Re: [Osx-nutters] President Bush Vows Attacks “Across the World”

[Patrick Coskren]

On Oct 3, 2006, at 12:51 PM, guy hammond wrote:

> I'm simply saying that that's what they mean when they say  
> "terrorist". A lot
> of people are really smug about being clever enough to point out that
> terrorism is a tactic and as such cannot be "defeated". Well,  
> they're not so
> clever as they think, because defeating "terrorism" per se was  
> never the
> intent! It's not exactly rocket science to observe that terrorist  
> supporters
> such as NORAID right there in NYC and Boston have been completely  
> ignored.

We're hardly being smug in pointing it out, when the Administration  
is lying about it to the American public, which is largely buying  
it.  In a democracy, that's a big deal.  But personally, I think you  
give the Administration too much credit for being of one mind about  
this.

> I believe that Rumsfeld et al don't see a structural difference  
> between
> different ideologies. Communism was an ideology, and Communism was  
> "defeated"
> and is now largely irrelevant in world affairs, therefore it  
> follows, they
> reckon, that all ideologies can be defeated simply by making their  
> underlying
> geopolitical infrastructure untenable. But while you can say  
> "filthy Commie"
> etc etc, you can't get away with applying the same to a religion.  
> So, they
> don't. Actions speak louder than words anyway.

Now you're giving Rumsfeld *way* too much credit.  Communism was  
taken down by isolating and containing it until its own internal  
contradictions brought it crashing down.  I think it's fair to say  
that the Administration's policy with Iraq (and, I fear, soon Iran)  
is entirely different.  The anti-Communism strategy of containment,  
for all its faults and downsides, is exactly what was in place  
against Iraq when Bush took office.