"Peter K." wrote:
>
>
>
> Do I detect a split on the ultra-left? :0
I detect here a vulgar definition of the "ultra-left" as merely referring to the relative outrageousness of tactics etc. By ultra-left I always mean arguments _grounded_ (implicitly or explicitly, spontaneously or consciously) in an over-estimation of the strength of capital, an underestimation of the (ultimate) strength of the working class.
>
> By denigrating ObL and Al Queda - who just used Empire's violence
> against itself in what would have been a brilliant jujitsu move
> had it not
> been completely suicidal for ObL, Al Queda, and their friends in
> the Taliban
> (and possibly their sponsors in Pakistan) -
As a matter of fact it is _still_ apt to turn out to have been a "brilliant jujitsu move," if you assume, as I do tentatively, that its intention was to provoke exactly the response it has provoked; it is by no means clear yet that the U.S. has not become involved in a "tar-baby situation." Both the U.S. imperialists _and_ the peoples of South and West Asia could be the losers.
You perhaps misunderstand the nature and extent of my "denigrating ObL & Al Queda." Sneers at "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" overlook some complexities here, as may be revealed by a slight rewording, "Enemy A of Enemy B is my friend." If you look at this carefully, you will realize that very often there is absolutely no way to oppose _both_ enemies, and without considering one a friend, you may correctly support the other. There is no enemy of the world's peoples more dangerous than U.S. imperialism. And if in the present situation opposition to U.S. imperialism carries with it de facto support of Bin Laden, so be it.
Carrol
> you are giving aid and comfort to the United States and hence
> Capital,
> which can only spell more misery for the oppressed of the world.
>
> And how do you know the oppressed of the world have been
> ambivalent
> in their responses?! Did you consult one of those oppressed
> polls?
>
> Peter, against Empire and ultra-leftism