chip and wojtek agree. when and if we ever get any evidence about who did this and it turns out to be a group of people as wojtek describes, i do as well. however, there remain differences.
--wojtek supports military intervention because he assumes fascism or crypto-fascism.
--chip does not support military intervention and is actively organizing in an anti-war struggle, i think.
--yoshie see this as, if not a revolution against capital, then an opportunity to bring people along to the left while organizing against war in the belly of the beast. here, war is, potentially, an opportunity for more left organizing because it will destabilize the populace and, possibly, delegitimate the USG (but it may not, a scenario she also recognizes.)
--carrol seems to agree, but hasn't articulated it precisely; instead he has noted that this has put an end to a thirty yr depression. what carrol suggested early on is a "refusal": NO to USG intervention in other countries b/c the USG screws up.
it is likely that we are going to go to war--if the special ops forces don't find bin laden and blow his brains out (in defense, of course)
no one here seems to be a pacifist, so how do you justify your positions against war and why do you actively protest war if you do/plan on it?
if i am right, and this was an act of war waged on us by a patient group, then what?
what do you do in a world were some group has waged asymmetrical war on the country you live in.
i realize y'all might think it pointless to engage in such speculations. but i don't think they are.
for one thing, i am apparently the only one here who sees 9-11 as an act of war. but that's because i do not operate under the illusion that war is governed by rules. (and neither does the USG). just because they targeted civilians and used civilian airplanes, does not mean this isn't an act of war. and why should war be about attacking military installations anyway. we do no such thing, do we?
it was the act of a people who don't have their own weapons of war so they finally used our technologies against us. and, if i'm right, they will continue to do so -- slowly, methodically, patiently.
as i asked folks before, why do you think 9-11 was the last of it?
>Hi,
>
>So actually, sociology can offer an explanation. Alas, as Wojtek points
>out, it is that fascism--the most extreme form of right-wing populism--is
>primarily a repressive movement of middle-class activists. They are
>mobilized and manipulated by reactionary ruling class interests, but
>create an autonomous movement that frequently gets out of control.
>
>Since fascism is apocalyptic and palingenetic, it divides the world into good
>and evil, and sets out to destroy the evil and bring on the heroic
>rebirth. Its
>own explanations for its motives are rooted in demonization, scapegoating, and
>conspiracism.
>
>These are clerical fascist movements that are not playing by the same rules as
>liberation struggles. They do not want to stop the hand of the US in global
>politics...they want to stop the hands of time--hands which point inexorably
>toward the progress they see as scribing Satan's path.
>
>-Chip
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Wojtek Sokolowski" <sokol at jhu.edu>
>To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 4:52 PM
>Subject: Re: Sociology and Explanations (Re: Hitchens responds to critics
>
>Lots of <<<SNIPS>>>
>
> >
> > Ravi, you are still making an assumption that bin Laden and Co is a
> > reaction to the wrongs of the US policy. Following that logic, Eastern
> > European pogroms or Nazism should be seen a reaction to the wrongs
> > commmitted by international Jewery. At this point one may ask "what
> wrongs?"
> >
> > The point I am proposing is that we should adopt a different frame of
> > reference to discussing islamist fundamentalism - not as as a reaction to
> > popular discontent but as the creation of reactionary elements in the
> > ruling class of Arab/Islamic countries (esp. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan).
> > An analogy can be made fo the fascist movement in Italy, that originated as
> > a band of ex- World War I soldiers, bankrolled by landowners and
> > industrialists, to attack labor organizers. Islamic militants have similar
> > origins.
> >
> > Fascist movements often espouse poplist ideologies to attract more
> > followers that may sound similar to the ideologies espoused by socialist
> > movements, such as attacks on capitalism, international organizations,
> > wealthy individuals, moral decadence etc. But make no mistake - they are
> > very different types of movements.
>
> > As I said before, what bin Ladin and company say is a mere excuse and not a
> > reason. What they are against is not specific US policies but modernism
> > and its "perils" - equality, secularism, rationality, democracy.. The US is
> > merely a symbol, and its policies - mere excuses. In the same vein, Nazi
> > propagandists were denouncing Jewish "greed" and "disloyalty" to justify
> > nazi-led attacks on Jewish population.