Lenin’s Tomb
One upside: US casualties remain high for last month.
lenin, when you condemn US imperialism in Iraq and Afghanistan, you are preaching to the choir.
There are very few people left who will try to justify these atrocities, and those who do are not worth talking to.
But when you use these atrocities to downplay or justify the reactionary terrorists who tried to blow up working class people in London and Glasgow, you do far more harm than good.
Is this deliberate? Are you paid by the British state?
OK that is an absurd conspiracy theory. But no more absurd than the one you were implicitly making the day before yesterday, and which was quickly shot down by that paragraph Craig Murray added "in response to blogs attempting to say that I am claiming the bomb was planted by the State".
There is absolutely no "upside" about working class American kids getting killed in Iraq. What a thoroughly despicable thing to write.
This is a marvel to behold. Are you capable of an intelligent, properly formed sentence?
One wonders what planet Chissers lives on. Maybe he can find us some major media outlets in the US or the UK condemning (as opposed to simply regretting) the regular assault on Afghan and Iraqi civilians perpetrated by US and NATO forces. Or, better yet, a newspaper of TV channel spending as much time on 100 Afghan civilians killed as they did on 0 British civilians killed. If he can't, I would imagine his time might be better spent complaining to said media outlets than to an "obscure" blog. Or maybe the impression I won yesterday that he wishes the pox only on one house is accurate?
"Or maybe the impression I won yesterday that he wishes the pox only on one house is accurate?"
Most definitely so IMO.
Has anyone seen a post/comment by Chissers that expresses outrage against what the US/UK/Israel are doing to Iraqis, Afghans, Palestinians?
All he does is criticize those fighting imperialism.
'There is absolutely no "upside" about working class American kids getting killed in Iraq. What a thoroughly despicable thing to write.'
I have to say I agree with Chissers. Lenin is mostly a great fellow, but I can't buy talking about how wonderful it is for the American kids to get killed in a war they don't have the opportunity to study and resist--they're no more culpable than you are. My nephew is going there in a few weeks as a paramedic, and we're all upset that he could be killed—he’s in the National Guard and has managed to stay out of there thus far, but cannot now; at least my efforts to get my brother to try to figure out how to keep his son out have amounted to no result whatever. I'll be sure to let you know if he does get killed, so you and Rosa Lichtenstein can let out your fucking, gleeful Bronx Cheers as you enjoy adding up the Imperial Casualties.
Also, if you find it so important to define all the meanings of 'Islam', and the precise times when the word 'Fascism' is exactly and only appropriate, it's possible the word 'terrorism' has a more specific meaning than 'wartime atrocity'.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/0...a/
01afghan.html
This is an example of the word ‘terrorism’ doesn’t apply only to isolated incidents of Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist networks in surprise moments and unexpected places in the West. Suicide bombers are given faint praise and short shrift at their burials in Afghanistan.
Anticapitalista—I don’t think Chissers is saying anything of the kind. But, since we all prove that we take sides, it is nevertheless true that some demand precise definitions of ‘Fascism,’ ‘Genocide’ (which is supposed to be different from ‘mass murder’ as practiced by Communists in the Far East), etc., Iraq is now supposed to be ‘genocide’ as well as Darfur is (I don’t object to that myself, but they all seem pretty much the same, i.e., they are Mass Murder). Therefore, I’ll define ‘terrorism’ in a tighter way than you or Lenin do. Terrorism may take place in all Western and Eastern nations, but not all war action is terrorism per se.
However, if he wants to call this terrorism, that's all right with me (I guess it had better be even if it wasn't.) But the London and Glasgow incidents are terrorism too, and those cause 'fatigue', because they must be somehow 'more legitimate.'
More importantly:
Tony Blair proposed to Cherie while she was on her knees cleaning a toilet, she has revealed in a BBC One documentary.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_po...ics/
6258592.stm
Now where were we?
'There is absolutely no "upside" about working class American kids getting killed in Iraq. What a thoroughly despicable thing to write.' I have to say I agree with Chissers.
Well, there is an excellent upside to this. There will be fewer of them to kill Iraqis, and more pressure on Bush. This isn't a conscript army, so fuck em. You can say Bush tricked them if you like, but you had to be a real numbskull and shithead to be tricked into fighting this war - and if you weren't, you probably would have rebelled by now.
I have no sympathy for this liberal, evasive bullshit. The more American soldiers are killed, the fewer Iraqi civilians are killed. If I were an American nationalist or an Anglo-Saxon racist, I would see no problem in hundreds of thousands of Iraqis being slaughtered, but as things stand, I do. As such, I favour their killers being shot and bombed. If they don't want that to happen, they have to leave the army. Most of the bastards are too busy relishing the death of "hajis". I repeat: fuck em.
'Most of the bastards are too busy relishing the death of "hajis".'
No, they are not.
'I repeat: fuck em.'
Aren't you tough. Another jerky thing to say.
'I have no sympathy for this liberal, evasive bullshit.'
You have to think that that's the only way it could be; I haven't any idea why I'm not quaking in my sandals. You and anticapitalista and rosa can decide that the only Noble Cause in all of creation is 'fighting imperialism', but it's not at all clear that's what most people think, so what we all do is wait and see what transpires.
In the meantime, I repeat: Fuck you.
The point about 'terrorism' is that it has long since ceased to be a merely descriptive term, if indeed there is such a thing as a merely descriptive term. In describing these attacks on civilian population centres as terrorism, I can't be sure that the intention is to cause civilians to fear for their lives and stop supporting the insurgents, even though their is ample precedent. What I can do, however, is appropriate loaded terms for my own ends, all the better to show how loaded they are. As such: a three-hour bombing of a village is certainly worse than most 'terrorist' atrocities, but there isn't the language to convey the grief and brutality of this. The worst word in our lexicon when it comes to political violence is 'genocide'; the second worst is 'terrorism'.
I don't like to see anybody killed, and I sure hope your nephew is going to come back in one piece, Patrick.
However, I'm not a pacifist. The US and their allies invaded Iraq without any provocation, and if we aren't kicked out, our rulers are likely going to decide to attack more countries, and kill more people. That means I have to hope the will of the US to fight on is broken, and sadly, this involves Americans getting killed.
There's no death penalty on desertion in the US Army, so soldiers can always choose to refuse orders to deploy; in fact, that's what they should do even from the point of view of a liberal, given that these orders are illegal. The excuse of having been lied to by our leaders is wearing thin at this point in time. Someone who chooses to kill in a brutal colonial war to avoid being locked up has made the bed he's to lie in.
'As such, I favour their killers being shot and bombed.'
And since you think your Socialist cause is being helped by various insurgents in the Middle East, it must surely follow that you consider attacks on imperialist cities in the West, such as New York and London, are all to the good of your cause. You're not stupid enough to be able to buy the 9/11 truth stuff, but that you'd find these successful attacks somewhat admirable would seem logical under the circumstances. Anyone who doesn't agree with you remains in terror that he might be termed an 'American nationalist' or 'Anglo-Saxon racist'. Maybe it's a lack of self-respect.
'The US and their allies invaded Iraq without any provocation, and if we aren't kicked out, our rulers are likely going to decide to attack more countries, and kill more people.'
That's different from what lenin and rosa are saying. We do need to get kicked out. Cheering on American casualties is something Lenin and Rosa have chosen to do: It has to do with whether they think this will help their cause and draw in new recruits.
patrick - you have decided that the lives of American soldiers (not civilians) are more important than Iraqi civilians (not soldiers). Now, you've already stated that you are less about what Bush does to Iraqis than what he did to residents of New Orleans. So, I'm entitled to infer that you aren't operating on the basis of universalistic human impulses, but on the basis of puerile American nationalism. This is quite common among American liberals.
You and anticapitalista and rosa can decide that the only Noble Cause in all of creation is 'fighting imperialism', but it's not at all clear that's what most people think
You can pretend, if you like, that American liberalism is more or less 'what most people think', and that this is in itself a relevant and necessary defense of your utterly indefensible position, but I would add that it isn't clear either that you have a realistic appreciation of the thoughts and feelings of six billion people.
Here's a statement of the obvious: if you decide to partake in an imperialist venture that kills hundreds of thousands, then you are personally the problem and need to be shot at and bombed. Nothing 'tough' in this, simply the obvious - what we would take for granted if we were invaded by occupying soldiers. You would be saying 'fuck em' if someone took down an invading Arab in New York City.
'If I were an American nationalist or an Anglo-Saxon racist, I would see no problem in hundreds of thousands of Iraqis being slaughtered, but as things stand, I do. As such, I favour their killers being shot and bombed.'
Incredible you'd think one had to delight in Iraqi civilians being slaughtered OR American soldiers being slaughtered. A lot of Iraqis are killing each other too, which is not entirely the 'imperialists'' fault, although much of it is.
'You would be saying 'fuck em' if someone took down an invading Arab in New York City.'
But you wouldn't had they managed to blow up Piccadilly and Park Lane.
'patrick - you have decided that the lives of American soldiers (not civilians) are more important than Iraqi civilians (not soldiers).'
no, I didn't.
We do need to get kicked out.
And this can be done without American soldiers being shot at and killed?
it must surely follow that you consider attacks on imperialist cities in the West, such as New York and London, are all to the good of your cause.
It doesn't follow it all, in fact. This is a stupid, thoughtless slander. You know better. New York is not an "imperialist city". You are confusing the population of a capital city of the world with an invading army. London is not an "imperialist city". Ditto.
Anyone who doesn't agree with you remains in terror that he might be termed an 'American nationalist' or 'Anglo-Saxon racist'. Maybe it's a lack of self-respect.
No. Anyone who seriously thinks that American soldiers have a unique right to sympathy and respect, while Iraqis are submitted to mass murder, has to be some kind of racist.
What does self-respect have to do with it, incidentally? That would imply that I identify with occupying armies, which I don't. I simply don't respect the people who are now killing Iraqis as part of an occupying army. I can't see how this isn't obvious unless you have decided that your fantasies are more important than what is actually said here (that would be solipsism, by the way).
'Now, you've already stated that you are less about what Bush does to Iraqis than what he did to residents of New Orleans.'
No, I didn't. Just because I can feel it in a more familial way doesn't mean I necesarily care more. Anyone who pretends they care more about someone they don't know more than their own close friends is not puerile, he simply had no friends.
'So, I'm entitled to infer that you aren't operating on the basis of universalistic human impulses, but on the basis of puerile American nationalism.'
You are entitled to infer anything you can, that it convinces me none at all is not going to bother me.
'We do need to get kicked out.
And this can be done without American soldiers being shot at and killed?'
don't be a bore. Of course it can't be done without them getting shot at and killed. That is not the same as cheerleading for their getting shot and killed, which you seem to be shamelessly doing.
'New York is not an "imperialist city". You are confusing the population of a capital city of the world with an invading army. London is not an "imperialist city".'
They are cities within imperialist nations, and have many of the organs of the imperialisms within them. The World Trade Center and the Pentagon could quite possibly be said to be symbols of your omnipresent Western imperialism (in the West, that is, where it is, that is.)
Incredible you'd think one had to delight in Iraqi civilians being slaughtered OR American soldiers being slaughtered. A lot of Iraqis are killing each other too, which is not entirely the 'imperialists'' fault, although much of it is.
This isn't about what you 'delight' in. It isn't an aesthetic argument. It is about what will lead to the least worst consequences. The best thing that can happen now is that the Iraqi resistance turns away from the fratricide encouraged by the occupiers and kills more US soldiers. This isn't tough, this is obvious.
But you wouldn't had they managed to blow up Piccadilly and Park Lane.
Okay, but I remain convinced that your fantasies are not really my fault or my responsibility.
no, I didn't.
So, let me get this straight: you didn't say that it was somehow wrong to see an upside to the killing of US troops? What is the alternative, in this concrete situation? Have a little think.
'No. Anyone who seriously thinks that American soldiers have a unique right to sympathy and respect, while Iraqis are submitted to mass murder, has to be some kind of racist'
I said nothing of the kind, of course, so we will cease and desist if you want to make up asinine shit.
'This isn't about what you 'delight' in.'
Are you quite sure? That had been sure silliness to point a word out if you are really so fully emcompassed by these convictions.
'If I were an American nationalist or an Anglo-Saxon racist, I would see no problem in hundreds of thousands of Iraqis being slaughtered,'= 'to delight in...' at least roughly, or even fundamentally.
f course it can't be done without them getting shot at and killed. That is not the same as cheerleading for their getting shot and killed, which you seem to be shamelessly doing.
I should be ashamed of hoping for the best possible outcome (if there's another, serious one, I'd be delighted to hear of it)?
They are cities within imperialist nations, and have many of the organs of the imperialisms within them.
Once again, the collective will of the Nation asserts itself! Patrick, think this through for a second: what could possibly be an 'imperialist nation'? Someone might be mistaken, as mellon was last night, and think that all us inhabitants of London are in on the game, or that we are somehow embedded in an organic entity called 'UK' (kind of like the fictitious entity known as 'Islam' or 'America'). But is there any sense, beyond the fantastic, in which residents of the UK are complicit in the actions of their political and economic masters?
The World Trade Center and the Pentagon could quite possibly be said to be symbols of your omnipresent Western imperialism (in the West, that is, where it is, that is.)
That explains why they were chosen as targets, but it doesn't have anything to do with my own rationale. For instance, attacking tens of thousands of civilians who didn't choose to go to war is very different from killing a few hundred soldiers who not only chose war but killed a great number of those who didn't choose it.
'Now, you've already stated that you are less about what Bush does to Iraqis than what he did to residents of New Orleans.'
No, I didn't.
That's where I wrote 'No, I didn't.' You can restate it and clarify yourself decently if you wish me to countenance what you said following (which was merely a trick you were using.)
'That explains why they were chosen as targets, but it doesn't have anything to do with my own rationale.'
which is all, 'your rationale', but all this business about 'should be ashamed of hoping for the best possible outcome (if there's another, serious one, I'd be delighted to hear of it)?' shows that it is you, at least in this matter, who needs to have a 'little think'. But you knew I was 'puerile' since I cared more about people I knew than people I don't. You think that's my problem, I think it's yours.
I said nothing of the kind, of course, so we will cease and desist if you want to make up asinine shit.
I don't know who 'we' is, but I didn't make the case that you had said this, but it is an inevitable consequence of what you are saying: I must never express any gladness in the fact that this war is tipping ever-so-slightly toward those resisting the occupiers. If I do so, it's being horrid and masochistic and hard on the poor boys who - apparently - bear no responsibility for where they are.
Are you quite sure? That had been sure silliness to point a word out if you are really so fully emcompassed by these convictions.
This has the unusual virtue of being a meaningless, completely unlettered sentence.
'If I were an American nationalist or an Anglo-Saxon racist, I would see no problem in hundreds of thousands of Iraqis being slaughtered,'= 'to delight in...' at least roughly, or even fundamentally.
This has a curious logic, with several propositions: 1) to 'see no problem with' is to 'delight' in; 2) there can be no distinction in seeing no problem with soldiers being killed and delighting in civilians being killed; 3) there can be no ethical distinction between an invading army and their victims who choose to resist. This is really the most disgusting articulation of political liberalism, and it sits rather well with my earlier diagnosis.
3) there can be no ethical distinction between an invading army and their victims who choose to resist.
Except that that one, in particular, I did not articulate, despite your 'lettered' prose.
'I don't know who 'we' is,'
In this case, it obviously meant the two persons carrying on this conversation. Are you so somehow so 'collective' that uses of the word 'we' no longer can be recognized in what may now be perceived as archaic usage(at least apparently by you).
which is all, 'your rationale', but all this business about 'should be ashamed of hoping for the best possible outcome (if there's another, serious one, I'd be delighted to hear of it)?' shows that it is you, at least in this matter, who needs to have a 'little think'. But you knew I was 'puerile' since I cared more about people I knew than people I don't. You think that's my problem, I think it's yours.
Patrick, use your common sense for a second. It can't possibly be my problem that you care more about people you think you know (ie, you identify imaginarily with) than those you don't choose to identify with. That could never be my problem, and never my responsibility. It is straightforward American nationalism, and it is your business about whether you want to continue pursuing such an immoral and stupid doctrine. Using it as a moralising tool, as something to bludgeon others with when they fail to accept its moral predicates, is genuinely shameless, however.
2) there can be no distinction in seeing no problem with soldiers being killed and delighting in civilians being killed;
No, there can be no distinction in seeing no problem with soldiers being killed and seeing no problem with civilians getting killed. Perhaps you think the differentiation is a pragmatic matter.
Except that that one, in particular, I did not articulate, despite your 'lettered' prose.
You don't articulate a great deal, actually. Your inarticulacy in this intervention is rather revealing, symptomatic in fact. Your logic does rely on the idea that there can be no ethical distinction between an invading army and its victims. The moralising hauteur wouldn't last for a second, otherwise.
In this case, it obviously meant the two persons carrying on this conversation. Are you so somehow so 'collective' that uses of the word 'we' no longer can be recognized in what may now be perceived as archaic usage(at least apparently by you).
Well, no, but you seem to think that you can speak for me, as if would cease and desist on your behalf, and as if you're the only person I have time to talk to. What you meant to say is that you will cease and desist, which would have been the appropriate course before you touched your blunted fingers to the keypad in order to ventilate on this perceived offense to the Brave Boys.
'It can't possibly be my problem that you care more about people you think you know (ie, you identify imaginarily with'
It can only be your problem, since I do not 'identify imaginarily with' people 'I know'. I know them. Perhaps you don't think you know those in your own family or those you occupy this board with on a first-name basis (and you definitely probably don't know those, although you do 'imaginarily identify with them'.
As for the 'immoral' numbers, you'll get no ear from me from that. I am not your acolyte.
'It is straightforward American nationalism,'
Even if it is, it would have to be something that existed within the 'fictitious entity' called 'America' and given power despite its 'fiction.' You can judge me personally all you want, I'm familiar with these techniques.
patrick, all else aside, why doesn't your nephew simply desert rather than take part in a massive war crime and possibly getting himself maimed or killed in the process?
I read an article a few days ago saying the military rarely actually does anything about deserters (there's quite alot of them nowadays) besides possibly giving them a less than honorable discharge.
It can only be your problem, since I do not 'identify imaginarily with' people 'I know'. I know them.
No, you don't know every American, or even every resident of New Orleans. You know less than a thousandth of them, I'm willing to bet. As such, your comparative indifference toward Iraqis can't be based on anything so flimsy. However, even it was: would that be admirable? Is it praiseworthy and rational to care much for those you know little about and care less for those you know nothing about? I mean, the ultimate logic of this narcissism: since I know me best, I care for me best of all. That's not a matter for condemnation at all, but it isn't exactly something to be celebrated and shoved down everyone else's throats. If I manage to remember, even on a blog on a Sunday night, that other human beings exist and are important and may even be inclined to react the way that I would if my family were shot up, then it isn't in the least okay to say that I'm the one who has a problem and you're the sane one: you're stuck in a medieval, parochial obsession with familiarity, as if any sensible ethics or politics could be derived from it.
You're now so far beyond shame that you're actually reproaching me for not being a particularist, not insisting that the lives of those I know, or think I know, are more important than those I don't.
'Well, no, but you seem to think that you can speak for me, as if would cease and desist on your behalf,'
Yes, you see it that way, and I see you doing the same, of course.
'and as if you're the only person I have time to talk to.'
Of course I do not, you simply did talk to me. You never have if you didn't want to.
'What you meant to say is that you will cease and desist,'
Well, of course, when the time comes, that always happens, and is always the most interesting sort of thing.
'which would have been the appropriate course before you touched your blunted fingers to the keypad in order to ventilate on this perceived offense to the Brave Boys.'
It was offensive, and you are intending to continue being offensive. If I am displaying 'moral hauteur', it is not at all clear that you aren't doing the same, just in your own style. So what's the deal. Obviously, you know I don't think the only Marxists have a right to decent thinking. I never tried to hide that.
'No, you don't know every American, or even every resident of New Orleans.'
Well, no, brilliant one, I was only talking of the ones I DO know.
'patrick, all else aside, why doesn't your nephew simply desert rather than take part in a massive war crime and possibly getting himself maimed or killed in the process?'
I've been unable to convince him to do this. His wife is redneck, they have four children, and are neither one very bright. I still hate to see it happen.
'You're now so far beyond shame that you're actually reproaching me for not being a particularist, not insisting that the lives of those I know, or think I know, are more important than those I don't.'
I did no such thing, but you apparently can't follow it. I said they were the same, even if people experience them differently. You experience these things differently from how I do. But you are getting too piglike in your expression, so if we are now going to get into some more below-the-belt tactics, may the best man win...
It was offensive, and you are intending to continue being offensive.
Your determination to take offense on behalf of the armed servants of empire is not really an inspiring figure to cut. You sound every bit like those who insist on being offended by Rushdie's depiction of Islam. You aren't obliged to be offended: it's a self-cancelling complaint. Simply alter your perspective, see how I see things, and you will no longer be offended.
However, I had hoped - briefly - that the basis of your complaint was something more important than your peculiar attachment to the Troops.
If I am displaying 'moral hauteur', it is not at all clear that you aren't doing the same, just in your own style.
Come off that sticky wicket, right away. I have expressed a sincere sense of relief that the Iraqis have been able to resist the occupiers to the extent of taking 100 of their number in the last month. I have now explained the political reasons for this. You have responded to this with a weird mixture of aggression and defense, this curious sense that on the one hand, you are entitled to barrack me for recalling that Iraqis are human beings, and on the other, any response to this which takes serious issue is of itself a form of strict moralism. That isn't an impressive reply. I am not incapable of hauteur, although I like to think I usually do it on purpose, but I am capable of telling the difference between that and an earnest political engagement.
you know I don't think the only Marxists have a right to decent thinking.
I don't even know what 'decent thinking' might look like. If you find a marxist who is guilty of this, I shall have him or her shot.
'Is it praiseworthy and rational to care much for those you know little about and care less for those you know nothing about?'
No, but 'praisworthy and rational' are not all that are to be accounted for, not all the affect things and events and thinking. So you think I'm a moral cripple and I don't care as much that you may or may be less so. What will you do now, try to figure some way to weed me out, isolate me, and shoot me?
'You aren't obliged to be offended:'
I'm not personally offended by it, I just think it's ignorant.
Even if it is, it would have to be something that existed within the 'fictitious entity' called 'America' and given power despite its 'fiction.' You can judge me personally all you want, I'm familiar with these techniques.
This isn't about your personality, or your probity. I am going on what you have expressed, since I don't anything about you otherwise. And I am not 'judging' in anything other than the textual sense: I am parsing. Your morality is not an issue to me, but mine evidently is to you, which is why you started by trying to regulate mine.
At any rate, your defense makes no sense. You are expressing fairly straightforward American nationalism, and that inevitably means that some lives mean less to you than American lives. In fact, you have been open about this, and I don't understand the sudden coyness - unless you are unhappy with the implications of such a stance.
'You have responded to this with a weird mixture of aggression and defense, this curious sense that on the one hand, you are entitled to barrack me for recalling that Iraqis are human beings, and on the other, any response to this which takes serious issue is of itself a form of strict moralism.'
You have had enough experience wielding this sort of argument to even know yourself how preposterous that is. 'Strict moralism' indeed. I am fully aware you've claimed that you are 'not Amnesty International.' Of COURSE I don't trust you, nor you me. Either goes against what either perceives as his own interests (including when we are also talking about others)
'I don't even know what 'decent thinking' might look like. If you find a marxist who is guilty of this, I shall have him or her shot.'
You can't, of course, since you don't know what it might look like. But I suppose it was all in good fun. You see me as a sort of lightweight, and in terms of dedication to your Marxist Moralism, I quite am less than that.
'which is why you started by trying to regulate mine.'
That is truly so weird I guess at this point you are just teasing me in a sort of sweet way.
'inevitably means that some lives mean less to you than American lives.'
I don't think that's what it means. I do think some lives mean more to me than other lives, yes. I don't pretend to be see people equally, nor do I particularly want to.
Well, no, brilliant one, I was only talking of the ones I DO know.
This is poor recall or deliberate misconstrual. I don't care which it is. You know that you told me, and everyone else, that you care less about Bush killing Iraqis than Bush killing residents of New Orleans. That wasn't a reference to those whom you know, and again, it would be even more parochial and thoughtless and purblind than it already is, if it were.
but 'praisworthy and rational' are not all that are to be accounted for, not all the affect things and events and thinking. So you think I'm a moral cripple and I don't care as much that you may or may be less so. What will you do now, try to figure some way to weed me out, isolate me, and shoot me?
You're the one who keeps mistaking a political argument for a moral one. Let me put it this way: if you choose to be so unapologetically all-American patriotic, then be so. I have no moral qualm about this, and wouldn't know what to do with it if I had. I think it's short-sighted, myopic and can lead to ethically unconscionable results, but that isn't the same thing. And at any rate, to be blunt, you began the witch hunt (or at least you took up Chissers' blunt instruments, mistaking them for cutting edges). I am simply pointing out that if you find my stance offensive, I would have excellent reasons to find yours more offensive. Therefore, you aren't in a position to finger wag. And therefore, you ought not to have started this shit.
I'm not personally offended by it, I just think it's ignorant.
Well, I think pretending that relief at the deaths of combatants who are busily tearing up Iraq is somehow offensive, is ignorant, and parochial, and nationalistic. I think that making a virtue of caring more about the deaths of one's imaginary kin than those of unknown others is silly, and ignorant, and all the rest. Does it matter?
'I have expressed a sincere sense of relief that the Iraqis have been able to resist the occupiers to the extent of taking 100 of their number in the last month. I have now explained the political reasons for this'
Yes, you did do this, and I expressed a sincere sense of relief that you wrote a repulsive post about 'terror fatigue', which was only made possible because Britons (who knows, possibly even including some Iraqi Britons) and tourists were not killed. I don't know if I explained the political reasons for this, as I'm not as sure I have political reasons for it, but if I do, I'm sure I can live with my 'shamelessness', especially given that it's just one person's epithet that thus far impugns me with it with such confidence.
I don't think that's what it means. I do think some lives mean more to me than other lives, yes. I don't pretend to be see people equally, nor do I particularly want to.
That's your business. However, I suppose I am entitled to say that in return, if I pause to recall that Iraqis are entitled to their victories over the occupiers and that it isn't a bad thing if they get some, then this is also my business - it may be 'offensive' to those who are attuned to nationalism, but I don't think that should really be my concern. Do you?
That is truly so weird I guess at this point you are just teasing me in a sort of sweet way.
So, to be clear, you didn't try and impugn me as a supporter of Al Qaeda attacks on London and New York? You were teasing, is that it?
'I am simply pointing out that if you find my stance offensive, I would have excellent reasons to find yours more offensive.'
That goes without saying that you'd think so. Why would you tell me that?
'Therefore, you aren't in a position to finger wag.'
I don't know what finger-wagging position I'm in. I don't care more about Bush killing New Orlinians than I care about him killing Iraqis, though: What that meant is that I know New Orleans and some New Orlinians, so I have more of an alliance and allegiance to the civilians themselves. But Bush's actual killing of New Orlinians is not nearly as offensive as his killing of Iraqis, because for one thing, he has not obviously killed New Orlinians. The FEMA/Katrina mess is quantitatively less than the deaths of Iraqi civilians, and is due to passivity and not caring perhaps more. There does seem to be a lust, and always has, among the Bushies, to kill Iraqis, though. I'd agree that they do kill them.
'And therefore, you ought not to have started this shit.'
Oh, no, I did need to 'start this shit'. I was still right about it.
I expressed a sincere sense of relief that you wrote a repulsive post about 'terror fatigue', which was only made possible because Britons (who knows, possibly even including some Iraqi Britons) and tourists were not killed.
Are we reverting to kindergarten? Do we really need to rehearse the thought that I might have written something different, had something different happened?
I don't mind explaining to you that I wrote a post referencing someone else discussing 'terror fatigue'. That was a BBC News 24 broadcaster, not me. Now, I don't particularly care how 'grotesque' it appears to you: I wouldn't write such things if I was so sensitive to the thoughts of the prudish and the prurient. However, I can't even see a relevant issue here. I am relieved that no civilians in Glasgow were killed. But I am, as I feel one ought to be, sensitive to the ways in which such occurences are instantly transubstantiated into media gold: that is, human experience is commodified and devalued and debased, for the purposes of the product. This sickens me, although it may be a lonely quirk of mine. I find every mannerism and tic of those newscasters, who appear to be gorging on it, loving every second of it, disgusting and disreputable. There aren't enough words in any idiom to express my scorn for this. But I gave a little hint of it. Additionally, I find the instantaneous martialling of these pathetic attempts to a political agenda that involves repressing our civil liberties and beating the drum for further wars to be - er - offensive. Hence, I expressed it. I really don't see what could be grotesque about this, but then I have already admitted to being deprived of your particular purview.
'if I pause to recall that Iraqis are entitled to their victories over the occupiers and that it isn't a bad thing if they get some, then this is also my business '
You needn't be so personal about it. After all, aren't you expressing your relief in U.S. troop deaths as an impersonal thing, and that having expressed it in this particularly coarse and crude way for so long has brought in more of the other kind of 'your business', i.e., those who think likewise, and who are out to save Iraqi civilian lives. Therefore, what is 'my business' is more 'my business' than 'your business' is 'your business', because you don't think in such 'narcissistic ways, like some horrid nationalist, who may believe in a mythic entity, however concrete it may appear in his dreams.
'So, to be clear, you didn't try and impugn me as a supporter of Al Qaeda attacks on London and New York?'
About this I wasn't sure. Because you wrote about the London/Glasgow things in such a blase and irresponsible way that, indeed, I ended up having to feel that I had possibly wrongly gone after Sean Coleman at least partially, just because I thought he wrote like he was taking a drama-writing class. But why WOULDN'T the most radical Islamic elements be helping your fight against the imperialists? I would think they would seem heroic.
That goes without saying that you'd think so. Why would you tell me that?
It doesn't go without saying, otherwise I wouldn't have had to point it out. You mistook my correction for a style of moral hauteur, in a clumsy attempt to transfer your own befuddled feelings on the matter.
I don't care more about Bush killing New Orlinians than I care about him killing Iraqis, though: What that meant is that I know New Orleans and some New Orlinians, so I have more of an alliance and allegiance to the civilians themselves. But Bush's actual killing of New Orlinians is not nearly as offensive as his killing of Iraqis, because for one thing, he has not obviously killed New Orlinians.
That is not what you in fact said, but I begin to see that what you actually say alters by the minute. So, okay, now you're simply a solipsist in the ordinary sense. What do you want? A gold medal? A Blue Peter badge? This establishes that you are in a position to explain how one should react to the fact that Iraqis have knocked off a few dozen more murderers this month? It's hard to detect a case being built here.
Oh, no, I did need to 'start this shit'. I was still right about it.
So you keep saying, and of course you mean to say that you were 'right' to insist that it's somehow wrong on my part to take some relief in the fact that fewer Iraqis will be killed because fewer soldiers will be around to kill them. I still profess bafflement at this outlook, but we are in danger of a prolonged set of tautologies if you simply revert to expressing your point of view, which has already had repeated expression (if not much impression).
'Now, I don't particularly care how 'grotesque' it appears to you: I wouldn't write such things if I was so sensitive to the thoughts of the prudish and the prurient.'
Oh, raelly? You don't care?
Oh well, tee hee, so are the 'prudish and the prurient' often intertwined and pleached on the paths you take when you wend your way into 'writing such things?' I may well need to know, since I do realize, as per a previous comment today, that I always thought that sex oughtn't to have any sense of that 'old time sin', but now realize that if there is just a whiff of it, that may be a better proportion anyway, and probably even the most normal like there to be some sense of transgression accompanying sex--I mean, short of those who do it for babies alone (and even they aren't up there with the nuns and non-paedophile priests.)
'That is not what you in fact said, but I begin to see that what you actually say alters by the minute.'
You're referring to something I said some months or even longer back, aren't you? But I am not altering what I say 'by the minute', we can definitely stop this if you want only to be rude, which that is, unless you realize I was trying to remember what I might have written some time ago, and beautifully explicated here--I don't frankly give a fuck what I say now, you're just acting like some barnyard creature. That was an actual attempt to be as inclusive as I can be and think I am, without pretending to feel something that I should, but don't.
'of course you mean to say that you were 'right' to insist that it's somehow wrong on my part to take some relief in the fact that fewer Iraqis will be killed because fewer soldiers will be around to kill them.'
I suppose that may be no different from my saying that I hope as many as possible Al Qaeda will be killed, so that we don't have (at least their) terrorist attacks to look forward to. But if you think I want a Blue Peter Award, I'm sure you may want to give me one, but I am going to have to go and look it up, as I don't know what it is.
'but we are in danger of a prolonged set of tautologies'
that's not bad. You can get a Pink Peter Award for it, I guess. That's a BBC show?
'we are in danger of a prolonged set of tautologies'
Does that mean we can stop now?
You needn't be so personal about it.
Well, why not? Aren't we supposed to be talking about something I have said, which has apparently stirred you to such extreme disgruntlement that you were prepared to slander me as a support of attacks on civilians in London, New York and Glasgow? How much more personal do you suppose you could have got, patrick? How much less personal would you like me to take it?
After all, aren't you expressing your relief in U.S. troop deaths as an impersonal thing
On my part, it's impersonal, yes. On my part.
having expressed it in this particularly coarse and crude way for so long has brought in more of the other kind of 'your business', i.e., those who think likewise, and who are out to save Iraqi civilian lives.
As far as I can decode this, it says that my particular statement has invited someone else, who professes to be out to save Iraqi civilian lives, to demur. I don't see it: Chissers is a fuckwit pursuing a narrow sectarian agenda with even less popular support than my blog has, and certainly fewer members. He definitely doesn't have a particular interest in 'saving Iraqi civilian lives', and wouldn't know the first thing to do if he were so motivated.
you wrote about the London/Glasgow things in such a blase and irresponsible way that, indeed, I ended up having to feel that I had possibly wrongly gone after Sean Coleman at least partially, just because I thought he wrote like he was taking a drama-writing class. But why WOULDN'T the most radical Islamic elements be helping your fight against the imperialists? I would think they would seem heroic.
You have not only lost the ability to be semantically intelligible, but the grammar has gone too. I don't understand any of this. You are supposed to be explaining your claim that I am a support of mass murder in Glasgow and London and New York, and the best you can do is 'why wouldn't they be heroic?', and that I wrote 'irresponsibly' about the pathetic non-starter supposed car bombs in London? Heaven forfend that a blogger doesn't internalise Patrick Mullins' curious version of 'responsibility'. I have already told you why it wouldn't be heroic at all to murder civilians in those cities, or even. You seem to think it follows from the right to defend oneself that one also has the right to annihilate dozens of people who are not attacking you. That doesn't closely follow, it doesn't remotely follow, it doesn't follow. It is a complete non-sequitur, and can only operate on the basis of these vague two-bit notions about nationality that populate your imagination.
Patrick, maybe instead of complaining about what you clearly see as glee about peoples death on len's part you might consider giving your thoughts on the question of desertion. Is it not correct that a member of the US armed forces risks less by deserting than an Iraqi risks by simply being in Iraq? Do you not agree that, at this point in time, when it has become obvious to all who want to see it that the assault on Iraq is morally repugnant, unjustified, and (for you liberals) illegal, it is in fact the duty of any soldier ordered to go to Iraq and thereby assist in the killing of Iraqis to refuse that order?
And if we agree that the assault on the Iraqi people is wrong, doesn't it follow that we should all wish the Iraqi people success in their attempts to defend themselves against the assault carried out by soldiers who chose to be part of that attack on the Iraqi people?
I may personally wish that this success can be achieved by simply scaring the US Army so badly that they'll leave on their own accord, but I also need to be honest and recognize that this will not happen without the loss of life of US soldiers (to add: it is quite likely that higher casualties now will save American lives in the long run, if you care more about those).
I don't frankly give a fuck what I say now, you're just acting like some barnyard creature.
Okay, but I think we've both encountered the sorts of people who bestialise their opponents before piling on the invective.
That was an actual attempt to be as inclusive as I can be and think I am, without pretending to feel something that I should, but don't.
So, you were trying to be 'inclusive' without actually being so. You were trying, that is, to conserve your amour propre while essentially confessing that you don't give more than one and a half shits about anyone beyond your immediate sphere of concern? Fine. But then don't then pretend that you are in a position to mandate morality for others.
I suppose that may be no different from my saying that I hope as many as possible Al Qaeda will be killed, so that we don't have (at least their) terrorist attacks to look forward to.
Well, I have no problem with someone killing 'Al Qaeda' if there is no alternative. Put it like this, if 'Al Qaeda' was a real and pressing presence on American streets, I would have no problem with Americans putting bullets in them. Of course, this is so unlikely that you have forced me to demonstrate the absurdity of your position merely by reflecting on it.
Does that mean we can stop now?
You could have stopped any time you liked. I think you would like me to stop for you at a point where it isn't so manifest that you have made a fool of yourself. But you needn't ask my permission. You may post, and I will either respond or I will not respond. That is the usual routine.
'I have already told you why it wouldn't be heroic at all to murder civilians in those cities, or even. You seem to think it follows from the right to defend oneself that one also has the right to annihilate dozens of people who are not attacking you.'
No, it wouldn't be 'heroic' in any high-minded sense, but then warfare is never about 'having the right' to do something. I needn't remind of the ones you won't want to be reminded of.
'that you were prepared to slander me as a support of attacks on civilians in London, New York and Glasgow?'
No, I wasn't. Others, yes, but these were new questions that came up during the course of this conversation that I wanted to ask of you.
Look. Criticize my grammar as you wish, that is your problem for not being able to decipher something perfectly clear, but worse than that is that you are annoyed to such a degree that I didn't like the Bronx cheers for the dead servicemen that you then ignore me quite thoughtful attempts to delineate the business about the Bushies in New Orleans as opposed to Iraq.
Some of this boils down to having more of an investment in verious forms, this is obviously your blog. So we talked for awhile. Either you think it was worthwhile or you think I needed to be instructed. You win the argument within this context, because you've got a lot of fans within it. I don't. I'm not going to condemn you for getting so angry, but I'm now a little fatigued from it, as they say...
'vague two-bit notions about nationality that populate your imagination.'
Oh, shut up. Who was talking 'kindergarten' a few minutes ago?
'So, you were trying to be 'inclusive' without actually being so. You were trying, that is, to conserve your amour propre while essentially confessing that you don't give more than one and a half shits about anyone beyond your immediate sphere of concern?'
No, you see that is what you are doing because you've got such faith in the need of being in combative mode at all times. I know the feeling, that's why I rather enjoy this more than not. It hasn't made me angry at any point, although I think you thought it had. Now, when I was fighting with Pearl, that was anger--yes. Okay, can you now bear at least the explication of at least one thing, or do you just want to keep fighting for the Argies in the Falklands some more?
I'm going to bed, patrick. Take delight in your umbrage.
'also need to be honest and recognize that this will not happen without the loss of life of US soldiers'
Christianp--I already said I realize this, that's the fact. I can't say that it automatically follows--as oh-so-logical--that I too will join in with the joy of U.S. servicemen getting killed just because lenin is so convinced that is the only sure solution to no more Iraqi deaths.
If this is just tautologies to you, then, nothing could be easier than to just disconnect. I thought it was a good exploratory session. If you didn't, so what am I gonna do, go kill myself because you wouldn't lick my ass or something?
'I think you would like me to stop for you at a point where it isn't so manifest that you have made a fool of yourself. But you needn't ask my permission. You may post, and I will either respond or I will not respond. That is the usual routine.'
I am glad we can agree on how the computer works. No, I don't think I made a fool of myself. It does seem as if you were just doing it as a fight, not a legitimate discussion, though. I therefore concede victory to you, who hath made a total jackass of himself. Very 'Animal Farm'. So go forth and walk on 2 legs now!
'Take delight in your umbrage.'
Thanks for the kind wishes. Will do.
I have to confess that the blog ping pong rally lost me after the too manyth post but I still gotta talk to PJM.
Ireland (where I come from) allows armed US soldiers to use one of our airports as a rest point on their journey from America to Iraq so we aid the US war effort (by making it cheaper). Though I am filled with nausea and despair at the idea of someone I know being blown up by an attack on the airport here in response to our complicity in the war it is not possible to say that any such attack would be more immoral than your nephew's entirely well intentioned need to do his duty by supporting the US war effort in Iraq.
In fact it seems likely that a muderous attack that killed some of my loved ones might be better for the common good than your nephew just going about his job in Iraq. If your nephew is going to get involved in something that is worse than killing my loved ones it might be time for a familly conference.
I think you probably know this and its hard to back down, particularly when all you really want is for your familly to be safe, but back down you should.
patrick, you egotistical toad, well look you've posted your ass off on this aside and kudos to you, to devote so much. Its not surprising that you find yourself in bed with sean trollman and 'Im above all sides' Chissers, you're a pathetic slanderer, a hypocrite and a poor thinker. What was it you said a while ago, that Gore Vidal was a yipping Pekinese? great analysis there mate, in case you dont grasp sarcasm let me say, Oscar Wilde you aint. You're all point scoring nonsense on the earlier thread was ridiculous, you do this, sucking up to lenin and co but then there are moments like these, how can you go back to sucking up after this?
But I forget, you are your own worse enemy, I said that before if you remember, I've also said it to SeanC. The resemblance gets more startling all the time.
What a waste of time and energy - all the above ! If this lot didn't exist MI5 would have to invent them. Enough prattle ! Simultaneous world-wide workers revolution now!
Bush doesn't give a shit about dead GI's, why the f*ck should 'we'?
Enough prattle ! Simultaneous world-wide workers revolution now!
Ahem. patrick and I were holding up the international socialist revolution with our banter...? Now, that is the sort of thing an MI5 stooge might easily think up.
One upside: US casualties remain high for last month.
lenin 1 Jul, 19:49
and not only is the KIA staying high ( ! ), but the WIA totals are also skyrocketing !!! well over 26,000 and streaming toward 27,000. man, the usa taxpayers are gonna be paying for this cockup forever.
Last night BBC news was claiming that the 2 doctors arrested were Iranian, in a tone that was impling something. This morning no mention of their nationality. What gives Lenin?
"Last night BBC news was claiming that the 2 doctors arrested were Iranian"
As far as I understand, all nasty things happening in the World are somehow the fault of the Iranians, ever since the US decided it needed to go to war with them.
As an aside: If the UK go into Iran *I'll* start blowing shit up. And my bombs will actually go off (that'll be my Irish DNA).
"Though I am filled with nausea and despair at the idea of someone I know being blown up by an attack on the airport here in response to our complicity in the war it is not possible to say that any such attack would be more immoral than your nephew's entirely well intentioned need to do his duty by supporting the US war effort in Iraq."
No, wait for it, here's the killer...
"In fact it seems likely that a muderous attack that killed some of my loved ones might be better for the common good than your nephew just going about his job in Iraq."
And this man lives in Ireland? And he would be willing to sacrifice his friends and family because of what happens in Shannon? And he thinks an attack on Shannon would be better for the "common good" than a fucking PARAMEDIC going "about his job" - saving lives, presumably - in Iraq?
You may be willing to see your loved ones killed by fanatics - eager, almost, to assuage the "common good" with such an outrage - but I doubt you'll find many thinking people, the world over, willing to join you in your messianic, family-sized death-cult. And I doubt your family and "loved ones" would be thrilled to know that you've already offered up a justification for their murder before the fact. You fucking muppet.
And Patrick - fair play. Cogently argued.
And Patrick - fair play. Cogently argued.
Now, there's a reputation-busting endorsement.
i am hoping that the declining morale in the military will lead to soldiers disobeying orders/ defecting/going to open mutiny against the leadership. then i will truly "support the troops."
also, far be it from me to suggest tactics for the insurgency, but they could possibly help the process along by issuing pieces of counter-propaganda/offer safe passage for defecting soldiers/ encourage mutiny. when the soldiers refuse to fight that is when governments know they are fucked!
Patrick J Mullins an American? I think not.
SC: "...a fucking PARAMEDIC going "about his job" - saving lives, presumably - in Iraq?"
Going about his job patching up US troops (and the occaisional Iraqi child-when Fox or CNN are around)who go on to murder more Iraqi's. Given the US military seems to have a higher kill ratio than the resistance I'd just as rather the medic stayed put, innit?!
Killer response to me there Sean, though not to what I wrote.
Another coleman had gone off in room 2 - no one injured few noticed.
Given the US military seems to have a higher kill ratio than the resistance I'd just as rather the medic stayed put, innit?!
Chav
Or go and patch up the Iraqi's, Palestinians, Afghans. He'll have more work to do.
Shay - I think if you read what I posted, I think you'll find that I quoted what you "wrote" rather extensively. Let's take another sentence, in which you claim "it is not possible to say that any such attack [against Shannon airport] would be more immoral than your nephew's entirely well intentioned need to do his duty by supporting the US war effort in Iraq."
There is to be no difference therefore, between bombing a civilian airport, and killing scores of innocent civilians, and tending to wounds - some American, some Iraqis - in Iraq. Thus, there is no difference between actively taking lives, and actively saving them: it is "not possible" to adjudicate morally between the two.
I would claim that there is a very real difference, and that, if you do not see it, you are either looking away, or looking at something else entirely. And if you do see it, you'll see that it is quite possible to distinguish the two morally.
However, a little further down, you do seem to be able to make a moral distinction between the two, with your comments on the "common good" that any attack on Shannon would serve, as compared to the work of a medic in Iraq.
So which is it?
Sean Coleman said: 'There is to be no difference therefore, between bombing a civilian airport, and killing scores of innocent civilians, and tending to wounds - some American, some Iraqis - in Iraq. Thus, there is no difference between actively taking lives, and actively saving them: it is "not possible" to adjudicate morally between the two.'
Firstly thanks for using the "innocent civillians" construction, its a doozy.
In small steps:
(1). A US army medic in Iraq is supporting the US war effort directly (he or she helps tends to the medical needs of injured soldiers and improves the ability of the US army to fight its war). The medic is no less important to American efforts to subdue Iraq than a mechanic for an M1 tank is (perhaps the mechanic repairs Iraqi school buses too - it would be a good photo op.).
(2). The US led invasion of Iraq has led to around half a million dead Iraqis with more dead every day and is regarded by the majority of people worldwide as immoral in conception, and disasterous in implementation. The best outcome for the common good would be a calamitous and rapid US defeat.
(3) An attack on the Irish airport helping to ship US soldiers to Iraq would impede the US war effort.
Help me out Sean, where have I gone wrong in my reasoning?
Sean,
I used to find this site stimulating. Provocative at times but generally intelligent. And rational. Not any more. (This is a rare visit; probably the first in months and probably the last in months as well.) This is anti-imperialism for fools. And probably the reason why otherwise sympathetic people -- left-liberals, socialists, ordinary, well-meaning reformers etc.-- will be turned off, by association, from what they will see as the 'left'. This isn't 'the left', Sean, it's the 'loony left'. There's no profit to be gained in engaging it. This is not serious socialism, merely the flotsam of history.
Forget Sean Coleman. Metaculture over at HP is class. Just got this (I think he's onto something!):
This rather sordid and embittered male menopausal lust for political violence that long ago usurped and repressed wholesome carnality.
Better really to go and fuck yourself johng you wretched evil little callow self regarding amoral hypocrite.
You sententious provoker of senseless violence in the name of political righteousness you really are a moral blackhole.
Shallow Hal - I don't remember you coming here, and I don't recall ever being any less barking mad than I am at the moment. Go back through my archives and check properly: the better side of wisdom is that I've been a cretin and a traitor from the start.
You can tell that to the little boys at HP Sauce, if you like.
you really are a moral blackhole.
A moral black hole. What a thought. This has to be one of the better compliments you've received, john. It simply means that you are an object of such immense gravity that you suck in and crush all moralisms to cosmic dust.
Notice that the tastelessness of Lenin's remark (tut tut) has made all these sensitive folk forget what the blog was about. Hundreds of Iraqi deaths. Over the last week. Classy and sensitive ethics these boys have.
I was wondering what kind of anti-imperialism Hal supports, when and why.
Sean Coleman's other recorded contributions to political debate can be found at the LRB's letters page where he can be found attempting to rubbish the Lancet's Iraq mortality study and also (and my heart warmed when I read this) acknowledging the "force of the argument" of the Neocon approach to liberating the middle east .
Good track record Sean.
hal, that list of "left-liberals, socialists, ordinary, well-meaning reformers etc" have proven to be "useful idiots" for the U.S/Western imperial project, any hope for constructive engagement through THEIR organs is a waste of time.
'sucking up to lenin and co but then there are moments like these, how can you go back to sucking up after this?'
don't be silly. You can't read, or you'd see that we had a disagreement, but it was a pretty respectful exchange. Even if we don't seem to respect each other at times, there was enough new material uncovered that forced us to be mainly respectful anyway. I'll get back to the thread and back to your ass, if I have time, Your Excellency.
Shay - I'm heartened that you've got the mettle to stand up and call for a terrorist attack on your country and on your countrymen: its a brave and, no doubt, unpopular stance, but you deserve credit for not being evasive about it.
Firstly, what, exactly, is doozy-like about the "construction" of "innocent civilians"? Or have you, in tandem with pre-justifying the murder of civilians, pre-judged them as somehow "guilty" aswell? And guilty of what exactly?
Now, about those "small steps".
1. "A US army medic in Iraq is supporting the US war effort directly (he or she helps tends to the medical needs of injured soldiers and improves the ability of the US army to fight its war)."
A medic is meant to tend to the medical needs of everyone - that is what they do. Is this supporting the war effort "directly"? What of the doctors in America who treat wounded soldiers - are they making a similar contribution? And how does, say, tending to a shrapnel wound "improve the ability of the US Army to fight its war"? Do they implant their patients with anti-Iraqi zeal? Do they endow them with secret special powers whilst on the operating table?
"The medic is no less important to American efforts to subdue Iraq than a mechanic for an M1 tank"
This seems more obtuse than usual. The medic is charged with saving lives; the mechanic with ensuring the proper working of machinery. This seems a rather elemental distinction, but it seems it needs to be restated.
Furthermore, equating them establishes a parity of culpability that seems somewhat unworkable. Is everyone who facilitates the "subduing" of Iraq - say, Iraqi translators or parliamentarians, or UN officials dealing with the refugee problem - to be 'judged' accordingly? And how far out does the radius extend - am I guilty for paying taxes in Ireland? Are my American friends guilty for paying taxes in America? And who distinguishes between the guilty and the innocent - you?
I'll take 2 and 3 together:
"The best outcome for the common good would be a calamitous and rapid US defeat."
"An attack on the Irish airport helping to ship US soldiers to Iraq would impede the US war effort"
Thus, you conclude that an attack on Shannon is 'moral' in that it serves the "best outcome for the common good".
Firstly - why is this the "best outcome"? Surely, since your charges against the war are that it was "immoral in conception and disasterous in implementation" would be a trial of war criminals followed by "implementation" that was the opposite of "disastrous"? Thus, Bush and Cheney in the Hague would be coupled, in the best "common good" scenario, with the establishment of security and democracy in Iraq - that is, with an end to the killing. That would seem to me - and to some Iraqis, no doubt - the best case scenario for the "common good".
But even if we accept your point that US defeat is best for the common good, does that justify an attack on Shannon on the ground of utilitarian common good morality?
I think not. Firstly, the blow to the US would be absolutely minimal - it would not serve the end you seek for it. If the Greens had won the election and use of Shannon was withdrawn immediately, the Iraq war could rumble on unaffected for several decades if the US wanted.
The second and related objection is, of course, why stop at Shannon? I imagine what really would stop the war in Iraq - and what would no doubt serve your version of the common good - would be the ruination of America by bombing. Indeed, this would have a real and permanent effect on the US war effort: disable their ports, dismantle the federal government, poison their agriculture, bring down tax revenue, etc. I imagine a series of nuclear explosions - in Seattle, New York, Iowa and Washington DC - would do it. On a strictly utilitarian calculation, why not do this instead?
So then, Shay, why are you being so coy? Do the ends not justify the means? No doubt, in being willing to sacrifice your family and friends, you've got the requisite toughness to pull it off: why then aren't you out doing your bit for the common good, detonating and destroying major US cities? Is this not what is required, more than the bombing of a small airport in the west of Ireland? If not, the question remains: if you're not going to stop at Shannon, then why start there?
I'm cheered that Shay checked out my letters in the LRB - its great to have fans.
But, since he clearly doesn't actually read the LRB, and has wrenched the letters from their context - ie, replies to pieces published there - we can disregard his comments.
Moreover, I needn't compare "track records" with a man who advocates terrorist attacks on his own country. That sort of thing speaks for itself.
And Hal - I know mate, what a bunch of crazies. But I'm in this tedious office all day, and sending them foaming about 'imperialism' and watching them apologise for anti-semites and fascists and, worst of all, George Galloway, can be rather funny to behold.
Sean: "...the mechanic [is charged with] with ensuring the proper working of machinery".
So is the medic.
Sean, at least you've finally had the honesty to admit that you are just a troll.
"Sean, at least you've finally had the honesty to admit that you are just a troll."
But Tony, when will you have the honesty to admit that you're just a spurned ex-girlfriend in disguise, angry that I never brought you flowers? This is my last word to you on this: its over! Let it go! This Shay fellow seems more your type anyway.
You're being laughed at, Sean. Not with.
And the delusion that anyone other than you is "foaming" is just sad.
Can I just say that I condemn what Tony just said unreservedly and unconditionally?
I just thought I ought to say that.
You see, of course I am not a Marxist, but even Marxists have to deal with other personnel, including such objects as 'useful idiots' and even 'utter, utter fools' like moi-meme (I want to put as much preciosity in my verbiage as possible, so you'll be kept busy telling me I'm 'not Oscar Wilde'. That's devastating, I always wanted to go to Reading Gaol, actually, and Reading as in 'Robinson in Space' seemed rather like a ghost town--poor Robinson had to arrange naughty meetings over the Internet.)
This site has verged on 'the looney left', as Hal has termed it, not because there is not a lot of intelligence, but because they do tolerate literal looneys for long periods of time--or at least they have. It's not nearly as consistent as claimed, but hey (as said on TV)--you can't expect perfection. Frankly, it was important to ask about whether or not the terrorist bombings of 9/11, 7/7, and Madrid, Bali, and potentially Piccadilly and Park Lane the other day might not seem especially helpful in the 'fight against imperialism'. I actually don't believe they are not, because those do scare the imperial powers. Lenin's talk about the one side or other 'not having the right' to attack civilians, whether in the World Trade Center or in Samarra, or wherever. This kind of thing is not observed in the heat of war, so the question is 'is it tactically effective?' Yes, because both sides begin to try to become even more insidious and harmful, a surprise attack is not within the domain of 'moral warfare'. This seems to be what some of this is about, some weird imagining that there could be a such thing as 'moral warfare.' Therefore, the 9/11 bombings were enormously successful, and proved that the Western powers have a serious opponent--with a fair marginal number of suicidal crazies--which the imperial powers do not have (unless they are sympathizing with Al Qaeda, etc.). This is all obvious to all, so I'm not going to waste time today. I want to kill all Al Qaeda sympathizers, some of you guys cheer if U.S. serviceman get killed. This is probably not going to change. From the U.S. side, we actually hope for some decent leadership, which we don't have. I am very clear now on why Marxists want the Western powers to have the very worst and stupidest leaders--of course, you will have the better chance of winning that way.
You're stuck with the waiting, though, just as I am. Obviously, even if my nephew were to get killed, I wouldn't tell Lenin and his pals Rosa and anticapitalista, because I am not interested in feeding their cheap delight at this sort of thing.
What is more specific, though, is that, say Lenin does claim that he doesn't think that vicious people 'had a right' to blow up and kill civilians in the World Trade Center, but the Pentagon was not exactly full of just civilians. Was that one therefore more justified in lenin's marxist terms? I would assume it would be, although I sympathize with it not at all.
People do have to go on and choose sides in conflicts, or expect to get beaten. Extreme leftists are past masters at telling people they are selfish, power-worshipping, and playing on their sense of guilt about the oppressed. I used to fall for some of that, but I'm over it. I don't give a shit about what Lenin or SGuy think about me, or I'd be letting them make up my mind. In any case, Marxists and communists have long proven they are as selfish and brutal and power-worshipping as anybody in the 'imperial nations'. It's a matter of whether they have the wherewithal to fight well enough to prevail. They have thus proved not to. The best legacies are present in the welfare states of Europe like Switzerland and Sweden, but there is no pretending that those countries want a lot of ex-factory workers all of sudden running governments as in previous Communist experiments, unless they go on and get the education--otherwise, such phenomena as White Russians have to be hired to help develop the KGB, because the Reds didn't know their asses from holes in the ground.
There is also this silly nonsense about 'quantities of deaths' and 'not caring less about those you're in contact with, you can see, or just exist as abstracts to you.' This is all twaddle, because if I were to be exposed and be in direct contact with Iraq civilians I would be able to care as strongly about them as I do the people I know in New York and New Orleans (many of whom are brown or black-skinned, that's trash talk, i never particularly think of Arabs as being brown-skinned.) I admit that's 'parochial', but I don't give a shit. Nobody has a wide enough experience to empathize equally with all groups, and to have no bigotries. That's one of the better lessons to be learned from the British, who don't feel nearly as guilty about their own prejudices as do Americans, and so go about battles they choose in a more businesslike way. I wish to God we had that sort of thing here, with an idiot President who has to become as idiotically religious as his foes. I now wonder if those crows attacked Iraq because they had a repressive, but at least secular sort of Islam. It was probably because Hussein was so primordial and bestial, too much of a hedonist with all those public ads for himself, all those palaces, and all that fucking. I know it has nothing to do with skin colour, because many of the New Yorkers and New Orlinians I care more about than Iraqis are much darker than any Iraqis I've seen.
However, people who don't care more about their families and friends are apparently, to Marxists, 'less parochial' and 'less solipsistic'. It's probably that they come from vicious families much of the time, in which there is much internecine conflict, as families are well-known to treat each other with great jealousy, malice and shit (wonderful turn of phrase, that--emphasis mine...) Then their strict indoctrinations lead them to use friends for 'their commitments as Marxists' and there often comes the effective day when the friends have to be betrayed for the 'greater cause.' This makes for a most admirable individual, one would say, wouldn't one? It makes for a sublime non-individual who wants to make sure
'all persons as differentiated bodies' have 'equal amounts' of 'material things.' Nobody had EVER cared about this, because it never happens, and nobody ever will. Nobody wants everybody to have the same rights, because nobody can stand the boredom of it for more than 5 minutes. So, Aux Armes Citoyens Marxists! Go forth, bring full equality into being for 5 minutes and then remember whose running things. (This rambled a bit, but was nevertheless exquisite...)
'A medic is meant to tend to the medical needs of everyone - that is what they do. Is this supporting the war effort "directly"? What of the doctors in America who treat wounded soldiers - are they making a similar contribution?'
Sean--yes, and, of course, one of the Glasgow terrorists is in the hospital in Glasgow. That's when the papers have been talking about whether he was 'wearing a belt' or not. Sources said 'yes.'
What is more specific, though, is that, say Lenin does claim that he doesn't think that vicious people 'had a right' to blow up and kill civilians in the World Trade Center, but the Pentagon was not exactly full of just civilians. Was that one therefore more justified in lenin's marxist terms? I would assume it would be, although I sympathize with it not at all.
Oh, patrick, how can you say these things? My terms have been explained several times. For one thing, I don't support 'Al Qaeda'. For another, even if I did, I don't think that blowing up the Pentagon, which certainly has hundreds of civilians working inside it, including functionaries, cleaners, and so on, would be a legitimate tactic of war. I feel I have been clear about the reasons why I think Iraqis have a right to resist an occupying army, so why do you feel obliged to add your own conclusions as if they were mine?
Sean, I was a regular buyer of the LRB in the late nineties after getting hooked on a former flatmates subscription around 1994 and only gave up reading it in the early noughties as I was starting to drown in periodicals. The LRB was usually a god read and crucially is was not too highbrow for me (Granta, I am talking about yooohooo.).
Happier times, certainly for Iraqis.
'I imagine what really would stop the war in Iraq - and what would no doubt serve your version of the common good - would be the ruination of America by bombing. Indeed, this would have a real and permanent effect on the US war effort: disable their ports, dismantle the federal government, poison their agriculture, bring down tax revenue, etc. I imagine a series of nuclear explosions - in Seattle, New York, Iowa and Washington DC - would do it. On a strictly utilitarian calculation, why not do this instead?'
Yes, and that's why the sloppily-made bombs and the lack of expertise to detonate them is particularly sobering about the 2 London Mercedes: This is what we've been most dreading. And if dirty bombs do happen (and they are certainly wanted by those who can manage to use them), then there won't be any concern for the Iraq War by any parties. That's why these leftists won't actually say that Al Qaeda is actually the MOST effective and successful weapon the other side has--lenin even claimed I was 'slandering him' by asking him this. Perhaps this is because you can get in trouble for vocally supporting Al Qaeda--and very fast. That's why even the truly retarded people, whom Lenin has evicted at least, the 9/11 truth looneys, won't admit that they support Al Qaeda, preferring to blame the Bush Govt., the CIA, for orchestrating the attacks as if Grimm's Fairy Tales had come to life as an IceCapade even. But I wasn't 'slandering him' by asking him that. I didn't actually think he was for these terrorist attacks, and still don't, although he's not consistent on this matter to really have a powerful stance. I thought, as you apparently do too, that it is, in fact, the terrorists, who can do the most harm--and so the Marxists then start comparing 'numbers of lives lost' and minimizing the difference in cultures and ways of life, even though some of the most brutal and hateful internet Marxists are totally rich and personally spoiled and liars (I'm not referring to lenin here, he's full of shit, but probably believes in what he's doing; the ones I'm talking about are mere hobbyists, and they are like forms of WORM).
'Oh, patrick, how can you say these things?'
lenin, these were NOT accusations, they were questions. I did NOT slander you, why can't you be an adult about the same kind of grilling you do other people? The Pentagon is NOT only civilians, though. And it does not follow that someone who is military automatically deserves death at the hands of terrorists or Marxists or what have you. Take it easy, will you.
That's why these leftists won't actually say that Al Qaeda is actually the MOST effective and successful weapon the other side has--lenin even claimed I was 'slandering him' by asking him this.
It's a false premise. 'Al Qaeda' isn't working for 'the other side', whoever that may be. You only have to ask yourself what AQ has actually achieved for 'the other side'. The short answer is next to nothing. Was US power curtailed because thousands of people were murdered in New York and Washington in 2001? Quite the contrary, I would have thought.
Hezbollah and the Lebanese resistance achieved more for 'the other side' than 'Al Qaeda' ever did. The Iraqi resistance is achieving more than they did. Chavez and the Venezuelan working class are achieving more than they did. The Indonesian students and workers achieved more than they did. The Egyptian working class is more of a threat to the Egyptian state than al-Zawahiri or the Qutbists every were. The Maoists in Nepal achieved more than 'Al Qaeda'. The Bolivian workers and peasants have achieved more than them. If you want to roll back imperial power, the only weapon you have is your numbers, your ability to organise, and your willingess to unite the broadest layer of people behind that aim. What the 'Al Qaeda' organisation does is support, fund, and wage various brutal operations which usually kill hundreds of civilians but make little dent on the imperial armoury. Not only are the politics of 'Al Qaeda' profoundly anti-communist, but their strategy and tactics are profoundly anti-marxist. Practically everywhere that one finds a group claiming to be an offshoot of 'Al Qaeda' or loyal to it, you'll find that they absolute ruin and destroy local resistance movements.
Incidentally, you didn't simply 'ask', you implied that your strange conclusion was actually mine. It isn't, for the reasons I've outlined.
lenin, these were NOT accusations, they were questions. I did NOT slander you
Bullshit, honey. You invented some absolutely absurd, spurious positions that no marxist alive actually holds, or has ever even claimed to hold, and 'assumed' that these must be the logical corollary of the marxist analysis. Of course, we could all play that game: I could innocently 'ask' you if a logical result of your position is that you support genocide against Arabs. I could add my assumption inference that you do. And then I could protest that I didn't mean it as an accusation, merely as a question, and why are you getting so het up about it etc.
'a legitimate tactic of war'
This is something I truly don't understand. Of course, there are phrases commonly used like 'war crimes', and these don't make much sense to me. It's like you have a right to large-scale killing as long as certain rules are followed. 'War crimes' is like 'human rights', which has been separated off as if it were a peculiar and not all-consuming thing. I've noticed that 'human rights' often has to give way to matters of international trade, etc., but that the most effective means of was are CERTAINLY the LEAST legitimate! The more criminal, the more effective. That doesn't mean screams and resistance are not going to come automatically, of course they MUST. But warfare is about fighting to win, not about demonstrating good sportmanship. In this regard, the 9/11 attacks were spectacularly successful, and they even arrived when an American administration so short-sighted that it cannot even be believed was in power--so that the success continued by not going single-mindedly after the original criminals, but by using the attacks to divert to a purely self-interested political agenda, namely, going off to bother with Saddam Hussein. The terrorists have clearly taken note of this, and it is no secret that Bush is the terrorists' president of choice. He is just as much of a religious fanatic as they are, and that's one of the main reasons why the U.S., top-heavy and inefficient but rich, may not be winning (I'm not talking about Iraq: That was already a kind of admission of defeat in itself, in its sheer blatant idiocy, the like of which has not been seen in American history). The continued prosperity of Bin laden and Al Qaeda is proof of their success. When people talk about how 'their have been no further attacks on the u.S. mainland since 2001', they are just talking shit. It's well-known and documented that Al Qaeda has a long-range plan. Failure to find Bin Laden is admission of continued failure.
'Incidentally, you didn't simply 'ask', you implied that your strange conclusion was actually mine. It isn't, for the reasons I've outlined.'
'Ask' was just shorthand for what I was doing in probing what might be your thoughts on this. But I still don't think it was a strange conclusion. We've got different agendas. Whether or not the reaction to Al Qaeda and related groups is due to complacence and a spoiled populace is beside the point: If these over-reactions are 'illogical', this still does not mean they don't have power. Otherwise, Bush would not continue to cynically use terror threats whenever he sees the slightest chance they might work. But it's also true that, even though he uses these cynically, that the threats are real. You can say, oh well, not so much and big a threat, but they've been gradually building--it's even been a neat little job they did in New York, starting with the '93 bombing, with Ramzi Yousef and company, crescendoing to 9/11, with his uncle as one of the chief architects of the attacks. So, in playing on the Americans' inability to absorb these attacks and 'put them into a more reasonable proportion', in short, the Americans won't see themselves as being 'like other people' (even if they 'should'), you still have to take this all into account when trying to determine what will happen. I guess what's most confusing is how the reactions do not seem logical. Of course, there also really ARE a lot of secrets we don't know, but intelligence agencies like ours in the U.S., you really don't need enemies, given how pathetically they operate. BUT--it was an inquiry about the effectiveness of this kind of attack, not a slander. If that's hard to understand, just compare it with how I feel about your cheerleading for servicemen's death: I no longer particularly care, even if I dislike it, but that you admit to, and I was just exploring what the effective use of the terrorist attacks might be as seen by the Marxist strategist. you've explained some of this, but I don't know: Catastrophic results on an enormous scale could occur for whatever stupid reason.
'I could innocently 'ask' you if a logical result of your position is that you support genocide against Arabs.'
Yes, you could have, and perhaps you even did, in a lukewarm way. But if you want to think I was trying to slander you, then suffer, apparently that's what you enjoy. I wasn't. And just WHO would I be trying to slander you TO? I have no fear that you have uncontrollable power to kill my nephew, to pick the most absurd notion that your absurd accusations suggest. I wanted to run out the 9/11 truth people not because I wanted, as SGuy says, to 'suck up to you and the other Tombalists', but rather because those people were an insult to all intelligence. Even those who DO sympathize with Al Qaeda, however much they are my enemy, are not insulting all intelligence the way the 9/11truth movement does, which is to pay millions of visits to the latrine.
But stand accused if you want. I was seriously trying to ask about these strategies as they might be deemed effective by whomever, and if I deduced something incorrectly, I do tend to believe that has EVEN happened to you, bullshitter.
You're stuck with the waiting, though, just as I am. Obviously, even if my nephew were to get killed, I wouldn't tell Lenin and his pals Rosa and anticapitalista, because I am not interested in feeding their cheap delight at this sort of thing.
patrick j. mullins
Where on earth did you get that from?
Just because you cannot or refuse to accept that Marxists are not one-dimensional in their support for movements fighting imperialism, you come to the ridiculous suggestion that Marxists support AQ, the 911 bombings, Bali bombings, 7/7 etc etc.
Then you claim that these acts are actually effective in fighting imperialism (unlike us Marxists).
Maybe simplicity is the best solution:
1. Do Marxists support AQ? No
2. Did Marxists support the 911, 7/77 etc bombings? No
3. Do Marxists believe that bombing cities in the imperial homelands effective? No
4. Do Marxists support Islamic groups such as Hizbollah when they fight imperialism? (Read that carefully) Yes.
5. Do Marxists support the politics of Hizbollah? No
...and finally.
Do Marxists really give a shit what patrick thinks of us?.........
but that the most effective means of was are CERTAINLY the LEAST legitimate!
That can be true, but it isn't always so. For instance, it is a very effective means of war for the US to incinerate civilians, who are in fact their enemy. This a classic phase of degenerate warfare.
However, it isn't true if you have no strength beyond the ability to occasionally inflict such atrocities. The US has overwhelming military power; by contrast, Iraqi insurgents have only the strength of their numbers and the community of support they are able to build up. In this respect, it is noteworthy that the takfiri elements in Iraq are so alienating local populations that the national resistance movements have been fighting them, and driving them out.
But warfare is about fighting to win, not about demonstrating good sportmanship. In this regard, the 9/11 attacks were spectacularly successful, and they even arrived when an American administration so short-sighted that it cannot even be believed was in power--so that the success continued by not going single-mindedly after the original criminals, but by using the attacks to divert to a purely self-interested political agenda, namely, going off to bother with Saddam Hussein.
You haven't explained what they succeeded at, except for giving the American state much power over US citizens and a carte blance to undertake massively repressive policies. The US could have easily rounded up the network of AQ affiliates through a concerted international policing effort, but that wasn't the priority of this administration. So, in what sense did these attacks strike a blow for the oppressed and poor and exploited?
The continued prosperity of Bin laden and Al Qaeda is proof of their success.
What 'prosperity'? And in what sense would this conduce a success for the 'other side', (by whom I assume you mean the oppressed and occupied and exploited and tortured and so on)?
'For instance, it is a very effective means of war for the US to incinerate civilians, who are in fact their enemy.'
Exactly, that's part of the dirtiest warfare, even if it's somehow legal, it's still certainly 'illegitimate' because 'most criminal.'
anticapitalista--is it that this place is only for bellicosity and not actually discussing and inquiring about something one doesn't know, or are you just 17 years old?
But I still don't think it was a strange conclusion.
But that is merely a reflection of your lack of thought on this matter. Anyone who was seriously interested in divining what a marxist might make of an elite network of commandos devoted to the most reactionary version of Political Islam, undertaking attacks sure to maximise civilian casualties and empower an otherwise feeble administration, providing a narrative for constant, limitless war by the American government - well, if you wanted to know what would be made of that, you could either check what marxists have said about it or come to some understanding about what the basic tenets of marxism are and then use your imagination (which is different from fantasy).
Yes, you could have, and perhaps you even did, in a lukewarm way. But if you want to think I was trying to slander you, then suffer, apparently that's what you enjoy.
Well, alright, but this isn't about my poor, broken heart, it is about you refusing to take responsibility for the things that you say, and diverting as far as possible from the actual arguments being made so that we have to argue over your peculiar fantasies about what marxists must believe, what you assume they believe, what would be - in your curious logic - sensible for them to believe. I'd like to think that this denial is beneath you.
Have I suddenly gone mad or is Patrick now trying to claim that Al-Qaida are an effective resistance movement representing the wretched of the earth?
I condemn completely, utterly and without reservation, Patricks appalling slide into moral relativism. Just kidding Patrick. But watch out. Harry's about. They're circulating Lenin's utterly disgraceful remarks about American soldiers and somehow holding ME responsible for them.
I have of course completely failed to defend my comrade in line with democratic centralism and political opportunism.
'The US could have easily rounded up the network of AQ affiliates through a concerted international policing effort'
I used to think so, now I'm not sure, but, in any case, that should have been the single-minded effort.
, but that wasn't the priority of this administration.'
Horrible, but true.
'So, in what sense did these attacks strike a blow for the oppressed and poor and exploited?'
I don't know, it definitely struck a blow against the U.S. that hasn't nearly finished yet, because the U.S. was unable to deal with it--whether it wouldn't or couldn't does not matter, it DIDN'T. There was, for awhile, the euphorias that Rumsfeld especially enjoyed, but those are, with great reluctance, being forced to bite the dust. So maybe not for an exploited poor and oppressed in any general sense (but this gets rather wide), but definitely for the empowerment of the fanatics themselves, because they have been almost given carte blanche to the world by the U.S., they just have to learn how to use it.
Backing up a bit here ...
One must have some serious problems with reality in not understanding the concept that those who feel that the war in Iraq is illegal and immoral (an invasion by an overwhelming imperialist neighborhood bully of a comparatively defenseless non threatening nation that just happens to have significant oil reserves and a strategic location in the middle east), would see the increasing deaths of American servicemen as having an upside role in ending that conflict.
World public opinion has turned, get used to it! Millions of people around the planet now wish Americans, and Brits, ill will on a grand scale, and it is not limited to just the military. That is what your imperial masters wanted. They are the fear motivate folks as opposed to the desire motivate folks and they lie like fucking wet rugs.
You kick the dog you own the bite! Its that simple.
Bemoaning the new ill will makes you look like a petulant school child. If you want to be loved you have to make yourself lovable. Stop pissing and moaning, “Oh boo hoo, nobody likes me!”, and work to get the shit heads that created the conditions that have put you (and millions of other true freedom and democracy loving people around the world) in this precarious state. You end the divisiveness by not engaging in it and focus on eliminating those who created it. Your time would be better spent in eliminating the deception and corruption that has put you in your current predicament, something that lenin does on a daily basis with posts such as this that draw attention to the gross deception, inequity and hypocrisy in the media.
'well, if you wanted to know what would be made of that, you could either check what marxists have said about it or come to some understanding about what the basic tenets of marxism are and then use your imagination (which is different from fantasy).'
So sorry. I asked you, and you turn out to be a boorish oaf at every turn. I don't take orders from you, nor ask for reading recommendations (unless I do), just because Arpege Chabert says 'not to question revolutionaries, but to do what they tell you to.' If you just want to be pushy-rude, that's one alternative. You're apparently afraid of the consequences of anything more refined.
Okay Patrick, a military victory for Al Qaeda, given their long-range goal of drawing the American government into a sapping war. But it's been of absolutely no benefit to anyone else outside the US power elite.
'so that we have to argue over your peculiar fantasies about what marxists must believe, what you assume they believe, what would be - in your curious logic - sensible for them to believe.'
You don't have to argue about 'my fantasies' if that's what they are. Just stop talking to me if you can't stand it. Believe me, you're getting on my nerves too.
lenin,
you seem very concerned about iraqi and afghan civilians in this thread. would you say that civilian casualties are your prime motive for opposing the iraq and afghan wars?
in the case of afghanistan, despite the terrible casualties of late, overall death rates are down since the war started. i presume you would still oppose that war regardless of these fewer death rates?
am i right in suggesting your real opposition to both of these wars is political and economic rather than civilian casualties?
'But it's been of absolutely no benefit to anyone else outside the US power elite.'
Maybe so, and for the US power elite probably only temporarily. I don't see that they're holding up in the way they were in the pre-subpoena-slapping days. Bush can be held in criminal contempt if he won't cooperate with Congress. But there's that beastly Supreme Court, which has one half-swing vote, and makes some thoughtful and some disastrous (as racial last week) rulings. Bush managed to succeed in peopling the Court with scary people, and he was already helped with the ignominious Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.
would you say that civilian casualties are your prime motive for opposing the iraq and afghan wars?
No, my main motive is that it is bad and wrong to try and take over other countries by violently tearing it up.
in the case of afghanistan, despite the terrible casualties of late, overall death rates are down since the war started.
Down compared to what? Where is the proof of this assertion?
am i right in suggesting your real opposition to both of these wars is political and economic rather than civilian casualties?
I don't know what economic motives you're thinking of, but obviously the critique of imperialism has always been political. That isn't somehow incompatible with opposing the carnage that imperialism produces.
You don't have to argue about 'my fantasies' if that's what they are. Just stop talking to me if you can't stand it. Believe me, you're getting on my nerves too.
Excellent! But once again, you are mistaking a political argument for an online frisson. The fact of the matter is that you have tried, repeatedly, to engage in some pretty risible diversionary tactics, and are now huffing because it's been seen through, and pointed out, and none of your pleas of innocence are washing. Stomping your feet and calling me a bullshitter and complaining about bellicosity (in the same stream of thought, as well) didn't do it for you.
I have no interest in perpetuating that particular argument at any rate. You have more or less conceded, already, that the position you imputed to marxists can't possibly be a logical one for them to take, and nowhere have you provided an instance of where such a position has been taken by them, so your variously repeated claim that supporting Al Qaeda attacks on population centres ("imperial cities" as you called them in the mutilated language that you mistake for marxism) is a position that either do take or should logically take is no longer even an issue.
'none of your pleas of innocence are washing.'
Eez zat so? Well, that should at least prove to SGuy that I will do ANYTHING to SUCK UP to some Communist blog.
'Stomping your feet and calling me a bullshitter and complaining about bellicosity (in the same stream of thought, as well) didn't do it for you.'
Oh, well, if it was an online frisson, about which you apparently know as much about as you do to what use Al Qaeda can be put to, then what is lost by 'it not doing it for me.' I complained about the bellicosity and the bullshitting because that's what it was, not because I expected it would get any desirable results. Pools of brackish water are often contaminated.
'You have more or less conceded, already, that the position you imputed to marxists can't possibly be a logical one for them to take,'
No, I conceded no such thing. I still don't know, I just know I've gotten whatever answers I'll get here, and no more. For the rest, I'll continue to observe events, which will provide the answers. Marxism is part of what I'd have to discuss if I talk to someone here, but it's not my main concern.
No, I conceded no such thing.
Well, look. If you acknowledge that AQ couldn't possibly have struck a blow for the oppressed, as per above, then it follows that marxists couldn't begin to support such an action on the grounds of what it does for 'the other side'. So, whether you realise it or not, you have in fact been obliged to abandon your claim.
In fact, if you want more answers, why not read Leon Trotsky on terrorism? It's a bit dated, since he was addressing a different set of problems, but the basic approach is the same: even in the best cause, we oppose the strategy of terrorism, and always insist on the strategy of mass mobilisation.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/...09/xx/
tia09.htm
http://www.marxists.de/theory/wh...tis/
terror2.htm
Its always terribly distressing when your native informant has his own opinion about natives Patrick. Here you are slumming it with Marxists and they simply won't agree with you about what they are.
Time for a bit of radical anthropology.
I speak from the palace of Al-Marxah, by the lakes of brackish and oft' contaminated water deep in the Imperial City where the great but flawed wizard they call 'Mulljins the Prolix' casts his strange and ineffectual spells that turn gold to straw, guinness into water and Lenin into a pussy cat.
Do you think anybody starts reading comments boxes when it already says 134 and goes all the way through?
Do you think anybody starts reading comments boxes when it already says 134 and goes all the way through?
Well, probably not - but is there anything to be done about it? Should people cease discussing anything when we hit, say, fifty comments?
Terminate with extreme prejudice.
“Do Marxists believe that bombing cities in the imperial homelands effective? No” -- Anticapitalista
Humm, are you sure? On WW2 the bombing of the German towns proved to be wrong, true. The planners thought they would erosionate the moral of the population. The real (and well known consequence)? The will to resist was increased. But... we are talking about a “total war” here. The population was already prepared for that. Same thing with Londoners. They were able to resist the German air offensive basically because of that. They understood they were fighting to death. The conclusive fact? These massacres from the air were not productive. The planners (Germans, British or Americans) got all wrong. But of course, this was the first time this “strategy” was massively deployed.
But can this be true nowadays in er... the USA and UK (the 2 countries which invaded and occupy) Iraq? NO.
This is a “local/limited” war (and I am only talking about the population of the two agressive states). Daily life is not supposed to change. It must not change. In such a context, the bombing of the “cities in the imperial homelands” IS indeed very productive. Cynical moaning: “alright, I supported this illegal war, now bring cheap oil, kill sub-humans in the process, but hey!... why are they bombing my pub whilst I am drinking with my friends...!? This should not be happening!”
They like it or not, theses bombs in the UK or USA do erosionate the moral of the population. Unlike in WW2 they do NOT increase the will to resist (“’resist what’ by the way? An illegal war started by my own government?”). Unlike their WW2 counterparts, the terrorists know this tactic CAN work in the current conflict. If they know it may work, why should they be avoiding it (the fight is already very unbalanced)? Humanitarian ideas? I can’t believe some of you think war is some sort of tennis match played by two Victorian gentlemen...
Either you are truly naive or you are looking for an excuse to blame those who resist the imperialism (I am not talking about you, Anticapitalista, obviously).
Not to mention that war is all about “costs”. The objective must ALWAYS be more valuable than the losses. This is an unescapable military axiom. Every professional knows that. These terrorists are supposed to not ignore this either. In fact this is a race “ok, I am going to increase your losses. And maybe one day they will be higher than the benefits. That day you will give up...” In other words, don’t forget to add the “bombings in the cities in the imperial homelands” in the balance. They do matter. A lot. Cruel? Not my fault.
Anyway, these gentlemen’s (Sean, Chissers, etc.) essential points should be clear to everyone:
a) what tactics are acceptable in war? Debatable, indeed (but it has to be a rational debate).
and
b) we need more “stoicism”: “come on, stay calm, the resistance is winning the war, alright, but for fuck’s sake, don’t have an erection”.
Fair enough :P
Should people cease discussing anything when we hit, say, fifty comments?
Oh Gawd no. I was just musing really: when I see we're on a large number of comments I just read the last couple and then maybe scroll up to see where the fight started*. But I suppose some people must do the whole thing, Gawd help them.
[* = mind you the answer is usually "in the first ten comments" so whether I actually save any time at all is open to question...]
Move on! Nothing to see here. (It's way too far down the page). The BBC website has replaced the car bomb shlock horror story with a Putin and Bush fishing trip cosy up. Well, the stunt was only something for the weekend.
I do that - read it all, I mean. Don't post often, obviously.
I'm a bit gutted to see that "Kris" one being ridiculous here earlier. I should find myself a new name, I suppose.
anticapitalista--is it that this place is only for bellicosity and not actually discussing and inquiring about something one doesn't know, or are you just 17 years old?
patrick j. mullins
Are you saying that 17 year olds know nothing you can't learn from?
Not that I am 17, alas, that was a very long time ago.
But to get to the point of what I simplified, that others may express more eloquently than a humble ex 17 year old still in dypers can do.
You accused me of cheer leading the death of American soldiers in Iraq. Where did you get that from?
From Herr Coleman:
"And Hal - I know mate, what a bunch of crazies. But I'm in this tedious office all day, and sending them foaming about 'imperialism' and watching them apologise for anti-semites and fascists and, worst of all, George Galloway, can be rather funny to behold."
Revealing methinks - indicative of a deep-held fear. I have it on good authority that Galloway eats Colemen for breakfast.
I got a name for this particular comment thread: ThE gOtChA!
Nitpickers Unite! :-P
People: People - families, women, men, children are being killed! Humans, if you will.
Argue all the niceties of politics, philosophies, war, but doesn't the killing of somebody's child strike you as insane?
In anycase, it was an interesting read.
"A medic is meant to tend to the medical needs of everyone - that is what they do. Is this supporting the war effort "directly"? What of the doctors in America who treat wounded soldiers - are they making a similar contribution? And how does, say, tending to a shrapnel wound "improve the ability of the US Army to fight its war"? Do they implant their patients with anti-Iraqi zeal? Do they endow them with secret special powers whilst on the operating table?"
-Sean C.
Enough! For the love of Marx! Surely Sean has be-clowned himself sufficiently to earn a ban? I can't take the embarrassment from watching his St. Vitus dance of self-humiliation anymore!
'You accused me of cheer leading the death of American soldiers in Iraq. Where did you get that from?'
Sorry, anticapitalista, I inadvertently lumped you in with the ones who were doing it most coxcombly, too (there were several add-ons as the thread progressed.)
Of course there are things one learns from all ages, at this point I do tend to associate 17-19-year-olds in the U.S. with MySpace, because one I rented a room to one who stayed on MySpace all the time and flunked out of school for not studying.
'Enough! For the love of Marx! Surely Sean has be-clowned himself sufficiently to earn a ban?'
What Sean had said was quite eloquent, in fact--interesting you'd choose one of the most convincing things he wrote. But if he and I get banned, does that mean you'll cram your head up your asshole? It's something to look forward to with Cheerleader Glee, however miniscule the flutter.
What Sean had said was quite eloquent, in fact
Now you're being silly.
Maybe Sean should watch MASH. But there again, he would side with Frank Burns' anti-Korean zeal over Hawkeye's anti-war and anti-establishment position.
because one I rented a room to one who stayed on MySpace all the time and flunked out of school for not studying.
and you've outed yourself as a landlord. which fits nicely with the rest of your scummy personality
'and you've outed yourself as a landlord. which fits nicely with the rest of your scummy personality'
What an unbelievable thing to say--it was a roommate share. Although I do pay rent to a landlord, and don't find him particularly scummy. That you would make such an automatic assumption shows what literal SCUM you must be.
You are the stereotype of internet garbage. Have you NEVER heard of roommate shares and Craigslist and the Village Voice 'Short Term Shares.'
WATERMELON is perfect for YOUR brain, it will be possible for you to get your WATERBRAIN up your giant gaping hole, though. You've clearly got enough ass for 10-15 people. But with a brain that soft, I guess you can just shove it up there in pieces, and if there's anything left once you've arrived at the destination, give a little lick to the crevices, and clean the place up--better to have a filthy brain and a clean rectum than everything dirty.
“That sounds great, my little Arkansas WATERMELON,” he coos. “I love the time I spend with your big gang of chicks. But alas, I’ll have to be out of the country a lot of the time as your roving ambassador.”
That's from Maureen Dowd's fantasy of Bill talking to Hillary. Thought a little 'This Page Cannot Be Displayed' sort of blogger might appreciate that the WATERMELON stereotype is no longer necessarily a racist one. What 'Keith Watermelon' is no one probably cares, given that the IQ is so abysmally low, or the ball-lessness so brazenly present, typical of people who won't use their own names on the interent. Eat shit and die, Keith Watermelon.
Crack pipe empty again PJ?
but my real name is keith watermelon
Thanks for the flattery and Feature Article, Miss Watermelon of 2007.
Commenting by HaloScan
