Chomsky attacks US double standards on terrorism
John Bridgecut
11月5日、IRNA――米国マサチューセッツ工科大学(MIT)の
ノーム・チョムスキー教授は、テロリズムに対するワシントンの
ダブル・スタンダードを猛烈に非難し始めた。
ニューデリーの日刊英字紙ステイツマンによると、教授はアフガニスタンに対する
米国主導の攻撃を「暗黙の大虐殺」と評した。
「レーガンの時代だけでも米国が後援する中米のテロリストたちは
何十万もの人々を殺害し、何百万もの不具者と孤児を産み、4カ国を廃墟にした。」
全文とURL
*********************************************************************
New Delhi, Nov 5, IRNA -- US Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT) Professor Noam Chomsky launched a stunning attack on Washington
double standards on terrorism.
According to the Statesman, an English daily published from New
Delhi, Chomsky in his clearest voice of dissent in contemporary
America described the US-led attacks on Afghanistan as a "silent
genocide", affecting millions of innocent civilians. "They are not the
Taliban," he told an overflowing audience at the Fifth D.T.Lakdawala
Memorial Lecture on 'Peering into the Abyss of the Future' which
included Indian Ministers, Diplomats, members of the academia in a
70-minute lecture at the FICCI auditorium here recently.
"Terrorism is terrorism that is directed against the US and its
friends and allies," he said before reeling out a string of statistics
on the misery of the Afghanistan people and US neo-imperialist
policies over the decades.
"For the first time in modern history, Europe and its offshoots
are the targets, not the perpetrators of horrifying crimes. Europeans
have spent centuries slaughtering each other, but have not been
attacked by their traditional victims," Professor of Linguistics
said.
Seven million Afghans are facing starvation, food will be
available next year only to 20 per cent of the population as the
strikes have disrupted planting of crops. "But only 1 per cent of the
US people knew about the real travails of the Afghan people," he said.
Prof Chomsky, who kicked off his fortnight long lecture tour of
the subcontinent, which will also take him to Pakistan, highlighted
the use of brute military and economic might by the US against
indigenous people in various parts of the world, particularly Central
America.
"In the Reagan years alone, US-sponsored state terrorists in
Central America left hundreds of thousands of tortured and mutilated
corpses, millions on maimed and orphaned, and four countries in ruins,
he said.
IND/RR
End
Chomsky attacks US double standards on terrorism
--
Best Regards
◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆
John Bridgecut mailto:jo...@earth-net.jp
□―――WANTED Bush―――□
Dead or Alive
http://www.asyura.com/up1/source/016.jpg
See Terrorist
○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●
Mark Gerard Miller
Americans had any idea what their government was doing around the world they
would revolt.
Mark
"John Bridgecut" <jo...@earth-net.jp> wrote in message
news:3BE86708...@earth-net.jp...
> チョムスキー教授、米国のダブルスタンダードを猛烈に批判
CyberBMcD
>
> Thank God somebody has the balls to stand up and tell it like it is. If
> Americans had any idea what their government was doing around the world they
> would revolt.
>
> Mark
YAWN,
you seem to be enjoying it.
Chomsky has never told anything like it is, just his paranoid
schizophrenic view of things.
Angelo Delamuerte
documents and references to known historical events must have made him
loose all his marbles! This guy is a real KOOK if he thinks Americans
can handle all this wacko truth! Who does he think he is, some highly
respected and world famous speaker?! the gall...
On Wed, 07 Nov 2001 05:43:16 GMT, CyberBMcD <cybe...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
CyberBMcD
>
> I know -- all those well research facts, citations of released US
> documents and references to known historical events must have made him
> loose all his marbles! This guy is a real KOOK if he thinks Americans
> can handle all this wacko truth! Who does he think he is, some highly
> respected and world famous speaker?! the gall...
>
world famous? ask any ten people in any country who Chomsky is 9 will
they'll stare at you blankly
Well respected? only by those stupid enough to believe his Venom.
Francisco Mendoza
opinions on politics and world events are always repititions of the
same stale anti-American theme. Yet he remains the darling of
left-wing academics who are too out of touch with the real world to
understand how silly this makes them look. -Pancho
Angelo Delamuerte <kama...@earthlick.net> wrote in message news:<h61iut4p81m154fbp...@4ax.com>...
??????? ??????
news:3BE94FF6...@hotmail.com...
> Angelo Delamuerte wrote:
> >
> > I know -- all those well research facts, citations of released US
> > documents and references to known historical events must have made him
> > loose all his marbles! This guy is a real KOOK if he thinks Americans
> > can handle all this wacko truth! Who does he think he is, some highly
> > respected and world famous speaker?! the gall...
> >
>
> world famous? ask any ten people in any country who Chomsky is 9 will
> they'll stare at you blankly
Horseshit. Again, the guy is linguist - ask linguists about him and let
hillbilly rednecks stare at you blankly.
> Well respected? only by those stupid enough to believe his Venom.
He is respected for his linguistic works, not for his opinions onpolitics or
something like that. You might know that people are respected for different
things.
Ivan the Bear
=Nothing per-r-rsonal, just business=
SteveL
wrote:
>Chomsky is a linguist by profession and a poor one at that.
Wrong. Some of his ideas have been superceded (so have Einstein's),
but his work in linguistics is rightly famous, and has directly led to
modern techniques of computer language design. He's still an important
figure in the field.
>His
>opinions on politics and world events are always repititions of the
>same stale anti-American theme.
Hmm. I could repeat a littany of some of the accolades he's received
(along the lines of "the most important intellectual alive") from
highly respected word reknowned sources... Hell, even the Financial
Times of Britain - as conservative a paper as you'll see - respects
Chomsky's views.
>Yet he remains the darling of
>left-wing academics who are too out of touch with the real world to
>understand how silly this makes them look. -Pancho
>
Sorry pal. You're the one out of touch with the real world. Or have
you forgotten Sept 11th already? Don't tell me you really believe the
cartoon level propaganda that the terrorists attacked the WTC and the
Pentagon because they're simply loony Islamic fundamentalists who hate
freedom and women having the vote. It tells you *nothing* about what's
really going on. The world is more complex than that.
There are many, many people who have excellent reasons to hate the US.
And the US's reaction to Sept 11th is to simply create even more of
them. The benign domestic behavior of the US towards it's own citizens
is simply no indication whatsoever of the way it behaves and protects
its interests abroad.
You guys need to stop watching CNN and checkout the BBC, or
www.guardian.co.uk
Angelo Delamuerte
he has shown over and over to his detractors (much to their humility)
that he and his arguments can stand scrutiny...in fact, any legitamate
scrutinization, usually comes bouncing right back on the heads of
those leveling it against him.
Sorry, your juvenile attempts to degrade his debating prowess are mere
empty accustations....
Please enlighten the group about some things he has stated, and their
historical or political innaccuracy....
This should be fun.
"A great many people think they are thinking
when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-- William James
Francisco Mendoza
> On 7 Nov 2001 07:52:37 -0800, polst...@yahoo.com (Francisco Mendoza)
> wrote:
>
> >Chomsky is a linguist by profession and a poor one at that.
>
> Wrong. Some of his ideas have been superceded (so have Einstein's),
> but his work in linguistics is rightly famous, and has directly led to
> modern techniques of computer language design. He's still an important
> figure in the field.
Yeah, yeah he developed context-free grammar about 50 years ago. For
this I should allow that he was at least mediocre linguist. (I know
quite a bit about computer language design and a little about
linguistics). Here's another view of his linguistic work:
http://frontpagemag.com/guestcolumnists/graves10-31-01.htm
> >His
> >opinions on politics and world events are always repititions of the
> >same stale anti-American theme.
>
> Hmm. I could repeat a littany of some of the accolades he's received
You could say that about Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc. Yasser Arafat win
the Nobel Peace Prize. Big whoop.
> (along the lines of "the most important intellectual alive") from
> highly respected word reknowned sources... Hell, even the Financial
> Times of Britain - as conservative a paper as you'll see - respects
> Chomsky's views.
How very scary for Britain.
> >Yet he remains the darling of
> >left-wing academics who are too out of touch with the real world to
> >understand how silly this makes them look. -Pancho
> >
>
> Sorry pal. You're the one out of touch with the real world. Or have
> you forgotten Sept 11th already? Don't tell me you really believe the
> cartoon level propaganda that the terrorists attacked the WTC and the
> Pentagon because they're simply loony Islamic fundamentalists who hate
> freedom and women having the vote. It tells you *nothing* about what's
> really going on. The world is more complex than that.
I'm noting that my understanding of the complexities of the world
exceeds yours.
> There are many, many people who have excellent reasons to hate the US.
That is a disingenuous, indirect way of saying that the attack on the
US was justified.
> And the US's reaction to Sept 11th is to simply create even more of
We'll see if that's true when the smoke has cleared.
> them. The benign domestic behavior of the US towards it's own citizens
> is simply no indication whatsoever of the way it behaves and protects
> its interests abroad.
Chomsky wouldn't even agree with the "benign domestic" part.
>
> You guys need to stop watching CNN and checkout the BBC, or
> www.guardian.co.uk
I already have it bookmarked along with a large number of news sources
and opinion sources covering the full politcal spectrum in the US and
worldwide. Bailamos? -Pancho
Francisco Mendoza
Chomsky's not here, but you are.
From the book by him and Edward Herman "Manufacturing Consent," Here's
one expounding on the virtues of the Pol Pot regime that requires no
further comment:
"The evacuation of Phnom Penh undoubtably saved
the lives of many thousands of Cambodians... what
was portrayed as a destructive, backward-looking
policy motivated by doctrinaire hatred
was actually a rationally conceived strategy for
dealing with the urgent problems that faced postwar
Cambodia." (P.56.)
"A great many people think they are speaking,
when they are merely spewing shit" -Pancho
SteveL
wrote:
>SteveL <Ste...@stevelon.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<oVfG7.46709$7x1.4...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>...
>> On 7 Nov 2001 07:52:37 -0800, polst...@yahoo.com (Francisco Mendoza)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Chomsky is a linguist by profession and a poor one at that.
>>
>> Wrong. Some of his ideas have been superceded (so have Einstein's),
>> but his work in linguistics is rightly famous, and has directly led to
>> modern techniques of computer language design. He's still an important
>> figure in the field.
>
>Yeah, yeah he developed context-free grammar about 50 years ago. For
>this I should allow that he was at least mediocre linguist. (I know
>quite a bit about computer language design and a little about
>linguistics). Here's another view of his linguistic work:
>
>http://frontpagemag.com/guestcolumnists/graves10-31-01.htm
I went there. Interesting discussion board accompanying it, with as
many people defending Chomsky's linguistics credentials as attacking
them. As usual nothing is cut and dried.
>
>> >His
>> >opinions on politics and world events are always repititions of the
>> >same stale anti-American theme.
>>
>> Hmm. I could repeat a littany of some of the accolades he's received
>
>You could say that about Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc. Yasser Arafat win
>the Nobel Peace Prize. Big whoop.
Wow, I'll remember that the next time I see someone given an accolade.
"All accolades are worthless because some heinous people have been
given them in the past".
At least we agree the Nobel Peace Prize is a joke. You mention Arafat.
I'll mention Kissinger.
>
>> (along the lines of "the most important intellectual alive") from
>> highly respected word reknowned sources... Hell, even the Financial
>> Times of Britain - as conservative a paper as you'll see - respects
>> Chomsky's views.
>
>How very scary for Britain.
LOL. That's quite a sweeping statement. I thnk the Brits do pretty
well by their media (apart from the tabloids).
>
>> >Yet he remains the darling of
>> >left-wing academics who are too out of touch with the real world to
>> >understand how silly this makes them look. -Pancho
>> >
>>
>> Sorry pal. You're the one out of touch with the real world. Or have
>> you forgotten Sept 11th already? Don't tell me you really believe the
>> cartoon level propaganda that the terrorists attacked the WTC and the
>> Pentagon because they're simply loony Islamic fundamentalists who hate
>> freedom and women having the vote. It tells you *nothing* about what's
>> really going on. The world is more complex than that.
>
>I'm noting that my understanding of the complexities of the world
>exceeds yours.
The only evidence you have for that statement is my contention that
the world is more complex than commonly portrayed. So it's curious you
see that actually as a *simplistic* (compared to yours) view.
>
>> There are many, many people who have excellent reasons to hate the US.
>
>That is a disingenuous, indirect way of saying that the attack on the
>US was justified.
Alleging cause and effect doesn't imply approval for the effect. The
US will never rid itself of terrorism unless it honestly examines it's
own role in triggering it. And its foreign policy *has* played a role
in triggering it - everyone sees it but some right wing Americans.
Pointing that out isn't being an apologist for terrorism. Wilfully
ignoring it *is* in a way, in that it invites further atrocities like
Sept 11th.
>
>> And the US's reaction to Sept 11th is to simply create even more of
>
>We'll see if that's true when the smoke has cleared.
Well, I suppose genocidally elliminating any possible threat is
another option.....
>
>> them. The benign domestic behavior of the US towards it's own citizens
>> is simply no indication whatsoever of the way it behaves and protects
>> its interests abroad.
>
>Chomsky wouldn't even agree with the "benign domestic" part.
>
>>
>> You guys need to stop watching CNN and checkout the BBC, or
>> www.guardian.co.uk
>
>I already have it bookmarked along with a large number of news sources
>and opinion sources covering the full politcal spectrum in the US and
>worldwide. Bailamos? -Pancho
In that case I'd be interested in whether or not you agree that US
policy in the Middle-East has helped create the current crisis.
Dragonfly
Angelo Delamuerte wrote:
> I know -- all those well research facts, citations of released US
> documents and references to known historical events must have made him
> loose all his marbles! This guy is a real KOOK if he thinks Americans
> can handle all this wacko truth! Who does he think he is, some highly
> respected and world famous speaker?! the gall...
Chomsky can blow me...he's a leftist that is pro- muslim...I'm pro-Israel
conservative.
>
>
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2001 05:43:16 GMT, CyberBMcD <cybe...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Mark Gerard Miller wrote:
> >>
> >> Thank God somebody has the balls to stand up and tell it like it is. If
> >> Americans had any idea what their government was doing around the world they
> >> would revolt.
> >>
> >> Mark
> >
> >
> >YAWN,
> >
> >you seem to be enjoying it.
> >
> >Chomsky has never told anything like it is, just his paranoid
> >schizophrenic view of things.
--
"War has been waged by stealth, and deceit, and murder."
George W. Bush
"A man who wishes to make a profession of goodness in everything must necessarily
come to grief among so many who are not so good. Therefore it is necessary for a
prince, who wishes to maintain himself, to learn how to not be good and use the
knowledge as well as not use it, according to the necessity of the case."
Niccolo Machiavelli
"If my Prussian ancestry has taught me any-thing, it is that great
civilizations are forged of blood and iron and steel and guts and glory
and hate and excited stabbings and Viking warships ramming one another and
babies impaled on pikes and women running around hysterically with their
bodices torn so as to reveal their pendulous breasts."
-- T. Herman Zweibel
Angelo Delamuerte
wrote:
>
>"If my Prussian ancestry has taught me any-thing, it is that great
>civilizations are forged of blood and iron and steel and guts and glory
>and hate and excited stabbings and Viking warships ramming one another and
>babies impaled on pikes and women running around hysterically with their
>bodices torn so as to reveal their pendulous breasts."
> -- T. Herman Zweibel
I appreciate you joining my cause so enthusiastically....you've made
it unnecessary to try to refute you.
Angelo Delamuerte
situation (yet)...but I will do my research tonight and get back to
you as best I can...so if you think I'm not responding, its just that
I am loathe to contradict someone with only vitriol (what a fun and
common word in this group!). I will say that the complexities of all
world affairs are such that what may appear on any surface as being
contradictory to reason, may indeed have substance, and I have come to
expect much of substance from Chomsky, in high contrast to many (not
all) of his detractors...Hey, if he's gotten 19 out of 20 right, he's
a winner in my book....
but I will check out the book cited, and I will try to give an
informed response.
cheers and
ecrasez l'infame
left
Mark Gerard Miller wrote:
>
> Thank God somebody has the balls to stand up and tell it like it is. If
> Americans had any idea what their government was doing around the world they
> would revolt.
>
> Mark
Hardly. Frankly, THIS american thinks we ain't doing ENOUGH.
I may revolt because there WILL still be food available to almost
1/5 of the po[ulation of afghanistan! That is NO WAY to properly
conduct a genocide!
And of course our Gov is idiotically dropping food for these
sub-humans! Makes me wanna PUKE!
left
Angelo Delamuerte wrote:
>
> I know -- all those well research facts, citations of released US
> documents and references to known historical events must have made him
> loose all his marbles!
ROTFLMAO!!!!
Yah... ok, have you ever verified a full list of Chomsky citations?
I have.
Try it sometime - you'll be in for a shock. You''l find more than
a few of the sources to exist only in his imagination.
Francisco Mendoza
> On 7 Nov 2001 18:25:12 -0800, polst...@yahoo.com (Francisco Mendoza)
> wrote:
>
> >SteveL <Ste...@stevelon.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<oVfG7.46709$7x1.4...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>...
> >> On 7 Nov 2001 07:52:37 -0800, polst...@yahoo.com (Francisco Mendoza)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Chomsky is a linguist by profession and a poor one at that.
> >>
> >> Wrong. Some of his ideas have been superceded (so have Einstein's),
> >> but his work in linguistics is rightly famous, and has directly led to
> >> modern techniques of computer language design. He's still an important
> >> figure in the field.
> >
> >Yeah, yeah he developed context-free grammar about 50 years ago. For
> >this I should allow that he was at least mediocre linguist. (I know
> >quite a bit about computer language design and a little about
> >linguistics). Here's another view of his linguistic work:
> >
> >http://frontpagemag.com/guestcolumnists/graves10-31-01.htm
>
> I went there. Interesting discussion board accompanying it, with as
Good, if you're willing to examine other opinions, there is hope for
you lad. As you are now, I once was.
> many people defending Chomsky's linguistics credentials as attacking
> them. As usual nothing is cut and dried.
> >
> >> >His
> >> >opinions on politics and world events are always repititions of the
> >> >same stale anti-American theme.
> >>
> >> Hmm. I could repeat a littany of some of the accolades he's received
> >
> >You could say that about Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc. Yasser Arafat win
> >the Nobel Peace Prize. Big whoop.
>
> Wow, I'll remember that the next time I see someone given an accolade.
> "All accolades are worthless because some heinous people have been
> given them in the past".
My none too subtly implied point was that not all accolades are
meaningful. Don't set up strawmen. If you try debating me with such
weak tactics, I will surely and easily tear you a new one.
>
> At least we agree the Nobel Peace Prize is a joke. You mention Arafat.
> I'll mention Kissinger.
>
> >
> >> (along the lines of "the most important intellectual alive") from
> >> highly respected word reknowned sources... Hell, even the Financial
> >> Times of Britain - as conservative a paper as you'll see - respects
> >> Chomsky's views.
> >
> >How very scary for Britain.
>
> LOL. That's quite a sweeping statement. I thnk the Brits do pretty
> well by their media (apart from the tabloids).
>
> >
> >> >Yet he remains the darling of
> >> >left-wing academics who are too out of touch with the real world to
> >> >understand how silly this makes them look. -Pancho
> >> >
> >>
> >> Sorry pal. You're the one out of touch with the real world. Or have
> >> you forgotten Sept 11th already? Don't tell me you really believe the
> >> cartoon level propaganda that the terrorists attacked the WTC and the
> >> Pentagon because they're simply loony Islamic fundamentalists who hate
> >> freedom and women having the vote. It tells you *nothing* about what's
> >> really going on. The world is more complex than that.
> >
> >I'm noting that my understanding of the complexities of the world
> >exceeds yours.
>
> The only evidence you have for that statement is my contention that
> the world is more complex than commonly portrayed. So it's curious you
> see that actually as a *simplistic* (compared to yours) view.
Or maybe I read your whole response and looked at some of your other
posts?
> >
> >> There are many, many people who have excellent reasons to hate the US.
> >
> >That is a disingenuous, indirect way of saying that the attack on the
> >US was justified.
>
> Alleging cause and effect doesn't imply approval for the effect. The
> US will never rid itself of terrorism unless it honestly examines it's
> own role in triggering it. And its foreign policy *has* played a role
> in triggering it - everyone sees it but some right wing Americans.
Would that be the 80-90% of Americans who understand what we have to
do now, or some smaller group?
> Pointing that out isn't being an apologist for terrorism. Wilfully
> ignoring it *is* in a way, in that it invites further atrocities like
> Sept 11th.
I think you're implying that the blame you place on America somehow
lessens the guilt of the perpetrators, or reduces our right to fight
back. I also think you are not heeding your own observation that
"nothing is cut and dried."
> >
> >> And the US's reaction to Sept 11th is to simply create even more of
> >
> >We'll see if that's true when the smoke has cleared.
>
> Well, I suppose genocidally elliminating any possible threat is
> another option.....
"when the smoke has cleared" is admittedly vague, but assigning the
meaning "when the genocide is done" is setting up another strawman.
Don't trivialize genocide by throwing the word around loosely.
> >
> >> them. The benign domestic behavior of the US towards it's own citizens
> >> is simply no indication whatsoever of the way it behaves and protects
> >> its interests abroad.
> >
> >Chomsky wouldn't even agree with the "benign domestic" part.
> >
> >>
> >> You guys need to stop watching CNN and checkout the BBC, or
> >> www.guardian.co.uk
> >
> >I already have it bookmarked along with a large number of news sources
> >and opinion sources covering the full politcal spectrum in the US and
> >worldwide. Bailamos? -Pancho
>
> In that case I'd be interested in whether or not you agree that US
> policy in the Middle-East has helped create the current crisis.
Not nearly to the extent that you seem to believe. I'd be interested
in knowing how much you think it matters at this juncture in history.
If the the US were 100% responsible for the current crisis, would it
be in our best interest not to fight back now? Do you believe those
who hate us will stop hating us if we do what they say they want us to
do (i.e. appease them)? Do you believe they are not trying hard to get
nukes?
An historical analogy: Did Allied treatment of Germany after WWI help
the Nazis come to power? Although to what degree can be endlessly
debated, the answer is: to some degree, yes. Did the Allies have any
viable alternative to fighting Nazi Germany to the death in 1941? The
answer is almost certainly no. -Pancho
Francisco Mendoza
It doesn't require expertise to know that Cambodian Holocaust was
indefensible in any context, it only requires basic knowledge of the
events. Whatever misdeeds the US may have committed in IndoChina
cannot justify the actions of the Khmer Rouge.
Please take this as constructive criticism: The Cambodian Holocaust is
a pretty big gap to have in one's historical knowledge if one is going
to get involved in these discussions. Don't they teach kids history in
school anymore? I remember about a month before this war started
reading about the Taliban destoying the ancient Buddhist statues in
Afghanistan and thinking how eerily similar that was to Pol Pot's
"Year Zero" in Cambodia, and the destruction of ancient temples that
accompanied the mass killings.
Do yourself a favor and use some sources besides Chomsky to research
Cambodia for balance. Watch "The Killing Fields" if you want to see a
good movie about it. Chomsky blames Cambodia on the US. But this was a
government that was hostile to the US. It was helped to power by
countries hostile to the US. It destroyed the very country and people
it ruled without outside help or encouragement. People are responsible
for their own actions. Keep in mind that there are facts and there are
spins on facts always, but especially when reading Chomsky.
I won't be getting into debates about Cambodia or Noam Chomsky.
Neither topic is important to me right now in light of the current
war. -Pancho
Angelo Delamuerte
wrote:
>The Cambodian Holocaust is
>a pretty big gap to have in one's historical knowledge if one is going
>to get involved in these discussions. Don't they teach kids history in
>school anymore? I remember about a month before this war started
>reading about the Taliban destoying the ancient Buddhist statues in
>Afghanistan and thinking how eerily similar that was to Pol Pot's
>"Year Zero" in Cambodia, and the destruction of ancient temples that
>accompanied the mass killings.
>
>Do yourself a favor and use some sources besides Chomsky to research
>Cambodia for balance. Watch "The Killing Fields" if you want to see a
>good movie about it. Chomsky blames Cambodia on the US. But this was a
>government that was hostile to the US. It was helped to power by
>countries hostile to the US. It destroyed the very country and people
>it ruled without outside help or encouragement. People are responsible
>for their own actions. Keep in mind that there are facts and there are
>spins on facts always, but especially when reading Chomsky.
>
>I won't be getting into debates about Cambodia or Noam Chomsky.
>Neither topic is important to me right now in light of the current
>war. -Pancho
Look, I said, honestly and fairly that on the exact quote, I wasn't
able to get right back to you...this does not imply that I have a
"gap" in my history..It means, unlike alot of the reactionaries on
Usenet, I'd rather give the issue some research and thought before I
tout myself as the 'expert' and instinctively retort with a
counter....Do you expect everyone to have the same focus on all world
events?!! I will draw my own conclusions, independent of you, since
it would appear you have your own interests in countering Chomsky,
without duly crediting him for so much of the insightful and fully
acclaimed discussion he has engendered.
SteveL
wrote:
>
>
>Good, if you're willing to examine other opinions, there is hope for
>you lad.
>As you are now, I once was.
I could say the same thing. I was a USAF brat all my childhood.
Un-thinking pro-America was instilled in me. The US never did
anything wrong in the world etc... I've lived a lot of my adult life
overseas. That has taught me that some non-American views have merit -
even some which are seen as anti-American by people in the same state
of ignorance I was kept in before. If you've "been where I once was"
and moved further on then you have my respect because at least it
shows that you're opinions aren't just determined by upbringing. Too
many people in this group sharing your view are just borderline
fascists who've never been open to argument and probably never will.
>
>> many people defending Chomsky's linguistics credentials as attacking
>> them. As usual nothing is cut and dried.
>> >> Hmm. I could repeat a littany of some of the accolades he's received
>> >
>> >You could say that about Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc. Yasser Arafat win
>> >the Nobel Peace Prize. Big whoop.
>>
>> Wow, I'll remember that the next time I see someone given an accolade.
>> "All accolades are worthless because some heinous people have been
>> given them in the past".
>
>My none too subtly implied point was that not all accolades are
>meaningful. Don't set up strawmen. If you try debating me with such
>weak tactics, I will surely and easily tear you a new one.
Sorry you think I lowered the tone of the argument. Maybe I got my cue
from your equally sweeping dissmissive comment that the conservative
Financial Times's respect for Chomsky was "scary for Britain". You're
quite the bobber and weaver. You start off trivializing Chomsky, I
respond with an indication of the respect in which he's held by
others. You then trivialize that implying that praise for Chomsky
falls into the same realm as praise for Stalin and the like (and you
*were*- despite your softer follow-up), and accuse me of using weak
tactics when I satirize *your* tone. You setup the straw man, not me.
>
>Or maybe I read your whole response and looked at some of your other
>posts?
Well I saw one your posts too, where you try to compare this current
situation with the threat of Hitler. Don't agree at all. Sept 11th was
a *terrorist* act. Not an act of war by Afghanistan. Yet we fall into
the trap of behaving as though our argument is with a government -
because we don't know how to respond any differently.
We've gone to war with people who won't turn over a criminal suspect
- not thwarting power mad dictators bent on world domination. We
tacitly regard 5000 lives in New York as more important than the
sovereignty of a nation, and the potential deaths there of 10 times
that figure. That's shows a national arrogance of almost unbelievable
scope, and only helps to confirm to Arabs that their suspicion of
America is well founded.
Now the transmogrification is complete, with Tony Blair's unilateral
statement that we should regard bin Laden and the Taliban as the same
thing. Very convenient, because it legitmises the traditional methods.
Any blow against Afghanistan is now a blow against bin Laden, and is
therefore legitimate, no matter how many die.
Drawing specious analogies of the current situation with appeasement
of Hitler doesn't convince me that your view of the complexities of
the world is better than mine. Hitler was the leader of a nation, with
an army, navy, and airforce behind him. He invaded other countries and
conquered them. Your depiction of the British "appeasers" still
defending Hitler's actions even as his bombs rained down on London
defies reality. Chamberlain was the archetypal "appeaser", yet it was
he who declared war on Germany - before any bombs dropped on London,
or military action of any kind was taken against Britain.
It is a fact of the time, by the way, that Hitler initially saw
Britain as a partner in the great Aryan new order. He never wanted to
go to war with Britain, who he viewed as a natural ally (for racial
reasons). Those who wanted to appease Hitler's actions in Eastern
Europe weren't totally head-in-the-sand ostriches who couldn't see the
bad news coming, as much as people who thought they were safe in the
knowledge they were under no direct threat from him. Britain declared
war on Germany, not the other way around, because Hitler invaded
Poland, which meant war due to the Locarno(?) treaty, not because of
direct threats by Germany. So do I think WW2 should have been avoided
at all costs, just like the appeasers you satirize? No of course not.
Just pointing another example of how the world (and even well known
history) is not as simple as commonly believed.
A group of people commandeering civilian aircraft and flying them into
buildings is not the same thing as invading Czechoslovakia or Poland.
It's not even a microcosm of it.
>
>> >
>> >> There are many, many people who have excellent reasons to hate the US.
>> >
>> >That is a disingenuous, indirect way of saying that the attack on the
>> >US was justified.
>>
>> Alleging cause and effect doesn't imply approval for the effect. The
>> US will never rid itself of terrorism unless it honestly examines it's
>> own role in triggering it. And its foreign policy *has* played a role
>> in triggering it - everyone sees it but some right wing Americans.
>
>Would that be the 80-90% of Americans who understand what we have to
>do now, or some smaller group?
Whether 80-90% of Americans either ignore or just don't know that this
whole thing has a real cause, is neither here nor there. The very idea
of it is never mentioned in the mainstream US media, so it comes as no
surprise. It's accepted outside of the US, even by right wingers. In
fact, just last night Peter Hitchens (Christopher's loony right-wing
anti-brother) declared his complete astonishment at the conduct of the
war with Afghanistan on the BBC's Question Time program. He's as
pro-American as you'll get anywhere outside the US and even he has
doubts about this.
>
>> Pointing that out isn't being an apologist for terrorism. Wilfully
>> ignoring it *is* in a way, in that it invites further atrocities like
>> Sept 11th.
>
>I think you're implying that the blame you place on America somehow
>lessens the guilt of the perpetrators
> or reduces our right to fight
>back. I also think you are not heeding your own observation that
>"nothing is cut and dried."
I'm precisely making the point that nothing is cut and dried. It's the
simplistic "they started it. let's finish it - all other
considerations recinded" theme where everything *is* cut and dried.
You think that it's just down to a new virulant brand of Islam that's
taken root, and must be stamped out. I'd say *that's* the naive view.
>>
>> Well, I suppose genocidally elliminating any possible threat is
>> another option.....
>
>"when the smoke has cleared" is admittedly vague, but assigning the
>meaning "when the genocide is done" is setting up another strawman.
>Don't trivialize genocide by throwing the word around loosely.
It was an honestly taken inference that you were taking the (commonly
expressed) line advocating we just wade in and lay waste to the
region. If it's not what you really implied then sorry. Regardless,
it isn't *me* who trivializes genocide.
>> In that case I'd be interested in whether or not you agree that US
>> policy in the Middle-East has helped create the current crisis.
>
>Not nearly to the extent that you seem to believe. I'd be interested
>in knowing how much you think it matters at this juncture in history.
>If the the US were 100% responsible for the current crisis, would it
>be in our best interest not to fight back now?
You imply this new Islam has designs of worldwide aggression. I say
Arabs are reacting to *our* foreign policy aggression, and religious
fundamentalists are carrying the torch and rallying support for
themselves because they openly stand against it. If I'm right then
stopping the aggression *is* a sensible way forward and not naive
appeasement of a threat to us (that wouldn't exist were it not for our
policies).
Sept 11th was an act of hatred against the US committed by a group of
fanatics, not an act of war worthy of responding with a "real" war
against another country. Damn right we should be asking ourselves why
anyone would hate us enough to do that. And we shouldn't avoid honest
answers. Dismissing it on rabid forms of Islam, who hate freedom and
the advancement of women in Western society is very convenient to
those wishing to feel 100% righteously indignant, but it ignores the
real causes totally.
Perhaps actions such as backing the mujahadeen against Russia
(creating the roots of the Taliban government and teaching bin Laden
everything he knows along the way) then abandoning them as soon as the
war was over and we'd finished putting one over on the Russians...
Backing Saddam Hussein in a horribly costly war against Iran (because
Iran dared to overthrow the US backed Shah - and again, resulting in
making Saddam who he is today)... Then attacking Iraq for 10 years
because they dared to invade Kuwait (to which they have always laid
claim), imposing sanctions on them leading (however indirectly) to the
deaths of 500,000 children - even repeatedly bombing waste treatment
plants in an apparently deliberate effort to spread disease (source
unicef).... Constant, total, non-wavering, automated support for
Israel, and equally constant disregard for the Palestinians....
Perhaps the sum of those things (and others) is a better explanation
for the "Islamic" hatred behind Sept 11th, than those ridiculous and
self-serving "they hate freedom and democracy" reasons peddled out by
the government, and which you appear to agree with. After all, the
terrorists attacked the heart of American *power* - economic power
(WTC) and miltiary power (the Pentagon). They didn't attack the Statue
of Liberty, or any other symbol of democracy. They didn't attack
Christian symbols either.
It's easy for you to caricature British appeasers to Hitler discussing
unfair reparations, the Sudetenland, and the Danzig corridor as things
we can "blame" ourselves for -- if we're stupid, that is. But the
foreign policy of the US in the Middle-East has been far more
intrusive, active, and directly destructive than our indirect "blame"
for setting up the conditions for the Third Reich to flourish ever
were. No-one in the 20s and 30s started or inflamed multiple proxy
wars in Europe leading to millions of deaths for ever changing
domestically inspired reasons. And if they did, don't you think they
would be hated by the Europeans affected by it?
>Do you believe those
>who hate us will stop hating us if we do what they say they want us to
>do (i.e. appease them)? Do you believe they are not trying hard to get
>nukes?
Hmm, a loaded question if ever there was one. "Appeasing" "them". Who
exactly?. I'm saying that America's foreign policy has negatively
impacted on literally millions of families in the Middle-East. I don't
consider myself as appeasing them. Out of those millions of people,
perhaps a few thousand at most are terrorists the US should be worried
about. Bombing the shit out of Afghanistan (and Iraq for that
matter), will only add to that figure. And since you don't agree with
genocidally elliminating all possible threats (as mentioned above),
then this should concern you.
Francisco Mendoza
Your original retort:
"Sorry, your juvenile attempts to degrade his debating prowess are
mere
empty accustations....
Please enlighten the group about some things he has stated, and their
historical or political innaccuracy....
This should be fun." [excerpt]
Was a good example of a knee-jerk reaction. (It has been fun by the
way.)
> counter....Do you expect everyone to have the same focus on all world
> events?!! I will draw my own conclusions, independent of you, since
> it would appear you have your own interests in countering Chomsky,
> without duly crediting him for so much of the insightful and fully
> acclaimed discussion he has engendered.
I acknowledged his development of context-free grammars--credit where
credit is due. -Pancho
Angelo Delamuerte
book, which I will purchase (donating more $ to Chomsky's cause, BTW),
and since I am far more familiar with the man's greatness, and now
well aquainted with your disdain for this trait in others, I fear
nothing of this interaction...and you are Latino?! My god, if anyone
ought to see the lies and distortions of mainstream politics, its you
my friend. Chomsky has always been a great champion for the cause of
true democracy in C.&S.America, and for the fight to cast off the
chains of Northern oppression, and American homoginization throughout
the world....some ~pancho~ you are...fighting ~vs~ the peoples,
instead of for them apparently....
Or are you some bought and paid for anti-Chomsky PR goon?...
Francisco Mendoza
> I haven't even started yet...but I've got all weekend to read the
> book, which I will purchase (donating more $ to Chomsky's cause, BTW),
> and since I am far more familiar with the man's greatness, and now
> well aquainted with your disdain for this trait in others, I fear
> nothing of this interaction...and you are Latino?! My god, if anyone
I already told you we're not going to have interaction on Chomsky or
Cambodia. The topic of the day is the current war.
> ought to see the lies and distortions of mainstream politics, its you
> my friend. Chomsky has always been a great champion for the cause of
> true democracy in C.&S.America, and for the fight to cast off the
Don't even get me started on Latin America & Chomsky. Entities which
he embraces there have inflicted great suffering very close to home to
me. This is one of the reasons I have a particular dislike for the
man. I'm not going to give you any more detail than that because I'm
not interested in debating those particulars either. I'm more
interested continuing my discussion with SteveL in this thread for
now, he appears to be a potentially more worthy opponent, and I don't
have time for both of you. I have a life too.
> chains of Northern oppression, and American homoginization throughout
> the world....some ~pancho~ you are...fighting ~vs~ the peoples,
> instead of for them apparently....
> Or are you some bought and paid for anti-Chomsky PR goon?...
If I was, I'd continue this discussion and post some more gems of his.
I doubt anyone takes him seriously enough to pay someone to flame him
on the Internet, and he draws enough detractors for free, as this and
many other threads illustrate. -Pancho
Francisco Mendoza
> On 8 Nov 2001 18:43:33 -0800, polst...@yahoo.com (Francisco Mendoza)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Good, if you're willing to examine other opinions, there is hope for
> >you lad.
>
> >As you are now, I once was.
>
> I could say the same thing. I was a USAF brat all my childhood.
> Un-thinking pro-America was instilled in me. The US never did
> anything wrong in the world etc... I've lived a lot of my adult life
> overseas. That has taught me that some non-American views have merit -
> even some which are seen as anti-American by people in the same state
> of ignorance I was kept in before.
The existence of real grievances gives no more justification to the
acts of war directed at us than the existence of perceived ones.
> If you've "been where I once was"
> and moved further on then you have my respect because at least it
> shows that you're opinions aren't just determined by upbringing. Too
> many people in this group sharing your view are just borderline
> fascists who've never been open to argument and probably never will.
There are fascists on both sides of that coin. 90% of the American
people support this war for reasons. Not all of them support it for
good reasons, and not all of them are good people, but there plenty of
good reasons to support it, and good people who do. The same can be
said for the other side on a smaller scale.
>
> >
> >> many people defending Chomsky's linguistics credentials as attacking
> >> them. As usual nothing is cut and dried.
>
> >> >> Hmm. I could repeat a littany of some of the accolades he's received
> >> >
> >> >You could say that about Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc. Yasser Arafat win
> >> >the Nobel Peace Prize. Big whoop.
> >>
> >> Wow, I'll remember that the next time I see someone given an accolade.
> >> "All accolades are worthless because some heinous people have been
> >> given them in the past".
> >
> >My none too subtly implied point was that not all accolades are
> >meaningful. Don't set up strawmen. If you try debating me with such
> >weak tactics, I will surely and easily tear you a new one.
>
> Sorry you think I lowered the tone of the argument. Maybe I got my cue
> from your equally sweeping dissmissive comment that the conservative
> Financial Times's respect for Chomsky was "scary for Britain". You're
> quite the bobber and weaver. You start off trivializing Chomsky, I
> respond with an indication of the respect in which he's held by
> others. You then trivialize that implying that praise for Chomsky
> falls into the same realm as praise for Stalin and the like (and you
> *were*- despite your softer follow-up),
> and accuse me of using weak
> tactics when I satirize *your* tone. You setup the straw man, not me.
I still trivialize Chomsky unapologetically. My observations were
sarcastic, but I did not imply that you said something other than he
has received many accolades. You implied sarcastically that I said
"All accolades are worthless because some heinous people have been
given them in the past," going so far as to use quotes. We both used
sarcasm (and I'm all in favor of sarcasm) but only you argued against
something the other didn't say, the definition of a strawman.
We can't have a meaningful discussion if we don't address what the
other says. If we discuss what we decide the other person says, then
we are only having a conversation with ourselves. I'm guilty of that
sometimes too, but I'm ready to have a serious discussion with someone
who will defend their position and stick around. I'm even capable of
setting sarcasm and ad hominems aside, but it has to work both ways.
>
> >
> >Or maybe I read your whole response and looked at some of your other
> >posts?
>
> Well I saw one your posts too, where you try to compare this current
> situation with the threat of Hitler. Don't agree at all. Sept 11th was
> a *terrorist* act. Not an act of war by Afghanistan. Yet we fall into
> the trap of behaving as though our argument is with a government -
> because we don't know how to respond any differently.
> We've gone to war with people who won't turn over a criminal suspect
The "criminal suspect" declared jihad against the US, and attacked
military and government targets on several occassions. We rolled with
those punches, but had to draw the line with this massive assault on
civilians and on a military target within our borders. The Taliban for
now IS the de facto government of Afghanistan. They were given ample
opportunity to avoid war by handing over those who did commit the act
of war, but they chose war, and even declared jihad on the US long
before we attacked. They shoud have handed bin Laden over after the
African embassy bombings. They were shown the damning evidence, but
refused. We couldn't just wait around for al Qaeda to act again while
they operated with impunity in Afghanistan. These acts of war and
declarations of war cannot go unanswered.
> - not thwarting power mad dictators bent on world domination. We
I'm going to do some research and provide links in a subsequent post
addressing the question of how big a threat radical Islamics and a
certain secular ally of theirs pose.
> tacitly regard 5000 lives in New York as more important than the
> sovereignty of a nation, and the potential deaths there of 10 times
> that figure. That's shows a national arrogance of almost unbelievable
> scope, and only helps to confirm to Arabs that their suspicion of
> America is well founded.
I only infrequently hear the need for revenge for the WTC 5000
expressed as a reason we must fight this war. I do not favor
prosecuting this war for reasons of retaliation. I see no need to
defend "tacit" thoughts you have inferred that aren't mine.
>
> Now the transmogrification is complete, with Tony Blair's unilateral
bilateral, Dubya said it weeks ago.
> statement that we should regard bin Laden and the Taliban as the same
> thing. Very convenient, because it legitmises the traditional methods.
> Any blow against Afghanistan is now a blow against bin Laden, and is
> therefore legitimate, no matter how many die.
There is good reason to eliminate the Taliban without defining al
Qaeda and the Taliban as one entity. Afghanistan is the first battle
of this war. When other hostile countries see that we mean business by
following through on the removal of the the Taliban from power, they
may change their ways and cooperate in the apprehension and
destruction of terrorists and their support systems, instead of
abetting them. Fighting the Battle of Afghanistan with stern resolve
may actually reduce the number of battles to come, and thereby save
lives. Not fighting at all may get us nuked. Unless you have a working
crystal ball, you cannot even say what course of action will result in
more deaths now.
It is unfortunate that innocents die in war, but sometimes war is
unavoidable. Whether we could have avoided the war is a topic for
hypothetical debate, but we did not, it was delivered to us on 9/11,
and we're going to be smack in the middle of it for a long time to
come.
> Drawing specious analogies of the current situation with appeasement
> of Hitler doesn't convince me that your view of the complexities of
> the world is better than mine. Hitler was the leader of a nation, with
> an army, navy, and airforce behind him. He invaded other countries and
> conquered them.
As I said, I will address the seriousness of the threat in a
subsequent post.
> Your depiction of the British "appeasers" still
> defending Hitler's actions even as his bombs rained down on London
> defies reality.
That was the whole point.
> Chamberlain was the archetypal "appeaser", yet it was
> he who declared war on Germany - before any bombs dropped on London,
> or military action of any kind was taken against Britain.
That post also said that current threat level is more analogous to
1938, the year Chamberlain threw the Czechs to the wolves, in the
level of threat posed by the enemy. If Chamberlain had chosen to fight
rather than appease in that year, a world war might have still been
averted.
>
> It is a fact of the time, by the way, that Hitler initially saw
> Britain as a partner in the great Aryan new order. He never wanted to
> go to war with Britain, who he viewed as a natural ally (for racial
> reasons). Those who wanted to appease Hitler's actions in Eastern
> Europe weren't totally head-in-the-sand ostriches who couldn't see the
> bad news coming, as much as people who thought they were safe in the
> knowledge they were under no direct threat from him. Britain declared
> war on Germany, not the other way around, because Hitler invaded
> Poland, which meant war due to the Locarno(?) treaty, not because of
> direct threats by Germany.
I'm familiar with the details.
> So do I think WW2 should have been avoided
> at all costs, just like the appeasers you satirize? No of course not.
> Just pointing another example of how the world (and even well known
> history) is not as simple as commonly believed.
>
> A group of people commandeering civilian aircraft and flying them into
> buildings is not the same thing as invading Czechoslovakia or Poland.
> It's not even a microcosm of it.
But it is a precursor bigger things to come, just as the re-occupation
of the Rhineland was in 1936.
>
> >
> >> >
> >> >> There are many, many people who have excellent reasons to hate the US.
> >> >
> >> >That is a disingenuous, indirect way of saying that the attack on the
> >> >US was justified.
> >>
> >> Alleging cause and effect doesn't imply approval for the effect. The
> >> US will never rid itself of terrorism unless it honestly examines it's
> >> own role in triggering it. And its foreign policy *has* played a role
> >> in triggering it - everyone sees it but some right wing Americans.
> >
> >Would that be the 80-90% of Americans who understand what we have to
> >do now, or some smaller group?
>
> Whether 80-90% of Americans either ignore or just don't know that this
> whole thing has a real cause, is neither here nor there. The very idea
> of it is never mentioned in the mainstream US media, so it comes as no
I see the same anti-war sentiments and discussions of causes in the US
media as in other country's media, maybe not as frequently. The
Internet is pretty much mainstream now. You disagree with the vast
majority of Americans, but don't assume this disagreement is caused by
a lack of knowledge of the issues on our part. That was at least your
second allusion to ignorance. I don't think you can make a good case
for it. We interpret the facts differently. Remember, not everything
is cut and dried.
> surprise. It's accepted outside of the US, even by right wingers. In
> fact, just last night Peter Hitchens (Christopher's loony right-wing
> anti-brother) declared his complete astonishment at the conduct of the
> war with Afghanistan on the BBC's Question Time program. He's as
> pro-American as you'll get anywhere outside the US and even he has
> doubts about this.
Any debate on conduct is largely hypothetical since almost all of the
information we get is filtered through either the Taliban, the
Pentagon, or the NA. There is very little freedom of movement for the
press in Afghanistan. We see the worst of the civilian casualties
(without even knowing which have been inflicted the Taliban) because
the Taliban wants us too. The Pentagon doesn't tell us anything it
doesn't want the Taliban to know, including how much it knows, which
is how it must be. Voters and arm-chair generals can only speculate on
the best tactics needed to achieve our military goals, and to quickly
open the way for large scale humanitarian aid.
>
> >
> >> Pointing that out isn't being an apologist for terrorism. Wilfully
> >> ignoring it *is* in a way, in that it invites further atrocities like
> >> Sept 11th.
> >
> >I think you're implying that the blame you place on America somehow
> >lessens the guilt of the perpetrators
> > or reduces our right to fight
> >back. I also think you are not heeding your own observation that
> >"nothing is cut and dried."
>
> I'm precisely making the point that nothing is cut and dried. It's the
> simplistic "they started it. let's finish it - all other
> considerations recinded" theme where everything *is* cut and dried.
What's your plan?
> You think that it's just down to a new virulant brand of Islam that's
> taken root, and must be stamped out. I'd say *that's* the naive view.
>
future post topic
> >>
> >> Well, I suppose genocidally elliminating any possible threat is
> >> another option.....
> >
> >"when the smoke has cleared" is admittedly vague, but assigning the
> >meaning "when the genocide is done" is setting up another strawman.
> >Don't trivialize genocide by throwing the word around loosely.
>
> It was an honestly taken inference that you were taking the (commonly
> expressed) line advocating we just wade in and lay waste to the
Not that common. More "tacit" thoughts?
> region. If it's not what you really implied then sorry. Regardless,
> it isn't *me* who trivializes genocide.
Who does?
>
> >> In that case I'd be interested in whether or not you agree that US
> >> policy in the Middle-East has helped create the current crisis.
> >
> >Not nearly to the extent that you seem to believe. I'd be interested
> >in knowing how much you think it matters at this juncture in history.
> >If the the US were 100% responsible for the current crisis, would it
> >be in our best interest not to fight back now?
>
> You imply this new Islam has designs of worldwide aggression. I say
> Arabs are reacting to *our* foreign policy aggression, and religious
> fundamentalists are carrying the torch and rallying support for
> themselves because they openly stand against it. If I'm right then
> stopping the aggression *is* a sensible way forward and not naive
> appeasement of a threat to us (that wouldn't exist were it not for our
> policies).
What specific foreign policy changes are you advocating? The direction
this discussion will take may depend a lot on whether you think Israel
has right to exist.
> Sept 11th was an act of hatred against the US committed by a group of
> fanatics, not an act of war worthy of responding with a "real" war
> against another country. Damn right we should be asking ourselves why
> anyone would hate us enough to do that. And we shouldn't avoid honest
> answers. Dismissing it on rabid forms of Islam, who hate freedom and
> the advancement of women in Western society is very convenient to
> those wishing to feel 100% righteously indignant, but it ignores the
> real causes totally.
>
> Perhaps actions such as backing the mujahadeen against Russia
> (creating the roots of the Taliban government and teaching bin Laden
> everything he knows along the way) then abandoning them as soon as the
> war was over and we'd finished putting one over on the Russians...
We did not teach him to export barbaric terrorism to the world.
Whatever we did teach him during Afghanistan's war against the
Soviets, we are not going to unteach, and whatever responsibility we
share for his creation only increases our responsibility to eliminate
him.
> Backing Saddam Hussein in a horribly costly war against Iran (because
> Iran dared to overthrow the US backed Shah - and again, resulting in
> making Saddam who he is today)... Then attacking Iraq for 10 years
> because they dared to invade Kuwait (to which they have always laid
> claim), imposing sanctions on them leading (however indirectly) to the
> deaths of 500,000 children - even repeatedly bombing waste treatment
> plants in an apparently deliberate effort to spread disease (source
> unicef).... Constant, total, non-wavering, automated support for
> Israel, and equally constant disregard for the Palestinians....
Iraq has been allowed to trade oil for years for food and medicine.
Also, Hussein has had the ability to end sanctions for years, but has
thought that following the agreement to allow inspections was too high
a price to pay, and THAT worries me a lot.
I don't buy that 500K figure unquestioningly. Show me a source that
doesn't trace back to the Iraqi Ministry of Health given numbers, or a
wild estimate and you might sell me. Someone emailed me yesterday
indignantly asserting that that number came from the Red Cross. They
included a link to a Red Cross Web site page that gave the number as a
quote from the Iraqi Ministry of Health! I don't know if the estimates
include the Kurdish and Shiite children Saddam's forces slaughtered. I
think the most serious strategic and humanitarian mistakes we made in
Iraq were not taking Hussein out in 1991, and abandoning the
opposition, and we are definitely going to fix at least one of those
mistakes.
> Perhaps the sum of those things (and others) is a better explanation
> for the "Islamic" hatred behind Sept 11th, than those ridiculous and
> self-serving "they hate freedom and democracy" reasons peddled out by
> the government, and which you appear to agree with. After all, the
> terrorists attacked the heart of American *power* - economic power
> (WTC)
(knowing they would burn alive the citizens of many nations--any tacit
thoughts there?)
> and miltiary power (the Pentagon). They didn't attack the Statue
> of Liberty, or any other symbol of democracy. They didn't attack
> Christian symbols either.
>
> It's easy for you to caricature British appeasers to Hitler discussing
> unfair reparations, the Sudetenland, and the Danzig corridor as things
> we can "blame" ourselves for -- if we're stupid, that is. But the
> foreign policy of the US in the Middle-East has been far more
> intrusive, active, and directly destructive than our indirect "blame"
> for setting up the conditions for the Third Reich to flourish ever
> were. No-one in the 20s and 30s started or inflamed multiple proxy
> wars in Europe leading to millions of deaths for ever changing
> domestically inspired reasons. And if they did, don't you think they
> would be hated by the Europeans affected by it?
Sure, but I think that is one-sided description American foreign
policy too. Do you think the blame you assign to the US reduces the
guilt of the perpetrators of 9/11? And do you think it dminishes our
right to dsefend ourselves?
> >Do you believe those
> >who hate us will stop hating us if we do what they say they want us to
> >do (i.e. appease them)? Do you believe they are not trying hard to get
> >nukes?
>
> Hmm, a loaded question if ever there was one. "Appeasing" "them". Who
> exactly?. I'm saying that America's foreign policy has negatively
al Qaeda & bin Laden
Saddam Hussein
Egyptian Islamic jihad
Plaestinian Islamic jihad
Hamas
Hezbollah
I could go on...
Answer the nuke question too.
Mark Gerard Miller
> An historical analogy: Did Allied treatment of Germany after WWI help
> the Nazis come to power? Although to what degree can be endlessly
> debated, the answer is: to some degree, yes. Did the Allies have any
> viable alternative to fighting Nazi Germany to the death in 1941? The
> answer is almost certainly no. -Pancho
Great. Now, if we could just get the U.S. and British governments to
fight the fucking terrorists instead of the most desperate, destitute
people on Earth (the Afghanis).
Mark
Angelo Delamuerte
wrote:
>Don't even get me started on Latin America & Chomsky. Entities which
>he embraces there have inflicted great suffering very close to home to
> me. This is one of the reasons I have a particular dislike for the
>man. I'm not going to give you any more detail than that because I'm
>not interested in debating those particulars either. I'm more
>interested continuing my discussion with SteveL in this thread for
>now, he appears to be a potentially more worthy opponen
You are being paid to counter Chomsky aren't you?
Haha! caught you! Damn PR dupe!
Francisco Mendoza
Damn! You saw right through those 449 out of 457 posts that had
nothing to do with Chomsky! And I thought I had created such good
cover. Well, now that you're on to me, I might as well confess. I'm
with the Trilateral Commission. Noam Chomsky is just too big of a
threat to our plans to allow any quotes of him to go uncontested.
Exposing me will not help. There are hundreds of us. Mark my word, we
WILL silence him! -Pancho
Angelo Delamuerte
yours in here before this thread...
It seems obvious at this point that we're not going to be getting
along too well...but I thought I would mention that although you
recently stated:
>I already told you we're not going to have interaction on Chomsky or
>Cambodia. The topic of the day is the current war.
first place...and although I am not an expert on that, I am quite
aware of the details regarding our current dilemma, and Chomsky's take
on it...
Honestly...I don't need to prove that Chomsky is right on the money on
that, or any topic to you...
as for the original details regarding Pol Pot, the matter is too
complex and is still unclear, based on numerous discussions I have
read about since your mentioning it to you.....surely it is one of the
more polemic and troubling things he's said, but as I know the main
thrust of Chomsky's purpose, I would suggest he had fully legitimate
basis for his assertions, but since I can't speak with him directly
for a rebuttal, I'll drop the issue... To be frank though, I'm bored
more by your arrogance, and condescending tone in this matter, than I
am afraid to look up and at the facts...It would take more than a few
days to follow up responsibly, and I question the value in trying,
confonted with one so blind as to not see the important truth of the
main sweep of his arguments.
So, pat yourself on the back... you've convinced me that your very
certain of your correctness..and are in no need of a challenge to that
assertion.
If you'd like to contend on any of his current essays/speeches
(something I am quite familiar with, seeing as its not almost twenty
years ago), start a new thread and I'll look out for it.
CyberBMcD
Earth to Mark, uh, that's what they ARE doing.
If you think the attack is on the innocent Afghani's you're certainly
dead from the neck up.
Francisco Mendoza
> Well, gotta test people, but sorry, haven't seen a single post of
> yours in here before this thread...
...but you might have tried two simple searches in the newsgroups
(polstuff43, polstuff43 AND Chomsky) before setting yourself up by
making such a ludicrous assertion. -Pancho