Terrorism Re: Corporate transparency

S. Alexander Jacobson alex@shop.com
Wed, 9 Jan 2002 19:16:34 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)


Re George Washington as Terrorist.  Can you give
some context here? I don't believe the American
Revolutionaries were e.g. bombing/setting-fire-to
pubs in London?

Re cowardice, Bill Maher chose to oppose Bush's
spin campaign.  He may have done it out of
anti-Bush or anti-US sentiment, rather than
pro-terrorist sentiment, but either of those
justifies anger.  If he were scoring some
anti-Bush points that was not the time to do so,
and if he were scoring some anti-US points that
was also not the time to do so.

The notion that he just prefers "to live in the
real world, rather than in the world of spin" is
just laughable given that title and content of his
show.

-Alex-

___________________________________________________________________
S. Alexander Jacobson                   i2x Media
1-212-787-1914 voice                    1-603-288-1280 fax




On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Jeff Bone wrote:

>
> "S. Alexander Jacobson" wrote:
>
> > Terrorists terrorize civilians in order to get
> > them to change their government's policy.
> > Terrorism is not a viable strategy against a
> > dictatorship.  Terrorism involves violence
> > or threats of violence against innocent civilians
> > and is evil.
>
> This is nice in theory, but ignores the reality of conflict.  No significant
> conflict has ever been fought that didn't involve civilian casualties, and
> most have involved *intentional* civilian casualties.  Even the antique notion
> of "gentleman soldiers" is a total myth, a fabrication of folklorists.  The US
> war for independence was particularly bloody, and indeed involved much
> violence against otherwise innocent British and American "civilians."  So let
> me be more specific in my query:  are you ready to assert that the American
> revolutionaries were terrorists?  Does that therefore mean that you don't
> believe the American cause justified these actions?  If you do believe they
> were justified, then isn't it likely that this is a subjective assessment, and
> that other people operating just as reasonably as you are might assess the
> activities of i.e. the 9-11 crowd as "justified?"
>
> BTW, I'm *NOT* justifying the attacks at *ALL.*  Indeed, I think we've
> under-responded to the attacks.  I am, however, sensitive to the fact that
> moral absolutism here really serves no good purpose, and indeed may obscure
> our understanding of the issues at hand and our crafting of appropriate
> responses / deterrants to future similar occurrances.
>
> > In contrast violence against an oppressor/attacker
> > may be ok, because it falls into the category of
> > self-defense.
>
> Based on what I've heard / seen / read, this is exactly how many Muslim
> extremists view this conflict.
>
> > Regarding cowardice, why is it important to you to
> > correct the usage in their case.
>
> I fear that we've got a trend of rampant semantic revisionism going on, and
> I'm committed to fighting against it wherever I find it. ;-)
>
> > Obviously
> > cowardice is a non-provable condition.  Bush's
> > usage is purely spin to support the campaign
> > against them
>
> You got it.
>
> > The reason why people got upset at
> > Bill Maher is that either he did not understand
> > that or he was against the campaign against
> > the 9/11 terrorists.
>
> I think this is pretty simplistic.  People got mad at Bill Maher for any
> number of complex, emotional reasons.  His failure to predict that reaction is
> a failure of sensitivity more than anything else;  I doubt seriously that he
> either failed to understand that Bush was spinning things *or* that he was
> expressing pro-terrorist sentiment.
>
> > After all, if it was only a
> > matter of semantic correctness, there are many
> > things to talk about that are less helpful to OBL.
>
> Some people prefer to live in the real world, rather than the world of spin.
> For those people, spin --- particularly egregious demagoguery of the sort
> we're discussing --- is particularly irritating.  I assume Bill is one of the
> former.
>
> Point of fact, btw.  Most of the backlash at Bill wasn't *actually* about the
> cowardice issue vis-a-vis applying that label to the 9-11 murderers, but
> rather his comments in the same context about whether our own military actions
> against Al Qaeda a couple of years back weren't in some sense more cowardly.
> Now, that wasn't a very bright thing for him to say, and he took the heat on
> it.  My agreeing with him regarding the 9-11 guys not being cowards doesn't
> imply that I also agree with him that our own cruise missile attacks
> demonstrate a relative cowardice.
>
> jb
>
>