>Well, since you put it that way, I suppose it would start with cutting off
>all aid to Israel, discontinuing the blockade of Iraq, and removing all
>troops from the land of the two holy places (i.e. Arabia). . . .
and:
>We should not frame the question 'what should we do about
>9/11?'. We should frame it as 'what should we do about 80+ years of war?'
>(Yes, I KNOW that's how Osama frames it too. But I was writing leaflets
>that way before I heard his tape. I don't have to crib anti-imperialism
>from him.)
Correct demands, wrong argumentative tactic. We can't count on the American masses to go through a snowballing series of catharses, realizing the weight of their imperialist sins and turning on their leaders. Not now, and not in the next few years, even if the war turns sour on the US.
Instead, for the most part we have to put it in terms of self-interest. That means an argument that could go something like this.
1) We share the goal of eliminating terrorism. 2) Aggression can do nothing but make the problem worse. 3) However, a virtually harmless solution exists. It must include:
-Cutting off aid to Israel/forcing them out of the territories, -ending the sanctions on Iraq, -pressuring authoritarian mid-east regimes to undergo democratic reforms.