Hitchens takes on SA and Tarique Ali

[Doug Henwood]

And saying things that Tariq himself said. I'm about to post to the 
LBO website the interview I did with him long ago, and he made the 
same points about "the servants and satraps of the Empire" that Hitch 
makes here. I'm very confused.

Doug

Max B. Sawicky wrote:


>Where's the original Hitch piece?
>
>I don't understand this.  He seems to be saying stuff
>he was roasting others for saying last year.
>
>max
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>[mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Peter K.
>Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2002 5:38 PM
>To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>Subject: Re: Hitchens takes on SA and Tarique Ali
>
>
>Hitchens:
>>In a ridiculous recent book titled The Clash of Fundamentalisms, Tariq
>>Ali begins by saying that "there exists no exact, incontrovertible
>>evidence about who ordered the hits on New York and Washington," and
>>then goes on to state, exactly and incontrovertibly enough, that with
>>these hits, "the subjects of the Empire had struck back." Wrong. Wrong
>>twice. As wrong as could be. These attacks came from the servants and
>>satraps of the Empire, and the Empire's managers are culpable for a
>>little bit more than their failure to foresee them.
>
>I don't understand how people can argue that the US created the Taliban,
>etc.
>and then going on saying that the oppressed of the world are striking back.
>As long
>as the Empire is hurt, it's a good thing? Or rather that the Empire has no
>right complain, let alone prevent future attacks?