Debate Heats Up About Mosque Near Ground Zero

[Klaatu]

Debate Heats Up About Mosque Near Ground Zero

By MICHAEL BARBARO
Published: July 30, 2010

An influential Jewish organization on Friday announced its opposition to a proposed Islamic center and mosque two blocks north of ground zero in Lower Manhattan, intensifying a fierce national debate about the limits of religious freedom and the meaning of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The decision by the group, the Anti-Defamation League, touched off angry reactions from a range of religious groups, which argued that the country would show its tolerance and values by welcoming the center near the site where radical Muslims killed about 2,750 people.

But the unexpected move by the ADL, a mainstream group that has denounced what it saw as bigoted attacks on plans for the Muslim center, could well be a turning point in the battle over the project.

In New York, where ground zero has slowly blended back into the fabric of the city, government officials appear poised to approve plans for the sprawling complex, which would have as many as 15 stories and would house a prayer space, a performing arts center, a pool and a restaurant.

But around the country opposition is mounting, fueled in part by Republican leaders and conservative pundits. Sarah Palin, the 2008 Republican vice-presidential nominee, has urged “peace-seeking Muslims” to reject the center, branding it an “unnecessary provocation.” A Republican political action committee has produced a television commercial assailing the proposal. And former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has decried it in speeches.

The complex’s rapid evolution from a local zoning dispute into a national referendum highlights the intense and unsettled emotions that still surround the World Trade Center site nine years after the attacks.

To many New Yorkers, especially in Manhattan, it is a construction zone, passed during the daily commute or glimpsed through office windows. To some outside of the city, though, it stands as a hallowed battlefield that must be shielded and memorialized.

Those who are fighting the project argue that building a house of Muslim worship so close to ground zero is at best an affront to the families of those who died there and at worst an act of aggression that would, they say, mark the place where radical Islam achieved a blow against the United States.

“The World Trade Center is the largest loss of American life on our soil since the Civil War,” Mr. Gingrich said. “And we have not rebuilt it, which drives people crazy. And in that setting, we are told, why don’t we have a 13-story mosque and community center?”

He added: “The average American just thinks this is a political statement. It’s not about religion, and is clearly an aggressive act that is offensive.”

Several family members of victims at the World Trade Center have weighed in against the plan, saying it would desecrate what amounts to a graveyard. “When I look over there and see a mosque, it’s going to hurt,” C. Lee Hanson, whose son, Peter, was killed in the attacks, said at a recent public hearing. “Build it someplace else.”

Those who support it seem mystified and flustered by the heated opposition. They contend that the project, with an estimated cost of $100 million, is intended to span the divide between Muslim and non-Muslim, not widen it.

Oz Sultan, the programming director for the center, said the complex was based on Jewish community centers and Y.M.C.A.’s in Manhattan. It is to have a board composed of Muslim, Christian and Jewish leaders and is intended to create a national model of moderate Islam.

“We are looking to build bridges between faiths,” Mr. Sultan said in an interview.

City officials, particularly Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, have forcefully defended the project on the grounds of religious freedom, saying that government has no place dictating where a house of worship is located. The local community board has given overwhelming backing to the project, and the city’s landmarks commission is expected to do the same on Tuesday.

“What is great about America, and particularly New York, is we welcome everybody, and if we are so afraid of something like this, what does that say about us?” Mr. Bloomberg asked recently.

“Democracy is stronger than this,” he added. “And for us to just say no is just, I think — not appropriate is a nice way to phrase it.”

Still, the arguments against the Muslim center appear to be resonating. Polling shows that a majority of Americans oppose building it near ground zero.

Resistance is particularly strong among some national Republican leaders. In stump speeches, Twitter messages and op-ed articles, they have turned angry denunciations of the plan into a political rallying cry that they say has surprising potency.

The two major Republican candidates for governor of New York, Rick A. Lazio and Carl Paladino, are making it a central issue in their campaigns, attacking the state’s attorney general, Andrew M. Cuomo, who is also the presumptive Democratic nominee for governor, for not aggressively investigating the project’s finances..

In North Carolina, Ilario Pantano, a former Marine and a Republican candidate for Congress, has also campaigned on the issue, and says it is stirring voters in his rural district, some 600 miles away from ground zero.

A few days ago, at a roadside pizza shop in the small town of Salemburg, he attacked the proposal before an enthusiastic crowd of hog farmers and military veterans.

“Uniformly, there was disgust and disdain in the room for the idea,” Mr. Pantano said.

The issue was wrenching for the Anti-Defamation League, which in the past has spoken out against anti-Islamic sentiment. But its national director, Abraham H. Foxman, said in an interview on Friday that the organization came to the conclusion that the location was offensive to families of victims of Sept. 11, and he suggested that the center’s backers should look for a site “a mile away.”

“It’s the wrong place,” Mr. Foxman said. “Find another place.”

Asked why the opposition of the families was so pivotal in the decision, Mr. Foxman, a Holocaust survivor, said they were entitled to their emotions.

“Survivors of the Holocaust are entitled to feelings that are irrational,” he said. Referring to the loved ones of Sept. 11 victims, he said, “Their anguish entitles them to positions that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted.”

The Anti-Defamation League’s statement drew criticism almost immediately.

“The ADL should be ashamed of itself,” said Rabbi Irwin Kula, president of the National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, which promotes interethnic and interfaith dialogue. Speaking of the imam behind the proposed center, Feisal Abdul Rauf, he said, “Here, we ask the moderate leaders of the Muslim community to step forward, and when one of them does, he is treated with suspicion.”

C. Welton Gaddy, the president of the Interfaith Alliance, a Washington group that emphasizes religious freedom, called the decision “disappointing,” and said he read about it “with a great deal of sorrow.”

On Friday, Mr. Sultan, the programming director for the proposed Muslim center, expressed surprise and sadness at the news. Told of Mr. Foxman’s remarks about the families of Sept. 11 victims, he said, “That response is just not well thought out.” He said that Muslims had also died on Sept. 11, either because they worked in the twin towers, or responded to the scene.

“The ADL has always been antibigotry,” he said. “This just does not seem consistent with their message.”
source
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/31/nyregion/31mosque.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&src=me

Wait a second here. Isn't it Republicans that are always championing "private property rights?" And now they want to pick and choose who gets these property rights, and who does not?

[leftace53]

With this logic wtf are all the churches doing here? When a native looks around and sees all these churches, I'm sure it hurts them and reminds them of residential schools forced upon them through the very religion the religious rightwing bigots are defending.

While I think these resources can go to building something more "profitable" (in a sense of like human profit, like you know houses maybe to house the homeless) than a place of worship, but still disallowing a mosque to be built here is just plain bullshit.

[FreeFocus]

With this logic wtf are all the churches doing here? When a native looks around and sees all these churches, I'm sure it hurts them and reminds them of residential schools forced upon them through the very religion the religious rightwing bigots are defending.

While I think these resources can go to building something more "profitable" (in a sense of like human profit, like you know houses maybe to house the homeless) than a place of worship, but still disallowing a mosque to be built here is just plain bullshit.

The major difference is that we and our concerns are relegated to the lowest rungs of society. America-loving Christians, especially those who are white, aren't.

I mean, on topic, they really have no defense in their opposition to the mosque. They just expose themselves as racists when they make these dumbass comments to anyone that isn't an idiot.

[Klaatu]

I don't think they should build that mosque "close to ground-zero..." I think they should build it right on ground-zero.

Then watch all of the Republican's heads explode... ;)

[Tifosi]

“Survivors of the Holocaust are entitled to feelings that are irrational,” he said. Referring to the loved ones of Sept. 11 victims, he said, “Their anguish entitles them to positions that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted.”

Just no

[mlgb]

well there already is a mosque inside the pentagon. why was there no outrage about that one?


its almost as if this is all smoke and mirrors bullshit the right has conjured up for crass political gain. but that couldnt be, could it?

[Slav92]

Can somebody please send, you know, a teacher or a book or something to the next Republican National Convention?

Not all muslims are extremists, and not all extremists are extreme for religious reasons. Would i be wrong in saying that the 9/11 attacks were more about anti-American/imperialist sentiment in the middle east rather than anything along religious lines? It'd be like saying the Ku Klux Klan was mainly christian, therefore no churches should be allowed in southern America.

[Red Commissar]

This sentiment is not uncommon to the Republican Party, though they are certainly helping the spread of it. For one thing the Democrats have been pretty silent on commenting on this issue because they'd rather save face with the public. The ADL's response to this has been hypocritical too.

I can say that if you get an American off the street, particularly in the suburbs or rural areas, you'll probably get answers that the will not want this mosque built. But most would have not known about this had the right-wing media not spammed the hell out of it.

As the OP shows this just time and time again shows the hypocrisy of people.

There's another thread here,

http://www.revleft.com/vb/bigots-americas-heartland-t139889/index.html

Which shows similar sentiment in other areas.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

I swear... we are not going to here the end of the rights whining for a long time... hell, I can see them holding disruptive protests during services at the mosque once it is built and I could see a handful of the most fucked up trying to torch the mosque... overall though, it will be built, but knowing the right, that won't mean much... they'll still make a big deal about it because of their xenophobic ignorance and stupidity.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

I don't think they should build that mosque "close to ground-zero..." I think they should build it right on ground-zero.

Then watch all of the Republican's heads explode... ;)

That would be awesome. It should be known as the Islamic Freedom Tower.

[the last donut of the night]

Just an observation the title of this article that goes back to the media's propaganda: No, this isn't a 'heated debate'. The title implies that it's just two equally positioned sides, all independent from higher-up authorities (the connection between "grassroots" right-wing movements and the high-up Republican and corporate establishments is well-known) and all having equal space for their ideas. Again we see the media putting on the mask of naively oblivious when it actually gives air time to right-wing demonstrators and people, portraying them as normal people with their own ideas, but when we're shown, the first thing the media almost does is put a certain disclaimer on us: "leftists, communists, radicals, opposition" as if our opinions were more for show-and-tell ("look, those crazy communists, with their class view and all") than actual analysis.

[RED DAVE]

In New York, it's a nonissue except for the right-wing press. The City is so racially and religiously heterogeneous (which doesn't mean it's not racist as hell) that people really don't give a shit. But, ah, the New York Post, Fox News, etc. ... .

At least 60 of those who died in the Twin Towers were Muslims.

RED DAVE

[Ztrain]

The Mosque was always there and it is more of a community center than a mosque...They just wanted to expand, that was it! Im attracted to people ofmy own gender so churches represent degradation and persecution to me but do i attack churches...NO!

[Ztrain]

I don't think they should build that mosque "close to ground-zero..." I think they should build it right on ground-zero.

Then watch all of the Republican's heads explode... ;)
Ditto

[gorillafuck]

I like that a Jewish organization called out the ADL for being terribly racist.

[the last donut of the night]

In New York, it's a nonissue except for the right-wing press. The City is so racially and religiously heterogeneous (which doesn't mean it's not racist as hell) that people really don't give a shit. But, ah, the New York Post, Fox News, etc. ... .

At least 60 of those who died in the Twin Towers were Muslims.

RED DAVE

I live near New York, and yeah, I know what you mean. I'm saying that on a higher, national level, the media plays out those tricks I described before.

[RED DAVE]

I like that a Jewish organization called out the ADL for being terribly racist.The ADL, once liberal, was taken over by neocons decades ago.

RED DAVE

[Klaatu]

At least 60 of those who died in the Twin Towers were Muslims.


With all due respect to the 3000 capitalists that were killed in the World Trade Center tragedy, many, many more Muslims are victims of hatred and violence, in foreign countries. By far, most violence against Muslims is committed by other Muslims. This is a horrible fact.

[RED DAVE]

With all due respect to the 3000 capitalists that were killed in the World Trade Center tragedyI guess you think that the secretaries, maintenance workers, office staff, etc., who constituted the bulk of those who were killed were "capitalists."

What kind of ultra-pseudo-left bullshit is that?

RED DAVE

[Klaatu]

I guess you think that the secretaries, maintenance workers, office staff, etc., who constituted the bulk of those who were killed were "capitalists."

What kind of ultra-pseudo-left bullshit is that?

RED DAVE

What is your definition of a "capitalist?"

[synthesis]

...not proletarian?

[COMPLEXproductions]

I believe being against the mosque(masjid) at "ground zero" under the reason of it being a slap in the face of sorts to the families that have lost loved ones in the 9/11 event, would also go, by the same reasoning, for destroying every church built anywhere in the Americas for it being a "slap in the face" to people with origins in the native lands, such as myself. Seeing as how millions more have died in the european invasion of the Americas than in 9/11. And I believe there were already plans to built the masjid two years prior the 9/11, but I am not certain of this information. If any one does, feel free to let me know.

[Jazzratt]

What is your definition of a "capitalist?" To be honest I'd be more interested to hear yours if you manage to include all of the office workers (including secretaries, PA, junior administrators, office clerks and so on) and people like the janitors and maintenance operatives. I'm fairly sure by your definition I'm a capitalist or have been at some point during my working life.

[prochoice-bangbang]

It's more than merely a Republican turnabout over private property. In the Reagan and Bush years they were also big pushing special legislation that would exempt churches from things like local zoning laws, under the guise of resisting the "war against Xtianity."

So it's a double wammy for them.

Actually, since they're attacking us "godless liberals" for trying to stiffle religion, the whole Muslim community center thing is a triple whammy for them.

PS: Few of them notice the contradictions; of those that do almost none care.

[Klaatu]

To be honest I'd be more interested to hear yours if you manage to include all of the office workers (including secretaries, PA, junior administrators, office clerks and so on) and people like the janitors and maintenance operatives. I'm fairly sure by your definition I'm a capitalist or have been at some point during my working life.

A capitalist is simply someone who believes in and supports capitalism, just as a socialist supports socialism,
a communist supports communism, or a christian supports christianity. I merely assume that most of those
murdered were capitalism-supporters. Hence they are capitalists. It is a safe bet that all had supported capitalism,
right down to the janitors. This is typical of americans, who, by default, support what they were taught to believe
in, since infancy: capitalism, nationalism, and religionism.

[Agnapostate]

A capitalist is simply someone who believes in and supports capitalism, just as a socialist supports socialism,
a communist supports communism, or a christian supports christianity. I merely assume that most of those
murdered were capitalism-supporters. Hence they are capitalists. It is a safe bet that all had supported capitalism,
right down to the janitors. This is typical of americans, who, by default, support what they were taught to believe
in, since infancy: capitalism, nationalism, and religionism.

Well, that's wrong. It's inaccurate comparison of a class position to an ideological belief.

[Klaatu]

Well, that's wrong. It's inaccurate comparison of a class position to an ideological belief.

Which is the "class position" and which is the "ideological belief?" I do not see the difference.

[Devrim]

A capitalist is simply someone who believes in and supports capitalism,

No, a capitalist is not somebody who supports capitalism. A capitalist is somebody who owns capital. Being a capitalist is not being somebody with a particular ideological stance, but with a specific relationship to the means of production.

Devrim

[tbasherizer]

I'm sure in Oklahoma City, there was no big deal about any new churches going up, seeing as Timothy McVeigh was a Christian. It's only the fact that the original culture of most American Muslims is different from the mythical family-values-oriented one what is regarded by the rightists as held by most other Americans.

On principle, as a Dawkinsian Athiest, I am opposed to the promotion of any religion at all, but it's not so much a religious matter at hand as it is a cultural one. The persecution of the Muslims being shown by the anti-mosque protests is only reflective of a deeper xenophobic reaction that needs to be combated by real progressive forces, like those of anarchists and communists.

I'll go on at greater length in a different thread about the broader problem.

[Devrim]

It's only the fact that the original culture of most American Muslims is different from the mythical family-values-oriented one what is regarded by the rightists as held by most other Americans.

I have always thought that the 'mythical family values' bit was a key part of Islamic culture. In fact the way it comes across here in the Middle East is it is one of the defining points whereas the West does have 'family values' anymore.

Devrim

[ZeroNowhere]

A capitalist is simply someone who believes in and supports capitalism, just as a socialist supports socialism,
If that's what you meant by it, it's rather strange that you think that there were a significantly higher amount of anti-capitalists among the Muslims killed.

[progressive_lefty]

I am opposed to the promotion of any religion at all, but it's not so much a religious matter at hand as it is a cultural one. The persecution of the Muslims being shown by the anti-mosque protests is only reflective of a deeper xenophobic reaction that needs to be combated by real progressive forces, like those of anarchists and communists.

I'll go on at greater length in a different thread about the broader problem.

I totally agree, anti-muslim rhetoric seems to be almost mainstream in the United States. I'm not religious, but if christians have the right in society, then muslims do as well. I live in a block at my uni, close to a building that many muslims use to pray, and I have no problems with them at all. They often seem to better know how to behave themselves then a lot of annoying christians I sometimes get hassled by in the streets.

[Klaatu]

No, a capitalist is not somebody who supports capitalism. A capitalist is somebody who owns capital. Being a capitalist is not being somebody with a particular ideological stance, but with a specific relationship to the means of production.

What do we call a worker who fiercely supports capitalism? Is there a special name for that?

[Klaatu]

I do not have empirical data on the proportion of capitalists/other ideologies present in the WTC on 9-11-01.
Therefore my original comment is moot. Apparently people disliked it. I had no idea it would become so controversial.

[Burn A Flag]

I see what you mean about supporters of capitalism, however, I don't think everyone in the WTC was necessarily a rabid supporter of capitalism. I think most of the workers there were probably just trying to make a living rather than sinisterly supporting capitalism. I really don't know the class makeup of the people who were killed in the WTC though.

[Revy]

I heard that 70% of Americans oppose the mosque. Which I thought was an absurdly high number. If it's accurate, I guess most of them imagine that the mosque is in the middle of Ground Zero, instead of a few blocks away.

Stop being so mean to the 'Ground Zero mosque' (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/08/stop_being_so_mean_to_the_grou.html)


http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2010/08/12/PH2010081202632.gif
Dear Mosque:
It sounds as though you are having some difficulty being located somewhere near Ground Zero. Want to locate at my house instead?
Harry Reid said "the mosque should be built someplace else." (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/08/harry-reid-weighs-in-on-ny-mos.html) This is definitely someplace else.
It is a nice, quiet neighborhood, for the most part, so people would be free to come and worship as they chose. Occasionally, drunk college students throw slices of pizza into my yard, but that’s about it. And compared to the constant Ke$ha remixes my neighbors play at 3:00 a.m., calls to prayer would be soothing and delightful.

Originally, I was thinking of putting in a pool, but then I realized that you can only use a pool for three months of the year, while a mosque is great year-round. Plus, if you try to exercise your right to freedom of religion in a pool, people usually think you're weird.
I just wanted to extend this invitation so you'd feel wanted. It must be tough having so many people oppose you vehemently. I remember in the cafeteria when I would take my tray and try to sit down somewhere, and everyone would tell me that, sure, they believed in free speech, but I was taking it a little far. So I know what you're going through.
"That wasn't me!" I would try to explain. "That was a fringe group! I never told anyone to do things like that!"
Later, Barack Obama would explain that, in theory, there was room for me, and then people would yell at him, and he would start to backtrack. "On principle, Alexandra should be allowed to sit wherever she wants," he would say, "because that is how our country works." That was when the yelling usually began. "Just not specifically there," he would add, apologetically.
At this point Newt Gingrich would pop up out of nowhere and liken me to a Nazi (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/08/newt-gingrich-compares-ground.html). "Do you even go here?" I would ask. "Why are you commenting on this at all?"
Ah, middle school.
Anyway, let me know! I'd love to have you.

By Alexandra Petri | August 16, 2010; 6:26 PM ET

[tbasherizer]

I have always thought that the 'mythical family values' bit was a key part of Islamic culture. In fact the way it comes across here in the Middle East is it is one of the defining points whereas the West does have 'family values' anymore.

Devrim

Of course, "family values" are a key part of Islamic culture, as they are, in my opinion, a key part of any reactionary beliefs system. I was just trying to say that the anti-mosque protesters aren't necessarily anti-Islamic as much as they are anti-foreigner.

[counterblast]

I hope they build a giant fucking mosque right on top of ground zero with giant minarets as tall as the Twin Towers and prayer calls that are broadcast loud enough to be heard throughout the entire city.

[counterblast]

Wtf man, the 9/11 attackers were sick fucks and all they managed to do was murder thousands of innocent people. How did they achieve anything but making Americans even more capitalist??


Yeah, those poor innocent cops, bankers, and stock brokers of capital! 9/11 was SUCH a major blow to the working class.

[GPDP]

Yeah, those poor innocent cops, bankers, and stock brokers of capital! 9/11 was SUCH a major blow to the working class.

I understand your contempt for those who worked within the WTC (even though a lot of the people who died there WERE workers), but to sarcastically imply that 9/11 was not a blow to the American working class is ludicrous.

Here's a few of the blows 9/11 dealt to the working class:

- The War of Terror, including the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq
- Increased xenophobia, including anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim or even anti-Middle-Eastern sentiments in general.
- Increased military spending to the detriment of social spending
- Patriotism and jingoism
- Nearly six years of unchecked Republican rule

Say what you will about the immediate event, but in the long term, the effects of 9/11 were a huge setback, bringing out some of the worst the U.S. has to offer both domestically and abroad.

[counterblast]

I understand your contempt for those who worked within the WTC (even though a lot of the people who died there WERE workers), but to sarcastically imply that 9/11 was not a blow to the American working class is ludicrous.

Here's a few of the blows 9/11 dealt to the working class:

- The War of Terror, including the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq
- Increased xenophobia, including anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim or even anti-Middle-Eastern sentiments in general.
- Increased military spending to the detriment of social spending
- Patriotism and jingoism
- Nearly six years of unchecked Republican rule

Say what you will about the immediate event, but in the long term, the effects of 9/11 were a huge setback, bringing out some of the worst the U.S. has to offer both domestically and abroad.

You seem to think that 9/11 was a precursor to these atrocities; but I would argue that all of these "problems" are all a part of a broader historical context that is related more to capitalism, imperialism, the military industrial complex, and racism than any single event.

1. U.S. imperialism and militarism has always existed in the Third World. If occupation had not occurred in Afghanistan or Iraq, then it would have surely occured somewhere else.
2. Xenophobia has always existed in the framework of American culture, and while 9/11 may have brought it out in the open for specific groups, it definitely existed before these events.
3. A single military event cannot be blamed for the downfall or neglect of social programs in a system that allows unnecessary military spending to be prioritized over social necessities to begin with.
4. I think patriotism/jingoism is a pretty constant theme all the time in America.
5. Republican rule and Democratic rule are fundamentally the same.

[GreenCommunism]

i love how truthers will say that 9/11 was an inside job so they won't oppose the mosque.

[Hiero]

I see what you mean about supporters of capitalism, however, I don't think everyone in the WTC was necessarily a rabid supporter of capitalism. I think most of the workers there were probably just trying to make a living rather than sinisterly supporting capitalism. I really don't know the class makeup of the people who were killed in the WTC though.

What do you think the purpose of the World Trade Centre involves?

You have made it sound like the WTC was a complex of mom and pop stores of struggling working people.

I have given a big hint by bolding the important part in their title. The World Trade Centre was/is an integral part of the capitalist system. It is not just a plce where people go to get a job just to get by, as if they are stacking shelfs all day or pushing trolleys for a wage. It is apart of the global capital system of purschasing, investing, brokerking etc. The majority of people there are doing alot to sustain the capitalist/imperialist system, and they do so to get ahead in that system they have dreams of being the next Donald Trump.

Sure there were janitors and other menial workers, just as there are at the White House, the head office of Microsoft or wall street. And sure every worker does his bit to maintian the system, however no one is engage more in the workings of the capitalist system, making sure that capital moves around the world then the white collar workers of the WTC.

I have seen on this website how far disconnected people purposefully make themsevles from the real class structure and struggle, as seen by people's reactions to 9/11. The class enemy of the world working class and peasantry is a real flesh and bone group of people, who are "trying to make a living" (whatever that means) and who we often pass everyday in our economic, social and cultural lives. It is not some fat cat capitlaist (it is in some cases) who lives in a gold castle. It is the people who work at the WTC, Wall Street, Corporate officers.

Class struggle is dirty and it is complex.

[Agnapostate]

In the wake of 9/11, the numerous conspiracy theories that are spread about Muslims and their hidden plots for world domination are reminiscent of the propaganda of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Ironically, it’s usually fundamentalist Christians (typically the main proponents of these ideas), motivated by their belief that the Rapture and ensuing Great Tribulation and Armageddon are signaled to be coming by patterns in the Middle East, who seem to be more religiously fanatic.

[RED DAVE]

It is not some fat cat capitlaist (it is in some cases) who lives in a gold castle. It is the people who work at the WTC, Wall Street, Corporate officers.

Class struggle is dirty and it is complex.It sure is, and we don't need dumb ideas like yours about white collar workers.

The vast majority of people who worked in the WTC were secretaries, word processors, paralegals, maintenance people, security guards, etc. These are white collar working class jobs. They are as integral to the capitalist system as any other such job. Is the office worker in a factory less of a worker than the person on the shop floor?

Why you are really implying is that, somehow, the people killed "had it coming."

So let me set you straight. I worked nights on weekends in the north tower of the WTC, 59th floor. I was there about 25 hours before the first plane hit. I worked for a major law firm as a proofreader. My fellow workers were word processors, other proofreaders and a couple of low-level managers. The only person killed at my firm was an elderly woman word processor who used a wheelchair.

RED DAVE

[Autumn Red]

As stated before, Capitalists are those who own the capital and the means of production. Just because you work at a job in a capitalist system does not mean you are a Capitalist. I'd even go as far to say that managers aren't Capitalists, although they've sold their souls to them. Managers work and don't own/control the means of production, so they are merely workers who do the bidding of the Capitalists. Whether that's right or wrong, that's for you to decide.

This is such a basic concept its hard for me to believe that some people don't understand this.

[communard71]

Building Mosques, building churches, ugh. Sometimes I wish the conversation was: why are we still building houses-of-worship at all? This mosque thing definitely shows all that religion really is anyways, homogeneous groups of fanatical zealots who, if they had their druthers, would annihilate or relocate all opposing religious persons in a second.

[Hiero]

Why you are really implying is that, somehow, the people killed "had it coming."



No, that is just your dumb idea.



The only person killed at my firm was an elderly woman word processor who used a wheelchair.


Oh shit a weelchair, I feel so bad.

Go fuck yourself Red Dave.

[RED DAVE]

Oh shit a weelchair, I feel so bad.You're a disgrace to the Left. Make sure, the next time you make a speech, that let people know you have no compassion for a crippled white collar worker.

RED DAVE

[Os Cangaceiros]

Yeah, those poor innocent cops, bankers, and stock brokers of capital! 9/11 was SUCH a major blow to the working class.

300-400 firefighters and emergency personnel died in 9/11. Pretty sure that they're working-class.

In addition, I'm sure that there were at least a few members of the working-class aboard some of those airplanes.

Not to mention the negative health effects that workers who've been responsible for cleaning up the mess have had to experience.

Also:


1. U.S. imperialism and militarism has always existed in the Third World. If occupation had not occurred in Afghanistan or Iraq, then it would have surely occured somewhere else.

The neoconservative intelligentsia saw 9/11 as "the new Pearl Harbor". If you can't see the implications that a new Pearl Harbor would have for the international working class, then I'm afraid that there's no hope for you.

[Meridian]

I have given a big hint by bolding the important part in their title. The World Trade Centre was/is an integral part of the capitalist system. It is not just a plce where people go to get a job just to get by, as if they are stacking shelfs all day or pushing trolleys for a wage. It is apart of the global capital system of purschasing, investing, brokerking etc. The majority of people there are doing alot to sustain the capitalist/imperialist system, and they do so to get ahead in that system they have dreams of being the next Donald Trump.

Even if what you're saying is true, the function of the World Trade Center was one thing. The lives of the people who worked there, most of whom indeed were not capitalists, a completely different thing. You are a complete moron if you do not realize that. An act of murdering some capitalists and, I guess, some thousand workers does not in any way help any revolutionary cause.

[Hiero]

I am so sick of this bullshit "condemn before analysis" approach. I assumed that people were of enough inteligence that they would not have required a moral statement about every social phenomena.

Let me make it very clear that in my statement I no where said that I approved of the terrorist attacks on the WTC.

So save me the crocoodile tears about handicaped people. You should have added something about starving Ethiopian, transgendered, Black Asian, Jewish Muslim, Woman with one leg and syphilis, if you wanted to play the emotional game.

You guys have no idea.

[counterblast]

The only person killed at my firm was an elderly woman word processor who used a wheelchair.


ELDERLY, A WOMAN, AND IN A WHEELCHAIR?!?!

Clearly she wins the Oppression Olympics, and her martyrdom negates anything positive that came from 9/11!

Actually, I heard that an orphanage was destroyed during the Russian Revolution housing tons of blind children and working class women! Clearly the Russian Revolution is anti-working class!

[Os Cangaceiros]

What do you think was positive about 9/11?

[counterblast]

300-400 firefighters and emergency personnel died in 9/11. Pretty sure that they're working-class.

In addition, I'm sure that there were at least a few members of the working-class aboard some of those airplanes.

Not to mention the negative health effects that workers who've been responsible for cleaning up the mess have had to experience.

Also:



The neoconservative intelligentsia saw 9/11 as "the new Pearl Harbor". If you can't see the implications that a new Pearl Harbor would have for the international working class, then I'm afraid that there's no hope for you.


Millions of working class people die as a result of capitalism every single day. A couple of thousand bankers and their secretaries die, and THEN suddenly all of RevLeft is crying about the 9/11 as though it was the anti-working class travesty of a lifetime.

You want real violence against the working class? How about all this armchair condemnation and inaction? How about the fact that 90% of the college educated half-wits that adhere to the word "communist" in America are so fucking disconnected from the working class that most workers would join a death camp before they'd join a union or your Party? How about the fact that a fucked up group like al Queda had a larger impact on world capital in a single day than communists (or anarchists for that matter) will hope to have in the last 10 years?

A bunch of firefighters, cops, and secretaries died. Boo hoo.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Millions of working class people die as a result of capitalism every single day. A couple of thousand bankers and their secretaries die, and THEN suddenly all of RevLeft is crying about the 9/11 as though it was the anti-working class travesty of a lifetime.

This reminds me of Thomas Sankara noting that millions are starving in regards to the story that 30+ miners are trapped thousands of feet underground. And it's as ridiculous, too...it's just as offensive as saying, "Oh, five hundred civilians in Pakistan were killed in a drone strike? Who cares, millions of people are starving in Africa." I wasn't aware that we were in a "suffer-off". :rolleyes:


How about the fact that a fucked up group like al Queda had a larger impact on world capital in a single day than communists (or anarchists for that matter) will hope to have in the last 10 years?

They had zero effect on world capital. They destroyed two buildings and killed 3,000 people. That's not even a speedbump.


A bunch of firefighters, cops, and secretaries died. Boo hoo.

:rolleyes: X 1,000

[Crimson Commissar]

In the wake of 9/11, the numerous conspiracy theories that are spread about Muslims and their hidden plots for world domination are reminiscent of the propaganda of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Ironically, it’s usually fundamentalist Christians (typically the main proponents of these ideas), motivated by their belief that the Rapture and ensuing Great Tribulation and Armageddon are signaled to be coming by patterns in the Middle East, who seem to be more religiously fanatic.
Ehm, muslims pretty much do want to dominate the world. Not in the way that right-wingers describe it, but Islam, just like every other religion, wants everyone to follow their faith exactly, and therefore wants to rule the world. Don't try to deny it just because you're afraid of being called a racist conspiracy theorist.

[Vanguard1917]

How about the fact that a fucked up group like al Queda had a larger impact on world capital in a single day than communists (or anarchists for that matter) will hope to have in the last 10 years?

Really? What did the attacks achieve exactly? Were any workers made better off? Did it lessen imperialist domination?

You clearly hold workers in contempt ("A bunch of firefighters ... and secretaries died. Boo hoo"), so it is understandable that you have no belief in the irreplaceable need for mass action and that you see the nihilistic terror-tantrums of a few weirdoes as 'doing something'.

But the rest of us could do with learning a bit from the words and actions of real revolutionaries, so here's what Leon Trotsky had to say on the matter:

"A strike, even of modest size, has social consequences: strengthening of the workers’ self-confidence, growth of the trade union, and not infrequently even an improvement in productive technology. The murder of a factory owner produces effects of a police nature only, or a change of proprietors devoid of any social significance. Whether a terrorist attempt, even a ‘successful’ one throws the ruling class into confusion depends on the concrete political circumstances. In any case the confusion can only be shortlived; the capitalist state does not base itself on government ministers and cannot be eliminated with them. The classes it serves will always find new people; the mechanism remains intact and continues to function.

"But the disarray introduced into the ranks of the working masses themselves by a terrorist attempt is much deeper. If it is enough to arm oneself with a pistol in order to achieve one’s goal, why the efforts of the class struggle? If a thimbleful of gunpowder and a little chunk of lead is enough to shoot the enemy through the neck, what need is there for a class organisation? If it makes sense to terrify highly placed personages with the roar of explosions, where is the need for the party? Why meetings, mass agitation and elections if one can so easily take aim at the ministerial bench from the gallery of parliament?

"In our eyes, individual terror is inadmissible precisely because it belittles the role of the masses in their own consciousness, reconciles them to their powerlessness, and turns their eyes and hopes towards a great avenger and liberator who some day will come and accomplish his mission."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1911/11/tia09.htm

[Queercommie Girl]

If terrorists kill big capitalists, especially Western big capitalists en masse, I don't really care. It might even serve a positive purpose to some extent. I am certainly not an absolute pacifist. Indeed, the contemporary MCPC in its Ten Declarations is explicitly threatening "the destruction of the entire clans" of the bureaucratic capitalists.

But there is a clear class line for me. When working class people or even middle class people get hit by terrorism, it becomes a problem. Because it could objectively hinder the unity of working class from different countries.

[counterblast]

Really? What did the attacks achieve exactly? Were any workers made better off? Did it lessen imperialist domination?

You clearly hold workers in contempt ("A bunch of firefighters ... and secretaries died. Boo hoo"), so it is understandable that you have no belief in the irreplaceable need for mass action and that you see the nihilistic terror-tantrums of a few weirdoes as 'doing something'.

But the rest of us could do with learning a bit from the words and actions of real revolutionaries, so here's what Leon Trotsky had to say on the matter:

"A strike, even of modest size, has social consequences: strengthening of the workers’ self-confidence, growth of the trade union, and not infrequently even an improvement in productive technology. The murder of a factory owner produces effects of a police nature only, or a change of proprietors devoid of any social significance. Whether a terrorist attempt, even a ‘successful’ one throws the ruling class into confusion depends on the concrete political circumstances. In any case the confusion can only be shortlived; the capitalist state does not base itself on government ministers and cannot be eliminated with them. The classes it serves will always find new people; the mechanism remains intact and continues to function.

"But the disarray introduced into the ranks of the working masses themselves by a terrorist attempt is much deeper. If it is enough to arm oneself with a pistol in order to achieve one’s goal, why the efforts of the class struggle? If a thimbleful of gunpowder and a little chunk of lead is enough to shoot the enemy through the neck, what need is there for a class organisation? If it makes sense to terrify highly placed personages with the roar of explosions, where is the need for the party? Why meetings, mass agitation and elections if one can so easily take aim at the ministerial bench from the gallery of parliament?

"In our eyes, individual terror is inadmissible precisely because it belittles the role of the masses in their own consciousness, reconciles them to their powerlessness, and turns their eyes and hopes towards a great avenger and liberator who some day will come and accomplish his mission."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1911/11/tia09.htm


As long as we're waiting for the "right material and social conditions" or a simultaneous uprising of the masses or the "go ahead" from the Party to occur -- revolution is never going to get past the theoretical stage. Self-determination for the working classes is sometimes simply that -- self-determination.

This isn't to say that Al Queda or their ultimate goals are revolutionary -- they're not. But the attack on the World Trade Center -- whether a material blow to capitalism or just a symbolic one -- is clearly a major blow nonetheless, if only to demonstrate what a small group of disenfranchised people can accomplish.

As for the Trotsky quotes; I can only imagine that Trotsky was talking about a class of people on strike with something to lose. The oppressed don't have the luxury of waiting around until the party tells them its time nor do they have the time to meticulously plan their course of action based on the principles of some dead theorists (or Gods if you prefer to consider them that) or the possibility that some bystanders (including those of the working class, no less!) might be hurt.

Yes, some mom and pop stores got looted in Oakland and yes, some janitors died in 9/11. Big surprise! Social upheavals are by no means Utopian!

[Dr Mindbender]

what a small group of disenfranchised people can accomplish? I thought it was a 'no boo hoo' event.

I hope youre not in the United States atm CB, i'm expecting black and white cars to park outside your door any minute.

[counterblast]

what a small group of disenfranchised people can accomplish? I thought it was a 'no boo hoo' event.

I hope youre not in the United States atm CB, i'm expecting black and white cars to park outside your door any minute.

I'm an Arab anarchist who lives in the most crime-filled city in America, there are already black and white cars outside my door, whats a couple more?

[Vanguard1917]

This isn't to say that Al Queda or their ultimate goals are revolutionary -- they're not. But the attack on the World Trade Center -- whether a material blow to capitalism or just a symbolic one -- is clearly a major blow nonetheless, if only to demonstrate what a small group of disenfranchised people can accomplish.

And what did these nutjobs accomplish exactly?



The oppressed don't have the luxury of waiting around until the party tells them its time nor do they have the time to meticulously plan their course of action based on the principles of some dead theorists (or Gods if you prefer to consider them that) or the possibility that some bystanders (including those of the working class, no less!) might be hurt.


So we don't need mass action; what we need is a few people blowing things up in the supposed interests of 'the oppressed'?



Yes, some mom and pop stores got looted in Oakland and yes, some janitors died in 9/11. Big surprise! Social upheavals are by no means Utopian!


But it wasn't 'social upheaval', was it? It was a nihilistic attack by a handful of people, with no roots in any mass movement whatsoever, which made no difference at all to the fundamental social formation of America or anywhere else.

[Queercommie Girl]

As long as we're waiting for the "right material and social conditions" or a simultaneous uprising of the masses or the "go ahead" from the Party to occur -- revolution is never going to get past the theoretical stage. Self-determination for the working classes is sometimes simply that -- self-determination.

This isn't to say that Al Queda or their ultimate goals are revolutionary -- they're not. But the attack on the World Trade Center -- whether a material blow to capitalism or just a symbolic one -- is clearly a major blow nonetheless, if only to demonstrate what a small group of disenfranchised people can accomplish.

As for the Trotsky quotes; I can only imagine that Trotsky was talking about a class of people on strike with something to lose. The oppressed don't have the luxury of waiting around until the party tells them its time nor do they have the time to meticulously plan their course of action based on the principles of some dead theorists (or Gods if you prefer to consider them that) or the possibility that some bystanders (including those of the working class, no less!) might be hurt.

Yes, some mom and pop stores got looted in Oakland and yes, some janitors died in 9/11. Big surprise! Social upheavals are by no means Utopian!

You do realise though that skepticism towards mass terrorism aimed at ordinary people is by no means just a moral criticism based on human rights or an ideological criticism based on what is considered to be orthodox Marxism.

There is also a strategic concern. Terrorism against the rich and powerful doesn't have this kind of effect. But terrorism against ordinary people, especially ordinary working class people, makes it more difficult in practice to convince workers from different countries and backgrounds to unite together against capitalism. When Islamic terrorists slaughter Western workers, it becomes more difficult to convince Western workers to reject the ridiculous reactionary Islamophobic ideas deliberately spread out by the ruling class. (Similarly, terrorist action by people in Xinjiang and Tibet makes it more difficult for Han Chinese workers to support their national self-determination) The ruling class constantly seeks to divide the working class, because the greatest potential strategic strength of the working class lies in its unity. Unity is strength. Division invites conquest. This is one reason why racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia must be fought against by all genuine socialists, because objectively they inevitably cause divisions within the working class, as we've all seen here on RevLeft. Terrorism against the masses is a major cause of political divisions among workers from different backgrounds.

Any kind of movement, whether it is militaristic in nature or not, should not just be spontaneous, but strategically planned. Mao said: if the political line is wrong, the more knowledge one has, the more reactionary one becomes. Similarly, if the general strategy is wrong, the harder one hits, the more damage one causes objectively.

[Dimentio]

Millions of working class people die as a result of capitalism every single day. A couple of thousand bankers and their secretaries die, and THEN suddenly all of RevLeft is crying about the 9/11 as though it was the anti-working class travesty of a lifetime.

You want real violence against the working class? How about all this armchair condemnation and inaction? How about the fact that 90% of the college educated half-wits that adhere to the word "communist" in America are so fucking disconnected from the working class that most workers would join a death camp before they'd join a union or your Party? How about the fact that a fucked up group like al Queda had a larger impact on world capital in a single day than communists (or anarchists for that matter) will hope to have in the last 10 years?

A bunch of firefighters, cops, and secretaries died. Boo hoo.

You need to work with working people, not against them. If you are alienating the working class, you are doing the work of capital. Leftists who actively say that they hate their own country are in fact an enemy of the leftist movement, since you are rendering it purposeless.

[Dr Mindbender]

I'm an Arab anarchist who lives in the most crime-filled city in America, there are already black and white cars outside my door, whats a couple more?

It'll be different when you're the one on the recieving end of a arrest warrant for condoning and celebrating terrorism.

I think youre generally politically astute CB i just wouldnt like to see you hauled into a police cell over a forum post.

[Devrim]

I'm an Arab anarchist who lives in the most crime-filled city in America, there are already black and white cars outside my door, whats a couple more?

Really, I was under the impression for some reason that you were Azeri, maybe my mistake.

Devrim

[Adi Shankara]

I'm an Arab anarchist who lives in the most crime-filled city in America, there are already black and white cars outside my door, whats a couple more?

Do you want an award for this? millions of others live in much much worse conditions, so shouldn't we say "boo-hoo" to you as well?

[gorillafuck]

Do you want an award for this? millions of others live in much much worse conditions, so shouldn't we say "boo-hoo" to you as well?
To be fair she wasn't actually complaining about that.

Counterblast, stop for a moment. Where does your method of thinking take us? Let's say that a very masculine looking lesbian woman is beaten by cops. If we're to apply your method of thinking, we would just say "oh well boo hoo nuts to her" because there are people with drones being dropped on their neighborhoods so, she has it better than them.

And you obviously wouldn't say that because that would be repulsive.

[Adi Shankara]

To be fair she wasn't actually complaining about that.

Counterblast, stop for a moment. Where does your method of thinking take us? Let's say that a very masculine looking lesbian woman is beaten by cops. If we're to apply your method of thinking, we would just say "oh well boo hoo nuts to her" because there are people with drones being dropped on their neighborhoods so, she has it better than them.

And you obviously wouldn't say that because that would be repulsive.

I did say something that sounded similar but was misconstrued--I said that the efforts in chile for the miners, while good, didn't deserve the amount of media attention they did, because they distracted from the real issues. but by no means was I saying "boo-hoo".

[counterblast]

Really, I was under the impression for some reason that you were Azeri, maybe my mistake.

Devrim

My mother and father were second generation Arab transplants to Azerbaijan.

[counterblast]

To be fair she wasn't actually complaining about that.

Counterblast, stop for a moment. Where does your method of thinking take us? Let's say that a very masculine looking lesbian woman is beaten by cops. If we're to apply your method of thinking, we would just say "oh well boo hoo nuts to her" because there are people with drones being dropped on their neighborhoods so, she has it better than them.

And you obviously wouldn't say that because that would be repulsive.

Cops =/= Third World Terrorists

But admittedly "boohoo" was not the best choice of words on my part.

The point I was trying to make is that the positive aspects of 9/11 do not go away because of the negative ones.

[9]

What positive aspects?

[counterblast]

What positive aspects?

The destruction of major institutions of world capital?

Irreparable damage to global trade?

http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs7725/

[gorillafuck]

Cops =/= Third World Terrorists
How does that makes my analogy less valid?


The destruction of major institutions of world capital?

Irreparable damage to global trade?

http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs7725/
The WTO was not destroyed and world capital barely faltered.

[Dimentio]

The destruction of major institutions of world capital?

Irreparable damage to global trade?

http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs7725/

I don't want to contribute to the degeneration of these boards, but... did you know that you are crazy?

[Adi Shankara]

The destruction of major institutions of world capital?

Irreparable damage to global trade?

http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs7725/

buildings fell, innocent workers died (yes, most of the people who died in the WTC collapse were workers), millions of muslims persecuted abroad and at home for something they had nothing to do with, not to mention the sikhs who face it as well--and you want to talk about "positive" aspects.

Please tell me you're just a crazy third-worldist.

[Queercommie Girl]

buildings fell, innocent workers died (yes, most of the people who died in the WTC collapse were workers), millions of muslims persecuted abroad and at home for something they had nothing to do with, not to mention the sikhs who face it as well--and you want to talk about "positive" aspects.

Please tell me you're just a crazy third-worldist.

Don't tarnish the name of Third Worldism by associating it with terrorism.

I'm significantly influenced by Third Worldism. In its proper form it has nothing to do with terrorism.

The essence of Third Worldism originated from a simple economic observation by Lenin: developed countries utilise their imperialistic control of the colonial world to give out some limited resources to pacify their own working classes in order to prevent a socialist revolution in their countries. If you think about the welfare programs in many advanced capitalist countries, you should also think about ultimately where they come from. Consequently the "welfare state" isn't totally positive, it could also objectively act as a brake on the potential possibility of revolution.

[AK]

A bunch of firefighters, cops, and secretaries died. Boo hoo.
Let's hear it for working class solidarity, everyone!

[danyboy27]

many people from various working class background where killed during this attack.

just in case you havnt noticed, there where people in those planes too.

anyone who want to play down this tragedy beccause some banker worked in the world trade center need a serious reality check about the constant struggle of the working class in west.

[Jazzratt]

The hilarity of this argument mainly comes from the overestimation of its effects on market forces. Sure it was a blow, but nothing compared to the ones that came simply from the inherent instability of capitalism itself [the collapse of the housing and banking markets in particular].

[counterblast]

I've already said that the "boo hoo" statement was a poor choice of words, which I do not stand behind.

What isn't being addressed is the broader point I was making, which is how 9/11 is being treated as an especially bad attack on the working class; which is simply not true.

Of course working class people unwillingly died (I'd love to see one large scale act of violence, the Russian Revolution included, where working class people were not victimized involuntarily.); but that isn't the point. Working class people suffer and ultimately die far more agonizing deaths under the pressures, demands, and economic disparity of capitalism, than all the terrorist attack combined.

The difference? Capitalists target the working class, terrorists don't.

The point isn't to dismiss or trivialize the working class people who were killed in 9/11 by other working class people. The point is to recognize that Al Queda or 9/11 or terrorism in general aren't the problem, and that despite many of their fucked politics, their problems with America can be linked to capitalism and imperialism.

Working class people died in 9/11; just as they died in the 1920 anarchist bombing of Wall Street or the Black Liberation Army bombing of a San Francisco's policemans funeral...

Any death of a poor person is terrible and worth mourning, but lets be clear that there are FAR worse ways working class people die on a daily basis, which don't involve taking out institutions of capital in the process.

[danyboy27]

The difference? Capitalists target the working class, terrorists don't.
.

go tell that to the hundred of working class people killed in the buses of london and spain.

terrorist organisation use terror against specific classes depending of the situation to achieve their goals.

[Devrim]

Of course working class people unwillingly died (I'd love to see one large scale act of violence, the Russian Revolution included, where working class people were not victimized involuntarily.); but that isn't the point. Working class people suffer and ultimately die far more agonizing deaths under the pressures, demands, and economic disparity of capitalism, than all the terrorist attack combined.

The difference? Capitalists target the working class, terrorists don't.

There is another difference. The Russian revolution at the time appeared to have something to offer the working class.


Working class people died in 9/11; just as they died in the 1920 anarchist bombing of Wall Street or the Black Liberation Army bombing of a San Francisco's policemans funeral...

None of these events did.

Oh, and just back to a point a page ago which nobody picked up on.


This isn't to say that Al Queda or their ultimate goals are revolutionary -- they're not. But the attack on the World Trade Center -- whether a material blow to capitalism or just a symbolic one -- is clearly a major blow nonetheless, if only to demonstrate what a small group of disenfranchised people can accomplish.

Oh, and just back to a point a page ago which nobody picked up on. Osama bin Ladan is hardly disenfranchised. he is a multi-millionaire and member of one of the richest families in the world.

Devrim

[Jazzratt]

The difference? Capitalists target the working class, terrorists don't. That's because, for the most part, terrorists target people on the basis of nationality or similar bollocks. It's not that they are deliberately avoiding targeting the working class (and if they are they're failing hilariously - targetting public transport and the like) it's that they don't have any class analysis at all. The thing is, though, is it's irrelevent whether workers are the target because they are, overwhelming, the victims.

[Martin Blank]

These comments by counterblast go beyond the pale of what qualifies as being a part of the revolutionary left, IMO, and border on casual recruitment for al-Qa'ida or other reactionary Salafist groups. But since they are also a purer form of the modern-day "anti-imperialism of fools" that permeates some sections of the left, they are worth a response.


Millions of working class people die as a result of capitalism every single day. A couple of thousand bankers and their secretaries die, and THEN suddenly all of RevLeft is crying about the 9/11 as though it was the anti-working class travesty of a lifetime.

...

A bunch of firefighters, cops, and secretaries died. Boo hoo.

First of all, it wasn't just "firefighters, cops and secretaries" that died, but also janitors, building maintenance workers, paramedics, nurses, day care workers, transit workers and, well, numerous other kinds of workers who had either a tertiary or no connection to what went on in the World Trade Center complex. (Full disclosure: Two friends and comrades of mine died in 9/11. Both were workers in the south tower. So, yeah, responding rationally to this line of argument takes some internal discipline.)

Yes, millions of working people die daily because of capitalism. They die of hunger, lack of decent health care, unsafe working conditions, poverty or capitalism's "acceptable" forms of terrorism (war, police violence, etc.). But just as we oppose and condemn each and every once of these acts of terror committed by capitalism against our class, so too do we oppose those acts of terror committed by those who make no distinction between the perpetrators of exploitation and its victims.


This isn't to say that Al Queda or their ultimate goals are revolutionary -- they're not. But the attack on the World Trade Center -- whether a material blow to capitalism or just a symbolic one -- is clearly a major blow nonetheless, if only to demonstrate what a small group of disenfranchised people can accomplish.

...

Yes, some mom and pop stores got looted in Oakland and yes, some janitors died in 9/11. Big surprise! Social upheavals are by no means Utopian!

The attacks of 9/11 were neither a "social upheaval" nor the act of "disenfranchised people". They were organized and planned by relatively wealthy elements espousing an apostate Salafist religious doctrine, and carried out by the children of relatively wealthy elements who sent them to Europe to get a university education. Without the bankrolling of Bin Laden and other wealthy Middle Easterners looking to improve their negotiating position vis-à-vis western imperialism, 9/11 would have remained little more than a wishful thought in their eyes.


The point I was trying to make is that the positive aspects of 9/11 do not go away because of the negative ones.

What "positive aspects" would that be? The USA-PATRIOT Act? The Department of Homeland Security? The wave of Islamophobia gripping North America and Europe? The invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq? Warrantless wiretapping? Indefinite detention? Abu Ghraib? Guantanamo Bay?

The attacks of 9/11 gave American imperialism the one thing they were lacking for doing any of the above: popular support. It allowed the unstable, anti-democratic corporatist regime in power in Washington to legitimize itself, and even opened the door to its continued reign ... to the point where both parties signed on to the corporatist consensus. In the end, 9/11 did nothing but entrench corporatist capitalism, silence the growing international opposition to capitalism and imperialism, and give the ruling classes the opportunity to mobilize "public opinion" in support of stripping away what remained of democratic rights.


Osama bin Ladan is hardly disenfranchised. he is a multi-millionaire and member of one of the richest families in the world.

Hear, hear! And let's not forget that he was also on the CIA's payroll throughout the 1980s, and his "anti-imperialism" is little more than the anger of a disgruntled ex-employee wanting a sweeter severance package.

[L.A.P.]

I've asked it before and I'll ask it again; is there such a moral outrage when there is a Catholic Church being built near an elementary school? I thought not. In regards to the burning of the Koran on 9/11 by some pastor in Gainesville. I would be cool with the burning of the Koran on 9/11 and hell I would join in on it but the problem is that this man is a Christian therefore his reasons for burning the Koran strongly oppose my reasons for burning it. I'm an atheist, of course, and in protest to his religious bigotry I will burn the Bible on 9/11 (even though most people will either not know or not care) or at least draw a giant penis on John 3:16 on the Bibles being sold out a store but I've done that a million times already.

[Adi Shankara]

The difference? Capitalists target the working class, terrorists don't.


So what would you call the far-right forces in Afghanistan back in the 1970s, which included Osama bin Laden, that dismantled the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, (which was established by Afghanis, mind you) which was probably Afghanistan's last chance for stability and democracy?

[counterblast]

Yes because the Pul-e Charkhi Prison Massacre didn't kill more working class people than 9/11 or anything. :rolleyes:

[Martin Blank]

Yes because the Pul-e Charkhi Prison Massacre didn't kill more working class people than 9/11 or anything. :rolleyes:

Your evading the question ... again ... as was to be expected. When working people die, it's no skin off your ass, right?

[Slobjob Zizek]

Gainesville, FL - Despite an announcement by Pastor Terry Jones that he will not burn Qur’ans Sept. 11, organizers of the counter-protest against racism and anti-Muslim bigotry say they will go ahead with their rally and march.
Jared Hamil, of the Gainesville Area Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), stated, “Just because the Dove World Outreach Center decided not to burn Qu'rans doesn't mean that Islamophobia and racism have disappeared. There's still hate and bigotry in the world that we need to fight against and Gainesville Area SDS vows to be at the forefront of that fight.”
Fernando Figueroa of Gainesville Area SDS hailed the announced cancelation of the Qur’an-burning as a victory, stating, "This is a victory for the world's progressive people in general and the Gainesville community in particular. Gainesville Area SDS has shown that our communities have the power to win against the hatred, racism and bigotry of a handful of people. On Saturday we will fight onwards to the next victory."
Figueroa also stated that the progressive movement needs to keep in mind that the pastor might go back on his word or that other anti-Muslim bigots might burn Korans on Sept. 11.
According to some press reports, a small reactionary church in Kansas has announced plans to burn Qur’ans.
The Gainesville protest will take place Sept. 11 at 5:00 p.m. , at Possum Creek Skatepark, 4009 NW 53rd Ave, Gainesville, FL. A march to the Dove World Outreach Center will follow.

- fightback news

[counterblast]

Your evading the question ... again ... as was to be expected. When working people die, it's no skin off your ass, right?

When did I say that? I withdrew the "boo hoo" comment, and still admit that the context I used it in was totally fucked. "Boo hoo" was meant to trivialize the significance of 9/11 as a spectacle (an opinion I still stand behind), not the lives of poor folks. The phrase I used was pretty shameful.

And I'm not evading the question. The question of whether violence against the working class to promote a so-called agenda for the oppressed, is as rooted in communist so-called "dictatorships of the prole" as it is in 9/11. Maybe moreso.

Lenin and Osama bin Laden have a lot more similarities that most people here are willing to let their brain grasp. Their political messages are very different, but their methodology is almost indistinguishable.

The point of my trivializing 9/11, was to point out that 9/11 really is a trivial blow to the working class, historically speaking (something that seems to be lost, even to those people claiming 9/11 was a trivial blow to capitalism). People here are caught in an emotional stalemate, like most anyone who discusses 9/11, too blinded by the spectacle it has become, to have any analysis beyond "Its sooo bad!".

[Martin Blank]

When did I say that? I withdrew the "boo hoo" comment, and still admit that the context I used it in was totally fucked. "Boo hoo" was meant to trivialize the significance of 9/11 as a spectacle (an opinion I still stand behind), not the lives of poor folks. The phrase I used was pretty shameful.

I never mentioned the "boo hoo" comment. I didn't need to. The fact is that I felt that was the most honest expression of everything else you've said in this debate so far. Every comment you've made about 9/11 so far can be distilled down to "boo hoo". I'd rather you not apologize for it, since it makes you look disingenuous.

But this is not the point. The point is the level of casual and callous disregard that you have for the deaths of working people, whether because of 9/11, police violence, poverty, disease or what have you. You shrug your shoulders and claim "collateral damage". Only someone who does not have to face being part of that "collateral damage" can be so cavalier about it. I certainly understand the bloody arithmetic of war, but that does not mean it has to translate into depraved indifference for my class brothers and sisters.


And I'm not evading the question. The question of whether violence against the working class to promote a so-called agenda for the oppressed, is as rooted in communist so-called "dictatorships of the prole" as it is in 9/11. Maybe moreso.

This is only true if you begin from the standpoint that oppressed are not part of the proletariat themselves -- i.e., if the proletariat is itself not oppressed (or exploited, as some Third Worldists foolishly assert).


Lenin and Osama bin Laden have a lot more similarities that most people here are willing to let their brain grasp. Their political messages are very different, but their methodology is almost indistinguishable.

On this, my agreement is conditional. I can see what you're saying here, but the similarities and parallels are limited, at best. At the same time, I would argue that the anti-worker actions of Lenin in the post-October period have the same class root as the anti-worker actions of Bin Laden in our period. Then as now, the petty bourgeoisie saw the proletariat as a battering ram to achieve their goals -- as cannon fodder and "collateral damage". For such petty bourgeois, the bloody arithmetic is an abstraction, since it does not ever directly touch them, and they can always rationalize mass death with romantic platitudes and sermons.


The point of my trivializing 9/11, was to point out that 9/11 really is a trivial blow to the working class, historically speaking (something that seems to be lost, even to those people claiming 9/11 was a trivial blow to capitalism). People here are caught in an emotional stalemate, like most anyone who discusses 9/11, too blinded by the spectacle it has become, to have any analysis beyond "Its sooo bad!".

For me and other communists, the blow that 9/11 helped deliver to the working class continues to damage us. It's not just the caskets or the bodies, but the longer-term effects to our class. As I said in my first response, 9/11 allowed the corporatists to legitimize their dismantling of what remained of bourgeois-democratic norms, codified the Bonapartist police state and corporate welfare state, and started the clock counting down to a Third (Inter-Imperialist) World War.

"Trivial"? Hardly ... if you're working class.

[Dimentio]

When did I say that? I withdrew the "boo hoo" comment, and still admit that the context I used it in was totally fucked. "Boo hoo" was meant to trivialize the significance of 9/11 as a spectacle (an opinion I still stand behind), not the lives of poor folks. The phrase I used was pretty shameful.

And I'm not evading the question. The question of whether violence against the working class to promote a so-called agenda for the oppressed, is as rooted in communist so-called "dictatorships of the prole" as it is in 9/11. Maybe moreso.

Lenin and Osama bin Laden have a lot more similarities that most people here are willing to let their brain grasp. Their political messages are very different, but their methodology is almost indistinguishable.

The point of my trivializing 9/11, was to point out that 9/11 really is a trivial blow to the working class, historically speaking (something that seems to be lost, even to those people claiming 9/11 was a trivial blow to capitalism). People here are caught in an emotional stalemate, like most anyone who discusses 9/11, too blinded by the spectacle it has become, to have any analysis beyond "Its sooo bad!".

I want to apologise for calling you crazy. It was unfounded.

[counterblast]

"Trivial"? Hardly ... if you're working class.

Clearly I mustn't be working class then! :rolleyes:

[Martin Blank]

Clearly I mustn't be working class then! :rolleyes:

Either that, or you've spent too much time "learning" from petty-bourgeois and bourgeois elements.

[counterblast]

Bourgeois like a German economist or German son of a wealthy factory owner???

[gorillafuck]

Bourgeois like a German economist or German son of a wealthy factory owner???
That doesn't make their ideas bourgeois. That's like saying that Frantz Fanon couldn't authentically oppose oppression since he went to the most expensive private school in Martinique. His ideas that he spread were/are still anti-oppression, whereas the ideas you have presented are not.

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/catalog/video.html