Baghdag bombing: two quotes and two comments.

Tom O'Lincoln suarsos at
Mon Aug 25 18:40:43 MDT 2003

Quoting briefly from two articles posted here, with comment below:

>The Sunday Herald: August 24, 2003
>Former UN chief: bomb was payback for collusion with US
>-He warned that “further collaboration” between the UN
>and the US and Britain “would be a disaster for the
>United Nations as it would be sucked into supporting
>the illegal occupation of Iraq”.

>The Sunday Independent (South Africa): August 24, 2003
>But more than just the Canal Hotel is in ruins.
>Among the rubble lay the last illusions that
> the American occupation of Iraq might be working

These two articles make it clear how different the Baghdad bombing is to
the WTC or Bali. After the WTC, Bush was able to rapidly pull together a
global imperialist consensus about war on Afghanistan. Bali laid the basis
for Howard's regional imperialist push. By contrast, the Baghdad bombing
has thrown the imperialists into disarray. While it was not a military
target, neither was it entiredly "civilian".

That said, I don't agree with Ben that there are "no terrorists in Iraq
except for the USuk". I said in an earlier post that we should distinguish
between the terror of the oppressed and that of the oppressors.
Nevertheless, small elite bands or individual suicide bombers hitting
non-military targets is terrorism, and it is not the way Marxists would
fight the struggle.

More information about the Marxism mailing list