simultaneity

[Ian Murray]

> mbs:  I didn't give them the free pass, and you can't take
> it away. Circumstances provide it to them, albeit temporarily.
> They could prove to be dangerously wrong about military policy,
> but they haven't announced one yet.
>
> Another of my old saws, but I forget the source
> (it was one of the old SDS'ers):
> "Revolution is a rare event, not a moral decision."
> Stop confusing moral decisions with political practice.
=============
As for the quote, how can we possibly refute or affirm it's validity?
Is not political practice a moral decision? If not, what is it? I hate
to be a pain in the cortex on this stuff but the concepts we've been
using carelessly [myself included] in the past week is liable to make
the situation worse in the days and weeks ahead, especially if we are
against the rhetorics of vengeance and retaliation that are coming
from the imperialists. I was "heartbroken" when I heard John McCain
rant the other day, not because I think he's a leader or anything, but
because he didn't learn a fucking thing about suffering sitting in
that jail in Viet Nam. Maybe we aren't beings that learn? :-(

When Dubya says "freedom came under attack today" how do we contest
it's vacuousness? With Dilthey and Iris Marion Young or Hilary Lawson?
When moral language is used how do "we" "stop" it, especially if the
implicative web of potential motivations to act will, in all
likelihood lead to a containment policy of the Middle East that makes
the last 50 years pale in comparison? Would we not need "grounds" for
considering said counter measures immoral? Whoever networked the
attack strategy has made non-violent anti-imperialism criticism and
collective action even more difficult if not impossible. What is to be
done, considering the war mongers in power? And if the attack and any
possible retaliation have nothing to do with morality in any way
despite the manipulations of moral terms for Machiavellian ends, what
then?

Ian