Woebot
Well-known member
Was really feeling this:
http://k-punk.abstractdynamics.org/archives/005847.html
If "feeling" is the right word. Absolutely spot on. And the section about Blair/Bush clumsily, idiotically, calling for a war on terror was superb. Its just right isnt it? We have been turned, aburdly, into "warriors" they have succeeded in legitimasing Terrorism! Nuts.
Mark also managed, almost eeriily, to predict that the bombers were British.
But this:
http://k-punk.abstractdynamics.org/archives/005874.html
especially this:
"He tells us that we are in a war. But to many Muslims - not 'mad mullahs', but , amongst others, young men from 'ordinary' backgrounds - it is as obvious as it is to Blair what the right, the only side, to be on is. It is the side of the poor and the oppressed, not the side of the the hyper-privileged and the massively well-armed. The rage, the righteous sense of injustice that led those four to give their lives and take the lives of others - and please, do not describe what they did as 'cowardly' ; 'brutal' by all means, but not 'cowardly', and certainly nowhere near as cowardly as the Powell doctrine of bombing from a great height - that anger needs to be channeled by other forces, forces which don't counter oppression with repression, which don't transform rage into outrage."
I had problems with. I know what he's saying but it almost feels like k-punk is trying to brush aside the issue that there still is some distinction between War and Peace. The US military, although they needlessly kill umpteen hundreds (thousands?) of civilians are actually aiming for military targets. OK, obviously this could spiral into a discussion as to what entails a military target, but I do believe (perhaps naively?) that there is a distinction.
The UK suicide bombers may not have been "cowardly" but they did go out of their way to specifically target ordinary civilians.
In the same light as the UK bombs I found this particularly chilling:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4678207.stm
http://k-punk.abstractdynamics.org/archives/005847.html
If "feeling" is the right word. Absolutely spot on. And the section about Blair/Bush clumsily, idiotically, calling for a war on terror was superb. Its just right isnt it? We have been turned, aburdly, into "warriors" they have succeeded in legitimasing Terrorism! Nuts.
Mark also managed, almost eeriily, to predict that the bombers were British.
But this:
http://k-punk.abstractdynamics.org/archives/005874.html
especially this:
"He tells us that we are in a war. But to many Muslims - not 'mad mullahs', but , amongst others, young men from 'ordinary' backgrounds - it is as obvious as it is to Blair what the right, the only side, to be on is. It is the side of the poor and the oppressed, not the side of the the hyper-privileged and the massively well-armed. The rage, the righteous sense of injustice that led those four to give their lives and take the lives of others - and please, do not describe what they did as 'cowardly' ; 'brutal' by all means, but not 'cowardly', and certainly nowhere near as cowardly as the Powell doctrine of bombing from a great height - that anger needs to be channeled by other forces, forces which don't counter oppression with repression, which don't transform rage into outrage."
I had problems with. I know what he's saying but it almost feels like k-punk is trying to brush aside the issue that there still is some distinction between War and Peace. The US military, although they needlessly kill umpteen hundreds (thousands?) of civilians are actually aiming for military targets. OK, obviously this could spiral into a discussion as to what entails a military target, but I do believe (perhaps naively?) that there is a distinction.
The UK suicide bombers may not have been "cowardly" but they did go out of their way to specifically target ordinary civilians.
In the same light as the UK bombs I found this particularly chilling:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4678207.stm