Re: Those who do not obey shall be destroyed

On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 01:34:00AM -0500, Kendall Clark wheezed something about:

Oops, me culpa on the no-line-break thing. Please find it formatted
more conducive to reading it below:

> 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,
Kendall

> 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Bonobos maillist  -  Bonobos-4GNy1lrxftmrG/[email protected]
> http://monkeyfist.com/mailman/listinfo/bonobos

-- 
When you're following an angel
Does it mean you have to throw your body off a building?