[Peace-discuss] Obama embraces a fraud: Brits

[John W.]

It's a good enough essay, but I love how you twist all of your subject lines
into vitriole against Obama, Carl.  Here are some suggestions for future
posts:

"Obama Enjoys Repast of Succulent Afghan Babies"
"Obama Joins Al Qaeda as Chief Terrorist, Replacing bin Laden"
"Obama Becomes World's Chief Terrorist, Replacing Bush"
"Obama Rains Down Fire on Gaza, Says Fire Is from 'Heaven'"
"Obama Find Hell 'Pleasant' After Brief Tete-a-Tete with Satan"
"Satan Finds Obama 'A Man After My Own Heart', Sources Say"
"Dr. Ruth: Like Clinton, Obama Derives Sexual Satisfaction from Slaughter of
Innocents"
"Obama Takes Lessons from Madoff in Defrauding Public, Betraying Trust"
"APA Unanimous:  Obama Is Deranged Psychotic Serial Killer"
"Charles Manson: If I Could Have Voted, It Would Have Been For Obama.  No
Question."
"Obama Uses Charisma as Secret Weapon to Perpetrate Unholy Acts"

Please let me know if you need any more.

Helpfully,

John



On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:35 AM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:

[Obama has said that Afghanistan and Pakistan are now the front-line in the
> "war on terror" as his justification for sending 30,000 more US troops to
> Afghanistan, doubling the current US military there.  Here he's given the
> lie by the British Foreign Secretary.  --CGE]
>
>    'War on terror' was wrong
>    * David Miliband
>    * The Guardian, Thursday 15 January 2009
>
> The terrorist attacks in Mumbai seven weeks ago sent shock waves around the
> world. Now all eyes are fixed on the Middle East, where Israel's response to
> Hamas's rockets, a ferocious military campaign, has already left a thousand
> Gazans dead.
>
> Seven years on from 9/11 it is clear that we need to take a fundamental
> look at our efforts to prevent extremism and its terrible offspring,
> terrorist violence. Since 9/11, the notion of a "war on terror" has defined
> the terrain. The phrase had some merit: it captured the gravity of the
> threats, the need for solidarity, and the need to respond urgently - where
> necessary, with force. But ultimately, the notion is misleading and
> mistaken. The issue is not whether we need to attack the use of terror at
> its roots, with all the tools available. We must. The question is how.
>
> The idea of a "war on terror" gave the impression of a unified,
> transnational enemy, embodied in the figure of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida.
> The reality is that the motivations and identities of terrorist groups are
> disparate. Lashkar-e-Taiba has roots in Pakistan and says its cause is
> Kashmir. Hezbollah says it stands for resistance to occupation of the Golan
> Heights. The Shia and Sunni insurgent groups in Iraq have myriad demands.
> They are as diverse as the 1970s European movements of the IRA,
> Baader-Meinhof, and Eta. All used terrorism and sometimes they supported
> each other, but their causes were not unified and their cooperation was
> opportunistic. So it is today.
>
> The more we lump terrorist groups together and draw the battle lines as a
> simple binary struggle between moderates and extremists, or good and evil,
> the more we play into the hands of those seeking to unify groups with little
> in common. Terrorist groups need to be tackled at root, interdicting flows
> of weapons and finance, exposing the shallowness of their claims,
> channelling their followers into democratic politics.
>
> The "war on terror" also implied that the correct response was primarily
> military. But as General Petraeus said to me and others in Iraq, the
> coalition there could not kill its way out of the problems of insurgency and
> civil strife.
>
> This is what divides supporters and opponents of the military action in
> Gaza. Similar issues are raised by the debate about the response to the
> Mumbai attacks. Those who were responsible must be brought to justice and
> the government of Pakistan must take urgent and effective action to break up
> terror networks on its soil. But on my visit to south Asia this week, I am
> arguing that the best antidote to the terrorist threat in the long term is
> cooperation. Although I understand the current difficulties, resolution of
> the dispute over Kashmir would help deny extremists in the region one of
> their main calls to arms, and allow Pakistani authorities to focus more
> effectively on tackling the threat on their western borders.
>
> We must respond to terrorism by championing the rule of law, not
> subordinating it, for it is the cornerstone of the democratic society. We
> must uphold our commitments to human rights and civil liberties at home and
> abroad. That is surely the lesson of Guantánamo and it is why we welcome
> President-elect Obama's commitment to close it.
>
> The call for a "war on terror" was a call to arms, an attempt to build
> solidarity for a fight against a single shared enemy. But the foundation for
> solidarity between peoples and nations should be based not on who we are
> against, but on the idea of who we are and the values we share. Terrorists
> succeed when they render countries fearful and vindictive; when they sow
> division and animosity; when they force countries to respond with violence
> and repression. The best response is to refuse to be cowed.
>
> • David Miliband is the foreign secretary milibandd at parliament.uk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090116/5e6a86b9/attachment.html