Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> > Who the fuck said anything was easy?
>
I'm claiming that _to be coherent_ you have to claim that your position is easy. Practical solutions are impractical if they can't be implemented. But you keep demanding practical solutions that can't be implemented.
And I think you really recognize your own incoherence so far on this issue. That would explain your repulsive query as to whether anyone on the list sympthized with Churchill's account of 911.
Incidentally, you have been attacked in a wholly unprincipled way on other lists, the attacks depending not on an accurate description of your position but on accounts of it that can charitably be described as gross misinterpretations. Don't think that I am operating from such a premise.
I know you are against the bombing. I claim that it is inconsistent to be against the bombing AND speak of practical solutions. And when Featherstone speaks of hard questions she is apparently speaking of the difficulty of working out a positive solution to the "problem" of terrorism. But there is no solution, and it is either incoherent or in bad faith to imply that there is.
Carrol