digitaldiscipline: (Default)
In an interview Monday with a group of foreign journalists and academics, [Russian Prime Minister] Putin rejected Western calls for negotiations with Chechen rebel representatives, Britain's Guardian and Independent newspapers reported.

"Why don't you meet Osama bin Laden, invite him to Brussels or to the White House and engage in talks, ask him what he wants and give it to him so he leaves you in peace?" the Guardian quoted Putin as saying sarcastically.

[AP News excerpt]

WTP: We know better than to dictate other nations' foreign policy, but will gladly help out with exports of sarcasm.
Date/Time: 2004-09-08 15:20 (UTC)Posted by: [identity profile] marchenland.livejournal.com
Hmmm. He's funny, but he's got some issues with nuance there. It seems to me that the Chechens, unlike Bin Laden, DID make their desires known and had them rejected before they started blowing shit up.

I think it's dangerous to lump a politically separatist rebel group with a religiously motivated terrorist group. American independence is based on rebellion and guerilla warfare and economic terrorism, too.

On the other hand, the fact we cheer on the rebels of Star Wars who, among other things, blow up a HUGE space station and kill, no doubt, thousands of people, is just ironic.
Date/Time: 2004-09-08 15:31 (UTC)Posted by: [identity profile] etcet.livejournal.com
True, on all points. . . but think about how pissed off the current government would be if today's citizens actually had a revolution. . . especially if it was unscheduled, so they couldn't prepare the way they knew well in advance of the protests surrounding the WTF and RNC, for instance.

I read a novel, once, where the protagonists were trying to overthrow a leader who was evil in their eyes, but who the author did a masterful job of portraying as very democratic, egalitarian, and fair. I wish I could remember the title, or the author, or even if it was actually published. . . it might have been one of the very few legitimately publishable manuscripts to cross my desk when I was a proofreader.

Americans root for the underdog. Victory over seemingly overwhelming odds is much more compelling than a big guy kicking a little guy's ass (David v. Goliath, USA over Russia in the 1980 Olympic hockey tournament, Luke over Vader, Rambo vs. Thousands of Unspecified Baddies, etc).
Date/Time: 2004-09-08 16:52 (UTC)Posted by: [identity profile] marchenland.livejournal.com
Americans root for the underdog.

That's why it's so ironic. There's NOTHING underdogged about America. It's like... we never got over the emotional scars of being a little colony, so now that we're a big lumbering behemoth, we don't realize it. Until someone calls us a bully, and we get our feelings hurt and we go try to DESTROY them.

I've maintained that flying into the heart of the Deathstar to blow it up was an act of terrorism by a small group of dirty, backwater religious extremists against an economic superpower since about 09/12/01, and MAN do I get dirty looks for that. But I'm sorry, it's true.
Date/Time: 2004-09-08 17:20 (UTC)Posted by: [identity profile] etcet.livejournal.com
that's hysterical, and brilliant, but oh so unpolitic.

i mean, they're -caucasian-! they aren't -terrorists!- the bad guys wore masks and goose-stepped and their leader was either creepy and wrinkly or a semi-robotic dude with faith in mysticism. . . wait, other than James Earl Jones' voice, did I just describe Cheney and Shrub?
Date/Time: 2004-09-08 17:59 (UTC)Posted by: [identity profile] smaugchow.livejournal.com
I am going to have to cry foul on this one. The Death Star had been used to destroy a planet - potentially billions of lives lost, and for what? To force a prisoner to speak. The planet was not in a state of war nor even open rebellion. Kinda like a battleship nuking a city. The battleship is a tool of war and a valid target for the opposition. The DS was purpose-built as a war ship to destroy planets by a government with the will and intention to use it, not a holiday world for families....."Come and stay at the fabulous Death Star Resort and spa! Ride the Vader Coaster and feel the true power of the Force! Thrill to the nightly fireworks of entire planets exploding to atoms! Dine in the luxurious Emperor's Ballroom, where every night you will be regaled by the Emperor and his Sith Lord Darth Vader with stories of their brutal rise to power!"

I don't think your position is backed up by the facts.
Date/Time: 2004-09-08 18:33 (UTC)Posted by: [identity profile] marchenland.livejournal.com
Well, you ARE citing 'history' as written by, eventually, the winners. Of course the movies do not show us the marketing campaigns for the Death Star Amusement Park and Shopping Center. For all we know, it was a mall with a big laser in the middle. It was also a big building that belonged to the lawful (if not ethical) leaders of the world. (I know the metaphor isn't perfect. I'm not that dumb. Also, we're talking about FICTION here. Hello! They don't even have shopping malls in most science fiction!)

On the other hand, the companies and offices in the WTC included U.S. government offices (ATF, among others) and of course, World Trade Institute offices, as well as many other companies who may have been involved in any number of questionable activities. (I admit, I haven't been able to Google every company in the WTC to determine their relationships to Defense Department, but just having the ATF in there -- heya, Ruby Ridge and Waco -- is enough to prove my point. There were politically murderous organizations in that building.) No, you're right -- they did not have lasers mounted up on the roof to blast away villages in the Philippines. But I seriously doubt there was absolutely no blood on a single hand of those companies and organizations.

From the perspective of certain dirty backwater religious extremists, those towers were every BIT as destructive as the Death Star was in the eyes of the Rebel Alliance, and the U.S. is EXACTLY as horrible as the Empire.

As Rafe said, it's not exactly politic, but I don't think we can actually determine enough facts to dispute it fully. I stand by my metaphor. Don't think this means I think it was okay to bring down the WTC, because of course I don't. My cynicism is aimed more at the fact that we can gladly cheer on destructive rebels in moves, when their actions would be called terrorism in the real world.

Profile

digitaldiscipline: (Default)
digitaldiscipline

September 2019

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718 192021
22232425262728
2930     

Most Popular Tags

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags