micah holmquist's irregular thoughts and links |
|
|
Welcome to the musings and notes of a Cadillac, Michigan based writer named Micah Holmquist, who is bothered by his own sarcasm. Please send him email at micahth@chartermi.net. Holmquist's full archives are listed here.
Archives
Sites Holmquist trys, and often fails, to go no more than a couple of days without visiting (some of which Holmquist regularly swipes links from without attribution) Aljazeera.Net English Blogs that for one reason or another Holmquist would like to read on at least something of a regular basis (always in development) Thivai Abhor |
Sunday, December 01, 2002
Unacceptable criticism Today's Indpendent features an interesting piece by Robert Fisk about recent terrorist attacks directed against Israel and how al-Qa'ida might be attempting to be seen as the champions of the Palestinians. "Outraged as many Arabs were at the international crimes against humanity of 11 September 2001, few will object to an attack against Israelis, however cruel, while Israel's suppression of the Palestinians continues. If Outraged as many Arabs were at the international crimes against humanity of 11 September 2001, few will object to an attack against Israelis, however cruel, while Israel's suppression of the Palestinians continues. If al-Qa'ida is now against Israel, Arabs will give their support," writes Fisk who also says there needs to be a consistent means of dealing with terrorists actions and government military massacares by governments like the U.S. and Israel and that Osama bin Laden is essentialy calling the shots in the "war on terror" and that everything the governments of countries like Israel and the United States are doing is in response to the group's actions. I don't agree with Fisk on this last point, especially with regard to the U.S. Much of what the George W. Bush administration has done since September 11, 2001 has been in reaction to al-Qa'ida but at least as much has used the threat of al-Qa'ida as an excuse to do things not related to al-Qa'ida. Try as Bush might to connect Iraq to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, he simply can't make the connection in any logical fashion and yet the plan to take over Iraq continues. Bin Laden isn't calling the shots nearly as much as Bush is and given what I have termed the "imperial ambitions" of the White House, that isn't a good thing at all. Glenn Reynolds has saw fit to to respond to it by declaring "Fisk (1) has lost touch with reality; and (2) is basically rooting for the other side." To the extent that Reynolds argues these points, he does so by saying Fisk overestimates the strength of al-Qa'ida but Reynolds argument is laughable here. He says is that al-Qa'ida didn't last very long in Afghanistan as if anybody with a right mind thought that al-Qa'ida could be the U.S. in a conventional war. The group's strengh has always been the ability to pull off big acts of violence, not to fight traditional wars. Reynolds also says that al-Qa'ida big strength is the element of suprise which he says they have lost. Yeah we all know what al-Qa'ida is going to do next. It is unclear what lead to the second part of Reynolds' conclusion. In the piece Fisk condemns al-Qa'ida and says, "William Safire was right when he called them "'vicious warriors.'" There is no reason from this piece to think that Fisk sides with al-Qa'ida so what could be going through Reynolds' head? From this entry alone it appears possible that Reynolds believes saying the "enemy" is strong amounts to "rooting for the other side," although if that were the case he would consider Bush a traitor and I think this post is just one of many from him that takes out that possibility. It could be that Reynolds doesn't like the fact that Fisk proposes that individuals like Bush and current Isreali Prime Minister Ariel Sharon be treated in the same manner as al-Qa'ida for their misdeeds. Or it could be that Reynolds doesn't like the fact that Fisk comments on the "war on terror" without repeating that he is on the side of the U.S. I don't know the answer for sure but my best guess is that the latter answer is probably the reason Reynolds said Fisk was "rooting for the other side" because Reynolds sees any criticism of the "war on terror" that questions the justness or the effectiveness of the operation as a whole as basically siding with Osama and Saddam. |