>
> What I found distrubing is the general tenor of responses to 9-11 on the
> Left, that includes this list as well as other fora - that can be
> characterised as using 9-11 as an opportunity to voice their old grievances
> against the US policies, or even try to exonerate - if not the perpetrators
> - then at least some of their supporters and sympathizers. I find that in
> a very poor taste. Even the Bushies abstained from using 9-11 as platform
> to lash out at liberal policies in general and Clinton in particular (a few
> rightwing nuts notwithstanding).
>
Wotjek,
I consider voicing old grievances legitimate not to exonerate the terrorists, as you say, but as a counterbalance to the mainstream discourse of "good" vs "evil" and the idea that "they" hate "us" beause of an aminosity to freedom, justice, etc. This simiplified discourse encourages a self-congratulations absurd on its face, and detrimental to any reasonable evaluation of the problem. Indeed, the assertion of the United States as good enables the government to take any action it wants with the assurances that its action will be judged good. I understand you believe that Bin Laden and his cohorts are reacting to "modernity" and its values, not specific US actions, however, keeping in mind US actions as a cause of generalized animosity among segments of the Islamic populations strikes me as a way to possibly limits US hubris.
Jacob Segal