[WS:] I have no doubt about that - those who are vocal about OBL assassination are likely the same ones who could have been vocal about civilian casualties, and many of them probably have been. But the "what they say" is not the point - as I clearly said. The point is "how" - that is - that the occasional kvetching about the war became shrill about OBL almost of the magnitude generated by the right wing noise machine. That change of intensity was the point.
The OBL assassination was a despicable end of a despicable show - there is as much political in the whole OBL life and death as there is a plot in a porn video. Where I am coming from, polite people do not deliberate merits or demerits of pornography in public. Therefore, the most tactful thing about this whole OBL affair is to remain silent. Or to look at it from a different angle, I do not think there is much of relevance in the whole OBL affair for the progressive politics, so why wallowing in this truly horrible event?
Wojtek
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Dennis Claxton
<ddclaxton at earthlink.net> wrote:
> At 07:36 AM 5/12/2011, Wojtek S wrote:
>
>> What is truly pathetic about the new left commentariat talk about the
>> OBL assassination is not that much what they are saying but when and
>> how.
>
>
> They should have talked about his assassination before it happened?
>
>
>> Where were these self-styled defenders of justice when anonymous civilians
>> were blown into pieces?
>
>
> You haven't identified anyone in particular (the very definition of a
> strawperson argument,) but I'll venture that there is much crossover between
> the population of people writing against the deaths of anonymous civilians
> and the population writing critically about the end of OBL.
>
> You have evidence to the contrary? You do the grunt work first since you're
> the one making the assertion.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>