Hmmm, what danger might a messianic group of cultists that harbors people who organize massive terror attacks pose to neighboring populations. I wonder.
--- On Sun, 6/7/09, SA <s11131978 at gmail.com> wrote:
> From: SA <s11131978 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] another DH loves BHO in Cairo
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Sunday, June 7, 2009, 4:41 PM
> Michael Smith wrote:
>
> > One would like to hear more about the danger that the
> Taliban posed to Russia, Iran, China and so forth.
> > [...]
> > Which brings us back to the Unitary Hegemon problem.
> Did the US as such -- assuming there is such a thing,
> possessing the capacity for action -- then act against its
> own interests? Or at random, without regard for its
> interests? Or did one gang of elite gangsters have an
> interest that the other gangs didn't share, and was that
> gang able to take the Marines out for a joyride, either
> because they Bogarted the other gangs or because the other
> gangs didn't much care?
> > The third hypothesis seems the most likely to me, but
> it's all conjecture. I'd like to see a coherent account that
> gives *any* intelligible and credible explanation for the
> Iraq and Afghanistan adventures. I would greet it like a
> long-lost brother.
> > The idea that the rag-tag Taliban was a "threat" to
> every great power in the world doesn't ring true for me,
> alas.
>
> You contradict yourself here. First you say that the
> architects of the Afghanistan invasion believed it was in
> their "interests" to topple the Taliban. Then you insist
> that the Taliban posed no "threat." But obviously the
> Taliban must have posed a threat to somebody if that
> somebody believed it was in their "interests" to topple the
> Taliban.
>
> The question is what kind of "threat." You don't say so
> here, but implicitly you seem to be saying that while you
> don't know for sure what "threat" these people perceived
> from the Taliban, whatever it was it *surely* must not have
> had anything to do with the fact that the Taliban was
> hosting terrorists who organized spectacular international
> attacks against the US and elsewhere.
>
> I have to say that that's a weird interpretation. Aren't
> spectacular terrorist attacks exactly the kind of thing that
> countries usually perceive as threats? Here you have (1) a
> clear case of a country where attacks were being organized
> against various targets; followed by (2) an invasion of the
> terrorist-hosting country by a recent target of one of the
> attacks. What exactly seems so incredible to you that (2)
> happened because of (1)?
>
> This sort of reminds me of pro-Israel types who insist that
> whatever the reason for Palestinians' attacks against
> Israel, the reason couldn't possibly be the occupation of
> Palestinian territory by Israel - must be something else.
>
> SA
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>