Norah Vincent's perspective
Don Laird
dlaird1@austin.rr.com
Mon, 22 Oct 2001 17:32:07 -0500
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0044_01C15B1F.797C7D40
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
With apologies to the contributor, =20
According the the Terrorism Research Center, the FBI defines "terrorism" =
as follows: "Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against =
persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian =
population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or =
social objectives."=20
I especially like the FBI's definition, not only because it is fairly =
clear and specific, but also because it can be applied to so many of the =
actions taken by the federal government and its agencies. Consider the =
FBI itself. In 1993, according to 1995 Congressional testimony provided =
by on-the-scene FBI agents, the FBI used a gaseous mixture of =
CS/methylene chloride to insert into the residence of a religious sect. =
The agents explained that the babies and young children were indeed the =
targets of the mixture, because the tactical planners wanted the mothers =
to run out carrying their babies with them. The FBI engaged in this =
activity after a period of cutting off electricity, communications, =
food, water, and of introducing loud sounds and bright lights: a =
collection of activities that might be included under the classification =
of severe harassment. (If you or I had done it, would be be in prison =
or would we already be executed?)
The CS/methylene chloride mixture aplied to children seems pretty easy =
to classify under torture and intentional murder. Furthermore, the use =
of the lethal-to-children mixture of gas was so extremely important to =
the FBI that they planned and executed a barrage of lies to provide to =
Janet Reno in order to get her approval to use the deadly mixture =
("There is no reason to believe that Koresh has any intention of coming =
out voluntarily." "We had information that babies were being beaten." =
"He's slapping babies around." And, the HRT was becoming fatigued by =
the prolonged standoff.). =20
Is it illegal? While the tactical agents of the FBI have never been =
prosecuted, I believe it violates multiple laws, including the Nuremberg =
rules. =20
As for Norah Vincent, she does not define "terrorism," and instead =
mentions some characteristics, such as the targets are exclusively =
innocent civilians selected at random. She claims that bin Laden =
"engages in "sadistic opportunism." "As for "coward," my dictionary =
defines it as "One who shows disgraceful fear or timidity." Ms. Vincent =
emphasizes the anonymity of the terrorists to demonstrate, to prove, =
cowardice.
Ms. Vincent's essay represents a very common human pattern. Draw your =
(emotional) conclusion first, then present an argument with selected =
points, facts, and opinions to support it. At the same time, target a =
person to personally attack, like Stanley Fish.
Ms. Vincent, different from some attackers, is specific, so her =
emotional conclusions are easy to see. Her skillful syntax and usage of =
words like "semioticians" and "apposite" help to present a facade of =
knowledgeable analysis and imply an objective approach. Clearly, many =
people must like to read her emotional rants, which implies that they =
find her both knowledgeable and objective. I believe it is writers =
like Ms. Vincent who can illustrate some of the serious flaws that exist =
in human nature. We should all be aware of these flaws, because they =
are what explain some of our greatest man-made catastrophes. They =
directly relate to all aspects of the largely-unknown long history of =
U.S. terrorism. =20
My only question is, How many past sourced historical facts about the =
U.S. federal government and its actions can we find to place into the =
category of the FBI's definition of "terrorism?"
Don =20
----- Original Message -----to=20
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 1:08 PM
Subject: Norah Vincent's perspective
-snip-
Yes, they are cowards=20
- - - - - - - - - - -=20
By Norah Vincent=20
Oct. 18, 2001 | Much to the delight, I'm sure, of semioticians =
everywhere, the American media's response to the Sept. 11 disaster is =
devolving, more or less, into a war of words. Stanley Fish's recent New =
York Times op-ed, is perhaps the best single example of this. 1) =
Cowardly=20
Here is Fish: "Bill Maher, Dinesh D'Souza and Susan Sontag have gotten =
into trouble by pointing out that 'cowardly' is not the word to describe =
men who sacrifice themselves for a cause they believe in."=20
Indeed, it's true that during the last five weeks much has been made =
of one of President Bush's early remarks about the catastrophe. "Today," =
he said in his first address to the nation on the subject, "America was =
attacked by a faceless coward."=20
Now Fish, like so many of his fashionably iconoclastic cohorts in =
academe and elsewhere, along with Maher, D'Souza and Sontag, insists =
that "coward" is the wrong word here.=20
He's mistaken.=20
First of all, his backhanded definition of what cowardice is NOT =
(which is really just a wormy way of saying that the terrorists were =
brave) is flimsy. A person who kills himself for a cause, while he may =
not be a coward, is certainly not brave or in any way laudable either. =
He's a nut. No sane person, or truly self-sacrificing person, just =
outright kills himself for a cause. He may fight for it. He may even =
fight for it like the soldiers who stormed the beaches in Normandy, with =
the knowledge that he is likely to die. But living, not dying, is the =
goal, and this wish to live, as opposed to the wish to die, is what =
makes putting himself in harm's way so hard and so frightening. He =
doesn't want to do it, and therein lies the sacrifice. People who want =
to die, or who believe they'll be met by a pack of willing virgins in =
paradise if they die in service of their ideal, have resigned themselves =
and their will to live either to despair or fanaticism, both of which =
have the ef! fect of numbing the lamb into an automaton. Death isn't =
frightening when you're too hypnotized or narcotized to know what's =
happening, or care.=20
What's more, no truly brave person ever submits himself to death for a =
reward. Where's the sacrifice in that? Every couch potato in America =
would off himself instantly and painlessly -- which is in itself no =
small enticement to commit suicide -- if he thought he'd wake up in a =
Budweiser commercial on the other side. No suffering, and a chance to =
finally get your rocks off for eternity with no mullah lurking in the =
closet? Hell, I'd do it, too. Mass murder/suicide under these mercenary =
circumstances is cowardice, as well as lack of sincere conviction, =
defined.=20
But most importantly, and this is a point Sontag and Fish and others =
have willfully overlooked, these hijackers were cowards not so much =
because of what they did, but because of how they did it -- that is, =
anonymously. As Bush so appositely put it, they were cowards because =
they were "faceless." A coward is someone who won't stand up to a fight, =
and that is exactly what al-Qaida won't do. It's the warfare equivalent =
of a hit and run. Blow up thousands of unsuspecting noncombatants, who =
are utterly unable to defend themselves, and then take off for la-la =
land, or deny all responsibility, and then hide in a cave, letting your =
fellow faithful die on your behalf, because you're too much of a coward =
to make an appearance.=20
If Osama bin Laden's cause is so just, and he's so brave, then why =
doesn't he stand up and claim the carnage? Why doesn't he lead his =
armies into a bona fide battle, instead of ranting by videotape, =
refusing, exactly like Hitler, to emerge from his bunker, and insuring =
thereby that innocent Afghans will die? It doesn't seem to have occurred =
to anyone that if Osama bin Laden were truly a martyr dying for a cause, =
he'd have come out of hiding to save his people. Had he done so, no =
bombs would have fallen on them. But instead, he prefers to officiate =
from afar a war of attrition that inflicts death randomly, and to no =
ultimate avail.=20
And the fact that there is no avail, no actual cause except petty =
revenge and gross nihilism behind al-Qaida's murders brings us to our =
next embattled term.=20
2) Terrorism=20
Again, here is Fish: "When Reuters decided to be careful about using =
the word 'terrorism' because, according to its news director, one man's =
terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, Martin Kaplan, associate =
dean of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of =
Southern California, castigated what he saw as one more instance of =
cultural relativism. But Reuters is simply recognizing how unhelpful the =
word is, because it prevents us from making distinctions that would =
allow us to get a better picture of where we are and what we might do. =
If you think of yourself as the target of terrorism with a capital T, =
your opponent is everywhere and nowhere."=20
For starters, in no moral universe, except a relativistic one, do =
terrorists equal freedom fighters. Any freedom fighter worthy of the =
name does not kill innocent civilians. He targets the armies and =
military installations of the hostile occupying power, as a means of =
driving that power out. As such, he does so systematically, not =
randomly. His aim is not to terrify, or revenge himself upon his enemy, =
but to vanquish and expel him. The killing is a means to an end, and =
fairly undertaken in accordance with the rules of engagement in war, =
even guerrilla war.=20
A terrorist, by contrast, always targets civilians -- innocent =
bystanders to the conflict at hand. And he always does so at random. =
That's why he's called a terrorist. Duh. Terrorists are terrifying =
precisely because we do not know when or where they will strike next. =
They are indeed "everywhere and nowhere," and each of us, though a =
noncombatant, is made to feel that he is on the front lines of a war, a =
war he never declared and can do nothing to abridge. That combination of =
helplessness and vulnerability is the quintessence of terrorism.=20
Al-Qaida is its embodiment, and worse. It represents a new breed of =
terrorism even more senseless and terrifying than the old, and one =
eminently worthy of a capital T. These men have no cause but carnage. =
They are fighting solely for their pound of Western flesh. Nothing more. =
Why else would they bomb civilians randomly, refuse to take =
responsibility for the deed and make no demands? Even Arafat has =
rejected al-Qaida's clumsy, disingenuous attempts to co-opt the =
Palestinian cause after the fact. And now bin Laden is raving about =
Kashmir as well? Talk about a desperate grab bag of conceits. This isn't =
principled conflict. This is pure sadistic opportunism, bloodlust posing =
as crusade, a false paradigm of East vs. West engineered for one purpose =
only, to plunge the whole world into chaos.=20
To call such people anything but terrorists, or something more =
pejorative -- yes, even evil -- if we can think of it, is to play into =
their unappeasable hands, to disseminate their propaganda. To say, as =
Fish does, that they are "an enemy who comes at us with a full roster of =
grievances, goals and strategies," is to give them much more, not less =
(as he claims), credit than they deserve. Their belated grievances are a =
sham, and their strategy, mass murder, their goal. That's all. No =
equivocation need apply to or cloud this fact.=20
But nebulizing what's clear is the favored sport of Fish and friends. =
>From his throne of great wisdom and remove, Fish supposes that, in the =
throes of our cultural brainwashing, we condemn our enemy solely because =
he is the enemy, and not because he is wrong. We lack empathy. =
Understanding. And most of all -- here is the arrogant subtext -- =
intelligence. We use the words coward and terrorist because they are =
insulting, effective at demonizing an adversary against whom we are =
required to whip up public belligerence. If we were more enlightened, =
we'd see that such terms are inappropriate and, in fact, unhelpful to =
our greater understanding of the crisis we face.=20
Of course, precisely the opposite is true. Using terminology that =
applies, and can be reasonably argued to apply, is exactly what =
clarifies the situation and allows us to see it clearly and act =
accordingly. By contrast, this kind of intellectual gamesmanship and =
epistemic masturbation in which Fish and his ilk are so fond of =
indulging is utterly unhelpful.=20
Oh sure, to the uninitiated it sounds urbane on paper. Why it's the =
very porridge every sophist serves and every sophomore groupie eats for =
breakfast. But it is by no means "another name for serious thought." =
Rather it is just more proof of how irrelevant, self-aggrandizing, and =
willfully obfuscating our vogueish cognoscenti continue to be.=20
In trying to interpret the current crisis through a postmodern, =
morally relativistic lens, the usual suspects on the intellectual left =
threaten to seriously harm our focus and our spirit in a wildly =
confusing time. This is not to say that subtle, critical thinking is out =
of place in the current climate. On the contrary, it is desperately =
needed. But clarity, a reasonable attempt to face facts, and a concerted =
effort to use language responsibly are the intellectual's solemn mandate =
in trying times such as these, when life and death are at stake. It's =
not the time for word games.=20
salon.com=20
- - - - - - - - - - - -=20
About the writer=20
Norah Vincent is a New York journalist.=20
Sound=20
------=_NextPart_000_0044_01C15B1F.797C7D40
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#d8d0c8>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>With apologies to the contributor, </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>According the the Terrorism Research Center, the FBI =
defines=20
"terrorism" as follows: "Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or =
violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a =
government, the=20
civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political =
or=20
social objectives." </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>I especially like the FBI's definition, not only =
because it is=20
fairly clear and specific, but also because it can be applied to so many =
of the=20
actions taken by the federal government and its agencies. Consider =
the FBI=20
itself. In 1993, according to 1995 Congressional testimony =
provided by=20
on-the-scene FBI agents, the FBI used a gaseous mixture of CS/methylene =
chloride=20
to insert into the residence of a religious sect. The agents =
explained=20
that the babies and young children were indeed the targets of the =
mixture,=20
because the tactical planners wanted the mothers to run out carrying =
their=20
babies with them. The FBI engaged in this activity after a period =
of=20
cutting off electricity, communications, food, water, and of introducing =
loud=20
sounds and bright lights: a collection of activities that might be =
included under the classification of severe harassment. (If you or =
I had=20
done it, would be be in prison or would we already be executed?)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The CS/methylene chloride mixture aplied to children seems pretty =
easy to=20
classify under torture and intentional murder. Furthermore, the =
use of the=20
lethal-to-children mixture of gas was so extremely important to the =
FBI=20
that they planned and executed a barrage of lies to provide to Janet =
Reno in=20
order to get her approval to use the deadly mixture ("There is no reason =
to=20
believe that Koresh has any intention of coming out voluntarily." =
"We had=20
information that babies were being beaten." "He's slapping babies=20
around." And, the HRT was becoming fatigued by the prolonged=20
standoff.). </FONT><FONT size=3D2></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Is it illegal? While the tactical agents of =
the FBI have=20
never been prosecuted, I believe it violates multiple laws, including =
the=20
Nuremberg rules. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>As for Norah Vincent, she does not define =
"terrorism," and=20
instead mentions some characteristics, such as the targets are =
exclusively=20
innocent civilians selected at random. She claims that bin Laden =
"engages=20
in "sadistic opportunism." "</FONT><FONT size=3D2>As for "coward," =
my=20
dictionary defines it as "One who shows disgraceful fear or =
timidity." Ms.=20
Vincent emphasizes the anonymity of the terrorists to demonstrate, to =
prove,=20
cowardice.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Ms. Vincent's essay represents a very common human=20
pattern. Draw your (emotional) conclusion first, then present an =
argument=20
with selected points, facts, and opinions to support it. At =
the same=20
time, target a person to personally attack, like Stanley =
Fish.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Ms. Vincent, different from some attackers, is =
specific, so=20
her emotional conclusions are easy to see. Her skillful syntax and =
usage=20
of words like "semioticians" and "apposite" help to present a =
facade of=20
knowledgeable analysis and imply an objective approach. Clearly, =
many=20
people must like to read her emotional rants, which implies that they =
find her=20
both knowledgeable and objective. I believe it is writers like =
Ms.=20
Vincent who can illustrate some of the serious flaws that exist in human =
nature. We should all be aware of these flaws, because they are =
what=20
explain some of our greatest man-made catastrophes. They directly =
relate=20
to all aspects of the largely-unknown long history of U.S.=20
terrorism. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>My only question is, How many past sourced =
historical=20
facts about the U.S. federal government and its actions can we find to =
place=20
into the category of the FBI's definition of "terrorism?"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Don </FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: =
0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----to </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, October 22, 2001 =
1:08=20
PM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Norah Vincent's=20
perspective</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>-snip-<BR></FONT></DIV><FONT =
face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT=20
color=3D#0000ff face=3D"times new roman" lang=3D0 size=3D5 =
FAMILY=3D"SERIF">Yes, they=20
are cowards</FONT><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"times new roman" =
lang=3D0 size=3D3=20
FAMILY=3D"SERIF"> <BR></FONT><FONT color=3D#999999 face=3D"times new =
roman" lang=3D0=20
size=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SERIF">- - - - - - - - - - -</FONT><FONT =
color=3D#000000=20
face=3D"times new roman" lang=3D0 size=3D3 FAMILY=3D"SERIF"> =
<BR></FONT><FONT=20
color=3D#000000 face=3DVerdana lang=3D0 size=3D2 =
FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF"><B>By Norah=20
Vincent</FONT><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3DVerdana lang=3D0 size=3D3=20
FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF"></B> <BR></FONT><FONT color=3D#000000 =
face=3DVerdana lang=3D0=20
size=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF">Oct. 18, 2001 | </FONT><FONT =
color=3D#000000=20
face=3D"times new roman" lang=3D0 size=3D3 FAMILY=3D"SERIF">Much to =
the delight, I'm=20
sure, of semioticians everywhere, the American media's response to the =
Sept.=20
11 disaster is devolving, more or less, into a war of words. Stanley =
Fish's=20
recent New York Times op-ed, <A=20
=
href=3D"http://www.salon.com/news/col/vincent/2001/10/18/academy/'http://=
www.nytimes.com/2001/10/15/opinion/15FISH.html?searchpv=3Dpast7days">is=20
perhaps the best single example of this. 1) <I>Cowardly</I> <BR>Here =
is Fish:=20
"Bill Maher, Dinesh D'Souza and Susan Sontag have gotten into trouble =
by=20
pointing out that 'cowardly' is not the word to describe men who =
sacrifice=20
themselves for a cause they believe in." <BR>Indeed, it's true that =
during the=20
last five weeks much has been made of one of President Bush's early =
remarks=20
about the catastrophe. "Today," he said in his first address to the =
nation on=20
the subject, "America was attacked by a faceless coward." =
</A></FONT><FONT=20
color=3D#0000ff face=3DVerdana lang=3D0 size=3D3 =
FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF"><BR><BR>Now Fish,=20
like so many of his fashionably iconoclastic cohorts in academe and =
elsewhere,=20
along with Maher, D'Souza and Sontag, insists that "coward" is the =
wrong word=20
here. <BR>He's mistaken. <BR>First of all, his backhanded definition =
of what=20
cowardice is NOT (which is really just a wormy way of saying that the=20
terrorists were brave) is flimsy. A person who kills himself for a =
cause,=20
while he may not be a coward, is certainly not brave or in any way =
laudable=20
either. He's a nut. No sane person, or truly self-sacrificing person, =
just=20
outright kills himself for a cause. He may fight for it. He may even =
fight for=20
it like the soldiers who stormed the beaches in Normandy, with the =
knowledge=20
that he is likely to die. But living, not dying, is the goal, and this =
wish to=20
live, as opposed to the wish to die, is what makes putting himself in =
harm's=20
way so hard and so frightening. He doesn't want to do it, and therein =
lies the=20
sacrifice. People who want to die, or who believe they'll be met by a =
pack of=20
willing virgins in paradise if they die in service of their ideal, =
have=20
resigned themselves and their will to live either to despair or =
fanaticism,=20
both of which have the ef! fect of numbing the lamb into an automaton. =
Death=20
isn't frightening when you're too hypnotized or narcotized to know =
what's=20
happening, or care. <BR>What's more, no truly brave person ever =
submits=20
himself to death for a reward. Where's the sacrifice in that? Every =
couch=20
potato in America would off himself instantly and painlessly -- which =
is in=20
itself no small enticement to commit suicide -- if he thought he'd =
wake up in=20
a Budweiser commercial on the other side. No suffering, and a chance =
to=20
finally get your rocks off for eternity with no mullah lurking in the =
closet?=20
Hell, I'd do it, too. Mass murder/suicide under these mercenary =
circumstances=20
is cowardice, as well as lack of sincere conviction, defined. <BR>But =
most=20
importantly, and this is a point Sontag and Fish and others have =
willfully=20
overlooked, these hijackers were cowards not so much because of what =
they did,=20
but because of how they did it -- that is, anonymously. As Bush so =
appositely=20
put it, they were cowards because they were "faceless." A coward is =
someone=20
who won't stand up to a fight, and that is exactly what al-Qaida won't =
do.=20
It's the warfare equivalent of a hit and run. Blow up thousands of=20
unsuspecting noncombatants, who are utterly unable to defend =
themselves, and=20
then take off for la-la land, or deny all responsibility, and then =
hide in a=20
cave, letting your fellow faithful die on your behalf, because you're =
too much=20
of a <B>coward</B> to make an appearance. <BR>If Osama bin Laden's =
cause is so=20
just, and he's so brave, then why doesn't he stand up and claim the =
carnage?=20
Why doesn't he lead his armies into a bona fide battle, instead of =
ranting by=20
videotape, refusing, exactly like Hitler, to emerge from his bunker, =
and=20
insuring thereby that innocent Afghans will die? It doesn't seem to =
have=20
occurred to anyone that if Osama bin Laden were truly a martyr dying =
for a=20
cause, he'd have come out of hiding to save his people. Had he done =
so, no=20
bombs would have fallen on them. But instead, he prefers to officiate =
from=20
afar a war of attrition that inflicts death randomly, and to no =
ultimate=20
avail. <BR>And the fact that there is no avail, no actual cause except =
petty=20
revenge and gross nihilism behind al-Qaida's murders brings us to our =
next=20
embattled term. <BR><BR><BR></FONT><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"times =
new roman"=20
lang=3D0 size=3D3 FAMILY=3D"SERIF">2) <I>Terrorism</I> <BR>Again, here =
is Fish:=20
"When Reuters decided to be careful about using the word 'terrorism' =
because,=20
according to its news director, one man's terrorist is another man's =
freedom=20
fighter, Martin Kaplan, associate dean of the Annenberg School for=20
Communication at the University of Southern California, castigated =
what he saw=20
as one more instance of cultural relativism. But Reuters is simply =
recognizing=20
how unhelpful the word is, because it prevents us from making =
distinctions=20
that would allow us to get a better picture of where we are and what =
we might=20
do. If you think of yourself as the target of terrorism with a capital =
T, your=20
opponent is everywhere and nowhere." <BR>For starters, in no moral =
universe,=20
except a relativistic one, do terrorists equal freedom fighters. Any =
freedom=20
fighter worthy of the name does not kill innocent civilians. He =
targets the=20
armies and military installations of the hostile occupying power, as a =
means=20
of driving that power out. As such, he does so systematically, not =
randomly.=20
His aim is not to terrify, or revenge himself upon his enemy, but to =
vanquish=20
and expel him. The killing is a means to an end, and fairly undertaken =
in=20
accordance with the rules of engagement in war, even guerrilla war. =
<BR>A=20
terrorist, by contrast, always targets civilians -- innocent =
bystanders to the=20
conflict at hand. And he always does so at random. That's why he's =
called a=20
terrorist. Duh. Terrorists are terrifying precisely because we do not =
know=20
when or where they will strike next. They are indeed "everywhere and =
nowhere,"=20
and each of us, though a noncombatant, is made to feel that he is on =
the front=20
lines of a war, a war he never declared and can do nothing to abridge. =
That=20
combination of helplessness and vulnerability is the quintessence of=20
terrorism. </FONT><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DVerdana lang=3D0 =
size=3D3=20
FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF"><BR>Al-Qaida is its embodiment, and worse. It =
represents a=20
new breed of terrorism even more senseless and terrifying than the =
old, and=20
one eminently worthy of a capital T. These men have no cause but =
carnage. They=20
are fighting solely for their pound of Western flesh. Nothing more. =
Why else=20
would they bomb civilians randomly, refuse to take responsibility for =
the deed=20
and make no demands? Even Arafat has rejected al-Qaida's clumsy, =
disingenuous=20
attempts to co-opt the Palestinian cause after the fact. And now bin =
Laden is=20
raving about Kashmir as well? Talk about a desperate grab bag of =
conceits.=20
This isn't principled conflict. This is pure sadistic opportunism, =
bloodlust=20
posing as crusade, a false paradigm of East vs. West engineered for =
one=20
purpose only, to plunge the whole world into chaos. <BR>To call such =
people=20
anything but terrorists, or something more pejorative -- yes, even =
evil -- if=20
we can think of it, is to play into their unappeasable hands, to =
disseminate=20
their propaganda. To say, as Fish does, that they are "an enemy who =
comes at=20
us with a full roster of grievances, goals and strategies," is to give =
them=20
much more, not less (as he claims), credit than they deserve. Their =
belated=20
grievances are a sham, and their strategy, mass murder, their goal. =
That's=20
all. No equivocation need apply to or cloud this fact. <BR>But =
nebulizing=20
what's clear is the favored sport of Fish and friends. From his throne =
of=20
great wisdom and remove, Fish supposes that, in the throes of our =
cultural=20
brainwashing, we condemn our enemy solely because he is the enemy, and =
not=20
because he is wrong. We lack empathy. Understanding. And most of all =
-- here=20
is the arrogant subtext -- intelligence. We use the words coward and =
terrorist=20
because they are insulting, effective at demonizing an adversary =
against whom=20
we are required to whip up public belligerence. If we were more =
enlightened,=20
we'd see that such terms are inappropriate and, in fact, unhelpful to =
our=20
greater understanding of the crisis we face. <BR>Of course, precisely =
the=20
opposite is true. Using terminology that applies, and can be =
reasonably argued=20
to apply, is exactly what clarifies the situation and allows us to see =
it=20
clearly and act accordingly. By contrast, this kind of intellectual=20
gamesmanship and epistemic masturbation in which Fish and his ilk are =
so fond=20
of indulging is utterly unhelpful. <BR>Oh sure, to the uninitiated it =
sounds=20
urbane on paper. Why it's the very porridge every sophist serves and =
every=20
sophomore groupie eats for breakfast. But it is by no means "another =
name for=20
serious thought." Rather it is just more proof of how irrelevant,=20
self-aggrandizing, and willfully obfuscating our vogueish cognoscenti =
continue=20
to be. <BR>In trying to interpret the current crisis through a =
postmodern,=20
morally relativistic lens, the usual suspects on the intellectual left =
threaten to seriously harm our focus and our spirit in a wildly =
confusing=20
time. This is not to say that subtle, critical thinking is out of =
place in the=20
current climate. On the contrary, it is desperately needed. But =
clarity, a=20
reasonable attempt to face facts, and a concerted effort to use =
language=20
responsibly are the intellectual's solemn mandate in trying times such =
as=20
these, when life and death are at stake. It's not the time for word =
games.=20
<BR><BR></FONT><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DVerdana lang=3D0 size=3D1=20
FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF"><B>salon.com</FONT><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3DVerdana lang=3D0=20
size=3D3 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF"></B> <BR></FONT><FONT color=3D#0000ff=20
face=3D"times new roman" lang=3D0 size=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SERIF">- - - - - =
- - - - - -=20
-</FONT><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"times new roman" lang=3D0 =
size=3D3=20
FAMILY=3D"SERIF"> <BR><B>About the writer</B> <BR>Norah Vincent is a =
New York=20
journalist. <BR><B>Sound=20
</B><BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></FONT></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0044_01C15B1F.797C7D40--