Re: it turns out that CNN manipulated the news again...

[Victor Steinbok <Victor.Steinbok@VERIZON.NET>]

This might be the second time I've publicly agreed to George
Cunningham's post, but I'll gladly make that sacrifice :-)

There is one detail, however, that stands out:

>   However the view is hedged, when a person says the United States "had it
> coming," what he or she means is that murder is a morally appropriate
> rejoinder to a perceived slight or injustice. The annihilation of innocent
> civilians is thereby cast as a legitimate means to promote one's political
> or theological ends. This is familiar territory for the radical left: Since
> the time of Lenin, Marxists have preached the virtues of exterminating
> inconvenient classes of individuals in order to bring those still living
> into a state of equality. . . .

There are two problems with this statement--one historical and one
representational. Although one might attribute the above-mentioned
views to Marxists, Marx is hardly the origin of this attitude. The
concept goes back to at least the French Revolution (although aspects
of it can be seen in some feudal laws). It also does not represent
accurately the view of ALL those who blame the US foreign policy and
oppose further military actions. Many are ardent pacifists and are
afraid that more actions, particularly of retaliatory nature, will
not end the cycle of violence and simply lead to more bloodshed. I am
not saying that I agree with such views--I do not--but they do not
fall under the sweeping generalizations espoused by the National
Post, which is, by the way, a Murdock paper, so its stance is not
surprising.

Otherwise, my hat off to George for a nice pick up.

       VS-)

At 9:48 PM -0400 9/19/01, George Cunningham wrote:
> List,
>
> I suppose I should focus on testing and I should. I just left a class I am
> teaching in basic measurement principles, but I must make a strong response
> to those who think we had it coming.  From the Wall Street Journal, Best of
> the Web.
>
> Canada's National Post weighs in with a powerful editorial attacking
> those--mostly in Britain and Canada, but we have them in the U.S. as
> well--who are justifying Tuesday's atrocity by attacking U.S. foreign
> policy:
>   However the view is hedged, when a person says the United States "had it
> coming," what he or she means is that murder is a morally appropriate
> rejoinder to a perceived slight or injustice. The annihilation of innocent
> civilians is thereby cast as a legitimate means to promote one's political
> or theological ends. This is familiar territory for the radical left: Since
> the time of Lenin, Marxists have preached the virtues of exterminating
> inconvenient classes of individuals in order to bring those still living
> into a state of equality. . . .
>
>   At the heart of the propaganda campaign against the United States is a
> moral equivalence conflating what is evil with what is merely imperfect. In
> the Cold War, this tactic took the form of the argument that the United
> States was just as dictatorial as the Soviet Union because poor Americans
> were allegedly not "free" from injustice, racism and want. Now that we have
> entered a new kind of war, this fatuous argument has been recycled: Yes,
> Islamist maniacs slaughter thousands of innocents . . . but think of the
> psychic pain inflicted on the Middle East by Taco Bell and the Backstreet
> Boys. Who is to judge which is more inhumane?
>
>   In Macbeth, Shakespeare reserved a special space in Hell for "an
> equivocator, that could swear in both the scales against either scale." That
> thought provides some consolation as we watch our television screens and see
> this shameful parade of apologists wagging their fingers at the United
> States.
>
> Along similar lines is a piece in London's Telegraph by Janet Daley, titled
> "A Message to the Left: Grow Up, This Isn't a Game." And Andrew Sullivan
> makes a brilliant point:
>
>   One of the amazing things about the far left's embrace of the
> anti-American ideology of some in the Middle East is their willful blindness
> about what these fanatics actually believe in. Susan Sontag [third to last
> item], for example, is a Jew. Does she honestly believe that America is
> responsible for more evil than a bunch of Muslim fanatics who would gas her
> in a second if they could?
>
>   Could any gay person seriously argue for appeasement of people who would
> execute [him] on the spot if [he] lived under their rule? Could any serious
> feminist not believe in opposing fanatics who would eviscerate the slightest
> shred of freedom for women? I just don't get it. Liberals of all people
> should be the most serious about fighting this scourge. Is their hatred of
> America that deep?
>
>   As to bin Laden's vicious anti-Semitism, check the PBS interview out. Here
> are my choice excerpts from the Goebbels of Afghanistan: "The enmity between
> us and the Jews goes far back in time and is deep rooted. There is no
> question that war between the two of us is inevitable. . . . The leaders in
> America and in other countries as well have fallen victim to Jewish Zionist
> blackmail. . . . Once again, I have to stress the necessity of focusing on
> the Americans and the Jews for they represent the spearhead with which the
> members of our religion have been slaughtered. Any effort directed against
> America and the Jews yields positive and direct results--Allah willing. . .
> . We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we
> are concerned, they are all targets, and this is what the fatwah says. . . .
> We believe that this administration represents Israel inside America. Take
> the sensitive ministries such as the Ministry of Exterior and the Ministry
> of Defense and the CIA, you will find that the Jews have the upper hand in
> them."
>
>   This isn't like Nazism. In its pathological, paranoid hatred of the Jews,
> it is Nazism. And these guys want to appease it again?
>
> We suspect--we hope--the folks who've made sympathetic noises about
> America's enemies have done so merely out of habit, the enormity of the
> current situation not having quite sunk in yet. Perhaps it takes longer than
> a week for even an atrocity like this to pierce a shield of cynical
> complacency built over decades.
>
> George K. Cunningham
> University of Louisville
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "rick hotmail" <scharfrick@HOTMAIL.COM>
> To: <ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 4:47 PM
> Subject: Re: it turns out that CNN manipulated the news again...
>
>
> mike kluznik wrote:
> <<For the record, with some uncertainty, I personally opposed Desert Storm.
> In retrospect, I think my decision was right, given that bin Laden has
> apparently used the excuse of our troops there as a reason for committing
> atrocities.>>
>
> i think you made a good decision then and i think the fact that our presence
> in saudi arabia has been used to fuel the fire which prompted these attacks
> only emphasizes the fact that US military action will only lengthen the
> lines of terrorists willing to die to inflict more pain on the US...
>
> <<i also think it foolish that i should review my past actions to try
> and justify why some muslim arab would want to kill me>>
>
> and this is exactly my point...it is not YOUR past actions that will result
> in your being a target...it is the actions of YOUR government...
>
> i wasn't (and am still not) criticizing your use of pronouns as much as i
> was reacting to the content of your argument...i'm sorry that you took it
> personally...
> rick
>
> ps.  sorry all for continuing to clog the list with discussion not directly
> linked to testing...im done
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
> to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.