There was nothing particularly awful about the att

[The Incorruptible]

Didn't Dr. Ward Churchill say that many of the people who worked on the towers were "little Eichmans?"

[Marion]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 11 2006, 08:05 PM
Didn't Dr. Ward Churchill say that many of the people who worked on the towers were "little Eichmans?"
I think "many" is perhaps overstating it a bit, but the phrase "little eichmans" was used of at least some of those who died. He obviously wasn't exactly clear in his initial article as to who it referred to.

PS TupacAndChe4Eva - let's not forget the 10th anniversary coming up in a few days eh? Pour out a little liquor etc etc...

[Phalanx]

Yes he did. He's also an AIM wannabe.

[Leo]

Didn't Dr. Ward Churchill say that many of the people who worked on the towers were "little Eichmans?"

It's really nice y'know, to see left-liberal loonies praising acts that kill workers. It really proves that left cappies should not be trusted by the working class.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

There was nothing particularly awful about the attacks on 9/11.

Killing on a large scale happens all the time outside of the U$A.

2700 people died on 9/11, its bad they were civilians but its nothing compared to the crimes of the U$ before and After the attacks.

Since 9/11 in the war on terrorism, just shy of 100,000 confirmed causalities, who have been civilians have perished. I imagine the proportion of child deaths would be pretty high too.

Would Al-Qaeda really be so awful if they did similar attacks again in the U$?

[Ander]

Originally posted by D_Bokk+Sep 11 2006, 04:27 PM--> (D_Bokk @ Sep 11 2006, 04:27 PM)
Mesijs
Both 9/11's were tragic, in 1973 and 2001.
No, only the 1973 one was tragic. [/b]
Uh...are you an idiot?

I don't agree with the US using 9/11 as a rallying point for blind patriotism, but saying it wasn't tragic at all is really heartless and ignorant.

[LuXe]

Oh yes.

Some asshole sendt me something that i should grieve over the victims of the twin towers. "I grieve much more of the bombing victims in lebanin", I said. Did anyone else recieve this shit? it read something like; "pass this on or you have no hearth" BULLSHIT. Pure and simple, bullshit.

[Marion]

Just checked the original quote and The Incorruptible was right and I was wrong. The quote from Churchill that I've got (commenting on his original essay) is:

"The implications of this were first set forth in stark relief during the aftermatch of 9-1-1, when it was first suggested that a decided MAJORITY (my emphasis) of those killed in the WTC attacfk might be more accurately described as 'little Eichmanns' - that is, as a cadre of faceless bureaucrats and technical experts who had willingly (and profitably) harnessed themselves to the tasks making America's genocidal world order hum with maximal efficiency - rather than as 'innocents'. The storm of outraged exception taken by self-proclaimed progressives to this simple observation has been instructive, to say the least [goes on to say how these "progressives' have focussed on the small number of firemen, janitors etc and ignored the greatr number of corporate managers, stock brokers etc]."

Quote from "On the Justice of Roosting Chickens"

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

wrong thread?

[edit: wrong 9-11 thread... here, have your own]

[colonelguppy]

killing civilians is always awful.

[Whitten]

So how does that justify killing significantly more civilians in retalliation?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

It doesn't. It's quite possible to condemn all mass civilian murders.

bloody capitalist sham, there most certainly was something particularly awful about those attacks... innocent civilians were killed

what's the point of social, political, and economic emancipation for the working class if you don't even respect the right to live?

fuck

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by D_Bokk+Sep 11 2006, 07:27 PM--> (D_Bokk @ Sep 11 2006, 07:27 PM)
Mesijs
Both 9/11's were tragic, in 1973 and 2001.
No, only the 1973 one was tragic. [/b]
You're one disgusting fuck.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

killing civilians is always awful.

You see, it seems to me, that ruling class opinion in the west is " Killing white civilians is always awful"

If they are black or brown then they are worth nothing at all, from the american ruling class POV.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 04:11 PM

killing civilians is always awful.

You see, it seems to me, that ruling class opinion in the west is " Killing white civilians is always awful"

If they are black or brown then they are worth nothing at all, from the american ruling class POV.
yeah you're spot on.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 04:07 PM
So how does that justify killing significantly more civilians in retalliation?
from an objective standpoint, it doesn't. but its not always wise for nations to formulate their foriegn policies from an objective standpoint, simply in the name of self interest. if a nation can preserve itself and its people without killing other nations innocents, then thats fine, but sometimes it is necessary.

does this mean any amount of civilian death is acceptable? no, but i wouldn't let civilians dieing get in the way of security or stability, or who knows, maybe even extended liberty.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

It doesn't. It's quite possible to condemn all mass civilian murders.

bloody capitalist sham, there most certainly was something particularly awful about those attacks... innocent civilians were killed

what's the point of social, political, and economic emancipation for the working class if you don't even respect the right to live?

fuck

I totally dont like the fact that civilians die, that is of course wrong.

However, people do die. People die from U$ violence all the time. the ONLY thing that makes 9/11 special is because they were first worlders who did the dieing.

Why do we condemn Al-Qaeda for doing on a small scale what america (and the British Empire) has done on a large scale?

There is NO WAY any other tragedy has ever recieved as much attention as 9/11 has. The Americans have brought a global war on terror for 2700 lives. And hundreds of thousands of civilians will pay the price.

[Orion999]

If we love to kill civilians so much why do we spend billions on precision guided cruise missles and not just Nuke everybody? Why didn't we just drop a nuclear bomb on Tora Bora when we knew Osama was there? Why are we bothering to (atttempt) set up democracy in Iraq (not the best idea ever I'll grant you). 95% of all Iraqi civilian casulties since the invasion have been commited by Muslim extremeist. They will kill anyone including their own people to accomplish their facist goals. If you sympathize with Al-Quada so much why don't you move your ass over to Afganistan.

The U.S. is the most powerful country the world has ever seen and we were attacked. So what are we supposed to do? Nothing, wait to be attacked again? Not wage war on our enemy because of the fear of civilain casulties? The Islamofacist started this war and we are going to finish it and if some civilians die along the way, their deaths should be laid at the feet of Al-Quada.

Also, when have we killed 100,000 civilians and when have we ever deliberrately targeted civilains. Why are we trying our own troops for murder if we don't give a shit?

[tecumseh]

These are the type of Al Qaeda operations that I support

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bomb...s_of_engagement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing#Rules_of_engagement)


A suicide bomber has killed more than 20 people who were queuing outside an army recruiting centre in the Iraqi capital Baghdad.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4668721.stm

[D_Bokk]

Fly your flag high guys:

Originally posted by CCCPneubauten+--> (CCCPneubauten)So you don't see killing innocent civilians as tragic?

THAT itself is tragic.[/b]

Originally posted by [email protected]

Uh...are you an idiot?

I don't agree with the US using 9/11 as a rallying point for blind patriotism, but saying it wasn't tragic at all is really heartless and ignorant.

Mesijs
You're one disgusting fuck.
They attacked: the military, government and economy. What's wrong with that?

[Orion999]

These are the type of Al Qaeda operations that I support

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bomb...s_of_engagement


A suicide bomber has killed more than 20 people who were queuing outside an army recruiting centre in the Iraqi capital Baghdad.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4668721.stm

your an idiot. You support some of Al-quada's murder tactics but no all of them. I don't know where you live but if you live in the U.S. you should be executed. You're lucky you live in such a free country or you would be.

[Leo]

They attacked: the military, government and economy. What's wrong with that?

First of all workers died.

Nationalism grew both in US and the middle east and wars started in the middle east so more workers died.

Working class, is losing the ability to act as a class every day. Both the middle eastern and US bourgeoise want workers to hate each other. Both of them won, workers lost.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann
Workers died.
What did these "workers" produce?

[rioters bloc]

while i might not necessarily "support" the attacks on the WTC, i can certainly understand them, and the rationale (as well as pure emotional anger) which founded it.

it may sound disturbing, but people around the third world and developing world, pretty much in all countries which had been fucked over by colonialism/neo-colonialism/imperialism were smiling when they heard about it. because to them it wasn't seeing it in terms of american civilian deaths, but what the towers stood for (especially when you look at what the other targets were - the white house and the pentagon).

i've seen countless documentaries about it, and most of them go and interview the families of the dead or survivors and hear their individual, personal stories. where are the documentaries going and interviewing all the families of the iraqis/afghanis/palestinians/bangladeshis/east timorese/etc who have been fucked hard? why is it that their devestation is usually looked at from a more holistic point of view, as though they're some kind of homogenous mass of iraqis/afghanis/palestinians/bangladeshis/east timorese/etc but when it's white people each death is a personal and individual tragedy and that's how they portray it?

[Leo]

What did these "workers" produce?

They were selling their labor to feed their families. They were cleaning the floor, they were carrying tables and chairs around etc. They are the ones kinds of you never notice in your daily life, they are called the working class, so for your own part, your question is completely understandable.

[Martin Blank]

I had two friends die in the World Trade Center -- one in WTC1 and one in WTC2. They were unionized maintenance workers, not financial analysts or anything like that. They were also communists (though not a part of any organization).

I remember them, and the dozens of immigrant workers (maintenance workers and restaurant workers, mainly) who were trapped in the floors above where the planes hit or were helping others when they were killed, since few others do ... including phony "radicals" like D_Bokk.

Miles

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 08:52 PM
Oh yes.

Some asshole sendt me something that i should grieve over the victims of the twin towers. "I grieve much more of the bombing victims in lebanin", I said. Did anyone else recieve this shit? it read something like; "pass this on or you have no hearth" BULLSHIT. Pure and simple, bullshit.
I usually reply asking how many people are murdered every day by capitalism and the US due to starvation and imperialist war, and why there are no tributes to the countless dead.

I never seem to get an answer. <_<

[Intifada]

Originally posted by rioters [email protected] 11 2006, 09:50 PM
i&#39;ve seen countless documentaries about it, and most of them go and interview the families of the dead or survivors and hear their individual, personal stories. where are the documentaries going and interviewing all the families of the iraqis/afghanis/palestinians/bangladeshis/east timorese/etc who have been fucked hard? why is it that their devestation is usually looked at from a more holistic point of view, as though they&#39;re some kind of homogenous mass of iraqis/afghanis/palestinians/bangladeshis/east timorese/etc but when it&#39;s white people each death is a personal and individual tragedy and that&#39;s how they portray it?
I was watching BBC news today, and the presenter was reporting on the events (wars) since September the 11th 2001.

When talking about Iraq, he stated that Iraq Body Count now put the death toll at around 46000.

He then went on to ask the question "So how many lives have been saved since 9/11?", as if the Iraqi people are not human.

Of course, when answering this question he went on to talk about the attacks in Madrid and London, as if the deaths of those in the West mean something while the murder of innocent Iraqis and Afghans (etc) aren&#39;t worth a squirt of piss.

All day I have seen the news covering the fifth anniversary of "9/11" and I am thoroughly fed up with the attention that the event is getting.

It&#39;s all propaganda.

[afrikaNOW]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 10:06 PM
While the disgraceful acts unleashed upon on the Chilean people during Pinochet&#39;s rule should never be forgotten, I think America&#39;s 9/11 will forever be remembered more than Chile&#39;s.

As some on here have already pointed out, workers died and fearce nationalism and xenophobia developed as a result. I&#39;m sure those who died would never have wanted their deaths to be exploited in the way they have. We should mourn those workers who died that day.
Come on now, this event is fresh in the hearts and minds of MANY people. I wasn&#39;t alive during the Chilean events. Why try comparing the two?

[red team]

Also, when have we killed 100,000 civilians and when have we ever deliberrately targeted civilains. Why are we trying our own troops for murder if we don&#39;t give a shit?

Fallujah.

Destruction of an entire city is justified isn&#39;t it? Let me guess, everybody in the city is a terrorist.

[Delirium]

Originally posted by red [email protected] 11 2006, 05:17 PM

Also, when have we killed 100,000 civilians and when have we ever deliberrately targeted civilains. Why are we trying our own troops for murder if we don&#39;t give a shit?

Fallujah.

Destruction of an entire city is justified isn&#39;t it? Let me guess, everybody in the city is a terrorist.
duh why else would they live in iraq?

[The Bitter Hippy]

well it&#39;s a pretty thorny issue as far as i can see really.

On one hand, the real target was the symbols, and i certainly support the destruction of what the WTC, pentagon and white house represent.

On the other hand, the ideologies behind the attacks are unsupportable from a leftist POV.

Then one could argue that those in the WTC are by far the most likely to be legitimate targets as part of and active propagators of the capitalist system.

However, it is pretty hard to defend killing people for being part of the system: It&#39;s not them that&#39;s the sick ones, it&#39;s the system that creates them. If it wasn&#39;t them, it&#39;d be soemone else.

Finally, how can one argue that civillian deaths are always wrong, when we all know that the revolution will certainly entail the deaths of members of the ruling classes. What is a civillian in a revolutionary struggle? When the occupying forces (that kill so many through poverty and economic exploitation)are markets and corporations, are not bankers the generals and accountants the footsoldiers? Is it self defence to strike back at these people with the only means available?----But don&#39;t take that to mean that i am pro 11/9, it&#39;s just some thought-stirrers.


To be perfectly honest, the main problem i have with the attacks is the perpetrators and their motives. Just because "al-Quaeda" (which is a fictitious organism anyway...it&#39;s not like an army of terrorists with a boss or anything, hell the various groups that claim to be part of it often have zero affiliation with each other) is an enemy of "first world" capitalism, does not make them my friends, nor even does it make me tolerate them. If the BNP and NPD joined up to take out the remnants of the KKK, i wouldn&#39;t shave my head and cheer on nick griffin.

Intent and motive is the deciding factor in almost all forms of "crime" and subjective judgements of right or wrong, "good" or "evil". I judge the intentions of the 11/9 attackers to be abhorrent, and thus so are their actions. The neo-con response sickens me far more, but that doesn&#39;t then justify the WTC attacks.

[Avtomatov]

If we love to kill civilians so much why do we spend billions on precision guided cruise missles and not just Nuke everybody? Why didn&#39;t we just drop a nuclear bomb on Tora Bora when we knew Osama was there?
Because that would start a world war.


Why are we bothering to (atttempt) set up democracy in Iraq (not the best idea ever I&#39;ll grant you). 95% of all Iraqi civilian casulties since the invasion have been commited by Muslim extremeist.
95%? were is youre source. Stop making up statistics&#33; Why are you setting up a USA STYLE democracy? Because Saddam was a socialist, setting up a USA style democracy will be more profitable.


The U.S. is the most powerful country the world has ever seen and we were attacked. So what are we supposed to do? Nothing, wait to be attacked again? Not wage war on our enemy because of the fear of civilain casulties? The Islamofacist started this war and we are going to finish it and if some civilians die along the way, their deaths should be laid at the feet of Al-Quada. You are a complete idiot&#33; It was ONE FUCKING GROUP that is responsible for 9/11, IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, you are a fool.


Also, when have we killed 100,000 civilians and when have we ever deliberrately targeted civilains. Why are we trying our own troops for murder if we don&#39;t give a shit?

Because its in the media, and everyone would have a piss about it if they werent tried.

[Intifada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 09:24 PM
If we love to kill civilians so much why do we spend billions on precision guided cruise missles and not just Nuke everybody? Why didn&#39;t we just drop a nuclear bomb on Tora Bora when we knew Osama was there?
That would kinda screw up any plans for the planned pipeline through Afghanistan.

Key to Oil Profits (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Central_Asia_watch/Afghanistan_CAsia_Oil.html)

Oil and Oil Pipelines: Why the US invaded Afghanistan (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MEN20050429&articleId=181)


Why are we bothering to (atttempt) set up democracy in Iraq (not the best idea ever I&#39;ll grant you).

The US is in Iraq to gain strategic control of the Oil resources in the region.

Threat to dollar the real cause: US attack on Iraq (http://www.dawn.com/2003/04/07/ebr1.htm)

Both the intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq were planned long before "9/11" occurred.


95% of all Iraqi civilian casulties since the invasion have been commited by Muslim extremeist.

I would love to see your source for such a statement.

What we see in Iraq is a Civil War, although the occupying forces are not keen to describe it as such.


If you sympathize with Al-Quada so much why don&#39;t you move your ass over to Afganistan.

What an ignorant thing to say.

Can I just mention, at this point, that it was the US that funded and supported bin Laden and the Taliban.


The U.S. is the most powerful country the world has ever seen and we were attacked. So what are we supposed to do? Nothing, wait to be attacked again? Not wage war on our enemy because of the fear of civilain casulties? The Islamofacist started this war and we are going to finish it and if some civilians die along the way, their deaths should be laid at the feet of Al-Quada.


You reap what you sow.

Have you forgotten the criminal sanctions on Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, many of whom were children?

What about US support and financing of the illegal occupation of Palestinian land?

Don&#39;t let the US bombing of the al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan slip your mind either.


Also, when have we killed 100,000 civilians and when have we ever deliberrately targeted civilains.

Iraq, before the invasion?

Actually, that would be an understatement.

Many more innocents were killed.


Why are we trying our own troops for murder if we don&#39;t give a shit?

It&#39;s easy for top officials to let lowly troops be punished for carrying out their orders.

Now, I think I might get some sleep.

[Iseult_]

The people who died on 9/11 were our fellow workers, we should respect them in death. There is never an excuse to be callous when innocent men, women & children are murdered.

[вор в законе]

I am mad for the death of the real workers - cleaners secretaries, maintenance - who died in the Towers as a consequence of some lunatics. I don&#39;t give a flying **** for the reactionary upper middle class wankers...eh sorry I mean &#39;workers&#39; who received more than 4000&#036;/month to keep this system into equilibrium.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 09:49 PM
What did these "workers" produce?
Surplus value, of course.

Is this your standard for measuring human life? People who "produce" are worthy, people who don&#39;t are useless, and can be killed for sport?

How bourgeois, buddy. <_<

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 11 2006, 11:38 PM
I don&#39;t give a flying **** for the reactionary upper middle class wankers...eh sorry I mean &#39;workers&#39; who received more than 4000&#036;/month to keep this system into equilibrium.
And here the idolizing of poverty... good grief, how reactionary can people who claim to be leftist can be?&#33;

Luís Henrique

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+Sep 12 2006, 09:54 AM--> (Luís Henrique &#064; Sep 12 2006, 09:54 AM)
[email protected] 11 2006, 09:49 PM
What did these "workers" produce?
Surplus value, of course.

Is this your standard for measuring human life? People who "produce" are worthy, people who don&#39;t are useless, and can be killed for sport?

How bourgeois, buddy. <_<

Luís Henrique [/b]
you think the attacks on the twin towers and the thwarted attacks on the pentagon and white house were for &#39;sport&#39;? that they were just doing it for kicks? that they had no reason for wanting to strike at american symbols of capitalism, state, and military?

[Iseult_]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 11 2006, 11:38 PM
I am mad for the death of the real workers - cleaners secretaries, maintenance - who died in the Towers as a consequence of some lunatics. I don&#39;t give a flying **** for the reactionary upper middle class wankers...eh sorry I mean &#39;workers&#39; who received more than 4000&#036;/month to keep this system into equilibrium.
That&#39;s a terrible thing to say.

9/11 was a crime against humanity, murdered for no reason.

They were all just innocent citizens going about their work day. To mock the death of our fellow workers is cruel & heartless.

[Luís Henrique]

you think the attacks on the twin towers and the thwarted attacks on the pentagon and white house were for &#39;sport&#39;?

The attack on the Pentagon wasn&#39;t twarted.

Yes, that was "sport", if you consider what the prefered sport of the rulling class is: screwing workers.


that they were just doing it for kicks. that they had no reason for wanting to strike at american symbols of capitalism, state, and military?

Of course they had: American capitalism, State, and military disturbs their own projects of State and military. The same point can be made about American imperialist actions: they have a purpose, they have reasons for fucking up our lives. What does this change about the fact that those actions should be opposed?

************

It&#39;s interesting: cooperating with bourgeois parties and organisations is reformist - when it does not involve violence against common people. But cooperating with bourgeois parties and organisations who actually kill workers seems to be too fascinating to be avoided.

What&#39;s it, we have gone from recognising that our ends cannot be achieved without violence to mistaking violence for our ends?&#33;

Luís Henrique

[D_Bokk]

I didn&#39;t realize so many people on this board were pacifist hippies. This forum is Revolutionary Left not "if we all just get in a circle and sing, the world will get better" Left. If the death of a bunch of bourgeois and a few "workers" is too much for you - why do you want a revolution that will undoubtedly kill millions of people?

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann+--> (Leo Uilleann)They were selling their labor to feed their families. They were cleaning the floor, they were carrying tables and chairs around etc. They are the ones kinds of you never notice in your daily life, they are called the working class, so for your own part, your question is completely understandable.[/b]
My mom did the exact same job as them, but she didn&#39;t clean up at the Imperialist HQ. If you&#39;re going to work for the enemy, don&#39;t expect to be treated as an ally.

Originally posted by [email protected]
I had two friends die in the World Trade Center -- one in WTC1 and one in WTC2. They were unionized maintenance workers, not financial analysts or anything like that. They were also communists (though not a part of any organization).

I remember them, and the dozens of immigrant workers (maintenance workers and restaurant workers, mainly) who were trapped in the floors above where the planes hit or were helping others when they were killed, since few others do ... including phony "radicals" like D_Bokk.

Miles
Yeah, actually when I heard about the two towers being hit - I quickly ran to Ground Zero and refused to help, because that&#39;s just how I roll.

Iseult_
The people who died on 9/11 were our fellow workers, we should respect them in death. There is never an excuse to be callous when innocent men, women & children are murdered.
I&#39;m more concerned about the International Proletariat than a few bourgeoisified proletarians within the USA. Then again, that&#39;s only because I&#39;m a communist.

That&#39;s a terrible thing to say.

9/11 was a crime against humanity, murdered for no reason.

They were all just innocent citizens going about their work day. To mock the death of our fellow workers is cruel & heartless.
No reason? You&#39;re a fool.

I&#39;ve said it before, and I will say it again, no American is innocent... except babies. If they&#39;re going to live off of the poverty of the International Proletariat, they do not deserve sympathy when they&#39;re attacked. The American Proletariat has been bourgeoisified beyond belief, even to the point where many of them consider themselves "conservatives." When you have such a large portion of the population whole-heartedly supporting capitalism - you know they&#39;re borderline bourgeois.

[theraven]

Originally posted by red [email protected] 11 2006, 10:17 PM

Also, when have we killed 100,000 civilians and when have we ever deliberrately targeted civilains. Why are we trying our own troops for murder if we don&#39;t give a shit?

Fallujah.

Destruction of an entire city is justified isn&#39;t it? Let me guess, everybody in the city is a terrorist.
the peole int he city had knwonit was coming for a long time. america let msot of the popualce leave before it went in. 95% of the fallujah causlties were non-civilian

[Avtomatov]

When the art teacher showed my class the news, showing the two towers being hit by airplanes. We all laughed, because americans are stupid and they deserve to be hit by planes. Communism will never be possible until all bourgeoise are dead, and that includes workers who have adopted the bourgeoise mentality. Wether they die naturally or by violence is irrelevant. I think we should only let them live if they can work. Communism comes before anything else. Havent you ever heard of utilitarianism. 300 million people in america, how many more people would die if we never reach communism.

Bourgeoise dont matter. And im aware there were communists in the towers. But guess what, in revolution many communists will die. Does that meen we shouldnt celebrate the victory?

[tecumseh]

"I&#39;ve said it before, and I will say it again, no American is innocent... except babies. If they&#39;re going to live off of the poverty of the International Proletariat, they do not deserve sympathy when they&#39;re attacked. The American Proletariat has been bourgeoisified beyond belief, even to the point where many of them consider themselves "conservatives." When you have such a large portion of the population whole-heartedly supporting capitalism - you know they&#39;re borderline bourgeois."


As an American, I reluctantly agree with you. However I won&#39;t lose any sleep cause I don&#39;t work in the city. For people who do work in the city, my advice for you is to stay out of tall buildings for the next couple of years until the imperialists are out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Tekun]

Originally posted by D_Bokk+Sep 12 2006, 01:56 AM--> (D_Bokk @ Sep 12 2006, 01:56 AM)
Tekun

Nevertheless, we shouldn&#39;t make fun of the attacks, we should use them to recruit and garner support for a socialist revolution (IMO socialist)
Like Bush?

If you can&#39;t beat them, join them... [/b]
What&#39;d u mean "like Bush?"

If you think ridiculing the attacks is gonna help us overthrow capitalism in the US, then you&#39;re sorely mistaken
Its only gonna alienate us from the ppl we should be reaching out to, the working class that feels affected by the attacks
Instead of cheering for a bunch of religious fanatics, we should remind the working class that those who attacked the towers were once trained and funded by the CIA and the US government during Soviet-Afghan war

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by D_Bokk+Sep 11 2006, 07:44 PM--> (D_Bokk @ Sep 11 2006, 07:44 PM) I didn&#39;t realize so many people on this board were pacifist hippies. This forum is Revolutionary Left not "if we all just get in a circle and sing, the world will get better" Left. If the death of a bunch of bourgeois and a few "workers" is too much for you - why do you want a revolution that will undoubtedly kill millions of people?

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann+--> (Leo Uilleann)They were selling their labor to feed their families. They were cleaning the floor, they were carrying tables and chairs around etc. They are the ones kinds of you never notice in your daily life, they are called the working class, so for your own part, your question is completely understandable.[/b]
My mom did the exact same job as them, but she didn&#39;t clean up at the Imperialist HQ. If you&#39;re going to work for the enemy, don&#39;t expect to be treated as an ally.

[email protected]
I had two friends die in the World Trade Center -- one in WTC1 and one in WTC2. They were unionized maintenance workers, not financial analysts or anything like that. They were also communists (though not a part of any organization).

I remember them, and the dozens of immigrant workers (maintenance workers and restaurant workers, mainly) who were trapped in the floors above where the planes hit or were helping others when they were killed, since few others do ... including phony "radicals" like D_Bokk.

Miles
Yeah, actually when I heard about the two towers being hit - I quickly ran to Ground Zero and refused to help, because that&#39;s just how I roll.

Iseult_
The people who died on 9/11 were our fellow workers, we should respect them in death. There is never an excuse to be callous when innocent men, women & children are murdered.
I&#39;m more concerned about the International Proletariat than a few bourgeoisified proletarians within the USA. Then again, that&#39;s only because I&#39;m a communist.

That&#39;s a terrible thing to say.

9/11 was a crime against humanity, murdered for no reason.

They were all just innocent citizens going about their work day. To mock the death of our fellow workers is cruel & heartless.
No reason? You&#39;re a fool.

I&#39;ve said it before, and I will say it again, no American is innocent... except babies. If they&#39;re going to live off of the poverty of the International Proletariat, they do not deserve sympathy when they&#39;re attacked. The American Proletariat has been bourgeoisified beyond belief, even to the point where many of them consider themselves "conservatives." When you have such a large portion of the population whole-heartedly supporting capitalism - you know they&#39;re borderline bourgeois. [/b]
Excuse me if I&#39;m interrupting your fiery call to arms, but what exactly is revolutionary about the wanton murder of thousands of people?

Al-Qaeda is not a mass workers&#39; movement... no gains were made for those oppressed by imperialism, just because supposed accomplices of imperialism were killed... no gains were made for those who were oppessed by the capitalists who may have died.

The events of 9-11 have nothing whatsoever to do with the emacipation of working people.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Tekun
What&#39;d u mean "like Bush?"
Use the towers to rally support. How else?


If you think ridiculing the attacks is gonna help us overthrow capitalism in the US, then you&#39;re sorely mistaken
Its only gonna alienate us from the ppl we should be reaching out to, the working class that feels affected by the attacks
Instead of cheering for a bunch of religious fanatics, we should remind the working class that those who attacked the towers were once trained and funded by the CIA and the US government during Soviet-Afghan war
I&#39;m not ridiculing the attacks, that would be very disrespectful. I&#39;m merely recongnizing the legitimacy of the targets. The people I&#39;m reaching out to are not my fellow Americans, they&#39;re beyond our reach at this point in time. The people I support are the third world workers (and anti-imperialists, doesn&#39;t matter their class so long as they aren&#39;t fascist) since they&#39;re the true proletariat and only they have the ability to become revolutionary. Once the imperialized unchain themselves, only then will the American proletariat ever be ready for a revolution. We must move one step at a time.

Nothing wrong with revealing to everyone that the cause for the attack was the US government, but there&#39;s absolutely no reason to claim that the attacks were a horrendous crime. The targets were well picked, which target would have been a better replacement for the US economy? I cannot think of one.

[Iseult_]

The "legitimacy of the targets" ?

Innocent men, women & children were murdered for no reason at all. There was nothing "legitimate" about it. Murdering innocent workers to make a point doesn&#39;t help bring about a socialist revolution.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Iseult_
The "legitimacy of the targets" ?

Innocent men, women & children were murdered for no reason at all. There was nothing "legitimate" about it. Murdering innocent workers to make a point doesn&#39;t help bring about a socialist revolution.
I can see you&#39;re very emotional about this topic, so debating is probably out of the question.

First, I&#39;ll go over the target. The target was the World Trade Center which is basically a symbol of imperialism. Just because the US stuffed the tower full of civilians, doesn&#39;t mean it should be ignored as a target. If you can offer an alternate target, by all means do so. Until you can, I see no reason to be against the attack as it was a direct attack on Imperialism itelf. If they wanted to target civilians, they could have killed many more by attacking a filled sports stadium or anything else that&#39;s densly populated. Did they? No. The civilian wasn&#39;t the target, the symbol of the US economy was.

Secondly, other than young children - there is no such thing as a innocent American. I&#39;ve went over this before, but I don&#39;t mind repeating myself. Each and every American lives off of the poverty of the third world proletariat because the bourgeois kick down imperialist profit and by doing so are making the American proletariat "bourgeoisified." Living off of the labor of others is basically what the bourgeois do, so - why would the bourgeoisified proletariat be looked at any differently?

[BlackFrancis]

"The "legitimacy of the targets" ?

Innocent men, women & children were murdered for no reason at all. There was nothing "legitimate" about it. Murdering innocent workers to make a point doesn&#39;t help bring about a socialist revolution."

Here here&#33;

[tecumseh]

Atleast the Wahabbi&#39;s are fighting against imperialism. They will be confronted by moderates, liberals and the left someday but they are right now helping us out in Iraq, Afghanistan and abroad.

[red team]

Originally posted by wikipedia+--> (wikipedia)The punishments include amputation of one/both hands for theft, stoning for adultery and apostasy.[/b]


wikipedia
the application of the death penalty for the crime of adultery, and other such punishments such as amputations for the crime of theft and flogging for fornication or public intoxication.

Genital Mutilation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_circumcision)

Sharia Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia)

Nice "allies" you&#39;re choosing. :wacko:

[Vanguard1917]

First, I&#39;ll go over the target. The target was the World Trade Center which is basically a symbol of imperialism. Just because the US stuffed the tower full of civilians, doesn&#39;t mean it should be ignored as a target. If you can offer an alternate target, by all means do so. Until you can, I see no reason to be against the attack as it was a direct attack on Imperialism itelf.

How do you know? Because of Bin Laden&#39;s occasional &#39;anti-imperialist&#39; rhetoric?

Let&#39;s be clear: it was a pretty meaningless, nihilistic attack, with no clear political purpose, carried out by people who represent no one.

[KC]

Also, when have we killed 100,000 civilians and when have we ever deliberrately targeted civilains.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki. ;)



My mom did the exact same job as them, but she didn&#39;t clean up at the Imperialist HQ. If you&#39;re going to work for the enemy, don&#39;t expect to be treated as an ally.

Everyone works for the enemy&#33;&#33; What the hell is wrong with you?


I&#39;m more concerned about the International Proletariat than a few bourgeoisified proletarians within the USA. Then again, that&#39;s only because I&#39;m a communist.

How hypocritical.


The American Proletariat has been bourgeoisified beyond belief, even to the point where many of them consider themselves "conservatives."

Did you know that many workers around the world regardless of where they live are conservative?


When you have such a large portion of the population whole-heartedly supporting capitalism - you know they&#39;re borderline bourgeois.

You know fuck all about the American class struggle.


As an American, I reluctantly agree with you.

So you think that you&#39;re guilty? Why haven&#39;t you killed yourself?

[( R )evolution]

I believe it was a symbolic attack on Americas economy. Sure they wanted to kill as many civilans as possible but I think it was more of a symbolic messege to say we bombed the economic center of Ameirca.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917

How do you know? Because of Bin Laden&#39;s occasional &#39;anti-imperialist&#39; rhetoric?

Let&#39;s be clear: it was a pretty meaningless, nihilistic attack, with no clear political purpose, carried out by people who represent no one.
Because they could have killed more people if they picked a different target. That&#39;s how I know.

[Iseult_]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 03:06 AM


First, I&#39;ll go over the target. The target was the World Trade Center which is basically a symbol of imperialism. Just because the US stuffed the tower full of civilians, doesn&#39;t mean it should be ignored as a target.

Your&#39; not a socialist. Don&#39;t pretend that you are. Your an apologist for mass murder.

[afrikaNOW]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 01:36 AM
Allende&#39;s government in Chile certainly had the potential of creating a better society in South America
Their influence could have created a wave of socialism, that could have revolutionized and improved the lives of millions of ppl across Central and South America
Its a pity that it didn&#39;t materialize



Regarding the events of NY, although the majority of those who perished were capitalists who benefitted from the exploitation and economic imperialism of the US
There was also a large number of ppl on the towers, planes, and streets that were blue collar workers (maintenance workers, cooks, waiters, security guards,...) that also perished, and whose death we should respect
Although the majority of those that died were high income boojees, as humans, we should refrain from ridiculing or directing sarcasm towards them
What happened to them is tragic, but like I always say...when your profession exploits and takes advantage of those on the bottom of the socio-economic spectrum, sooner or later those at the bottom are gonna push back and fight
And although the perpetrators of the attacks were religious fanatics who don&#39;t really represent the working class, they dealt a significant blow to the capitalist economy of the US

Nevertheless, we shouldn&#39;t make fun of the attacks, we should use them to recruit and garner support for a socialist revolution (IMO socialist)
The victims of the world trade center disaster were capitalists? I refuse to believe that majority of the victims were owners of the means of production.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by D_Bokk+Sep 12 2006, 04:47 AM--> (D_Bokk @ Sep 12 2006, 04:47 AM)
Vanguard1917

How do you know? Because of Bin Laden&#39;s occasional &#39;anti-imperialist&#39; rhetoric?

Let&#39;s be clear: it was a pretty meaningless, nihilistic attack, with no clear political purpose, carried out by people who represent no one.
Because they could have killed more people if they picked a different target. That&#39;s how I know. [/b]
What about the Oklahoma City bombing in &#39;95? Was that an anti-imperialist attack?

I think you&#39;ve automatically assigned anti-imperialist status to people who actually, from what i can tell, had no clear political agenda.

[chimx]

Originally posted by D_Bokk+Sep 11 2006, 07:27 PM--> (D_Bokk @ Sep 11 2006, 07:27 PM)
Mesijs
Both 9/11&#39;s were tragic, in 1973 and 2001.
No, only the 1973 one was tragic. [/b]
dude, that&#39;s so fucked up...

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by D_Bokk+Sep 11 2006, 07:27 PM--> (D_Bokk @ Sep 11 2006, 07:27 PM)
Mesijs
Both 9/11&#39;s were tragic, in 1973 and 2001.
No, only the 1973 one was tragic. [/b]
So you think the message sent to the American government and the world justified the deaths that occured on 9/11? No one may be innocent, but, to the same extent, no one is truly guilty. Everyone emerges as an individual relative to their genetics and environment. People raised within a capitalist framework aren&#39;t irrational martyrs who are going to send their life savings to Africa. They are people looking of for their best interests. They may not have been the most important people in the world, and there may not have been that many compared to other tragedies, but 9/11 was an action that caused unnecessary death.

In fact, 9/11, if anything, has caused a decline into neo-fascism that is extremely troubling. From an economic/political standpoint, America might have deserved to be attacked. I agree. However, it is a complex issue, and I believe morality should be taken into account. When it is, I think the attacks were unjust.

Do you seriously think that those who died on 9/11 deserved to die? If you do, you&#39;ve been watching V for Vendetta a bit too much.

[chaz171]

even in an insurgency, when you nationalize resources, do the owners and employees of the corporation deserve to die?

as socialists we need to be able to differentiate capitalists from counter-revolutionary dissention.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Iseult_+--> (Iseult_)Your&#39; not a socialist. Don&#39;t pretend that you are. Your an apologist for mass murder.[/b]
You&#39;re right, I am not a Socialist. I am an anarchist.

Originally posted by Vanguard1917+--> (Vanguard1917)What about the Oklahoma City bombing in &#39;95? Was that an anti-imperialist attack?

I think you&#39;ve automatically assigned anti-imperialist status to people who actually, from what i can tell, had no clear political agenda.[/b]
Irrelevance. The targets being the Whitehouse, Pentagon and WTC screams anti-imperialism. It doesn&#39;t matter if the culprits don&#39;t have a political agenda, or if they&#39;re causing havoc. They conducted the greatest anti-imperialist attack on US soil ever and as a result all you bourgeois revolutionaries get your panties in a bundle.

How do you pacifist hippies plan on having a revolution when you get all emotional over the death of a bunch of bourgeois/petty-bourgeois and a couple of "workers"? Millions more will die in the worldwide revolution... how are you going to handle that?

[email protected]
dude, that&#39;s so fucked up...
You call yourself an anarchist?

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor
So you think the message sent to the American government and the world justified the deaths that occured on 9/11? No one may be innocent, but, to the same extent, no one is truly guilty. Everyone emerges as an individual relative to their genetics and environment. People raised within a capitalist framework aren&#39;t irrational martyrs who are going to send their life savings to Africa. They are people looking of for their best interests. They may not have been the most important people in the world, and there may not have been that many compared to other tragedies, but 9/11 was an action that caused unnecessary death.
You said it yourself, "People raised within a capitalist framework aren&#39;t irrational martyrs who are going to send their life savings to Africa." That&#39;s why the fight needs to be brought to these "People" and force them to stop voting in imperialists and to stop them from living off of the hard labor of the third world.

In fact, 9/11, if anything, has caused a decline into neo-fascism that is extremely troubling. From an economic/political standpoint, America might have deserved to be attacked. I agree. However, it is a complex issue, and I believe morality should be taken into account. When it is, I think the attacks were unjust.
Neo-fascism within the USA. However what else have we noticed in the past years? A lot more global hatred of the US and more and more countries opposing the US agenda and even more radical leftism especially in Latin America. I wouldn&#39;t credit this towards Bin Laden, but the US occupation of Iraq and illegal prisons is severely hurting the image of the US. Only a matter of time until Chavez & Co. puts an end to the US dominance.

When capitalism is destroyed, then we can speak of morality... because right now - there is no such thing. You can have your "individual" morals, but that means absolutely nothing on a global scale when murder and genocide surronds us.

Do you seriously think that those who died on 9/11 deserved to die? If you do, you&#39;ve been watching V for Vendetta a bit too much.
No one deserves to die.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Ok, I can see where your coming from. But what evidence do you have to suggest that Bin Laden (a reactionary Muslim, as far as I know) benefited the leftist movement through 9/11. Most people cite his attacks as being beneficial to the U.S. government, if anything, and having caused anti-terrorist policies to emerge unjustly around the world.

[RebelDog]

I don&#39;t think we can, or should mention the innocent people who died in the twin tower attacks without mentioning those who died before and after 9/11. Those who died before this atrocity in Palestine by the hand of the proxy US state that is Israel. Those who died afterwards as victims of the terrorist attacks by the US and UK on Afganistan and Iraq in the &#39;war on terror&#39;. These deaths are of as much importance to the families and communities who suffered them than those of 9/11. Where are the memorials to them?

Whether innocent people are killed by hijackers, B52&#39;s or Israeli tanks does it matter? All are wrong. All 3 act without a care for those that will die and suffer. If you take over a plane and crash it in to a building you are a terrorist. If you fly a B52 at 30,000 feet and drop bombs on another country in order to subjugate its people and steal its resources you are a terrorist. The only difference is the B52 men are part of the biggest killing machine in human history and thus kill with impunity. One might argue that flying a B52, a plane manufactured to kill and destroy and flown by people specifically employed to destroy are more terrorist than hijackers. Imperialism is terrorism on a grand scale.

The grim reality of US foreign policy came to New York on 9/11. Those who would have us think that 9/11 or the tube bombings in London happened because some people simply hate our way of life, are insulting even the most devoid of intelligence. If we had justice for Palestine and the US/UK had no military presence in the middle east 9/11, almost certainly, would not have taken place. Bin Laden cites these as his top 2 demands. He would have no audience if such was the case. Violence begets violence.

Tony Blair has shown he doesn&#39;t care about his own people by going so soon after the bombing of Lebanon and shaking the Israeli PM&#39;s hand. He is inviting attacks on UK civillians. But that is the crux. He carries on his imperialist games and as usual innocent people will suffer for them.

Anybody can carry out whatever slaughter and murder then want as long as it doesn&#39;t affect US/UK interests. If the slaughter helps to advance US interests then they&#39;ll give you the guns. The other 9/11 confirms that.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 09:40 PM
your an idiot. You support some of Al-quada&#39;s murder tactics but no all of them. I don&#39;t know where you live but if you live in the U.S. you should be executed. You&#39;re lucky you live in such a free country or you would be.
actually, its not usually considered murder to attack military targets. but execution is clearly a senseless destruction of life; it&#39;s good to see that you defend freedom to such a degree that you would gladly promote murder for ideology.

[Intifada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 12:47 AM
the peole int he city had knwonit was coming for a long time.
Even if what you state is true, does that make the wanton destruction and death alright?

Usama bin Laden and his deputies consistently warned the US of an impending attack, so I guess that makes what happened on September the 11th 2001 fine and justified...

:rolleyes:


america let msot of the popualce leave before it went in.

Let me take the above statement as truth.

Even still, the civilian population had little to come back to, considering the destruction that was caused by the US seige. According to US officials, "more than half of Fallujah&#39;s 39,000 homes were damaged, and about 10,000 of those were destroyed" (Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64292-2005Apr18.html)).

All in all, the massacre of Fallujah and other places in Iraq make "9/11" look like a fucking picnic.



95% of the fallujah causlties were non-civilian

Source please?

According to the Red Cross, at least 800 civilians were killed in the seige of Fallujah. That estimate was based upon "reports from Red Crescent aid workers stationed around the embattled city, from residents within the city and from refugees" (Link (http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/hard_news/000121.php)).

Using cluster bombs and white phosphorus against a city, in a medieval (Crusader type) seige is as much of (perhaps more of) a crime against humanity as what was seen on the 11th of September 2001.

I have a firm belief that one day someone will try to cause similar suffering in the United States, because it is true that you reap what you sow.

[Iroquois Xavier]

No one in the towers deserved to die. they are the victims of their own governments idiocy. not that the sick bastards of Al Qaeda needed much of an excuse its not as if they are new to the murder of innocents.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

I said there was nothing particularly awful about the attacks, because it gets so much media coverage.

I did not say it because I think civilians getting killed is trivial.

I am angry though that it seems like the closet racism of the western media has infected some members of this board.

The only reason 9/11 has so much attention is because it was white first world people who got killed. I’m not saying that’s good or should be celebrated but I am saying there are far worse crimes against for example Iraqi&#39;s which is much worse but receives loads less attention.

When you compare 9/11 to other atrocities it has no great death toll, no obscene killings, no slaughter of children, no rapes. One side didn’t have guns while the civilians had nothing.

The things that happened in the Iraq invasion were awful.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I think that this excessive attention it receives is strictly in the white first world
perhaps only in America

I didn&#39;t hear anything about it whatsoever on TV, newspaper, magazines

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 11:56 PM
I said there was nothing particularly awful about the attacks, because it gets so much media coverage.

I did not say it because I think civilians getting killed is trivial.

I am angry though that it seems like the closet racism of the western media has infected some members of this board.

The only reason 9/11 has so much attention is because it was white first world people who got killed. I’m not saying that’s good or should be celebrated but I am saying there are far worse crimes against for example Iraqi&#39;s which is much worse but receives loads less attention.

When you compare 9/11 to other atrocities it has no great death toll, no obscene killings, no slaughter of children, no rapes. One side didn’t have guns while the civilians had nothing.

The things that happened in the Iraq invasion were awful.
exactly.

i mean, the fact that it&#39;s even being discussed at such length, as though it just happened yesterday, shows how much it has pervaded our minds.

like fuck, were there gazillions of threads on the invasion of afghanistan on its&#39; anniversary?

every day do we stop and say, "let&#39;s now discuss the child that just died as a result of US imperialism/war/sanctions... and again... and again now... oh there goes another one... altogether now, let&#39;s respect that death..."

of course not.

it&#39;s sad to see that even on a revolutionary leftist board, american blood is worth more than that of anyone&#39;s in the third world and developing world.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

rioters bloc is totally right.



it&#39;s sad to see that even on a revolutionary leftist board, american blood is worth more than that of anyones&#39; in the third world and developing world.

And this quote is so true its shameful.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Yes, that would be a shame. If it were true.

Who was it in the thread about &#39;73 Chilean coup that brought up the terrorist attacks in NYC and the Pentagon?

It was, you, bloody capitalist sham. You diverted attention away from poor starving mass-murdered victims of imperialism to talk about how much New Yorkers don&#39;t matter. Pot. Kettle. Black.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 12:50 AM
Yes, that would be a shame. If it were true.

Who was it in the thread about &#39;73 Chilean coup that brought up the terrorist attacks in NYC and the Pentagon?

It was, you, bloody capitalist sham. You diverted attention away from poor starving mass-murdered victims of imperialism to talk about how much New Yorkers don&#39;t matter. Pot. Kettle. Black.
since then, posts have been split off 3 times from that thread. and the 2nd and 3rd times it wasn&#39;t bcs who did derailed it at all. i posted in there asking people to not post about 11/9/01 anymore.

i await the flood of posts about 73.

[Vanguard1917]

Irrelevance. The targets being the Whitehouse, Pentagon and WTC screams anti-imperialism. It doesn&#39;t matter if the culprits don&#39;t have a political agenda, or if they&#39;re causing havoc. They conducted the greatest anti-imperialist attack on US soil ever and as a result all you bourgeois revolutionaries get your panties in a bundle.

If i go out and bomb the whole of Washington DC (a centre of imperialism), telling myself that it&#39;s &#39;anti-imperialism&#39;, that it will help bring down US imperialism, does that make my actions &#39;anti-imperialist&#39;?

Or does anti-imperialism mean something very different from a few handfuls of individuals - with no clear political goals or demands, with no real base in the Muslim population that they purported to be acting in the interests of, unrepresentative of any anti-imperialist movement - committing terror as an end in itself rather than a means to achieve definite political goals?

[D_Bokk]

I didn&#39;t realize this thread was remade here, sorry for making the mods move all my posts.

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor+--> (Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor)Ok, I can see where your coming from. But what evidence do you have to suggest that Bin Laden (a reactionary Muslim, as far as I know) benefited the leftist movement through 9/11. Most people cite his attacks as being beneficial to the U.S. government, if anything, and having caused anti-terrorist policies to emerge unjustly around the world.[/b]
The evidence being the rabid anti-Americanism throughout the world. Before leftism can take hold around the world, the world&#39;s policeman needs to be "killed." Every leftist movement in the third world is sabotaged by US intervention. If you remove the intervention, you help leftism.

I have no direct evidence that it was Bin Laden intention to help the leftists, but nevertheless - his actions have.

Originally posted by [email protected]
Who was it in the thread about &#39;73 Chilean coup that brought up the terrorist attacks in NYC and the Pentagon?
Well... it started when Mesijs said: "Both 9/11&#39;s were tragic, in 1973 and 2001" and I replied by saying only 1973 was tragic. From there a bunch of "Leftists" jumped on my ass.

Vanguard1917
If i go out and bomb the whole of Washington DC (a centre of imperialism), telling myself that it&#39;s &#39;anti-imperialism&#39;, that it will help bring down US imperialism, does that make my actions &#39;anti-imperialist&#39;?

Or does anti-imperialism mean something very different from a few handfuls of individuals - with no clear political goals or demands, with no real base in the Muslim population that they purported to be acting in the interests of, unrepresentative of any anti-imperialist movement - committing terror as an end in itself rather than a means to achieve definite political goals?
Yes, it would. It doesn&#39;t matter what Bin Laden thinks what his actions means, the actions speak for themselves.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 12:44 AM
If you&#39;re going to work for the enemy, don&#39;t expect to be treated as an ally.
Proletarians work for the enemy. That&#39;s what make them proletarians - working for the bourgeoisie.

Luís Henrique

[tecumseh]

Originally posted by Machiavelli [email protected] 12 2006, 04:23 AM
I believe it was a symbolic attack on Americas economy. Sure they wanted to kill as many civilans as possible but I think it was more of a symbolic messege to say we bombed the economic center of Ameirca.
Actually the masterminds and engineers never expected the towers to fall so quickly. Bin Laden expected a few hundred not thousand fatalities. 9/11 was more of a message than anything else.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique

Proletarians work for the enemy. That&#39;s what make them proletarians - working for the bourgeoisie.

Luís Henrique
Crap argumet... again. I was talking about the repressive imperialist state.

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by D_Bokk+Sep 13 2006, 12:57 AM--> (D_Bokk @ Sep 13 2006, 12:57 AM)
Luís Henrique

Proletarians work for the enemy. That&#39;s what make them proletarians - working for the bourgeoisie.

Luís Henrique
Crap argumet... again. I was talking about the repressive imperialist state. [/b]
In a massive imperialist state, proletarians also work for the enemy. Do you think during imperial Britain or imperial Russia, the proletariat is also a legitimate target?

[Invader Zim]

Ward Churchill is a pitiful pseudo-intellectual, who has been exposed in a number of incidents of academic misconduct. He is no better than Ann Coulter.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Mesijs
In a massive imperialist state, proletarians also work for the enemy. Do you think during imperial Britain or imperial Russia, the proletariat is also a legitimate target?
You truly are an idiot. Bin Laden didn&#39;t target the proletariat, in fact no one who worked at the WTC produced anything and therefore were not proletarian. The target wasn&#39;t the "workers" in the WTC either - it was the symbol, which the WTC represented: imperialism. If he attacked a assembly line, you would have an argument - but he didn&#39;t. And by supporting the WTC, you&#39;re supporting American imperialism.

33,000 children starved today; don&#39;t you have a celebration to go to?

[The Bitter Hippy]

D_Bokk: i am with you that the WTC were legitimate targets, but do you count maintenance and cleaning staff as members of the proletariat? One need not work in a factory to belong to the proletariat, a proletarian can "produce cleanliness". Such a person is as much a wage-slave to the capitalist machine as any car-maker.

Now i am all for sending a big message to the profit-peddlers in the oak offices at the top, and i am willing to accept the loss of some proletarians, but to argue that these casualties were anything but regrettable and unfortunate necessities (ie: accusing them of crimes against the class to which they belong) is devaluing the lives of our fellow proletarians in order to defend a principle. You don&#39;t need to really, there&#39;s nothing wrong with giving the attacks only partial support.

[which doctor]

The best thing about the 9/11 WTC attacks was the demolition of two atrocious buildings.

[colonelguppy]

911 gets more attention because the people that major media outlets are marketing to care more about 911 than chile. it has nothing to do with racism.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by The Bitter Hippy+--> (The Bitter Hippy) D_Bokk: i am with you that the WTC were legitimate targets, but do you count maintenance and cleaning staff as members of the proletariat? One need not work in a factory to belong to the proletariat, a proletarian can "produce cleanliness". Such a person is as much a wage-slave to the capitalist machine as any car-maker.[/b]
I view them as lumpenproletariat because most of those jobs are mere busy work to keep unemployment down. Most of the US is actually lumpenproletariat because the majority of them look to preserve the status quo; they&#39;re not revolutionary.


Now i am all for sending a big message to the profit-peddlers in the oak offices at the top, and i am willing to accept the loss of some proletarians, but to argue that these casualties were anything but regrettable and unfortunate necessities (ie: accusing them of crimes against the class to which they belong) is devaluing the lives of our fellow proletarians in order to defend a principle. You don&#39;t need to really, there&#39;s nothing wrong with giving the attacks only partial support.
No one really deserves to die, but this event wasn&#39;t tragic... especially in comparison to what&#39;s happening to the International Proletariat.

colonelguppy
911 gets more attention because the people that major media outlets are marketing to care more about 911 than chile. it has nothing to do with racism.
No it&#39;s because the value of the American life is more important to them and the West.

[colonelguppy]

got any more baseless claims? common, the media is a business, obviously they&#39;re going to report what people want to see, which in the case of the west is not a military coupe that took place 33 years ago.

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by D_Bokk+Sep 13 2006, 07:06 PM--> (D_Bokk @ Sep 13 2006, 07:06 PM)
Mesijs
In a massive imperialist state, proletarians also work for the enemy. Do you think during imperial Britain or imperial Russia, the proletariat is also a legitimate target?
You truly are an idiot. Bin Laden didn&#39;t target the proletariat, in fact no one who worked at the WTC produced anything and therefore were not proletarian. The target wasn&#39;t the "workers" in the WTC either - it was the symbol, which the WTC represented: imperialism. If he attacked a assembly line, you would have an argument - but he didn&#39;t. And by supporting the WTC, you&#39;re supporting American imperialism.

33,000 children starved today; don&#39;t you have a celebration to go to? [/b]
What about cleaners, janitors, firemen? And by the way, even if it were all businessman. It&#39;s ridiculous and childlike to say that if I think it&#39;s tragic what happened on 11/9, that I support imperialism. That&#39;s the dumbest claim you can make. I value human life, and I think it&#39;s bad to kill people, even if they&#39;re your enemies. But you&#39;re the type of disgusting fuck that thinks citizens are legitimate targets.

How many of the American proletariat are you think you&#39;re going to win with this opionion?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

How many of the American proletariat are you think you&#39;re going to win with this opinion?

The American proletariat wanted vengeance after the 9/11 attacks. They voted bush in again.

The American proletariat is out to get the rest of the world proles.

What this argument should be about for leftists is NOT the actual attacks on 9/11, that is irrelevant. We should focus on the terrorism of the US dropping bombs on Iraq and Afghanistan. We should focus on the amazingly brazen display of terrorism that Israel inflicted on Lebanon.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Mesijs
What about cleaners, janitors, firemen? And by the way, even if it were all businessman. It&#39;s ridiculous and childlike to say that if I think it&#39;s tragic what happened on 11/9, that I support imperialism. That&#39;s the dumbest claim you can make. I value human life, and I think it&#39;s bad to kill people, even if they&#39;re your enemies. But you&#39;re the type of disgusting fuck that thinks citizens are legitimate targets.
Why don&#39;t you read my post right above your own, and you will have an answer. I don&#39;t feel like repeating myself... again. And it&#39;s not ridiculous whatsoever. You&#39;re taking the same view as the racist Americans who want revenge against the Arabs. If you truly valued human life, you wouldn&#39;t say 9/11 was a heinous crime... because when you do you&#39;re justifying the "war on terror."

Like I said, the citizen wasn&#39;t a target, imperialism was. Also someone posted earlier Bin Laden didn&#39;t expect so many people to die.

How many of the American proletariat are you think you&#39;re going to win with this opionion?
bloody_capitalist_sham has this question covered. But I would like to add that I&#39;m not out to compromise my ideology to "win" support from the so-called "proletariat" in America. In fact, I&#39;m not going to compromise my ideology to "win" support from the bourgeois-lovers who dominate this forum either. Your kind of thinking is that of a revisionist.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Architecturally speaking, I quite liked the WTC towers. Industrial design at its finest. They were way too big in height and ground area to have been efficient or convenient for city planning, traffic, etc. But they were certainly engineering marvels.

[Pirate Utopian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 07:19 PM
Architecturally speaking, I quite liked the WTC towers. Industrial design at its finest. They were way too big in height and ground area to have been efficient or convenient for city planning, traffic, etc. But they were certainly engineering marvels.
as a building it was ugly it looked like 2 cement sticks

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

did you ever see the buildings?
or see even remotely detailed pictures of them?

[Pirate Utopian]

yup they looked any other buildings

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

no they didn&#39;t

they had an external steel frame inspired by gothic architecture
not to mention the bauhaus and brutalist influences

[Pirate Utopian]

i havent seen it that detailed

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by D_Bokk+Sep 14 2006, 05:11 PM--> (D_Bokk @ Sep 14 2006, 05:11 PM)
Mesijs
What about cleaners, janitors, firemen? And by the way, even if it were all businessman. It&#39;s ridiculous and childlike to say that if I think it&#39;s tragic what happened on 11/9, that I support imperialism. That&#39;s the dumbest claim you can make. I value human life, and I think it&#39;s bad to kill people, even if they&#39;re your enemies. But you&#39;re the type of disgusting fuck that thinks citizens are legitimate targets.
Why don&#39;t you read my post right above your own, and you will have an answer. I don&#39;t feel like repeating myself... again. And it&#39;s not ridiculous whatsoever. You&#39;re taking the same view as the racist Americans who want revenge against the Arabs. If you truly valued human life, you wouldn&#39;t say 9/11 was a heinous crime... because when you do you&#39;re justifying the "war on terror."

Like I said, the citizen wasn&#39;t a target, imperialism was. Also someone posted earlier Bin Laden didn&#39;t expect so many people to die.

How many of the American proletariat are you think you&#39;re going to win with this opionion?
bloody_capitalist_sham has this question covered. But I would like to add that I&#39;m not out to compromise my ideology to "win" support from the so-called "proletariat" in America. In fact, I&#39;m not going to compromise my ideology to "win" support from the bourgeois-lovers who dominate this forum either. Your kind of thinking is that of a revisionist. [/b]
What are you talking about? I did not even justidy the war on terror. I just said 9/11 was tragic. Period. I don&#39;t use it to justify the "war on terror", that&#39;s things you are saying. It&#39;s sad to see that you can&#39;t argue reasonably but are comparing me to certain people because of things I never said.

OK, how many proletarians in Europe and North America together are you going to win for this. What is actually your ideology? Convincing people of the good of communism/socialism/anarchism or hurraying when citizens die? I don&#39;t think anyone in the world would be attracted to your kind of ideology that supports the killing of citizens.

Eh, what&#39;s revisionist about seeing the killing of civilians as tragic?

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Mesijs
What are you talking about? I did not even justidy the war on terror. I just said 9/11 was tragic. Period. I don&#39;t use it to justify the "war on terror", that&#39;s things you are saying. It&#39;s sad to see that you can&#39;t argue reasonably but are comparing me to certain people because of things I never said.
You&#39;re recognizing that the US needed to retaliate because they&#39;ve been "wronged." Therefore, you support the basis for the "war on terror" because you hate this Bin Laden fellow. You want him caught and punished, yes? Well - you might as well join the military you reactionary.

OK, how many proletarians in Europe and North America together are you going to win for this.
None. Why would I want to win over support from a bunch of bourgeoisified proletarians? The workers in the west are class enemies to the workers in the rest of the world. A communist revolution in the USA or Europe (some of the Eastern Countries excluded) is never going to happen so long as imperialism exists. Bribery at it&#39;s finest are at work in those countries, and it&#39;s successful. While you petty bourgeois "leftists" spend all of your time "convincing" Americans to believe in communism - Bin Laden and Hizb&#39;allah are actually weakening the US and it&#39;s imperialist allies. It doesn&#39;t matter if they&#39;re bourgeois, they&#39;re doing the work that so-called communists refuse to do or even support.

What is actually your ideology? Convincing people of the good of communism/socialism/anarchism or hurraying when citizens die? I don&#39;t think anyone in the world would be attracted to your kind of ideology that supports the killing of citizens.
My ideology is Anarchist-Communist. I believe that in order for capitalism to destroy itself, or popular revolution to take hold - imperialism must be eliminated first. I guess I have something in common with Leninists when it comes to my dire hatred of all things imperialist.

You shouldn&#39;t need to convince anyone. If they understand the idea of communism and reject it - they&#39;re capitalists. The proletariat is suppose to rise up after suffering massive oppression from the bourgeois class. Ever wonder why you only see uprisings in third world countries? Because they&#39;re the only oppressed, and therefore revolutionary, proletariat on this earth.

Plenty of people support my ideology, once they understand it. There are a few people here that obviously grasp it - but they aren&#39;t nearly as vocal (or cold hearted) about it as I am. Real leftists understand these concepts, the rest are National Socialists (not in the Hitler sense, but socialists who are nothing but nationalists.)

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by D_Bokk+Sep 14 2006, 08:54 PM--> (D_Bokk @ Sep 14 2006, 08:54 PM)
Mesijs
What are you talking about? I did not even justidy the war on terror. I just said 9/11 was tragic. Period. I don&#39;t use it to justify the "war on terror", that&#39;s things you are saying. It&#39;s sad to see that you can&#39;t argue reasonably but are comparing me to certain people because of things I never said.
You&#39;re recognizing that the US needed to retaliate because they&#39;ve been "wronged." Therefore, you support the basis for the "war on terror" because you hate this Bin Laden fellow. You want him caught and punished, yes? Well - you might as well join the military you reactionary.

OK, how many proletarians in Europe and North America together are you going to win for this.
None. Why would I want to win over support from a bunch of bourgeoisified proletarians? The workers in the west are class enemies to the workers in the rest of the world. A communist revolution in the USA or Europe (some of the Eastern Countries excluded) is never going to happen so long as imperialism exists. Bribery at it&#39;s finest are at work in those countries, and it&#39;s successful. While you petty bourgeois "leftists" spend all of your time "convincing" Americans to believe in communism - Bin Laden and Hizb&#39;allah are actually weakening the US and it&#39;s imperialist allies. It doesn&#39;t matter if they&#39;re bourgeois, they&#39;re doing the work that so-called communists refuse to do or even support.

What is actually your ideology? Convincing people of the good of communism/socialism/anarchism or hurraying when citizens die? I don&#39;t think anyone in the world would be attracted to your kind of ideology that supports the killing of citizens.
My ideology is Anarchist-Communist. I believe that in order for capitalism to destroy itself, or popular revolution to take hold - imperialism must be eliminated first. I guess I have something in common with Leninists when it comes to my dire hatred of all things imperialist.

You shouldn&#39;t need to convince anyone. If they understand the idea of communism and reject it - they&#39;re capitalists. The proletariat is suppose to rise up after suffering massive oppression from the bourgeois class. Ever wonder why you only see uprisings in third world countries? Because they&#39;re the only oppressed, and therefore revolutionary, proletariat on this earth.

Plenty of people support my ideology, once they understand it. There are a few people here that obviously grasp it - but they aren&#39;t nearly as vocal (or cold hearted) about it as I am. Real leftists understand these concepts, the rest are National Socialists (not in the Hitler sense, but socialists who are nothing but nationalists.) [/b]
Can you quote me where I said that I support the US retaliation?

Ah, Bin Laden and Hezbollah... You mean the guys who want to set up an Islamic Republic and suppress homesexuals, women and other-thinking people. It&#39;s tragic that you see them as doing the work the leftists should do. Leftist aren&#39;t about sectarion islamist struggle, bombing mosques, killing even poor proletarians in for example Iraq, and most of all, do have an ideology that is contradictory and hostile to leftism. &#39;The enemy of my enemy is my friend&#39; thing is ridiculous in this case.

And are you saying the working class isn&#39;t opressed in the west? So that means that they are already freed from their opression and revolution isn&#39;t necessary there, as they aren&#39;t opressed any more. So the western world is your model society...? I&#39;m not getting you?

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Mesijs
Can you quote me where I said that I support the US retaliation?
When someone is wrongly attacked, do they not have the right to retaliate? You claimed the WTC was a tragedy and wrong, therefore you support US retaliation.

Ah, Bin Laden and Hezbollah... You mean the guys who want to set up an Islamic Republic and suppress homesexuals, women and other-thinking people. It&#39;s tragic that you see them as doing the work the leftists should do. Leftist aren&#39;t about sectarion islamist struggle, bombing mosques, killing even poor proletarians in for example Iraq, and most of all, do have an ideology that is contradictory and hostile to leftism.
Hizb&#39;allah is the most socially progressive Islamic group out there. They&#39;re attitude toward women and homosexuals is pretty average as far as bourgeois parties go. In fact, they would oppress women, homosexuals and "intellectuals" as much as the USA or their previous rulers do. The only difference is that these two groups will also fight US imperialism.

&#39;The enemy of my enemy is my friend&#39; thing is ridiculous in this case.
Imperialism is worse than Islamicism. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Would you oppose an alliance between the bourgeois and communists during the Spanish Civil War too?

And are you saying the working class isn&#39;t opressed in the west? So that means that they are already freed from their opression and revolution isn&#39;t necessary there, as they aren&#39;t opressed any more. So the western world is your model society...? I&#39;m not getting you?
They aren&#39;t oppressed to the point where they become revolutionaries. In comparison to the third world, they don&#39;t even look oppressed.

You aren&#39;t getting me because you don&#39;t want too - not because I&#39;m unclear.

[chimx]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Would you oppose an alliance between the bourgeois and communists during the Spanish Civil War too?

that is the kind of thinking that led a small minority of defeated krondstat soviet leaders to side with the white army against lenin, tarnishing an otherwise noble moment in history.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by chimx
that is the kind of thinking that led a small minority of defeated krondstat soviet leaders to side with the white army against lenin, tarnishing an otherwise noble moment in history.
I wasn&#39;t a fan of the Russian individualistic Anarchists of the old, so I really don&#39;t see where you&#39;re coming from. I agree with Lenin&#39;s criticism of anarchism during his time actually.

Are you suggesting that the Anarchist and Liberals in Spain fight each other while Franco destroyed Spain? In fact, if the three groups didn&#39;t fight so much I don&#39;t think Franco could have succeeded.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 02:51 PM
no they didn&#39;t

they had an external steel frame inspired by gothic architecture
not to mention the bauhaus and brutalist influences
Oh dear god. The WTC were two of the ugliest buildings I&#39;d ever seen. They&#39;re just two tall, rectangular examples of euclidean architecture. Lacking beauty, creativity, passion.

NO MORE FUCKING UGLY BUILDINGS&#33;

http://www.notbored.org/fub.jpg

http://www.notbored.org/fub3.gif

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

the pics you posted are broken

http://z.about.com/d/architecture/1/0/i/F/worldtrade-sul.jpg

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by D_Bokk+Sep 14 2006, 09:29 PM--> (D_Bokk @ Sep 14 2006, 09:29 PM)
Mesijs
Can you quote me where I said that I support the US retaliation?
When someone is wrongly attacked, do they not have the right to retaliate? You claimed the WTC was a tragedy and wrong, therefore you support US retaliation.

Ah, Bin Laden and Hezbollah... You mean the guys who want to set up an Islamic Republic and suppress homesexuals, women and other-thinking people. It&#39;s tragic that you see them as doing the work the leftists should do. Leftist aren&#39;t about sectarion islamist struggle, bombing mosques, killing even poor proletarians in for example Iraq, and most of all, do have an ideology that is contradictory and hostile to leftism.
Hizb&#39;allah is the most socially progressive Islamic group out there. They&#39;re attitude toward women and homosexuals is pretty average as far as bourgeois parties go. In fact, they would oppress women, homosexuals and "intellectuals" as much as the USA or their previous rulers do. The only difference is that these two groups will also fight US imperialism.

&#39;The enemy of my enemy is my friend&#39; thing is ridiculous in this case.
Imperialism is worse than Islamicism. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Would you oppose an alliance between the bourgeois and communists during the Spanish Civil War too?

And are you saying the working class isn&#39;t opressed in the west? So that means that they are already freed from their opression and revolution isn&#39;t necessary there, as they aren&#39;t opressed any more. So the western world is your model society...? I&#39;m not getting you?
They aren&#39;t oppressed to the point where they become revolutionaries. In comparison to the third world, they don&#39;t even look oppressed.

You aren&#39;t getting me because you don&#39;t want too - not because I&#39;m unclear. [/b]
Please stop the bullshit. I said 9/11 was a tragedy, it is propesterous that you make up of that, that I support retaliation. So you think everyone who perceives 9/11 as a tragedy supports the &#39;war on terror&#39;. Stop with your unjust arguing.

Ok, very good about Hezbollah, but you also named Al-Qaida, a terror group that&#39;s against exactly everything where leftism in general stands for.

Fundamentalist Islamist have totally different goals than leftist. They want an Islamic theocracy of discrimination and opression of different believes, opinions, women and homosexuals.

OK, very good you abandoned your Marxist and leftist views all together. You even see workers in the west as class enemies, you are thinking in terms of states and not in classes, you would ally a fundamentalist Islamic group and support their terrorism against civilians.

And again, when you say the western proletariat is not opressed, you see the status-quo in the west as a solution that doesn&#39;t opress workers, as a positive outcome of class struggle.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Mesijs
Please stop the bullshit. I said 9/11 was a tragedy, it is propesterous that you make up of that, that I support retaliation. So you think everyone who perceives 9/11 as a tragedy supports the &#39;war on terror&#39;. Stop with your unjust arguing.
No need to get emotional because I exposed you.

Ok, very good about Hezbollah, but you also named Al-Qaida, a terror group that&#39;s against exactly everything where leftism in general stands for.

Fundamentalist Islamist have totally different goals than leftist. They want an Islamic theocracy of discrimination and opression of different believes, opinions, women and homosexuals.
And nearly all Muslims are against what Al-Qaeda stands for. Only a racist would believe that Muslims would follow Al-Qaeda if they destroyed the West. So what&#39;s wrong with using them to persue the left&#39;s agenda?

OK, very good you abandoned your Marxist and leftist views all together. You even see workers in the west as class enemies, you are thinking in terms of states and not in classes, you would ally a fundamentalist Islamic group and support their terrorism against civilians.
You deny that US "workers" support the bombing of innocent proletarians in the Middle East? You deny that US "workers" support the imperialist agenda of their government? Well, you may as well deny you&#39;re in any way, shape or form a communist.

And again, when you say the western proletariat is not opressed, you see the status-quo in the west as a solution that doesn&#39;t opress workers, as a positive outcome of class struggle.
It works great for the citizens in those countries, but it exploits, murders, and starves the third world. Unlike you, I&#39;m concerned about the rest of the world outside of the little Western Bubble. I want the West destroyed as it&#39;s the only means to empower the proletariat . . . you want it kept because you care so dearly for the traitorous "working class" in America.

[Tungsten]

rioters bloc

it may sound disturbing, but people around the third world and developing world, pretty much in all countries which had been fucked over by colonialism/neo-colonialism/imperialism were smiling when they heard about it. because to them it wasn&#39;t seeing it in terms of american civilian deaths, but what the towers stood for (especially when you look at what the other targets were - the white house and the pentagon).
The WTC bombing has got absolutely nothing all to do with capitalism, colonialism/imperialism or class wars. Islam is partly to blame, mainly because it&#39;s a useful tool for recruiting lunatics willing to blow themselves up for an arbitrary reward, but that&#39;s not the whole story.

The twin towers were destroyed by Al Quaeda (or however it&#39;s spelt) and Al Quaeda is run by Osama bin Laden, who was a defacto CIA agent in Afghanistan, employed to fight a proxy war with the Russians when they invaded 25 years ago. When the Soviet Empire collapsed, the US government cut his funding and that pissed him off. He&#39;s been looking for revenge ever since. He got it on 9/11.

Do you honestly think bin Laden gives a shit about the oppressed? If he did, he wouldn&#39;t have been oppressing his own people, but he was. And be sure to take a look at the profiles of those who flew planes into the WTC. If you&#39;re expecting to find desperate individuals with nothing to lose, who have been "fucked over" by the US, then you&#39;re going to be sorely dissapointed.

So I&#39;m sorry to burst your bubble, 9/11 wan&#39;t a product of righteous anger by the third world against some percieved evil inflicted on them by the US, but the personal vendetta of a religious demagogue.

Reality: 1 Communist ideologues: 0
Matty_UK

Well actually marxists tend not to look at WW2 in traditional terms they look it in terms of class reaction to a major capitalist crises;
Wars are rarely class actions or capital crises.

And fascism was an inevitable bourgoise reaction to the radicalised working class of Italy, Germany and Spain.
How does one reply to such a delusional interpretation of the rise of fascism other than by shaking one&#39;s head and laughing?
Jazzratt

It&#39;s the first step to crushing the forces of reaction, thus ensuring that the conditions are right for a stateless classess society.
With nationalised industries at their disposal, won&#39;t the state have the means to crush your so-called radicalism just as easily? :rolleyes:

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by D_Bokk+Sep 15 2006, 08:20 PM--> (D_Bokk @ Sep 15 2006, 08:20 PM)
Mesijs
Please stop the bullshit. I said 9/11 was a tragedy, it is propesterous that you make up of that, that I support retaliation. So you think everyone who perceives 9/11 as a tragedy supports the &#39;war on terror&#39;. Stop with your unjust arguing.
No need to get emotional because I exposed you.

Ok, very good about Hezbollah, but you also named Al-Qaida, a terror group that&#39;s against exactly everything where leftism in general stands for.

Fundamentalist Islamist have totally different goals than leftist. They want an Islamic theocracy of discrimination and opression of different believes, opinions, women and homosexuals.
And nearly all Muslims are against what Al-Qaeda stands for. Only a racist would believe that Muslims would follow Al-Qaeda if they destroyed the West. So what&#39;s wrong with using them to persue the left&#39;s agenda?

OK, very good you abandoned your Marxist and leftist views all together. You even see workers in the west as class enemies, you are thinking in terms of states and not in classes, you would ally a fundamentalist Islamic group and support their terrorism against civilians.
You deny that US "workers" support the bombing of innocent proletarians in the Middle East? You deny that US "workers" support the imperialist agenda of their government? Well, you may as well deny you&#39;re in any way, shape or form a communist.

And again, when you say the western proletariat is not opressed, you see the status-quo in the west as a solution that doesn&#39;t opress workers, as a positive outcome of class struggle.
It works great for the citizens in those countries, but it exploits, murders, and starves the third world. Unlike you, I&#39;m concerned about the rest of the world outside of the little Western Bubble. I want the West destroyed as it&#39;s the only means to empower the proletariat . . . you want it kept because you care so dearly for the traitorous "working class" in America. [/b]
Please stop the weak debating. You are creating your own truth. I said killing of civilians is a tragedy, I did not say to support the &#39;war on terror&#39; whatsoever. Please only respond to things I stated, and don&#39;t create your own truth.

Al-Qaida&#39;s agenda is not the leftist agenda. The leftist agenda is liberty, a peaceful society, living together etc. Al-Qaida wants opression, wants to wipe out everyone else than fundamental muslims (hence their attacks on muslims, and also on christians and other civilians) and does not want a peaceful wordl whatsoever. They want to opress people in the name of Islamic fundamentalism and want to install theocracies. How could you ever call this the leftist agenda?

Please man... Never heared of &#39;making the working classes conscious&#39; or &#39;no real democracy&#39;. Yes, in my opinion many working class people have false perceptions of their government. Therefore, it is the worldwide duty of leftism to make them conscious in order to stand up against their government. Instead, you want to make the working class there you&#39;re enemy, and then they will obviously side by their government to opress working class movements. No who&#39;s not communist here?

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 07:13 AM
rioters bloc

it may sound disturbing, but people around the third world and developing world, pretty much in all countries which had been fucked over by colonialism/neo-colonialism/imperialism were smiling when they heard about it. because to them it wasn&#39;t seeing it in terms of american civilian deaths, but what the towers stood for (especially when you look at what the other targets were - the white house and the pentagon).
The WTC bombing has got absolutely nothing all to do with capitalism, colonialism/imperialism or class wars. Islam is partly to blame, mainly because it&#39;s a useful tool for recruiting lunatics willing to blow themselves up for an arbitrary reward, but that&#39;s not the whole story.

The twin towers were destroyed by Al Quaeda (or however it&#39;s spelt) and Al Quaeda is run by Osama bin Laden, who was a defacto CIA agent in Afghanistan, employed to fight a proxy war with the Russians when they invaded 25 years ago. When the Soviet Empire collapsed, the US government cut his funding and that pissed him off. He&#39;s been looking for revenge ever since. He got it on 9/11.

Do you honestly think bin Laden gives a shit about the oppressed? If he did, he wouldn&#39;t have been oppressing his own people, but he was. And be sure to take a look at the profiles of those who flew planes into the WTC. If you&#39;re expecting to find desperate individuals with nothing to lose, who have been "fucked over" by the US, then you&#39;re going to be sorely dissapointed.

So I&#39;m sorry to burst your bubble, 9/11 wan&#39;t a product of righteous anger by the third world against some percieved evil inflicted on them by the US, but the personal vendetta of a religious demagogue.

Reality: 1 Communist ideologues: 0
guess what?

people in the countries i&#39;m talking about don&#39;t give a shit.

they see symbols of us capitalist hegemony being smashed and they smile.

you have the time/resources to be able to find out all this stuff, and so you can make a decision on obl and al qaeda based on this info, and you can discriminate between who you support and who you don&#39;t.

not everyone is so privileged.

and when "the left" is doing fuck all for people in said countries, can you blame people for being happy when a group does do something which (in their eyes) challenges this hegemony? even if that group has fucked politics and agendas? are you really in a position to say that people who are the most exploited under capitalism and imperialism shouldn&#39;t feel a sense of hope when something like this occurs?

like i said, i don&#39;t agree with the idea of people being happy at other people&#39;s deaths. but i can sure as fuck understand it.

unfortunately, your "reality" comes from a purely first-world view of events.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Mesijs
Please stop the weak debating. You are creating your own truth. I said killing of civilians is a tragedy, I did not say to support the &#39;war on terror&#39; whatsoever. Please only respond to things I stated, and don&#39;t create your own truth.
You acknowledge that the act was wrong and therefore if something is wronged, it needs to be righted. The only way to right this situation is to catch and punish the perpatrators. That&#39;s exactly what the Bush Administration is doing and you support him for doing so.

Al-Qaida&#39;s agenda is not the leftist agenda. The leftist agenda is liberty, a peaceful society, living together etc. Al-Qaida wants opression, wants to wipe out everyone else than fundamental muslims (hence their attacks on muslims, and also on christians and other civilians) and does not want a peaceful wordl whatsoever. They want to opress people in the name of Islamic fundamentalism and want to install theocracies. How could you ever call this the leftist agenda?
I don&#39;t support their ideology, I merely recognize that their targets on 9/11 were legitimate. The agenda of the left is to destroy imperialism, and that&#39;s what Al-Qaeda is attempting to do. Hence, they&#39;re aiding the left in their struggle.

However, their struggle is futile since only a racist would believe all Muslims would follow Al-Qaeda.. so technically they aren&#39;t a threat at all. They&#39;re merely a militant organization without any real power or influence over the masses. They will remain that way so long as they keep to the same line they&#39;re using right now. If they attack American imperialism, they&#39;re helping the left.

Please man... Never heared of &#39;making the working classes conscious&#39; or &#39;no real democracy&#39;. Yes, in my opinion many working class people have false perceptions of their government. Therefore, it is the worldwide duty of leftism to make them conscious in order to stand up against their government. Instead, you want to make the working class there you&#39;re enemy, and then they will obviously side by their government to opress working class movements. No who&#39;s not communist here?
I&#39;ve heard of it, tried it and realized it&#39;s a waste of time to try to make the US working class conscious of their exploitation because their exploitation isn&#39;t that awful. They only need to look at the third world and then they realize they have it good. They feel "lucky" to be an American. The idea of "making" them conscious so incredibly naive. They&#39;re a lost cause, for now. Until imperialism is destroyed we shouldn&#39;t even bother with them.

And &#39;no real democracy&#39; is a crap argument. Americans know full well that the clothes they wear, the oil they use, the diamonds they buy are all produced at the expense of people living in dire poverty. They have this idea that without imperialism, the "American way of life" would be ruined. And they&#39;re right, it would be. That&#39;s why they vote in people like Bush and Clinton. The American working class is only after their own petty self-interests. And you the self-proclaimed communist support them?

[Mesijs]

I&#39;ve reported your post. You&#39;ve gone too far.

[colonelguppy]

al qaeda wants to remove imperialism when muslims are not the ones doing it.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Mesijs
I&#39;ve reported your post. You&#39;ve gone too far
Lol, what are they going to do? Double restrict me? You and your bourgeois buddies already accomplished your goal, I&#39;m stuck here in the resticted area for being a real communist. While bourgeois-lovers like you roam freely posting your right-wing propaganda.

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by D_Bokk+Sep 18 2006, 09:47 PM--> (D_Bokk @ Sep 18 2006, 09:47 PM)
Mesijs
I&#39;ve reported your post. You&#39;ve gone too far
Lol, what are they going to do? Double restrict me? You and your bourgeois buddies already accomplished your goal, I&#39;m stuck here in the resticted area for being a real communist. While bourgeois-lovers like you roam freely posting your right-wing propaganda. [/b]
The real communist?

Have you read any work by Marx and Engels? It&#39;s about freedom for the working class etc. It&#39;s not about supporting the murder of civilians by fundamentalist religious people.

Maybe they ban you. I hope so. I mean, fascist are also banned and you are morally wors than them. Your thought is worse than that of Hitler and Stalin combined.

[Avtomatov]

Hey D_Bokk I thought you were an anarchist? Now youre saying youre a communist. Anyways, you are cool guy.

Why is everyone complaining about 9/11, This is what happens in capitalism. Capitalism creates enemies. Until we have Communism there will always be stuff like this. Thats what you get for trying to perpetuate capitalism.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Mesijs+--> (Mesijs) The real communist?[/b]
A real communist. There are several people on this forum who hold similar views as I do, but are not as vocal.

Have you read any work by Marx and Engels? It&#39;s about freedom for the working class etc. It&#39;s not about supporting the murder of civilians by fundamentalist religious people.
I&#39;ve read: Lenin, Marx and Bakunin. Except I don&#39;t consider myself a Marxist because I reject the state. Unlike you, I support the freedom of the working class by any means. You "feel sorry" for supposed "crimes" against the bourgeois class, as we&#39;ve seen in your support of Bush and his war on terror. You want a "peaceful" transition where everyone just kind of realizes communism is good... that is so childish.

Maybe they ban you. I hope so. I mean, fascist are also banned and you are morally wors than them. Your thought is worse than that of Hitler and Stalin combined.
Hah. You sound like a cappie.

Morally worse than genocidal maniacs? Wow, you&#39;re a racist. Since when does a few thousand dead Americans even remotely compare to the Holocaust? Talk about American superiority.

Avtomatov
Hey D_Bokk I thought you were an anarchist? Now youre saying youre a communist. Anyways, you are cool guy.

Why is everyone complaining about 9/11, This is what happens in capitalism. Capitalism creates enemies. Until we have Communism there will always be stuff like this. Thats what you get for trying to perpetuate capitalism.
I&#39;m an anarchist-communist, the only reason I throw anarchist in front is to clarify I want communism right away, ie no state whatsoever.

[Avtomatov]

I&#39;m an anarchist-communist, the only reason I throw anarchist in front is to clarify I want communism right away, ie no state whatsoever.


The state is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. After the revolution, there will still be bourgeoise left, unless you kill them all, so otherwise we need a state.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Avtomatov
The state is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. After the revolution, there will still be bourgeoise left, unless you kill them all, so otherwise we need a state.
That&#39;s only if you do not wait until capitalism is completely developed. Once it&#39;s developed, the bouregois will be too small to resist and unable to live in the wild without their silk sheets and lobster dinners for more than two days.

If your main worry after the revolution is the bourgeois, then you&#39;ve already failed.

[Avtomatov]

Originally posted by D_Bokk+Sep 19 2006, 12:28 AM--> (D_Bokk @ Sep 19 2006, 12:28 AM)
Avtomatov
The state is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. After the revolution, there will still be bourgeoise left, unless you kill them all, so otherwise we need a state.
That&#39;s only if you do not wait until capitalism is completely developed. Once it&#39;s developed, the bouregois will be too small to resist and unable to live in the wild without their silk sheets and lobster dinners for more than two days.

If your main worry after the revolution is the bourgeois, then you&#39;ve already failed. [/b]
So you want to skip socialism, but wait alot longer for communism.

[Red Ivan]

Hmmmm....

I really think that any loss of human life is a tragedy, especially that amount of loss of human life.

I do think the U.S went blind with anger, and Rumsfeld misguided the war.

But as Stalin said "One life is a tragedy 6 million is a statistic".

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Avtomatov
So you want to skip socialism, but wait alot longer for communism.
Saying I am waiting longer is going under the assumption that socialism, as a transistory phase, works. Which we&#39;ve yet to see in the many attempts.

[Avtomatov]

Originally posted by D_Bokk+Sep 19 2006, 01:47 AM--> (D_Bokk @ Sep 19 2006, 01:47 AM)
Avtomatov
So you want to skip socialism, but wait alot longer for communism.
Saying I am waiting longer is going under the assumption that socialism, as a transistory phase, works. Which we&#39;ve yet to see in the many attempts. [/b]
Well yah thats because it cant work until the whole world is united under the socialist banner. What youre saying is like saying Communism wont work because its never been done.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Avtomatov
Well yah thats because it cant work until the whole world is united under the socialist banner. What youre saying is like saying Communism wont work because its never been done.
And the "communist" parties will give up power, no questions asked, when the time comes? That seems entirely unlikely. The idea of a socialist state is basically saying, "The proletariat is too stupid to become communist right away - so we&#39;ll hold their hand for a while."

[Avtomatov]

Originally posted by D_Bokk+Sep 19 2006, 01:59 AM--> (D_Bokk &#064; Sep 19 2006, 01:59 AM)
Avtomatov
Well yah thats because it cant work until the whole world is united under the socialist banner. What youre saying is like saying Communism wont work because its never been done.
And the "communist" parties will give up power, no questions asked, when the time comes? That seems entirely unlikely. The idea of a socialist state is basically saying, "The proletariat is too stupid to become communist right away - so we&#39;ll hold their hand for a while." [/b]
Youre confusing the Socialist period with the State-Capitalist period of the USSR. Socialism is not about guiding the proletariat. It is about the dictatorship of the proletariat, the purpose of it is to suppress the bourgeoise if needed. Eventually it becomes less needed, thus it withers away. Socialism is not a one party state. It is a complete democracy. When the people as a whole no longer need the oppressive state, it will wither away. It cant wither away in a one party state. Before stalin the USSR was a socialist state. Not that i dislike stalin, he did a good job for the most part, but it was a bourgeoise revolution. Remember that, Its the bourgeoise who will never give up their state, not the proletariat.

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by D_Bokk+Sep 18 2006, 11:50 PM--> (D_Bokk @ Sep 18 2006, 11:50 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected]
The real communist?
A real communist. There are several people on this forum who hold similar views as I do, but are not as vocal.

Have you read any work by Marx and Engels? It&#39;s about freedom for the working class etc. It&#39;s not about supporting the murder of civilians by fundamentalist religious people.
I&#39;ve read: Lenin, Marx and Bakunin. Except I don&#39;t consider myself a Marxist because I reject the state. Unlike you, I support the freedom of the working class by any means. You "feel sorry" for supposed "crimes" against the bourgeois class, as we&#39;ve seen in your support of Bush and his war on terror. You want a "peaceful" transition where everyone just kind of realizes communism is good... that is so childish.

Maybe they ban you. I hope so. I mean, fascist are also banned and you are morally wors than them. Your thought is worse than that of Hitler and Stalin combined.
Hah. You sound like a cappie.

Morally worse than genocidal maniacs? Wow, you&#39;re a racist. Since when does a few thousand dead Americans even remotely compare to the Holocaust? Talk about American superiority.

Avtomatov
Hey D_Bokk I thought you were an anarchist? Now youre saying youre a communist. Anyways, you are cool guy.

Why is everyone complaining about 9/11, This is what happens in capitalism. Capitalism creates enemies. Until we have Communism there will always be stuff like this. Thats what you get for trying to perpetuate capitalism.
I&#39;m an anarchist-communist, the only reason I throw anarchist in front is to clarify I want communism right away, ie no state whatsoever. [/b]
You know why you&#39;re worse? Because, in the fictional case that you would be the leader of some massive 3rd world army, you would kill every single citizen (maybe except some beggars and such) in the west because they&#39;re &#39;bourgeoise&#39;, and after that you can create your &#39;communism&#39;. I just know you&#39;re like that, that makes you morally worse than Hitler and Stalin. You would kill hundreds of millions of people, you&#39;re not opposed to such things. Real communist&#33;

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Avtomatov+--> (Avtomatov)Youre confusing the Socialist period with the State-Capitalist period of the USSR. Socialism is not about guiding the proletariat. It is about the dictatorship of the proletariat, the purpose of it is to suppress the bourgeoise if needed. Eventually it becomes less needed, thus it withers away. Socialism is not a one party state. It is a complete democracy. When the people as a whole no longer need the oppressive state, it will wither away. It cant wither away in a one party state. Before stalin the USSR was a socialist state. Not that i dislike stalin, he did a good job for the most part, but it was a bourgeoise revolution. Remember that, Its the bourgeoise who will never give up their state, not the proletariat.[/b]
I can already see this debate is going nowhere.

Mesijs
You know why you&#39;re worse? Because, in the fictional case that you would be the leader of some massive 3rd world army, you would kill every single citizen (maybe except some beggars and such) in the west because they&#39;re &#39;bourgeoise&#39;, and after that you can create your &#39;communism&#39;. I just know you&#39;re like that, that makes you morally worse than Hitler and Stalin. You would kill hundreds of millions of people, you&#39;re not opposed to such things. Real communist&#33;
Yes, I would... if the US "proletariat" resisted communism. At least we see eye to eye now - you&#39;re finally recognizing that the "proletariat" in America is no better than the bourgeois.

Buuuut. Your point is moot, as I am an anarchist. I would never be in charge of a government, let alone an army. I would however support third world militias putting down the American resistance however... and they would probably be more brutal than I. I&#39;ve only studied their poverty, they lived through it... they have a reason to be angry.