Those who do not obey shall be destroyed

Okay; someone has looked over this. I'm glad someone else
wrote it, since someone wanted to but didn't make time.

However, someone is a bit confused about parts of it. Someone took some liberties with parts of it, expanding in places, and someone else is free to nix any of that.

Someone did have questions about some parts of it:

1. Yes, yes, Bush clearly annihilates the very possibility
of non-Jewish, i.e. Arab, Israelis, which is stupid and evil; but is it true that it is *no* group or country's policy to rid Palestine of the Jewish State? That has been a goal at times. Is it no longer even Hamas's goal, for example?

2. I didn't really follow the second of the two "Bush suggests but does not say" forms; someone is taking him to be saying that terrorists want to destroy the U.S. because of the freedoms of our client states (which aren't, except for the case of Jewish citizens of the Jewish state, especially free)?

3. Someone makes very good points about the 'no permitted neutrality'; however, it's not clear to someone else whether it's Bush *himself* that one may not oppose w/out being taken as a terrorist or whether one is not permitted to oppose the U.S. or some or all or one of its (relevant? any?) policies or one is permitted to oppose neither any of the foregoing nor anything else Bush dreams up?

Two other points: someone might want to find Papa Doc's New World Order quote and include it for a bit of mad historical flavor. Also, someone might to include a bit or two about terrorist groups, of global reach, that we're safe, given the ideological reality of the New World Order, in assuming are *not* included. Someone might consider the IRA (which raises $$ in America, which means Boston is harboring and giving aid); anti-Castro terrorists in Cuba; Tamil Tigers; right-wing paramilitaries in Colombia, and so on.

Best,
Someone

Those who do not obey shall be destroyed
URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html
By Kendall Clark


   After listening to Bush's big war speech on Thursday, I had a few
   immediate concerns and questions.
   
     Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end
     there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global
     reach has been found, stopped and defeated.
     
   What group doesn't have global reach, especially in this day and
   age? Does this really mean reach or intention?
   
   Of course (as others have pointed out), declaring or waging war on a
   tactic doesn't quite make sense, especially a tactic, like
   terrorism, which is cheap, flexible, and (relatively) easy to adopt.
   Totalitarian states have trouble supressing groups using such
   tactics. That should worry us.
   
     They want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim
     countries, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. They want to
     drive Israel out of the Middle East. They want to drive
     Christians and Jews out of vast regions of Asia and Africa.
     
   Note that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan are hardly model
   democracies, and Israel unquestionably has many problematic and
   violent policies (to say the least). What all these states have in
   common is that they (the states, the governments) are all
   essentially our client states, and are not generally committed to
   the benefit of (large chunks of) their populations.
   
   There are deep and clear reasons to condemn terrorist groups.
   Wanting to drive Jewish Israelis out of the Middle East, or
   Christians and Jews out of "vast regions of Asia and Africa", would
   be one, but there's little plausible evidence that either of these
   is a clear goal of anyone.
   
   That Israeli policies inflame anti-Semitic rhetoric and feeling is
   unquestionable. That many conflate opposition to Israeli policy and
   action with anti-Semitism, or use anti-Semitism to rouse people to
   (often violent) action, is unfortunate and deplorable. But opposing
   the terroristic actions of our client states, including Israeli, is
   not, itself, something the U.S. can comfortably condemn out of hand.
   After all, it's a bedrock principle of U.S. political society that
   violent opposition is not only permissible but commendable, indeed,
   something which the U.S. should encourage.
   
   Has policy changed, then? Of course not. It's a similarly bedrock
   principle of U.S. political society that properly obedient client
   states of ours are to be supported against their opposition.
   
   Just before this passage, Bush said of the terrorist groups:
   
     They hate what we see right here in this chamber -- a
     democratically elected government. Their leaders are
     self-appointed. They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of
     religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble
     and disagree with each other.
     
   This juxtaposition is not accidental. Bush suggests, but does not
   say, that their alleged hatred of our freedoms -- which we deny to
   our client states, which also include the freedom to bomb whom we
   please, whenever we please, as often as we please -- is a hatred of
   freedom itself. Putting this next to their desire to overthrow
   certain governments, Bush suggests, but does not say, that the
   reason people want to overthrow those governments is their free and
   democratic nature.
   
   This is a rather stunning, if standard, bit of propaganda.
   
     Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and
     isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a
     lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may
     include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations,
     secret even in success.
     
   Secret even in success? Bush has already shrugged off congressional
   and popular oversight, not to mention any place for the U.N. or even
   the sleightest concern for international law, with regard to
   authorization of international force. But now he plainly says that
   we can forget about post facto oversight as well.
   
   He's declared himself top thug of the world. At his discretion and
   desire he can send teams to kill whomever he "determines" to have
   supported terrorism; and we, the people in whose name he acts, may
   never know.
   
     We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against
     another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge
     or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe
     haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a
     decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the
     terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that
     continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the
     United States as a hostile regime.
     
   One might assume that this only applies if the terrorism is "of
   global reach", but who knows for sure?
   
   In other words, the U.S. insists that there is no permitted
   neutrality or opposition anywhere in the world. You are either with
   whatever the U.S. wants or you are with the terrorists. Since that's
   nonsensical, since it's perfectly possible to be against terrorism
   and not be with Bush, perfectly possible to be against terrorism
   and against particular U.S. policies, Bush can only mean that if one
   is not with him (or all U.S. policies? And all U.S. policies?), then
   one will be treated as if one were a terrorist.
   
   Secret squads might break down your door and kill you, and no one
   will ever admit it.
   
   And Bush, and Bush alone, gets to determine what being "with" him
   means.
   
   Welcome to the Newest World Order.


--
Posted on Monkeyfist at http://monkeyfist.com/articles/785