From: Jacques Du Pasquier (jacques@dtext.com)
Date: Fri Sep 28 2001 - 06:02:02 MDT
Samantha Atkins a écrit (28.9.2001/01:32) :
> > The idea that you (the US) are somehow responsible for these attacks
> > has some popularity here in France. But on this instance, it doesn't
> > seem true. The islamists just want to impose their world order,
> > according to their sense of justice. It has little to do with wrongs
> > you would have done according to YOUR sense of justice.
> >
>
> Hmmm. Saying "the islamists" above implies all Islamic people
> want
> this.
No, of course not. I was using the word "islamist" as opposed to
"islamic". You can be muslim/islamic (beliefs, personal life) without
being islamist (want society to be ruled by islam). You can also be
islamist without being imperialist (want all world to be thus ruled,
not just your society). And you can even be imperialist without being
violent (using persuasion for example). Anyway, I'm talking about the
few islamist-imperialist-violent muslims who do that sort of things.
> Wanting in general to produce such a world by itself would not
> focus the energy on America in particular necessarily.
First, is it not focused on America only, but also Israel, and all
Europe. For example, in december 1994, a plane was hijacked by an
islamist commando, they killed two people then landed in south of
France and demanded a complete refill of fuel. Fortunately French
special police units managed to stop this. We now know that the plane
was planned to crash itself on the center of Paris.
Second, there are 4 main reasons for which the US are aimed : support
for Israel, presence in Saudi (sacred home land of islam), general
world domination, and cultural influence.
Basically, you can't help on any of these points. In particular, world
domination will be more and more necessary, as more destructive
weapons get available (for the long term, see Drexler for example) and
will imply things like presence in Saudi and support for Israel.
Cultural influence seems inevitable, too, disrupting their society,
and giving women for example "absurd and dangerous" ideas.
> > A French editorialist (Serge July) ended an article recently saying :
> > "we should remember that the only real solution to terrorism is
> > justice". This is an illusion : you just cannot imagine that, the
> > world being fair according to your sense of justice, a large group of
> > people could want to kill you ; but as a matter of fact, that's the
> > the way it is. According to their sense of justice, your very life is
> > an offense to the Creator. They hate you. Not for what you have done
> > to them ; for your (lack of) beliefs, for your way of living, for your
> > Infidelity.
>
> Such hatred is not compatible with much of most religious belief
> systems or their literature. It is practiced by some subset of
> some
> religious groups. It is quite questionable even within their
> religion. Such questioning by other members of their religion
> of differening opinions is probably one of the fastest peaceful
> ways to diffuse such "religious" hatred.
That may well be, but I'm not sure how we make this happen.
ANd you should not dismiss too easily that there is something in islam
that makes it produce with regularity this tiny minority of terrorists.
For example, in Christianism, force is not well regarded. It is in
islam. In Christianism, you should love even your ennemy. Not in
islam.
> > The word "valid" is the problem. Their claims (like having Jews out of
> > Palestine, and having US out of Saoudi, and finally extending islam
> > over the planet) are valid according to them, but not according to you
> > (well, to me at least). As this translates in attacks on you, you
> > cannot afford so much tolerance as to treat them as "valid", even if
> > they are valid in some sense (= they are consistant with their sense
> > of justice).
>
>
> Even without these very questionable things there are many
> claims that are perfectly valid where we did in fact act in a
> slimey and underhanded fashion. We can at least address those
> honestly.
You sure can and should. But be prepared that it won't solve the
problem.
And if these very points were done for opportunistic reasons, as a way
of protecting your control and domination, then "correcting" them
might make things even worse.
> > Of course this is a bit of a constraint. But I think it is quite
> > understandable. The US have been hurt, they seek back up. It doesn't
> > seem very responsible from us (France) to decline it -- and then ask
> > more support from you when things go worse.
> >
>
> Sure but this is not the point. France should not support US
> policies and actions on this blindly any more than Americans should.
> Freedom includes the right to freely question and to disagree. It
> doesn't make you or your country complicit in terrorism if you do
> disagree.
I think this is not a yes/no problem. Imagine that your friend is
badly hurt, and asks help from you to counter. Depending on the kind
of help she asks, what really happened, what might happen next, who is
the attacker, etc., you will have a tension between various desires
and fears. It's a matter of nuance and quantity, and to make the right
choice you need to limitate the amount of blindness and cowardness that
you put in the resolution of the problem.
Jacques
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:11:02 MST