> I may not think that Nathan's provided his most lucid analysis as regards
> the recent terrorism, but I see no reason to viscously lampoon him.
-But seriously: Nathan did say, again and again and again and in spite of
-all protestations, that contextualizing events is exactly the same thing
as
-justifying them, and that anybody who sees any connection whatsoever
-between U.S. foreign policy and what happened is effectively celebrating
-the victims' deaths. I'd say that's pretty vicious (if not viscous).
Niether viscous not correct. JUst for the record and I'll shut up per Doug's request, as I've repeated, my issue was with causation and explanation. I repeatedly said raising the issue of increasing global justice and addressing unmet grievances (read Palestinian rights) was a useful response to the tragedy. Despite the breast-beating, my point differed with most peoples viewpoint rather narrowly on semantics on the issue of causality-- I just happen to think that politically that narrow difference in how these issues are approached matters tremendously politically at the moment.
But as Doug notes, we've covered all this.
-- Nathan Newman