Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [OT] _happy_ poltical things

[Jan-Benedict Glaw]

On Tue, 2004-07-20 15:13:51 +0100, Robin Green <address@hidden>
wrote in message <address@hidden>:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 05:26:54PM -0700, Tom Lord wrote:
> >   3. We'll absorb a small number of hits, gratis.
> > 
> >      9/11 blows.  It was, truly, an Evil-with-a-capital-E act.
> > 
> >      Hey bad guys: very interesting.  We're going to trump that,
> >      though: with love.  Say, have you spoken with your _wife_ lately?
> 
> I don't know what this is supposed to translate into in terms of actual 
> practical
> policy, but what is needed first and foremost is to remove terrorist's 
> capabilities
> to do more harm, by arresting them, removing them from positions of power, or 
> killing
> them if necessary, and attacking the things which cause terrorism to become 
> such a
> huge problem (money supply, injustices driving people into the arms of Bin 
> Laden, ...
> and on the state terrorism side, things like, unaccountable institutions, 
> propaganda,
> Western indifference towards victims of Western imperialism, etc.)

I think chasing terrorists is the wrong way, and taking away the
possibilities to do attacks like 9/11 (or any other bombing attack)
won't work either, since you can buy all needed stuff for a good bomb in
the next supermarket. It's about *knowledge* on how to handle that...

So what remains is to make life for possible terrorists happy enough so
that there's no need (from their point of view) for any radical attack.

> When a madman is on the loose killing people, society's first priority is not 
> to "send him
> some love". He may not respond to love, or he may not respond in the way you 
> want.
> Society's first priority is to stop him from killing people.

Either bei assassinate him, or by bringing any "target" out of his
reach, or by accepting it as collateral damage.

> Having got my rational objections out of the way, I feel I must impart some 
> of the emotional
> side which was lacking in the previous two paragraph: Your point 3 is 
> religious/spiritual
> nonsense. People like you - and I know this is harsh - are seen as an 
> embarassment by many in
> the anti-war movements. It is reminiscent of airheaded daydreaming from the 
> Sixties (John
> Lennon - all we need is love? Really? So we can all just join hands and 
> everything will be OK?),
> or the teachings of Indian so-called spiritual gurus, or "yogic flying", or 
> many other fads
> which substituted a vague and generalised notion of "love" for rational 
> thought.

But you miss one thing: there are others that think like Tom, at least
while this topic is discussed. Eg. I didn't go to Germany's military
service, for several reasons. I don't want to have a weapon at my hand,
because in that case, anybody is expecting that I'm to act as in (1) of
the above paragraph. In reality, I'd more act like (2) or (3), probably
in that order. If something is to happen: Run! I don't try to defeat.

> Love is *not* all we need. The notion that things would be better if *only* 
> people were a little
> nicer, is simplistic and can even be a tarpit, because it downgrades the 
> importance of understanding actually-existing institutions and how they tend 
> towards corruption
> through the influence of money and other forms of power - again, substituting 
> mindless "happy
> thoughts" for real analysis.

Don't take Tom's "love" too much of a word as in "love your g/f". I for
one read it more like in "acceptance".

MfG, JBG

-- 
   Jan-Benedict Glaw       address@hidden    . +49-172-7608481
   "Eine Freie Meinung in  einem Freien Kopf    | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg
    fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger" | im Internet! |   im Irak!
   ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA));

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature