RE: The terrorism meme

From: Lawrence DeBivort (
Date: Fri 15 Nov 2002 - 16:00:58 GMT

  • Next message: Grant Callaghan: "RE: The terrorism meme"

    Grant, why do you call it 'mindless terror'? It seems quite purposeful to me.

    I haven't seen or heard anything from ANY terrorist that would suggest they are trying to 'enslave the world'. Do you not read what 'they' ARE saying about why they act? It is semi-adequately reported in all the newspaper, here. I can easily understand someone not agreeing with their reasons or tactics, but have a hard time - given the domination of this last year's news with the subject -- understanding why someone wouldn't even know what their reasons are, or why in their view they use the tactics they do.

    I know that Ashcroft et al put out memes last year that said it was unpatriotic to ask 'why' Sept 11 occurred, but that doesn't mean that we should not do so. Or is his meme so powerful that we can't even see that there is an alternative to 'don't ask why.'

    Best regards, Lawry

    -----Original Message----- From: []On Behalf Of Grant Callaghan Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 10:03 AM To: Subject: Re: The terrorism meme


    If the people of Iraq were fighting for freedom using terrorist tactics, I could buy that. Even the Palestinians have a fair claim to being held captive. But how can anyone compare a worldwide terrorist organization to a people held captive and fighting for their freedom? Freedom from whom? These terrorists are fighting to enslave the rest of the world under their concept of the will of God. They are the ones people need to be set free from. We all need to be set free from mindless terror carried out for no rational purpose other than to scare the hell out of people.


    >At 11:59 AM 9/11/02 -0500, you wrote:
    > >
    > >On Saturday, November 9, 2002, at 10:48 , Grant Callaghan wrote:
    > >
    > >> They are using God as an excuse
    >Hi all
    >There is an interesting problem emerging over the definitions of
    >'terrorist' and 'freedom fighter'. The ANC (with a bit of pressure from
    >OS), for instance, overthrew the apartheid SA government by the means of
    >what could now only be defined as terrorism. These days Mandela is a world
    >Statesman. In East Timor Fretalin (sp?) fought the might of the Indonesian
    >Army - where they terrorists who were recently awarded the Nobel Peace
    >I ask this because a memetic conundrum is looming. We, in Australia, have
    >called for the listing of several Islamist organisations due to their
    >perceived anti-social behaviour. This has started a hunt for all Australian
    >supporters of these organisations. Even if these supporters thought that
    >they were funding hospitals or schools for underprivileged youth they may
    >be found guilty under our new anti-terrorism laws (backdated to before the
    >Bali bombing). We have also asked for the right to try terrorists and their
    >supporters in this country. This is well-and-good for us and may be seen as
    >proper in the post-S11 world. BUT what happens when the boot is on the
    >other foot?
    >My devoutly Christian sister has been funding the Free Arche (sp?) movement
    >and the separatists in West Papua. Might she have her door kicked in at
    >5.00 AM like the supporters of Islamic organisations have here recently?
    >I also ask that, if laws can be backdated, will Britain want to charge
    >USanian IRA supporters? Or even further, will the financial supporters of
    >the Zionist terror-groups who terrorised the British out of Palestine at
    >great cost in life and property be as culpable as geriatric Nazis, and if
    >not why not?
    >We must remember that virtually the whole of the first Israeli Cabinet was
    >wanted for terrorism by the British and wonder what the statute of
    >limitations on Bin Ladin's cohorts will be, and why it may be diferent to
    >old Zionists
    >Time changes our perceptions and today's terrorist is tomorrow's hero -
    >yea, even Saint.
    >The original demands of this current troublesome group was that the US
    >withdraw its forces from Saudi-Arabia and to stop assisting Israel to steal
    >Palestinian land. Were these requests harder to comply with than the waging
    >of a potentially perpetual war for resource domination? I don't think so.
    >P.S. My rough definition of 'terrorist': Any person, organisation or State
    >who would seek to coerce or dominate the free-will of other persons,
    >organisations or States by the use of terror.
    >My definition of 'terror': Synonymous with extreme fear.
    >This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    >Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    >For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)

    _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.

    =============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see:

    =============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri 15 Nov 2002 - 15:55:50 GMT