WikiLeaks: al-Qaeda is planning a dirty bomb

[CynicalIdealist]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8296956/WikiLeaks-al-Qaeda-is-planning-a-dirty-bomb.html

...fuck. Uh, am I safe in Portland, Oregon?

I... fuck. I congratulate the world on being smart enough to develop nukes. Bravo world. Bravo. You planted the seeds for your own god damn destruction. Just great.

[Kalifornia]

America is far more a concern than AQ

[Fabrizio]

[QUOTE]If America can have nukes I say Al-Qaeda can have a dirty bomb,

This is very misguided. Al Qaeda is not a state and it wouldn't use a dirty bomb as a deterrent, thye would just kill and harm as many civilizians as possible, probably in a major metropolois, meaning that most would be working class, and many of them Muslim.


you think bin laden could recrut so many young men if they were not radicalised by their peoples conditions caused by US imperialism?

Well funnilly enough he started off recruiting them with US money to fight the Soviet Union. And really does Bin Laden really recruit that many young men?

Many join the resistances to the US in Iraq and Afghansitan but this probably has much to do with defending their home countries and little to do with the nutjob views of "Al Qaeda", which is really a network of tiny elitist cells, probably with murky ties to lots of different states including Saudia Arabia and the US.

[Amphictyonis]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8296956/WikiLeaks-al-Qaeda-is-planning-a-dirty-bomb.html

...fuck. Uh, am I safe in Portland, Oregon?

I... fuck. I congratulate the world on being smart enough to develop nukes. Bravo world. Bravo. You planted the seeds for your own god damn destruction. Just great.

Here we go.....it's late and I've had a glass of wine or two so I'm putting on my tin foil hat. Osoma Bin Terror is no threat to the US nor is al-Qaeda. Whats a threat to the US is our foreign military and economic policy. There's not just some 'small band of rebel scum' out there plotting to 'destroy America' the funding for any attacks on US soil or against US interests comes from other nation states. 'Terrorism' is simply the new 'proxy war'. This isnt really conspiracy theory this is the reality. Pakistan funded 9/11. We cant invade nuclear armed Pakistan can we? The nature of war changes. Once it was fought with the British Red Coats standing in line like toy soldiers waiting to be shot then natives came along and didn't 'fight with dignity' and the face of war changed. During the cold war with the threat of mutual destruction proxy wars were fought in other nations..... Now we're onto the next stage. "Terrorism". South East Asia and South America were being fought for in the cold war and now the middle easts economic future is being fought over but not necessarily between communists and capitalists.


Thank Einstein for the Nukes, not necessarily the knowledge but it could be argued...Einstein urged the US president to build them. Hitler wasn't even building them and WW2 was basically already won. It's said the US wanted to intimidate Russia which is why they used them on Japan but the initial building stage was at the urgency of Einstein. Smart guy egh?

[Dimentio]

If America can have nukes I say Al-Qaeda can have a dirty bomb, you think bin laden could recruit so many young men if they were not radicalised by their peoples conditions caused by US imperialism?

How is Al-Qaeda anywhere near as evil as the US UK Spanish governments?

When white European and American people are being murdered by muslims the condemnation is universal, yet we have people on here talking bout voting for the democrats as the lesser of two evils, supporting the dems who are murdering people all over the globe and supporting Al-qaeda is not the same, the AQ have a far smaller bodycount and smaller reach.

What a luck then that you are not in any position of power.

There is an equivalence between the USA and Iran, in that both players are following somewhat rational interests.

Al Qaeda, though, are crazy. Not completely crazy, but crazy. They are also irresponsible, since they do not wield state power and have no economic interests to defend. Thus, the price for actually using the shit is reduced, and they have less incitaments NOT to use a nuclear bomb. In fact, I believe that if they would get the bomb, they would use it, probably against the civilian population of Pakistan, Iraq or Egypt.

http://hylla.blogg.se/images/2008/culture-shock-the-joker-thumb_14079877.jpg

[Kalifornia]

Yeah that is my point, yet anyone who resists are of course under the category of white people as "radical Islamists", also yes the US may of funded Bin Laden, but they were doing so to play him against the USSR, this doesent mean the whole region is not controlled by US interests to keep American SUVs rolling.

If racist reactionaries were fighting the US invasion in their nation they would be supported, but when we hear of muslim resistance, the bodeyman theme comes out.

Eurocentric Ideology is rampant.

[Kalifornia]

Here we go.....it's late and I've had a glass of wine or two so I'm putting on my tin foil hat. Osoma Bin Terror is no threat to the US nor is al-Qaeda. Whats a threat to the US is our foreign military and economic policy. There's not just some 'small band of rebel scum' out there plotting to 'destroy America' the funding for any attacks on US soil or against US interests comes from other nation states. 'Terrorism' is simply the new 'proxy war'. This isnt really conspiracy theory shit this is the reality. Pakistan funded 9/11. We cant invade nuclear armed Pakistan can we? The nature of war changes. Once it was fought with the British Red Coats standing in line like toy soldiers waiting to be shot then natives came along and didn't 'fight with dignity' and the face of war changed. During the cold war with the threat of mutual destruction proxy wars were fought in other nations..... Now we're onto the next stage. "Terrorism". South East Asia and South America was being fought for in the cold war and now the middle easts economic future is being fought over but not necessarily between communists and capitalists.


Are you kidding me, the Americans would wait till the Native Americans were off campt then massacre the women and children, They purposely introduced disease in the Native Areas and basically commited the bigest genocide ever, how dare you say the Natives did not fight honourably.

The european settlers (Americans) killed around 100 million Natives, mostly by killing the non combattants, infact as Howard Zinn says in a peoples history, when the Natives did fight the whites fairly, the Whites took alot of casualties, this is why they decided killing the women and children far superior strategywise.

[Amphictyonis]

Are you kidding me, the Americans would wait till the Native Americans were off campt then massacre the women and children, They purposely introduced disease in the Native Areas and basically commited the bigest genocide ever, how dare you say the Natives did not fight honourably.

The european settlers (Americans) killed around 100 million Natives, mostly by killing the non combattants, infact as Howard Zinn says in a peoples history, when the Natives did fight the whites fairly, the Whites took alot of casualties, this is why they decided killing the women and children far superior strategywise.

Man....I put it in quotes for a reason. The British thought it 'honorable' to stand in line and die like a toy soldier. Settlers learned fighting tactics from natives and used it against the British then turned around and slaughtered the natives. Relax. I'm not saying anyone is a 'savage' or dishonorable I'm showing how the evolution of war has manifested.

[Fabrizio]

If racist reactionaries were fighting the US invasion in their nation they would be supported, but when we hear of muslim resistance, the bodeyman theme comes out.

I certainly wouldn't support them using a "dirty bomb" on another country. Japan was imperialist, so I suppose Hiroshima was ok then?

[Dimentio]

Yeah that is my point, yet anyone who resists are of course under the category of white people as "radical Islamists", also yes the US may of funded Bin Laden, but they were doing so to play him against the USSR, this doesent mean the whole region is not controlled by US interests to keep American SUVs rolling.

If racist reactionaries were fighting the US invasion in their nation they would be supported, but when we hear of muslim resistance, the bodeyman theme comes out.

Eurocentric Ideology is rampant.

Legitimate resistance is not about attacking everyone randomly like a rabid dog, which Al Qaeda are doing. They actually managed to turn the resistance against the US occupation of Iraq into a Sunni-Shia Civil War.

They have consistently acted as tools for US interests.

Either they are idiots or paid agents. To call them a resistance movement is to insult real resistance movements. While I dislike Hamas and Hezbollah, they are actual resistance movements with consistent goals. Al Qaeda are not acting like them (while having a more extreme variation of the same ideology). Even the Red Army Faction in West Germany was a serious movement in comparison with the AQ.

[Fabrizio]

Either they are idiots or paid agents.

Wel they're not idiots, so...

[Kalifornia]

Legitimate resistance is not about attacking everyone randomly like a rabid dog, which Al Qaeda are doing. They actually managed to turn the resistance against the US occupation of Iraq into a Sunni-Shia Civil War.

They have consistently acted as tools for US interests.

Either they are idiots or paid agents. To call them a resistance movement is to insult real resistance movements. While I dislike Hamas and Hezbollah, they are actual resistance movements with consistent goals. Al Qaeda are not acting like them (while having a more extreme variation of the same ideology). Even the Red Army Faction in West Germany was a serious movement in comparison with the AQ.

The entire left supported the algerian resistance, even when they were blowing up civillian french cafes in Algeria.

Resistance is resistance, as Finklestein said.

[Dimentio]

The entire left supported the algerian resistance, even when they were blowing up civillian french cafes in Algeria.

Resistance is resistance, as Finklestein said.

Al Qaeda does not want a Free Afghanistan. Their goal is a global Islamic Caliphate by 2020 (good luck with that!) and their methods to achieve it is to attack civilians, mostly muslim civilians in muslim countries, such as Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Jordan. They are also attacking other resistance movements for not being "hardcore" enough.

Their goal is not to end US occupation, but to make it permanent, and to spread it to other countries by giving the US a cause for invasion. Thus, they would secure a stream of militants.

They are the equivalent not of Algerian resistance but of Serb Chetniks, only crazier.

[Kalifornia]

Yeah AQ is a reactionary organisation, my point is, they are nowhere near as massive or as deadly as the US, however we have people saying it is ok to vote democrat to back reforms, yet not ok to support islamist anti occupation groups.

This is a eurocentric and disgusting stance.

I am not cheerleading the AQ, however, I also see the US as a far greater evil.

[Fabrizio]

They are also attacking other resistance movements for not being "hardcore" enough.

Or for being Shi'ite, who they list as "heretics".


Yeah AQ is a reactionary organisation, my point is, they are nowhere near as massive or as deadly as the US, however we have people saying it is ok to vote democrat to back reforms, yet not ok to support islamist anti occupation groups.

It's ok to support resistance to US occupation, it's probably less ok to support Al Qaeda (a tiny network of cells which was set up by the CIA) getting a dirty bomb. That's not really the equivalent of "supporting reforms" is it? It's more like the equivalent of supporting the Westboro Baptist Church with nukes.

[Dimentio]

Yeah AQ is a reactionary organisation, my point is, they are nowhere near as massive or as deadly as the US, however we have people saying it is ok to vote democrat to back reforms, yet not ok to support islamist anti occupation groups.

This is a eurocentric and disgusting stance.

I am not cheerleading the AQ, however, I also see the US as a far greater evil.

The point is that the AQ have never ever fought against US interests.

They were the casus belli for the US invasion of Afghanistan.

They have attacked Iran, which is the prime enemy of the US in the region.

They turned what could have become a successful war of resistance in Iraq into a civil war between Sunni and Shi'ite Iraqis.

The point is not that they are reactionaries. All islamists are reactionaries.

The difference between the clergy of Iran, the Hezbollah, the Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood on one side, and Al Qaeda on the other, is that the former movements are rational, while Al Qaeda are crazy (or paid agents for the USA).

Almost every single action undertaken by AQ have weakened the "anti-imperialist" resistance.

If you want the USA to dominate the Middle East, support Al Qaeda.

[Kalifornia]

Well when you support voting for the dems as the lesser of two evils, its not the same, if your an american white kid whose not going to feel the heat from them NATO bombs, however, if you are an Iraqi, or you live in Afghanistan then yeah it means that you are supporting the biggest evil, the one that has killed millions of people in two recent illegal unjust wars.

Again, people are looking at the issue from a place where they cannot feel those bombs, that is kinda first world chauvanistic IMO.

[Kalifornia]

The point is that the AQ have never ever fought against US interests.

They were the casus belli for the US invasion of Afghanistan.

They have attacked Iran, which is the prime enemy of the US in the region.

They turned what could have become a successful war of resistance in Iraq into a civil war between Sunni and Shi'ite Iraqis.

The point is not that they are reactionaries. All islamists are reactionaries.

The difference between the clergy of Iran, the Hezbollah, the Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood on one side, and Al Qaeda on the other, is that the former movements are rational, while Al Qaeda are crazy (or paid agents for the USA).

Almost every single action undertaken by AQ have weakened the "anti-imperialist" resistance.

If you want the USA to dominate the Middle East, support Al Qaeda.


That may very well be true, but that was not my point, my point was to say that the AQ are not some terrible evil compared to the USA, I think we should be outraged the US has WMDs and has actually used them, rather than fearmongering about a smaller group, who are treated as public enemy number 1 despite killing far less than the US does on a daily basis.

[Dimentio]

That may very well be true, but that was not my point, my point was to say that the AQ are not some terrible evil compared to the USA, I think we should be outraged the US has WMDs and has actually used them, rather than fearmongering about a smaller group, who are treated as public enemy number 1 despite killing far less than the US does on a daily basis.

There are no terrible evils.

I do not support the USA having the bomb either. But Al Qaeda should definetly not have the bomb.

The reason why is this:

The USA is threatening to use nuclear weapons.

Al Qaeda will use nuclear weapons. They will not even threaten to use them first. They will just use them.

It is like comparing the Mafia with the Joker. Only because the Mafia is in possessions of explosives, it doesn't mean the Joker should have them.

[Kalifornia]

But I am not just talking about Nukes, the USA has more guns bombs and wmds than anyone else, they have killed more than anyone with the exception of maybe the British empire.

So my point is, we see me getting attacked for saying its ok for AQ to have weapons to resist kill whatever you wanna call it, yet if some liberal on here calls for support of the dems, because the US is western its like, oh, lets not demonise the American Imperialist as much as Islamists.

[Fabrizio]

But I am not just talking about Nukes, the USA has more guns bombs and wmds than anyone else, they have killed more than anyone with the exception of maybe the British empire.

So my point is, we see me getting attacked for saying its ok for AQ to have weapons to resist kill whatever you wanna call it, yet if some liberal on here calls for support of the dems, because the US is western its like, oh, lets not demonise the American Imperialist as much as Islamists.

Well if it makes you feel any better I support the most left candidate with a chance of winning in any election, in the US or in any other country, in order to hold back the right-wing who will do the most damage.

This has nothing to do with Al Qaeda getting a dirty bomb , as they would not use it as a deterrent to hold back the US, they would jsut use it to indiscriminately kill people. And the imperialists would use that to justify another war.

[Kalifornia]

You are supporting the not much at all lesser of the two sided capitalist imperialist coin, and you wonder why AQ members hate westerners not just the government.

You think any electable US party is any less evil?

[hatzel]

...yeah, this is all taking the anti-Eurocentric stance a little bit too far...no nukes for terrorists, that's what I say. I'm sure we all understand the whole concept of mutually-assured destruction, and how all that stuff about retaliation etc. is no deterrent to a disparate terrorist group...

[Fabrizio]

You are supporting the not much at all lesser of the two sided capitalist imperialist coin, and you wonder why AQ members hate westerners not just the government.

AQ members? How many of them are there? Have you ever followed anything AQ has ever said?

99% of the people fighting the US in Iraq and Afghanistan are not Al Qaeda btw. If you think they are, then ironically you make the same mistake as the rightwingers.

And FWIW people around the world had huge illusions in Obama, not just westerners. They'd probably hate it a lot more if the americans had elt John McCain in. At least Obama can be understood as an honest mistake.

[Kalifornia]

Yes I am aware the AQ are not a significant force, you keep missing my damn point.

The day liberals condemn the very system of capitalist genocide they back as the lesser of two evils is the day I condemn AQ.

On one of my threads some bleeding Anarchist has been saying we should vote dem, to get reforms like welfare etc for first world people, seemingly not bothered to support any capitalist party is to support the wars.

Obama had you all fooled, yet sending 40 thousand more troops is the complete opposite of withdrawing, right?

[Fabrizio]

Yes I am aware the AQ are not a significant force, you keep missing my damn point.

The day liberals condemn the very system of capitalist genocide they back as the lesser of two evils is the day I condemn AQ.


So you support Al Qaeda incinerating you or giving you cancer in order to spite reformist liberals. Makes sense.

[Kalifornia]

So you support Al Qaeda incinerating you or giving you cancer in order to spite reformist liberals. Makes sense.

so you support capitalist imperialist parties that order the masacring of entire nations for oil and hegemony so first worlders can have reforms, that makes sense:rolleyes:

[Rooster]

A dirty bomb is not a nuke. A dirty bomb couldn't kill anyone.

[Fabrizio]

so you support capitalist imperialist parties that order the masacring of entire nations for oil and hegemony so first worlders can have reforms, that makes sense:rolleyes:

I didn't say I support them I said I vote for the lesser evil, this doesn't mean actively supporting their betrayals. You can organize for something better while voting for the alternative which gives you most space to work within. Obviously I support third world nationalists as well. In fact most of the leftist leaders like Chavez, Morales etc. wanted Obama to win, because they knew he would be better to negotiate with.

I could be wrong but at least I have some reasoning behind my actions. You're just supporting mass murder - mostly against Muslims in the third world - in order to say "haha in your face liberal hypocrites". Not very useful to anyone.

[Fabrizio]

A dirty bomb is not a nuke. A dirty bomb couldn't kill anyone.

A bomb with nuclear materials attached couldn't kill anyone? How'd you work that out?:sneaky:

[Kalifornia]

so when muslims kill other muslims your suddenly concerned, but when your posting your vote for a party that is continuing the genocide in the middle east, you suddenly couldnt give a fuck about the muslim population?

Are you being serious?

When the IRA bombed the rememberance day parade, would you suddenly start voting Labour?

Your British soldiers go on home echos the Irish American its only imperialism if its against the homeland mindset.

You know the Brits once called the Irish resistance Catholic Fundamentalist that would take Britain out of the Union and turn it into a catholic priest infested roman colony, your doing the exact same thing by voting for the dems to get the best deal for the first world within the system while denouncing muslims who reactionarily join AQ as evil, yet you could be classed as evil for bowing to empires needs in exchange for pieces of silver (welfare and reforms)

[Fabrizio]

so when muslims kill other muslims your suddenly concerned, but when your posting your vote for a party that is continuing the genocide in the middle east, you suddenly couldnt give a fuck about the muslim population?

Voting for a party doesn't mean supporting all their actions,. You're trying to claim that if the minority that are leftists just stopped voting for the cenrte-left then there would be no more wars. but it's not the case, we'd just have more right-wing governments, more wars.

Ask yourself why most Muslims int he UK who vote, vote for Labour. It's not because they support the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Ask yourself why all the South American left-wing leaders wanted Obama to win.

then ask yourself if any of those reasons apply to al Qaeda getting a dirty bomb.

[Kalifornia]

but it does, your voting and giving capitalism and imperialism legitimacy, how about organising and agitating and not conforming to fake bouroeise democracy with a vote every 4 years where the face changes, the people in power stay the same.

Could you look into the eyes of an Afghan family whove lost their children to US bombs and justify voting for a man whose sent 40 thousand more troops to continue the occupation?

[Rooster]

A bomb with nuclear materials attached couldn't kill anyone? How'd you work that out?:sneaky:

A dirty bomb is not a nuclear chain reaction explosion. there is no fission going on at all. It is just a conventional explosive with radioactive waste. The only way for it to kill you would be if you were caught by the explosion, not by the radiation. You only have to think about radiation leaks from the past; the 3 mile island incident, Chernobyl, Seller Field... hardly anyone died as a result from radiation and those were massive events.

If you were to make a dirty bomb, the explosion would spread the nuclear particles too far and wide for anything major to happen.

[Kalifornia]

A dirty bomb is not a nuclear chain reaction explosion. there is no fission going on at all. It is just a conventional explosive with radioactive waste. The only way for it to kill you would be if you were caught by the explosion, not by the radiation. You only have to think about radiation leaks from the past; the 3 mile island incident, Chernobyl, Seller Field... hardly anyone died as a result from radiation and those were massive events.

If you were to make a dirty bomb, the explosion would spread the nuclear particles too far and wide for anything major to happen.

Sounds to me Rooster has experience with homemade boom booms :lol:

[Fabrizio]

[QUOTE]but it does, your voting and giving capitalism and imperialism legitimacy,

It's not me who gives it legitimacy, you're overestimating the power ofthe left. a lot of sectarianism comes from that mistake, where you get ultraleftists shouting about how if only the "petit bourgeois left" would get its house in order, the masses would stop being mislead into imeprialist demcoracy, etc. It's bullshit



how about organising and agitating and not conforming to fake bouroeise democracy with a vote every 4 years where the face changes, the people in power stay the same.


How does voting stop you from organizing?


Could you look into the eyes of an Afghan family whove lost their children to US bombs and justify voting for a man whose sent 40 thousand more troops to continue the occupation?

We can all play that game. Could you look them in the face if you hadn't voted to keep McCain out? Imagine what a tea Party govt would (will?) do to the millions at home and abroad. Then tell me you could look those people in the face when they start more wars and destroy millions of jobs, throw millions on the street, wreck the economy, etc.

[Fabrizio]

A dirty bomb is not a nuclear chain reaction explosion. there is no fission going on at all. It is just a conventional explosive with radioactive waste. The only way for it to kill you would be if you were caught by the explosion, not by the radiation. You only have to think about radiation leaks from the past; the 3 mile island incident, Chernobyl, Seller Field... hardly anyone died as a result from radiation and those were massive events.

So why is Chernobyl still uninhabitable? Also I'm pretty sure that a number of people died later from its effects. Imagine that in a place as concentrated as New York.

[Kalifornia]

Imagine all those Iraqi neighborhoods flattened by those apaches.

You still have not even tried to justify how your willing to vote for imperialist parties to gain small reforms for the first world workers.

[hatzel]

For crying out loud, people, we've all (perhaps) read Locke, so we're well aware that participating in the election of the government constitutes tacit consent for the actions of the government, irrespective of whether or not the candidate you voted for won the election, and irrespective of whether or not you agree with their actions, you tacitly consented to them, blah-de-blah, perfect. But then he also considered, you know, using the roads or owning literally anything to constitute tacit consent. Now comes the question of whether we agree with him, or if we think it's fair to suggest that his whole argument actually falls down somewhere, and we can't start claiming that people who vote are responsible for and complicit in each and every action of whatever government they subsequently find themselves under...depends whether we buy his argument or not. Some of us clearly buy it (in part), whilst some don't. So whattt? Get over it...

[Kalifornia]

For crying out loud, people, we've all (perhaps) read Locke, so we're well aware that participating in the election of the government constitutes tacit consent for the actions of the government, irrespective of whether or not the candidate you voted for won the election, and irrespective of whether or not you agree with their actions, you tacitly consented to them, blah-de-blah, perfect. But then he also considered, you know, using the roads or owning literally anything to constitute tacit consent. Now comes the question of whether we agree with him, or if we think it's fair to suggest that his whole argument actually falls down somewhere, and we can't start claiming that people who vote are responsible for and complicit in each and every action of whatever government they subsequently find themselves under...depends whether we buy his argument or not. Some of us clearly buy it (in part), whilst some don't. So whattt? Get over it...

I have never read that as I am working class non student:lol:

Also yeah owning a tv means gaining from third world slave labour, however that is not the same as actively voting for the capitalist parties who carry out the rule of the bourgoeise, one is a neccesity to buy things to make life worth living, the other is betrayal.

[Rooster]

Sounds to me Rooster has experience with homemade boom booms :lol:

I actually do have a somewhat scientific background.


So why is Chernobyl still uninhabitable? Also I'm pretty sure that a number of people died later from its effects. Imagine that in a place as concentrated as New York.

That's what I'm saying. Chernobyl was a massive, massive event, spewing tonnes of HIGHLY radioactive material into the atmosphere. If you were to try carrying around say a piece from inside the reactor of Chernobyl in a brief case, you'd be dead within 30 mins. There's no way you could carry around something like that and expect to make a bomb out of it.

Radiation isn't some mystical force that just floats around and kills people like a death ray. It comes from particles breaking down. If you were to put radioactive material on a bomb and blow it up, it would spread those particles around to much that it would diffuse to a point where you could barely distinguish it from background radiation. All you would have to do is take a shower and wash your clothes.

If any particles did not get on to you and were just lying about the street, you'd have to stand next to them for hundreds of years in a perfectly motionless stance, just to get a burn. If you were to just walk past them then nothing would happen to you.

This was just something thought up by the papers to scare people.

[hatzel]

I have never read that as I am working class non student:lol:

Shame :crying: It's not really worth the read, though, we should update to something a bit more modern.

Anyway, you're backing non-participation, which is cool enough, but...even if only 10% of people vote, it will still be one of the parties who wins, so our voting or lack of voting won't make any difference to whether or not there is a bourgeois government above us. So why not aim for the lesser of the two evils, as one of them is going to end up above us anyway, with or without widespread popular support...

EDIT: What I'm meaning with all this is something like 'why is it voting, and not paying taxes, which is the problem?'

[Kalifornia]

because in reality, they are the same evil, why are the dems less imperialist in your eyes?

they are the lesser of two evils on things like medicare and welfare, but for those being slaughtered, such small things shouldnt legitimise thier murders.

[Fabrizio]

I actually do have a somewhat scientific background.



That's what I'm saying. Chernobyl was a massive, massive event, spewing tonnes of HIGHLY radioactive material into the atmosphere. If you were to try carrying around say a piece from inside the reactor of Chernobyl in a brief case, you'd be dead within 30 mins. There's no way you could carry around something like that and expect to make a bomb out of it.

Radiation isn't some mystical force that just floats around and kills people like a death ray. It comes from particles breaking down. If you were to put radioactive material on a bomb and blow it up, it would spread those particles around to much that it would diffuse to a point where you could barely distinguish it from background radiation. All you would have to do is take a shower and wash your clothes.

If any particles did not get on to you and were just lying about the street, you'd have to stand next to them for hundreds of years in a perfectly motionless stance, just to get a burn. If you were to just walk past them then nothing would happen to you.

This was just something thought up by the papers to scare people.

I have no idea about this and you could be bullshitting me as effectively it's a foreign language, but I liek your avatar so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. For now. :p

[hatzel]

I don't even know who the republicans and democrats are, they're all the same to me :laugh: But that's not the pressing issue! The pressing issue is that, if you pay taxes, then those taxes will go into some big pot to be spent my whoever is in power. Irrespective of whether or not you personally vote, or vote for the eventual winner of the election, you are indirectly financing the actions of the state through paying taxes. One could then argue that, if you're paying for the government, you should vote, so as to at least try to have even the remotest say in how the money you are giving to the state is to be spent. The financial influence of paying taxes is much more important than the influence of somebody voting; remember, a president could be elected with only 2 votes, if only 3 voted overall. However, as many millions more would be paying taxes towards the national economy, indirectly funding this or that action which we may or may not approve of. Thus the question is why it is bad to vote, when even if we don't, we are still supporting the government (in a much more meaningful and tangible way) by financing it?

Though something tells me that this whole conversation about tacit consent might deserve to be a separate thread...should somebody maybe split it off, stick it in learning or something? Otherwise I might just start my own thread, it's an interesting enough topic, methinks :)

[Dimentio]

But I am not just talking about Nukes, the USA has more guns bombs and wmds than anyone else, they have killed more than anyone with the exception of maybe the British empire.

So my point is, we see me getting attacked for saying its ok for AQ to have weapons to resist kill whatever you wanna call it, yet if some liberal on here calls for support of the dems, because the US is western its like, oh, lets not demonise the American Imperialist as much as Islamists.

Yet again the difference is that the USA are using their weapons as a deterrent, to keep up the exploitation of the globe and of their own population.

Al Qaeda on their hand are just going to use the weapons, without even trying to blackmail anyone.

The reason why they are attacking America is that they want America to engage in the Middle East, so that they could lure dissatisfied youths into their ranks.

That is the same reason behind the sectarian violence they are blowing on.

Of course, similar movements have tried that strategy before, but Al Qaeda are unique in terms that violence itself is the purpose for their existence.

To use New Agey language:

They are a vortex of negative energy which are feeding on hatred and fear.

[hatzel]

They are a vortex of negative energy which are feeding on hatred and fear.

Then we should put one of those Native American dream-catchers in front of them, or something, to prevent the negative flow between the various metaphysical worlds :)

[Rooster]

I have no idea about this and you could be bullshitting me as effectively it's a foreign language, but I liek your avatar so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. For now. :p

I'll see if I can find you a documentary on it. I remember seeing a pretty good a couple of years ago....

[Dimentio]

I actually do have a somewhat scientific background.



That's what I'm saying. Chernobyl was a massive, massive event, spewing tonnes of HIGHLY radioactive material into the atmosphere. If you were to try carrying around say a piece from inside the reactor of Chernobyl in a brief case, you'd be dead within 30 mins. There's no way you could carry around something like that and expect to make a bomb out of it.

Radiation isn't some mystical force that just floats around and kills people like a death ray. It comes from particles breaking down. If you were to put radioactive material on a bomb and blow it up, it would spread those particles around to much that it would diffuse to a point where you could barely distinguish it from background radiation. All you would have to do is take a shower and wash your clothes.

If any particles did not get on to you and were just lying about the street, you'd have to stand next to them for hundreds of years in a perfectly motionless stance, just to get a burn. If you were to just walk past them then nothing would happen to you.

This was just something thought up by the papers to scare people.

Chernobyl is inhabitable, judging from the abundance of wildlife there. The organisms have adapted finely, with the exception of travelling birds.

[Rooster]

Chernobyl is inhabitable, judging from the abundance of wildlife there. The organisms have adapted finely, with the exception of travelling birds.

That's kinda my point, that such a massive event as Chernobyl killed almost nothing. Sorry I wasn't making it clear enough. Even humans have adapted as far as I can remember reading it. Crap, I can't remember where I read this but I'm sure it said that the rates of cancers are lower in places like that.... Anyway, the pieces inside the reactor are still dangerously radioactive though hence why they're sealed off.

I think this was the documentary I was talking about early:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2081592330319789254#

Skip to 43:10 and it starts talking about dirty bombs.

[StalinFanboy]

Yeah AQ is a reactionary organisation, my point is, they are nowhere near as massive or as deadly as the US, however we have people saying it is ok to vote democrat to back reforms, yet not ok to support islamist anti occupation groups. As communists, we should not support the Democratic Party or Al-Qaeda, but actual working class movements.


This is a eurocentric and disgusting stance. fuck off


I am not cheerleading the AQ, however, I also see the US as a far greater evil.

The US has business interests that would probably make them think twice about nuking someplace. Al-Qaeda on the other hand are a bunch of crazies who think they will get some sick shit when they die if they die killing a bunch of regular people. Just because someone doesn't like America doesn't make them our ally.

[Fabrizio]

Bit off topic but interestingly this was in the news today about Chernobyl.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_9387000/9387395.stm

Birds living around the site of the Chernobyl nuclear accident have 5% smaller brains, an effect directly linked to lingering background radiation.

...

[MarxistMan]

You are right, Al-Ciada (Al Qaeda) are hired agents of CIA. And you know that US government is still has the "War on terror" political discourse. The US government always needs a pretext, a fake-enemy to keep the imperialist wars going. We are doomed with a population in America that is so dumb that it is still buying the lies of CNN and FOX news

.


Legitimate resistance is not about attacking everyone randomly like a rabid dog, which Al Qaeda are doing. They actually managed to turn the resistance against the US occupation of Iraq into a Sunni-Shia Civil War.

They have consistently acted as tools for US interests.

Either they are idiots or paid agents. To call them a resistance movement is to insult real resistance movements. While I dislike Hamas and Hezbollah, they are actual resistance movements with consistent goals. Al Qaeda are not acting like them (while having a more extreme variation of the same ideology). Even the Red Army Faction in West Germany was a serious movement in comparison with the AQ.

[bcbm]

The entire left supported the algerian resistance, even when they were blowing up civillian french cafes in Algeria.


no they didn't...

and the comparison of the fln to al qaeda is a bit of a stretch

[Kalifornia]

no they didn't...

and the comparison of the fln to al qaeda is a bit of a stretch


Actually yes they did, they got women to leave bombs in Cafes and resteraunts in the french settler quater, the bombs killed men, women and children.

This was the logical outcome, it is called resistance, by a desperate and besieged people.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Actually yes they did, they got women to leave bombs in Cafes and resteraunts in the french settler quater, the bombs killed men, women and children.

This was the logical outcome, it is called resistance, by a desperate and besieged people.

That was different. The FLN bombed French douches who were living in their city and supporting a state which brought a police state to their city. Al Qaeda went to America and murdered 3,000 people. They didn't even attack the US State department, they just wanted to blow up symbols of American power for a list of random reasons that have nothing at all to do with class exploitation. Their opposition to American Imperialism isn't of a defensive, nationalist nature, it's based on their own Imperialist tendencies. If you don't believe me, look at what they did in Afghanistan. They "Stopped Soviet Imperialism", then proceeded to blow up Buddhas, persecute Shiites, force women into an abject uneducated state and killed people for breaking obscure religious rules. After that, they used Afghanistan to spread their ideology elsewhere.

Al Qaeda doesn't represent the working class in Saudi Arabia, they represent an angry clerical class pissed off at (1) local oligarchs (2) Israelis (3) all non-Muslim governments (4) anyone dumb enough to draw a politically incorrect cartoon of muhammad, (5) all Muslims of different sects (6) Islamic fundies who aren't as militant as they are. Whereas the FLN was bombing cafes, al qaeda and people inspired by them kidnap journalists. Al Qaeda is what I'd call mythological nihilists; for them, nothing any civilization other than their own ever did had any value.

Nor does their activity do anything to dissuade Imperialism. If their objective is to get rid of imperialism, then they are the most counter productive and self-negatory force in the world. Their idiocy invited US military intervention in two Muslim countries and led to a return of direct global US intervention. Without al qaeda:

(1) Bush would have been less likely to get reelected
(2) American voters would have never supported the war in Iraq, and the invasion of Iraq may have never happened to begin with
(3) There would have been no sudden increase of anti-Islamic sentiment in America
(4) The US would not have invaded the Taliban regime in Afghanistan

Nor would they go away with American Imperialism out of the picture. They seem obsessed with actually globalizing Shariah law. They would just slaughter innocent Shiite Muslims, Christians, Jews, and Atheists.


That's kinda my point, that such a massive event as Chernobyl killed almost nothing. Sorry I wasn't making it clear enough. Even humans have adapted as far as I can remember reading it.

...


Skip to 43:10 and it starts talking about dirty bombs.

I should watch the doc, but I wanted to say that some family got Leukemia when the fallout fell in North England (thousands of miles away). Even if the fallout wasn't the cause of the leukemia, then the radiation of chernobyl did kill many of the cleanup workers who went there.

If there was a large dirty bomb in a major city, I think it could be quite bad. Remember too that Chernobyl was an isolated, small town. If you blew up a dirty bomb in, say, Time Square in NYC, you'd leave a number of people dead from the bomb, sick from radiation, and also leave the whole area as practically uninhabitable until a major cleanup.


Yet again the difference is that the USA are using their weapons as a deterrent, to keep up the exploitation of the globe and of their own population.

Al Qaeda on their hand are just going to use the weapons, without even trying to blackmail anyone.

The reason why they are attacking America is that they want America to engage in the Middle East, so that they could lure dissatisfied youths into their ranks.

That is the same reason behind the sectarian violence they are blowing on.

Of course, similar movements have tried that strategy before, but Al Qaeda are unique in terms that violence itself is the purpose for their existence.

To use New Agey language:

They are a vortex of negative energy which are feeding on hatred and fear.

Pretty much this. Al Qaeda loves US Imperialism, it means more recruits and more hatred VS America.

Insofar as they DO want to get rid of US Imperialism, they just want to replace it with Islamic Imperialism. We shouldn't be so Eurocentric as to think that Imperialism is only something which emanates from the West. Al Qaeda is Theological Imperialism Incarnate, combined with a practical nihilism and a total lack of real humanist values.


As a side note, Al Qaeda seems to support the complete obliteration of Israel and its incorporation into some kind of fascistic caliphate. I support the right of return and statehood for palestinians, and am critical of zionism, but i dont think we should deny jews the right to live in the levant without paying a special tax for infidels. That's not socialism, that's a religious tyranny. Al Qaeda, in terms of their actual ideology, are far more imperialistic, expansionistic and exploitative than American bourgeoise culture.

[Blackscare]

Yeah AQ is a reactionary organisation, my point is, they are nowhere near as massive or as deadly as the US, however we have people saying it is ok to vote democrat to back reforms, yet not ok to support islamist anti occupation groups.

This is a eurocentric and disgusting stance.

I am not cheerleading the AQ, however, I also see the US as a far greater evil.

All anyone is saying is that they probably shouldn't have a fucking dirty bomb. Shit, people are stupid.

You're extrapolating all this nonsense that nobody has said in order to change the goalposts, but the original, and only relevant argument being made is that an organization that practices indiscriminate killing should not have a dirty bomb. F.U.C.K.


I am anti-imperialist, but that doesn't mean I support every group that is against the US occupation. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend, even if what they do may objectively serve to weaken imperialism, that does not mean that I have to approve of the group actually carrying the actions out.

That is what is called opportunism, and I'd have to say that it's actually you who is racist and disgusting, if you think that the only form of resistance in the Arab world that is possible is Islamism, and that we should therefor support it.

[Blackscare]

How did you people let this turn into a reformism debate? This is absolutely insane, these are two totally different issues, unless you think that the workers of the US deserve to be killed by dirty bombs for every day that they don't decide to spontaneously revolute (which apparently aren't deadly, although it doesn't seem like K knew that so presumably he'd support them having something just as deadly as he thought dirty bombs were, like actual nukes or something).



Now, there's a huge difference between Algerians bombing the hang-outs of French colonialists on their land, when it was pretty clear that the vast majority of French whites on their land were oppressors and had to be literally driven out of the country, to a group that bombs people indiscriminately, including "their" people, in order to provoke the US empire into occupying as much land as possible!

[bcbm]

Actually yes they did, they got women to leave bombs in Cafes and resteraunts in the french settler quater, the bombs killed men, women and children.

This was the logical outcome, it is called resistance, by a desperate and besieged people.

i'm aware of what happened in algeria, i mean that "all the left" did not support the algerian resistance. its also worth noting that it was the struggle in the mountains and mass action of people in the city that brought down the colonial regime, not bombs in cafes.

[Kalifornia]

i'm aware of what happened in algeria, i mean that "all the left" did not support the algerian resistance. its also worth noting that it was the struggle in the mountains and mass action of people in the city that brought down the colonial regime, not bombs in cafes.


No it was not, the French Military found the mountain and rural revolt easy to control, it was the urban struggle that won independence, infact, no one has ever claimed the revolt in the mountains even had much of an impact.

Please study what your commenting on, cheers.

The urban struggle won politically and sapped french will to fight, it also spawned mass revolt which won independence, the rebels in the mountains were pretty much a non entity in the scheme of things.

[bcbm]

i studied it years ago, could be wrong, doesn't really matter. the bombings were an extremely minor part of the struggle in any case and were not a turning point- the general strike at the same time and the methods used to break it and the resistance across the country did more to help independence win politically.

[#FF0000]

Whoever thinks this isn't a bad thing is hella dumb.

[Tomhet]

But I am not just talking about Nukes, the USA has more guns bombs and wmds than anyone else, they have killed more than anyone with the exception of maybe the British empire.

So my point is, we see me getting attacked for saying its ok for AQ to have weapons to resist kill whatever you wanna call it, yet if some liberal on here calls for support of the dems, because the US is western its like, oh, lets not demonise the American Imperialist as much as Islamists.Absurd and unrealistic, IF AQ has the bomb they will not hesitate to use it on innocent life, they support ISLAMIC JIHAD, they aren't a response to imperialism really, they terrorize their own people..