[lbo-talk] "you and I, are indirectly responsible"

[James Heartfield]

Yoshie, this one is a bridge too far for me.

"I do know that we, including you and I, are indirectly responsible for
the deaths of the poor Shi'ite workers in the story, the
responsibility that you refuse to acknowledge."

I tend to think that the people who did it, did it. Yours and my respective 
governments did something else - overthrowing Saddam's regime. That did 
cause instability. Me, and I know not for want of trying, you, failed to 
convince people to throw our warmongering governments out. But that chain of 
reasoning still doesn't make me responsible for the bombing.

As for Doug's question, what's the point of the action ... I guess you would 
have to ask the perpetrators. They are clearly involved in a struggle that 
does not fit the model of liberation struggle, or maybe not liberation 
struggle alone, but one that also involves some different rivalries.

I have an uncomfortable thought. Invading Iraq was wrong. But invading Iraq 
and then freaking out over it is the worst of all worlds.

I do not think it is good news that the variety of paramilitary actors 
operating in Iraq are so emboldened. They do not seem to be a democratic 
movement to establish a free Iraq to me. They seem to be various shades of 
anti-democratic terrorism, dedicated to short-circuiting the difficult 
business of winning over the mass of people to their side with violent 
actions.

I blame the Coalition for their ascendance, but I still think they are a net 
loss for humanity, not a gain.