ematusov@udel.edu writes:
>What do you think?
This was part of an exchage I have had with Eurgene <<Eugene, uniquely,
your posts to XMCA seem to be addressed from you and not the list!>>. I am
forwarding this:
well in the end I think it was a revenge attack. The targets, military and
mamon were symbollic true... but as I also said, they would also be
tactical places to strike as well.
I have lived in areas where the expectation of terrorist bombing was part
of life. My first day at work after college in 1971 was disrupted when
London's then tallest structure was bombed. I worked in an adjacent BBC
building which was also a"legitimate target". I taught in a school accross
the road to the London police station which was the place they took
"suspect terrorists" and disruption because of bomb threats was a monthly
(at least ) happening. Frisking, metal detecting, bag searches was part
of everyday life as you moved around public and corporate buildings in the
city. The centre of Manchester (were I was a student) has had to be
completely rebuilt. You get to understand these communicative acts.
I find it hard to differentiate Uncle Sam's actions agianst the example I
(and Chomsky) have given and the actions of terrorists. The US govt. is
highly selective in who , where and how it chooses to bomb and play
super-power. This selectiveness alone suggests that a lot of what they do
is for propaganda purposes (at home and abroad) as well as tactical
reasons.
September 11th was the aniversary of the overthrow of the democratic
government of Chile.
In the world we have many reasons to grieve, Uncle Sam is behaving exactly
how you would expect a bully to behave when it is hurt.
Martin Owen
Labordy Dysgu- Learning Lab
Prifysgol Cymru Bangor- University of Wales, Bangor
"How do you explain school to a higher intelligence?"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 10 2001 - 15:49:15 PDT