[Peace-discuss] Obama embraces a fraud: Brits

[C. G. Estabrook]

And Obama has once again done what he's good at, John: distracting you from the
killing being done in your name.


John W. wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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 
> <mailto:milibandd at parliament.uk>
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list 
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net 
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss