Chomsky's book on 9/11
Leo
a book is doing it a great deal more justice than it deserves. The
fact that you can finish it in about half an hour really sums up
Chomsky's academically half arsed predictable approach to the matter,
and indeed a great deal of his other endeavors. A series of half
truths with selective facts and of course the classic moral relativism
the Chomsky and the like are so fond of.
Claiming that American acts of terrorism are on the same par with the
likes of al-Qa'ida is not only laughable but dangerous. The 1985 CIA
car bombing of a Mosque in Beirut was, at best, disastrous American
foreign policy, no doubt resulting in the loss of innocent lives.
However this was not some willy nilly bomb planting done for some
weekend fun. It was targeting a Hizballah leader who was behind the
bombing of the US troop base in Beirut. They were not simply after a
"cleric they did not like." Despite what Chomsky would like 18 year
olds to believe, the CIA does not like going around and planting car
bombs. I personally don't think the troops should have been in Beirut
in the first place, but Chomsky selects facts and turns them into a
dangerous fiction that has no grounding. In this way it can justify
acts of terrorism upon America and its allies. For a man so concerned
with 'the truth', he often pays little attention to it.
But of course Chomsky thinks that all acts of violence are bad and
periodically quotes Gandhi to back up his claims. Well how can anyone
not like Gandhi, therefore Chomsky's got to be right. Manipulating
quotes from the likes of Gandhi fuels moron supporters of Chomsky who
fail to see that blindly supporting peace can have just as disastrous
effects and blindly supporting war. He goes on to say that "there's
probably majority sentiment against lashing out blindly and killing
plenty of innocent people." GEE, no Noam I'm actually for that, of
course there would be majority sentiment against killing innocent
people. But once again with his bizarre reasoning turns this into
majority support against the war full stop. In fact opinion polls,
not 'probably' polls, show extremely high rates of support for the
war. I could go on like this for hours (his comparison with the IRA
and not bombing Belfast another beauty) but I won't.
He does at times make some good points that are not as stupid as most,
for example showing the differences between this and the Vietnam war
and the pure stupidity of the bombing of Sudan in 1998. However many
sensible commentators have made these points before, and in a more
factual and less emotive manner.
This book is one written by a hack of the highest order. No doubt it
will fuel the reservoirs of stupidity at Universities such as mine
around the world. It is about an insightful as People Magazine or a
Little Golden Book, and will shortly be available at supermarkets
alongside these publications. Unfortunately it will be taken more
seriously.
Leo
Canberra,
Australia
zztop8970
"Leo" <bloo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6a1ad4e.01120...@posting.google.com...
very well written.
The only part I disagree with is your final sentence. You needn't worry -
no one but his close circle of groupies takes Chomsky seriously.
Rich Vaughan
> The only part I disagree with is your final sentence. You needn't worry -
> no one but his close circle of groupies takes Chomsky seriously.
You only say it is "very well written" because it blindly bashes Chomsky.
You pay little attention to whether or not the author's claims are true.
Take the following sentence, for example: "But of course Chomsky thinks that
all acts of violence are bad and periodically quotes Gandhi to back up his
claims." Clearly, anyone familiar with the work of Chomsky knows this
statement to be false. Chomsky is not a pacifist, and this fact is so
well-documented that anyone that denies it is either engaging in a smear
campaign or just plain ignorant. In either case, a piece with such a
characterization cannot be "very well written."
When various members of this newsgroup criticized Chomsky a couple of months
back for comparing 9-11 to the bombing of Sudan, they made a good case. I
didn't necessarily agree with them, but it was a valid criticism, and several
contributors -- if not most -- criticized Chomsky's comparision without
smearing him. In many instances, the posts were "very well written."
If somebody wants to critique or criticize Chomsky, that's fine. I actually
encourage them to do so. But tell the truth. People like you lose
credibility when they go around posting that any old anti-Chomsky tirade is
"very well written" when anyone with a rudimentary familiarity with Chomsky
can see the naked distortion of Chomsky's positions.
Rich
Clay Smith
Below, you'll find segments of a critique of Chomsky's new book. (I
wasn't aware that Chomsky had written a new book and the author of the
post doesn't provide a title or publication information). I've
deleted all the text that doesn't pertain to a specific critique of
the book. For example, if the poster says that Chomsky's ideas are
stupid, I've deleted that sentence. However, if he cites a particular
idea which he feels is stupid and explains why it is is stupid, i've
that left in
The reasoning behind this approach is pretty straightfoward. Simply
put, it's impossible to have a meaningful discussion unless
assertions are backed up with arguments and facts. So if a critic
doesn't deal with specifics - if he just makes blanket statements such
as "this is all lies" or "no one believes this" - then there's no
substance to the critique and it can be disregarded.
One exception to the rule:
While it's very vague and pretty much devoid of substance, I've left
the first paragraph entirely intact. I reasoned that it constitutes a
sort of indtroductury paragrah and thesis sentence and as such, isn't
obligated to justify itself in any way. It's a statement of opinion
The remainder of the post is assigned the task of supporting that
opinion.
On 2 Dec 2001 23:03:26 -0800, bloo...@hotmail.com (Leo) wrote:
>I have just completed Noam Chomsky's book on September 11. To call it
>a book is doing it a great deal more justice than it deserves. The
>fact that you can finish it in about half an hour really sums up
>Chomsky's academically half arsed predictable approach to the matter,
>and indeed a great deal of his other endeavors. A series of half
>truths with selective facts and of course the classic moral relativism
>the Chomsky and the like are so fond of.
>The 1985 CIA
>car bombing of a Mosque in Beirut was, at best, disastrous American
>foreign policy, no doubt resulting in the loss of innocent lives.
>However this was not some willy nilly bomb planting done for some
>weekend fun. It was targeting a Hizballah leader who was behind the
>bombing of the US troop base in Beirut. They were not simply after a
>"cleric they did not like."
I take it, then, that you're arguing that it's acceptable for the CIA
to plant bombs in the trunks of cars outside of houses of worship if
they do so in an effort to kill someone who has killed Americans (or
more specifically, American troops)?. Suppose the FBI identified a
suspect behind the Anthrax letters. And suppose he hid out in a
mountain cabin every day of the week, except Sunday when he attends a
rural Baptist church? Would it be okay for the FBI to plant a bomb in
a car outside of the church?
Granted, the FBI has a lot more recourse within the US. They could
come in with a SWAT team and arrest the guy. A bomb wouldn't be
necessary. So maybe that's not an accurate comparison. Alright.
Suppose the man fled to France and continued his habit of going to
church every Sunday? Would it be alright to place the bomb outside of
the church there? Would it be alright to do it in the Vatican? Maybe
it would be okay in Mexico?
>But of course Chomsky thinks that all acts of violence are bad
This is a rather bizarre statement. All acts of violence *are* bad.*
If a US soldier kills an enemy in combat, the soldier will, I'm sure,
tell you that it was necessary and that soldiers should continue to do
such things when necessary. But if you ask him whether he'd like to go
do it again - say, this weekend, in Afghanistan -
for fun, he'll probably decline the offer.
Except for a few rare, supremely fucked up individuals - the sort we
keep locked up or under heavy sedation - no one regards killing other
human beings as good. Or, at least, I sure hope that's the case. If
it's not, we're all in trouble.
>He goes on to say that "there's
>probably majority sentiment against lashing out blindly and killing
>plenty of innocent people." GEE, no Noam I'm actually for that,
I think it's safe to say that this was sarcasm on Noam's part. He's
rather fond of this sort of smart alecery.
of
>course there would be majority sentiment against killing innocent
>people. But once again with his bizarre reasoning turns this into
>majority support against the war full stop. In fact opinion polls,
>not 'probably' polls, show extremely high rates of support for the
>war.
I haven't read the book yet (I didn't know until today that it had
been published), but I think there's another very logical
interpretation of Chomsky's argument, an interpretation you're
ignoring.
He's argued on a number of occasions that the Afghanistan war is
causing the unncessary deaths of thousands of innocent people. If
people realized this - Chomsky is presumably arguing - then they'd be
against the war.
Recall that the Gulf War was extremely popular in this country.
However, we voted out the president who initiated it and, since it
ended, even the most mainstream of media organs have indicated that
the US public has had some serious second thoughts about it.
>He does at times make some good points that are not as stupid as most,
>for example showing the differences between this and the Vietnam war
>and the pure stupidity of the bombing of Sudan in 1998.
>Leo
>Canberra,
>Australia
Clay Smith
Joseph Michael Bay
>Claiming that American acts of terrorism are on the same par with the
>likes of al-Qa'ida is not only laughable but dangerous. The 1985 CIA
>car bombing of a Mosque in Beirut was, at best, disastrous American
>foreign policy, no doubt resulting in the loss of innocent lives.
>However this was not some willy nilly bomb planting done for some
>weekend fun. It was targeting a Hizballah leader who was behind the
>bombing of the US troop base in Beirut. They were not simply after a
>"cleric they did not like."
An attack that kills innocents incidentally rather than as
the main focus still kills innocents, and is still indiscriminate
violence. It really doesn't matter what the point was supposed
to be.
>Despite what Chomsky would like 18 year
>olds to believe, the CIA does not like going around and planting car
>bombs.
That's hardly relevant. I'm sure there were plenty of concentration
camp guards who found their duties unpleasant, or even distasteful.
It doesn't change the outcome of their actions.
>I personally don't think the troops should have been in Beirut
>in the first place, but Chomsky selects facts and turns them into a
>dangerous fiction that has no grounding.
Again, this seems to be implying that attacks on innocents are
justified by the larger context, if they're being done by people
with the right intentions ("responsible men"?).
Anyway.
--
Chimes peal joy. Bah. Joseph Michael Bay
Icy colon barge Cancer Biology
Frosty divine Saturn Stanford University
"Your legs are too short to kickbox with the Buddha" - Thai saying
Kevin Waterson
> very well written.
> The only part I disagree with is your final sentence. You needn't worry -
> no one but his close circle of groupies takes Chomsky seriously.
It sort of begs the question "Why do you bother with this NG"?
Kevin
Nark
"Rich Vaughan" <less...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:3C0BA16A...@flash.net...
>
> When various members of this newsgroup criticized Chomsky a couple of
months
> back for comparing 9-11 to the bombing of Sudan, they made a good case. I
> didn't necessarily agree with them,
I missed that one. How are the two comparable?
In reference to said topic, Noam himself, in the Hitchens exchange - to be
linked below - said the following;
[Hitchens condemns the claim of "facile 'moral equivalence' between the two
crimes." Fair enough, but since he fabricated the claim out of thin air, I
feel no need to comment. ]
While Chomsky almost NEVER says anything concrete that lays out exactly what
he is talking about -- it's usually very vague and implied -- I am going to
assume that because he claimed that Hitchens "fabricated the claim (Chomsky
morally equating Sudan and 9-11) out of thin air", that he does not agree
with that claim. Am I making a safe assumption? Since he felt no need to
comment, base on the preceding words; would you say that he disagrees with
this 'fabrication'?
Sorry, all of that for this:
So, do you agree with Chomsky that the bombing of Sudan is not morally
equivalent to the terrible attack on the WTC?
> but it was a valid criticism, and several
> contributors -- if not most -- criticized Chomsky's comparision without
> smearing him. In many instances, the posts were "very well written."
>
> If somebody wants to critique or criticize Chomsky, that's fine. I
actually
> encourage them to do so. But tell the truth. People like you lose
> credibility when they go around posting that any old anti-Chomsky tirade
is
> "very well written" when anyone with a rudimentary familiarity with
Chomsky
> can see the naked distortion of Chomsky's positions.
How's this for starters? BTW, this is not yet a criticism...
What do you think about this?:
Here is what Chomsky told his audience at MIT on October 11:
I'll talk about the situation in Afghanistan.... Looks like what's
happening is some sort of silent genocide.... It indicates that whatever,
what will happen we don't know, but plans are being made and programs
implemented on the assumption that they may lead to the death of several
million people in the next--in the next couple of weeks.... very casually
with no comment.... we are in the midst of apparently trying to murder three
or four million people.
Do you agree with these blatent lies? Do you really believe that "we are in
the midst of apparently trying to murder three or four million people"?
Read this interesting exchange, if you haven't already..
http://www.thenation.com/special/20010911debate.mhtml
Nark
"Clay Smith" <Clay20...@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:uZoLPGW9X6097h...@4ax.com...
> > On 2 Dec 2001 23:03:26 -0800, bloo...@hotmail.com (Leo) wrote:
>
> >I have just completed Noam Chomsky's book on September 11. To call it
> >a book is doing it a great deal more justice than it deserves. The
> >fact that you can finish it in about half an hour really sums up
> >Chomsky's academically half arsed predictable approach to the matter,
> >and indeed a great deal of his other endeavors. A series of half
> >truths with selective facts and of course the classic moral relativism
> >the Chomsky and the like are so fond of.
>
>
> >The 1985 CIA
> >car bombing of a Mosque in Beirut was, at best, disastrous American
> >foreign policy, no doubt resulting in the loss of innocent lives.
> >However this was not some willy nilly bomb planting done for some
> >weekend fun. It was targeting a Hizballah leader who was behind the
> >bombing of the US troop base in Beirut. They were not simply after a
> >"cleric they did not like."
>
> I take it, then, that you're arguing that it's acceptable for the CIA
> to plant bombs in the trunks of cars outside of houses of worship if
> they do so in an effort to kill someone who has killed Americans (or
> more specifically, American troops)?.
Without any other information, I would say no. But would you concede that
Hezbollah, considering they were targeting Americans, is QUITE different
than the targeting of civilians, which is the most common terrorist tactic?
There is a difference.
> Suppose the FBI identified a
> suspect behind the Anthrax letters. And suppose he hid out in a
> mountain cabin every day of the week, except Sunday when he attends a
> rural Baptist church? Would it be okay for the FBI to plant a bomb in
> a car outside of the church?
If it was the only way to stop him? It depends upon other unknown factors.
>
> Granted, the FBI has a lot more recourse within the US. They could
> come in with a SWAT team and arrest the guy. A bomb wouldn't be
> necessary. So maybe that's not an accurate comparison. Alright.
> Suppose the man fled to France and continued his habit of going to
> church every Sunday? Would it be alright to place the bomb outside of
> the church there? Would it be alright to do it in the Vatican? Maybe
> it would be okay in Mexico?
France is hardly a good comparison to Beirut. Your analogy is still weak.
>
>
> >But of course Chomsky thinks that all acts of violence are bad
>
> This is a rather bizarre statement. All acts of violence *are* bad.*
I think he is saying 'bad' in terms of overall net result.
> >
> of
> >course there would be majority sentiment against killing innocent
> >people. But once again with his bizarre reasoning turns this into
> >majority support against the war full stop. In fact opinion polls,
> >not 'probably' polls, show extremely high rates of support for the
> >war.
>
> I haven't read the book yet (I didn't know until today that it had
> been published), but I think there's another very logical
> interpretation of Chomsky's argument, an interpretation you're
> ignoring.
>
> He's argued on a number of occasions that the Afghanistan war is
> causing the unncessary deaths of thousands of innocent people. If
> people realized this - Chomsky is presumably arguing - then they'd be
> against the war.
The question is; Is his argument valid?
Here is what Chomsky told his audience at MIT on October 11:
"I'll talk about the situation in Afghanistan.... Looks like what's
happening is some sort of silent genocide.... It indicates that whatever,
what will happen we don't know, but plans are being made and programs
implemented on the assumption that they may lead to the death of several
million people in the next--in the next couple of weeks.... very casually
with no comment.... we are in the midst of apparently trying to murder three
or four million people."
Do you agree with these blatent lies? Do you really believe that "we are in
the midst of apparently trying to murder three or four million people"?
>
> Recall that the Gulf War was extremely popular in this country.
> However, we voted out the president who initiated it and, since it
> ended, even the most mainstream of media organs have indicated that
> the US public has had some serious second thoughts about it.
You are sadly mistaken. And realize, that G. Bush Sr. was ousted by the
Great Liar and Ross Perot. Clinton won the election with the lowest
percentage of votes ever. Please don't ignore the facts.
Justin Felux
>> I take it, then, that you're arguing that it's acceptable for the CIA
>> to plant bombs in the trunks of cars outside of houses of worship if
>> they do so in an effort to kill someone who has killed Americans (or
>> more specifically, American troops)?.
Nark:
>Without any other information, I would say no. But would you concede that
>Hezbollah, considering they were targeting Americans, is QUITE different
>than the targeting of civilians, which is the most common terrorist tactic?
>There is a difference.
I am not sure what you mean here. Maybe you mistyped your sentence. I
don't know what to make of your distinction between "Americans" and
"civilians"
Clay Smith:
>> Suppose the FBI identified a
>> suspect behind the Anthrax letters. And suppose he hid out in a
>> mountain cabin every day of the week, except Sunday when he attends a
>> rural Baptist church? Would it be okay for the FBI to plant a bomb in
>> a car outside of the church?
Nark:
>If it was the only way to stop him? It depends upon other unknown factors.
This would obviously be an unacceptable tactic to anyone with an even
marginal degree of mental health.
Clay Smith:
>> Granted, the FBI has a lot more recourse within the US. They could
>> come in with a SWAT team and arrest the guy. A bomb wouldn't be
>> necessary. So maybe that's not an accurate comparison. Alright.
>> Suppose the man fled to France and continued his habit of going to
>> church every Sunday? Would it be alright to place the bomb outside of
>> the church there? Would it be alright to do it in the Vatican? Maybe
>> it would be okay in Mexico?
Nark:
>France is hardly a good comparison to Beirut. Your analogy is still weak.
Oh, of course. We forgot to account for the fact that French (or western
lives in general) are worth more than the lives of people in someplace like
Beirut.
It is a perfect analogy. Whether or not the places are alike in general is
irrelevant. The circumstances are what matters.
zztop8970-
> >But of course Chomsky thinks that all acts of violence are bad
>
> This is a rather bizarre statement. All acts of violence *are* bad.*
No, they are not. If a policeman sees a crime in progress, He will
take steps needed, including violent ones, to stop it. Those violent
acts are not *bad*, and if asked if he would like to do it agian,
he'll probably tkae you up on it.
All acts of self defence, violent as they may be, are not *bad*.
Clay Smith
>Clay Smith <Clay20...@softhome.net> wrote in message news:<uZoLPGW9X6097h...@4ax.com>...
><snip>
>> >But of course Chomsky thinks that all acts of violence are bad
>>
>> This is a rather bizarre statement. All acts of violence *are* bad.*
>
>No, they are not. If a policeman sees a crime in progress, He will
>take steps needed, including violent ones, to stop it. Those violent
>acts are not *bad*, and if asked if he would like to do it agian,
>he'll probably tkae you up on it.
But if I ask him whether he'd like to do it again *for fun*, he'd look
at me like I'm crazy. If I ask him whether he enjoyed it, he'd
probably punch me in the face or tell me to find a psychiatrist.
Violence is sometimes necessary, but never good. All sane people
operate under that principle.
Clay
Clay Smith
It's a pretty tiny difference. If I plant a bomb outside of a church
to kill a member of Hezbollah, I would have to be aware (unless I were
a total idiot) that there's a decent chance my bomb will kill a
civilian or two. Essentially, I'm saying "It's okay with me if my
actions cause the death of civilians." If I'm an Islamic extremist
terorist in Palestine and I plant a bomb in a resteraunt and set it to
explode during lunch hour, I'm saying "I intended my actions to cause
the deaths of civilians."
As I said, not a whole lot of difference. In addition, it's worth
pointing out that the dead probably don't give a damn whether they
were killed by a well meaning CIA bomb or an evil, fiendish terrorist
bomb.
>
>> Suppose the FBI identified a
>> suspect behind the Anthrax letters. And suppose he hid out in a
>> mountain cabin every day of the week, except Sunday when he attends a
>> rural Baptist church? Would it be okay for the FBI to plant a bomb in
>> a car outside of the church?
>
>If it was the only way to stop him? It depends upon other unknown factors.
>
>>
>> Granted, the FBI has a lot more recourse within the US. They could
>> come in with a SWAT team and arrest the guy. A bomb wouldn't be
>> necessary. So maybe that's not an accurate comparison. Alright.
>> Suppose the man fled to France and continued his habit of going to
>> church every Sunday? Would it be alright to place the bomb outside of
>> the church there? Would it be alright to do it in the Vatican? Maybe
>> it would be okay in Mexico?
>
>France is hardly a good comparison to Beirut. Your analogy is still weak.
France is a country. So is Lebanon. My point was that the original
poster was using a double standard; it's fine to blow people up in
Beirut, he tells us, but not in France or the Vatican or the US. Are
Lebanese lives worth less than French or American lives?
In case I'm not making myself clear, here...
No one has any right to set off car bombs in populated areas. Period.
What the CIA did was wrong and unnaceptable.
>>
>>
>> >But of course Chomsky thinks that all acts of violence are bad
>>
>> This is a rather bizarre statement. All acts of violence *are* bad.*
>
>I think he is saying 'bad' in terms of overall net result.
Well, in that case, the poster's assessment of Chomsky's views is
simply wrong. Chomsky has favored military action in cases where he
deemed it necessary and appropriate.
You *do* recall the facts and arguments he used to back up this
assessment, don't you? Do you dispute his facts? Can you show that his
arguments don't hold up?
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Recall that the Gulf War was extremely popular in this country.
>> However, we voted out the president who initiated it and, since it
>> ended, even the most mainstream of media organs have indicated that
>> the US public has had some serious second thoughts about it.
>
>You are sadly mistaken. And realize, that G. Bush Sr. was ousted by the
>Great Liar and Ross Perot. Clinton won the election with the lowest
>percentage of votes ever. Please don't ignore the facts.
That's hardly a vote of support for George Sr.
The facts are... we did vote out George Bush senior. And there has
been a lot of griping about the Gulf War.
>
>
>
Clay
Joseph Michael Bay
Certainly in many cases they're less bad than allowing
whatever is happening to continue. In many cases they're
worse. There's a lot of judgement involved and a lot of
responsibility, and police are expected to use deadly force
as a last resort only.
Nathan Folkert
read, and is now a rather imposing rant. Also, this is my first time
posting from Dejanews, so apologies in advance if formatting is off.
Finally, I am spoiled by ethernet, but have only a phone line, and am
too lazy to retrieve the URLs for my sources, though I'll try to
provide adequate citations.]
Rich Vaughn wrote:
> zztop wrote:
>> very well written. The only part I disagree with is your
>> final sentence. You needn't worry - no one but his close
>> circle of groupies takes Chomsky seriously.
>
> You only say it is "very well written" because it blindly
> bashes Chomsky. You pay little attention to whether or not
> the author's claims are true.
>
> Take the following sentence, for example: "But of course
> Chomsky thinks that all acts of violence are bad and
> periodically quotes Gandhi to back up his claims." Clearly,
> anyone familiar with the work of Chomsky knows this statement
> to be false. Chomsky is not a pacifist, and this fact is so
> well-documented that anyone that denies it is either engaging
> in a smear campaign or just plain ignorant. In either case,
> a piece with such a characterization cannot be "very well
> written."
He's got you there, zztop. Take, for example, Chomsky's stance in the
New York City panel discussion of December 15, 1967, cited as "The
Legitimacy of Violence as a Political Act?" in Alexander Klein, ed.,
Dissent, Power, and Confrontation (McGraw-Hill, 1971), pp. 95-133,
which can be found online at the Bad News: Noam Chomsky archive
(www.monkeyfist.com). This seems like a fitting place to begin one's
research into what Chomsky thinks about the morality of violence. He
begins by characterizing absolute pacifism -- the belief that "one
must oppose violence in general, quite apart from any possible
consequences" -- as an *im*moral argument, arguing instead that
violence is legitimate when "consequences of such action are to
eliminate a still greater evil". The discussion which follows is
illuminating.
He addresses, as would be expected at the time, the use of violence in
the Vietnam war. He argues that there is no possible question of
justifying the terror on the part of the United States and Saigon. At
the time they were attempting to prevent a totalitarian terror state
(which had murdered perhaps a half a million people by the time
Chomsky made these remarks, and was itself an agent of the Soviet
empire) and their local partisans (who routinely engaged in terrorism
and assissination) from taking over the remainder of Vietnam. Here is
violence that Chomsky clearly, unquestioningly, and unequivocally
condemns, though by his own criteria it seems obvious that the
intended consequences were to eliminate an obviously greater evil,
though I suppose one could debate the facts.
On the other hand, he doesn't think that arguments in favor of NLF
terror should be "lightly dismissed", as he lightly dismissed any
arguments in favor of US intervention. He argues that there is a
"pretty strong case" for terror if it helps reluctant peasants
overcome their "passivity" by ridding them of their "inferiority
complex", thus allowing them to enter political life (though he
piously claims that he "would like to believe that it's not so"). How
partisan terror (directed at whom? Chomsky is unclear) would
encourage political ambition in peasants is unclear, though his
reasoning is probably based on the rather bloodthirsty ramblings of
the likes of Frantz Fanon which would have been popular about that
time. He supports this argument with the observation: "We know
perfectly well that, in countries such as North Korea and South
Vietnam and many others, it was necessary to rouse the peasants to
recognize that they were capable of taking over the land". (I'm sure
the people of North Korea and South Vietnam are very grateful for this
"rousing".) Summing up these arguments:
: I don't accept the view that we can just condemn the
: NLF terror, period, because it was so horrible. I
: think we really have to ask questions of comparative
: costs, ugly as that may sound. And if we are going to
: take a moral position on this -- and I think we
: should -- we have to ask both what the consequences
: were of using terror and not using terror. If it were
: true that the consequences of not using terror would
: be that the peasantry in Vietnam would continue to
: live in the state of the peasantry of the Philippines,
: then I think the use of terror would be justified.
Apparently one does not even need to question whether the use of
terror might prevent the peasantry of Vietnam from living in the state
of slavery, poverty, and terror that were imposed on them (and had
been imposed in the North, as was well known, a decade before Chomsky
said this). In the end, he lamely and with unconvincing sincerity
"rejects" these "arguments":
: With all these arguments in favor of this type of
: violence, I still think there are good grounds to
: reject it.
To support this position (which apparently he has not convinced
himself is true, as he states it comes down to almost a matter of
"faith"), he makes the argument that he doesn't think "it was the use
of terror that led to the successes that were achieved". In support
of this he cites *China under Mao* (which Chomsky believes does not
"deserve a blanket condemnation at all", but rather finds "many things
that are really quite admirable", especially the "very interesting
positive things" that "happened at the local level". These
"interesting positive things" are left unspecified, which is just as
well, as the Cultural Revolution was raging while Chomsky spoke these
words, probably claiming many more than a million dead, which was
preceded by massacres of "hated landlords" and "wreckers", purges,
forced labour, and other totalitarian terrors which had by then
murdered probably many tens of millions of (passive?) peasants and
others. China, Chomsky claims, achieved "communization and
collectivization" based largely on "mass participation" rather than
"mass terror" as in the Soviet Union, with "considerably greater"
success "in achieving a just society", thus perhaps terror wasn't
necessary for Third World revolution after all.
So there, see, zztop? Chomsky did not think that all acts of violence
were bad, and was readily willing to excuse any violence if it could
be shown that it was necessary to convince reluctant and passive
peasants (though he hoped this wasn't really the case) into seizing
others' land, (regrettably?) slaughtering hundreds of thousands of
<insert favorite derogatory term (e.g. "capitalist", "bourgeoisie",
"landlord", etc.) here -- though, of course, it's understood to mean
"other peasants">, and installing a totalitarian dictatorship
subservient to the Soviet Empire (or so I gather this is what Chomsky
must mean by "eliminating a greater evil").
He gives other illuminating examples in this panel, such as his
defense of the Japanese imperialists, which he expanded on in another
1967 work on the Pacific war, also available on the internet (same
site). I'm not sure whether he still holds the sympathetically Maoist
views that he does above (he's made noises recently suggesting that
one can blame Mao for millions of deaths in the Great Leap Forward,
but it's unclear if this was his argument or simply his using an
argument which his opponents would be sympathetic to -- in this case
the Black Book of Communism -- in a lame analogy to attack anyone who
is morally depraved enough to condemn the World Trade Center attacks
without also praising the brilliance of Chomsky's comparison of this
with the bombing of Al Shifa, which was, I believe, the context). He
has, however, definitely referred current readers to this piece on the
Pacific war fairly recently -- in ChomskyChat, if I recall correctly.
All this was three years before he made a fawning speech praising the
totalitarian regime of Ho Chi Minh on Hanoi radio. For a time I had
believed (or rather, wanted) this speech to be inauthentic -- the
result of some kind of CIA fraud -- or to mean something other than
what it obviously meant. Chomsky had responded to a query about it
from (I believe) Dan Clore, with some lame evasions that apparently
persuaded Dan that he'd never given a speech on Hanoi radio (an
argument I briefly favoured), though Chomsky never explicitly denied
it (rather he obfuscated, shamed Mr. Clore for wasting his time with
this irrelevancy, and called the original source (I believe it was
David Horowitz) a Stalinist). This belief seems extremely far-fetched
when one compares this speech with Chomsky's sympathetic report of his
journeys through North Vietnam, in which the same awed language
sometimes pokes through, and in which many of the same images are
invoked. The speech included, among other things:
: We also saw the (Ham Ranh) Bridge, standing proud and
: defiant, and carved on the hills above we read the words,
: 'determined to win.' The people of Vietnam will win, they
: must win, because your cause is the cause of humanity as
: it moves forward toward liberty and justice, toward the
: socialist society in which free, creative men control
: their own destiny.
(cf. his description in "In North Vietnam" August 13, 1970 The New
York
Review of Books:
: Near Thanh Hoa city, the Ham Rong bridge spans the Ma
: River. [...] The bridge was attacked daily from early
: 1965 until the suspension of the bombing -- in this region,
: in April, 1968. [...] We returned to the bridge the next
: day, this time accompanied by the head of the local branch
: of the Vietnam Fatherland Front, which is essentially the
: successor organization to the Viet Minh. [...] Carved in
: the hills beyond, just visible from where we stood, were
: the words: "Quyet Thang" -- "determined to win."
:
: The bridge still stands, severely damaged but proud and
: defiant, a symbol of deep significance to the people of
: Thanh Hoa. [...] So far as I can tell, the country is
: unified, strong though poor, and determined to withstand
: the attack launched against Vietnam by the great superpower
: of the Western world.
it seems the hope that the speech was a fraud is merely wishful
thinking).
and:
: Your heroism reveals the capabilities of the human spirit
: and human will. Decent people throughout the world see in
: your struggle a model for themselves. They are in your
: debt, everlastingly, because you were in the forefront of
: the struggle to create a world in which the chains of
: oppression have been broken and replaced by social bonds
: among free men working in true solidarity and cooperation.
An interesting exercise: contrast this with more recent moral
statements, such as his rant to Alexander Cockburn against Vaclav
Havel's (in Chomsky's words) "embarrassingly silly" and "morally
repugnant" address to Congress in 1990 (available again at Bad News).
Here he smears Havel, the Congress, the media, and "the Western
intellectual community at large" as being on a "moral and intellectual
level that is vastly below "that of "Stalinist hacks" for having the
"supreme moral hypocrisy and audacity to clothe his praise for the
defenders of freedom with gushing about responsibility for the human
race". He ends this rant by warning Cockburn that reporting this in
his column would not be well received, that "the sign of a truly
totalitarian culture [read: the US] is that important truths [read:
Chomsky's Havel screed] simply lack cognitive meaning and are
interpretable only at the level of 'Fuck You', so they can then elicit
a perfectly predictable torrent of abuse in response". In light of
what I have discussed above, I wonder whether Chomsky and his
defenders here (or the ghost of myself were I reading this a year ago
rather than today) will interpret this rather obvious portrait of
Chomsky as totalitarian sympathizer and moral hypocrite (by his own
standards laid out above) at the level of 'Fuck You'. I can only hope
so (nothing personal, of course. I know how it is). My only quibble
would be that this observation is hardly an "important truth", but
then it is no less so than Chomsky's "observation" of Havel's "moral
repugnance" (and no surprise to those who were swayed by earlier
evidence).
The mainstream media and other commentators commonly refer to Chomsky
along the lines of being "a Sixties figure", "a leading anti-war
intellectual of the Vietnam era", or some other such characterization
generally made to contrast past respectability with current
marginalization. Even Hitchens went out of his way recently to praise
Chomsky's past views while attacking his current ones as "robotic" or
"mindless" or something similar, if I recall correctly. My question
is: if these were his views in 1967 -- views which are transparently
sympathetic to totalitarianism and practically agnostic on the issue
of whether revolutionary terror is immoral -- why was he ever taken
seriously as a moral figure at all? I'm no longer vain enough to try
to excuse my past support for Chomsky on some imagined degeneration of
his arguments from when they used to persuade me (mainly his critique
of the Gulf War). Rather, I must admit that I was swayed by
sophistry, by my own ignorance and vanity, by undeserved
righteousness, by his cleverness, and by anything but reason,
objectivity, and concern for the truth, apparently, as it was not hard
to find.
- Nathan Folkert
nfol...@cs.stanford.edu
Dan Clore
> All this was three years before he made a fawning speech praising the
> totalitarian regime of Ho Chi Minh on Hanoi radio. For a time I had
> believed (or rather, wanted) this speech to be inauthentic -- the
> result of some kind of CIA fraud -- or to mean something other than
> what it obviously meant. Chomsky had responded to a query about it
> from (I believe) Dan Clore, with some lame evasions that apparently
> persuaded Dan that he'd never given a speech on Hanoi radio (an
> argument I briefly favoured), though Chomsky never explicitly denied
> it (rather he obfuscated, shamed Mr. Clore for wasting his time with
> this irrelevancy, and called the original source (I believe it was
> David Horowitz) a Stalinist).
You're not talking about me (Dan Clore) here, though I did
participate much in that debate. True, Chomsky never gave a
speech on Hanoi radio. Perhaps a speech of his was recorded
and broadcast without his knowledge, or somesuch, but there
is no evidence that this occurred. As to the alleged speech
itself, it did not contain any of the objectionable material
that it was alleged to contain, so the point is rather moot
in any case. It does sound enough like Chomsky that I could
believe it is a real speech that had been translated two or
three times and ended up mangled in the process. I leave the
comparison texts below so that others can compare genuine
Chomsky with the alleged speech.
--
Dan Clore
mailto:cl...@columbia-center.org
Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord We˙rdgliffe:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm
News for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
"It's a political statement -- or, rather, an
*anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!"
-- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in
_Detective Comics_ #608
Jez
"Kevin Waterson" <ke...@oceania.net> wrote in message
news:3C0C272B...@oceania.net...
Why don't they go back to watching T.V.
and cleaning their guns?
Ho hum
Jez
Clay Smith
>Clay Smith <Clay20...@softhome.net> wrote in message news:<uZoLPGW9X6097h...@4ax.com>...
><snip>
>> >But of course Chomsky thinks that all acts of violence are bad
>>
>> This is a rather bizarre statement. All acts of violence *are* bad.*
>
>No, they are not. If a policeman sees a crime in progress, He will
>take steps needed, including violent ones, to stop it.
It also occurs to me that 99% of the things that a cop does during the
course of his job involve procedures designed to minimize the need for
violence. The way they approach a stopped car, the questions they ask,
the techniques they use in domestic violence situations... They do
everything they can to avoid getting into a situation that will
involve violence. The reason for this is obvious: when violence
occurs, people get hurt. No one wants to bleed if they can help it.
And while the cops may not mind too much if a drug dealer gets his
nose broken during an arrest, they do have supervisors and others
looking over their shoulders to make sure they don't use any
unnecessary violence.
Point being: You argue that violence used to stop a crime is "good."
But the facts clearly argue otherwise. Police don't use violence
unless all other options are exhausted. Clearly, this means that, as
an institution, law enforcement regards violence as a bad thing.
Clay
D.Teale
"Nark" <bar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3c0c1fce$0$71682$45be...@newscene.com...
<snip>
> Here is what Chomsky told his audience at MIT on October 11:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "I'll talk about the situation in Afghanistan.... Looks like what's
> happening is some sort of silent genocide.... It indicates that whatever,
> what will happen we don't know, but plans are being made and programs
> implemented on the assumption that they may lead to the death of several
> million people in the next--in the next couple of weeks.... very casually
> with no comment.... we are in the midst of apparently trying to murder
three
> or four million people."
>
>
>
>
>
> Do you agree with these blatent lies? Do you really believe that "we are
in
> the midst of apparently trying to murder three or four million people"?
Quite right, manslaughter would be a much more appropriate term.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Recall that the Gulf War was extremely popular in this country.
> > However, we voted out the president who initiated it and, since it
> > ended, even the most mainstream of media organs have indicated that
> > the US public has had some serious second thoughts about it.
>
> You are sadly mistaken. And realize, that G. Bush Sr. was ousted by the
> Great Liar and Ross Perot. Clinton won the election with the lowest
> percentage of votes ever. Please don't ignore the facts.
>
Did the UN ever look into the mass graves of Iraqi soldiers buried alive in
their trenches?
>
>
Nathan Folkert
Nathan Folkert wrote:
>> All this was three years before he made a fawning
>> speech praising the totalitarian regime of Ho Chi
>> Minh on Hanoi radio. For a time I had believed
>> (or rather, wanted) this speech to be inauthentic
>> -- the result of some kind of CIA fraud -- or to
>> mean something other than what it obviously meant.
>> Chomsky had responded to a query about it from (I
>> believe) Dan Clore, with some lame evasions that
>> apparently persuaded Dan that he'd never given a
>> speech on Hanoi radio (an argument I briefly
>> favoured), though Chomsky never explicitly denied
>> it (rather he obfuscated, shamed Mr. Clore for
>> wasting his time with this irrelevancy, and called
>> the original source (I believe it was David
>> Horowitz) a Stalinist).
>
> You're not talking about me (Dan Clore) here,
> though I did participate much in that debate.
My mistake. I believe it was you who originally posted Chomsky's
first response in alt.fan.noam-chomsky as well as, possibly, his
second, and argued (as I did) that the speech was of dubious
authenticity. I am unsure who, then, was involved in bringing the
matter to Chomsky's attention in ChomskyChat (the first or second
time) and was scolded by Chomsky. I no longer subscribe to the Z
Forums, so someone else will have to track that down, if they're
interested.
> True, Chomsky never gave a speech on Hanoi radio.
Whether or not he was actually being interviewed by Hanoi Radio at the
station is of little interest to me (it would be of interest to a
number of vets, as I learned some time ago in a debate on a
cross-posting to a Vietnam war newsgroup, as it might be argued that
lending oneself to the enemy's propaganda machine might be considered
treasonous. I, frankly, am more interested in what Chomsky said and
believed at the time than in where he said them). The speech was
allegedly broadcast on Hanoi Radio, though it may, of course, have
been recorded elsewhere or for other reasons (Chomsky was apparently
touring the country and speaking at rallies at the time).
> Perhaps a speech of his was recorded and broadcast
> without his knowledge, or somesuch, but there is no
> evidence that this occurred.
There is, in fact, in that we have a transcript of a speech that was
allegedly given by Chomsky at the time (Exhibit A). So we are faced
with two possibilities: 1) that the speech was never really given, and
that Exhibit A is purely a forgery, or 2) that the speech was given,
and the transcript is a reproduction of that speech. If possibility 2
is true, then there are other possibilities: a) that Chomsky gave the
speech as recorded, b) that Chomsky gave a similar speech that was
garbled in translation (if it was, indeed, translated) either
accidentally or deliberately at either the Hanoi or US end, or c) that
someone else gave the speech which was misattributed to Chomsky. Here
we might be at an impasse, but we have an article printed in the New
York Review of Books (Exhibit B) after Chomsky's return that is *not*
of dubious authenticity. In it, we see him describe visiting the "Ham
Rong" (Ham Ranh) bridge around the time he should have been there,
using the same adjectives ("proud and defiant") and reporting the same
inspirational vision of the phrase "determined to win" carved in the
hills above. This strongly suggests that 2(c) is unlikely. It also
suggests that accidental mistranslation as in 2(b) is unlikely, unless
one supposes that the words "proud and defiant" translate from English
into Vietnamese and back again by a completely different translator,
much less "two or three times", but that other parts of the speech
would be "mangled" (I suppose it's possible -- one would have to ask a
translator). That leaves us with the possibilities that the
transcript was a clever forgery -- that would have to have been
written after the publication of the article in the NYRB five months
after Chomsky's trip to Vietnam from which language and events were
lifted -- or that the original speech was deliberately altered by
malicious translators (if it was, indeed, translated), or that it is
authentic. One might argue for 1 or 2(b) on the grounds that the
style seems uncharacteristic for Chomsky (despite the shared imagery),
but unless one is comparing this to the style Chomsky adopts for
inspirational speeches (which I've never heard), then one has little
to base this on. I know that my style changes between when I am
writing a joke and when I am writing a poem and when I am writing a
speech and when I am writing an essay. I see no reason why Chomsky
would be immune to this. Moreover, if one reads "In North Vietnam"
and other commentary of contemporary Third World revolutions by
Chomsky, one does occasionally get a dose of Romantic imagery:
: Afterward, the workers in the cave grouped themselves
: at the end of the table where we were sitting and, as
: a welcome greeting, sang songs, patriotic and
: sentimental, and declaimed poems. The whole experience
: was intensely moving. As I left, I swore to myself not
: to speak or write about it, knowing how a
: sophisticated Westerner might react. Let the reader
: think what he may. The fact is that it was intensely
: moving to see the spirit of the people in this
: miserable place, working, in the face of all of the
: obstacles that American power can erect, to defend
: their country and to find their way into the modern
: age.
("In North Vietnam", www.monkeyfist.com/ChomskyArchive/essays/nv_html)
If one believes Chomsky incapable of writing inspiring, Romantic
addresses (especially when his audience would likely have been
"unsophisticated non-Westerners", I guess), then I suspect that one is
fooling oneself.
> As to the alleged speech itself, it did not contain any
> of the objectionable material that it was alleged to
> contain, so the point is rather moot in any case.
It is a fawning celebration of a totalitarian dictatorship that drips
with the crass rhetoric of Third World revolutionary socialism. One
might expect this speech from a fervent Maoist, but not a
self-proclaimed anarchist. It described a society of coerced
collectivization, slaughter of dissidents, forced labor, and other
hallmarks of Marxist-Leninist dictatorship as "brave young men and
women" working "with pride and with dignity to build a society of
material prosperity, social justice, and cultural progress", and going
on to express "the great joy that we feel in your accomplishments."
It is more than a bit objectionable. It is reminiscent of the fawning
celebrations of the Stalinist "Worker's Paradise" reported by visiting
Western socialists in the '20's and '30's. (In Chomsky's responses to
this speech, he routinely asks his questioner to imagine that the
accuser was a Stalinist apologist -- one wonders whether his
questioner or his readers ever thought to imagine that Chomsky was
speaking of the "social revolution of the Russian people" instead of
the "Vietnamese people" to determine whether there is anything
"objectionable" about his characterizations of their
"accomplishments".) Taken with Chomsky's performance in the panel on
the legitimacy of violence, one can only draw the conclusion that
Chomsky was perfectly aware of but simply didn't care too much about
the terror and violence directed at the peasantry of North Vietnam by
their own leaders. And, when contrasted with Chomsky's reaction to
Vaclav Havel's speech, it is also rather hypocritical.
The real question is: does any of this matter? Do Chomsky's views
from thirty or forty years ago really matter? Do his evasions
regarding these views matter? Does his non-recantation of these views
matter? (Unless he has, indeed, publicly recanted them, which may be
the case, but then it would seem rather simple to resolve all of
this.) I'm not sure. Contrary to what Chomsky seems to think, a
Usenet debate is not indicative of "the incredible power of the
propaganda systems organized by advocates of state terror and other
atrocities by the powerful". I just found it something interesting to
comment on during a bit of my free time.
- Nathan Folkert
nfol...@cs.stanford.edu
zztop8970-
> On 3 Dec 2001 18:52:53 -0800, zzto...@yahoo.com (zztop8970-) wrote:
>
> >Clay Smith <Clay20...@softhome.net> wrote in message news:<uZoLPGW9X6097h...@4ax.com>...
> ><snip>
> >> >But of course Chomsky thinks that all acts of violence are bad
> >>
> >> This is a rather bizarre statement. All acts of violence *are* bad.*
> >
> >No, they are not. If a policeman sees a crime in progress, He will
> >take steps needed, including violent ones, to stop it. Those violent
> >acts are not *bad*, and if asked if he would like to do it agian,
> >he'll probably tkae you up on it.
>
> But if I ask him whether he'd like to do it again *for fun*, he'd look
> at me like I'm crazy. If I ask him whether he enjoyed it, he'd
> probably punch me in the face or tell me to find a psychiatrist.
You're equating "good" with "something we do for fun". This is about
as childish as yoiu can get. Do you enjoy getting vaccines? I guess
vaccines are bad then.
>
>
> Violence is sometimes necessary, but never good. All sane people
> operate under that principle.
No, they don't. Violence enmployed in self defence is good.
>
>
> Clay
Dan Clore
> Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message news:<3C0CAF85...@columbia-center.org>...
> Nathan Folkert wrote:
>
> >> All this was three years before he made a fawning
> >> speech praising the totalitarian regime of Ho Chi
> >> Minh on Hanoi radio. For a time I had believed
> >> (or rather, wanted) this speech to be inauthentic
> >> -- the result of some kind of CIA fraud -- or to
> >> mean something other than what it obviously meant.
> >> Chomsky had responded to a query about it from (I
> >> believe) Dan Clore, with some lame evasions that
> >> apparently persuaded Dan that he'd never given a
> >> speech on Hanoi radio (an argument I briefly
> >> favoured), though Chomsky never explicitly denied
> >> it (rather he obfuscated, shamed Mr. Clore for
> >> wasting his time with this irrelevancy, and called
> >> the original source (I believe it was David
> >> Horowitz) a Stalinist).
> >
> > You're not talking about me (Dan Clore) here,
> > though I did participate much in that debate.
>
> My mistake. I believe it was you who originally posted Chomsky's
> first response in alt.fan.noam-chomsky as well as, possibly, his
> second, and argued (as I did) that the speech was of dubious
> authenticity.
That was probably me.
> I am unsure who, then, was involved in bringing the
> matter to Chomsky's attention in ChomskyChat (the first or second
> time) and was scolded by Chomsky.
I don't know who it was, but I don't recall any scolding.
> I no longer subscribe to the Z
> Forums, so someone else will have to track that down, if they're
> interested.
>
> > True, Chomsky never gave a speech on Hanoi radio.
>
> Whether or not he was actually being interviewed by Hanoi Radio at the
> station is of little interest to me (it would be of interest to a
> number of vets, as I learned some time ago in a debate on a
> cross-posting to a Vietnam war newsgroup, as it might be argued that
> lending oneself to the enemy's propaganda machine might be considered
> treasonous. I, frankly, am more interested in what Chomsky said and
> believed at the time than in where he said them).
Yes, but since the charge was that he was committing treason
by providing moral support to the enemy by broadcasting this
speech on Hanoi Radio, it is of note that this charge is
factually false.
There seems to be little more to deal with on the issue.
Chomsky himself pointed out that the alleged speech "vaguely
resembles" things he said and wrote around that time,
specifically pointing to the New York Review article that
you quote. (This was reprinted in _At War with Asia_ for
those interested.) What is more important than the
(acknowledged) similarities are the differences: in the
article, which we know that Chomsky is responsible for, he
attacks authoritarianism and centralization, warning that
any short-term gains from such will be offset by long-term
problems. As he also points out, since there is plenty of
material out there is definitely authentic, there is no
point wasting time over dubious allegations to find out what
he was saying and writing at the time.
zztop8970-
> zzto...@yahoo.com (zztop8970-) writes:
>
> >Clay Smith <Clay20...@softhome.net> wrote in message news:<uZoLPGW9X6097h...@4ax.com>...
> ><snip>
> >> >But of course Chomsky thinks that all acts of violence are bad
> >>
> >> This is a rather bizarre statement. All acts of violence *are* bad.*
>
> >No, they are not. If a policeman sees a crime in progress, He will
> >take steps needed, including violent ones, to stop it. Those violent
> >acts are not *bad*, and if asked if he would like to do it agian,
> >he'll probably tkae you up on it.
>
> >All acts of self defence, violent as they may be, are not *bad*.
>
> Certainly in many cases they're less bad than allowing
> whatever is happening to continue.
'good' and 'bad' are in and of themsleves are subjective terms, and
always subject to relative meausures. The act of stopping a crime is
'good' relative to letting it continue, but 'bad' compared with
preventing it in the first place.
You need to be directing your criticizm at fools who declare "All acts
of violence *are* bad.*"
> In many cases they're
> worse. There's a lot of judgement involved and a lot of
> responsibility, and police are expected to use deadly force
> as a last resort only.
Of course they are. And if deadly force (note - his was your addition,
I said nothing about "deadly force") is the only way to stop a crime -
it is still 'good' compared to letting the crime continue.
zztop8970-
I find it amusing. I get a kick out of watching Mr. Clore's hilarious
twisting and turning, I enjoy putting blowhards like Mr. John Smith
in their place, and I have personal gratification every time I expose
the antisemitism of the likes of Mr. Samirhibri.
As you can see, all this has nothing whatsoever to do with Chomsky -
he's just a convenient paltform.
>
> Kevin
zztop8970-
Ah, the typical arrogance. ANyone who doesn't agree with you must be a
gun-owning bum, eh Jez?
Let me clue you in, laddie: Chomsky watches TV, as do most posters on
this group who think like you.
>
> Ho hum
> Jez
zztop8970-
It is NOT a tiny differnce. Intent is a major element in describing
and quantifying the seriousness of criminal actions.
>
> As I said, not a whole lot of difference. In addition, it's worth
> pointing out that the dead probably don't give a damn whether they
> were killed by a well meaning CIA bomb or an evil, fiendish terrorist
> bomb.
The fact that the dead don't care doesn't make all actions which
result in death morally equivalent. You are very childish in your
reasoning.
<snip>
Nark
"Justin Felux" <kar...@idworld.net> wrote in message
news:u0oafmb...@corp.supernews.com...
> Clay Smith:
> >> I take it, then, that you're arguing that it's acceptable for the CIA
> >> to plant bombs in the trunks of cars outside of houses of worship if
> >> they do so in an effort to kill someone who has killed Americans (or
> >> more specifically, American troops)?.
>
>
> Nark:
> >Without any other information, I would say no. But would you concede
that
> >Hezbollah, considering they were targeting Americans, is QUITE different
> >than the targeting of civilians, which is the most common terrorist
tactic?
> >There is a difference.
>
>
> I am not sure what you mean here. Maybe you mistyped your sentence. I
> don't know what to make of your distinction between "Americans" and
> "civilians"
I was assuming that everyone knew that this alleged car-bombing by the CIA
was in response to the bombing in Beirut that killed 241 "Americans" who
happened to be non-civilian US Marines.
>
> Clay Smith:
> >> Suppose the FBI identified a
> >> suspect behind the Anthrax letters. And suppose he hid out in a
> >> mountain cabin every day of the week, except Sunday when he attends a
> >> rural Baptist church? Would it be okay for the FBI to plant a bomb in
> >> a car outside of the church?
>
>
> Nark:
> >If it was the only way to stop him? It depends upon other unknown
factors.
>
>
> This would obviously be an unacceptable tactic to anyone with an even
> marginal degree of mental health.
Obviously not, as I am a fully functional mental genius. When you create
peculiar hypothetical examples, with huge gaps, I don't know how to answer.
Notice that I did not answer one way or the other, but rather asked for a
complete story.
>
>
> Clay Smith:
> >> Granted, the FBI has a lot more recourse within the US. They could
> >> come in with a SWAT team and arrest the guy. A bomb wouldn't be
> >> necessary. So maybe that's not an accurate comparison. Alright.
> >> Suppose the man fled to France and continued his habit of going to
> >> church every Sunday? Would it be alright to place the bomb outside of
> >> the church there? Would it be alright to do it in the Vatican? Maybe
> >> it would be okay in Mexico?
>
>
> Nark:
> >France is hardly a good comparison to Beirut. Your analogy is still
weak.
>
> Oh, of course. We forgot to account for the fact that French (or western
> lives in general) are worth more than the lives of people in someplace
like
> Beirut.
Your assumptions on the meaning of my statement are based on your own
twisted biases.
>
> It is a perfect analogy. Whether or not the places are alike in general
is
> irrelevant. The circumstances are what matters.
If you compare France, a peaceful state, with Beirut, a chaotic mess with
many warring factions... you are the one whose mental competence should be
questioned.
It would be like saying that an Anthrax terrorist suspect could be picked up
in a Church here in the US compares to a terrorist leader in his highly
fortified headquarters. Oh yeah, you agreed with that one too. You might
look up the word 'analogy' in the dictionary before we continue.
Nark
Whether you agree or not, would you concede that there is an argument to be
made that by not killing a terrorist, you are saying "It's okay with me if
my" inaction "causes the death of civilians"?
> If I'm an Islamic extremist
> terorist in Palestine and I plant a bomb in a resteraunt and set it to
> explode during lunch hour, I'm saying "I intended my actions to cause
> the deaths of civilians."
Exactly, that is the difference. Once has the express purpose of killing
civilians, the other has the purpose of avoiding the killing of civilians.
Motive is key. As is the End.
>
> > >> Suppose the FBI identified a
> >> suspect behind the Anthrax letters. And suppose he hid out in a
> >> mountain cabin every day of the week, except Sunday when he attends a
> >> rural Baptist church? Would it be okay for the FBI to plant a bomb in
> >> a car outside of the church?
> >
> >If it was the only way to stop him? It depends upon other unknown
factors.
> >
> >>
> >> Granted, the FBI has a lot more recourse within the US. They could
> >> come in with a SWAT team and arrest the guy. A bomb wouldn't be
> >> necessary. So maybe that's not an accurate comparison. Alright.
> >> Suppose the man fled to France and continued his habit of going to
> >> church every Sunday? Would it be alright to place the bomb outside of
> >> the church there? Would it be alright to do it in the Vatican? Maybe
> >> it would be okay in Mexico?
> >
> >France is hardly a good comparison to Beirut. Your analogy is still
weak.
>
> France is a country. So is Lebanon. My point was that the original
> poster was using a double standard; it's fine to blow people up in
> Beirut, he tells us, but not in France or the Vatican or the US. Are
> Lebanese lives worth less than French or American lives?
Right, you point is half valid. But the analogy is not true because of the
atmosphere in the two countries. In France, you don't need to use these
extreme tactics because the police can arrest suspects. Not so easy in
Lebanon.
>
> In case I'm not making myself clear, here...
>
> No one has any right to set off car bombs in populated areas. Period.
> What the CIA did was wrong and unnaceptable.
Your blanket statement is not acceptable to many people.
If you KNEW FOR A FACT, that you could save thousands of lives by setting
off a car bomb, would you? Maybe not. I might not either. But the point
is that there is a legitimate argument to be made that it is the "right"
thing to do. That's all I'm saying.
> >>
> >>
> >> >But of course Chomsky thinks that all acts of violence are bad
> >>
> >> This is a rather bizarre statement. All acts of violence *are* bad.*
> >
> >I think he is saying 'bad' in terms of overall net result.
>
> Well, in that case, the poster's assessment of Chomsky's views is
> simply wrong. Chomsky has favored military action in cases where he
> deemed it necessary and appropriate.
Like in my car bomb hypothetical? So sometimes it's okay to kill in order
to save more lives? Just as long as no car bombs are used? Interesting.
Well, for starters, "the death of several million people in the next--in the
next couple of weeks" didn't happen. And to call this genocide is
irresponsible and, in my opinion, a patent lie. The American people
overwhelmingly support the destruction of the Taliban regime and Al Qaeda,
and believe me, they don't want "genocide". The use of that word, in this
case, is pure demagoguery.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Recall that the Gulf War was extremely popular in this country.
> >> However, we voted out the president who initiated it and, since it
> >> ended, even the most mainstream of media organs have indicated that
> >> the US public has had some serious second thoughts about it.
> >
> >You are sadly mistaken. And realize, that G. Bush Sr. was ousted by the
> >Great Liar and Ross Perot. Clinton won the election with the lowest
> >percentage of votes ever. Please don't ignore the facts.
>
> That's hardly a vote of support for George Sr.
Never said it was. I'm just saying that it wasn't even close to a mandate
for Clinton. Bush barely lost, and most experts believe that Perot got
almost purely the conservative vote. People supported the Gulf war in large
numbers, and still do.
>
> The facts are... we did vote out George Bush senior. And there has
> been a lot of griping about the Gulf War.
Maybe a little
Nark out.
Peace.
Joseph Michael Bay
>> >> This is a rather bizarre statement. All acts of violence *are* bad.*
>> >No, they are not. If a policeman sees a crime in progress, He will
>> >take steps needed, including violent ones, to stop it. Those violent
>> >acts are not *bad*, and if asked if he would like to do it agian,
>> >he'll probably tkae you up on it.
>> >All acts of self defence, violent as they may be, are not *bad*.
>> Certainly in many cases they're less bad than allowing
>> whatever is happening to continue.
>'good' and 'bad' are in and of themsleves are subjective terms, and
>always subject to relative meausures. The act of stopping a crime is
>'good' relative to letting it continue, but 'bad' compared with
>preventing it in the first place.
Right. Or, as I put it "less bad" instead of "good".
>You need to be directing your criticizm at fools who declare "All acts
>of violence *are* bad.*"
They are, because they deprive others of life. I don't disagree
with violence categorically, but rather view it as at best legitimate,
to be undertaken with regret and only when absolutely needed. When
I say all acts of violence are bad, I don't mean that they must
therefore be avoided at all costs.
>> In many cases they're
>> worse. There's a lot of judgement involved and a lot of
>> responsibility, and police are expected to use deadly force
>> as a last resort only.
>Of course they are. And if deadly force (note - his was your addition,
>I said nothing about "deadly force")
My understanding of police procedure when dealing with
armed/dangerous criminals is that all force is deadly
force. Once the level of danger is such that shooting
to disarm would be called for, "non-deadly force" would
put the police and bystanders at unacceptable risk. The
goal is generally not to kill the suspect but attempting
to resolve the threat situation while specifically avoiding
deadly force is unwise.
>is the only way to stop a crime -
>it is still 'good' compared to letting the crime continue.
We're pretty much on the same page here except that I'd
say "less bad" instead of "good". Of course this is even
dealing with analogies, which are notoriously misleading.
--
Joseph M. Bay Lamont Sanford Junior University
Putting the "harm" in molecular pharmacology since 1998
When crime is outlawed, only outlaws will commit crimes.
LEGALIZE http://www.stanford.edu/~jmbay CRIME
Joseph Michael Bay
>Clay Smith <Clay20...@softhome.net> wrote in message news:<GEoMPLcd4Z7ppC...@4ax.com>...
>> It's a pretty tiny difference. If I plant a bomb outside of a church
>> to kill a member of Hezbollah, I would have to be aware (unless I were
>> a total idiot) that there's a decent chance my bomb will kill a
>> civilian or two. Essentially, I'm saying "It's okay with me if my
>> actions cause the death of civilians." If I'm an Islamic extremist
>> terorist in Palestine and I plant a bomb in a resteraunt and set it to
>> explode during lunch hour, I'm saying "I intended my actions to cause
>> the deaths of civilians."
>It is NOT a tiny differnce. Intent is a major element in describing
>and quantifying the seriousness of criminal actions.
>>
>> As I said, not a whole lot of difference. In addition, it's worth
>> pointing out that the dead probably don't give a damn whether they
>> were killed by a well meaning CIA bomb or an evil, fiendish terrorist
>> bomb.
>The fact that the dead don't care doesn't make all actions which
>result in death morally equivalent. You are very childish in your
>reasoning.
Although the injury (or death) inflicted on an innocent may
be unintended, it's still a fully forseeable consequence. It
is not some kind of accident which may be forgiven or dismissed.
How many bystanders are you justified in killing? Particularly
if the target can be killed without killing any bystanders.
Justin Felux
>> This would obviously be an unacceptable tactic to anyone with an even
>> marginal degree of mental health.
Nark:
>Obviously not, as I am a fully functional mental genius. When you create
>peculiar hypothetical examples, with huge gaps, I don't know how to answer.
>Notice that I did not answer one way or the other, but rather asked for a
>complete story.
I have to disagree with your self-assessment of your mental abilities.
Justin Felux:
>Oh, of course. We forgot to account for the fact that French (or western
>lives in general) are worth more than the lives of people in someplace
>like Beirut.
Nark:
>Your assumptions on the meaning of my statement are based on your own
>twisted biases.
Justin Felux:
>It is a perfect analogy. Whether or not the places are alike in general
>is irrelevant. The circumstances are what matters.
Nark:
>If you compare France, a peaceful state, with Beirut, a chaotic mess with
>many warring factions... you are the one whose mental competence should be
>questioned. It would be like saying that an Anthrax terrorist suspect could
be picked up
>in a Church here in the US compares to a terrorist leader in his highly
>fortified headquarters. Oh yeah, you agreed with that one too. You might
>look up the word 'analogy' in the dictionary before we continue.
So, you believe that since it would be somewhat more difficult to aprehend a
criminal in Beirut than it would be in a western state, it is therefore OK
to kill a sizable number of civilians? Interesting.
Jez
"zztop8970-" <zzto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:35d69502.01120...@posting.google.com...
> "Jez" <ys...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:<3c0cc5d9$0$234$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com>...
> > "Kevin Waterson" <ke...@oceania.net> wrote in message
> > news:3C0C272B...@oceania.net...
> > A common problem these days it would seem !
> > Why don't they go back to watching T.V.
> > and cleaning their guns?
>
>
> Ah, the typical arrogance. ANyone who doesn't agree with you must be a
> gun-owning bum, eh Jez?
> Let me clue you in, laddie: Chomsky watches TV, as do most posters on
> this group who think like you.
>
I don't care if anyone agrees with me or not!
As for T.V. Chomsky watches it....so what?
And as for the 'guns' remark it just seems
that most folk here at the moment seem to glory in the idea of war,
(from a safe distance in front of their T.V.'s)
I thought it was the 21st century ,not 2000 years BC!
When will we (America and the UK) become civilised ?
My Grandfather fought in the 1st world war, and
taught us (his family)to belive in peace, based on what he saw there.....
(And the political situation that caused it)
and 80+ years later people have to keep trying to achive it.
Being super-powerful nations , how come we can't show
compassion for ALL who suffer from War, repression and poverty?
Seems simple? but perhaps it's just too much to understand.
Ho hum
Jez
Nark
> Justin Felux:
> >> This would obviously be an unacceptable tactic to anyone with an even
> >> marginal degree of mental health.
>
>
> Nark:
> >Obviously not, as I am a fully functional mental genius. When you create
> >peculiar hypothetical examples, with huge gaps, I don't know how to
answer.
> >Notice that I did not answer one way or the other, but rather asked for a
> >complete story.
>
>
> I have to disagree with your self-assessment of your mental abilities.
>
Hold on right there! My 3 year old thinks I'm smart too. THAT is NOT
'self-assessment'.
BTW, my wife might agree with you. BUT, that doesn't prove anything.
How many civilians? It doesn't change the fact that your analogy was
inaccurate.
Nark
"Joseph Michael Bay" <jm...@Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:9ujr29$spp$1...@usenet.Stanford.EDU...
You assume that the job is easier than it proves to be. If it were that
simple, the CIA would certainly rid the planet of terrorists.
Let me ask you where YOU draw the line? If killing one innocent person
would definately save the lives of 500,000; would you agree that it was
justified? Some would, and their position is not entirely invalid. You
should concede that, for most of us, it is simply where we draw the line.
The difference between action and inaction is negligable. NOT working to
stop terrorism is almost as bad as committing terrorism.
If you can prevent it, and don't, you are irresponsible.
Clay Smith
Really... this is pretty bizarre. Please think about what you're
saying, here. If we follow your logic, then it's okay for me to kill
people as long as I'm not specifically targeting them. If I plant a
bomb in your house to kill you and, instead, it kills your wife and
child, then - by your logic - I'm not responsible for their deaths.
I really don't think you intended to argue that, but, honestly, I'm
not sure where else your argument could go. I mean, if you excuse
these guys because their intentions were - by some fucked up standard
- good... Well, that's just plain nuts. If you could convince me that
they honestly thought that no one besides their target would get hurt
or if you could convince me that they took steps to protect civilians,
then you might have a case of some kind. However, no one so far has
made any such claims.
It simply isn't morally acceptable to kill innocents in the process of
avenging a crime. Of course, it's really not morally acceptable to go
around extracting vengance in the first place, but we'll put that
issue aside for now. (In my view, there's a big difference between
justice [arresting someone and bringing them to trial] and vengance
[blowing someone up with a bomb on the street corner]).
>> As I said, not a whole lot of difference. In addition, it's worth
>> pointing out that the dead probably don't give a damn whether they
>> were killed by a well meaning CIA bomb or an evil, fiendish terrorist
>> bomb.
>
>The fact that the dead don't care doesn't make all actions which
>result in death morally equivalent.
My point - and I really didn't think I had to spell it out - was
simply that, whether the CIA guys were hoping to kill civilians or not
- they knew that their actions would probably result in some innocent
bystanders being blown up. And they went ahead with the plan anyway.
So it amounts to the same thing as cold blooded murder. (Which is just
another way of saying that the dead don't give a damn about the
murderer's intentions).
Clay
Nathan Folkert
> Nathan Folkert wrote:
> > Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message news:
> > <3C0CAF85...@columbia-center.org>...
[snip]
> > I am unsure who, then, was involved in bringing the
> > matter to Chomsky's attention in ChomskyChat (the first or second
> > time) and was scolded by Chomsky.
>
> I don't know who it was, but I don't recall any scolding.
: What would we think of the performance, or the
: fact that dissident circles found themselves drawn
: into this shameful and degrading farce?
> > I no longer subscribe to the Z
> > Forums, so someone else will have to track that down, if they're
> > interested.
> >
> > > True, Chomsky never gave a speech on Hanoi radio.
> >
> > Whether or not he was actually being interviewed by Hanoi Radio at
> > the station is of little interest to me (it would be of interest to a
> > number of vets, as I learned some time ago in a debate on a
> > cross-posting to a Vietnam war newsgroup, as it might be argued that
> > lending oneself to the enemy's propaganda machine might be
> > considered treasonous. I, frankly, am more interested in what
> > Chomsky said and believed at the time than in where he said them).
>
> Yes, but since the charge was that he was committing treason
> by providing moral support to the enemy by broadcasting this
> speech on Hanoi Radio, it is of note that this charge is
> factually false.
Or, rather, we have Chomsky's testimony that this charge is factually
false. I rather suspect that in a very technical sense it is true
that he did not give a speech for Hanoi radio. More likely this
speech was recorded at a rally and broadcast, with or without his
knowledge. As I said, though, I have little interest in the charge
(and a repulsion from viewing speechmaking as treason) or in what
circumstances, exactly, he made the speech. Others more interested in
these details may make their own studies.
> There seems to be little more to deal with on the issue.
> Chomsky himself pointed out that the alleged speech "vaguely
> resembles" things he said and wrote around that time,
> specifically pointing to the New York Review article that
> you quote. (This was reprinted in _At War with Asia_ for
> those interested.) What is more important than the
> (acknowledged) similarities are the differences: in the
> article, which we know that Chomsky is responsible for, he
> attacks authoritarianism and centralization, warning that
> any short-term gains from such will be offset by long-term
> problems. As he also points out, since there is plenty of
> material out there is definitely authentic, there is no
> point wasting time over dubious allegations to find out what
> he was saying and writing at the time.
The allegations, in light of the facts, are quite a bit less dubious
than Chomsky's evasiveness, non sequiturs, and name-calling over the
issue. If the speech is authentic (and, short of assuming a CIA
defamation plot, it appears to me that it is), then this suggests that
he is either saying two contradictory things to two different
audiences, or that your characterization of his views in "In North
Vietnam" exaggerate Chomsky's "attacks" on the revolution, or both.
Mostly (aside from commentary about the American war) the article
seemed like a string of anecdotes about how well the revolutionary
system was working and about how happy and proud the people were,
about how much more productive they were and how much more intelligent
their children, now that they lived in a socialist paradise. The only
time he mentions authoritarianism is in reference to Saigon, and when
he does mention centralization, it is hardly an attack:
: That all of these tasks are compatible is not obvious,
: and it remains to be seen how they can be realized.
: Present plans appear to be a composite of Communist
: Party ideology, traditional Vietnamese social and
: cultural patterns, the exigencies of a wartime economy
: and of the general problems of modernization and
: development. My personal guess is that, unhindered by
: imperialist intervention, the Vietnamese would develop
: a modern industrial society with much popular
: participation in its implementation and much direct
: democracy at the lower levels of organization. It would
: be a highly egalitarian society with excellent
: conditions of welfare and technical education, but with
: a degree of centralization of control which, in the
: long run, will pose serious problems that can be
: overcome only if they eliminate party direction in favor
: of direct popular control at all levels.
Perhaps you had another attack in mind?
Coupled with his apologia for the violence of this and other
revolutionary socialist regimes in the panel on revolutionary
violence, I can't really accept the view that he was "attacking their
centralization and authoritarianism". He had similar good things to
say about Mao's revolution.
- Nathan Folkert
nfol...@cs.stanford.edu
Nark
What about in prevention of a crime? This is the more relevant question.
((insert extreme hypothetical case here))
Would you kill X to prevent the deaths of many many more, that X was openly
announcing that he wanted to kill, and was known to be planning to kill, and
had already proven he would kill?
>
> >> As I said, not a whole lot of difference. In addition, it's worth
> >> pointing out that the dead probably don't give a damn whether they
> >> were killed by a well meaning CIA bomb or an evil, fiendish terrorist
> >> bomb.
> >
> >The fact that the dead don't care doesn't make all actions which
> >result in death morally equivalent.
>
> My point - and I really didn't think I had to spell it out - was
> simply that, whether the CIA guys were hoping to kill civilians or not
> - they knew that their actions would probably result in some innocent
> bystanders being blown up. And they went ahead with the plan anyway.
> So it amounts to the same thing as cold blooded murder. (Which is just
> another way of saying that the dead don't give a damn about the
> murderer's intentions).
It all boils down to the fact that some people (apparently you) think that
killing for preventative measures is hypocrisy.
Others (me) think that we are obligated to eradicate those who prey on the
innocent, simply to save more lives in the future. Not for vengeance, but
to provide security for peaceful people.
Both viewpoints have validity.
Nark
"D.Teale" <tea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CIaP7.97578$6b.64...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
>
> "Nark" <bar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3c0c1fce$0$71682$45be...@newscene.com...
> <snip>
> > Here is what Chomsky told his audience at MIT on October 11:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "I'll talk about the situation in Afghanistan.... Looks like what's
> > happening is some sort of silent genocide.... It indicates that
whatever,
> > what will happen we don't know, but plans are being made and programs
> > implemented on the assumption that they may lead to the death of several
> > million people in the next--in the next couple of weeks.... very
casually
> > with no comment.... we are in the midst of apparently trying to murder
> three
> > or four million people."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Do you agree with these blatent lies? Do you really believe that "we
are
> in
> > the midst of apparently trying to murder three or four million people"?
>
> Quite right, manslaughter would be a much more appropriate term.
Maybe so, but who are the 3 or 4 million people again?
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Recall that the Gulf War was extremely popular in this country.
> > > However, we voted out the president who initiated it and, since it
> > > ended, even the most mainstream of media organs have indicated that
> > > the US public has had some serious second thoughts about it.
> >
> > You are sadly mistaken. And realize, that G. Bush Sr. was ousted by the
> > Great Liar and Ross Perot. Clinton won the election with the lowest
> > percentage of votes ever. Please don't ignore the facts.
> >
>
> Did the UN ever look into the mass graves of Iraqi soldiers buried alive
in
> their trenches?
>
Uh... i don't know.
Did Iraq ever look into the mass graves of Kuwatis who were randomly
massacred for no apparent reason?
Clay Smith
>> >> >But of course Chomsky thinks that all acts of violence are bad
>> >>
>> >> This is a rather bizarre statement. All acts of violence *are* bad.*
>> >
>> >No, they are not. If a policeman sees a crime in progress, He will
>> >take steps needed, including violent ones, to stop it. Those violent
>> >acts are not *bad*, and if asked if he would like to do it agian,
>> >he'll probably tkae you up on it.
>>
>> But if I ask him whether he'd like to do it again *for fun*, he'd look
>> at me like I'm crazy. If I ask him whether he enjoyed it, he'd
>> probably punch me in the face or tell me to find a psychiatrist.
>
>You're equating "good" with "something we do for fun".
If something is "good," this means that, for whatever reason, we like
it. Chocolate is good because we like the taste. Money is good because
it can be spent for things we want and need. Violence is not good
because it's a good way to get hurt or killed.
This is about
>as childish as yoiu can get. Do you enjoy getting vaccines? I guess
>vaccines are bad then.
Actually, there's some evidence to suggest now that vaccines aren't
good for you. My personal jury is still out on the issue.
But assuming that vaccines do prevent dangerous diseases, then, yes,
they're good things. But getting jabbed in the arm with a sharp needle
is a bad thing.
Wearing a comfortable shirt is a good thing. Working for pennies a day
in a sweat shop under unsafe conditions making that shirt is a bad
thing. Eating a thick T-bone is a good thing. Discovering that the
T-Bone has given you food poisoning is a bad thing. And so forth.
Just because an action has some good consequences doesn't mean that
it's a good thing. We restrict violence in a thousand different ways;
in theory, we only use it when it's necessary. This alone tells us
that it's a bad thing.
>
>
>>
>>
>> Violence is sometimes necessary, but never good. All sane people
>> operate under that principle.
>
>No, they don't. Violence enmployed in self defence is good.
The self defense is good. Continuing to breath is good. The violence
is bad.
Clay
Joseph Michael Bay
>> >The fact that the dead don't care doesn't make all actions which
>> >result in death morally equivalent. You are very childish in your
>> >reasoning.
>> Although the injury (or death) inflicted on an innocent may
>> be unintended, it's still a fully forseeable consequence. It
>> is not some kind of accident which may be forgiven or dismissed.
>> How many bystanders are you justified in killing? Particularly
>> if the target can be killed without killing any bystanders.
>>
>You assume that the job is easier than it proves to be. If it were that
>simple, the CIA would certainly rid the planet of terrorists.
I don't assume that. But a bomb is not a tool for killing a person,
a bomb is a tool for killing many people.
>Let me ask you where YOU draw the line? If killing one innocent person
>would definately save the lives of 500,000;
You assume a lot there, if I may say so. In this extremely
hypothetical example, Hezbullah plan to kill half a million
people, but if Fadlallah is killed, they will abandon this
plan, go forth and sin no more. Suicide bombers will say
"Oh no, Fadlallah was blown up! This Hezbullah thing I've
gotten myself into could be dangerous -- I'd better quit
and study circuit design instead of wearing all this dynamite."
>would you agree that it was
>justified? Some would, and their position is not entirely invalid.
Right, and if you could go back in time and impale baby Hitler
on a spike you would pretty much HAVE to, except that you can't
go back in time any more than you can predict really unlikely
future events like the one described above.
>You should concede that, for most of us, it is simply where we draw the line.
You would need to have a reasonable belief that your action is
going to have better consequences than inaction. Killing one
terrorist, even a high-profile terrorist, is as likely to provoke
a retaliation as it is to give terror organizations pause. More
so, I would guess.
>The difference between action and inaction is negligable. NOT working to
>stop terrorism is almost as bad as committing terrorism.
>If you can prevent it, and don't, you are irresponsible.
You know, I'm not dead-set (no pun intended) against the idea
of assassination as an alternative to warfare. It may be that
it's unjustifiable; it may be that it's justifiable. I really
don't know. But I *do* think that if assassination (even of
terrorists) is to be justified, it would be because it kills
fewer people, because it's discriminate, because it does not
kill innocents. A *car* *bomb* outside a block of flats doesn't
just get the target (in fact, it doesn't get the target at all
if he's not around, as was the case), it gets everyone in the
blast.
When other countries engage in the indiscriminate killing
of civilians, we rightly condemn it as an atrocious violation of
human rights. If the CIA does it, then we have to look at who
the target was, and okay maybe he was really really evil so it
was right to kill eighty people trying to get him, even if it
didn't work. Right.
Joseph Michael Bay
>>
>> It simply isn't morally acceptable to kill innocents in the process of
>> avenging a crime.
>What about in prevention of a crime? This is the more relevant question.
>((insert extreme hypothetical case here))
>Would you kill X to prevent the deaths of many many more, that X was openly
>announcing that he wanted to kill, and was known to be planning to kill, and
>had already proven he would kill?
We'll have to ask Madame Cleo.
>It all boils down to the fact that some people (apparently you) think that
>killing for preventative measures is hypocrisy.
>Others (me) think that we are obligated to eradicate those who prey on the
>innocent, simply to save more lives in the future. Not for vengeance, but
>to provide security for peaceful people.
Let's look at what actually happened in the instance we've
been discussing:
1. Truck bomb explodes at US Embassy, kills people. Hezbollah
elements are pretty well indicated to be responsible.
2. US-trained operatives (disavowed by the CIA) blow up more people
with a car bomb, trying to get Hezbollah "spiritual leader"
Sheik Fadlallah, who survives. They DO manage to kill Hezbollah
security chief Imad Mughniyeh's brother.
3. Mughniyeh orchestrates several more terror attacks.
Mughniyeh was also one of the suspects in the WTC and Pentagon
attacks, and although Osama bin Laden is better known, Mughniyeh's
involvement in some sense hasn't been ruled out as far as I know.
I'm not saying we should "bend over and take it," by the way,
I just want to point out that attacks on terrorists, either
pre-emptive or reprisal, don't really seem to prevent further
acts of terror. I read a quote from an Israeli commander who
said "you don't need military action -- you need to adopt Israel's
assassination policy". Sadly, Israel's assassination policy
hasn't prevented terrorism against Israel.
Joseph Michael Bay
>> > Do you agree with these blatent lies? Do you really believe that "we
>are
>> in
>> > the midst of apparently trying to murder three or four million people"?
>>
>> Quite right, manslaughter would be a much more appropriate term.
>Maybe so, but who are the 3 or 4 million people again?
Afghanis. At the time this was written, the New York Times was
reporting that some seven and a half million people in Afghanistan
needed food aid, and that about half of that had stopped after
the bombing campaign started.
The air drops of food were about 35,000 meals a day, which seems
like a lot -- but compared to 7,500,000 people it's not.
So, anyway the UN was saying that many of these people were in
immediate danger of starvation and that the bombing was really
making things much, much worse. Refugees, inevitable in such
a case, were unable to leave the country for much of that time
because the borders to Pakistan were closed by US demand.
It should be noted that the Taliban themselves were not
exactly helping, as they were raiding offices, essentially
destroying relief agencies, and delaying relief convoys.
Of course since the convoys were not able to *enter* the
country due to the bombing, there weren't really many for
the Taliban to delay. Oh, and also on Sep 16 the US demanded
that Pakistan stop the convoys. According to the Times.
So those people are who we're talking about.
>> Did the UN ever look into the mass graves of Iraqi soldiers buried alive
>in
>> their trenches?
>>
>Uh... i don't know.
>Did Iraq ever look into the mass graves of Kuwatis who were randomly
>massacred for no apparent reason?
?
Some people did horrible things, thus we are justified
to do horrible things ourselves?
Justin Felux
Well said, Clay.
Nark
"Joseph Michael Bay" <jm...@Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
> "Nark" <bar...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
> >> > Do you agree with these blatent lies? Do you really believe that "we
> >are
> >> in
> >> > the midst of apparently trying to murder three or four million
people"?
> >>
> >> Quite right, manslaughter would be a much more appropriate term.
>
> >Maybe so, but who are the 3 or 4 million people again?
>
> Afghanis. At the time this was written, the New York Times was
> reporting that some seven and a half million people in Afghanistan
> needed food aid, and that about half of that had stopped after
> the bombing campaign started.
Okay, but in the actual speech, Chomsky joked about the "credibility" of the
NYTimes, and then went on to base his entire opinion on their information.
Since time has proven ALL of these claims false, in hindsight we can use
this information to assess the validity of the opinions of Chomsky and the
NYTimes. Can't we?
>
> The air drops of food were about 35,000 meals a day, which seems
> like a lot -- but compared to 7,500,000 people it's not.
>
> So, anyway the UN was saying that many of these people were in
> immediate danger of starvation and that the bombing was really
> making things much, much worse. Refugees, inevitable in such
> a case, were unable to leave the country for much of that time
> because the borders to Pakistan were closed by US demand.
Ahh, but the highest number of people who have died because of lack of food
aid is 600, that I can find anyway. What are your sources saying? This is
hardly what Chomsky confidently proclaimed. And hardly "genocide" or
"murder" for that matter. I think his words are transparent as to his
intentions.
>
> It should be noted that the Taliban themselves were not
> exactly helping, as they were raiding offices, essentially
> destroying relief agencies, and delaying relief convoys.
Right.
> Of course since the convoys were not able to *enter* the
> country due to the bombing, there weren't really many for
> the Taliban to delay. Oh, and also on Sep 16 the US demanded
> that Pakistan stop the convoys. According to the Times.
Sure, but look at the end result. The people are free for the time being
and aid is coming fast and in large quantities. Again... not even close to
"genocide".
>
> So those people are who we're talking about.
So how many died as a direct result of the planned "murder" by the US?
>
> >> Did the UN ever look into the mass graves of Iraqi soldiers buried
alive
> >in
> >> their trenches?
> >>
>
> >Uh... i don't know.
>
> >Did Iraq ever look into the mass graves of Kuwatis who were randomly
> >massacred for no apparent reason?
>
> ?
>
> Some people did horrible things, thus we are justified
> to do horrible things ourselves?
Yes. Are you against stopping violent crime? Are you against the use of
force by Police in any form? Sometimes 'police' have to use deadly force to
stop crime. Do you recognize the truth in this?
Nark
"Joseph Michael Bay" <jm...@Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
> "Nark" <bar...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >> >The fact that the dead don't care doesn't make all actions which
> >> >result in death morally equivalent. You are very childish in your
> >> >reasoning.
>
> >> Although the injury (or death) inflicted on an innocent may
> >> be unintended, it's still a fully forseeable consequence. It
> >> is not some kind of accident which may be forgiven or dismissed.
> >> How many bystanders are you justified in killing? Particularly
> >> if the target can be killed without killing any bystanders.
> >>
>
> >You assume that the job is easier than it proves to be. If it were that
> >simple, the CIA would certainly rid the planet of terrorists.
>
> I don't assume that. But a bomb is not a tool for killing a person,
> a bomb is a tool for killing many people.
Or safely killing one.
>
> >Let me ask you where YOU draw the line? If killing one innocent person
> >would definately save the lives of 500,000;
>
> You assume a lot there, if I may say so. In this extremely
> hypothetical example, Hezbullah plan to kill half a million
> people, but if Fadlallah is killed, they will abandon this
> plan, go forth and sin no more. Suicide bombers will say
> "Oh no, Fadlallah was blown up! This Hezbullah thing I've
> gotten myself into could be dangerous -- I'd better quit
> and study circuit design instead of wearing all this dynamite."
Point well taken, but you still don't answer the question. I wasn't
referring to this specific case, but rather an out-of-thin-air hypothetical.
The point is, where do you draw the line?
Certainly, removing upper management will hamper plans to successfully
complete larger projects.
Get rid of everyone in middle management on up in Boeing, leaving the
workers on the floor. How much production are they capable of?
>
> >would you agree that it was
> >justified? Some would, and their position is not entirely invalid.
>
> Right, and if you could go back in time and impale baby Hitler
> on a spike you would pretty much HAVE to, except that you can't
> go back in time any more than you can predict really unlikely
> future events like the one described above.
True, but I see that you do at least recognize the obligation to kill if you
are certain it will save some arbitrary number of lives (your example). So,
by this reasoning, if we know someone is capable, and they have a history of
destruction, and they openly proclaim that they are planning more....
What's the difference?
>
> >You should concede that, for most of us, it is simply where we draw the
line.
>
> You would need to have a reasonable belief that your action is
> going to have better consequences than inaction. Killing one
> terrorist, even a high-profile terrorist, is as likely to provoke
> a retaliation as it is to give terror organizations pause. More
> so, I would guess.
Exactly. That's YOUR guess. But as you say, the people responsible,
assuming they had "a reasonable belief that" their "action" was "going to
have better consequences than inaction" were only doing what you say. You
must be assuming they didn't feel that way, apparently because you don't.
Well, many people have different viewpoints, but I don't think it's
completely preposterous to think that they believed just what you say.
>
> >The difference between action and inaction is negligable. NOT working to
> >stop terrorism is almost as bad as committing terrorism.
>
> >If you can prevent it, and don't, you are irresponsible.
>
> You know, I'm not dead-set (no pun intended) against the idea
> of assassination as an alternative to warfare. It may be that
> it's unjustifiable; it may be that it's justifiable. I really
> don't know. But I *do* think that if assassination (even of
> terrorists) is to be justified, it would be because it kills
> fewer people, because it's discriminate, because it does not
> kill innocents. A *car* *bomb* outside a block of flats doesn't
> just get the target (in fact, it doesn't get the target at all
> if he's not around, as was the case), it gets everyone in the
> blast.
True.
>
> When other countries engage in the indiscriminate killing
> of civilians, we rightly condemn it as an atrocious violation of
> human rights. If the CIA does it, then we have to look at who
> the target was, and okay maybe he was really really evil so it
> was right to kill eighty people trying to get him, even if it
> didn't work. Right.
First, can you give me a source for your info?
Second, do you think the point of this "CIA" operation was expressly to kill
civilians? How about the recent terrorism in Israel? Do you see a
difference in motive?
zztop8970-
> "zztop8970-" <zzto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:35d69502.01120...@posting.google.com...
> > "Jez" <ys...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
> news:<3c0cc5d9$0$234$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com>...
> > > "Kevin Waterson" <ke...@oceania.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3C0C272B...@oceania.net...
>
> > > A common problem these days it would seem !
> > > Why don't they go back to watching T.V.
> > > and cleaning their guns?
> >
> >
> > Ah, the typical arrogance. ANyone who doesn't agree with you must be a
> > gun-owning bum, eh Jez?
> > Let me clue you in, laddie: Chomsky watches TV, as do most posters on
> > this group who think like you.
> >
> I don't care if anyone agrees with me or not!
> As for T.V. Chomsky watches it....so what?
So, it seems to me you were trying to belittle or deride those who
disagreed with you on this thread by referring to them as TV watching
gun owners. Maybe that was not your intent, but I fail to see any
other reasonable meaning to what you posted.
In that context, I pointed out to you that TV watching is common to
msot people on this NG, so you might want to rethink that particular
"insult".
> And as for the 'guns' remark it just seems
> that most folk here at the moment seem to glory in the idea of war,
> (from a safe distance in front of their T.V.'s)
No, most folk around here seem to realize that this war is a necesary
evil, and that there was no alternative.
> I thought it was the 21st century ,not 2000 years BC!
> When will we (America and the UK) become civilised ?
> My Grandfather fought in the 1st world war, and
> taught us (his family)to belive in peace, based on what he saw there.....
> (And the political situation that caused it)
> and 80+ years later people have to keep trying to achive it.
> Being super-powerful nations , how come we can't show
> compassion for ALL who suffer from War, repression and poverty?
> Seems simple? but perhaps it's just too much to understand.
Naive is a better description
>
> Ho hum
> Jez
zztop8970-
> On 4 Dec 2001 14:09:54 -0800, zzto...@yahoo.com (zztop8970-) wrote:
>
>
> >> >> >But of course Chomsky thinks that all acts of violence are bad
> >> >>
> >> >> This is a rather bizarre statement. All acts of violence *are* bad.*
> >> >
> >> >No, they are not. If a policeman sees a crime in progress, He will
> >> >take steps needed, including violent ones, to stop it. Those violent
> >> >acts are not *bad*, and if asked if he would like to do it agian,
> >> >he'll probably tkae you up on it.
> >>
> >> But if I ask him whether he'd like to do it again *for fun*, he'd look
> >> at me like I'm crazy. If I ask him whether he enjoyed it, he'd
> >> probably punch me in the face or tell me to find a psychiatrist.
> >
> >You're equating "good" with "something we do for fun".
>
> If something is "good," this means that, for whatever reason, we like
> it. Chocolate is good because we like the taste. Money is good because
> it can be spent for things we want and need. Violence is not good
> because it's a good way to get hurt or killed.
Your examples above reinforce my observation that you are childlike in
your thinking, and childlike in your assignment of the qualaties
"good" and "bad" to actions and things.
One might point out to you that Chocolate might be described as sweet,
but not as 'good' - its high sugar content and stickiness causes
cavaties, its nutritional value is limited, and it has been proven to
be a major cause of headaches and migrains, not to mention acne. It
could just as easily be described as 'bad'.
One might also make you aware that using your childish definition of
"good" - something we like, for whatever reason - would mean that
torturing people can be considered 'good' under some circumstances
(there's a good number of people who enjoy S&M)
>
> This is about
> >as childish as yoiu can get. Do you enjoy getting vaccines? I guess
> >vaccines are bad then.
>
> Actually, there's some evidence to suggest now that vaccines aren't
> good for you. My personal jury is still out on the issue.
>
> But assuming that vaccines do prevent dangerous diseases, then, yes,
> they're good things.
But if I ask you - would you like to get a vaccine this weekend, for
fun, you'd look at me as if I were crazy.
That is the exact analogy you used with the soldier, and proves that
your definition is unusable, even by your own standards.
>But getting jabbed in the arm with a sharp needle
> is a bad thing.
Yes. The criminal who gets shot would certainly define getting hit in
the head or arm by a bullet as a bad thing - but the violnet act in
this case is still good.
>
> Wearing a comfortable shirt is a good thing. Working for pennies a day
> in a sweat shop under unsafe conditions making that shirt is a bad
> thing. Eating a thick T-bone is a good thing. Discovering that the
> T-Bone has given you food poisoning is a bad thing. And so forth.
>
> Just because an action has some good consequences doesn't mean that
> it's a good thing.
You're plain wrong here. positive consequences are the primary thing
by which actions are defined as good or bad.
> We restrict violence in a thousand different ways;
> in theory, we only use it when it's necessary. This alone tells us
> that it's a bad thing.
We restrict drugs in a thousand different ways; in theory, we only use
them only when it's necessary. This alone tells us that it's a bad
thing. Right?
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Violence is sometimes necessary, but never good. All sane people
> >> operate under that principle.
> >
> >No, they don't. Violence enmployed in self defence is good.
>
> The self defense is good. Continuing to breath is good. The violence
> is bad.
Violence employed in self defense is good.
>
>
>
> Clay
D.Teale
<snip>
> > > "I'll talk about the situation in Afghanistan.... Looks like what's
> > > happening is some sort of silent genocide.... It indicates that
> whatever,
> > > what will happen we don't know, but plans are being made and programs
> > > implemented on the assumption that they may lead to the death of
several
> > > million people in the next--in the next couple of weeks.... very
> casually
> > > with no comment.... we are in the midst of apparently trying to murder
> > three
> > > or four million people."
> > >
> > > Do you agree with these blatent lies? Do you really believe that "we
> are
> > in
> > > the midst of apparently trying to murder three or four million
people"?
> >
> > Quite right, manslaughter would be a much more appropriate term.
>
> Maybe so, but who are the 3 or 4 million people again?
>
Well they are residents of Afghanistan and to a lesser extent the
neighboring nations. Composed primarily by the impoverished that will die
from starvation and malnutrition, closely followed by the ones unfortunate
enough to have bombs fall on their homes, or bullets from the numerous armed
factions now sprung onto the populace. Following from the campaign you can
expect many more deaths as a result of destroyed infrastructure, disease
spawned by the use of depleted uranium shells, and of course the ongoing
cycle of retalitory violence.
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Recall that the Gulf War was extremely popular in this country.
> > > > However, we voted out the president who initiated it and, since it
> > > > ended, even the most mainstream of media organs have indicated that
> > > > the US public has had some serious second thoughts about it.
> > >
> > > You are sadly mistaken. And realize, that G. Bush Sr. was ousted by
the
> > > Great Liar and Ross Perot. Clinton won the election with the lowest
> > > percentage of votes ever. Please don't ignore the facts.
> > >
> >
> > Did the UN ever look into the mass graves of Iraqi soldiers buried alive
> in
> > their trenches?
> >
>
> Uh... i don't know.
>
> Did Iraq ever look into the mass graves of Kuwatis who were randomly
> massacred for no apparent reason?
>
Really don't feel like arguing today, read this, it's nice.
December 8, 1999
A Mother's Glimpse into the Life and Death of Iraq
I have just returned from Iraq to my clean, "safe" and well ordered life
with my five healthy sons, with clean air to breathe and drinkable water to
be had with the simple turn of a tap. Yet life can never be the same. Many
times a day, when I sit down for a meal, or see a healthy child or a
contented well-fed baby, I have to fight back tears as memories well up from
our tiny glimpse into the man made hell of a land being choked to death by
my country; a land where a child dies every six minutes as a result of our
sanctions.
I was one of almost two hundred people (mostly women) from more than forty
nations, invited by Dr. Manal and the General Federation of Iraqi Women to
their 16th General Conference. Although they themselves suffer severe
deprivation they covered the food and hotel expenses for all those attending
their conference, which was an unforgettable experience. And in spite of the
sanctions, they provide assistance and comfort to poor and struggling
mothers throughout Iraq. The indomitable spiritual strength, integrity and
hospitality of the Iraqi women deeply impressed me. The suffering they have
endured for the last nine years has drawn them and the Iraqi people closely
together.
How can I convey the irony of feeling so much more at home in Iraq than in
the superficial culture that we know in America? The heart to heart contact
with so many suffering and deeply believing Muslims for whom God is a
reality, not a figment of the imagination to talk about on Sunday and then
forget, was deeply moving. How can one explain the fact that, when they find
out we are from the very nation that is murdering their children, instead of
hating us they welcome us with a warmth that defies all understanding?
Late one night, as my husband and I walked back to our hotel through
deserted streets in Baghdad, we saw a very large dump truck stop at a red
light. Standing in the back were about fifty quiet, tired, dusty men and
older boys going home after a day of hard work. The joyful shouts of
"welcomes" and "hellos" that erupted when we waved to them astonished us. As
we walked past the truck many leaned down to shake our hands before the
truck sped off into the darkness. This is how our "enemies" greeted us in
Iraq!
Many Iraqi families live on the edge of starvation and have had to let their
children take to selling small items in the streets. We saw many such
children, like the little girl who offered me incense through our taxi
window. Our taxi was in the lane farthest from the curb, in heavy traffic
three lanes deep, when I noticed a frail little girl standing on the curb,
her delicate face outlined by her head scarf. Our eyes met for just a moment
before I lost sight of her. When we stopped for a red light there she was,
standing at the window beaming at me and offering her little stick of
incense, which I gladly accepted and paid her for. She was so pleased. When
the traffic started moving again she somehow made her way back to the safety
of the sidewalk. In spite of their need and poverty the trusting eyes of
these children tell you that they have a family and parents that love them.
They were not the lonely, unhappy eyes of children one sees so often in our
country.
We visited the largest children's hospital in Baghdad -- room upon room,
ward upon ward of children slowly dying, watched by grieving parents and
helpless doctors and nurses; helpless because our sanctions prevent them
from obtaining the medical supplies they need. And before we imposed the
sanctions the best medical care was free for everyone in Iraq.
Still before my eyes is the face of a six-year-old child suffering from
leukemia, with hope of life but a slim thread. She accepted our small gift
of a hand knitted teddy with a radiant smile and trusting eyes, which also
brought joy to her suffering mother. But the little girl's grandmother was
weeping and I could not keep back tears as I stood beside her. I will never
forget the look on the child's face as she noticed us. Tears welled up and
flowed down her little face, which a moment before had been so happy. The
child needed joy and hope, but all her grandmother and I could offer was our
shared grief. And she is but one of thousands of Iraqi children, each dying
a slow and agonizing death. Her illness is almost certainly the result of
the depleted Uranium we used in Iraq during the Gulf War -- a radioactive
substance that is causing cancer and deformities in thousands of children
throughout Iraq. And it will continue to do so for hundreds and thousands of
years to come.
Beside another bed a mother wept as she watched her little girl slipping
into a coma. This is the third time she has watched one of her children die,
each before they reached their third birthday. I could not even begin to
imagine her agony. And this innocent child, like so many other Iraqi
children, does not even know she is an Iraqi. Yet she is being put to death
by our sanctions because she is an Iraqi.
We claim that any weapons of mass destruction Iraq may still have must be
destroyed. Yet we refuse to end the sanctions -- a weapon of mass
destruction that has killed more than a million people, most of them
children. Our government bombed Yugoslavia, killing many innocent women and
children, because of supposed mass graves. But we have turned Iraq into a
giant mass grave into which more than two hundred children are laid each
day. Surely this is a crime against humanity.
As we prepare for Christmas let us not forget the slaughter of the innocents
that took place in Bethlehem after Christ's birth. Today, two thousand years
later, the innocents are again being slaughtered, this time in Iraq.
I have come home wondering who is actually poorer, and feeling deep sorrow
for our nation. The Iraqi people are rich through their faith in God and the
love of their close-knit families. It is this that gives them strength to
face each day with courage and hope instead of bitterness and despair. May
God help them hold on to their faith. And may it be given that our nation
begins to seek what we have lost through our selfishness and the empty
glitter of our daily scramble for money and material things.
How much I wish that every American mother would go to Iraq and stand beside
an Iraqi mother, feeling her helpless agony as she watches her child die.
Their lives would be forever changed, as mine has been. And they would join
me in calling for an end to the cruel and heartless sanctions.
Krista Clement
Farmington PA, USA
>
Stephen Denney
Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> Nathan Folkert wrote:
>
> > All this was three years before he made a fawning speech praising the
> > totalitarian regime of Ho Chi Minh on Hanoi radio. For a time I had
> > believed (or rather, wanted) this speech to be inauthentic -- the
> > result of some kind of CIA fraud -- or to mean something other than
> > what it obviously meant. Chomsky had responded to a query about it
> > from (I believe) Dan Clore, with some lame evasions that apparently
> > persuaded Dan that he'd never given a speech on Hanoi radio (an
> > argument I briefly favoured), though Chomsky never explicitly denied
> > it (rather he obfuscated, shamed Mr. Clore for wasting his time with
> > this irrelevancy, and called the original source (I believe it was
> > David Horowitz) a Stalinist).
>
> You're not talking about me (Dan Clore) here, though I did
> participate much in that debate. True, Chomsky never gave a
> speech on Hanoi radio. Perhaps a speech of his was recorded
> and broadcast without his knowledge, or somesuch, but there
> is no evidence that this occurred. As to the alleged speech
> itself, it did not contain any of the objectionable material
> that it was alleged to contain, so the point is rather moot
> in any case. It does sound enough like Chomsky that I could
> believe it is a real speech that had been translated two or
> three times and ended up mangled in the process. I leave the
> comparison texts below so that others can compare genuine
> Chomsky with the alleged speech.
The broadcast was in English so it is not likely to have been a
translation. It was broadcast by Hanoi on April 14, 1970 and published in
the April 16, 1970 issue of the U.S. government daily, Foreign Broadcast
Information Service, Asia-Pacific Daily Report. Here is the citation that
preceded the text of the speech:
"Hanoi in English to Southeast Asia 1000 GMT 14 Apr 70 B"
"[Speech by Prof. Noam Chomsky at 13 April Hanoi meeting welcoming the
1970 American people's spring offensive]"
"[Text] [Recorded male voice, speaking with an American accent]"
- Steve Denney
------------------------------
>
> > This belief seems extremely far-fetched
> > when one compares this speech with Chomsky's sympathetic report of his
> > journeys through North Vietnam, in which the same awed language
> > sometimes pokes through, and in which many of the same images are
> > invoked. The speech included, among other things:
> >
> > : We also saw the (Ham Ranh) Bridge, standing proud and
> > : defiant, and carved on the hills above we read the words,
> > : 'determined to win.' The people of Vietnam will win, they
> > : must win, because your cause is the cause of humanity as
> > : it moves forward toward liberty and justice, toward the
> > : socialist society in which free, creative men control
> > : their own destiny.
> >
> > (cf. his description in "In North Vietnam" August 13, 1970 The New
> > York
> > Review of Books:
> >
> > : Near Thanh Hoa city, the Ham Rong bridge spans the Ma
> > : River. [...] The bridge was attacked daily from early
> > : 1965 until the suspension of the bombing -- in this region,
> > : in April, 1968. [...] We returned to the bridge the next
> > : day, this time accompanied by the head of the local branch
> > : of the Vietnam Fatherland Front, which is essentially the
> > : successor organization to the Viet Minh. [...] Carved in
> > : the hills beyond, just visible from where we stood, were
> > : the words: "Quyet Thang" -- "determined to win."
> > :
> > : The bridge still stands, severely damaged but proud and
> > : defiant, a symbol of deep significance to the people of
> > : Thanh Hoa. [...] So far as I can tell, the country is
> > : unified, strong though poor, and determined to withstand
> > : the attack launched against Vietnam by the great superpower
> > : of the Western world.
> >
> > it seems the hope that the speech was a fraud is merely wishful
> > thinking).
>
> --
> Dan Clore
> mailto:cl...@columbia-center.org
>
> Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
> http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
>
> Lord Weÿrdgliffe:
> http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
> Necronomicon Page:
> http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm
> News for Anarchists & Activists:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>
> "It's a political statement -- or, rather, an
> *anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!"
> -- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in
> _Detective Comics_ #608
> -- end of forwarded message --
>
Joseph Michael Bay
>> >You assume that the job is easier than it proves to be. If it were that
>> >simple, the CIA would certainly rid the planet of terrorists.
>> I don't assume that. But a bomb is not a tool for killing a person,
>> a bomb is a tool for killing many people.
>Or safely killing one.
You must be using a different definition of the word "bomb".
A bomb explodes, sending a shockwave of pressure and often
shrapnel. If and only if there is only one person in the
range of the bomb (unlikely if it's a car bomb in a residential
area) the bomb will kill one person.
>> You assume a lot there, if I may say so. In this extremely
>> hypothetical example, Hezbullah plan to kill half a million
>> people, but if Fadlallah is killed, they will abandon this
>> plan, go forth and sin no more. Suicide bombers will say
>> "Oh no, Fadlallah was blown up! This Hezbullah thing I've
>> gotten myself into could be dangerous -- I'd better quit
>> and study circuit design instead of wearing all this dynamite."
>Point well taken, but you still don't answer the question. I wasn't
>referring to this specific case, but rather an out-of-thin-air hypothetical.
>The point is, where do you draw the line?
The line can include however many unreasonable hypothetical
situations you like. In real life, though, killing bystanders
is unacceptable.
>Certainly, removing upper management will hamper plans to successfully
>complete larger projects.
>Get rid of everyone in middle management on up in Boeing, leaving the
>workers on the floor. How much production are they capable of?
Not much, I'd guess, until they hired new middle management. The
plan didn't involve "getting rid of" all the leadership, though,
just one guy. And whoever else was around, of course.
>> Right, and if you could go back in time and impale baby Hitler
>> on a spike you would pretty much HAVE to, except that you can't
>> go back in time any more than you can predict really unlikely
>> future events like the one described above.
>True, but I see that you do at least recognize the obligation to kill if you
>are certain it will save some arbitrary number of lives (your example). So,
>by this reasoning, if we know someone is capable, and they have a history of
>destruction, and they openly proclaim that they are planning more....
>What's the difference?
The difference is that (a) you cannot possibly be certain
that you're going to save anyone, although granted you can
make a good case for it in some examples, and that (b) even
if the plan to blow up Fadlallah had been successful, Hezbullah
would not just stop.
Does the FBI blow up mobsters' neighborhoods?
>> You would need to have a reasonable belief that your action is
>> going to have better consequences than inaction. Killing one
>> terrorist, even a high-profile terrorist, is as likely to provoke
>> a retaliation as it is to give terror organizations pause. More
>> so, I would guess.
>Exactly. That's YOUR guess. But as you say, the people responsible,
>assuming they had "a reasonable belief that" their "action" was "going to
>have better consequences than inaction" were only doing what you say. You
>must be assuming they didn't feel that way, apparently because you don't.
>Well, many people have different viewpoints, but I don't think it's
>completely preposterous to think that they believed just what you say.
These people must have been in a coma, then, because in
just about every case where an important member of a terrorist
organization has been killed there's a spate of reprisal attacks,
not a cessation of activity. They'd also need to calculate that
the attacks they were going to prevent would have killed more
than the eighty who died as a result of the car bomb.
>> When other countries engage in the indiscriminate killing
>> of civilians, we rightly condemn it as an atrocious violation of
>> human rights. If the CIA does it, then we have to look at who
>> the target was, and okay maybe he was really really evil so it
>> was right to kill eighty people trying to get him, even if it
>> didn't work. Right.
>First, can you give me a source for your info?
Which info? The Fadlallah thing? You could look it
up yourself, read a few different sources. A fairly
recent Bob Woodward article in the Washington Post about
the expansion of CIA leeway going on mentions it briefly:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A27452-2001Oct20
>Second, do you think the point of this "CIA" operation was expressly to kill
>civilians? How about the recent terrorism in Israel? Do you see a
>difference in motive?
Sure, there's a difference in motive. Suicide bombers in Israel
are trying to blow up civilians, indiscriminately as far as I know.
That's plainly horrible and wrong. The assassination attempt on
Fadlallah was trying to blow up Fadlallah, using a massive car
bomb fifty yards away from his house, outside a mosque, in a
residential neighborhood. Predictably, this resulted in the
deaths of many people who happened to be there. Difference in
motive? Perhaps, but there is little to no difference in the
means used, nor in the predictable outcome.
Rich Vaughan
According to Chomsky, the two were comparable in terms of human toll. If I
remember correctly, Chomsky's critics (among those that participated in the
newsgroup discussion) felt that Chomksy's mention of the Sudan bombing implied
that both crimes were of the same nature. There was more to it than that,
though. Nathan Folkert was one of the participants -- maybe he can clarify
better than I.
> In reference to said topic, Noam himself, in the Hitchens exchange - to be
> linked below - said the following;
>
> [Hitchens condemns the claim of "facile 'moral equivalence' between the two
> crimes." Fair enough, but since he fabricated the claim out of thin air, I
> feel no need to comment. ]
>
> While Chomsky almost NEVER says anything concrete that lays out exactly what
> he is talking about -- it's usually very vague and implied -- I am going to
> assume that because he claimed that Hitchens "fabricated the claim (Chomsky
> morally equating Sudan and 9-11) out of thin air", that he does not agree
> with that claim. Am I making a safe assumption? Since he felt no need to
> comment, base on the preceding words; would you say that he disagrees with
> this 'fabrication'?
>
> Sorry, all of that for this:
>
> So, do you agree with Chomsky that the bombing of Sudan is not morally
> equivalent to the terrible attack on the WTC?
I agree that the human toll in each case was comparable. Of course, on 9-11,
more people were instantly killed by the attack, and the death toll was probably
easier to measure. In Sudan, more people died as a consequence of the bombing
later -- they weren't killed instantly. I think some of the debate participants
felt Sudan wasn't much of a "terrorist" crime because the victims were not
specifically targeted by the U.S. They died as an unintended result.
> > but it was a valid criticism, and several
> > contributors -- if not most -- criticized Chomsky's comparision without
> > smearing him. In many instances, the posts were "very well written."
> >
> > If somebody wants to critique or criticize Chomsky, that's fine. I
> actually
> > encourage them to do so. But tell the truth. People like you lose
> > credibility when they go around posting that any old anti-Chomsky tirade
> is
> > "very well written" when anyone with a rudimentary familiarity with
> Chomsky
> > can see the naked distortion of Chomsky's positions.
>
> How's this for starters? BTW, this is not yet a criticism...
>
> What do you think about this?:
>
> Here is what Chomsky told his audience at MIT on October 11:
>
> I'll talk about the situation in Afghanistan.... Looks like what's
> happening is some sort of silent genocide.... It indicates that whatever,
> what will happen we don't know, but plans are being made and programs
> implemented on the assumption that they may lead to the death of several
> million people in the next--in the next couple of weeks.... very casually
> with no comment.... we are in the midst of apparently trying to murder three
> or four million people.
>
> Do you agree with these blatent lies? Do you really believe that "we are in
> the midst of apparently trying to murder three or four million people"?
I think it is clear from the context of his MIT speech that Chomsky is referring
to the easily predictable consequences of the bombing campaign. Internationally
respected aid agencies have said over and over again that several million
Afghans are at risk of starvation due to the bombing. I think a good case could
be made that if the U.S. ignores these warnings, and several million people
starve to death as a result, then the U.S. must assume responsibility for the
deaths.
Rich
Rich Vaughan
> evil, and that there was no alternative.
Yeah right. "Necessary evils" are not undertaken with as much enthusiasm as we've seen during this war.
Rich
Joseph Michael Bay
>> Afghanis. At the time this was written, the New York Times was
>> reporting that some seven and a half million people in Afghanistan
>> needed food aid, and that about half of that had stopped after
>> the bombing campaign started.
>Okay, but in the actual speech, Chomsky joked about the "credibility" of the
>NYTimes,
Well, "uncontroversial" actually. His criticism of the NYT
is longstanding and well-known, but to my understanding is
based on the stories they choose to print or to omit, not on
the factual accuracy of its reports.
>and then went on to base his entire opinion on their information.
And the London Financial Times.
And the Boston Globe. Are you reading the same transcript?
>Since time has proven ALL of these claims false,
"After the first week of bombing, the New York Times reported
on a back page inside a column on something else, that by the
arithmetic of the United Nations there will soon be 7.5 million
Afghans in acute need of even a loaf of bread and there are only
a few weeks left before the harsh winter will make deliveries
to many areas totally impossible, continuing to quote, but with
bombs falling the delivery rate is down to 1/2 of what is needed.
Casual comment. "
So the New York Times, citing the United Nations, said that
millions of Afghans were going to be in dire straits since
there was little food and winter was approaching, and that
half of the aid was not getting there during the bombing.
>in hindsight we can use
>this information to assess the validity of the opinions of Chomsky and the
>NYTimes. Can't we?
It's not an opinion, it's a projection based on reports
of aid workers and organizations. "The country's on a
lifeline and we've just cut that line,"
>> making things much, much worse. Refugees, inevitable in such
>> a case, were unable to leave the country for much of that time
>> because the borders to Pakistan were closed by US demand.
>Ahh, but the highest number of people who have died because of lack of food
>aid is 600, that I can find anyway.
Christian Aid reported 600 people died in the Dar-e-Suf region of
northern Afghanistan due to starvation, malnutrition and related
diseases. By October 23. Over a month ago.
>What are your sources saying? This is
>hardly what Chomsky confidently proclaimed. And hardly "genocide" or
>"murder" for that matter. I think his words are transparent as to his
>intentions.
There's still bombing. There's still a serious battle
for survival on the part of many Afghans, according to UNESCO.
The UN aid workers returned to Mazar-e-Sharif November 24,
and then had to leave again yesterday. This is hardly over.
And at the time the speech was given, we'd made Pakistan cut
off food aid to Afghanistan, greatly exacerbating the existing
crisis.
>> Of course since the convoys were not able to *enter* the
>> country due to the bombing, there weren't really many for
>> the Taliban to delay. Oh, and also on Sep 16 the US demanded
>> that Pakistan stop the convoys. According to the Times.
>Sure, but look at the end result. The people are free for the time being
>and aid is coming fast and in large quantities. Again... not even close to
>"genocide".
I don't know about the first assertion there. From what
I've read (in the NYT) it seems that aid isn't coming
fast or in large quantities:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/30/international/30RELI.html?searchpv=past7days
If that link's no good look for
"Level of Food Aid to Afghans Drops
By ELIZABETH BECKER"
And that the required security to
actually distribute aid just isn't there. The Northern
Alliance aren't creating a secure environment themselves
and they and the Bush Administration are refusing to let
France and Britain send peacekeepers.
>> So those people are who we're talking about.
>So how many died as a direct result of the planned "murder" by the US?
We're not going to know soon.
I guess if you go around calling every action that has
the predictable outcome of killing people "murder" it
devalues the term. Is that what you're on about?
>> Some people did horrible things, thus we are justified
>> to do horrible things ourselves?
>Yes. Are you against stopping violent crime? Are you against the use of
>force by Police in any form? Sometimes 'police' have to use deadly force to
>stop crime. Do you recognize the truth in this?
I recognize the truth in that almost wholly unrelated
assertion. Do "police" use deadly force, starvation or
cluster bombs against bystanders when they're attempting
to apprehend violent criminals? Goodness, they don't.
You may as well have said "Sometimes I wear a hat when
it's cold out" for all the relevance that has.
Nark
But these claims (or predictions), as well as his conclusions, have already
been proven false. As far as I can tell, only 600 people have been on
record as starving, which is much lower than anyone predicted, even before
the bombing campaign started. Hardly "genocide" or "murder". Obviously
this inflated rhetoric has proven to be a panent lie.
Rich Vaughan
> been proven false. As far as I can tell, only 600 people have been on
> record as starving, which is much lower than anyone predicted, even before
> the bombing campaign started. Hardly "genocide" or "murder". Obviously
> this inflated rhetoric has proven to be a panent lie.
He was issuing a warning based on warnings from international aid agencies. I
think this was clear in his speech.
Calling him a "liar" is the equivalent of calling the aid agencies liars.
Personally, I'm glad thousands/millions of people haven't starved to death. I'm
sure Chomsky is, too.
From what I've read, though, there is still a risk for mass starvation.
Rich
Joseph Michael Bay
And that "600" figure is for one region of the country, over a month ago.
Relief work is *still* hampered by bombing and the lack of security and
Bush won't let international peacekeeping forces in for some reason.
D.Teale
"Joseph Michael Bay" <jm...@Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
> Rich Vaughan <less...@flash.net> writes:
>
> >> But these claims (or predictions), as well as his conclusions, have
already
> >> been proven false. As far as I can tell, only 600 people have been on
> >> record as starving, which is much lower than anyone predicted, even
before
> >> the bombing campaign started. Hardly "genocide" or "murder".
Obviously
> >> this inflated rhetoric has proven to be a panent lie.
>
> >He was issuing a warning based on warnings from international aid
agencies. I
> >think this was clear in his speech.
>
> >Calling him a "liar" is the equivalent of calling the aid agencies liars.
>
> >Personally, I'm glad thousands/millions of people haven't starved to
death. I'm
> >sure Chomsky is, too.
>
> >From what I've read, though, there is still a risk for mass starvation.
>
>
> And that "600" figure is for one region of the country, over a month ago.
> Relief work is *still* hampered by bombing and the lack of security and
> Bush won't let international peacekeeping forces in for some reason.
>
>
I'd like to insert a question at this point. About three weeks ago, Canada
announced that it would be sending 1000 infantry troops to Afghanistan,
these troops were to act as a security force for humanitarian aid, the
Canadian gov't assured the public that the troops were not going to battle,
that Canada's troops would be peacekeeping.
Now in the midst of the crisis, there is suddenly no need for this mission.
Below I have taken quotes from six articles, all from cbc.ca, notice the
storyline.
----------------------------------------
Fri Nov 16 09:00:56 2001
EDMONTON - An advance party of 15 Canadian troops left Edmonton on Thursday
en route to Afghanistan. Almost 1,000 troops will help create a safe
environment so humanitarian aid convoys can enter.
---------------------------
Sun Nov 18 14:51:11 2001
...[UN Secratary General, Koffi]Annan thanked Chrétien for Canada's help so
far, but said there would be a difficult period ahead as Afghanistan tries
to rebuild itself following not just this conflict, but more than 20 years
of constant war.
"It's going to be a long-term effort, which will require sustained political
will and the resources required," he said.
Chrétien said he and Annan discussed three options for Afghanistan. They
were a traditional peacekeeping force, a multinational force, or a locally
established force.
[none of these options indicate an abandonment of the humanitarian security
force]
--------------------
Wed Nov 21 19:53:04 2001
...Eggleton denies any problems with equipment. He says Canadian troops are
ready. "I think the people of Afghanistan need assistance and I'm hopeful
they can work the details out. (U.S. Defense Secretary Donald) Rumsfeld say
it's a relevant mission. I think it's still a relevant mission."
Eggleton also announced Canada and the U.S. are launching a major review of
their military co-operation at home.
Eggleton says he came to that agreement when he met with Rumsfeld on
Tuesday.
Eggleton says a high level committee will review a variety of agreements
concerning co-operation, including the North American Aerospace Defence
Command. ...
-----------
November [undated but presumably between the 21st and 26th]:
But as the Taliban reliquishes power in Afghanistan, Prime Minister Jean
Chrétien and Minister of National Defence Art Eggleton said the commitment
to send 1,000 infantry troops to act as part of a stabilization force isn't
definite.
"This is a very fluid situation, it's in a state of flux because of the
quick retreat of the Taliban," Eggleton said.
----------------
Mon Nov 26 16:03:44 2001
LONDON - Most of the Canadian troops who have been waiting to be sent to
Afghanistan have been taken off 48-hour alert, and put on seven-day standby
instead...
They were to help stabilize the country and support efforts to bring
humanitarian aid to Afghans.
[the day before meeting with Rumsfeld]
---------------------------
Thu Nov 29 08:33:01 2001
As for ground troops, Eggleton said there's still no decision on whether
Canadians will be heading to Afghanistan. About 1,000 soldiers remain on a
seven-day alert to depart.
-----------------------
And that's it, cbc article since the 29th Nov. mentions any humanitarian
force. What happened?
Tim Starr
says...
[snip]
My, my, Nathan, how you've changed - and for the better! To what do we owe this
great improvement in your opinion of Chomsky?
Tim Starr
Tim Starr
says...
[snip]
>The real question is: does any of this matter? Do Chomsky's views
>from thirty or forty years ago really matter? Do his evasions
>regarding these views matter? Does his non-recantation of these views
>matter? (Unless he has, indeed, publicly recanted them, which may be
>the case, but then it would seem rather simple to resolve all of
>this.) I'm not sure.
Does it matter if one of the most influential intellectuals of the contemporary
American Left was an unrepentant admirer of Stalinist regimes like Maoist China
& North Vietnam?
Would it matter if one of the most influential intellectuals of the contemporary
American Right was an unrepentant admirer of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, &
Militarist Japan?
Tim Starr
Tim Starr
>
>bloo...@hotmail.com (Leo) writes:
>
>>Claiming that American acts of terrorism are on the same par with the
>>likes of al-Qa'ida is not only laughable but dangerous. The 1985 CIA
>>car bombing of a Mosque in Beirut was, at best, disastrous American
>>foreign policy, no doubt resulting in the loss of innocent lives.
>>However this was not some willy nilly bomb planting done for some
>>weekend fun. It was targeting a Hizballah leader who was behind the
>>bombing of the US troop base in Beirut. They were not simply after a
>>"cleric they did not like."
>
>the main focus still kills innocents, and is still indiscriminate
>violence. It really doesn't matter what the point was supposed
>to be.
"A surgeon that kills healthy cells incidentally in the process of cutting out
cancerous cells, is still indiscriminately killing healthy cells. It really
doesn't matter what the point was supposed to be."
Tim Starr
Nark
"Rich Vaughan" <less...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:3C0E9A92...@flash.net...
> > But these claims (or predictions), as well as his conclusions, have
already
> > been proven false. As far as I can tell, only 600 people have been on
> > record as starving, which is much lower than anyone predicted, even
before
> > the bombing campaign started. Hardly "genocide" or "murder". Obviously
> > this inflated rhetoric has proven to be a panent lie.
>
> He was issuing a warning based on warnings from international aid
agencies. I
> think this was clear in his speech.
>
> Calling him a "liar" is the equivalent of calling the aid agencies liars.
I'm not aware of any 'international aid agencies' who have referred to the
US as committing "genocide" on the people of Afghanistan. Are you?
So why would calling him a liar equate with calling them liars? Your
argument is based purely on emotion.
If you can produce any evidence that this was anything but an extremely
offensive lie perpetrated by a known demagogue, then I'll be impressed.
Nark
"Joseph Michael Bay" <jm...@Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:9um99p$r6s$1...@usenet.Stanford.EDU...
>
> >> But these claims (or predictions), as well as his conclusions, have
already
> >> been proven false. As far as I can tell, only 600 people have been on
> >> record as starving, which is much lower than anyone predicted, even
before
> >> the bombing campaign started. Hardly "genocide" or "murder".
Obviously
> >> this inflated rhetoric has proven to be a panent lie.
>
> >He was issuing a warning based on warnings from international aid
agencies. I
> >think this was clear in his speech.
>
> >Calling him a "liar" is the equivalent of calling the aid agencies liars.
>
> >Personally, I'm glad thousands/millions of people haven't starved to
death. I'm
> >sure Chomsky is, too.
>
> >From what I've read, though, there is still a risk for mass starvation.
>
>
> And that "600" figure is for one region of the country, over a month ago.
> Relief work is *still* hampered by bombing and the lack of security and
> Bush won't let international peacekeeping forces in for some reason.
>
True enough, but we are talking about the fact that Mr. Chomsky referred to
the war as "genocide", and it clearly is not. The point is that
demagoguery, in this case, is a clear sign of an irrational hostility toward
the US. Whether the basis for this belief is valid or not; lying is not the
answer. It's an insult to his followers.
Joseph Michael Bay
>In article <9uh5s3$sss$1...@usenet.Stanford.EDU>, Joseph Michael Bay says...
>>An attack that kills innocents incidentally rather than as
>>the main focus still kills innocents, and is still indiscriminate
>>violence. It really doesn't matter what the point was supposed
>>to be.
>"A surgeon that kills healthy cells incidentally in the process of cutting out
>cancerous cells, is still indiscriminately killing healthy cells. It really
>doesn't matter what the point was supposed to be."
If you equate human beings with cells, cancerous or otherwise,
I really don't see the point of taking your views seriously.
Where do you come up with this crap?
Joseph Michael Bay
>I'd like to insert a question at this point. About three weeks ago, Canada
>announced that it would be sending 1000 infantry troops to Afghanistan,
>these troops were to act as a security force for humanitarian aid, the
>Canadian gov't assured the public that the troops were not going to battle,
>that Canada's troops would be peacekeeping.
>Now in the midst of the crisis, there is suddenly no need for this mission.
>Below I have taken quotes from six articles, all from cbc.ca, notice the
>storyline.
[snip articles]
The impression I get from these and other stories is that the Northern
Alliance don't want international (foreign) military present on the
ground, for whatever reason, and that president Bush is requesting that
other countries therefore stay out. They're also saying that they can't
deploy peacekeeping forces without Afghan consent. That's fine, but it
means that the Northern Alliance is then responsible for protecting
relief workers if people are going to survive. So far they don't seem
to be doing that well, if indeed at all. As far as I've heard the
relief agencies have been asking for an international peacekeeping
force, which seems to make more sense than leaving it up to the Northern
Alliance.
Joseph Michael Bay
>> Relief work is *still* hampered by bombing and the lack of security and
>> Bush won't let international peacekeeping forces in for some reason.
>True enough, but we are talking about the fact that Mr. Chomsky referred to
>the war as "genocide", and it clearly is not. The point is that
>demagoguery, in this case, is a clear sign of an irrational hostility toward
>the US. Whether the basis for this belief is valid or not; lying is not the
>answer. It's an insult to his followers.
Okay, so "mass starvation on the scale of millions" isn't really
"genocide" inasmuch as the majority ethnic group is the same as
that in Pakistan, so there will be Pashtuns still, and there are
Uzbeks in Uzbekistan, and so forth. It's a poor choice of words,
because the term "genocide" has resonance. How about the more
substantive allegations that the manner in which the war against
Afghanistan has been conducted has hampered the efforts of relief
agencies which are the only hope of survival for large numbers of
people? The fact that he refers to it as a "sort of silent genocide"--
which is technically incorrect since the victims are not of the
same ethnic group nor the totality of any group -- does not alter
the fact that it's a policy which assumes and accepts large scale
starvation and death.
Russil Wvong
> [apologies: this started off small, but got larger as I wrote and
> read, and is now a rather imposing rant. Also, this is my first time
> posting from Dejanews, so apologies in advance if formatting is off.
> Finally, I am spoiled by ethernet, but have only a phone line, and am
> too lazy to retrieve the URLs for my sources, though I'll try to
> provide adequate citations.]
Thanks for posting this. I'm curious about the transition that you
made from agreeing with Chomsky's views (a year ago) to your current
views -- how did that happen?
I've been having a lengthy discussion with John Caruso recently, and
I've attempted to summarize my point of view as "Noam Chomsky: A Critical
Review", at http://www.geocities.com/rwvong/future/chomsky.html.
> He addresses, as would be expected at the time, the use of violence in
> the Vietnam war. He argues that there is no possible question of
> justifying the terror on the part of the United States and Saigon. At
> the time they were attempting to prevent a totalitarian terror state
> (which had murdered perhaps a half a million people by the time
> Chomsky made these remarks, and was itself an agent of the Soviet
> empire) and their local partisans (who routinely engaged in terrorism
> and assissination) from taking over the remainder of Vietnam. Here is
> violence that Chomsky clearly, unquestioningly, and unequivocally
> condemns, though by his own criteria it seems obvious that the
> intended consequences were to eliminate an obviously greater evil,
> though I suppose one could debate the facts.
I'm not a Chomsky fan, but even political realists such as George Kennan
(responsible for formulating the Cold War doctrine of containment) and
Hans Morgenthau opposed the Vietnam War. Kennan describes the North
Vietnamese communists (in the Grinnell Lectures) as being primarily
driven by nationalism; they weren't simply Soviet puppets. It's not
enough for the US to have had *good intentions*; its objectives were
simply unachievable, and this meant that it ended up killing more and
more people in its efforts to reach them. Given the number of people
killed in the Vietnam War, I think Chomsky was on the right side.
See Stanley Hoffman's March 27, 1969 letter in the New York Review of
Books, and Chomsky's reply. Hoffman writes:
2) We do disagree on the subject of American objectives in Vietnam.
Professor Chomsky believes that they were wicked; I do not. I
believe that they were, in a way, far worse; for often the greatest
threat to moderation and peace, and certainly the most insidious,
comes from objectives that are couched in terms of fine principles
in which the policy-maker fervently believes, yet that turn out to
have no relation to political realities and can therefore be applied
only by tortuous or brutal methods which broaden ad infinitum the
gap between motives and effects. What matters in international
affairs, alas, far more than intentions and objectives, is behavior
and results. Because I do not believe that our professed goals in
Vietnam were obviously wicked, Professor Chomsky "reads this as in
essence an argument for the legitimacy of military intervention."
If he had not stopped his quotation of my analysis where he did, he
would have had to show that my case against the war is exactly the
opposite: "worthy ends" divorced from local political realities lead
to political and moral disaster, just as British resistance to the
American revolution was bound to get bankrupt. What Vietnam proves,
in my opinion, is not the wickedness of our intentions or objectives
but the wickedness that results from irrelevant objectives and
disembodied intentions, applied by hideous and massive means. It has
its roots, intellectual and emotional, in elements of the
American style that I have been at pains to analyze in detail.
The Americans' very conviction that their goals are good blinds them to
the consequences of their acts. To focus on intentions is to prolong a
futile clash of inflamed self-righteousness; to focus on behavior
and results could get us somewhere.
[http://www.nybooks.com/articles/11370]
> The mainstream media and other commentators commonly refer to Chomsky
> along the lines of being "a Sixties figure", "a leading anti-war
> intellectual of the Vietnam era", or some other such characterization
> generally made to contrast past respectability with current
> marginalization. Even Hitchens went out of his way recently to praise
> Chomsky's past views while attacking his current ones as "robotic" or
> "mindless" or something similar, if I recall correctly. My question
> is: if these were his views in 1967 -- views which are transparently
> sympathetic to totalitarianism and practically agnostic on the issue
> of whether revolutionary terror is immoral -- why was he ever taken
> seriously as a moral figure at all?
He was a key figure in opposing the Vietnam War. Robert Asprey describes
Chomsky's role in "War in the Shadows":
Increasingly influential and strident voices were questioning not
only the conduct but the very raison d'etre of the war. In February
1967, Noam Chomsky's explosive essay, "The Responsibility of
Intellectuals," appeared in the New York Review of Books and
thereafter was widely circulated--one of the "... key documents
in the intellectual resistance to the Vietnam War," in that it
called for the nation's intellectuals, who passively opposed
American participation in the war, to become engage--in David
Schalk's term--and even embrigade or counterlegal if necessary
"... to speak the truth and to expose lies." In this watershed
essay, Chomsky blasted such "establishment intellectuals" as
Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., Walt W. Rostow, McGeorge Bundy, and
Henry Kissinger
... for their abandonment of the critical role that should
fall to them because of their privileged status. These
academics who had entered politics displayed a kind of
"hypocritical moralism" that hid American imperialism with
pieties and masked and apologized for aggression, especially
American aggression in Vietnam.
I assume Chomsky took on some big personal risks by making this stand.
By the way, I think the Chinese Communists *were* less brutal than
Stalin (admittedly, that isn't saying much, and I agree that Chomsky
doesn't seem to be applying a consistent moral standard). See
Maurice Meisner, "Mao's China and After".
Russil Wvong
Vancouver, Canada
www.geocities.com/rwvong
Rich Vaughan
> US as committing "genocide" on the people of Afghanistan. Are you?
>
> So why would calling him a liar equate with calling them liars? Your
> argument is based purely on emotion.
>
> If you can produce any evidence that this was anything but an extremely
> offensive lie perpetrated by a known demagogue, then I'll be impressed.
Well, now that you mention it, his use of the term "genocide" to characterize
the situation is somewhat questionable.
I don't think it is entirely unjustified, though, if you consider that the U.S.
government was/is well aware of the liklihood of starvation, but continued with
the bombing campaign anyway. I think a good case could be made that continuing
with the bombing, despite knowing the predictable result of mass starvation,
constitutes "genocide."
I think Chomsky uses the term "genocide" mainly to denote the scale of death
that could result directly and indirectly, though. It's probably mainly a
numbers thing for him. I could be wrong, though.
Rich
Nark
"Joseph Michael Bay" <jm...@Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
> "Nark" <bar...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >> Relief work is *still* hampered by bombing and the lack of security and
> >> Bush won't let international peacekeeping forces in for some reason.
>
>
> >True enough, but we are talking about the fact that Mr. Chomsky referred
to
> >the war as "genocide", and it clearly is not. The point is that
> >demagoguery, in this case, is a clear sign of an irrational hostility
toward
> >the US. Whether the basis for this belief is valid or not; lying is not
the
> >answer. It's an insult to his followers.
>
>
> Okay, so "mass starvation on the scale of millions" isn't really
> "genocide" inasmuch as the majority ethnic group is the same as
> that in Pakistan, so there will be Pashtuns still, and there are
> Uzbeks in Uzbekistan, and so forth. It's a poor choice of words,
> because the term "genocide" has resonance. How about the more
> substantive allegations that the manner in which the war against
> Afghanistan has been conducted has hampered the efforts of relief
> agencies which are the only hope of survival for large numbers of
> people? The fact that he refers to it as a "sort of silent genocide"--
> which is technically incorrect since the victims are not of the
> same ethnic group nor the totality of any group -- does not alter
> the fact that it's a policy which assumes and accepts large scale
> starvation and death.
Maybe this will help:
Genocide- The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national,
racial, political, or ethnic group.
So, who is systematically exterminating whom? Other than the Taliban, I
don't see any extermination being planned. Unless of course it's opposite
day, then I can understand. Because the US is rushing to bring in as much
aid as possible as quickly as possible.
It's a complete mischaracterization. Why can't you accept the truth?
There are not "millions" who are going to starve. None of his 'facts' stand
up. Nor do yours. You make it sound like the only reason it isn't genocide
is because of some semantic technicality based on their being multiple
ethnic groups. What about the other part of the definition? What about the
"systematic and planned extermination" part? NONE of it works. It's the
wrong word to describe the contrived and sick wishes of Mr. Chomsky.
Joseph Michael Bay
>Maybe this will help:
>Genocide- The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national,
>racial, political, or ethnic group.
>So, who is systematically exterminating whom? Other than the Taliban, I
>don't see any extermination being planned. Unless of course it's opposite
>day, then I can understand. Because the US is rushing to bring in as much
>aid as possible as quickly as possible.
>It's a complete mischaracterization. Why can't you accept the truth?
Because the US is preventing international peacekeeping
forces who could be assisting the aid workers from entering
Afghanistan. If you read what the aid organizations have
been saying, it's been "we can't get to the people who need
aid because of the bombing and they're at risk of starvation"
and the US response was to continue the bombing. Oh, and
dropping 35 thousand meals for about a hundred times that
many people.
At the time the speech was given all but one of the
relief agencies had stopped working because of the
situation, and were saying that the bombing had to
stop. Continuing a course of action that is likely
to result in the deaths of many people is killing
them as surely as dropping cluster bombs on them.
>There are not "millions" who are going to starve.
Obviously you can predict the future, or know more
than the aid agencies operating within Afghanistan
(well, parts of Afghanistan, since it's too unstable
what with the peacekeeping forces not being there).
I simply cannot allow you to waste your prodigious
psychic gifts while there are so many crimes
remaining unsolved. Go, now! for the good of the city!
>None of his 'facts' stand
>up. Nor do yours. You make it sound like the only reason it isn't genocide
>is because of some semantic technicality based on their being multiple
>ethnic groups. What about the other part of the definition? What about the
>"systematic and planned extermination" part?
1: Bomb poor and famine-ravaged country from high altitude
with shitloads of explosives.
2: Demand that neighbor of said country close border, preventing
aid from entering country and refugees from leaving.
3: Ignore requests of agencies to pause in bombing.
4: "Not our fault!"
5: Prevent peacekeepers from providing security for relief
workers after most of the bombing has stopped.
6: "Still not our fault!"
>NONE of it works. It's the
>wrong word to describe the contrived and sick wishes of Mr. Chomsky.
I take issue with "contrived" and "sick". And obviously
your use of "Mr" is intended to smear his academic reputation,
Nark - IF THAT IS YOUR REAL NAME. I can harp on what you
say just as incessantly; it doesn't make you a liar.
If taking a course of action has a predictable consequence,
and you take that course of action, then _you plan for that
consequence_. You are responsible for it. Exacerbating the
humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan by preventing aid agencies
from functioning has killed people and is going to kill more
people until high-altitude bombing stops and peacekeeping
forces are allowed into the country to protect real relief efforts.
As for this being some kind of wacko anti-American fantasy,
it's not exactly like the US administrations haven't
shown callow disregard for human lives in other parts of
the world -- after all, we think half a million Iraqi children's
lives are a worthwhile sacrifice to keep Saddam Hussein out
of Kuwait (but not, of course, out of power). At least that's
what Madeline Albright said.
Clay Smith
>>
>> >The fact that the dead don't care doesn't make all actions which
>> >result in death morally equivalent. You are very childish in your
>> >reasoning.
>>
>>
>>
>> Although the injury (or death) inflicted on an innocent may
>> be unintended, it's still a fully forseeable consequence. It
>> is not some kind of accident which may be forgiven or dismissed.
>> How many bystanders are you justified in killing? Particularly
>> if the target can be killed without killing any bystanders.
>>
>
>You assume that the job is easier than it proves to be. If it were that
>simple, the CIA would certainly rid the planet of terrorists.
>
>Let me ask you where YOU draw the line? If killing one innocent person
>would definately save the lives of 500,000; would you agree that it was
>justified?
Killing that one innocent person would be a horrible thing, but it
could be justified, in as much as any violent act can be justified.
However, this argument misses some very important facts. First,
there's never been a situation in all of recorded history - to the
best of my knowledge, anyway - where the death of one person (let
alone one *innocent* person) would prevent half a million deaths *and
this fact was known ahead of time*. If someone had whacked Hitler
early in the game, it's entirely possible we would have had at least a
million or two fewer deaths. However, at that point in the game, no
one knew this. As a rule, that's the way history operates; we don't
know what lies around the corner, certainly not with the degree of
certainty, specificity, and accuracy that would be necessary in the
hypothetical case you're outlining.
Hell, sitting here today, with the full benefit of hindsight, we're
still not able to say that killing Hitler would have definitely
prevented deaths. Certainly we cannot say it with the degree of
certainty that would be required in order to take action.
Which leads to the second point....
In the case of the Hizballah leader, not only can we not prove that,
had he lived, he would have killed more people, we can't be sure that
his execution didn't lead to *more* death than we would have
experienced otherwise.
Some would, and their position is not entirely invalid. You
>should concede that, for most of us, it is simply where we draw the line.
>The difference between action and inaction is negligable. NOT working to
>stop terrorism is almost as bad as committing terrorism.
>
>If you can prevent it, and don't, you are irresponsible.
I assume you meant "responsible," not "irresponsible".
And you're right. If you can act to prevent terrorism and you choose
not to, you deserve some of the blame. Therefore, the US should stop
perpetuating terrorism. In general, it should adopt a more fair and
less brutal foreign policy, especially in the Middle East. This
should, if applied judiciously and intelligently, result in a
tremendous decrease in tensions in that region and a decrease in
terrorism across the board. Of course, when I say "terrorism," I refer
both to the terrorism committed by the US and its allies as well as
the terrorism committed against the US and its allies.
But as I said above, it's entirely possible that killing people we
label as terrorist leaders would actually increase the indidents of
terrorism rather than decrease them.
Clay
Clay Smith
>> >You're equating "good" with "something we do for fun".
>>
>> If something is "good," this means that, for whatever reason, we like
>> it. Chocolate is good because we like the taste. Money is good because
>> it can be spent for things we want and need. Violence is not good
>> because it's a good way to get hurt or killed.
>
>Your examples above reinforce my observation that you are childlike in
>your thinking, and childlike in your assignment of the qualaties
>"good" and "bad" to actions and things.
>One might point out to you that Chocolate might be described as sweet,
>but not as 'good' - its high sugar content and stickiness causes
>cavaties, its nutritional value is limited, and it has been proven to
>be a major cause of headaches and migrains, not to mention acne. It
>could just as easily be described as 'bad'.
So you're saying that 'good' and 'bad' are subjective terms. Fair
enough.
But what does that have to do with the question at hand?
I still maintain that only very dangerous and unhealthy individuals
actually enjoy killing. Even those who make their living in careers
traditionally associated with violence (law enforcement, military,
etc.) are trained to avoid violence whenever possible. Occasionaly you
find some rogues who enjoy beating people up or shooting people, but
those are weeded out to the greatest extent possible because they're
unpredictable and tend to endanger their comrades.
So sure, when I say that killing is bad, it's a subjective evaluation.
But my argument is still just as valid as before. Possibly more so.
If culture after culture and individual after individual and
institution after institution down through the ages come to the
conclusion that - regardless of whether it's necessary - killing is a
horrible thing... that says something pretty profound about killing,
doesn't it?
>One might also make you aware that using your childish definition of
>"good" - something we like, for whatever reason - would mean that
>torturing people can be considered 'good' under some circumstances
>(there's a good number of people who enjoy S&M)
Yes there are. And yes, torturing people consensually can indeed be
good, under some circumstances. But when I use the term "torture" in a
political newsgroup, it's safe to say that everyone assumes I'm
talking about non-consensual torture. If you want to discuss
consensual torture, okay, fine. But you'll have to specify that that's
the topic so as to differentiate it from the more commonly used
definition of "torture." Also, if this is related to the current
discussion in any way, you'll have to explain how. It seems
irrelevant.
>
>>
>> This is about
>> >as childish as yoiu can get. Do you enjoy getting vaccines? I guess
>> >vaccines are bad then.
>>
>> Actually, there's some evidence to suggest now that vaccines aren't
>> good for you. My personal jury is still out on the issue.
>>
>> But assuming that vaccines do prevent dangerous diseases, then, yes,
>> they're good things.
>
>But if I ask you - would you like to get a vaccine this weekend, for
>fun, you'd look at me as if I were crazy.
If you ask me whether I'd like to have my immune system boosted so
that I don't get a dangerous disease that could cripple or kill me,
I'd say "Yeah! that would be great!"
If you asked me whether I wanted to get stabbed with a needle by a
health department nurse, I'd say "No. That would suck."
As I said before: vaccines are good; stabs in the arm with sharp
needles are not.
>That is the exact analogy you used with the soldier, and proves that
>your definition is unusable, even by your own standards.
>
>
>
>>But getting jabbed in the arm with a sharp needle
>> is a bad thing.
>
>Yes. The criminal who gets shot would certainly define getting hit in
>the head or arm by a bullet as a bad thing - but the violnet act in
>this case is still good.
How so? Is it good for the person who pulls the trigger? Not unless
that person is seriously disturbed. If he walks up to his supervisor
the next day and says "I feel great! I just shot some one! Damn, it's
good to be alive!," then that supervisor would have him suspended from
duty, evaluated by a shrink, and most likely dismissed.
I know a Viet Nam vet. He doesn't object to the war; he feels it was
necessary and he's thinks fighting in it was the right thing to do.
His politics are pretty far to the right on just about every issue.
But when he talks about his war time experiences, he always avoids any
direct discussion of killing.
Except for once. We were talking on line and he mentioned an incident
where-in he and his buddies were on a plane or a copter, interrogating
two prisoners. They refused to talk. My friend and his buddies tossed
one of the prisoners out of the plane; the other became very talkative
very quickly.
After he told me this, my friend ended the conversation quickly and
logged off.
The moral of this story: Normally, humans don't enjoy (non consensual)
violence or look on it as good, in and of itself.
So, while stopping a crime may be a good thing, killing is not.
>
>>
>> Wearing a comfortable shirt is a good thing. Working for pennies a day
>> in a sweat shop under unsafe conditions making that shirt is a bad
>> thing. Eating a thick T-bone is a good thing. Discovering that the
>> T-Bone has given you food poisoning is a bad thing. And so forth.
>>
>> Just because an action has some good consequences doesn't mean that
>> it's a good thing.
>
>You're plain wrong here. positive consequences are the primary thing
>by which actions are defined as good or bad.
No. Actions are labelled as good or bad based on how we feel about
them. Studying a bunch of dry, boring material all night is bad, but
recieving a high score on the test is good (or at least, it is in the
eyes of most people). Perhaps you could argue that some acts have both
good and bad qualities, but people do evaluate the action itself based
on its inherent qualities, whatever those may be. They do not evaluate
the action based on its intended results. Certainly, when we stand
back and look at the big picture, we often decide to do things that
aren't good in order to avoid circumstances that are even less good.
To put it another way, we do a lot of things which we don't enjoy
because we think the actions will yield good results. But that doesn't
make the actions themselves any more enjoyable (or, if you prefer,
'any more good'). No matter how badly we want that high grade,
studying boring material is still boring. No matter how scared we are
of polio, we're never going to say "I can't wait to get poked with
that needle! Can we do it twice, please?". And so on.
So, even if the action prevents the deaths of a hundred people,
putting a bullet in the head of a person is not going to be a good
experience.
>
>> We restrict violence in a thousand different ways;
>> in theory, we only use it when it's necessary. This alone tells us
>> that it's a bad thing.
>
>We restrict drugs in a thousand different ways; in theory, we only use
>them only when it's necessary. This alone tells us that it's a bad
>thing. Right?
This tells us that the *abuse* of drugs is a bad thing. And any heroin
addict will tell you "Yer damn right it is."
In addition, I should point out that, while every culture on earth
places its most serious restrictions on and levies its harshest
penalties against those who use violence in non-sanctioned ways, a lot
of cultures impose no penalties or only very slight penalties for the
misuse of drugs.
And we're not talking just about legal systems, here. If a man killed
his wife and claimed it was self defense, and if he were tried and
acquitted, he's still probably have to leave town and change his name.
If he didn't, he'd probably be a pariah for the rest of his life. Why?
Because the culture itself abhors murder. Christians, Buddhists,
Atheists, Muslims... we're all greatly disturbed by murder. If there's
one universal taboo, murder is it.
We don't take drugs anywhere near that seriously. If a guy is busted
for possession of marijuana, we shrug it off. But to the extent that
we do look on the abuse of drugs as a bad thing, we act towards it
accordingly. Even those who advocate the legalization of drugs don't
argue that drug addiction is a wonderful thing; they argue that it's a
bad thing and that it either (a.) should be a personal decision
whether to take drugs, unencumbered by threats or coercion from the
state; and/or (b.) that addiction should be treated as a medical
problem. (Personally, I am about 98 percent in agreement with this
line of thinking, but that's neither here nor there at the moment).
Oh yeah... I should point out another problem with the drug anology.
Drug use is generally consensual. I can't imagine anyone arguing that
non-consensual drugging (i.e. putting heroin in someone's peanut
butter sandwich without them knowing about it) should be morally
acceptable, let alone legal. Certainly there was a fair amount of
outrage when stories about "date rape" drugs began hitting the News
Magazine Show circuit. [Quick note: GHB, one of these so-called "date
rape" drugs, when mixed by a profesional and used properly, is *not*
dangerous. In fact, it can be a safe, non-addictive alternative to
commonly perscribed tranquilizers such as Xanax and Valium] Similarly,
non-consensual violence is universally condemned, while consensual
violence, on the other hand - and this would include everything from
wrestling and football to piercings and BDSM - is rarely considered a
problem. At worst, these activities regulated or, in the case of BDSM,
subjected to occasional attacks by ignorant, bible thumping DAs with
an election on the horizon. Most people don't care a lick whether
perverts spank one another. And, really, even the most pinheaded
prosecutor objects to BDSM more because of its sexual elements than
its violent elements.
>> >
>> >No, they don't. Violence enmployed in self defence is good.
>>
>> The self defense is good. Continuing to breath is good. The violence
>> is bad.
>
>Violence employed in self defense is good.
... and we end where we began...
Violence is bad.
Clay
Clay Smith
>
>> >
>> >It is NOT a tiny differnce. Intent is a major element in describing
>> >and quantifying the seriousness of criminal actions.
>> >
>>
>> Really... this is pretty bizarre. Please think about what you're
>> saying, here. If we follow your logic, then it's okay for me to kill
>> people as long as I'm not specifically targeting them. If I plant a
>> bomb in your house to kill you and, instead, it kills your wife and
>> child, then - by your logic - I'm not responsible for their deaths.
>>
>> I really don't think you intended to argue that, but, honestly, I'm
>> not sure where else your argument could go. I mean, if you excuse
>> these guys because their intentions were - by some fucked up standard
>> - good... Well, that's just plain nuts. If you could convince me that
>> they honestly thought that no one besides their target would get hurt
>> or if you could convince me that they took steps to protect civilians,
>> then you might have a case of some kind. However, no one so far has
>> made any such claims.
>>
>> It simply isn't morally acceptable to kill innocents in the process of
>> avenging a crime.
>
>What about in prevention of a crime? This is the more relevant question.
First, if you think that what the CIA was involved in in the afore
described case, then I think you're incorrect. If you wish to make a
case that I'm wrong on this point, please do so.
Second, to answer your question - and really, the answer to this one
is one hundred percent obvious - not only "No" but "Hell No.'; It is
absolutely not permissible to kill someone in order to prevent a
crime. It *is* permissible to kill someone in self defense. (And, of
course, in American law and I assume in most other legal systems, the
term "self defense" is also used to to describe situations where one
person kills another in order to prevent the death of a third person).
And no, blowing up someone on a street corner does not constitute self
defense. It doesn't even come close. It's just murder, plain and
simple.
>
>((insert extreme hypothetical case here))
>
>Would you kill X to prevent the deaths of many many more, that X was openly
>announcing that he wanted to kill, and was known to be planning to kill, and
>had already proven he would kill?
Here's what I would do in that situation:
I'd go to the proper authorities and explain that this individual was,
I believed, planning to kill a bunch of people. In this case, the
proper authorities might be the governments of one or more countries
or the UN or some other organization. I'd ask that this individual be
arrested. If those authorities would not cooperate, I'd go to other
authorities. I'd try to find someone who would listen, who would take
my side. Odds are that if my name were Bill Clinton or Ronad Reagan or
George Bush, I wouldn't have a lot of trouble finding someone who
would be willing to help me, especially if I were asking for legal,
ethical help.
If it looked like it might do some good, I'd use diplomatic pressure.
But if all of these attempts somehow failed, I'd have to consider
options which involved the military and weapons of various
descriptions. I'd try to assemble troops from a number of different
nations so that people would be less likely to get the idea that my
country was using its military muscle to beat the shit out of less
powerful nations just because I felt like doing so. Then, in a manner
designed to kill as few people as possible, I'd go in and attempt to
arrest the invidivual and hand him over to the appropriate body -
probably the world court or the UN - for trial. If he couldn't be
apprehended but could be killed, we'd have to strongly consider the
possibility of taking the latter option. However, before we did that,
we'd want to consider whether killing him would turn him into a martyr
and simply make the situation worse, increase the death toll over the
next few years rather than decrease it. We'd also want to consider
whether it would be more productive to attempt to eliminate his
network of support.
I would *not* plant a bomb in a car on the street, placing civilian
lives at risk.
>
>
>>
>> >> As I said, not a whole lot of difference. In addition, it's worth
>> >> pointing out that the dead probably don't give a damn whether they
>> >> were killed by a well meaning CIA bomb or an evil, fiendish terrorist
>> >> bomb.
>> >
>> >The fact that the dead don't care doesn't make all actions which
>> >result in death morally equivalent.
>>
>> My point - and I really didn't think I had to spell it out - was
>> simply that, whether the CIA guys were hoping to kill civilians or not
>> - they knew that their actions would probably result in some innocent
>> bystanders being blown up. And they went ahead with the plan anyway.
>> So it amounts to the same thing as cold blooded murder. (Which is just
>> another way of saying that the dead don't give a damn about the
>> murderer's intentions).
>
>
>It all boils down to the fact that some people (apparently you) think that
>killing for preventative measures is hypocrisy.
Yeah, it is. We won't even discuss the number of people US presidents
and generals have killed unecessarily and how your proposed policy
would apply to them. Instead, I'll just point out that our legal
system and international law don't allow this type of behavior. And
that it violates the tenents of pretty much every known system of
morality. And that the nature of terrorism makes the policy not only
unworkable, but suicidal.
>
>Others (me) think that we are obligated to eradicate those who prey on the
>innocent, simply to save more lives in the future. Not for vengeance, but
>to provide security for peaceful people.
Honestly... I have to tell you that this is the most fucked up
thinking I've ever encountered in any moral or political discussion.
You can't possibly be serious about this.
Alright... we decide that a guy named Abdhul (and of course his name
will be Abdhul, ot Roger or Fred or Daphne) who lives in, oh, say
Syria is a terrorist and that he's planning to kill a bunch of US
citizens. First, how do we know this? Well, the CIA found out. How,
specifically, did they find out? They can't tell us, because that
would compromise their sources, their intelligence network, etc..
So no one, except perhaps the president - and we know how eager he is
to reign in the CIA - gets to hear the evidence against this guy or
have any say-so in whether the Company puts a contract out on the guy.
Alright... so then the CIA goes over to Syria and pops a cap in
Abdhul's ass.
Tell you what, we'll forget for a moment that this is cold blooded
murder of the worst sort. Forget for the moment that it is morally
unacceptable by the standards of damn near everyone.
Instead, let's ask ourselves... what will Syria's reaction be? They'll
be enraged. They'll demand we apologize, take the case to the world
court, demand restitution... whatever they can think of to do when
another country invades them. Well, Syria is a pretty candy assed
country in terms of military power and that sort of thing, so we don't
worry too much about it. But then we do the same thing to Morocco.
Then to Russia. Then we do it to Pakistan, India, the Philipines,
Columbia... eventually, we do it to everyone. You can piss off some of
the people some of the time, but you can't piss off all of the people
all of the time. More to the point, if you do piss off all of the
people all of the time, that's a pretty clear indication that
something has gone bad, bad wrong. What I'm trying to say here is that
making enemies of everyone in the world - or at least everyone in the
second and third worlds- is the path either to armegeddon or at least
a whole lot of trouble.
Now, we should also consider what would happen if other countries
adopted this policy for themselves. Suppose that the Sudan comes to
the conclusion that, left to its own devices, George W. will, like his
predecessor, bomb their drug factory. Rather than going to the world
court or to the UN, they decide to engage in preventative
assasination. They send a half dozen guys over to this country to take
out George. I mean, it's not really unfeasible. It's been proven on
several occasions that, if you're willing to die in the attempt, you
can shoot a president. They could probably find someone in the Sudan
who'd be willing to do the job.
That's perfectly acceptable, isn't it? I mean, it's just the Sudanese
adopting our policy, isn't it? What could possibly be wrong with that?
Clay
Clay Smith
>
>"Clay Smith" <Clay20...@softhome.net> wrote in message
>news:GEoMPLcd4Z7ppC...@4ax.com...
>> On 3 Dec 2001 19:21:37 -0600, "Nark" <bar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Clay Smith" <Clay20...@softhome.net> wrote in message
>> >news:uZoLPGW9X6097h...@4ax.com...
>> >> > On 2 Dec 2001 23:03:26 -0800, bloo...@hotmail.com (Leo) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >I have just completed Noam Chomsky's book on September 11. To call it
>> >> >a book is doing it a great deal more justice than it deserves. The
>> >> >fact that you can finish it in about half an hour really sums up
>> >> >Chomsky's academically half arsed predictable approach to the matter,
>> >> >and indeed a great deal of his other endeavors. A series of half
>> >> >truths with selective facts and of course the classic moral relativism
>> >> >the Chomsky and the like are so fond of.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >The 1985 CIA
>> >> >car bombing of a Mosque in Beirut was, at best, disastrous American
>> >> >foreign policy, no doubt resulting in the loss of innocent lives.
>> >> >However this was not some willy nilly bomb planting done for some
>> >> >weekend fun. It was targeting a Hizballah leader who was behind the
>> >> >bombing of the US troop base in Beirut. They were not simply after a
>> >> >"cleric they did not like."
>> >>
>> >> I take it, then, that you're arguing that it's acceptable for the CIA
>> >> to plant bombs in the trunks of cars outside of houses of worship if
>> >> they do so in an effort to kill someone who has killed Americans (or
>> >> more specifically, American troops)?.
>> >
>> >Without any other information, I would say no. But would you concede
>that
>> >Hezbollah, considering they were targeting Americans, is QUITE different
>> >than the targeting of civilians, which is the most common terrorist
>tactic?
>> >There is a difference.
>>
>> It's a pretty tiny difference. If I plant a bomb outside of a church
>> to kill a member of Hezbollah, I would have to be aware (unless I were
>> a total idiot) that there's a decent chance my bomb will kill a
>> civilian or two. Essentially, I'm saying "It's okay with me if my
>> actions cause the death of civilians."
>
>Whether you agree or not, would you concede that there is an argument to be
>made that by not killing a terrorist, you are saying "It's okay with me if
>my" inaction "causes the death of civilians"?
There's a difference between "inaction" and "not killing". Killing is
not the only action that can be taken. Indeed, there are many, many
things that could be done to reduce the incidents of terrorism and
most of them don't involve killing. It is indeed wrong to remain
inactive in the face of terrorism. It is not wrong to refrain from
killing.
Furthermore, it could easily be argued that killing a terrorist might
lead to an *increase* in the number of deaths. Terrorists, after all,
tend to go looking for revenge. (And, just to forstall the tedious
argument that's sure to follow... No, that doesn't mean that if we
kill a bunch of Bin Laden's buddies and Bin Laden responds by
engineering the bombing of The White House that we're to blame for the
destruction and death at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. It just means that
there are more productive ways to address the problem).
>> If I'm an Islamic extremist
>> terorist in Palestine and I plant a bomb in a resteraunt and set it to
>> explode during lunch hour, I'm saying "I intended my actions to cause
>> the deaths of civilians."
>
>Exactly, that is the difference. Once has the express purpose of killing
>civilians, the other has the purpose of avoiding the killing of civilians.
>Motive is key. As is the End.
Have you really thought about this? Let's follow your logic here....
The police have a suspect in a murder. They think he's at a party.
They figure there are fifty to a hundred people in attendance. They're
worried that if they give the man a chance to surrender, he'll draw
his gun and shoot someone. So the cops kick in the door, storm the
party and start shooting. No "You're under arrest," no "put your hands
up," they just open fire. Needless to say, a bunch of civilians get
shot.
And that's okay with you?
>
>>
>> > >> Suppose the FBI identified a
>> >> suspect behind the Anthrax letters. And suppose he hid out in a
>> >> mountain cabin every day of the week, except Sunday when he attends a
>> >> rural Baptist church? Would it be okay for the FBI to plant a bomb in
>> >> a car outside of the church?
>> >
>> >If it was the only way to stop him? It depends upon other unknown
>factors.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Granted, the FBI has a lot more recourse within the US. They could
>> >> come in with a SWAT team and arrest the guy. A bomb wouldn't be
>> >> necessary. So maybe that's not an accurate comparison. Alright.
>> >> Suppose the man fled to France and continued his habit of going to
>> >> church every Sunday? Would it be alright to place the bomb outside of
>> >> the church there? Would it be alright to do it in the Vatican? Maybe
>> >> it would be okay in Mexico?
>> >
>> >France is hardly a good comparison to Beirut. Your analogy is still
>weak.
>>
>> France is a country. So is Lebanon. My point was that the original
>> poster was using a double standard; it's fine to blow people up in
>> Beirut, he tells us, but not in France or the Vatican or the US. Are
>> Lebanese lives worth less than French or American lives?
>
>Right, you point is half valid. But the analogy is not true because of the
>atmosphere in the two countries. In France, you don't need to use these
>extreme tactics because the police can arrest suspects. Not so easy in
>Lebanon.
So you're saying that it's okay to kill innocents - people who just
happen to be attending the wrong Mosque at the wrong time - in
Lebannon but it's not okay in France?
>
>>
>> In case I'm not making myself clear, here...
>>
>> No one has any right to set off car bombs in populated areas. Period.
>> What the CIA did was wrong and unnaceptable.
>
>Your blanket statement is not acceptable to many people.
>
>If you KNEW FOR A FACT, that you could save thousands of lives by setting
>off a car bomb, would you? Maybe not. I might not either. But the point
>is that there is a legitimate argument to be made that it is the "right"
>thing to do. That's all I'm saying.
I responded to this argument elsewhere in the thread but...
Are you really going to tell me that this killing was about saving
lives? Are you really going to tell me that it wasn't revenge, pure
and simple? And are you really going to tell me that someone at the
CIA sat in a room and looked at piles of data and came to the
conclusion that if this one guy were whacked, it would save thousands
(or hundreds or dozens) of lives? And are you going to tell me that
cold blooded assasination is a good thing, under *any* circumstances?
>
>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >But of course Chomsky thinks that all acts of violence are bad
>> >>
>> >> This is a rather bizarre statement. All acts of violence *are* bad.*
>> >
>> >I think he is saying 'bad' in terms of overall net result.
>>
>> Well, in that case, the poster's assessment of Chomsky's views is
>> simply wrong. Chomsky has favored military action in cases where he
>> deemed it necessary and appropriate.
>
>Like in my car bomb hypothetical? So sometimes it's okay to kill in order
>to save more lives? Just as long as no car bombs are used? Interesting.
Personally, I'm not a fan of killing under any circumstances. But any
sane person has to realize that there's a huge difference between
assasination and self defense. If another country attacks you, your
choices are : surrender, lay down and die, or go fight them.
(Actually, you might be able to run, but more and more these days,
that option seems to disapear mighty quick). That's a pretty shitty
situation in which to be and I think it's incumbent upon the powerful
countries to do what they can to insure that such situations happen as
infrequently as possible. But getting back to the subject at hand...
Yes, when all other options have been exhausted, violence is sometimes
necessary. It'll probably be a cold day in hell before someone
stumbles into a situation where car bombs are necessary.
>> >
>> >Here is what Chomsky told his audience at MIT on October 11:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >"I'll talk about the situation in Afghanistan.... Looks like what's
>> >happening is some sort of silent genocide.... It indicates that whatever,
>> >what will happen we don't know, but plans are being made and programs
>> >implemented on the assumption that they may lead to the death of several
>> >million people in the next--in the next couple of weeks.... very casually
>> >with no comment.... we are in the midst of apparently trying to murder
>three
>> >or four million people."
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Do you agree with these blatent lies? Do you really believe that "we are
>in
>> >the midst of apparently trying to murder three or four million people"?
>>
>> You *do* recall the facts and arguments he used to back up this
>> assessment, don't you? Do you dispute his facts? Can you show that his
>> arguments don't hold up?
>
>Well, for starters, "the death of several million people in the next--in the
>next couple of weeks" didn't happen. And to call this genocide is
>irresponsible and, in my opinion, a patent lie. The American people
>overwhelmingly support the destruction of the Taliban regime and Al Qaeda,
>and believe me, they don't want "genocide".
No, the want Bin Laden and his guys dead and they don't care, it
seems, how many innocent bystanders have to die alongside him.
But oh no, we aren't supporting genocide. Just mass killing.
As for the statistics.... while you may disagree with his figures,
it's a pretty safe assumption that Chomsky believed them to be
accurate. He was talking about predictions, not about body counts, and
at that time no one knew how long the war would last. And if those
figures were valid (that is, if they were as solid as any prediction
could be under the circumstances), then the prognosis of "genocide"
was valid.
In addition, Chomsky has pointed out that we won't know for a year or
two just how severe the starvation problem has turned out to be. He
speaks of stilbirths due to malnutrition, people struggling to survive
on roots and grass, etc.
Have you seen any statitics regarding the death toll in Afghanistan?
The number of people who are currently without food? The number who
are likely to starve to death in the next year? Chomsky cited such
statitistics, but, in disagreeing with him, you're not citing
statistics that show him to be in error. If you wish your case to be
convincing in this regard, you'll have to provide some primary
sources.
It's entirely possible that no such information is available at this
time. I would imagine that it's hard to conduct research in
Afghanistan at the moment. If that's the case, we may have to resign
ourselves to saying "We don't know" for now. However, as I said, if
you have some information on this subject, please share.
>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Recall that the Gulf War was extremely popular in this country.
>> >> However, we voted out the president who initiated it and, since it
>> >> ended, even the most mainstream of media organs have indicated that
>> >> the US public has had some serious second thoughts about it.
>> >
>> >You are sadly mistaken. And realize, that G. Bush Sr. was ousted by the
>> >Great Liar and Ross Perot. Clinton won the election with the lowest
>> >percentage of votes ever. Please don't ignore the facts.
>>
>> That's hardly a vote of support for George Sr.
>
>Never said it was. I'm just saying that it wasn't even close to a mandate
>for Clinton. Bush barely lost, and most experts believe that Perot got
>almost purely the conservative vote. People supported the Gulf war in large
>numbers, and still do.
>
>>
>> The facts are... we did vote out George Bush senior. And there has
>> been a lot of griping about the Gulf War.
>
>Maybe a little
>
It was brought up again in the aftermath of Sept 11. "Why didn't we
depose Saddam Hussein?" Even George Sr. had to say something like 'We
were wrong. We should've gotten rid of him.'
Not that I'm saying the U.S. should've embroiled itself further in
conflicts in the gulf or that it ought to go around deposing
governments whenever it feels like it.... but this exchange makes it
pretty clear that the American public is not thrilled about the
outcome of the Gulf War.
Clay
Jez
Jez
"D.Teale" <tea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9ntP7.98822$6b.66...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
>
> "Nark" <bar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3c0db0fa$0$632$45be...@newscene.com...
<<<Snipped>>>>>
> Really don't feel like arguing today, read this, it's nice.
>
> <<Article snipped to save space>>>>>
Thanks for that post...
brought on tears.....
What a life we lead......
Ho hum
Jez
zztop8970-
> On 5 Dec 2001 09:06:59 -0800, zzto...@yahoo.com (zztop8970-) wrote:
>
> >> >You're equating "good" with "something we do for fun".
> >>
> >> If something is "good," this means that, for whatever reason, we like
> >> it. Chocolate is good because we like the taste. Money is good because
> >> it can be spent for things we want and need. Violence is not good
> >> because it's a good way to get hurt or killed.
> >
> >Your examples above reinforce my observation that you are childlike in
> >your thinking, and childlike in your assignment of the qualaties
> >"good" and "bad" to actions and things.
> >One might point out to you that Chocolate might be described as sweet,
> >but not as 'good' - its high sugar content and stickiness causes
> >cavaties, its nutritional value is limited, and it has been proven to
> >be a major cause of headaches and migrains, not to mention acne. It
> >could just as easily be described as 'bad'.
>
> So you're saying that 'good' and 'bad' are subjective terms. Fair
> enough.
>
> But what does that have to do with the question at hand?
You have assigned an absolute quality ('bad') to a thing ('violence').
I have shown you, and you now agree, that 'bad and 'good' are
subjective terms (and relative, as well), and thus anyone claiming
that violence is 'bad' per se - absolutely and without qualification -
is a fool.
>
> I still maintain that only very dangerous and unhealthy individuals
> actually enjoy killing.
And I'm still trying to expalin to you (in vain, it seems) that
defining 'good' as 'something we enjoy' is a childish at best, and
even you don't take it seriously, as the vaccine example shows.
<snip>
> >> This is about
> >> >as childish as yoiu can get. Do you enjoy getting vaccines? I guess
> >> >vaccines are bad then.
> >>
> >> Actually, there's some evidence to suggest now that vaccines aren't
> >> good for you. My personal jury is still out on the issue.
> >>
> >> But assuming that vaccines do prevent dangerous diseases, then, yes,
> >> they're good things.
>
>
> >
> >But if I ask you - would you like to get a vaccine this weekend, for
> >fun, you'd look at me as if I were crazy.
>
> If you ask me whether I'd like to have my immune system boosted so
> that I don't get a dangerous disease that could cripple or kill me,
> I'd say "Yeah! that would be great!"
I asked you a very specific question - "would you like to get a
vaccine this weekend, for fun?"
Please answer the question I asked, as asked, so that we may evaluate
the applicability of your defintion of 'good'.
>
> If you asked me whether I wanted to get stabbed with a needle by a
> health department nurse, I'd say "No. That would suck."
>
>
> As I said before: vaccines are good; stabs in the arm with sharp
> needles are not.
When that stab in the arm is a vaccine, it is good.
>
>
>
>
> >That is the exact analogy you used with the soldier, and proves that
> >your definition is unusable, even by your own standards.
Your lack of response here indicates you realize your definition is
unusable.
> >
> >
> >
> >>But getting jabbed in the arm with a sharp needle
> >> is a bad thing.
> >
> >Yes. The criminal who gets shot would certainly define getting hit in
> >the head or arm by a bullet as a bad thing - but the violnet act in
> >this case is still good.
>
> How so? Is it good for the person who pulls the trigger?
It is good for society.
It is good for the person who pulled the trigger, in that he can now
take pride in saving the life of an innocent person.
.
>Not unless
> that person is seriously disturbed. If he walks up to his supervisor
> the next day and says "I feel great! I just shot some one! Damn, it's
> good to be alive!," then that supervisor would have him suspended from
> duty, evaluated by a shrink, and most likely dismissed.
He'd more likely walk uop to his supervisor the next day and say "I
feel great! I just saved the life of someone". He'd get a warm
handshake and possibly a promotion.
<snip>
> >> Just because an action has some good consequences doesn't mean that
> >> it's a good thing.
> >
> >You're plain wrong here. positive consequences are the primary thing
> >by which actions are defined as good or bad.
>
> No. Actions are labelled as good or bad based on how we feel about
> them.
It't the other way around. Based on the value we attach to the actions
or their consequences, we feel accordingly.
>Studying a bunch of dry, boring material all night is bad, but
> recieving a high score on the test is good (or at least, it is in the
> eyes of most people).
The action here is "studying". Studying can be viewed as 'good' by
some people based on *it's consequnce* - a good grade, persoanl
gratification in expanding your knowledge, or being able to do
something you were not able to do before.
Other may view it as 'bad' - a waste of time that could be put to
better use.
It has no inherent quality with is either good or bad.
You'll notice that even in your argument you are assigning the
properties good and bad to the consequence (good grade= 'good';
wasting a night= 'bad') and not to the action itself, thus proving my
point.
> Perhaps you could argue that some acts have both
> good and bad qualities, but people do evaluate the action itself based
> on its inherent qualities, whatever those may be. They do not evaluate
> the action based on its intended results.
Your own example proves this is wrong.
<snip>
> >
> >> We restrict violence in a thousand different ways;
> >> in theory, we only use it when it's necessary. This alone tells us
> >> that it's a bad thing.
> >
> >We restrict drugs in a thousand different ways; in theory, we only use
> >them only when it's necessary. This alone tells us that it's a bad
> >thing. Right?
>
> This tells us that the *abuse* of drugs is a bad thing. And any heroin
> addict will tell you "Yer damn right it is."
I'm glad you sensed the inadequacy of your original claim, and added
the qualifier *abuse* to make it meaningful.
If you now want to restate your original claim to say "abuse of
violence is a bad thing" you will have no argument from me. You'll
notice it's a completely different claim, though.
D.Teale
> On 4 Dec 2001 20:08:14 -0600, "Nark" <bar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >> >The fact that the dead don't care doesn't make all actions which
> >> >result in death morally equivalent. You are very childish in your
> >> >reasoning.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Although the injury (or death) inflicted on an innocent may
> >> be unintended, it's still a fully forseeable consequence. It
> >> is not some kind of accident which may be forgiven or dismissed.
> >> How many bystanders are you justified in killing? Particularly
> >> if the target can be killed without killing any bystanders.
> >>
> >
> >You assume that the job is easier than it proves to be. If it were that
> >simple, the CIA would certainly rid the planet of terrorists.
> >
> >Let me ask you where YOU draw the line? If killing one innocent person
> >would definately save the lives of 500,000; would you agree that it was
> >justified?
>
> Killing that one innocent person would be a horrible thing, but it
> could be justified, in as much as any violent act can be justified.
>
> However, this argument misses some very important facts. First,
> there's never been a situation in all of recorded history - to the
> best of my knowledge, anyway - where the death of one person (let
> alone one *innocent* person) would prevent half a million deaths *and
> this fact was known ahead of time*.
Well there is a good story here, actually a couple. One is from ancient
Greece, it's from either Herodotus or Plutarch (it's been a while so I'm not
sure which), essentially what happens is that an invading army comes to the
gates of the city, the army demands hostages that will act as retainers, or
the city will be leveled, the city refuses to send out the tokens of victory
and the city is levelled.
The other story I thought of is much similar only it dealt with Genghis
Kahn. Genghis would go to a city and level it, then send the one lone
survivor to the next city to demand that they surrender or face the same
fate. Now, even though Genghis would accept the surrender he would surely
kill the leader, as was his custom, so really it came down to the leader,
could he ask his people to fight knowing that it was his life in exchange
for theirs? many did.
If someone had whacked Hitler
> early in the game, it's entirely possible we would have had at least a
> million or two fewer deaths. However, at that point in the game, no
> one knew this. As a rule, that's the way history operates; we don't
> know what lies around the corner, certainly not with the degree of
> certainty, specificity, and accuracy that would be necessary in the
> hypothetical case you're outlining.
>
There's a book about this, it is modern, last ten years or thereabouts,
can't remember the title or the author, but the gist is this: a future time
traveller goes back in time and poisons the well in Hitler's village, Hitler
dies at a very young age and the time traveller goes back to the future (no
MJ Fox reference intended) quite satisfied. However, it turns out that an
even more evil bastard replaced Hitler, one that actually listened to his
generals, and the damn Nazis won the war, the world is a totalitarian mess.
Tim Starr
>
>"Nark" <bar...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>>> Relief work is *still* hampered by bombing and the lack of security and
>>> Bush won't let international peacekeeping forces in for some reason.
>
>
>>True enough, but we are talking about the fact that Mr. Chomsky referred to
>>the war as "genocide", and it clearly is not. The point is that
>>demagoguery, in this case, is a clear sign of an irrational hostility toward
>>the US. Whether the basis for this belief is valid or not; lying is not the
>>answer. It's an insult to his followers.
>
>
>Okay, so "mass starvation on the scale of millions" isn't really
>"genocide" inasmuch as the majority ethnic group is the same as
>that in Pakistan, so there will be Pashtuns still, and there are
>Uzbeks in Uzbekistan, and so forth. It's a poor choice of words,
>because the term "genocide" has resonance. How about the more
>substantive allegations that the manner in which the war against
>Afghanistan has been conducted has hampered the efforts of relief
>agencies which are the only hope of survival for large numbers of
>people? The fact that he refers to it as a "sort of silent genocide"--
>which is technically incorrect since the victims are not of the
>same ethnic group nor the totality of any group -- does not alter
>the fact that it's a policy which assumes and accepts large scale
>starvation and death.
More likely, it's a policy which holds that if you give a slave a fish, his
master will take it away from him, but if you free a slave, then he can keep the
fish he's given & fish for himself.
Tim Starr
Tim Starr
>
>Tim Starr<tims...@mailandnews.com> writes:
>
>>In article <9uh5s3$sss$1...@usenet.Stanford.EDU>, Joseph Michael Bay says...
>
>>>An attack that kills innocents incidentally rather than as
>>>the main focus still kills innocents, and is still indiscriminate
>>>violence. It really doesn't matter what the point was supposed
>>>to be.
>
>>"A surgeon that kills healthy cells incidentally in the process of cutting out
>>cancerous cells, is still indiscriminately killing healthy cells. It really
>>doesn't matter what the point was supposed to be."
>
>If you equate human beings with cells, cancerous or otherwise,
>I really don't see the point of taking your views seriously.
I made an analogy, not an equation.
>Where do you come up with this crap?
Your argument was that it doesn't matter if an attempt to kill bad people also
killed good people. I analogized this to saying that if an attempt to kill
malignant cells also kills benign ones, that it doesn't matter.
Yours is an argument against virtually all attempts to defend the good by
harming the bad, on the grounds that the good might also get hurt in the
process. If applied to cancer treatment, virtually all treatments such as
kemotherapy which harm good cells as well as bad, it would be an argument
against almost all cancer treatment. The result would be that far more people
would suffer & die from cancer, just as the result of accepting your argument
about defense would result in far more innocent suffering & death at the hands
of evildoers.
Tim Starr
Joseph Michael Bay
>"Clay Smith" <Clay20...@softhome.net> wrote in message
>> However, this argument misses some very important facts. First,
>> there's never been a situation in all of recorded history - to the
>> best of my knowledge, anyway - where the death of one person (let
>> alone one *innocent* person) would prevent half a million deaths *and
>> this fact was known ahead of time*.
>Well there is a good story here, actually a couple. One is from ancient
>Greece, it's from either Herodotus or Plutarch (it's been a while so I'm not
>sure which),
I'm not sure either, and I don't really have time or inclination to
look it up (well, I tried for five minutes). In any case, Herodotus
is hardly the model of historical accuracy, more the model of an
urban legend vector.
>essentially what happens is that an invading army comes to the
>gates of the city, the army demands hostages that will act as retainers, or
>the city will be leveled, the city refuses to send out the tokens of victory
>and the city is levelled.
And there's definite knowledge that the army would have dealt
fairly and honestly with the city rather than executing the hostages
and leveling the city anyway?
>The other story I thought of is much similar only it dealt with Genghis
>Kahn. Genghis would go to a city and level it, then send the one lone
>survivor to the next city to demand that they surrender or face the same
>fate. Now, even though Genghis would accept the surrender he would surely
>kill the leader, as was his custom, so really it came down to the leader,
>could he ask his people to fight knowing that it was his life in exchange
>for theirs? many did.
"Surrender and be enslaved or die". Even if people would assume
they could take Genghis Khan at his word, the choice came down to
fighting against him or fighting *for* him. What would you do?
>There's a book about this, it is modern, last ten years or thereabouts,
>can't remember the title or the author, but the gist is this: a future time
>traveller goes back in time and poisons the well in Hitler's village, Hitler
>dies at a very young age and the time traveller goes back to the future (no
>MJ Fox reference intended) quite satisfied. However, it turns out that an
>even more evil bastard replaced Hitler, one that actually listened to his
>generals, and the damn Nazis won the war, the world is a totalitarian mess.
Dang; I wanted to write that one.
Tim Starr
>
>"Nark" <bar...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>>Maybe this will help:
>
>>Genocide- The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national,
>>racial, political, or ethnic group.
>
>>So, who is systematically exterminating whom? Other than the Taliban, I
>>don't see any extermination being planned. Unless of course it's opposite
>>day, then I can understand. Because the US is rushing to bring in as much
>>aid as possible as quickly as possible.
>
>>It's a complete mischaracterization. Why can't you accept the truth?
>
>Because the US is preventing international peacekeeping
>forces who could be assisting the aid workers from entering
>Afghanistan. If you read what the aid organizations have
>been saying, it's been "we can't get to the people who need
>aid because of the bombing and they're at risk of starvation"
>and the US response was to continue the bombing.
Precisely - they can't deliver aid to those in Taliban-controlled territory, and
the US response is to try to end the Taliban's control over that territory, thus
enabling the delivery of aid to those in that territory. That is hardly the US
"preventing" aid delivery to that territory.
Of course, we know exactly what happened to the aid that was delivered in
Taliban-controlled territory, it was seized by the Taliban. If you give fish to
slaves, you give fish to their masters. If you are at war with their masters,
feeding slaves means strengthening your enemy. You must first defeat the
slavemasters before the slaves can be helped.
>1: Bomb poor and famine-ravaged country from high altitude
> with shitloads of explosives.
Yes, to end the rule of the totalitarian theocratic Taliban slavemasters.
>2: Demand that neighbor of said country close border, preventing
> aid from entering country and refugees from leaving.
Yes, to prevent the totalitarian theocratic Taliban slavemasters from being
resupplied under the guise of humanitarian aid or avoiding attack disguised as
refugees. To oppose this is to literally argue for aid & comfort to the enemy
in wartime, the very definition of Treason in the U.S. Constitution.
>3: Ignore requests of agencies to pause in bombing.
Yes, all requests to stop trying to end totalitarian theocratic Taliban rule
must be rightly ignored.
>4: "Not our fault!"
Indeed, the fault is that of the totalitarian theocratic Taliban, who have
enslaved the Afghan people.
>5: Prevent peacekeepers from providing security for relief workers after most
>of the bombing has stopped.
What relief workers have been endangered by our United Front allies?
Tim Starr
Tim Starr
[snip]
>I still maintain that only very dangerous and unhealthy individuals actually
>enjoy killing. Even those who make their living in careers traditionally
>associated with violence (law enforcement, military, etc.) are trained to
>avoid violence whenever possible.
When the 101st Airborne was totally encircled by the Germans at Bastogne & asked
to surrender, the way to "avoid violence" would've been to accept the surrender
demand. Instead, the commander refused, saying "Nuts!", & the Screaming Eagles
held the position until they could be rescued by Patton's 3rd Army.
Soldiers most certainly are not trained to "avoid violence whenever possible," &
anyone who makes that claim is full of shit.
Tim Starr
Nathan Folkert
> In article <4b923300.01120...@posting.google.com>, Nathan Folkert
> says...
>
> [snip]
>
> >The real question is: does any of this matter? Do Chomsky's views
> >from thirty or forty years ago really matter? Do his evasions
> >regarding these views matter? Does his non-recantation of these views
> >matter? (Unless he has, indeed, publicly recanted them, which may be
> >the case, but then it would seem rather simple to resolve all of
> >this.) I'm not sure.
>
> Does it matter if one of the most influential intellectuals
> of the contemporary American Left was an unrepentant admirer
> of Stalinist regimes like Maoist China & North Vietnam?
The above was meant as a response to a rather different argument
(which had not been made but had been anticipated) -- the argument
that discussion of Chomsky's views thirty years ago is used merely as
an ad hominem attack, a smear, to avoid discussion of or to distract
attention from modern crimes of the "imperialists", an argument that
has been put forward by Chomsky and by his defenders (myself, of
course, included) numerous times in the past (e.g., in Chomsky's
response to the original question of his 1970 speech, which I quoted
in that paragraph). My sole point above is that the motivation of my
posting was not to draw attention away from Chomsky's other arguments,
but simply because, having been over these points before on the other
side, I found the discussion of interest. As to the answer to the
rhetorical questions above, I hadn't really put much thought into it,
which is the only reason why I said "I'm not sure". I do rather
suspect that it matters what his views were on socialist and
revolutionary movements in the Third World in the past (especially in
light of the fact that he has not recanted them), as this has been the
focus of much of his commentary since (and it seems to me that he
continues to base many of his current arguments on premises first
argued during this time period), and thus should make any critical
mind wary of his motivations and reliability. I wouldn't be able to
fashion this into a coherent argument at this time, however, without
at least first finding recent examples and considering alternative
explanations.
> Would it matter if one of the most influential intellectuals
> of the contemporary American Right was an unrepentant admirer
> of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, & Militarist Japan?
Or, for that matter, if the same influential intellectual of the
contemporary American *Left* were an unrepentant defender of
Militarist Japan, as might be argued of Chomsky's 1967 commentary on
the Pacific War, which was overtly biased in favor of the Japanese
Empire (using Chomsky's now familiar approach of simply laughing off
almost any possible American arguments, as if it were absurd to
suggest that its actions were justifiable), and which he still
recommends to readers interested in his views on the subject.
-Nathan Folkert
nfol...@cs.stanford.edu
Nathan Folkert
> In article <4b923300.0112...@posting.google.com>, Nathan Folkert
> says...
>
> [snip]
>
> My, my, Nathan, how you've changed - and for the better!
> To what do we owe this great improvement in your opinion
> of Chomsky?
I finally got around to thinking about what he was saying.
- Nathan Folkert
nfol...@cs.stanford.edu
dte...@shaw.ca
> "D.Teale" <tea...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>
> >I'd like to insert a question at this point. About three weeks ago, Canada
> >announced that it would be sending 1000 infantry troops to Afghanistan,
> >these troops were to act as a security force for humanitarian aid, the
> >Canadian gov't assured the public that the troops were not going to battle,
> >that Canada's troops would be peacekeeping.
> >Now in the midst of the crisis, there is suddenly no need for this mission.
> >Below I have taken quotes from six articles, all from cbc.ca, notice the
> >storyline.
>
> [snip articles]
>
> The impression I get from these and other stories is that the Northern
> Alliance don't want international (foreign) military present on the
> ground, for whatever reason, and that president Bush is requesting that
> other countries therefore stay out. They're also saying that they can't
> deploy peacekeeping forces without Afghan consent. That's fine, but it
> means that the Northern Alliance is then responsible for protecting
> relief workers if people are going to survive. So far they don't seem
> to be doing that well, if indeed at all. As far as I've heard the
> relief agencies have been asking for an international peacekeeping
> force, which seems to make more sense than leaving it up to the Northern
> Alliance.
You're reasonably unreasonable.(?). Since when does the Northern
Alliance dictate policy in Afghan? On one hand we have the US war
machine dropping bombs and wreaking havoc, and on the other a benign
state that doesn't wish to infringe upon the desires of the rebel
fighters for a lowly excuse like humanitarian aid.
It does not add up, the security force that was to be sent was 1000
infantry, they were to act as personal guard to humanitarian convoys
while maintaining safe passage at border crossings.
If the US is unable to persuade the Northern Alliance that 1000
Canadian troops isn't a threat to their campaign I'd say we're
suffering from a lack of trust that isn't a real good thing
considering the US's heavy support for the Northern Alliance.
I'm really wondering what the hell is the real reason behind this.
Canada's official line is something like 'it's not necessary', which
is a damn lie.
I'm open to suggestions here.
Joseph Michael Bay
>In article <9umfvp$13v$1...@usenet.Stanford.EDU>, Joseph Michael Bay says...
>>people? The fact that he refers to it as a "sort of silent genocide"--
>>which is technically incorrect since the victims are not of the
>>same ethnic group nor the totality of any group -- does not alter
>>the fact that it's a policy which assumes and accepts large scale
>>starvation and death.
>More likely, it's a policy which holds that if you give a slave a fish, his
>master will take it away from him, but if you free a slave, then he can keep the
>fish he's given & fish for himself.
That's a bit simplistic. The Taliban aren't the only "masters"
for this proverb-like analysis; food and other aid isn't getting
to those who need it because of the Taliban, who are apparently
on the way out, I'm happy to say; the unwillingness of truckers
to drive through areas that may be bombed at any moment, which is
part of the point of Chomsky's speech -- aid groups were asking
for a pause in the bombing, not a surrender to the Taliban -- which
complicates things a bit; the US demands at that time that Pakistan,
the major proximal source of food aid, cut off the border with Afghanistan;
and more currently (well after that speech) "unrest" (read fighting
among all the other armed thugs in the area), which could be
made less problematic if the US were not putting the kibosh on
international peacekeeping forces. Maybe add to that the nature
and quantity of the food airdrops (35k meals for 7.5 million people),
but I'm not sure.
And of course there was very little mention of the Taliban intercepting
food/aid shipments during the past five or six years -- not to say that
it wasn't occurring, because it may well have been, along with countless
other abuses of human rights -- but it wasn't a big story like destroying
statues and stuff.
Joseph Michael Bay
>>>"A surgeon that kills healthy cells incidentally in the process of cutting out
>>>cancerous cells, is still indiscriminately killing healthy cells. It really
>>>doesn't matter what the point was supposed to be."
>>If you equate human beings with cells, cancerous or otherwise,
>>I really don't see the point of taking your views seriously.
>I made an analogy, not an equation.
Human beings are unique and irreplacable.
Cells (especially cells of the sorts most susceptible to chemotherapy)
are interchangable (within cell type) and have a high turnover rate.
To make such an analogy between human beings and cells is either to
foolishly misapply the lessons of one to the problems of the other --
which I hope is what you're doing -- or to assume that human lives are
essentially a commodity to be used in the service of political objectives.
>>Where do you come up with this crap?
>Your argument was that it doesn't matter if an attempt to kill bad people also
>killed good people.
My argument was that the planned killing of innocents was not justified by
the moral qualities of the intended target. If killing a particular person
is justified because they are "evil" or a threat, then that only applies to
that person. Accidents happen, of course, but you can't set up something
as random and clumsy as a car bomb outside houses or high-altitude bombardment
over populated areas and then piously plead "collateral damage".
>I analogized this to saying that if an attempt to kill
>malignant cells also kills benign ones, that it doesn't matter.
Yes, yes you did.
>Yours is an argument against virtually all attempts to defend the good by
>harming the bad, on the grounds that the good might also get hurt in the
>process.
Only those attempts which do not take every reasonable precaution
against the taking of innocent lives. This is not just my argument,
by the way, it's the basis of much of the Geneva Convention.
>If applied to cancer treatment, virtually all treatments such as
>kemotherapy which harm good cells as well as bad, it would be an argument
>against almost all cancer treatment.
The analogy is so wrong (or chillingly cynical) that it's hardly worth
mentioning that much of cancer research today is focused on trying to
minimize the toxicity to the host while neutralizing tumors.
>The result would be that far more people
>would suffer & die from cancer, just as the result of accepting your argument
>about defense would result in far more innocent suffering & death at the hands
>of evildoers.
You know, the thing about Hezbullah is that it's not based solely on the
charismatic leadership of Fadlallah or Mugniyeh or any other particular
member; it's based on a fanatic ideology. If you could somehow blow up
an ideology with a car bomb, the argument might even be relevant.
Joseph Michael Bay
>In article <9unaa5$9pc$1...@usenet.Stanford.EDU>, Joseph Michael Bay says...
>>Because the US is preventing international peacekeeping
>>forces who could be assisting the aid workers from entering
>>Afghanistan. If you read what the aid organizations have
>>been saying, it's been "we can't get to the people who need
>>aid because of the bombing and they're at risk of starvation"
>>and the US response was to continue the bombing.
>Precisely - they can't deliver aid to those in Taliban-controlled territory,
>and the US response is to try to end the Taliban's control over that
>territory, thus enabling the delivery of aid to those in that territory.
>That is hardly the US
>"preventing" aid delivery to that territory.
Read it again: the US is preventing *international peacekeeping
forces who could be assisting the aid workers* from entering
Afghanistan. Countries like Britain and France want to send
thousands of ground troops to attempt to restore order in the
large part of the country that the Taliban no longer controls,
and to protect aid workers so they can do their thing. Aid
agencies are calling for this as well. The US, it appears, wants
to let a fractious collection of former mujihadeen continue to
not take care of this.
>Of course, we know exactly what happened to the aid that was delivered in
>Taliban-controlled territory, it was seized by the Taliban.
What about the aid that's being delivered in the majority of
the country that's not controlled by the Taliban? I'll give
you a hint: it's not going to the people who most need it,
and it's not going to the Taliban.
>If you give fish to
>slaves, you give fish to their masters. If you are at war with their masters,
>feeding slaves means strengthening your enemy. You must first defeat the
>slavemasters before the slaves can be helped.
So in the however long it takes to "get" these guys, we should
pretty much cut off aid to the people we're trying to help, because
Pakistan is going to be sending missiles disguised as food (which
would be impossible to inspect), even though millions of the people
of the country (whom we're trying to help) are without food or much
else and it's now winter (it's technically autumn but it's freezing
and snowing in much of the country).
If/when we complete ousting the Taliban and re-establishing order, and
maybe even get Osama bin Laden, *then* we start "teaching" the Afghan
people to "fish". Perhaps this would work ... if we had a CURE for
being DEAD of STARVATION. Other than that, you've outlined a really
good plan ... on BIZARRO WORLD.
>Yes, to prevent the totalitarian theocratic Taliban slavemasters from being
>resupplied under the guise of humanitarian aid or avoiding attack disguised as
>refugees. To oppose this is to literally argue for aid & comfort to the enemy
>in wartime, the very definition of Treason in the U.S. Constitution.
I confess! I'm guilty of Thought Crimes and Speech Crimes! Just
please don't put me in Room 101.
>>3: Ignore requests of agencies to pause in bombing.
>Yes, all requests to stop trying to end totalitarian theocratic Taliban rule
>must be rightly ignored.
>>4: "Not our fault!"
>Indeed, the fault is that of the totalitarian theocratic Taliban, who have
>enslaved the Afghan people.
>>5: Prevent peacekeepers from providing security for relief workers after most
>>of the bombing has stopped.
>What relief workers have been endangered by our United Front allies?
What am I, a wire service? The actions of non-Taliban Afghan groups
are a matter of public record. To answer your question, consider
the Achakzai and Nurzai tribes, for example, in Spin Boldak, about 5000
of whom looted relief vehicles (27 Nov, Reuters). Or when Kabul was
liberated from the Taliban -- you know how humanitarian aid was, well,
looted? Yeah, looks like that was the United Front. I don't know if
they've been endangering the relief workers themselves -- those guys
are already endangered by virtue of being relief workers -- but they
definitely have been preventing them from doing relief work.
It's really quite shocking that our United Front allies would behave
in such a manner; nobody could predict that sort of thing from forces
which had only for the past decade or more engaged in rape, summary
executions, arbitrary arrest, torture, and "disappearances". Or in
1999-2000 when they executed internal refugees in the Sangcharak
district in front of their families. After all, these are honorable
men. Otherwise we wouldn't block international peacekeeping forces
just because they don't want them there.
Tim Starr
>
>Tim Starr<tims...@mailandnews.com> writes:
>
>>In article <9umfvp$13v$1...@usenet.Stanford.EDU>, Joseph Michael Bay says...
>
>>>people? The fact that he refers to it as a "sort of silent genocide"--
>>>which is technically incorrect since the victims are not of the
>>>same ethnic group nor the totality of any group -- does not alter
>>>the fact that it's a policy which assumes and accepts large scale
>>>starvation and death.
>
>>More likely, it's a policy which holds that if you give a slave a fish, his
>>master will take it away from him, but if you free a slave, then he can keep the
>>fish he's given & fish for himself.
>
Oh? What other slavemasters are there in Afghanistan?
>for this proverb-like analysis; food and other aid isn't getting
>to those who need it because of the Taliban, who are apparently
>on the way out, I'm happy to say; the unwillingness of truckers
>to drive through areas that may be bombed at any moment...
The only areas that could've been bombed "at any moment" were those under
Taliban control.
>...aid groups were asking for a pause in the bombing...
That is, a pause in the effort to end Taliban control.
>...not a surrender to the Taliban...
Any pause would've enabled the Taliban to recoup, a long enough pause would've
amounted to surrender.
The only thing worse than the sort of humanitarian aid that doesn't care whether
the relief it delivers ends up in the hands of totalitarians like the Taliban
is the transparently cynical use of famine predictions if the aid doesn't get
through by Chomsky et al. to demand that the US stop attacking the enemy &
give him a chance to recoup, resupply, bring in replacements, &/or flee the
country so that Western aid can be delivered to the slaves of the enemies of
the West.
>And of course there was very little mention of the Taliban intercepting
>food/aid shipments during the past five or six years...
That's because it didn't happen, because the aid deliveries were done under
international monitoring to make sure that it didn't end up in Taliban hands.
Tim Starr
Tim Starr
>
>Tim Starr<tims...@mailandnews.com> writes:
>
>>>>"A surgeon that kills healthy cells incidentally in the process of cutting out
>>>>cancerous cells, is still indiscriminately killing healthy cells. It really
>>>>doesn't matter what the point was supposed to be."
>
>>>If you equate human beings with cells, cancerous or otherwise,
>>>I really don't see the point of taking your views seriously.
>
>>I made an analogy, not an equation.
>
>Human beings are unique and irreplacable.
So are cells, to some extent.
>Cells (especially cells of the sorts most susceptible to chemotherapy)
>are interchangable (within cell type) and have a high turnover rate.
Oh, so it's all right if I just go ahead & kill off some of your cells by
giving you chemotherapy treatment, even if you don't have the sort of
cancer that indicates that sort of treatment? After all, your cells are
interchangeable and have a high turnover rate, right?
You're exagerrating the contrast between the two simply so you can
deny that you would let the risk of harming innocents enable the guilty
to use them as human shields.
>>>Where do you come up with this crap?
>
>>Your argument was that it doesn't matter if an attempt to kill bad people also
>>killed good people.
>
>My argument was that the planned killing of innocents was not justified by
>the moral qualities of the intended target.
Except that you're begging the question of whether an attack on a proper
target that could possibly also kill innocents is "the planned killing of
innocents."
You might just as well argue that "the planned killing of benign cells is not
justified by the malignancy of cancerous cells."
>>If applied to cancer treatment, virtually all treatments such as
>>kemotherapy which harm good cells as well as bad, it would be an argument
>>against almost all cancer treatment.
>
>The analogy is so wrong (or chillingly cynical) that it's hardly worth
>mentioning that much of cancer research today is focused on trying to
>minimize the toxicity to the host while neutralizing tumors.
Why, if cells are as interchangeable & have such high turnover as you say?
>>The result would be that far more people
>>would suffer & die from cancer, just as the result of accepting your argument
>>about defense would result in far more innocent suffering & death at the hands
>>of evildoers.
>
>You know, the thing about Hezbullah is that it's not based solely on the
>charismatic leadership of Fadlallah or Mugniyeh or any other particular
>member; it's based on a fanatic ideology. If you could somehow blow up
>an ideology with a car bomb, the argument might even be relevant.
Disembodies ideologies can do little harm. Car bombs can kill the adherents
of ideologies. Once killed, the adherents of evil ideologies can do no more
harm.
Tim Starr
Nark
"Joseph Michael Bay" <jm...@Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
> Tim Starr<tims...@mailandnews.com> writes:
>
> >In article <9unaa5$9pc$1...@usenet.Stanford.EDU>, Joseph Michael Bay says...
>
> >>Because the US is preventing international peacekeeping
> >>forces who could be assisting the aid workers from entering
> >>Afghanistan. If you read what the aid organizations have
> >>been saying, it's been "we can't get to the people who need
> >>aid because of the bombing and they're at risk of starvation"
> >>and the US response was to continue the bombing.
>
> >Precisely - they can't deliver aid to those in Taliban-controlled
territory,
> >and the US response is to try to end the Taliban's control over that
> >territory, thus enabling the delivery of aid to those in that territory.
> >That is hardly the US
> >"preventing" aid delivery to that territory.
>
> Read it again: the US is preventing *international peacekeeping
> forces who could be assisting the aid workers* from entering
> Afghanistan. Countries like Britain and France want to send
> thousands of ground troops to attempt to restore order in the
> large part of the country that the Taliban no longer controls,
> and to protect aid workers so they can do their thing. Aid
> agencies are calling for this as well. The US, it appears, wants
> to let a fractious collection of former mujihadeen continue to
> not take care of this.
You missed the USA today front page article yesterday (12/6). The Aid going
into Afghanistan is coming in huge quantities, thanks largely to the United
States and its generous citizens. Admittedly there are areas of concern in
the North East. But it sounds like those concerns are being taken care-of
as well.
>
> >Of course, we know exactly what happened to the aid that was delivered in
> >Taliban-controlled territory, it was seized by the Taliban.
>
> What about the aid that's being delivered in the majority of
> the country that's not controlled by the Taliban? I'll give
> you a hint: it's not going to the people who most need it,
> and it's not going to the Taliban.
But it is. You're misinformed.
>
> >If you give fish to
> >slaves, you give fish to their masters. If you are at war with their
masters,
> >feeding slaves means strengthening your enemy. You must first defeat the
> >slavemasters before the slaves can be helped.
>
>
> So in the however long it takes to "get" these guys, we should
> pretty much cut off aid to the people we're trying to help,
I'm not sure if you have heard, but almost all of Afghanistan is free of
Taliban control. You're speculating based on bad information and month-old
circumstances.
> because
> Pakistan is going to be sending missiles disguised as food (which
> would be impossible to inspect), even though millions of the people
> of the country (whom we're trying to help) are without food or much
> else and it's now winter (it's technically autumn but it's freezing
> and snowing in much of the country).
>
> If/when we complete ousting the Taliban and re-establishing order, and
> maybe even get Osama bin Laden, *then* we start "teaching" the Afghan
> people to "fish". Perhaps this would work ... if we had a CURE for
> being DEAD of STARVATION. Other than that, you've outlined a really
> good plan ... on BIZARRO WORLD.
The plan in effect is all that matters anyway. It's working, and the people
of Afghanistan will be better off, in every way, free of Taliban oppression.
Nark
> > I'm not aware of any 'international aid agencies' who have referred to
the
> > US as committing "genocide" on the people of Afghanistan. Are you?
> >
> > So why would calling him a liar equate with calling them liars? Your
> > argument is based purely on emotion.
> >
> > If you can produce any evidence that this was anything but an extremely
> > offensive lie perpetrated by a known demagogue, then I'll be impressed.
>
> Well, now that you mention it, his use of the term "genocide" to
characterize
> the situation is somewhat questionable.
>
> I don't think it is entirely unjustified, though, if you consider that the
U.S.
> government was/is well aware of the liklihood of starvation, but continued
with
> the bombing campaign anyway. I think a good case could be made that
continuing
> with the bombing, despite knowing the predictable result of mass
starvation,
> constitutes "genocide."
You may be right, assuming that more people starve than would have if the
bombing never happened. It seems to me that it is simply not the case. In
time, we will know. But right now, it looks like aid is coming fast and
furious, and mucho resources are committed to it.
>
> I think Chomsky uses the term "genocide" mainly to denote the scale of
death
> that could result directly and indirectly, though. It's probably mainly a
> numbers thing for him. I could be wrong, though.
Another way to phrase it could be; "a large scale of death", or any other
phrase that doesn't presuppose a conspiracy theory. A linguist should
certainly be able to choose a word that accurately describes the situation.
He knows what he is saying, and that makes him a liar.
Tim Starr
>
>Tim Starr<tims...@mailandnews.com> writes:
>
>>In article <9unaa5$9pc$1...@usenet.Stanford.EDU>, Joseph Michael Bay says...
>
>>>Because the US is preventing international peacekeeping
>>>forces who could be assisting the aid workers from entering
>>>Afghanistan. If you read what the aid organizations have
>>>been saying, it's been "we can't get to the people who need
>>>aid because of the bombing and they're at risk of starvation"
>>>and the US response was to continue the bombing.
>
>>Precisely - they can't deliver aid to those in Taliban-controlled territory,
>>and the US response is to try to end the Taliban's control over that
>>territory, thus enabling the delivery of aid to those in that territory.
>>That is hardly the US
>>"preventing" aid delivery to that territory.
>
>Read it again: the US is preventing *international peacekeeping
>forces who could be assisting the aid workers* from entering
>Afghanistan.
No, actually, the United Front is doing so, & the US is going along
with the requests of our UF allies, who after all have been doing most
of the fighting on the ground against the Taliban for a whole lot longer
than the US has been at war with the Taliban.
>Countries like Britain and France want to send
>thousands of ground troops to attempt to restore order in the
>large part of the country that the Taliban no longer controls,
>and to protect aid workers so they can do their thing. Aid
>agencies are calling for this as well.
Of course they are, it all increases their clout & makes it look like
they're doing something useful, thus justifying their budgets. But
are any relief workers actually in much danger? Not so far as I've
heard.
>The US, it appears, wants to let a fractious collection of former
>mujihadeen continue to not take care of this.
Thus preventing the First World countries from taking the credit
from saving the poor benighted Third Worlders from starvation,
& dealing a blow to the nouveau colonialism of the West. Instead,
the US has recognized that supporting the forces most effective
in defeating the Taliban is top priority. After all, Britain & France
did fuck-all against the Taliban since 1996 until this year, same as
the USA.
>>Of course, we know exactly what happened to the aid that was delivered in
>>Taliban-controlled territory, it was seized by the Taliban.
>
>What about the aid that's being delivered in the majority of
>the country that's not controlled by the Taliban? I'll give
>you a hint: it's not going to the people who most need it,
>and it's not going to the Taliban.
BFD, delivery of humanitarian aid to the Afghan people isn't the
top priority. Top priority is defeating the Taliban & thus removing
them as an obstacle to the neutralization of Al Qaeda. Self-defense
is more important than charity.
>>If you give fish to
>>slaves, you give fish to their masters. If you are at war with their masters,
>>feeding slaves means strengthening your enemy. You must first defeat the
>>slavemasters before the slaves can be helped.
>
>So in the however long it takes to "get" these guys, we should
>pretty much cut off aid to the people we're trying to help...
Lie. Primary mission is to defeat the Taliban, not to help the Afghans.
>...because Pakistan is going to be sending missiles disguised as food...
Don't be silly, food is just as much of a military resource as missles are.
Armies have to eat, too.
>>Yes, to prevent the totalitarian theocratic Taliban slavemasters from being
>>resupplied under the guise of humanitarian aid or avoiding attack disguised as
>>refugees. To oppose this is to literally argue for aid & comfort to the enemy
>>in wartime, the very definition of Treason in the U.S. Constitution.
>
>I confess! I'm guilty of Thought Crimes and Speech Crimes! Just
>please don't put me in Room 101.
You must be a totalitarian yourself if you think the penalty for treason is to
be
treated as Smith was in 1984, a novel set in a totalitarian society.
>>>5: Prevent peacekeepers from providing security for relief workers after most
>>>of the bombing has stopped.
>
>>What relief workers have been endangered by our United Front allies?
>
>What am I, a wire service?
I'm sorry that I don't simply take your claims on faith, without evidence.
It must be very hard for you to have to support your claims.
>To answer your question...
OK, so there's been some looting of aid. I wonder what you would
say if I said that these were in areas where the UF wasn't in control,
& were spontaneous acts of revenge by those disgruntled against
the previous regime? I won't say that, but Chomsky did about the
Khmer Rouge's executions of class-enemies.
I still maintain that your priorities are backwards. The US effort in
Afghanistan isn't primarily a humanitarian-aid delivery mission, it's a
mission to destroy the Taliban & Al Qaeda.
Tim Starr
Jez
> In article <9uq3lj$bom$1...@usenet.Stanford.EDU>, Joseph Michael Bay says...
> >
> >Tim Starr<tims...@mailandnews.com> writes:
> >
> >>In article <9umfvp$13v$1...@usenet.Stanford.EDU>, Joseph Michael Bay
says...
> >
> >>>people? The fact that he refers to it as a "sort of silent genocide"--
> >>>which is technically incorrect since the victims are not of the
> >>>same ethnic group nor the totality of any group -- does not alter
> >>>the fact that it's a policy which assumes and accepts large scale
> >>>starvation and death.
> >
> >>More likely, it's a policy which holds that if you give a slave a fish,
his
> >>master will take it away from him, but if you free a slave, then he can
keep the
> >>fish he's given & fish for himself.
> >
> >That's a bit simplistic. The Taliban aren't the only "masters"...
>
> Oh? What other slavemasters are there in Afghanistan?
>
http://www.zmag.org/harriswarlords.htm
I wonder if Opium has anything to do with things...
http://www.observer.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1501,605626,00.html
Ho hum
Jez
Joseph Michael Bay
>In article <9uq3lj$bom$1...@usenet.Stanford.EDU>, Joseph Michael Bay says...
>>>More likely, it's a policy which holds that if you give a slave a fish, his
>>>master will take it away from him, but if you free a slave, then he can keep the
>>>fish he's given & fish for himself.
>>
>>That's a bit simplistic. The Taliban aren't the only "masters"...
>Oh? What other slavemasters are there in Afghanistan?
Using the term "slavemaster" as someone who's taking away "fish"
from the "slaves", then the other "slavemasters" are the various
armed groups, some of whom are in the United Front, who are looting
aid warehouses and vehicles. All of this is readily accessible
information in regular mainstream media.
>The only thing worse than the sort of humanitarian aid that doesn't care whether
>the relief it delivers ends up in the hands of totalitarians like the Taliban
Look, I don't care if it gets to the Taliban or to the United Front
or to some random group of a hundred guys with machineguns or if it
sits in a warehouse in Pakistan, it's not getting to the people who
need it if there are no peacekeeping forces.
Why do you keep ignoring the fact that the US is apparently preventing
international peacekeeping forces from entering the country? They're
not slavemasters come to take away your fish.
>is the transparently cynical use of famine predictions if the aid doesn't get
>through by Chomsky et al.
"Chomsky et al." == most UN and NGO relief agencies operating in the area.
I realize that Chomsky's very controversial, outspokenly critical of the
US, and that he tends to cite the most dire projections, but surely you're
not saying that international relief agencies are really just a cover for
the Taliban? Or allied with them somehow.
>to demand that the US stop attacking the enemy &
>give him a chance to recoup, resupply, bring in replacements,
From where, exactly? Supposedly we can spot a single person walking
around outside with our recon flights and stuff -- surely any significant
movement of troops or materiel would be obvious.
>&/or flee the
>country so that Western aid can be delivered to the slaves of the enemies of
>the West.
Remember that many of those "slaves of the enemies of the West" are
in desperate and immediate need of food and other aid. It's hardly
cynical to ask that (as then) bombing be paused long enough to allow
aid workers to prepare people for winter, and far less so (as now) to
ask that international peacekeepers (soldiers, by the way) be allowed
into the country to manage security in non-Taliban areas.
>>And of course there was very little mention of the Taliban intercepting
>>food/aid shipments during the past five or six years...
>That's because it didn't happen, because the aid deliveries were done under
>international monitoring to make sure that it didn't end up in Taliban hands.
Gee, international monitoring? What a SWELL FUCKING IDEA. Hey,
maybe those 1000 Canadian army guys, or the thousands of English
and French army guys who were set to go into Afghanistan to maintain
order could do that.
Joseph Michael Bay
>>Human beings are unique and irreplacable.
>So are cells, to some extent.
Not to a meaningful extent, or anywhere near the extent that humans are.
>>Cells (especially cells of the sorts most susceptible to chemotherapy)
>>are interchangable (within cell type) and have a high turnover rate.
>Oh, so it's all right if I just go ahead & kill off some of your cells by
>giving you chemotherapy treatment, even if you don't have the sort of
>cancer that indicates that sort of treatment? After all, your cells are
>interchangeable and have a high turnover rate, right?
>You're exagerrating the contrast between the two simply so you can
>deny that you would let the risk of harming innocents enable the guilty
>to use them as human shields.
The Geneva Convention doesn't say "civilians aren't legitimate
targets unless they're being used as human shields"; it says they
aren't legitimate targets.
Furthermore your continued presumption that human beings and cells
are comparable in any way is beyond discussion for me. I won't be
drawn into it any further.
Nark
"Joseph Michael Bay" <jm...@Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
> "Nark" <bar...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >> >You assume that the job is easier than it proves to be. If it were
that
> >> >simple, the CIA would certainly rid the planet of terrorists.
>
> >> a bomb is a tool for killing many people.
>
> >Or safely killing one.
>
> You must be using a different definition of the word "bomb".
> A bomb explodes, sending a shockwave of pressure and often
> shrapnel. If and only if there is only one person in the
> range of the bomb (unlikely if it's a car bomb in a residential
> area) the bomb will kill one person.
Not necessarily.
>
>
> >> You assume a lot there, if I may say so. In this extremely
> >> hypothetical example, Hezbullah plan to kill half a million
> >> people, but if Fadlallah is killed, they will abandon this
> >> plan, go forth and sin no more. Suicide bombers will say
> >> "Oh no, Fadlallah was blown up! This Hezbullah thing I've
> >> gotten myself into could be dangerous -- I'd better quit
> >> and study circuit design instead of wearing all this dynamite."
>
> >Point well taken, but you still don't answer the question. I wasn't
> >referring to this specific case, but rather an out-of-thin-air
hypothetical.
> >The point is, where do you draw the line?
>
> The line can include however many unreasonable hypothetical
> situations you like. In real life, though, killing bystanders
> is unacceptable.
You don't understand the realities of war. Yet, every freedom that you
enjoy, was probably paid for by people who died in the name of freedom, and
probably caused civilian casualties.
>
> >> Right, and if you could go back in time and impale baby Hitler
> >> on a spike you would pretty much HAVE to, except that you can't
> >> go back in time any more than you can predict really unlikely
> >> future events like the one described above.
>
> >True, but I see that you do at least recognize the obligation to kill if
you
> >are certain it will save some arbitrary number of lives (your example).
So,
> >by this reasoning, if we know someone is capable, and they have a history
of
> >destruction, and they openly proclaim that they are planning more....
> >What's the difference?
>
> The difference is that (a) you cannot possibly be certain
> that you're going to save anyone, although granted you can
> make a good case for it in some examples,
That's all I'm saying
> and that (b) even
> if the plan to blow up Fadlallah had been successful, Hezbullah
> would not just stop.
And we are now seeing what happens when we don't completely eradicate these
thugs.
>
> Does the FBI blow up mobsters' neighborhoods?
The FBI has jurisdiction to apprehend these criminals. That is a big
difference that you apparantly don't understand.
>
>
> >> You would need to have a reasonable belief that your action is
> >> going to have better consequences than inaction. Killing one
> >> terrorist, even a high-profile terrorist, is as likely to provoke
> >> a retaliation as it is to give terror organizations pause. More
> >> so, I would guess.
>
> >Exactly. That's YOUR guess. But as you say, the people responsible,
> >assuming they had "a reasonable belief that" their "action" was "going to
> >have better consequences than inaction" were only doing what you say.
You
> >must be assuming they didn't feel that way, apparently because you don't.
> >Well, many people have different viewpoints, but I don't think it's
> >completely preposterous to think that they believed just what you say.
>
> These people must have been in a coma, then, because in
> just about every case where an important member of a terrorist
> organization has been killed there's a spate of reprisal attacks,
> not a cessation of activity. They'd also need to calculate that
> the attacks they were going to prevent would have killed more
> than the eighty who died as a result of the car bomb.
The less terrorists, the less chance there is of terrorism. It doesn't
matter to these fanatics if they're being attacked or not. Their hatred is
all-encompassing. They'll kill whether there is peace or war.
>
>
> >Second, do you think the point of this "CIA" operation was expressly to
kill
> >civilians? How about the recent terrorism in Israel? Do you see a
> >difference in motive?
>
> Sure, there's a difference in motive. Suicide bombers in Israel
> are trying to blow up civilians, indiscriminately as far as I know.
> That's plainly horrible and wrong. The assassination attempt on
> Fadlallah was trying to blow up Fadlallah, using a massive car
> bomb fifty yards away from his house, outside a mosque, in a
> residential neighborhood. Predictably, this resulted in the
> deaths of many people who happened to be there. Difference in
> motive? Perhaps, but there is little to no difference in the
> means used, nor in the predictable outcome.
What is your solution to today's terrorism problem?
Joseph Michael Bay
"Nark" <bar...@yahoo.com> writes:
>"Joseph Michael Bay" <jm...@Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
>> Read it again: the US is preventing *international peacekeeping
>> forces who could be assisting the aid workers* from entering
>> Afghanistan. Countries like Britain and France want to send
>> thousands of ground troops to attempt to restore order in the
>> large part of the country that the Taliban no longer controls,
>> and to protect aid workers so they can do their thing. Aid
>> agencies are calling for this as well. The US, it appears, wants
>> to let a fractious collection of former mujihadeen continue to
>> not take care of this.
>You missed the USA today front page article yesterday (12/6).
USA Today is for kindergartners.
>The Aid going
>into Afghanistan is coming in huge quantities, thanks largely to the United
>States and its generous citizens. Admittedly there are areas of concern in
>the North East. But it sounds like those concerns are being taken care-of
>as well.
So it's going into Afghanistan. Where is it going once it gets in?
The guys who have been looting are still there, aren't they? Our
brave allies in the United Front, that is. Or have they been defined as
the legitimate authority now so that when they take stuff it's not
looting anymore?
>> >Of course, we know exactly what happened to the aid that was delivered in
>> >Taliban-controlled territory, it was seized by the Taliban.
>> What about the aid that's being delivered in the majority of
>> the country that's not controlled by the Taliban? I'll give
>> you a hint: it's not going to the people who most need it,
>> and it's not going to the Taliban.
>But it is. You're misinformed.
I must be a victim to the One Worldist propaganda machine
of those dastardly United Nations and Reuters.
Even the TV news reported on the Northern Alliance
looting in Kabul. If you're going to tell me that's
misinformation we shouldn't even be discussing this.
>> So in the however long it takes to "get" these guys, we should
>> pretty much cut off aid to the people we're trying to help,
>I'm not sure if you have heard, but almost all of Afghanistan is free of
>Taliban control. You're speculating based on bad information and month-old
>circumstances.
We had been talking about statements made a month ago. They relate
to the circumstances a month ago, not those now. I thought that should
have been obvious.
Joseph Michael Bay
Tim Starr<tims...@mailandnews.com> writes:
>In article <9uq7hi$d6c$1...@usenet.Stanford.EDU>, Joseph Michael Bay says...
>>Read it again: the US is preventing *international peacekeeping
>>forces who could be assisting the aid workers* from entering
>>Afghanistan.
>No, actually, the United Front is doing so, & the US is going along
>with the requests of our UF allies,
The political weight of the US is far more considerable than that
of the UF -- it's we who are calling the shots here for the most
part, not a de facto coalition of former mujihadeen. But yeah,
we're doing it on the basis of their request.
>who after all have been doing most
>of the fighting on the ground against the Taliban for a whole lot longer
>than the US has been at war with the Taliban.
And who have been looting a whole lot longer than the US or
Canada or France of England (who haven't been looting at all).
So why should their patently false claims that they're providing
security be taken at face value?
>>Countries like Britain and France want to send
>>thousands of ground troops to attempt to restore order in the
>>large part of the country that the Taliban no longer controls,
>>and to protect aid workers so they can do their thing. Aid
>>agencies are calling for this as well.
>Of course they are, it all increases their clout & makes it look like
>they're doing something useful, thus justifying their budgets. But
>are any relief workers actually in much danger? Not so far as I've
>heard.
Their aid's in danger. Some relief agencies don't want to be
associated with foreign military, like the very respectable
Doctors without Borders. Others, like Save the Children, Refugees
International and Mercy Corps, say that UN peacekeepers are needed.
Some guys in the UN want a volunteer country (like Canada, which
volunteered) to send its troops in with UN sanction but not under
UN command. Very few people are seriously suggesting that the
United Front/Northern Alliance are doing it.
>>The US, it appears, wants to let a fractious collection of former
>>mujihadeen continue to not take care of this.
>Thus preventing the First World countries from taking the credit
>from saving the poor benighted Third Worlders from starvation,
>& dealing a blow to the nouveau colonialism of the West.
Or thus allowing them free reign over the country.
>Instead,
>the US has recognized that supporting the forces most effective
>in defeating the Taliban is top priority. After all, Britain & France
>did fuck-all against the Taliban since 1996 until this year, same as
>the USA.
And the Northern Alliance has done fuck-all in terms of providing
humanitarian aid or otherwise alleviating the suffering of the
people of Afghanistan. Sure, they fight against the repressive Taliban,
but when they've had power they used it to loot, rape, "disappear",
and summarily execute civilians. If that's the alternative to
"nouveau colonialism" then such "colonialism" is a moral imperative for us.
>>What about the aid that's being delivered in the majority of
>>the country that's not controlled by the Taliban? I'll give
>>you a hint: it's not going to the people who most need it,
>>and it's not going to the Taliban.
>BFD, delivery of humanitarian aid to the Afghan people isn't the
>top priority. Top priority is defeating the Taliban & thus removing
>them as an obstacle to the neutralization of Al Qaeda. Self-defense
>is more important than charity.
So what you're saying is we've got to get Al Qaeda, and if that
means a bunch of civilians starve to death as a result of the means
we use to this end, then so be it. Right?
>>>feeding slaves means strengthening your enemy. You must first defeat the
>>>slavemasters before the slaves can be helped.
>>So in the however long it takes to "get" these guys, we should
>>pretty much cut off aid to the people we're trying to help...
>Lie. Primary mission is to defeat the Taliban, not to help the Afghans.
What lie? It says right there "before the slaves can be helped". I
didn't write it. Are we trying to help the Afghans, or are they an
inconvenient obstacle in our attempt to destroy al Qaeda? You can't
have it both ways.
>>...because Pakistan is going to be sending missiles disguised as food...
>Don't be silly, food is just as much of a military resource as missles are.
I hear they've got some sort of "high-energy biscuit". Perhaps it
can shoot down gunships.
>Armies have to eat, too.
Even a well-fed army with no military supplies is an army in name only.
>>>Yes, to prevent the totalitarian theocratic Taliban slavemasters from being
>>>resupplied under the guise of humanitarian aid or avoiding attack disguised as
>>>refugees. To oppose this is to literally argue for aid & comfort to the enemy
>>>in wartime, the very definition of Treason in the U.S. Constitution.
>>I confess! I'm guilty of Thought Crimes and Speech Crimes! Just
>>please don't put me in Room 101.
>You must be a totalitarian yourself if you think the penalty for treason is to
>be
>treated as Smith was in 1984, a novel set in a totalitarian society.
Only *in* such a totalitarian society would *arguing* for aid and
comfort to the civilian population of a country with which we are
at war be considered treason. It's speech. Pehaps you've heard
of it.
>>>What relief workers have been endangered by our United Front allies?
>>
>>What am I, a wire service?
>I'm sorry that I don't simply take your claims on faith, without evidence.
>It must be very hard for you to have to support your claims.
If you're not reading the news it's not my responsibility to spoon-feed
it to you. If you don't know or don't care that the United Front have
been looting UN and relief agencies that's fine. But please consider
that you might be happier discussing something you've chosen to inform
yourself about. Besides:
>>To answer your question...
(snip a couple of examples of the UF looting aid)
>OK, so there's been some looting of aid. I wonder what you would
>say if I said that these were in areas where the UF wasn't in control,
>& were spontaneous acts of revenge by those disgruntled against
>the previous regime?
I would say that first the onus of proof is on you since such
speculation of motives isn't in any of the sources I've seen, and that
it doesn't really matter if the looting is the official policy of the UF
leadership (which I don't think really exists in a meaningful sense),
the looting is done by pissed-off minority Afghans, or if it's done by
the freaking Yanomano tribe of the Amazon basin. There's looting, the
relief agencies can't function throughout much of the liberated parts
of the country, and the UF/US are nixing peacekeeping attempts.
>I won't say that, but Chomsky did about the
>Khmer Rouge's executions of class-enemies.
I wasn't aware that the Khmer Rouge had also entered
Afghanistan. Or are you just citing something irrelevant
to this discussion?
>I still maintain that your priorities are backwards. The US effort in
>Afghanistan isn't primarily a humanitarian-aid delivery mission, it's a
>mission to destroy the Taliban & Al Qaeda.
It's a war. There are international rules for war. One of them
is that you don't starve the enemy's civilians. The Taliban have
violated the rules of war; that doesn't mean we can too.
Joseph Michael Bay
>> The line can include however many unreasonable hypothetical
>> situations you like. In real life, though, killing bystanders
>> is unacceptable.
>You don't understand the realities of war. Yet, every freedom that you
>enjoy, was probably paid for by people who died in the name of freedom, and
>probably caused civilian casualties.
I understand the realities of war. War is when many people are killing
each other for some goal. Civilians being killed for some goal is terrorism,
whether that goal is just or unjust.
Jez
"Joseph Michael Bay" <jm...@Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
> So it's going into Afghanistan. Where is it going once it gets in?
> The guys who have been looting are still there, aren't they? Our
> brave allies in the United Front, that is. Or have they been defined as
> the legitimate authority now so that when they take stuff it's not
> looting anymore?
>
A couple of essays worth reading......
http://www.zmag.org/fassihiweeds.htm
http://www.zmag.org/kennaafghan.htm
http://www.zmag.org/traynordis.htm
http://www.zmag.org/petersveil.htm
Bloody depressing to say the least.
Ho hum
Jez