[ssf] Re: Terrorism words and pictures

[Chris Malins]

The Scruton article is interesting not so much for its mention of some 
historical terrorist movements as for the obviously distorted choice of 
examples. He draws parallels between terrorism, which by implication as 
a right wing thinker and defendant of America as an innocent party he is 
using in the modern American sense of the word (ie. non-state violence 
perpetrated against the representatives of a virtuous state), and yet 
refers back to 'terrors' like Stalin's purges or Hitler's holocaust with 
the aim of drawing parallels. He suggests that all victims of terrorism 
have been wealthy, ie. the French ruling class pre-revolution, the Jews 
in Germany, the kulaks in Russia, the Americans today. He refuses to 
mention as targets of terrorism the Amerindians during colonisation, the 
Kurds under Churchhill and the British (some top quotes with Churchill 
talking about bombing villages to inspire a lively sense of terror), 
doesn't mention the use of submission bombing by the Allies in WW2, or 
america in Vietnam, the use of hanging as a punishment for the crimes of 
the poor (eg petty theft) in 18th century England. All of these 
'terrors' have as much and as little in common with modern Islamic 
terrorism as the examples he chooses: needless to say he has picked on 
the examples which right leaning intelligent readers would be quickest 
to condemn.

He accuses Islam in the form practised by Bin Laden of failing to 
condemn hatred, without recognising that too many people have died in 
the name of Christ, the crusades, the Inquisition, the purges of 
Catholics in the reformation, indeed he is in all too clear denial about 
the hatred which characterises the American response to September 11th. 
Simply because hatred is focussed at non-americans, doesn't mean it 
doesn't exist. Survey southern states americans about Iraq, and I'm sure 
you'd find a great many Christians among them with plenty of hate for 
the people of Iraq because of the WTC plane attacks. And the form of 
evangelical right wing Christianity preached in America certainly does 
not condemn these feelings in a persuasive way. I doubt Scruton himself 
would condemn hatred of Bin Laden, rather I would expect him to 
prevaricate and exceptionalise it. All of which begs the question of 
whether the same ameliorating factors cannot be ascribed to those in the 
Islamic world who hate america, as Karin did in her original article - 
if they cannot, then we simply retrun to the inevitable underlying 
assumpotion of the right whihc is that the lives of the people we decide 
are important are more important than the livs and concerns of anyone else.

Chris



Dan wrote:
> Allo,
> 
> Just writing with a link to some excellent terrorism headfood.  Lots to 
> be used in getting kids in schools talking (for those of us doing that) 
> and good stuff for anyone else too.  If you haven't seen it, this is a 
> grrrreat website:
> 
> www.opendemocracy.net
> 
> which has a running debate on terrorism: starting with the latest, I'll 
> let you trace it back.  The wonderful conservative philosopher Roger 
> Scruton gives a typically daft analysis, summed up by 'terrorists are 
> united in their envy and hatred of our material success.'  (A variation 
> on 'they hate our freedom' and 'they hate oxygen' and that kind of thing.)
> 
> http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-2-124-2361.jsp
> 
> Also, if you haven't seen it -
> 
> http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/PhotoAlbum1.html
> 
> (Takes a little while to download / or click on the slideshow button.)  
> This guy is so prolific it makes me want to slit his face.  Bastard.
> I've downloaded loads of them - with some vague thought of... er, well, 
> actually, maybe I *won't* say on a public list!
> See ya,
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> 
>