people, broadly referred to as "pacifists" write). all of these people
>> including michael have been and are doing various things to bring
>> about the kind of changes they think will make a better world.
>
>
> I'm all for doing those things to make a better world, and saying it to
> a broad audience, too. But that's a long-term approach. There were - are
> - thousands of very bad dudes holed up in Afg, and thousands more
> scattered all over the place. I don't see much serious thought about
> those facts.
>
> Hey, and anyone who despises the Saudi and Kuwaiti regimes - they're the
> moneymen behind al Q. So instead of saying, "Well I don't really know
> what's going on, can't trust the info we're getting on 9/11," I say,
> fuck it. Al Q sucks, and should be put out of business, and doing that
> requires going after SA and K. We can make common cause here - the war
> against terrorism should be a war against sheiks too.
>
those who are being labelled "pacifists" think/say not only that "we can't trust the info we are getting" but they also say "al Q sucks, they should be put out of business.... SA and K are part of the problem" etc. they only add "since the info is not trustworthy do not trust the official line on what's going on and fall in with the aggressive bombing etc plan of the govt".
yes, there are some bad dudes holed up in afghanistan. these are the serious thoughts about those facts... what do we do about them? the "pacifist" position is that the long-term approach is still a valid *basis* for short-term action. there is no need here for soul searching more so than usual. if we support international action through legal means for an act of terrorism, as a long-term strategy or principle, then that principle can apply here, etc.
additionally i think these labels of "anti-americanism" etc that are flying about on the list, to characterize certain positions that have been identified as "pacifist" or "american leftist", are misdirected. the reasons for focusing on the errors in govt action (or american action) etc are, i believe, pragmatic, and the same reasons why chomsky addresses US excesses (to relate to an earlier thread). there are a large number of voices, with significantly better reach, that are daily publicising the sin of alQ, the taliban, the islamic faith, etc etc. it should not be necessary for everyone, especially on a list such as this, to have to constantly append sympathetic noises to their messages to make it clear that they see no excuse for 9/11 etc etc.
finally, unlike kelley [and justin?], i do not see "pro-americanism" as a necessary condition for getting my message across to a larger audience (perhaps this is not kelley's point either). i do not criticize it, nor do i at this time disagree with its claims (though the meaning of "pro-american" statements is still a bit ambiguous to me in terms of their referential content). but one might also say "look, the information we receive is untrustworthy. here are some alternative sources and what they say. putting all this together, i think its a good idea not to bomb these people, for these reasons. instead we might want to concentrate our energies on using international law. more importantly we should not let 9/11 overwhelm our thoughts etc etc".
--ravi
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- man is said to be a rational animal. i do not know why he has not been defined as an affective or feeling animal. more often i have seen a cat reason than laugh or weep. perhaps it weeps or laughs inwardly - but then perhaps, also inwardly, the crab resolves equations of the 2nd degree. -- alasdair macintyre.