Who is the real threat: America or Islamic extremists?

[johnwisehammer]

I'm sorry, Yoke, but just because the British Government are (especially) cunts in Northern Ireland, it doesn't mean that their enemy (the IRA and their fundraising wings) are my friend, especially when I know someone like me (loudmouth leftie drugtaker) would be a prime target for getting their legs broken over there. And that also doesn't mean that the IRA's enemies*** (Orange Order and UDF or whatever) are my friends - they're all bastards!

Noraid especially can fuck off, just like the hardline Zionist funding - Americans voyeuristically indulging themselves in a few radical war games from the comfort of their (relatively) prosperous and safe suburbs.

*** Are Loyalist paramilitaries really the IRA's enemies? After all, they rarely carry out hits on each other and they (like rival Mafia families or Coke and Pepsi) keep the structure of the market stabily split up between them. Maybe they're symbiotic in reality and both have much to lose from a negotiated peace. Hmm.

 

[quamp]

"Not one American bullet has been fired, three weeks later."
Apart from all those in Israel/Palestine, obviously.

Actually, there are thousands of guns all over the world using American bullets. From what I understand, there are about 30 or so wars going on right now, and almost all of them have some kind of American made weaponry in them. There is a resistance group in northeast Afghanistan using American guns, tanks, and other heavy ammo. The CIA and others have been arming them for quite awhile now.

 

[Johnny Canuck]

Back at it after a nice weekend...

Bezzer, I'm going back to your 29 Sept. 3:21 am post...

Yes, the Americans did take the lead in a lot of the 'forward thinking' social experiments of the 18th century. As you know, the operative date for the Amer. revolution is 1776. The French Revolution took place 1789-1793. Guess who they were looking to for a model?

The Tea Party wasn't about merchants trying to undercut each other, it was Americans protesting the fact that any goods carried to the colonies, wherever they originated (even from one colony to another) had to be carried on British ships, pass through England, and carry the appropriate 'stamps' to show that tax had been paid. It was the little guy protesting against big government.

Do you really consider the British parliamentary system to be more diverse than the two tiered US system. Not only is the Brit parliament the 'mother of all parliaments, it is one 'mother of a parliament', with its fingers dug into every aspect of English life, right down to chartering of municipal councils. That's diversity? Also, since our parliament is almost the same as the UK version, and very different from the US form of govt., I know that when any party has a parliamentary majority, the prime minister becomes a virtual dictator, since any legislation either he or his party wants, will be passed. You know that's the truth.

It isn't the same in the US, where a simple congressional majority isn't enough; Senate passage, and presidential signoff, are also required, and they aren't rubber stamps, like in my country and yours.

Manifest Destiny is the (American) philosophy that it is the destiny of the US to expand across the continent to the Pacific. They also tried to get Mexico and parts of Canada, but weren't successful. As I said before, such an idea wasn't possible until the Louisiana Purchase. It took place in 1803, and involved the purchase by the US, of all the land between the Mississippi and the Rocky Mountains. Trying to take it any other way would have meant war with Napoleon (eventually).

Re: eugenics, Nazi or otherwise - hogwash. People in different parts of the world are different. Not superior or inferior, just different. They can be physically (Bushman v Orkneyman) or psychologically (American v you) different. The movement of people, and the makeup of the people doing the moving, can affect the area they move to. Is this actually controversial? Canadians are known for being fairly stodgy, conservative, etc. Part of the reason for this is the mass migration of United Empire Loyalists from the US to Canada at the time of the American Revolution. They wanted to stay part of the British Empire. This large group of more conservative people has had an influence on Canadian politics and social thought ever since.

I therefore stand by my comment that the creation of the US from immigrants, dissidents, adventurers, marginal citizens, the poor, etc., will give it a different social makeup than the country they came from.

Are Australians different from Brits? Why is that? And why do you think that the Brits are the favourite people of the Aussies? (I'm joking here...)

However, I'm saving the best for last. The effect of US tyranny on you personally is: Your relatives were almost killed in the WTC. And you are mad at the Americans as a result!? I'm sorry to stoop to the level of personal calumny, but that is a truly bizzare statement. The logic is so twisted that I can't begin to unravel it. I think it is something like blaming the victim. I think it's something like the American South in the Thirties, where the whites would say that some black man had deserved to be lynched, because he had dared to walk down a white street - in other words, he had asked for it. Your logic is the same as that.

Also, what were your relatives doing at the WTC? My bet is, they weren't washing the floors. Don't tell me that your family profits from the evil capitalist system, and actually has members working in the Great Satan? For Shame!

 

[johnwisehammer]

"the operative date for the Amer. revolution is 1776. The French Revolution took place 1789-1793. Guess who they were looking to for a model?"

I think you're overstating the extent to which 18th century iliiterate peasants and (more relevantly) sans-culottes knew about and cared about an incomplete revolution on the other side of the world.

 

[Derek]

Johnny Canuck, some of us had relatives working in the WTC but that doesn't mean that we should support capitalism. It is just that people have to work somewhere and under capitalism working for some capitalist firms is unavoidable.

As for this coming war like all wars the US and Britain only intervene to uplhold the intersts of global capitalism. They couldn't give a toss about the Taleban's crimes against the people of Afghanistan, they spent billions creating and arming the Taleban because it helped them to defeat the Soviet Union in the 1980s. It America that created the threat from Islamic extremists in the first place.

 

[Nemo]

"However, I'm saving the best for last. The effect of US tyranny on you personally is: Your relatives were almost killed in the WTC. And you are mad at the Americans as a result!? I'm sorry to stoop to the level of personal calumny, but that is a truly bizzare statement. The logic is so twisted that I can't begin to unravel it. I think it is something like blaming the victim. I think it's something like the American South in the Thirties, where the whites would say that some black man had deserved to be lynched, because he had dared to walk down a white street - in other words, he had asked for it. Your logic is the same as that."

And once again you have missed the point by a spectacularly wide margin. We do not blame the US for the attacks, if you looked at even one post on the subject even you, with a track record of totally missing the point, would see that we don not blame the US for the attacks. Nevertheless, the US government should use the attacks and draw a lesson from them that their imperialist foreign policy isn't working. Instead, they go even further down the slippery slope.

Pax vobiscum, Nemo

 

[Johnny Canuck]

JWH: Revolutions and the like are never fomented by the peasants. The peasants are the followers and the cannon fodder. The people who were the instructing minds behind the French Revolution were well aware of the American Revolution.

A few examples of the educated leaders:

Danton, whose father was a wealthy lawyer, also studied law before entering radical politics.

Marat: a physician.

Gilbert de Lafayette: attended College du Plessis, the most expensive school in Paris, before becoming an army officer, ultimately leading Revolution soldiers.

Jean Bailly: attended the Louvre, was an astronomer.


Steelgate, I suppose everyone must work somewhere? What that sounds like to me, is that you are prepared to compromise your ideals in order to reap the material rewards offered by the capitalist system, while sneering at others who also work in that syhstem.

Nemo, who exactly is the 'we' you are referring to, when you say that 'We don't blame the US for the attacks', or words to that effect. You will recall my question: how has US tyranny affected you personally?

My last post was directed to Bezzer's reply which I duplicate in its exact form:

'My brothere and (American) sister in law almost got crushed to death from the crashing down of the world trade centre on Manhatten Island. Which was a result of American foraighn policey.'

Maybe you don't blame the US, Nemo, but it sure sounds like Bezzer does. But perhaps your 'we' doesn't include him or her, in which case, maybe I did miss something...

 

[johnwisehammer]

"you are prepared to compromise your ideals in order to reap the material rewards offered by the capitalist system, while sneering at others who also work in that syhstem"

I don't think it's a compromise of anyone's ideals for an average person to work for the meagre "rewards" offered by the capitalist system if the alternative is to starve. What kind of choice is that? Would you say blacks in the unfree South had no right to complain about segregation just because they "used" public schools?

Personally, I'm in favour of a system that wouldn't force people to choose between their morals and a comfortable material life.

 

[Johnny Canuck]

Steelgate, one more thing: you are upset that the US is about to intervene in Afghanistan because US interests are at stake. You mention that they did not intervene before, when it was merely a matter of the Taliban's mistreatment of its own people.

Do you want the US playing world cop? I thought that's exactly what you didn't want. Is it preferable to have the US intervene in the internal affairs of other countries just because the US doesn't agree with what is happening in those countries?

At least there is some justification when US interests are involved. Otherwise, it is just the US making others conform to a US view of what is right.

 

[johnwisehammer]

PS: I think your reading of the French Revolution is rather middle-class-centric (if such a word exists), emphasising as it does the consolidation of the Revolution/Terror and what went on in the National Assembly rather than the actual events in the streets (and fields in some cases) that made concrete changes.

Danton of all people appeals to comfortable middle-class passions (those of the cultural and academic elite) - the idea that a nice bourgeios (sp) kid can become an effective man of the people simply by publishing a few papers, waving your frilly cuffs around effetely and using classical references.

 

[PatelsCornerShop]

Johnny.

I think steelgate is merely pointing out that it is hypocrisy for the US to talk about war against terrorists when they harbour, support and create terrorists themselves.

That seems a reasonble argument. And as an ardent capitalist, I agree with his view.

 

[bezzer]

“Yes, the Americans did take the lead in a lot of the 'forward thinking' social experiments of the 18th century. As you know, the operative date for the Amer. revolution is 1776. The French Revolution took place 1789-1793. Guess who they were looking to for a model?”

No I am afraid you are wrong, if the french were looking to america for a model, then how do you explaine the exisitence of napaleon bonnapart, who was in essence a dictator ? and as socail reformer there are both good and bad argument to be put against him. Adermiration for the american revolution was one of the reasons why france had a revolution ? it is correct to argue that their was a lot of french millitry personal that returened to france after the american revolution and had simmiler ideas, but in NO way can you argue that these were the underlining causes. Up unto the date of 1789 in france their was somewere in the 200- 250 thosende noble men ( not including their familys ) incontrast to a vastly impoverished populaton, which vented a lot of its anger towards this nobility and there gross amounts of wealth. this resenment was further inflamed by a demografic boost in population that still outsriped supply in the production of food, due to bad harvests after the 1780 and cattle deises such as anthrax. With out going to deeply in to this, like many things in history it involved many factors…socail injustice, econmic hardships and reforming asperations. But can you really make a comparison between a french peasent in the last qaurter of the 18th century and an american landowner that did not want to pay taxes ? can you really ? they did not want some holeyer than thow, fedral system of government to decende from the heavens… they wanted to feed their families. In the great run of events, works of liberalism like rousvous socil contract did play a part in the forming of coneqential french republics.

And what about one of the main elements as to what we percive a state to be ? social security for its population, does this have its roots in american poitical culture ( proberly they most liberal of all liberal ideolegeys )…no, the welfare state has its roots in the first riegstag of the german republic, in the last quarter of the 19th century, due to otto von bismarks growing fears of the red terror, which subsequentaly became adoupted by other europeon states. this is an idea which I still strongley belive america has to learn, I would not like to be homeless in america.

Bosten tea party…these merchants were not little guys, being bossed around by an imperial government, they were smugglers who were making a tidey big profit importing tea. I hold no sypathise to british imperilism interfering in the notions of free trade via leving tariffs on goods. But as a socalist I am compelled to look at the reasons for class conflict.


In the year 1772 the east indian company had dept of around £ 1,3000,000 it was close to bankrupsey, this inturn resulted in intervention by the british government. ( the government overtook the company ).

On the advice of the company heads ( who were merchants ) lord north prepaired and passed in parlement the (tea act) which would allow east indian tea companys product to compete with the tea which was smuggled to america via lifting stamp tarrifis on there product. Not only would this indercut smuggled tea, the east indian company and the british government would be making a surplus profit.

Its people comperting for trade and profits which lead to the bosten tea party . it was not the american people, ( poor people do not chuck food stuffs, such as tea in to the sea ) the simple facts are… in the years prior to 1772 smuggler merchants moniplisd the tea trade, after the tea act the british monipilised on the tea trade, and it was regected thus the bosten tea party. The people that were involved in this were not the american population as whole, but people who had vested intreasts in profit. If the bosten tea party did not happen, then the only thing that might have happened was that the colinies would have cheaper tea. Agreed it does go against the princible of ( so called free trade ) but with out going into marxist laboutre theory… what trade is free ?

“Not only is the Brit parliament the 'mother of all parliaments, it is one 'mother of a parliament'”

the althing in iceland… first parlement.

“You know that when any party has a parliamentary majority, the prime minister becomes a virtual dictator, since any legislation either he or his party wants, will be passed. You know that's the truth.”

Well looking at toney blair in the labor party confernce today I have to agree, he is a little dictator. But it also applicable to bush. I don’t deney the existence of cheaks and balences in a fedral system of government. But wheater it be parlementry or fedral, you cannot say that poltics in western countries has not become homagenised to capitilism. any executive regardless of the system of government has its intreasts heavliy inested in globle econmic markets. And america because of it econmic power, will take dictation from those markets ( and sometime regardless to humaiterian concerns ). Its not the system of goverments that deserves critersism for the passing of autoriterian legisalition that infringes human right, it’s the goals which it will try to reach, regardless of everything else to obtain power and wealth creation. And err… those cheaks and balences did not do much in the presidentual election ? evan the supreme coart, that last bastion of justice got suckerd with the election of bush. Dimmpled and pregnet chades ? and this is supposed to an advanced western democracy ? there would have been riots in the uk.

“It isn't the same in the US, where a simple congressional majority isn't enough; Senate passage, and presidential signoff, are also required, and they aren't rubber stamps, like in my country and yours”

and its like the old question… is your glass half empty or half full ? it also creates a lot of beuarcracey and a rigid government. And for reasons like I have explained ( the most auterterian legislation will always get assent, because its intreasts serve a class ). But again apart from a dictatorship any government in any country has a ( due proceduer ) for legisalition to become law, I think in the uk it goes throw 7 sessions before it gets royal assent. Hmmm and is a presedent not percived to be the head of state in a fedral beuacracey ?

all I am poiting out, is that these arguments… for and against, have been going on for generations, it boils down to how much beuacracey do you want. Tha factors that detemine a fasist state operate outside these parameters.

“ Manifest Destiny is the (American) philosophy that it is the destiny of the US to expand across the continent to the Pacific. “

national socalism was the german philosphy, for why the nazi invaded poland : ). You are brasen enogh to call econmic imperillism of the native americans as a “ as a manifist destiny.” Long before the Louisiana Purchase. took place in 1803, america was expanding westward, with in the first decades of the founding of james town, colinists were expanding westward. This was not something which was realised ( only in the aftermarth of the revolution ) like some zues lighting bolt. The whole idea of colinisation and expantion into the new world since the time of columbus ( and argubley before ) was to find the western root to eastern trade.

“ I therefore stand by my comment that the creation of the US from immigrants, dissidents, adventurers, marginal citizens, the poor, etc., will give it a different social makeup than the country they came from. “

complete bullshit ! in your original post you were impliying that people that did not imigrate to the new world, were some how inferior and servile.

And finaly concerning my brothere, he was on his honey moon with his wife who is a new yorker, and they were making their way from the british consulate after sorting out uk citizenship papers. they were going to have a celebration breakfast in a resturante, near the world trade center, until a couple of planes colided into it, and gave them a hell of shock. And as for (my) view that it was a resulte of american foragn policy ? it was infact my brother and his wife who said that, and I belive them too.

You see its like your view on history… you don’t look for reasons. On Tuesday september the 11th some people drove two planes into the world trade center, why did they do that ?

 

[Taxman]

There isn't anything too deep or complicated going on here.A little bit of occamc's razor wouldn't go amiss.Some of the 'it's U.S. foreign policy wot did it' stuff is beside the point,a bit like when,shortly after the attack, some government official said 'finding the people that did it was the priority'.The exact location was known to the entire world.They were inside the WTC.
A group of people are insane with hatred for America and they think its a good way to spend a sunny Tuesday morning crashing planes into people before their morning donut.Why try to pick through Palestine,Israel, the French and American revolutions(good grief!) to find a cause?Insane irrational violence isn't uncommon at all.Why try to prove it had some kind of purpose.
Apologies for not being very articulate.

 

[bezzer]

"A group of people are insane with hatred for America and they think its a good way to spend a sunny Tuesday morning crashing planes into people before their morning donut"

i am not saying in anyway that what happened is justiffible, the result was evil. but mad people dont just hop into planes and crash them into buildings.

its like the first world war and the treaty of versallies in artical 231 laying war guilt on germany, when infact it was a number of factors.

and it is the same in this situation, except that its out come is not going to be world war two. but there will be a lot of problems which are going to be very bad, and escaliting to what ? i dont know ?

you are right it is wrong of me to blame what happened on september the 11th souley on american forighn policey, but it does have a part to play in these events.and its not being voiced in the main stream media.

 

[well red]

Read a very interesting article by George Caffentzis the other day (its on http://slash/autonomedia.org although the site seems to be down today ). In a (quite large) nutshell, he was saying why the stuff on Sept 11 happened (and why it happened when it did), was because of a power struggle within the ruling classes of the middle east countries, particularly Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has been receiving reduced oil revenues and has seen its unemployment rate steadily increasing, and in a situation where there is already baseline support for the Islamic funda-mental-ists, due to poverty and disenranchisement, economic downturn causes dictators like the Sauds to get worried.

To head off political and economic trouble they decided to open up the country to globalisation in the late 1990's, doing deals with big oil companies which would have provided a big cash influx (and for the first time ever, allow foreign countries to own land in Saudi Arabia). The intention of these deals was to finally crush the spectre of funda-mental Islam - something that Bin Laden and crew were well aware of, leading to the act of utter desperation on Sept 11th (for it was an act of powerlessness and despair, not an act of the powerful). The attack happened because they could see the end of their struggle for control of Saudi Arabia (and more) looming large.

For us, some of the lessons from all this is that we need to clearly articulate our opposition to both versions of the ruling class - the West's and the funda-mental-ists, neither of whom have anything to offer the working class but an eternity of misery (in some ways it takes us back to the more difficult days of protest during the Cold War, when we had to stand between the 2 sides, acting against both). But also that in some ways the events of the 11th September are also a sign of the failure of the anti-Capitalist movement to sufficiently engage with the struggles of working class people in the middle east - people who turn to funda-mental-ist Islam because its the only practical way of resisting the State. We need to make direct links with workers in the middle east, to offer support and alternatives. In some ways if we had made these links before Sept 11th it might have been more difficult for the funda-mental-ists to have portrayed all Americans (all Westerners) as the enemy, in some ways the events were an attack on the anti-Capitalist movement as well as on Capital itself, because the resulting backlash of racism, xenophobia and war destroys the global connections that we have spent so long trying to build.

[ 03 October 2001: Message edited by: well red ]

[ 03 October 2001: Message edited by: well red ]

 

[well red]

Well I thought it was interesting anyway!

 

[kissthecat]

The link doesn't seem to work for me WR.

 

[well red]

The site has been down for most of the day, but try it now, it should work OK.

 

[kissthecat]

Yes, it was a very interesting article.

 

[johnwisehammer]

"need to make direct links with workers in the middle east, to offer support and alternatives."

Unfortunately, many "in the field" believe that the popularisation of radical political Islam is an explicit reaction against the failure of Western-influenced "Arab Socialism" - as far as many people in Egypt, Syria, Yemen are concerned, they've had socialism and it failed them, they've had reformism and SAP, and that failed them too, so there's a desire to get back to authentic and sympathetic political and economic systems.

 

[Johnny Canuck]

Well Red: Your terrorist theory is interesting, but it's only a theory, and will remain so until the cowards behind the attack actually reveal themselves and their motivation (if they ever do). If, as many here seem to believe, the terrorists were striking a blow against the West, for Islam, for Middle Eastern workers, etc., their cowardice in failing to come forward and proclaim their cause, is somewhat puzzling.

They did it because of failing revenues in the Saudi ruling class? I hadn't heard that oil sales had fallen rapidly in the last decade. Of course, they did post-attack - if the Saudis planned this, then they've shot themselves in the foot.

Also, as a charter member of OPEC, Saudi Arabia controls the supply of oil to the world, as well as its price.

I'm sure the terrorists had something in mind when they did it; Bezzer invites us to explain what that was. Truth be told, as I've said before, I don't much care what the reason was, at this moment. As I've also said before, if someone breaks into my house in the night, with the intention of assaulting my family or children, my first order of business will be to kick the crap out of him, to ensure that he isn't successful. Once he has been immobilized, incapacitated, or despatched, I will probably take an interest in why he came to be at my house. But while there is an imminent threat of my loved ones being harmed, considerations of the 'why' will take a back seat to threat reduction.

Right now, the US is in the threat reduction phase. The 'why', including the endless debate about antecedent causes stretching back 1000 years, can be discussed then.

Bezzer: yes, the peasants, etc. did the actual concrete 'work' of the French Revolution. Nonetheless, they still had leaders and thinkers who planned and directed the action. Sort of like the relationship between a body and a head. Neither one is much good without the other, but you can't have the physical labour of the body without the direction of the brain.

JWH: I don't think the rewards of capitalism have to be that meagre. Just look at all of us - a bunch of well fed, healthy sons and daughters of the middle class, with enough time on their hands to sit around for hours, wanking over ideas on the internet. All those shiny computers, and spiffy clothes, and warm apartments, and techno CDs, and designer drugs, were brought to you by, yes - capitalism.

I appreciate that you would prefer a system where one mustn't trade one's beliefs for a comfortable life. Everyone wants an easy ride. However, if you truly believe what you say you believe, then I say that you are hypocriticaland intellectually dishonest, in accepting the rewards of capitalism.

Believe it or not, anticapitalism was not invented in the last few years. Do you remember hippies? They didn't like the system either; difference was, many of them put their money where their mouth was, quit their jobs, pooled their resources, and lived on communes to try to be true to their ideals. Unfortunately their standard of living took a bit of a drop, but they thought it was worth it.

I suspect that most of today's anti capitalists would find all that gumboot wearing, grubbing in the mud, a little to icky for their tastes. Easier to live that 'comfortable life' while remaining snobbishly critical of the system, and the people, that you are taking advantage of.

(But of course I'm forgetting about "activism" - throwing rocks and otherwise trying to injure unionized policemen who are probably paid less than your capitalist parents. Now there's a creative, effective course of action.)

 

[bezzer]

most of todays anti captilists live in shanty towns around factorys, living on a practicaly non exsistent wage.

And as for my self and realative wealth... i only ever scrap by. as you well know with in your country johney their is vast divitions between wealth. intreasting statistic... 1 in 3 kids in the uk grow up in poverty.

“But of course I'm forgetting about "activism" - throwing rocks and otherwise trying to injure unionized policemen who are probably paid less than your capitalist parents. Now there's a creative, effective course of action.)”

a very good book I read once it was called “lessons from kossovo” it was discussing the conflict in yugoslavia between the kosovo albanians and the serbians. the author who worked for an NGO made the point, that what intensived the conflict was the myths and storys which either group made up about each other ( which of coarce was strid up by political leaders ). In was intreasting how people create myths to justify their actions or thinking.

 

[bezzer]

maybe your just a nasty person ?

 

[well red]

Jonny Canuck - why bother to try and criticise what I was saying when you clearly didn't bother to read the article I was referring to (which had the facts in it that you suggest are missing). You're acting like a bar-room loudmouth with plenty of opinions but absolutely nothing to back it up with. No recent fall in oil prices? Don't you remember the Crisis of the Asian "Tiger" ecomomies which started in 1997 and which everyone suggested was going to plunge the world into recession? The price of crude oil per barrel in 1997 was $19.30, by February 1999 it was $9.96 per barrel - the international oil market was in a tailspin. As the article pointed out, per Capita GNP in Saudi Arabia fell from $13,000 to $8,000 in the 10 years to 1993 and continued to fall along with oil prices. Unemployment in Saudi Arabia has been steadily increasing over the last 10-15 years. If you hadn't heard about this (which doesn't surprise me), then you have now. Maybe you'd care to revise your opinion?

You say that the people who carried out the attacks "cowardice in failing to come forward and proclaim their cause, is somewhat puzzling". But if they weren't trying to make a point, but instead trying to achieve something (like drive the US out of Saudi Arabia and polarise the political situation in Islamic countries in a defence of funda-mental Islamic movements), they wouldn't need to leave a note: those objectives are being carried out right this moment as the Governments of the middle east invite the US into their countries to attack "terrorists", and countries like Pakistan teeter on the edge of civil war.

The bollocks about dropping out and living in communes (otherwise you're a hypocrite) is so pathetic that I can't even be bothered to respond to it, except to say: we live in a Capitalist world - there is nowhere to drop out to. At least think things through before you get on that bar stool again.

 

[johnwisehammer]

"Believe it or not, anticapitalism was not invented in the last few years. Do you remember hippies? They didn't like the system either; difference was, many of them put their money where their mouth was, quit their jobs, pooled their resources, and lived on communes to try to be true to their ideals. Unfortunately their standard of living took a bit of a drop, but they thought it was worth it."

Thanks for that little history lesson - I had been totally unaware of the political and cultural upheaval of the 1960s (in no small part caused by the inequitable spread of wealth generated during the 1950s and disgust/expense of US military campaigns in Aisa - oh look, one might almost draw a parallel there!) .

Frankly, I believe that my society and my country belong just as much to me as to Chris Gent and don't see why I should forgo it just to keep him in business.

For you and I, the misery of millions of people around the world that enables us (and a few of our compatriots) to sit here in material comfort might be a price worth paying, but it's certainly not for them. I don't want an "easy ride", you fuckwit, I want a moral existence.

 

[Nemo]

JC: you are saying 'what has capitalism done wrong with your life?' and then refuse to accept the answer when I say I am not thinking only of myself. Let me change that question and ask it to you, what effect has the attacks in NY had directly on you that you're so big on supporting Dubya up to the hilt? Why am I not allowed to think beyond myself when I'm disagreeing with you but you're allowed to think beyond yourself when you're supporting that imbecile hypocrite Bush in bombing innocent civilians into the dust?

"'My brothere [sic] and (American) sister in law almost got crushed to death from the crashing down of the world trade centre on Manhatten Island. Which was a result of American foraighn policey.'

Maybe you don't blame the US, Nemo, but it sure sounds like Bezzer does. But perhaps your 'we' doesn't include him or her, in which case, maybe I did miss something..."

If you look at the post, JC, Bezzer was saying that the attack was as a result of US foreign policy. This suggests only that US foreign policy was probably a factor in the attack. To blame US foreign policy would be to say that it was the only factor causing the attacks and even the most hardened anti-American would not agree with this.

"Steelgate, one more thing: you are upset that the US is about to intervene in Afghanistan because US interests are at stake. You mention that they did not intervene before, when it was merely a matter of the Taliban's mistreatment of its own people.
Do you want the US playing world cop? I thought that's exactly what you didn't want. Is it preferable to have the US intervene in the internal affairs of other countries just because the US doesn't agree with what is happening in those countries?

At least there is some justification when US interests are involved. Otherwise, it is just the US making others conform to a US view of what is right. "

You misunderstand what Steelgate was saying, he was saying that the Taliban have been responsible for a far greater number of innocent deaths that those which occured on 11th September yet the US solidly ignored them. He is saying that the US believes its own citizens' lives more valuable than those of the countless Afghans whom the Taliban have killed.

"Truth be told, as I've said before, I don't much care what the reason was, at this moment."

If this is the attitude of anyone, than the attack is doomed to be repeated until someone does care. As Aldous Huxley said:

"That men do not learn from history is one of the greatest lessons that history has to teach."

Unfortunately, that is true, and unfortunately, you embody that attitude.

Pax vobiscum, Nemo

 

[Johnny Canuck]

The best way to tell if one has hit a nerve, is to watch one's debating opponent as he or she descends to spluttering name calling. My last post has garnered the epithets 'barroom loudmouth', 'nasty person' and, last but certainly best, 'fuckwit'.

Not being British, I'm not totally clear on exactly what a fuckwit is; I'm assuming it is something akin to a fuckwad or fuckhead.

I may be one or all of those things. However, I will become truly concerned about myself when, having come to the end of my intellectual resources, I am reduced to substituting name calling for critical thought or solid debate... Sticks and stones may break my bones....

(Luckily you name callers don't have access to my bones, or I might be in real trouble..)

Bezzer; I don't know if people in shanty towns are anti capitalists. I don't know many of them. I suspect that neither do you. I'm just having a debate with a bunch of computer literate middle class anti capitalists who like to bite the hand that feeds them...

Well R.: But the world didn't follow the Paper Tigers into recession, did it? Woulda shoulda coulda doesn't matter much.

As far as the 1999 price of crude, you are simply wrong. See www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/chron.html

I was surprised to be reminded that the price of crude dropped below $10 for a brief period around 1997, but the price of crude throughout that decade does not support your argument.

While you are at it, check out the CIA website (do you dare?) and the page on Saudi Arabia, citing the 1999 crude prices as the highest since the Gulf War. The site also talks about the 5 million foreign guest workers in Saudi Arabia, doing the dirty work. How do they fit in with your neat theory?

As regards cowardice, the definition in my mind is fairly simple. If you are prepared to kill thousands of innocent people, either in the name of a cause or to make a point, then you are a coward when you do not own up to your deeds. I guess the resolve of these cowards dissipated when they saw that they had made some people angry for a change.

As far as your response to the commune bit; i.e. you and others called it bollocks beyond consideration, it only confirms my original contention that you are unprepared to do anything truly difficult, in the name of your ideals.

Consider the irony. The terrorists, whom you apparently either sympathize with or adulate, believed in something to the point that they died for it. You, on the other hand, appear to be unwilling to sacrifice anything, not air conditioning, digital TV, nor organically grown vegetables, for your apparent ideals. How unfortunate for the cause you espouse.

Which brings me to JWH. How do you intend to bring about the moral existence, when your current environment is imbued with evil (capitalism). Hopefully self sacrifice will not be required.

Please excuse my vitriol. I am merely personifying in the three or four of you, all the attributes of the current crop of 'anticapitalists'; in other words, middle class roots, higher education, disdain for the system that has nurtured them, and continues to nurture their right to dissent, and lack of sufficient personal will to get one's hair mussed in the pursuit of a worthy cause.

Nemo, I didn't ask what capitalism had done to you, I asked what 'American tyranny' had done to you personally. Speaking of the injustices done to the dusky masses of the third world deflects the fact that you personally have benefitted from the current system. Like it or not, you are a 'have'. If you don't think so, take a stroll through Madras or Mumbai one of these days.

Has the WTC affected me personally? None of my relatives were killed, but yes, I have been affected. When I woke up that morning and watched it all unfold live on TV, I could not escape the sinking realization that my existence was about to be irrevocably altered. As I watched the planes hitting the buildings, I had to debate with myself for the first time, whether or not it was wise to let my children attend school that day. I was reminded of the impermanence of life, and the arbitrariness of death. I realized that as a result of these events, those who believe in a police state, in overly restrictive laws and the curtailment of civil rights, would hold the floor, and many would agree with them for once. I realized that the xenophobia that lives in the heart of many anglo saxons would be given strength, and people different in any way would now have even more to fear. I realized that whatever justice existed on the side of the Palestinians would be swept aside amidst cries for revenge.

Perhaps worst of all, for me, a long time humanist and civil libertarian, I found myself drawn to agree with the cries for revenge. Hence, here I am, arguing with you whom, in simpler times, I might have had some common ground with. I feel as if the WTC dragged me involuntarily from adolescence into adulthood, even though my flesh and blood made that transition a while ago.

And that, in twenty five words or less, is the truth, for me. So feel free to have at me with your 'fuckwits'. There are many millions here in North America who feel much more strongly than I do about this, and yes, as you have argued, we control the lion's share of the world's economic and military strength. So yes, there will be violence, and the world will change, and not even gigabites of rhetoric will stop it.

 

[kissthecat]

He who lives by the sword will die by the sword.

You are making a nice world for your kids by thinking that justice can remotely come from the barrel of a gun in this age. The US has a long history of messing up retribution so what makes you think it will even succeed with that kind of policy? It could be not only embarrassing but may bring counter retribution. The C aye A and the FB aye couldn't stop the last attack mate.

Is there no point in dialogue? Is there no point in re-examining US foreign policy?

If not then may your god help you.

And I didn't call you a wanker or anything did I?

 

[Johnny Canuck]

What? Excuse me, I was just having a cigarette and shower after that long expostulation...

KTC, you are probably right about all that; my point is that things went seriously off the rails on Sept. 11, and what happens next may not be the path of wisdom, but it is inevitable nonetheless.

Not wanker; it was sod, wasn't it?

 

[kissthecat]

Nothing is really inevitable. This madness takes political will. I hope we are all around to talk about it in a year or so. If we are not, due to poison gas or falling jet liners, then um then you um... Well it won't be very nice for us survivors. Yes I have decided to survive just to send you an e-mail saying I TOLD YOU SO. I think North of wood green, N22, should survive. Sod

Yummy. Lentil soup...