Nathan corrected

James Heartfield Jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk
Thu Sep 13 05:34:07 PDT 2001


In message <0ace01c13c46$ad2d77e0$4d1f0f41 at home.com.excite.home.com>, Nathan Newman <nathan at newman.org> writes
>
>What you said was that the intent of the terrorists was justified, but you
>disagreed with their strategy.

Did I? Where?


> Leo is right that you are a morally outside
>of any political comradeship with me.

Agreed.

(Incidentally, I read Leo's comment 'I have alternating feelings of incredible depression and barely controllable rage when I read some of the post-WTC e-mails to this list.' To which I have to say, so why read them? Assuming that you don't want to rage or be depressed - which is maybe my mistake - wouldn't you just stop opening my mails? I really don't mind if you do.)


>What you also said:
>
>1. The people of the Middle East - if they are the perpetrators - have a
>right to fight back, and this was certainly an audacious blow against
>the imperialist heartland

I did write that. I stand by it. The people of the Middle East in general and the Palestinians in particular have been subject to a relentless war of attrition, on the part of a military regime that you and Leo both support. They have a right to fight back.

But what you dishonestly try to cover up is that I qualified the above points with an unequivocal statement that the act of terrorism was wrong.

As to the rest, what is it that you disagree with:
>
>8. The perpetrators had no other power than the productive capacity of
>US capital, turned against itself, and their own determination;

Are you suggesting that the planes were any other than American planes?


>
>9. The West has operated a foreign policy modelled on permanent war-
>footing, it would be surprising if it did not provoke a reaction;

Do you disagree?


>14. Public sympathy in European capitals will be tinged by Schadenfreude
>that the US has finally got its comeuppance

That was interpretation, I certainly did not endorse it. I have often posted on anti-American sentiment in Europe.


>But then you're consistent. Dead bodies from Kosovo to Rwanda are
>meaningless to you except so far as they serve your ideological axes to
>grind.

Look not to the mote in the neighbour's eye when thou hast a beam in thine own.

Or let me put it another way: Will you join me in opposing proposed military strikes against Afghanistan? -- James Heartfield



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list