 |
| |
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
WRONG! You are a capitalist if, and only if, you own productive capital. Most of us in the captialist world are proles. |
a prole was, IIRC, an unskilled worker at the bottom of the working class.
In fact most of us are skilled workers, technicians, or members of the professional classes who Marx identified as the servants of the bourg. Increasingly many of us are entrepreneurs, and occupying varying places in the bourg. OTOH many of use who are temps, freelancers etc are realizing that considering ourselves entrepreneurs is itself false-consciousness - these are really an independent working class, analagous to the journeyman craftsmen of the pre-industrial era.
We havent gone, as Marx predicted, to ever increasing concentrations of capital. This has led some misguided folk to think that class is an outmoded concept, when in fact class is simply evolving, as the system of production evolves.
It is essential that we be precise and accurate in our description of the class system, to avoid the mistaken notion that class doesnt exist or doesnt matter.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Mad Viking
|
 |
of the Great White North
Feb 2000
time: 05:34
|
|
The "A-Q" "claim" of responsibility was sent by an e-mail to an Arabic language newspaper based in London.
It could have been sent by anyone. The same rag has parrotted ridiculous claims of A-Q responsibility in the past - including the power blackout, and the recent "suitcase nukes" claim. It could be an anti-Muslim fanatic, working alone. It could be American or English counter-intel. It could be teenage spam.
What we know:
quote:
On February 29, police intercepted a Madrid-bound van packed with more than 1,100 pounds of explosives, and blamed the Basque separatist group ETA.
On Christmas eve, police thwarted an attempted bombing at Chamartin, another Madrid rail station, and arrested two suspected ETA members.
Police have been on high alert for Basque separatist violence ahead of general elections on Sunday, in which regional tensions and how to fight ETA have been key themes. |
So when the ETA is caught trying to blow up a train in Spain in the past few months, it is A-Q who succeeds.
Right in the middle of Spanish elections.
It is beyond absurd.
The A-Q has enough trouble achieving any core objectives. Why would they waste all their resources in an attack on Spain?
The A-Q does not trust anyone. The notion that they have allied with the ETA is simply ridiculous. Terrorists are even more paranoid than the people who want to attribute this to A-Q.
Not claiming responsibility is not the same as saying the didn't do it. As was mentioned, political arms of terror groups tend not to claim responsibility. Arafat has for years insisted he has nothing to do with terror acts. The Sinn Fein for years claimed they were not responsible. Meanwhile, the PLO & IRA extremists are out killing people.
Its really absurd and pathetic to believe Al-Qaeda had anything to do with this. It speaks to how easily the public is manipulated by fear and prejudice, and how willing the people in power are to do so.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
 |
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
the sanctions that specifically excluded food and medicine? That allowed oil to be sold to get money for food, funds that were diverted by the Iraqi regime to palaces and weaponry?
an attack on afghanistan in which a greater attempt was made to avoid collateral damage than in most priot wars?
An attack on a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan that was genuinely believed to be plant where chemical weapons were being produced.
Lets review - international law makes it a crime to INTENTIONALLY kill civilians.
The US did not intentionally kill civilians in any of the incidents you mention, and so this would not be a valid reason for attacking the US. Period. Al fortiori it would not be a reason for attacking civilians.
Thanks for exposing yourself for what you really are. |
You are being silly, LOTM.
About the Sudanese factory: outright common sense says that you ought to have a f*cking good reason before using, well, what we can call weapons of mass destruction.
And applying a morale of intent to a political entity is entirely wrong. Politicians need also overlook consequences of their actions- especially politicians. Wars always result in civilian deaths, no matter how hard you try to avoid them. And BTW, there was no particular effort by the US on this in the Afghan war; or else, they would have sent their own soldiers, and not blindly bombed to let the Northern Alliance (which is probably even worse than the Taliban) do the cleansing; on another note, they would have sent humanitarian help for real, and cooperated with the Red Crescent, instead of wasting their time on TV claiming they are.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
|
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
In a democracy, people get the government they deserve. People are repsonsible for the actions of their government either directly, but voting it in, or indirectly, allowing it to do bad things. If the Spanish peoples really opposed the war, they should have had a general strike to bring down the government.
That's the thinking anyway. I don't buy it. |
quote:
Originally posted by BeBro
But you just assume that the voters willingly supported what you call terrorism by voting for Bush. In reality there might be a number of reasons leading someone to vote in a certain way. |
These are valid objections. My first post was only an outline, and did contain several sub-points that weren't terribly developed.
The first thing is that we must keep in mind that terrorism is wrong.
To answer, BeBro, I did specify that the relation is statistical: not everyone supports Bush, but statistically some of those who died, did. From this, there is a necessity that some victims did indeed share a part of the responsibility, and others didn't. They weren't considered in Al-Qaeda's calculations, and so was the Afghani people in Bush's calculation.
Chegitz: your point is valid, and this is why I mentioned in an earlier post that in the case of Spain, Aznar would (supposing it was Al-Qaeda, and supposing plenty of other things about the immorality of the war in Iraq) really the one with the responsibility, and not the people. On another level, if you look solely at the victim's mind, we might see a situation where people are 'randomly responsible'- i.e., not factually by their political behavior, but rather by their agreement, spoken or not.
This is obviously not sufficient to explain and/or justify terrorism, but it's necessary to make the adjustment so that my point is not misinterpreted.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oncle Boris
The problem with your statements, is that they are based on sentiments of morality, which, BTW, I totally share with you. Which means that the total subjectivity of sentiments cannot be a basis for any kind of moral discussion: if it was, then anyone who wouldn't share the sentiment would become also morally right.
Since you don't seem to like philosophical speculation, I will bother you anyway with another example: what would someone with every human characteristic except compassion say about the bombing?
What I am trying to do, is to find some rationales that can validly discuss of the topic at hand, without the 'OH g0d th3y di3d you fvcking moron' bullshit. |
In fact Oh god they died is the appropriate human response. Even philosophy students have the right to an appropriate human response, at a moment like this. There is a time for philosophical speculation, and a time for other responses.
It is also presumptious of you to assume that every moral position other than your own is simply 'sentiment'
And similarly presumptius to expect everyone with moral position other than your own to explain it in philisophical terms, at this moment.
Heres a what if for you - what if philosophy still meant "love of wisdom" and not analysis without purpose?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Mad Viking
You keep saying this, but it doesn't make it true. 
This FITS the ETA MO and DOES NOT FIT A-Q.
ETA has been trying to bomb the train stations for months.
ETA has killed >800 people in Spain.
A-Q uses suicide bombers. This attack did not.
A-Q has never attacked Spain.
The whole "scope of the attack" line of reasoning is illogical. If you used it in mid-September, you would be forced to conclude that A-Q was not responsible for the WTC bombing, due to the scope of the attack. 10x greater than past atttacks - just as this is 10x greater than past ETA attacks.
One person in the political arm of the ETA denied responsiblility = means very little.
One person sent an e-mail in London = means nothing. |
it doesnt quite fit either MO and it fits both.
AQ hadnt attacked on a 9/11 scale before 9/11, but they had made large scale attacks by the standards of the time, more so than most anyone else.
This fits AQ better in both scale, and in the use of a coordinated attack. If, as some speculate, the intent was to have simultaneous explosions on all trains to bring down the roof of Atocha station, killing hundreds more, it fits AQ better. OTOH ETA had apparently been shifting from killing individuals to killing large numbers of civilians.
The bombers were not suicide bombers, apparently. This fits ETA better. But its also the case that AQ affiliated groups in Pakistan have performed non-suicidal operations, IIUC. And of course the AQ affiliated Taliban routinely engage in shoot and run mortar attacks. Non-suicidal doesnt prove its not AQ, any more the fact that it was mass attack rather than an assasination proves that it wasnt ETA.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
|
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
except the afghani people WERE considered in US calculations.
|
Maybe, but only in calculations. Truth is that promised humanitarian help never came, that the US willingly obstructed NGOs from operating. Don't tell me the richest and most powerful country in the world can't afford tents and food for refugees.
quote:
In fact the war against the Taliban was largely conducted by the Afghani people, with only air support from the US.
|
The Taliban had and still has popular support. Karzai would be dead in a day if the coalition left Kabul.
quote:
as far as al qaeeda calculations, there is no evidence that they made any, other than to kill as many people as possible. In fact there is a substantial school of thought that one reason they wanted to kill as many people as possible, was to PROVOKE a US invasion of afghanistan - so by your reasoning Al Qaeeda is responsible for deaths to US bombing - and would be so EVEN if those deaths were deliberate. |
I guess they wanted to hurt America, period. Its people, its economy, its politicians.
As for Al-Qaeda's responsibility, it's more complex than this. Political forces rise from historical conditions that are everyone's partial responsibility. If both Al-Qaeda and America are wrong, then both are morally blamable. To assume that Al-Qaeda is solely responsible for Afghani deaths, means you have to prove they started it ALL- from the ground up, which is obviously not the case, given America's highly non-isolationist policies since WW2. I won't and can't go back to the Ottoman's 1563 policies to determine who is really 'responsible' for today's political climate.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-03-2004 23:57
) concerning global issues like this are worth sharing outside of your close friends and family. They are predictable and do nothing to contribute to the debate. I could engage in some post-Marxist drivel to debate that actually sentiments are being overexploited by the media in order to 'naturalize' society, but I will spare you. 
|