<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 5.50.4134.100" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV>On the 29th Nathan Newman wrote --</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And Bin Laden doesn't give a shit about the Palestinians or global poverty.<BR>They are useful to him in generating the grievances that allows him to<BR>recruit to his Islamic fascist ideology, <EM>but the last thing he would want<BR>is to actually ameliorate those conditions, since then people might look<BR>less to heaven for their final reward.</EM></DIV> <DIV><EM>(end)</EM></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>There is historical precedent for this view.  In the early 1950's Magasay in the Philippines successfully suppressed communist insurgents with land reforms <EM>coupled with</EM> security measures and thus convinced the populations to become neutral in the conflict,  if not hostile to the guerillas.  It would seem to me that quasi-fascist groups like bin Laden's are in a more exposed position.  They are not offering to deal with child labor in Pakistan or a collapsing standard of living in Saudi Arabia of Egypt.  Their promise of social salvation via Islamic law would seem to be harmed by conditions in Taleban controlled Afghanistan.  Also,  my understanding of the nature of public opinion (derived from the foreign press) in many Middle Eastern and southern Asian countries is that there is not any substantial support for bin Laden (but there is dwindling support for the Bush-led war,  a somewhat ambivalent situation).   </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Chuck0 wrote --</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The problem as I see it is that the usual suspects in the Left are<BR>trying to create *one* big movement that has common goals and de facto<BR>leadership. This is the approach used in previous anti-war campaigns by<BR>the Left. On the other hand, the anti-globalization/anti-capitalist<BR>tendency has been a diverse collection of movements, networks and<BR>currents.</DIV> <DIV>(end)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Isn't this the reason that the anti-globalization "movement" (and the alternative media explosion) has been so relatively sucessful and vibrant?  Even out here in the rural wasteland where I live Seattle and Genoa had an impact.  From what I  have read here and elsewhere it seems that this "movement" (sorry about the " ") is not really an anti-war movement,  but a coaltion of the Opposition,  an opposition of wide and oftentimes mutually distrustful constituents.  The only thing that makes many of these groups allies is a shared set of interest (as opposed to tactics,  ideologies) -- this and no unresolvable conflicts of morality,  correct conduct,  or correct ideology will be the basis of any sort of concensus.  It occurs to me that what unifies the opposition at the moment - which includes those for peace-at-all-costs,  those for limited "justice",  and those for a "just war" -- is antagonism to the Bush regime -- to <EM>their</EM> war, to <EM>their</EM> policies,  <EM>their</EM> agenda -- based in the very real fear that they will cloak their far-right corporate agenda in the flag.  Bush and the interest that he serves have been strengthened.  Isn't this one thing that we all oppose (and aren't we only defensively allied in that we are not in favor of the same policies and politics)?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Robert Mahaney</DIV></BODY></HTML>