A couple of counter-punches . . .
> Contrast to Max's blather the words of Daniel Pearl's widow, quoted at
> the end of this. Max is the moral relativist. Pearl's widow speaks for
> reality. Carrol
> . . . actions of their government. But as David North, of the Trotskyist
> Fourth International wrote on the World Socialist (http://www.wsws.org)
website
> on February 23: "On the very day that Pearl's murder was confirmed, US
> Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld admitted that US troops had
> mistakenly killed 16 anti-Taliban Afghan fighters, but refused to
apologize. It
> does not require exceptional political insight to realize that in the
> decision to murder Pearl, the desire for revenge was a major subjective
factor."
mbs: there is not the slightest bit of evidence of any such connection. but for the subject matter, this statement strikes me as hilarious. The 4th Int'l ain't what it used to be. Maybe it never was.
As to the invocation of Pearl's widow, nowhere in the context of this discussion has anyone employed the terminology of revenge, nor denied any depredations of U.S. foreign or military policy. To respond as if I had betrays the fundamental error to which I have alluded, which I will now spell out before I abandon this inane thread:
not everything is about you and your bloomin ideology!
you can have the last blather.
mbs