Eclipsed from the headlines by the ongoing carnage, there is an active
civil resistance in Iraq that opposes the occupation, the torture regime
it protects, and the jihadi and Ba'athist 'resistance' alike.
Submitted by Gabriel Ash on Thu, 08/04/2005 - 05:01.
Bill, you are not morally obliged to do anything you don't want to do, at least not by me. You are free to say anything, condemn anybody and anything, and define your own level of complicity to the third digit after the decimal point.
I have stated my own choices, which you are equally free to condemn. I did not say I am morally neutral about suicide bombs or any other bomb. I said I will not publicly issue solemn condemnations of the resistance to the state of Israel as required by the moral propriety police.
As an aside, I don't see anything particularly horrifying about suicide bombs that warrants these endless discussions. They are horrifying to the same degree that every other bomb is horrifying, no less, no more. I don't see anything about the techniques chosen by the Palestinian resistance that makes it morally unique relative to either the history of warfare or the current state of warfare. I see these recurring discussions as pointless.
This logic doesn't extend to 9-11 and the London bombing. Hamas is a popular movement. Al-qaeda is a "vanguardist" movement. Most of the people al-qaeda wants to free don't want to be freed by al-qaeda.
This test of popular base doesn't determine the morality of the action. But it is a factor in my personal choice about whether and how to discuss it. Again, you are free to make other choices or to condemn mine.
Your concern for politcal realism is baffling. Are we engaged in a debate about morality or are you saying that I should condemn suicide bombs just to carry favor with some relevant audience? Aren't you obssessing about moral purity when you demand that every discussion of Palestine include a condemnation of suicide bombs? And if you do so in the name of politcal realism, aren't you a bit hypocritical? Why not condemn abortions also for the sake of "political realism"?
The inconvenient facts and unanswered questions surrounding the attacks are legion, but the endemic sloppiness of the self-styled "researchers" is delegitimizing the entire project of critiquing the "official version." The ostentatiously named "Truth movement" is not clearing the air, but muddying the water.
WW4 Report pamphlets
WAR AT THE CROSSROADS
An Historical Guide Through the Balkan Labyrinth
The Balkan region is intensely multicultural - a point of crossroads and clash for some of the world's major religions, cultural spheres, and economic systems. While there have been vicious wars in Balkan history, these have taken place in the context of manipulation by imperial powers and the self-serving local leaders who cater to them.
opensource technology and the people of Sundays Energy
I love the word 'bullshit'. It really elevates the discussion
Bill, you are not morally obliged to do anything you don't want to do, at least not by me. You are free to say anything, condemn anybody and anything, and define your own level of complicity to the third digit after the decimal point.
I have stated my own choices, which you are equally free to condemn. I did not say I am morally neutral about suicide bombs or any other bomb. I said I will not publicly issue solemn condemnations of the resistance to the state of Israel as required by the moral propriety police.
As an aside, I don't see anything particularly horrifying about suicide bombs that warrants these endless discussions. They are horrifying to the same degree that every other bomb is horrifying, no less, no more. I don't see anything about the techniques chosen by the Palestinian resistance that makes it morally unique relative to either the history of warfare or the current state of warfare. I see these recurring discussions as pointless.
This logic doesn't extend to 9-11 and the London bombing. Hamas is a popular movement. Al-qaeda is a "vanguardist" movement. Most of the people al-qaeda wants to free don't want to be freed by al-qaeda.
This test of popular base doesn't determine the morality of the action. But it is a factor in my personal choice about whether and how to discuss it. Again, you are free to make other choices or to condemn mine.
Your concern for politcal realism is baffling. Are we engaged in a debate about morality or are you saying that I should condemn suicide bombs just to carry favor with some relevant audience? Aren't you obssessing about moral purity when you demand that every discussion of Palestine include a condemnation of suicide bombs? And if you do so in the name of politcal realism, aren't you a bit hypocritical? Why not condemn abortions also for the sake of "political realism"?