Re: Reply to Marc Cooper

[Chris Brady <cdbrady@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I just read Mohammad's comment, but as I wrote this earlier today I'll
send it along noentheless:

I agree with everything you have to say in your last post, Jon
Johanning.
CHECK: Yes, there is a distinct, mathematical possibility (in a very
truncated, unrealistic sense) that the United States Government is
motivated in this particular case, i.e., violent retaliation, by
interests other than realpolitik and profit.
CHECK: Every action has a reaction (etc.).
CHECK: The bombing of population centers is morally wrong.
CHECK: The US has the power to have exacted more wholesale revenge.
(For the dead it may be wondered if things could have been worse.
Perhaps some deaths are worse than others.)
CAVEAT: It ain?t over yet.

FURTHER: We as Marxists should really take a more analytically profound
perspective, an historically materialist analysis, if we are concerned
with 9-11 (US) causalities, that is, as opposed to justifiable or
legitimate actions and/or (il)legitimate, (un)justifiable (re)actions in
the relations of the world dominant, imperialist power and an oppressed
population.

MY QUESTION TO YOU (in the context of bourgeois norms):
Could it have been possible that the Taliban would have actually
honoured the legal form, and Al Q & Bin Laden been brought up on
charges?
Could the perpatrators of the crimes of 9-11(US) met justice--
and without the mass murder of Afghanis?

Perhaps that is a ridiciulous thought experiment in consideration of
typical (average, most likely) behaviours, as historically evidenced, of
the United States Government  (USA = unilateral state authority), but it
does introduce alternative options.
And perhaps offers some hint as to why the USA avoids legal means in
some cases --while posing as the law.

~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.