Mike wrote:
It's as much a human thing to be into killing things, other humans included as it is to be appalled by "arbitrary murder" which is equally as likely to arouse them as appal them.
You don't know why they did it, you seem to think every American citizen is automatically innocent simply because they're standing around a sidewalk -built on top of indian grave yards- watching people racing, you think they're innocent for enjoying life, being healthy and happy consumers while people starve and die from poverty all over the world.
I don't make that assumption, I'm willing to entertain the idea that their very being there, willingly engaging in some mindless spectacle, taking a day off work to enjoy the race etc is a show of their personal allegiance to a cause many around the world would consider faaaar from innocent.
Humans do have a violent side, but I've yet to see any evidence people in general are particularly aroused by random bomb attacks.
None us know why they did it yet. But I think it difficult to anticipate what would justify such an act.
I don't see what Indians have to do with it. No American alive today was born during that genocide. Does slavery have anything to do with you? Are you in some way responsible for it?
People are starving as you argue on the internet. Does this make you a legitimate target for anyone planning a bombing? Would you feel it justified for them to sacrifice you for their big statement?
You don't know who was there, they certainly did not before doing so. Running a marathon in itself shows allegiance to nothing other than running marathons – and the running of marathons is, Ithink, rather low down on the list of things in the world to be concerned about. Was somebody running the marathon who might be being sponsored to raise money for starving people guilty of not being themselves starving or something? You appear to be judging people solely on the basis they're Americans. By that logic I can't see that ony of us aren't legitimate targets. I mean – what's
your big contribution been? You're just an expendable loser subsisting in obscurity – right?
In what sense can you consider a compliant capitalist shop owner innocent? Do you mean ignorant?
Depends. The guy who runs the corner shop by me I would not consider a 'capitalist' – I think he's some guy trying to make ends meet in a shop I'd be surprised if it was particularly profitable. All I know about him is he's a Muslim. We don't discuss his politics.
So this world we live in, apparently full of innocent people, is it the kind of world you'd wish for if you had a choice?
Now say it isn't the world you'd choose what makes it imperfect, and how much does the average bystander do to improve or make it worse?
The bold I think this is your second big, very wrong assumption, just because you don't like people doesn't mean they don't have anything to offer you, doesn't mean because their all fucked in the head you go around killing them.
I don't understand what you're saying here.
You don't know what they wanted to achieve, what they have or will achieve, chances are it won't be any self reflection if you're one of the millions of innocent bystanders living in the US
Neither do you. I'd be very surprised if they achieved anything in line with any broader ideological position though, unless that goal was simply to kill people.
What 'self-reflection' do you expect?
Hmmmmmm. Some guys blew up some runners. Maybe they have a point?!? Fuck it, let's have a revolution.
Or to put it another way
a/Bomb civilans
b/?????
c/Profit
Neither do I, but most the people who die in obscurity are losers all the same, very few live on and are remembered, or make any contribution to the world worth remembering.
What makes someone a “loser”? They didn't invent the steam engine?
Who cares about being remembered? It doesn't matter when you're dead. You can't have the big ego massage of everyone talking about how noteworthy you were when you no longer exist. Unless you're looking down from heaven saying
Alright! People are talking about me! I'm the greatest!
What's this thing about a 'big contribution'? You're starting to sound like George Osbourne with his 'strivers & skivers'.
If you're a sound person who doesn't fuck over other people, I'd say that's a fine contribution.
So you assert your personal Ideal (that goes against all history imo) that change must happen but in a certain (undefined but popular) way, according to your rules, the rules of the mob, change will never happen if it's left up to the masses my friend.
'The mob' is essential. That's why propaganda is so important and sophisticated. No society can function with 'the mob' playing along. Spain saw (albeit temporary) change spearheaed by 'the mob'. You're seemingly advocating very much a traditional authoritarian line that the herd must be driven by remarkable men. Unless we're
all supposed to become remarkable or something. In which case, what are
you doing to be remarkable?
You'd have it stay that way as well it seems, marks made on history only by the classes most able to do so, in the era we're in the Working class has the potential, knowledge and communicative abilities to makes such grand coordinated marks on the Capitalistic/post industrial landscape, but awh, there's Dogsmilk with a bunch of liberals saying "violence is bad", "let's just be good and decent hardworking human beings", "world shaking actions are the reserve of emperors and monarchs".
You're scared of the very things that will liberate you from the chains you can barely see, you decry violence yet hope for change, perhaps even revolution, but it's easy to pay such lofty ideals lip service from the comfort of the living room arm chair etc, if Change ever comes for us will you be the one sticking his head above the parapet to shout to your comrades "lay down arms", "killing's bad mmkay", "let's just be decent human liberals"?
How do the working class do anything as a class? They're 'the mob' aren't they? Didn't you just say change can't happen on the part of the masses?
And where did I say anything about being against all violemce? I'm against blowing up people willy nilly. You don't liberate the masses by declaring war on them.
I've always had a soft spot for the RAF – the big difference there being they didn't set out to kill the general public. Which probably explains why they had a significant amount of public support.
If you think it's ok to blow up random people, what possible problem can you have with, say, a Predator drone blowing up an Afghan wedding? Those Afghans are, after all, just losers who aren't making a significant contribution and won't be remembered, right? And who's to say they're innocent? They're having a wedding while elsewhere people starve – fuck 'em. They guy controlling the drone might feel a sense of fulfillment from blowing up some foreigners – good on him!
Why even care about capitalism or whatever if it's ok to kill random members of the public in some hypothetical drive for some kind of self fulfillment and a place in history? If you don't care about ordinary American – and by extension British - people, why not just go with the flow and be prepared to fuck anyone else over in your race to the top?
Dude you've been on one. I'm not sure if you're serious, but I've replied anyway.
