(no subject)

[Max Sawicky]

The factual veracity of Chomsky's remarks is
beside the point.  Offering facts implies a
political context.  The argument is really
about the implied political context.  We
could acknowledge that the U.S. created
OBL, or that "worse" things (whatever that
means) have happened to others with the
complicity of the U.S., but in the immediate
wake of *this* atrocity such observations are
offensive.  They are perceived as a deliberate
distraction from the crime  in question, and
in this way an insult to those in grief or
frightened.  There is also an implied political
agenda -- we should campaign against further
U.S. depredations in the world, again a
distraction from any sort of retaliation,
just or unjust.  This is insulting too, like
setting up a picket line at a funeral.  Worst
of all is all talk of this as some kind of
blow against imperialism that was misguided
or ill-conceived.  This ridiculous parody of
'left' analysis assigns a wholly-undeserved
status to OBL and/or whomever is responsible
for 9/11/02.  If a tornado struck the WTC,
would we call that a 'blow against imperlaism"?

In a situation like this, it is inevitable that
prudence is defined, at least for a while,
as giving those in authority the benefit of
the doubt.  In this kind of breach, there
appears to be no time for extended debate
and analysis.  Nor is there any real time
for politics.  That will change in a few
weeks.  Nothing the left does is going to
stop what the U.S. Gov does this month.
But what the left does now might have a
bearing on how its message is received
in coming months.

There is already plenty of doubt surfacing
about the value of assorted military options.
Today there is a near-perfect column, for instance,
by no less than Bob Novak, the prince of
darkness.  (The imperfection is blaming
the CIA's failure on "years of liberal
tinkering.")  I also see repeated preachments
against chauvinism within the U.S. towards
Muslims or Arabs.  A little hope lets you
see more possibilities, not fewer.

mbs

Let's review what Chomsky actually wrote:

"The terrorist attacks were major atrocities. In scale they may not reach
the level of many others..."

We'll go slowly here, pal.  "Major atrocities." Got that?

Now -- "In scale" -- he means the total number of dead people -- "they
may not reach the level of many others."  Are you contending that no other
atrocity killed more people?

He offers an example of an incident the effects of which you continue to
discount, and then says that there are "much worse cases, which easily
come to mind."

Again, do you dispute that?  Or don't examples from the Clinton
Administration alone easily come to your mind?  Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine,
Serbia, Somalia, Timor, Turkey, Palestine, Colombia...?

"But that this was a horrendous crime is not in doubt," says Chomsky. "It
is likely to prove to be a crushing blow to Palestinians and other poor
and oppressed people."

I can understand why you're uncomfortable, since you want to defend
Clinton's cruise missiles and the US/NATO war. How do you feel about the
coming Bush War?

Chomsky helps you get your thoughts together by quoting Robert Fisk:

"This is not the war of democracy versus terror that the world will be
asked to believe in the coming days. It is also about American missiles
smashing into Palestinian homes and US helicopters firing missiles into a
Lebanese ambulance in 1996 and American shells crashing into a village
called Qana and about a Lebanese militia - paid and uniformed by America's
Israeli ally - hacking and raping and murdering their way through refugee
camps."

Regards, CGE

PS: What makes you think I'm Caucasian?  Doing some of your own racial
profiling, are you?

On Sun, 16 Sep 2001 LeoCasey at aol.com wrote:


> This is a classic moving target.
>
> First, Chomsky says that the bombing of the Sudanese factory was worse
> than the bombing of the WTC -- without a piece of supporting evidence.
> Then Estabrook says it was equivalent -- with some wild and
> unsupported speculation that the destruction of a factory that was
> producing anti-malaria medicine and antibiotics led to the deaths of
> thousands. Now we are told that it was all of the deeds of the Clinton
> administration that killed more than the WTC bombing. This is where
> one gets to throw in the war against Milosevic that finally brought
> serial ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia to an end and claim
> it was an imperial war to save all the nonexistent oil in Kosova for
> the US, turning the massacred Moslems of Bosnia and the Albanian
> Kosovars into invisisble men. Get ready for the ride.
>
> You are right about one thing, Estabrook. It pisses me off incredibly
> when people -- especially people of the Caucasian hue -- misuse
> accusations of racism, because every time the accusation is bandied
> about in such illegitimate ways, it makes it all that much harder to
> fight the real racism that exists.
>
> Leo Casey
> United Federation of Teachers
> 260 Park Avenue South
> New York, New York 10010-7272 (212-598-6869)
>
> Power concedes nothing without a demand.
> It never has, and it never will.
> If there is no struggle, there is no progress.
> Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation are men
who
> want crops without plowing the ground. They want rain without thunder and
> lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters.
> -- Frederick Douglass --
>