> At 05:52 AM 10/29/01 -1000, Stephen E Philion wrote:
> >I was on the phone most of the day calling and looking for good friends
> >in NYC or one who was on an early morning light en route to NY and
> >LA...you can imagine what was one of the possiblities was running thru my
> >mind. But somehow that didn't make me into an irrational person writing
> >threatening letters...
> >
> >Steve
>
>
> which is what a lot of folks in the political "middle" think about ObL Inc.
> they say, "sure, there's lots of problems in the ME, problems we caused,
> but most people don't engage in terrorism. doesn't really cut it."
>
>
> kelley
Though I'm not sure I see the relevance of your remarks to the ones that I posted, i would instead calim that it doesn't really matter much whether it cuts it or not. The issue at hand is not whether one supports the resort to terrorism, since very few (aside from perhaps, say, Ward Churchill) support the turn of some to WTC/P attacks on civilians. What is more important is asking what conditions (structural factors to borrow from your lexicon) give rise to the likelihood that persons will resort to that strategy as one of a number of alternatives? If, for example, a 'middle' American would argue that US active support for Bin Laden types in Afghanistan, support of Israeli settlements, etc. etc. etc. doesn't increase the likelihood that #s of persond turnign to WTC/P type strategies, I would argue they are seriously mistaken. This much is no longer even really a question in the mainstream press...Why should it be on the left?
Steve