[Peace-discuss] Limits of allowable debate

[C. G. Estabrook]

The same edition of the NYT (I really won't miss it when it goes) includes a 
review by the awful Clintonoid pop-off Sean Wilentz, justifying particularly 
speciously 19th c. US imperialism, with obvious present-day implications...


David Green wrote:
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/opinion/22wright.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print>
>  
> The NYT brings in Robert Wright, a liberal heavy thinker known among 
> other things for his contributions to the dubious field of evolutionary 
> psychology, to define the LOAD for Hasan/Ft. Hood:
>  
> 
> "Conservatives backed war in Iraq, and they’re now backing an escalation 
> of the war in Afghanistan. Liberals (at least, dovish liberals) have 
> warned in both cases that killing terrorists is counterproductive if in 
> the process you create even more terrorists; the object of the game 
> isn’t to wipe out every last Islamist radical but rather to contain the 
> virus of Islamist radicalism."
> 
>  
> 
> As long as we discuss various perspectives on "terrorism," we can't 
> consider that this was not terrorism as commonly defined as attacks 
> against civilians. Whatever the pathology of Hasan, we might compare him 
> to a black soldier from segregated American asked to kill Asians (and 
> perhaps return home to enforce martial law in Newark or Detroit) in the 
> 1960s. What the LOAD will not allow us to do is to think of this event 
> in terms of rebellion.
> 
>  
> 
> DG