Heavy terr act in Madrid

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
If a moral action with a mostly negative value (supporting Bush) will knowingly result in another action with also a negative value (terrorism), then those who commited the first action are partly responsible, not only from a causal viewpoint, but also from a moral one.

But you just assume that the voters willingly supported what you call terrorism by voting for Bush. In reality there might be a number of reasons leading someone to vote in a certain way.

Also the problem with your reasoning is that it works both ways: aren't then all Afghanis (or at least all who didn't resist the Taleban) partly responsible for the 911 attacks too, since their country harbored OBL? So if the US hit a civil target in the war, didn't they "had it coming"?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
No. It was a stupid question.

Then you are an idiot. Morality reasoning requires that you stipulate extreme, unlikely situations, to verify the universality of a statement.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


WRONG! You are a capitalist if, and only if, you own productive capital. Most of us in the captialist world are proles.

a prole was, IIRC, an unskilled worker at the bottom of the working class.


In fact most of us are skilled workers, technicians, or members of the professional classes who Marx identified as the servants of the bourg. Increasingly many of us are entrepreneurs, and occupying varying places in the bourg. OTOH many of use who are temps, freelancers etc are realizing that considering ourselves entrepreneurs is itself false-consciousness - these are really an independent working class, analagous to the journeyman craftsmen of the pre-industrial era.

We havent gone, as Marx predicted, to ever increasing concentrations of capital. This has led some misguided folk to think that class is an outmoded concept, when in fact class is simply evolving, as the system of production evolves.

It is essential that we be precise and accurate in our description of the class system, to avoid the mistaken notion that class doesnt exist or doesnt matter.

[The Mad Viking]

The "A-Q" "claim" of responsibility was sent by an e-mail to an Arabic language newspaper based in London.

It could have been sent by anyone. The same rag has parrotted ridiculous claims of A-Q responsibility in the past - including the power blackout, and the recent "suitcase nukes" claim. It could be an anti-Muslim fanatic, working alone. It could be American or English counter-intel. It could be teenage spam.

What we know:

On February 29, police intercepted a Madrid-bound van packed with more than 1,100 pounds of explosives, and blamed the Basque separatist group ETA.

On Christmas eve, police thwarted an attempted bombing at Chamartin, another Madrid rail station, and arrested two suspected ETA members.

Police have been on high alert for Basque separatist violence ahead of general elections on Sunday, in which regional tensions and how to fight ETA have been key themes.

So when the ETA is caught trying to blow up a train in Spain in the past few months, it is A-Q who succeeds.

Right in the middle of Spanish elections.

It is beyond absurd.

The A-Q has enough trouble achieving any core objectives. Why would they waste all their resources in an attack on Spain?

The A-Q does not trust anyone. The notion that they have allied with the ETA is simply ridiculous. Terrorists are even more paranoid than the people who want to attribute this to A-Q.

Not claiming responsibility is not the same as saying the didn't do it. As was mentioned, political arms of terror groups tend not to claim responsibility. Arafat has for years insisted he has nothing to do with terror acts. The Sinn Fein for years claimed they were not responsible. Meanwhile, the PLO & IRA extremists are out killing people.

Its really absurd and pathetic to believe Al-Qaeda had anything to do with this. It speaks to how easily the public is manipulated by fear and prejudice, and how willing the people in power are to do so.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
a prole was, IIRC, an unskilled worker at the bottom of the working class.

No, a prole is someone who sells their labor-power, skilled or unskilled.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Then you are an idiot.

I'm not the one openly stating that terrorist victims have it coming.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Its really absurd and pathetic to believe Al-Qaeda had anything to do with this. It speaks to how easily the public is manipulated by fear and prejudice, and how willing the people in power are to do so.

You keep saying this, but it doesn't make it true. Terrorists groups have MOs, and this doesn't fit ETA and does fit AQ. ETA denied responsibility, AQ seems to be claiming it.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


WRONG! You are a capitalist if, and only if, you own productive capital. Most of us in the captialist world are proles.

WRong again. First your beliefs are incorrect, and now your rhetoric is too.

Anyways to the topic, the elections in Spain will continue on Sunday I think it was.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


the sanctions that specifically excluded food and medicine? That allowed oil to be sold to get money for food, funds that were diverted by the Iraqi regime to palaces and weaponry?

an attack on afghanistan in which a greater attempt was made to avoid collateral damage than in most priot wars?

An attack on a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan that was genuinely believed to be plant where chemical weapons were being produced.

Lets review - international law makes it a crime to INTENTIONALLY kill civilians.

The US did not intentionally kill civilians in any of the incidents you mention, and so this would not be a valid reason for attacking the US. Period. Al fortiori it would not be a reason for attacking civilians.

Thanks for exposing yourself for what you really are.

You are being silly, LOTM.

About the Sudanese factory: outright common sense says that you ought to have a f*cking good reason before using, well, what we can call weapons of mass destruction.

And applying a morale of intent to a political entity is entirely wrong. Politicians need also overlook consequences of their actions- especially politicians. Wars always result in civilian deaths, no matter how hard you try to avoid them. And BTW, there was no particular effort by the US on this in the Afghan war; or else, they would have sent their own soldiers, and not blindly bombed to let the Northern Alliance (which is probably even worse than the Taliban) do the cleansing; on another note, they would have sent humanitarian help for real, and cooperated with the Red Crescent, instead of wasting their time on TV claiming they are.

[BeBMan]

Hm, seems this thread is going downhill....maybe I should ask Ming to close it.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
The "A-Q" "claim" of responsibility was sent by an e-mail to an Arabic language newspaper based in London.

It could have been sent by anyone. The same rag has parrotted ridiculous claims of A-Q responsibility in the past - including the power blackout, and the recent "suitcase nukes" claim. It could be an anti-Muslim fanatic, working alone. It could be American or English counter-intel. It could be teenage spam.

Exactly. It could of been any nut. I wouldn't of trusted an email claim. If it was on video tape perhaps, but this could just be a single person or it could even be a nut in the US, who is just a nut and not a terrorist.

I haven't seen enough evidence of this being Al Qaeda.

[DinoDoc]

Perhaps.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'm not the one openly stating that terrorist victims have it coming.

Maybe not, but you are the one who has not bothered to provide a SINGLE argument to back his claim- even less disprove one of mine.

[BeBMan]

Seriously, I don't want this to be closed but it is quite a pain the way it goes now when we think what the actual topic is.....

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Maybe not, but you are the one who has not bothered to provide a SINGLE argument to back his claim- even less disprove one of mine.

I think the statement saying they had it coming is sickening. Your attitude is really screwed up.