Politically Incorrect
Archie Kennedy
that Bush's use of the adjective, coward, to describe the terrorists is
wrong. The talk show host made a simple and accurate statement.
Whatever adjectives we may use to describe them, coward doesn't cut it.
In America at the moment, there is effective suspension of freedom of
speech. CNN is not in the business of reporting news. They are in the
business of defining the American mind and whipping up hysteria. Other
media march in step and nobody is questioning glaring problems such as
the apparent lack of evidence against bin Laden. He may be guilty but
the point is, the American government is not producing evidence and the
media are blindly accepting the party line. If the legacy of this
disaster is suppression of dissent in America and Canada, then the
terrorists have won a victory beyond their wildest dreams.
If we are interested in freedom, we will continue to express dissent
without apology. What has happened to this talk show host is
disturbing. How different is the official American line from far right
loonies such as Lambourne and Delanoy who accuse leftists of
contributing to the attack because leftists have the audacity to be
critical of American policies?
Archie
Archie Kennedy
> loonies such as Lambourne and Delanoy who accuse leftists of
> contributing to the attack because leftists have the audacity to be
> critical of American policies?
Not that I'm not implying that this talk show host is a leftist. I don't
know anything about him.
>
>
> Archie
ZsaZsa
news:3BB7328C...@hotmail.com...
He professes to be a libertarian.
stewacide
(if you caught it [it was in the Jesse Jackson bit] it was pretty funny)
"Archie Kennedy" <aken...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3BB731D4...@hotmail.com...
Dennis G.
>Talk show host Bill Maher (sp?) has been officially censored for stating
>that Bush's use of the adjective, coward, to describe the terrorists is
>wrong. The talk show host made a simple and accurate statement.
>Whatever adjectives we may use to describe them, coward doesn't cut it.
>
What is the correct descriptive word for a person who kills innocents in order
to enter the kingdom of heaven ?
Dennis
Zed Mister
... The correct word is probably 'martyr.'
http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=martyr
martyr: "somebody who makes sacrifices or suffers greatly in order to
advance a cause or principle"
http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=coward
coward: "somebody lacking courage: somebody who is too easily or too
greatly frightened"
"Dennis G." <deg...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:3bb7593f...@news.telus.net...
Bob Badour
> that Bush's use of the adjective, coward, to describe the terrorists is
> wrong. The talk show host made a simple and accurate statement.
> Whatever adjectives we may use to describe them, coward doesn't cut it.
Um, you left out the part where he called America cowards, which is
what alienated his viewers and his customers.
> In America at the moment, there is effective suspension of freedom of
> speech.
I must point out that the US government has not suspended anyone's
freedom of speech. The US constitution does not require anyone in
particular to pay for an individual to exercise their right, and only
protects an individual's right against government coercion. In the
end, financing one's freedom of speech is one's own responsibility. If
Maher alienated his financiers, that's his own problem.
> CNN is not in the business of reporting news. They are in the
> business of defining the American mind and whipping up hysteria.
I know many American's whose minds are unaffected by CNN content. In
the final analysis, CNN is in the business of attracting viewers to
sell to advertisers.
> Other
> media march in step and nobody is questioning glaring problems such as
> the apparent lack of evidence against bin Laden.
Um, you mean like the statements he published declaring holy war
against the US? Can you really blame them for taking him up on his
declaration?
I expect a warring nation to keep their intelligence capabilities
secret. For instance, do think it would have been better for Churchill
to expose his hand to the Germans in order to save a few thousand
people in Coventry if it might mean losing the war and might mean
millions of additional casualties? I am only grateful that I do not
need to make such terrifying decisions.
> He may be guilty but
> the point is, the American government is not producing evidence and the
> media are blindly accepting the party line.
No government needs to provide evidence against those who have
declared war. They only need to defend their people from the
aggressor.
If anything, one can fault the US for not taking bin Laden's
declaration more seriously in the past.
> If the legacy of this
> disaster is suppression of dissent in America and Canada, then the
> terrorists have won a victory beyond their wildest dreams.
From what I have seen, the only dissent suppressed by the Canadian
media are those dissenters who realistically accept that we are at war
with frightening ideologues who will soon have the capability to
destroy us all.
> If we are interested in freedom, we will continue to express dissent
> without apology.
If your "dissent" involves outright lies, perverse illogic, evil
agendas such as promoting hatred of the US, or denial of basic facts,
I, for one, will continue to express reason without apology.
> What has happened to this talk show host is
> disturbing.
Let's see: A talk show host misjudged the sentiments of his viewing
audience and the values of his customers. He demonstrated extreme
insensitivity to a grieving nation and to soldiers expected to protect
that nation (and your sorry ass, I might add) against an evil, insane,
ideological group of terrorists.
I would call that ill-advised. I would call that poor judgement. I
would call that insensitive. I would call that thoughtless. It
disturbs me not at all.
> How different is the official American line from far right
> loonies such as Lambourne and Delanoy who accuse leftists of
> contributing to the attack because leftists have the audacity to be
> critical of American policies?
I did not know that George Orwell is a far right loonie:
http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2001/09/23/stiusausa01024.html
George Orwell noted in 1941: "In so far as it hampers the British war
effort, British pacifism is on the side of the Nazis and German
pacifism, if it exists, is on the side of Britain and the USSR. Since
pacifists have more freedom of action in countries where traces of
democracy survive, pacifism can act more effectively against democracy
than for it. Objectively the pacifist is pro-Nazi." Elsewhere he wrote
of the "unadmitted motive" of pacifism as being "hatred of western
democracy and admiration of totalitarianism".
What can I say? When the man is right, the man is right -- regardless
of any ideology he might espouse.
>
> Archie
Kurt Sims
"Zed Mister" <zedm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If he is willing to lose his own life in the process, then not a 'coward.'
> ... The correct word is probably 'martyr.'
Personally I prefer "mindless pawn". I find it funny how there has
never been anyone senior in the islamic jihad or any other nutcase group
willing to strap a bomb around their waist for allah, god or whoever.
Perhaps they think they are too important to do it, actually they are
the cowards.
Kurt
--
To reply by email remove the 2 copies of spam in my reply address.
Zed Mister
that about any nation these days. I don't recall Bush or Clinton shooting
at enemy troops during Vietnam.
"Kurt Sims" <sspa...@uspamcalgary.ca> wrote in message
news:sspamims-1B1FDF...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca...
Archie Kennedy
> > Whatever adjectives we may use to describe them, coward doesn't cut it.
>
> Um, you left out the part where he called America cowards, which is
> what alienated his viewers and his customers.
What he said is not the point. His right to say it is the point. By the way, did you notice
that you made a neurotic and annoying 'um' at the beginning of your sentence?
> > In America at the moment, there is effective suspension of freedom of
> > speech.
>
> I must point out that the US government has not suspended anyone's
> freedom of speech. The US constitution does not require anyone in
> particular to pay for an individual to exercise their right, and only
> protects an individual's right against government coercion. In the
> end, financing one's freedom of speech is one's own responsibility. If
> Maher alienated his financiers, that's his own problem.
First, a government official stood before CNN's large eye and stated that Maher should not have
said this. He was admonished publicly by a government official. The message is, for the rest of
the media rabble, 'watch what you say'. This is government control.
Secondly, you raise an interesting point. That is, the capitalist press has a mechanism that
promotes capitalism and discourages criticism of capitalism. That mechanism is advertisers. The
people that advertise are capitalists and criticism of capitalism will not be tolerated by the
funders of media.
That is not my complaint however. My complaint is the shutting down of dissent and free
expression by a government. This is intolerable.
> > CNN is not in the business of reporting news. They are in the
> > business of defining the American mind and whipping up hysteria.
>
> I know many American's whose minds are unaffected by CNN content. In
> the final analysis, CNN is in the business of attracting viewers to
> sell to advertisers.
Exactly.
> > Other
> > media march in step and nobody is questioning glaring problems such as
> > the apparent lack of evidence against bin Laden.
>
> Um, you mean like the statements he published declaring holy war
> against the US? Can you really blame them for taking him up on his
> declaration?
Nope. I can't blame them for taking a madman seriously. Again with the neurotic 'um'. Could
you do something about this?
> I expect a warring nation to keep their intelligence capabilities
> secret. For instance, do think it would have been better for Churchill
> to expose his hand to the Germans in order to save a few thousand
> people in Coventry if it might mean losing the war and might mean
> millions of additional casualties? I am only grateful that I do not
> need to make such terrifying decisions.
I would expect Churchill to tell the nation the reasons why the nation is at war against
Germany. I believe Churchill did this. Simply saying bin Laden did it is not enough. The fact
is, if they had evidence against him, we would know about it. But I agree that the Americans
recent reporting that Americans and British are operating in Afghanistan would be foolhardy if
indeed they are actually there.
> > He may be guilty but
> > the point is, the American government is not producing evidence and the
> > media are blindly accepting the party line.
>
> No government needs to provide evidence against those who have
> declared war. They only need to defend their people from the
> aggressor.
Jesus fucking Christ. Are you serious? You actually believe that it is okay to declare war on a
country without proof that there is a reason to do so. Man oh fucking man you are scary.
> If anything, one can fault the US for not taking bin Laden's
> declaration more seriously in the past.
>
> > If the legacy of this
> > disaster is suppression of dissent in America and Canada, then the
> > terrorists have won a victory beyond their wildest dreams.
>
> From what I have seen, the only dissent suppressed by the Canadian
> media are those dissenters who realistically accept that we are at war
> with frightening ideologues who will soon have the capability to
> destroy us all.
What does this sentence mean?
> > If we are interested in freedom, we will continue to express dissent
> > without apology.
>
> If your "dissent" involves outright lies, perverse illogic, evil
> agendas such as promoting hatred of the US, or denial of basic facts,
> I, for one, will continue to express reason without apology.
Reason itself is why dissent is important. You cannot depend on your superiors to be reasonable
as history shows us. In any case, freedom includes permitting outright lies, perverse logic
and so on. Reason is what is needed to counter lies and that is why freedom of expression is so
important. When governments act and use premises that are based in flawed reasoning to do it, we
can respond. We can also respond to fascistic and authoritarian policies with protest and
outrage.
> > What has happened to this talk show host is
> > disturbing.
>
> Let's see: A talk show host misjudged the sentiments of his viewing
> audience and the values of his customers. He demonstrated extreme
> insensitivity to a grieving nation and to soldiers expected to protect
> that nation (and your sorry ass, I might add) against an evil, insane,
> ideological group of terrorists.
He has a right to be insensitive. When you permit governments to shut him up, you are
responsible for the climate of fear to use free expression. At that point you are part of the
problem.
> I would call that ill-advised. I would call that poor judgement. I
> would call that insensitive. I would call that thoughtless. It
> disturbs me not at all.
Yes, I believe you.
> > How different is the official American line from far right
> > loonies such as Lambourne and Delanoy who accuse leftists of
> > contributing to the attack because leftists have the audacity to be
> > critical of American policies?
>
> I did not know that George Orwell is a far right loonie:
>
> http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2001/09/23/stiusausa01024.html
>
> George Orwell noted in 1941: "In so far as it hampers the British war
> effort, British pacifism is on the side of the Nazis and German
> pacifism, if it exists, is on the side of Britain and the USSR. Since
> pacifists have more freedom of action in countries where traces of
> democracy survive, pacifism can act more effectively against democracy
> than for it. Objectively the pacifist is pro-Nazi." Elsewhere he wrote
> of the "unadmitted motive" of pacifism as being "hatred of western
> democracy and admiration of totalitarianism".
>
> What can I say? When the man is right, the man is right -- regardless
> of any ideology he might espouse.
Pacifists are allies with the enemy eh? Holy shit.
I'm curious. Do you believe that pacifism should be tolerated?
Archie
SenfTours
Archie will try to respond to you.
RES
Let's be clear about what parallels you draw re: Orwell's position on
pacifism and its effect on the fight against fascism.
Who exactly is opposed to finding and prosecuting these terrorists for
crimes against humanity? I haven't heard anyone credible advocating
inaction. I certainly support a deliberate, meaningful persecution of
the terrorists and the necessary attendant force that needs to be used.
It seems anyone who is hoping for the US to undertake some measure of
self reflection as to *why* the world is less safe for them is
'complicit' with the attackers. This is totalitarian language &
technique designed to stifle all dissent in a free and democratic
society.
One would hope at some point there is a realization somewhere that a
more just world would likely be a safer world. Now I can almost hear the
apoplexia of those who agree that any critical analysis of US foreign
policy is aiding and abetting the terrorists. Congrats! You are
fulfilling objective #2 of the terrorists. I guess by that perverted
logic these people are aiding and abetting the terrorists by their
actions. Of course, this is a flawed logic, as flawed as the 'far
rights' logic.
Orwell was bang on on his assessment of pacifism's negative effect on
the British war effort. It is flawed logic to employ a similar
parallel/comparison to those who want to prosecute the terrorists and,
at some point, reflect on our own sins.
Funny thing a world which isn't as black and white as we would like,
isn't it. RES
RES
Archie Kennedy wrote:
> <dialogue snipped>
> >
> > No government needs to provide evidence against those who have
> > declared war. They only need to defend their people from the
> > aggressor.
>
> Jesus fucking Christ. Are you serious? You actually believe that it is okay to declare war on a
> country without proof that there is a reason to do so. Man oh fucking man you are scary.
>
You'd think American legislators will learn from the lesson of the Gulf
of Tonkin Incident, where those around LBJ conjured up a phony attack on
a US 'warship' to expand the pres's powers and escalate military action
in Vietnam.
I keep hearing 'proof' and 'evidence' coming from newsreaders but have't
yet seen it. Now if there is significant evidence then fine, go after
him ( go after him anyway after USS Cole etc), but at some point if the
international community is to be satisfied, especially the Islamic 5th
of the world, reasonable evidence must be brought forth publically. RES
> > If anything, one can fault the US for not taking bin Laden's
> > declaration more seriously in the past.
> >
> > > If the legacy of this
> > > disaster is suppression of dissent in America and Canada, then the
> > > terrorists have won a victory beyond their wildest dreams.
> >
yes, more recruits for bin Laden et al (and a less safe world)that's for
sure. RES
> > From what I have seen, the only dissent suppressed by the Canadian
> > media are those dissenters who realistically accept that we are at war
> > with frightening ideologues who will soon have the capability to
> > destroy us all.
>
> What does this sentence mean?
>
Yes, dissenters of what? RES
> > > If we are interested in freedom, we will continue to express dissent
> > > without apology.
> >
> > If your "dissent" involves outright lies, perverse illogic, evil
> > agendas such as promoting hatred of the US, or denial of basic facts,
> > I, for one, will continue to express reason without apology.
>
'Promoting hatred against US'? Who? RES
Micheal Wilson
> speech. CNN is not in the business of reporting news. They are in the
> business of defining the American mind and whipping up hysteria. >
>
I snipped some of what you said, Archie, because I'm only responding to this
point.
You could not be more right. CNN has become an American propaganda machine,
to make sure Americans are onside in this anti-terrorist battle.
"WAR WAR WAR"
"BIN LADEN BIN LADEN BIN LADEN"
"PAKISTAN IS OUR ALLY"
"ANYONE WHO IS NOT WITH US IS AGAINST US"
These are just part of THE MESSAGE that CNN has been hammering into our
heads over the past few weeks. And you are right, there are no dissenting
voices in the media. I keep expecting to see that image of somebody holding
up a sign with the words "This Is The Enemy", with bin Laden's face
superimposed on it.
The idea is that we are to stupid too know that we are angry about what
happened at the World Trade Centre.
It's unnecessary. We are onside, we want harsh justice to be meted out on
the perpetrators. But people are beginning to get tired of THE MESSAGE.
They are beginning to question THE MESSAGE. They are beginning to ask where
the evidence is. They are beginning to ask why they can't speak their minds
if they want to.
Propaganda is about fooling people into feeling a certain way. Ironically
though, it was an American who said "You can't fool all of the people all of
the time". And it seems that it will be Americans who are going to prove
it.
--
Mike
Not all right wingers are extremist nutbars.
Valentine Michael Smith
Glad you used the word "professes", his words and actions indicate he
is not despite trying to wrap himself with the benefits of the term
libertarian.
**********************
n' keep it in yur mind and not ferget
that it is not he or she or them or it
that you belong to
Robert Zimmerman
.......
For information in libertarians in Ontario www.libertarian.on.ca
December 2nd www.walkforcapitalism.org
**************************
Valentine Michael Smith
<Michea...@ooyah.com> wrote:
In all this you say not one word on why we should not accept THE
MESSAGE or what may be wrong with it. Sounds like propoganda to me.
**********************
Valentine Michael Smith
<stew...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Maher is a Libertarian. And they mentioned this in passing on SNL last night
>(if you caught it [it was in the Jesse Jackson bit] it was pretty funny)
He may claim to be libertarian - but his words and actions are not
libertarian: Rather than detail it myself try -
http://www.salon.com/ent/tv/feature/2001/08/01/maher/
The libertarian parties website on the issue confirms the articles
opinion:
http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0109/maher.html
I have watched the show a few times (I'm very active as a libertarian)
and as an example of just how much he has no problem with
authoritarian governments actions take when Whoppi Goldberg said "what
was so wrong with communism" - he just nodded in agreement.
Yes in a few areas he agrees with the libertarian idea, but only where
it suits his purpose at that time.
E. Barry Bruyea
Michael Smith) wrote:
>On Sun, 30 Sep 2001 13:36:39 -0400, "stewacide"
><stew...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Maher is a Libertarian. And they mentioned this in passing on SNL last night
>>(if you caught it [it was in the Jesse Jackson bit] it was pretty funny)
>
>He may claim to be libertarian - but his words and actions are not
>libertarian: Rather than detail it myself try -
>
>http://www.salon.com/ent/tv/feature/2001/08/01/maher/
>
>The libertarian parties website on the issue confirms the articles
>opinion:
>
>http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0109/maher.html
>
>I have watched the show a few times (I'm very active as a libertarian)
>and as an example of just how much he has no problem with
>authoritarian governments actions take when Whoppi Goldberg said "what
>was so wrong with communism" - he just nodded in agreement.
>
>Yes in a few areas he agrees with the libertarian idea, but only where
>it suits his purpose at that time.
>
>**********************
>
>n' keep it in yur mind and not ferget
>that it is not he or she or them or it
>that you belong to
>
>Robert Zimmerman
Bill Maher is a political dilletante. He was a second rate actor, and
second rate stand-up comedian who got lucky with a strictly cable
show, "Politically Incorrect" and then got even luckier when ABC
picked it up. His knowledge of politics and the history of his own
country has shown to be superficial at best and some of the statements
he has made on his show have been downright idiotic and those
statements made by guests that he has agreed with have been even more
stupid. As far as Maher being a libertarian, I doubt he even
understands the concept. Political opportunist, yes, Libertarian, no
way. (But he is a member of PETA, so he does have the ability to
commit to something.)
Having said all that, I have to laugh at some on the left who have
jumped to his defence in regards to his official 'censorship' when day
after day, speech not considered 'politically correct' is blue
penciled from scripts by network bureaucrats.
Do I agree with him being "Officially Censored?" Certainly not.
nkennedy
where it suits his purpose at that time.."-> Valentine Michael Smith
Strange eh? How that fact applies to EVERY poster here who declares
themselves Libertarian.
They all cheer or say nothing whenever a person or group they
disagree with is getting it the neck, most recently WTO protester.
You are not qualified to "cast the stone"
Neil K
SunnyJim
<aken...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Here is the principle: if I own a media outlet, a private enterprise,
I am not legally obliged to provide you time or space to vent your
views if I disagree with them. It is my property and I can use it as I
choose. FedEx and the other advertisers choose to not support the
host. It is their perogatiive.
If the state thru the courts forces me to give space to views I
disagree with then there is no private property so let us get rid of
the facade of property rights.
See Andrew Coyne's article on this subject today in the NP. A good
counterpoint.
SunnyJim
<stew...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Maher is a Libertarian. And they mentioned this in passing on SNL last night
>(if you caught it [it was in the Jesse Jackson bit] it was pretty funny)
If Maher is a Libertarian, I must be off the scale. He is standard
issue middle of the road. He argues for the orthodoxy. He hates Bush,
Clinton and the rest but would take a Democrat over a Republican any
day. He is a fake.
SunnyJim
Michael Smith) wrote:
>On Sun, 30 Sep 2001 13:36:39 -0400, "stewacide"
><stew...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Maher is a Libertarian. And they mentioned this in passing on SNL last night
>>(if you caught it [it was in the Jesse Jackson bit] it was pretty funny)
>
>He may claim to be libertarian - but his words and actions are not
>libertarian: Rather than detail it myself try -
>
>http://www.salon.com/ent/tv/feature/2001/08/01/maher/
>
>The libertarian parties website on the issue confirms the articles
>opinion:
>
>http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0109/maher.html
>
>I have watched the show a few times (I'm very active as a libertarian)
>and as an example of just how much he has no problem with
>authoritarian governments actions take when Whoppi Goldberg said "what
>was so wrong with communism" - he just nodded in agreement.
Maher is a fake. And Whoopi? Amazing how these rich hollywood types
luv Marxism. Clueless.
SunnyJim
wrote:
>If he is willing to lose his own life in the process, then not a 'coward.'
>... The correct word is probably 'martyr.'
Previously they were called kamakazi.
SunnyJim
<aken...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> The talk show host made a simple and accurate statement.
>> > Whatever adjectives we may use to describe them, coward doesn't cut it.
>>
>> Um, you left out the part where he called America cowards, which is
>> what alienated his viewers and his customers.
>
>What he said is not the point. His right to say it is the point. By the way, did you notice
>that you made a neurotic and annoying 'um' at the beginning of your sentence?
Maher nor anyone has the 'right' to a soap box paid for by anyone
else.
Micheal Wilson
"Valentine Michael Smith" <noth...@spammer.com> wrote in message
news:3bba5f6c.1627120@news...
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2001 22:31:33 -0700, "Micheal Wilson"
> <Michea...@ooyah.com> wrote:
>
> In all this you say not one word on why we should not accept THE
> MESSAGE or what may be wrong with it. Sounds like propoganda to me.
>
Maybe you should read Orwell's "1984" and Huxley's "Brave New World". These
are both works of fiction, describing an utopian/dystopian society. Perhaps
you will gain new insight into the media and propaganda.
I hope you are not suggesting that we should blindly accept what I call THE
MESSAGE. If you believe as I do that Osama bin Laden is likely guilty, I
hope you put some thought into it, as I did, before reaching that
conclusion, rather than taking CNN's word for it. And I hope you also
expect to see some evidence as to his guilt before the US goes after
Afghanistan.
I hope you still use your brain.(don't take that as an insult)
Valentine Michael Smith
wrote:
>"..Yes in a few areas he agrees with the libertarian idea, but only
>where it suits his purpose at that time.."-> Valentine Michael Smith
>
> Strange eh? How that fact applies to EVERY poster here who declares
>themselves Libertarian.
I only speakfor me - show me even one example of where I have been
inconsistant in applying the libertarian idea. There are several
others here that could say the same of their consistancy but since you
shout "every" so loud all I need is one to show you are wrong.
Specifics please of where your comment can be shown to have any basis
in fact.
> They all cheer or say nothing whenever a person or group they
>disagree with is getting it the neck, most recently WTO protester.
> You are not qualified to "cast the stone"
>
If someone was to suggest government intervention or that the opinions
they do not like should be censored then that would be inconsistant
with the libertarian idea. To simply not rush to the defense of
someone they disagree with is still consistant.
PS shouting yout opinion does not increase it's credance - so just the
facts in your reply SVP.
nkennedy
someone they disagree with is still consistant"->Valentine Michael Smith
Exactly the nub of YOUR hypocrisy.
Neil K
Valentine Michael Smith
<Michea...@ooyah.com> wrote:
>.
>
>
>"Valentine Michael Smith" <noth...@spammer.com> wrote in message
>news:3bba5f6c.1627120@news...
>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2001 22:31:33 -0700, "Micheal Wilson"
>> <Michea...@ooyah.com> wrote:
>>
>> In all this you say not one word on why we should not accept THE
>> MESSAGE or what may be wrong with it. Sounds like propoganda to me.
>>
>
>Maybe you should read Orwell's "1984" and Huxley's "Brave New World". These
>are both works of fiction, describing an utopian/dystopian society. Perhaps
>you will gain new insight into the media and propaganda.
I read both books. In them the government controlled all media and was
inseparable from that media and indeed communication became
inseparable from what the government wanted you to think or even be
able to articulate - i.e. "newspeak".
These books are parables on authoritarian government's excess, not on
the mass media as it exists in our society - well the cbc is part way
there I guess ;)
>I hope you are not suggesting that we should blindly accept what I call THE
>MESSAGE. If you believe as I do that Osama bin Laden is likely guilty, I
>hope you put some thought into it, as I did, before reaching that
>conclusion, rather than taking CNN's word for it. And I hope you also
>expect to see some evidence as to his guilt before the US goes after
>Afghanistan.
Read the message again and you will notice I am mocking the lack of
content in your message - which claims to be refuting the mass media
as vacuous propoganda. Your like the pot calling the kettle black
Sure they make mistakes and are manipulated but I suspect I question
them more than you do, and I question them when I have reason or
evidence to do so, not just shoot the messanger when I do not like the
message.
>I hope you still use your brain.(don't take that as an insult)
Always do.
Bob Badour
> > The talk show host made a simple and accurate statement.
> > > Whatever adjectives we may use to describe them, coward doesn't cut it.
> >
> > Um, you left out the part where he called America cowards, which is
> > what alienated his viewers and his customers.
>
> What he said is not the point. His right to say it is the point. By the way, did you notice
> that you made a neurotic and annoying 'um' at the beginning of your sentence?
...and his financiers have a right to withdraw his funding. Do you
have a point?
The US government has not deprived him or anyone else their first
amendment right in this matter. If they had, they would have jailed
Jennings ages ago.
Um, what makes you think it is neurotic?
> > > In America at the moment, there is effective suspension of freedom of
> > > speech.
> >
> > I must point out that the US government has not suspended anyone's
> > freedom of speech. The US constitution does not require anyone in
> > particular to pay for an individual to exercise their right, and only
> > protects an individual's right against government coercion. In the
> > end, financing one's freedom of speech is one's own responsibility. If
> > Maher alienated his financiers, that's his own problem.
>
> First, a government official stood before CNN's large eye and stated that Maher should not have
> said this.
...which is the government official's right under the first amendment.
Would you deny government employees that right? Nobody arrested Maher.
Nobody forcibly silenced Maher. Nobody silenced CNN.
> He was admonished publicly by a government official.
Which does not impinge upon his right of free speech. If he wants
people to respect his freedom of speech, he must respect the right of
those who disagree.
> The message is, for the rest of
> the media rabble, 'watch what you say'. This is government control.
No, this is a government official expressing his opinion. Government
control is pulling CNN's license to broadcast. Government control is
arresting Maher. Government control is destroying cameras and shooting
people. They do those sorts of things in Afghanistan and Indonesia.
> Secondly, you raise an interesting point. That is, the capitalist press has a mechanism that
> promotes capitalism and discourages criticism of capitalism.
And rightly so. Capitalism raises standards of living and affords
freedoms our forebears could hardly have ever dreamed.
> That mechanism is advertisers. The
> people that advertise are capitalists and criticism of capitalism will not be tolerated by the
> funders of media.
I guess that's why PBS is such a staunch supporter of capitalism and
silences all dissenting viewpoints. I guess that's why MIT stripped
Chomsky of his tenure ages ago. I guess that's why the networks
silenced Jennings' brand of socialist pap ages ago.
Oh, what do you mean they haven't done any of those things yet?
> That is not my complaint however. My complaint is the shutting down of dissent and free
> expression by a government. This is intolerable.
If you honestly believe this, you must support the war against the
Taliban regime in Afghanistan, one of the most repressive governments
on the face of this earth and a government that has driven a million
or more of its constituents to the brink of starvation.
As for Maher, nobody has shut down his free expression. His is still
free to say whatever he wants to whomever he wants.
> > > CNN is not in the business of reporting news. They are in the
> > > business of defining the American mind and whipping up hysteria.
> >
> > I know many American's whose minds are unaffected by CNN content. In
> > the final analysis, CNN is in the business of attracting viewers to
> > sell to advertisers.
>
> Exactly.
>
> > > Other
> > > media march in step and nobody is questioning glaring problems such as
> > > the apparent lack of evidence against bin Laden.
> >
> > Um, you mean like the statements he published declaring holy war
> > against the US? Can you really blame them for taking him up on his
> > declaration?
>
> Nope. I can't blame them for taking a madman seriously.
I blame them for not taking him seriously even after the first or
second terrorist attack he sponsored. Mad or not, he is a serious
risk. Are you claiming that the world should have ignored Hitler or
Stalin due to their mental states?
> Again with the neurotic 'um'. Could
> you do something about this?
Um, what neurotic 'um'?
> > I expect a warring nation to keep their intelligence capabilities
> > secret. For instance, do think it would have been better for Churchill
> > to expose his hand to the Germans in order to save a few thousand
> > people in Coventry if it might mean losing the war and might mean
> > millions of additional casualties? I am only grateful that I do not
> > need to make such terrifying decisions.
>
> I would expect Churchill to tell the nation the reasons why the nation is at war against
> Germany.
Well, then the current war should not bother you. Bush has already
told the nation and the world why it is at war. Bin Laden has already
told the nation and the world why he is at war.
> I believe Churchill did this.
I don't recall him telling Coventry about the impending bomb attack
that levelled the city with tremendous casualties.
> Simply saying bin Laden did it is not enough.
I agree. But bin Laden already publicly declared war on the US. The US
has finally decided that he actually meant it.
> The fact
> is, if they had evidence against him, we would know about it.
bin Laden declared war on the US; no further evidence is necessary.
When Germany declared war on Britain, France, Poland or whomever, that
was the only justification required to wage war against Germany.
> But I agree that the Americans
> recent reporting that Americans and British are operating in Afghanistan would be foolhardy if
> indeed they are actually there.
It might. It might not. If they have already engaged the enemy, the
enemy already knows.
> > > He may be guilty but
> > > the point is, the American government is not producing evidence and the
> > > media are blindly accepting the party line.
> >
> > No government needs to provide evidence against those who have
> > declared war. They only need to defend their people from the
> > aggressor.
>
> Jesus fucking Christ. Are you serious? You actually believe that it is okay to declare war on a
> country without proof that there is a reason to do so.
No it is not, which is why I don't think it was okay for bin Laden to
declare war on the US. Can you blame the US for defending themselves
against his aggression or for engaging his staunch allies?
> Man oh fucking man you are scary.
I was thinking the same about you.
> > If anything, one can fault the US for not taking bin Laden's
> > declaration more seriously in the past.
> >
> > > If the legacy of this
> > > disaster is suppression of dissent in America and Canada, then the
> > > terrorists have won a victory beyond their wildest dreams.
> >
> > From what I have seen, the only dissent suppressed by the Canadian
> > media are those dissenters who realistically accept that we are at war
> > with frightening ideologues who will soon have the capability to
> > destroy us all.
>
> What does this sentence mean?
Exactly what it says. Is english a second language for you?
> > > If we are interested in freedom, we will continue to express dissent
> > > without apology.
> >
> > If your "dissent" involves outright lies, perverse illogic, evil
> > agendas such as promoting hatred of the US, or denial of basic facts,
> > I, for one, will continue to express reason without apology.
>
> Reason itself is why dissent is important. You cannot depend on your superiors to be reasonable
> as history shows us.
Recent history has demonstrated this in the starkest light. We could
not depend on Clinton or his government to reasonably address the
threat bin Laden posed to the west. Instead of facing the war, they
ignored it. They chose, instead, to shoot a bunch of missiles at
inconsequential targets, thump their chests and go home.
> In any case, freedom includes permitting outright lies, perverse logic
> and so on.
It also permits reasoned responses to them.
> Reason is what is needed to counter lies and that is why freedom of expression is so
> important.
I am free to express my opinions. You are free to express your
opinions. Maher is free to express his opinions. What, exactly, is
your gripe?
> When governments act and use premises that are based in flawed reasoning to do it, we
> can respond.
What is "it"?
> We can also respond to fascistic and authoritarian policies with protest and
> outrage.
In that case, I expect you will celebrate the liberation of the
oppressed people of Afghanistan after the defeat of the Taliban
regime.
> > > What has happened to this talk show host is
> > > disturbing.
> >
> > Let's see: A talk show host misjudged the sentiments of his viewing
> > audience and the values of his customers. He demonstrated extreme
> > insensitivity to a grieving nation and to soldiers expected to protect
> > that nation (and your sorry ass, I might add) against an evil, insane,
> > ideological group of terrorists.
>
> He has a right to be insensitive.
Nobody has denied him that right.
> When you permit governments to shut him up, you are
> responsible for the climate of fear to use free expression.
No government has silenced him. I have seen him on TV several times
since his insensitive remarks, and he is as free as you or I to
express his ideas here or on any other forum he can afford.
> At that point you are part of the
> problem.
What point? What problem?
> > I would call that ill-advised. I would call that poor judgement. I
> > would call that insensitive. I would call that thoughtless. It
> > disturbs me not at all.
>
> Yes, I believe you.
>
> > > How different is the official American line from far right
> > > loonies such as Lambourne and Delanoy who accuse leftists of
> > > contributing to the attack because leftists have the audacity to be
> > > critical of American policies?
> >
> > I did not know that George Orwell is a far right loonie:
> >
> > http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2001/09/23/stiusausa01024.html
> >
> > George Orwell noted in 1941: "In so far as it hampers the British war
> > effort, British pacifism is on the side of the Nazis and German
> > pacifism, if it exists, is on the side of Britain and the USSR. Since
> > pacifists have more freedom of action in countries where traces of
> > democracy survive, pacifism can act more effectively against democracy
> > than for it. Objectively the pacifist is pro-Nazi." Elsewhere he wrote
> > of the "unadmitted motive" of pacifism as being "hatred of western
> > democracy and admiration of totalitarianism".
> >
> > What can I say? When the man is right, the man is right -- regardless
> > of any ideology he might espouse.
>
> Pacifists are allies with the enemy eh? Holy shit.
Do you have a reasoned response to Orwell's valid and well-thought
logical argument? Or are you going to rely solely on visceral
exclamations of disbelief?
> I'm curious. Do you believe that pacifism should be tolerated?
Yes. Do you believe it should be promoted or encouraged when faced
with totalitarian enemies who are eager for war?
Apparently, you believe we should suppress any expression of
disagreement or moral judgement by any government employee.
Apparently, you believe we should use forceful government coercion and
require businesses to fund television broadcasts they deem contrary to
their own self-interest and values. Apparently, you think this would
increase freedom and not destroy it.
> Archie
Bob Badour
> Archie Kennedy wrote:
> > > From what I have seen, the only dissent suppressed by the Canadian
> > > media are those dissenters who realistically accept that we are at war
> > > with frightening ideologues who will soon have the capability to
> > > destroy us all.
> >
> > What does this sentence mean?
> >
>
> Yes, dissenters of what? RES
Dissenters of the left wing political correctness apparent in the
Canadian media.
> > > > If we are interested in freedom, we will continue to express dissent
> > > > without apology.
> > >
> > > If your "dissent" involves outright lies, perverse illogic, evil
> > > agendas such as promoting hatred of the US, or denial of basic facts,
> > > I, for one, will continue to express reason without apology.
> >
>
> 'Promoting hatred against US'? Who? RES
Nobody in this thread. Although, google picks up something from 1999
to include in the thread that does qualify.
Bob Badour
> Bob Badour wrote:
> >
> > Archie Kennedy <aken...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3BB731D4...@hotmail.com>...
> >
> > http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2001/09/23/stiusausa01024.html
> >
> > George Orwell noted in 1941: "In so far as it hampers the British war
> > effort, British pacifism is on the side of the Nazis and German
> > pacifism, if it exists, is on the side of Britain and the USSR. Since
> > pacifists have more freedom of action in countries where traces of
> > democracy survive, pacifism can act more effectively against democracy
> > than for it. Objectively the pacifist is pro-Nazi." Elsewhere he wrote
> > of the "unadmitted motive" of pacifism as being "hatred of western
> > democracy and admiration of totalitarianism".
> >
> > What can I say? When the man is right, the man is right -- regardless
> > of any ideology he might espouse.
> >
> > >
> > > Archie
>
> Let's be clear about what parallels you draw re: Orwell's position on
> pacifism and its effect on the fight against fascism.
>
> Who exactly is opposed to finding and prosecuting these terrorists for
> crimes against humanity?
*I* am against prosecuting these terrorists for crimes against
humanity. They have not committed any. They have committed heinous
acts of war against the civilian population of a reluctant albeit much
more powerful enemy, but these are not crimes against humanity.
For instance, they have not yet attempted genocide against any of
their subjects; although, the Taliban's treatment of the Afghani
population borders on it.
If indiscriminate targeting of areas with predominantly civilian
populations were crimes against humanity, we would have to indict
Churchill for the decision to indiscriminately bomb Dresden and other
German-held cities during WWII. We would have to indict Truman for
sacrificing well over a hundred thousand Japanese citizens of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- thereby saving millions of lives that Japan
would have lost defending itself against a conventional invasion.
> I haven't heard anyone credible advocating
> inaction.
Weasel words like "credible" render your arguments meaningless. I have
heard several people advocate inaction including Alexa McDonough.
> I certainly support a deliberate, meaningful persecution of
> the terrorists and the necessary attendant force that needs to be used.
What do you think "war" means?
> It seems anyone who is hoping for the US to undertake some measure of
> self reflection as to *why* the world is less safe for them is
> 'complicit' with the attackers.
I addressed these points in another thread:
>>> Repeat broadcast
Those who require "rationalization or introspection" from North
America practise an evil, dangerous, disgusting sedition. I must not
and will not attempt to rationalize the irrational acts of fanatical
lunatics. This way lies madness. The victims of violence do not
require introspection. To heal, we require confrontation. For some
strange reason, I doubt that these same socialists and terrorist
sympathizers would counsel a rape victim to introspect. The people who
tell these apologists to "rot in hell" merely recognize where they
rightly belong.
Those of us who are truly "cognisant of the reasons why it happened"
know that the US is blameless. The evil and wretched will always
attack the good and great simply to remove the comparison. This holds
especially true for wretchedness dissonant with ideology, which is as
much the case for the socialists and communists who apparently
hijacked the CBC as it is for the terrorists who hijacked the jets.
<<< /Repeat broadcast
We are at war. We have been at war for a long time, but until recently
we have been too arrogant and complacent to recognize that fact.
The world is safer for us today than it was on Sept. 10, which makes
me wonder why anyone would contemplate why it is less safe.
> This is totalitarian language &
> technique designed to stifle all dissent in a free and democratic
> society.
Bullshit. Orwell's argument is a rational, logical analysis of the
eventualities and morals of one's behaviour. Are you aware of the
irony in accusing Orwell of using "totalitarian language & technique"
?
Those who attempt to redefine war as crime use totalitarian technique.
Those who use overqualified, meaningless arguments use totalitarian
technique. Those who redefine oppressors as the oppressed use
totalitarian technique. Those who confuse the rules of evidence in a
courtroom for the rules of probable cause on the streets use
totalitarian technique.
When disgusting lefties demand "evidence of wrongdoing" against a man
who has publicly declared war and incited insurrection, whose song do
you think they sing?
> One would hope at some point there is a realization somewhere that a
> more just world would likely be a safer world.
The US is a just country, and it is a safe country. The rational
people in this world have known this for a very long time.
> Now I can almost hear the
> apoplexia of those who agree that any critical analysis of US foreign
> policy is aiding and abetting the terrorists. Congrats! You are
> fulfilling objective #2 of the terrorists.
First, I do not know of any such apoplexia. Second, critical analysis
of US foreign policy will yield the conclusion that Clinton blew it by
not engaging the enemy in any realistic manner eight years ago.
> I guess by that perverted
> logic these people are aiding and abetting the terrorists by their
> actions.
It is an interesting straw man you have constructed, but it doesn't
prove much beyond your imaginative capabilities.
> Of course, this is a flawed logic, as flawed as the 'far
> rights' logic.
Who do you think is "far right" and what logic do you think they
employ? It would interest me to know exactly what you argue against.
> Orwell was bang on on his assessment of pacifism's negative effect on
> the British war effort. It is flawed logic to employ a similar
> parallel/comparison to those who want to prosecute the terrorists and,
> at some point, reflect on our own sins.
What sins? The liberation of the muslim people of Kuwait? The
liberation of the muslim people of Kosovo? Attempting to provide aid
to the famine-stricken people of Somalia?
I don't suppose you mean our actual sins like when we knowingly
ignored the plight of the East Timorese at the hands of Indonesia for
political expediency.
> Funny thing a world which isn't as black and white as we would like,
> isn't it. RES
What is not black and white about it?
Bob Badour
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2001 22:31:33 -0700, "Micheal Wilson"
> <Michea...@ooyah.com> wrote:
>
> In all this you say not one word on why we should not accept THE
> MESSAGE or what may be wrong with it. Sounds like propoganda to me.
>
He doesn't question from whom he got the idea to ask for "evidence",
and he doesn't offer any demonstration that people "can't speak their
minds if they want to." He just states this stuff and expects us to
believe it without question.
If I recall correctly, Goebels called it "the big lie".
Bob Badour
>
> "Valentine Michael Smith" <noth...@spammer.com> wrote in message
> news:3bba5f6c.1627120@news...
> > On Sun, 30 Sep 2001 22:31:33 -0700, "Micheal Wilson"
> > <Michea...@ooyah.com> wrote:
> >
> > In all this you say not one word on why we should not accept THE
> > MESSAGE or what may be wrong with it. Sounds like propoganda to me.
>
> Maybe you should read Orwell's "1984" and Huxley's "Brave New World". These
> are both works of fiction, describing an utopian/dystopian society. Perhaps
> you will gain new insight into the media and propaganda.
> I hope you are not suggesting that we should blindly accept what I call THE
> MESSAGE.
I hope you are not suggesting that we should blindly accept statements
like:
The US is not under wartime attack. Bin Laden is an innocent
business-man living a peaceful life in Afghanistan bothering nobody.
The US requires further evidence that bin Laden publicly declared war
on them years ago. People cannot speak their minds if they want to.
From what I have seen, some people need to exercise their minds more
than they speak them.
> If you believe as I do that Osama bin Laden is likely guilty, I
> hope you put some thought into it, as I did, before reaching that
> conclusion, rather than taking CNN's word for it.
How much thought is required to accept his prior public statements
declaring holy war against the US and urging all pious muslims to rise
up in arms against the citizens of the US -- both military and
civilian?
> And I hope you also
> expect to see some evidence as to his guilt before the US goes after
> Afghanistan.
When a Grand Jury convenes and issues an indictment, I assume
sufficient evidence exists to require a trier of fact and, if
requested, a jury of peers to examine evidence. I do not expect law
enforcement officers or prosecutors to reveal evidence to the general
public prior to a trial; although, I do expect prosecutors to disclose
evidence to the defence after the accused is arrested and prior to
trial.
Further, bin Laden publicly and vocally declared war on the US in no
uncertain terms. Those public actions reveal him as an enemy without
requiring any further evidence. The Taliban are his declared allies
and protectors, which makes them an enemy without requiring any
further evidence.
The US has given the Taliban ample warning and opportunity to withdraw
from this conflict. They have chosen not to withdraw.
EVIDENCE:
From http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/99129502.htm
August 1996 Declaration of War
On or about August 23, 1996, Usama bin Laden signed and issued a
Declaration of jihad (holy war) from Afghanistan entitled, "Message
from Usama bin Laden to his Muslim Brothers in the Whole World and
Especially in the Arabian Peninsula: Declaration of Jihad Against the
Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Mosques; Expel the
Heretics from the Arabian Peninsula."
For those foolish enough to parrot the Taliban's demands for evidence,
no matter how much evidence the US publishes, the Taliban will not
extradite bin Laden to stand trial.
From From http://islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=2494
Even if a billion Kuffaar say the opposite, the word of a single
practising Muslim is more acceptable to us.
Mufti Ebrahim Desai
FATWA DEPT.
If you do not like CNN's coverage, check out:
http://www.public-i.org/excerpts_01_091301.htm
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/binladen.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_519000/519776.stm
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/kayyem_terrorism_nd.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,550243,00.html
http://www.arabia.com/news/article/english/0,1690,50063,00.html
http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/bldnst.htm
http://www.diaspora-net.org/food4thought/binladen__kla.htm
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/special/attack/pages/investigation_0913_a3_2.html
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,41329,00.asp
http://www.inq7.net/nat/2001/sep/13/nat_2-1.htm
From http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/africa/newsid_157000/157902.stm
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1576/730528.html
http://www.state.gov/www/regions/sa/bin_laden_charges.html
http://www.state.gov/www/regions/sa/fact_sheet_taliban.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/bombings/charges.html
http://www.adl.org/terrorism_america/bin_l.asp
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/strikes980821.html
http://meadev.nic.in/news/clippings/19990918/toi2.htm
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/usreax_980823.html
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/binladen990224.html
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/binladen_990716.html
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/terrormain980610.html
> I hope you still use your brain.(don't take that as an insult)
I do. I wish you would. (don't take that as an insult)
Bob Badour
> On Tue, 2 Oct 2001 10:32:45 -0700, "Micheal Wilson"
> <Michea...@ooyah.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Valentine Michael Smith" <noth...@spammer.com> wrote in message
> >news:3bba5f6c.1627120@news...
> >> On Sun, 30 Sep 2001 22:31:33 -0700, "Micheal Wilson"
> >> <Michea...@ooyah.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> In all this you say not one word on why we should not accept THE
> >> MESSAGE or what may be wrong with it. Sounds like propoganda to me.
> >
> >Maybe you should read Orwell's "1984" and Huxley's "Brave New World". These
> >are both works of fiction, describing an utopian/dystopian society. Perhaps
> >you will gain new insight into the media and propaganda.
>
> I read both books. In them the government controlled all media and was
> inseparable from that media and indeed communication became
> inseparable from what the government wanted you to think or even be
> able to articulate - i.e. "newspeak".
Orwell's "1984" and Huxley's "Brave New World" present very different
views of control.
In Orwell's "1984", the government destroys meaning so that the
oppressed lack the ability to conceive ideas contrary to the
government's aims.
This is Orwell's astute observation of the tactics of totalitarians:
"Big Brother". For instance, call oppressors "oppressed". Call victims
"aggressors". Call reasoned logic "regurgitated propaganda". Call
journalism "mind control". Call lies "truth" and truth "lies". Call
political conformity "dissent". Call the exercise of free speech
"suspension". etc. Orwell takes the "big lie" beyond the inability to
recognize the truth all the way to the inability to conceive the
truth.
In Huxley's "Brave New World", society seduces the masses into
unthinking conformity through mood altering drugs, ostentatious
consumerism and destruction of traditional family structures.
> These books are parables on authoritarian government's excess, not on
> the mass media as it exists in our society - well the cbc is part way
> there I guess ;)
Huxley's book is more of a parable on consumerist society, and as such
Huxley explores the risks of capitalism and the methods seemingly free
societies use to stifle dissent.
In it, the people are repulsed by nonconformist ideas, which they do
not even comprehend. Those who cannot or will not conform have nothing
to hope for and, to live at all, must accept isolation from society at
large. Huxley's book is peer pressure ad ridiculum.
While North American society shows Huxley's view holds some small
measure of truth, one must take care not to confuse all conformity for
unthinking conformity or to confuse repulsion with incomprehension.
I conform to the idea that we are at war and that we must wage war. I
do so because I have explored the issues, read the history and
carefully thought about my position. I have achieved a level of moral
certainty not through unthinking conformity but by rational
exploration of the issues and options.
Some people call the unthinking conformity of the left and of other
anti-american ideologues "dissent". I find such "dissent" repulsive
because I comprehend the views expressed and their (im)moral
underpinnings.
RES
I believe cats of war can only be committed by nation-states or
'peoples'. This doesn't apply. My guess, and it's only a guess, is that
crimes against humanity will be the easiest to prosecute and easiest to
justify. If its a war there's no crime, right? By virtue of the example
you give below re: Br./Churchill bombing of Germany(civilians). RES
> For instance, they have not yet attempted genocide against any of
> their subjects; although, the Taliban's treatment of the Afghani
> population borders on it.
>
Genocide is merely (poor word) one particular 'crime against humanity'.
RES
> If indiscriminate targeting of areas with predominantly civilian
> populations were crimes against humanity, we would have to indict
> Churchill for the decision to indiscriminately bomb Dresden and other
> German-held cities during WWII.
They are 'war crimes'. RES Who doesn't want to argue one way or the
other re: Churchill
We would have to indict Truman for
> sacrificing well over a hundred thousand Japanese citizens of
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- thereby saving millions of lives that Japan
> would have lost defending itself against a conventional invasion.
>
> > I haven't heard anyone credible advocating
> > inaction.
>
> Weasel words like "credible" render your arguments meaningless. I have
> heard several people advocate inaction including Alexa McDonough.
>
I don't believe anyone is arguing inaction. I think there is
disagreement about *what exactly the action should take*. If McDonough
is advocating inaction she is probably alone in her caucus, but that's
not what I'm hearing from the NDP. RES
> > I certainly support a deliberate, meaningful persecution of
> > the terrorists and the necessary attendant force that needs to be used.
>
> What do you think "war" means?
>
War is between nation states. War on Poverty? War on Drugs? War on
Terrorism? I'm for the use of necessary and appropriate force re:
these terrorists, and while the US/UN needs to use all the weapons at
their disposal, it, nonetheless, seems to me that declaring war on a
group of wackos devalues the concept of war and misrepresents the nature
of the terrorist problem which itself has a social dimension. RES
> > It seems anyone who is hoping for the US to undertake some measure of
> > self reflection as to *why* the world is less safe for them is
> > 'complicit' with the attackers.
>
> I addressed these points in another thread:
>
> >>> Repeat broadcast
>
> Those who require "rationalization or introspection" from North
> America practise an evil, dangerous, disgusting sedition.
This is meaningless. What is 'rationalization or introspection'. It is
not pacifism. It is simply a heightened consciousness re: tackling the
problem. We are not fighting a conventional war. This is a dangerous and
irresponsible accusation. It is a sedition in itself. RES How's them
apples?
I must not
> and will not attempt to rationalize the irrational acts of fanatical
> lunatics.
No one is doing this. This is a false premise. These acts were
irrational in that they had no meaningful or reachable objective other
than to kill innocent people. You have totally confused 'rationalize'
with analyze' and accuse the folks doing the later as seditious. RES
This way lies madness. The victims of violence do not
> require introspection.
The people wanting a safer word demand answers to the problem. You frame
a tendentious argument designed to stifle honest criticism in a free
society. RES
To heal, we require confrontation.
We require Justice. And in the short term justice means finding the
people responsible and removing the thread however it can be done.
Simple confrontation will lead to mistakes. It is the counsel of despair
and fortunately Bush and the US appear to be heeding these important
principles, garnering international support (most importantly Muslim
support) for their response.RES
For some
> strange reason, I doubt that these same socialists and terrorist
> sympathizers would counsel a rape victim to introspect.
Bogus argument and analogy. Are socialists terrorist sympathizers? is
Tony Blair and Labour Taliban symps? Bin Ladin Symps? You are the
thinnest of ice here. RES
The people who
> tell these apologists to "rot in hell" merely recognize where they
> rightly belong.
>
You are crossing the line into the wacko contingent. RES
> Those of us who are truly "cognisant of the reasons why it happened"
> know that the US is blameless.
You are now using the language of the victim. No country deserved to be
attacked in the way it has. Yet you assume any reflection as to the
causes, any analysis as to why this thing has happened, is tantamount to
being complicit with terrorism. You use Orwell to buttress your argument
inappropriately. Blair and Bush are clearly not pacifists or apologists
yet you unwittingly call them that because they appear to be taking
steps which reveal some degree of reflection in their actions, garnering
Islamic support for their actions. Your logic would have them strike
outright as a reflex. Some healing!!! RES
The evil and wretched will always
> attack the good and great simply to remove the comparison. This holds
> especially true for wretchedness dissonant with ideology, which is as
> much the case for the socialists and communists who apparently
> hijacked the CBC as it is for the terrorists who hijacked the jets.
>
Ahh now the bile comes out. This is the foundation of your logic. it
must really goad you into apoplexy to see Britain and Blair back Bush.
But then using your logic they are complicit with the terrorists,
afterall they appear to be doing some analysis as to the *whys* of this
event, otherwise why on earth would they be soliciting world support?
RES
> <<< /Repeat broadcast
>
> We are at war. We have been at war for a long time, but until recently
> we have been too arrogant and complacent to recognize that fact.
>
> The world is safer for us today than it was on Sept. 10, which makes
> me wonder why anyone would contemplate why it is less safe.
>
> > This is totalitarian language &
> > technique designed to stifle all dissent in a free and democratic
> > society.
>
> Bullshit. Orwell's argument is a rational, logical analysis of the
> eventualities and morals of one's behaviour. Are you aware of the
> irony in accusing Orwell of using "totalitarian language & technique"
> ?
>
You aren't aware of your ironic use of Orwell. You attribute analysis
and reflection as pacifism. Your logic is flawed. Using Orwell to defend
your view doesn't cut it. RES
> Those who attempt to redefine war as crime use totalitarian technique.
> Those who use overqualified, meaningless arguments use totalitarian
> technique. Those who redefine oppressors as the oppressed use
> totalitarian technique. Those who confuse the rules of evidence in a
> courtroom for the rules of probable cause on the streets use
> totalitarian technique.
>
And those who attribute pacifism to 'analysis and reflection' are simply
incorrect. OBTW are you using 'probable cause'?RES
> When disgusting lefties demand "evidence of wrongdoing" against a man
> who has publicly declared war and incited insurrection, whose song do
> you think they sing?
>
Get with the program. Questions re: evidence is meaningful to the people
who need to be onside, namely Islamic countries like SA and Pakistan,
Jordan et al.
For most (including me and others in the West who disgust you (like
Blair), the evidence is clear enough, but I'm not in an Islamic country
or a leader of a Muslim nation) Geez do we have to spell it out? RES
> > One would hope at some point there is a realization somewhere that a
> > more just world would likely be a safer world.
>
> The US is a just country, and it is a safe country. The rational
> people in this world have known this for a very long time.
>
Problem is Afghanistan isn't. And it was the petrie dish for a virulent
form of global terrorism. So much for a safe America. Surely the safety
of Americans (and Canadians) is now an illusion shattered by the events
of 11 sept. The rational people of this world nows exactly how 'safe' it
is. RES
> > Now I can almost hear the
> > apoplexia of those who agree that any critical analysis of US foreign
> > policy is aiding and abetting the terrorists. Congrats! You are
> > fulfilling objective #2 of the terrorists.
>
> First, I do not know of any such apoplexia. Second, critical analysis
> of US foreign policy will yield the conclusion that Clinton blew it by
> not engaging the enemy in any realistic manner eight years ago.
>
Well, to hear Clinton there was a great deal of effort to get bin Ladin.
Unfortunately, he didn't succeed. But here you engage in the very thing
that you are against. You have undertaken some reflection. You are
practicing an "evil, dangerous, disgusting sedition" by your own flawed
reasoning. RES
> > I guess by that perverted
> > logic these people are aiding and abetting the terrorists by their
> > actions.
>
> It is an interesting straw man you have constructed, but it doesn't
> prove much beyond your imaginative capabilities.
>
> > Of course, this is a flawed logic, as flawed as the 'far
> > rights' logic.
>
> Who do you think is "far right" and what logic do you think they
> employ? It would interest me to know exactly what you argue against.
>
> > Orwell was bang on on his assessment of pacifism's negative effect on
> > the British war effort. It is flawed logic to employ a similar
> > parallel/comparison to those who want to prosecute the terrorists and,
> > at some point, reflect on our own sins.
>
> What sins? The liberation of the muslim people of Kuwait? The
> liberation of the muslim people of Kosovo? Attempting to provide aid
> to the famine-stricken people of Somalia?
>
Liberation of Kuwait my ass. More like a hostile takeover bid of Kuwaiti
Oil Corp thwarted (Scowcroft on Board of Kuwaiti oil). Propaganda. #2 I
supported NATO involvement in Kosovo. I guess there goes any assumption
about me being anti-american. Somalia too was a progressive attempt and
a act of compassion showing how much the US had changed in the past 10
years. RES
> I don't suppose you mean our actual sins like when we knowingly
> ignored the plight of the East Timorese at the hands of Indonesia for
> political expediency.
>
There's a good one. VP Ford and Kissinger meet with Suharto and the next
day a countercoup is launched ending in 2 million dead Indonesians. RES
> > Funny thing a world which isn't as black and white as we would like,
> > isn't it. RES
>
> What is not black and white about it?
I'll let you figure that one out. RES
Bill Van
> I believe cats of war can only be committed by nation-states or
> 'peoples'. This doesn't apply. My guess, and it's only a guess, is that
> crimes against humanity will be the easiest to prosecute and easiest to
> justify. If its a war there's no crime, right? By virtue of the example
> you give below re: Br./Churchill bombing of Germany(civilians). RES
>
While respectful of the gravity of the subject and cognizant of the
innocence of those who commit typographical errors, I must argue that
unlike the dogs of war, cats of war are not that big a problem. Just
chuck them under the chin a little bit, scratch behind their ears, and
in extreme cases rub firmly at the base of their tails. They might knead
around on your lap for a few minutes which can be uncomfortable if their
nails haven't been trimmed for a while, but in a bit they'll settle
right down and start purring, and forget all about war.
Dogs of war? Don't get me started. They drool, they smell bad when it
rains, and they're far too big to sit on your lap.
bill
RES
Cats of courage are even better:) RES
Bob Badour
By your definition, civil war is not war, and militia cannot engage in
war. Even if we accept your definition, the Taliban are a nation-state
and bin Laden's mujahideen fight for the Islamic people. (In their own
minds, if in nobody else's.)
> My guess, and it's only a guess, is that
> crimes against humanity will be the easiest to prosecute and easiest to
> justify.
The manned missile attacks on the World Trade Center and on the
Pentagon were acts of war calculated to interfere with America's
war-making capability. There were no crimes against humanity. Ergo,
the charge would prove impossible to prosecute in anything but a
kangaroo court. You guessed wrong.
> If its a war there's no crime, right? By virtue of the example
> you give below re: Br./Churchill bombing of Germany(civilians). RES
War crimes involve "violations of the laws or customs of war."
Crimes against humanity comprise "Atrocities and offences, including
but not limited to murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation,
imprisonment, torture, rape, or other inhumane acts committed against
any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or
religious grounds whether or not in violation of the domestic laws of
the country where perpetrated..."
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/ccno10.htm
I don't think one will meet the burden of proof for either of those
charges.
One might meet the burden of proof for "Crimes against Peace", but
that would mean we are at war, in any case.
> > For instance, they have not yet attempted genocide against any of
> > their subjects; although, the Taliban's treatment of the Afghani
> > population borders on it.
> >
>
> Genocide is merely (poor word) one particular 'crime against humanity'.
> RES
The manned missile attack did not enslave, deport, exterminate,
imprison, torture or rape, either.
> > > I certainly support a deliberate, meaningful persecution of
> > > the terrorists and the necessary attendant force that needs to be used.
> >
> > What do you think "war" means?
> >
> War is between nation states.
war n.
A condition of belligerency to be maintained by physical force.
The waging of armed conflict against an enemy.
An active struggle between competing entities.
A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between
nations, states, or parties.
A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something
considered injurious.
I do not limit myself to your highly constrained definition of the
word. Even if I did, I would simply point out that the Taliban is the
ruling regime of a nation state. (Note too that Iraq is a nation
state.)
We will not end terrorism until we topple the regimes that sponsor
terrorism.
> I'm for the use of necessary and appropriate force re:
> these terrorists, and while the US/UN needs to use all the weapons at
> their disposal, it, nonetheless, seems to me that declaring war on a
> group of wackos devalues the concept of war and misrepresents the nature
> of the terrorist problem which itself has a social dimension. RES
War has a social dimension -- several in fact. Again, if not the use
of necessary and appropriate force, what do you think "war" is? Your
ideological prejudice doesn't cause you to presume "war" means
ineffective, overblown, knee-jerk missile attacks or indiscriminate
carpet bombing, does it?
> > > It seems anyone who is hoping for the US to undertake some measure of
> > > self reflection as to *why* the world is less safe for them is
> > > 'complicit' with the attackers.
> >
> > I addressed these points in another thread:
> >
> > >>> Repeat broadcast
> >
> > Those who require "rationalization or introspection" from North
> > America practise an evil, dangerous, disgusting sedition.
>
> This is meaningless. What is 'rationalization or introspection'. It is
> not pacifism.
I never claimed that rationalization or introspection is pacifism. I
was responding to your request for self reflection. On that point, I
will repeat: I must not and I will not attempt to rationalize the
irrational acts of lunatics. The victims of violence require
confrontation, not introspection, to heal.
> It is simply a heightened consciousness re: tackling the
> problem.
Bullshit. It is self-blame for the blameless. Would you counsel a rape
victim to rationalize the actions of her rapist? Would you counsel her
to introspect on her role in the rape?
As I said, it is evil, dangerous, seditious and disgusting.
> We are not fighting a conventional war.
I am well aware of the type of war we wage. It will be a long and
difficult war requiring careful statesmanship, frequently covert
action, careful courtship of the enemies of our enemies, infiltration
of our enemies' ranks, ground assaults, air superiority and the
determination to face our enemies wherever we find them.
We face an enemy who has probably established a sizable fifth column
in our midst.
Most importantly, this war will require resolute determination over a
period of many years, if not decades, which makes morale and our will
to fight paramount.
> This is a dangerous and
> irresponsible accusation.
First, it is not an accusation as much as it is an observation.
Second, it is the height of responsibility, and the recognition that
we are responsible for those who depend on us. We are responsible for
removing this threat before it destroys our children, our values, our
civilization, our way of life and our future.
> It is a sedition in itself. RES How's them
> apples?
Sedition n.
An illegal action inciting resistance to lawful authority and
tending to
cause the disruption or overthrow of the government.
In Afghanistan and Iraq, one could argue my words are seditious. In
North America, I urge the government to defend itself from those who
would disrupt or overthrow it, which is the antithesis of sedition.
Since I do not recognize the Taliban, Saddam or any other dictator as
"lawful authority", I am not sure my words are even seditious in
Afghanistan and Iraq.
> I must not
> > and will not attempt to rationalize the irrational acts of fanatical
> > lunatics.
>
> No one is doing this. This is a false premise. These acts were
> irrational in that they had no meaningful or reachable objective other
> than to kill innocent people.
Unless one considers the disruption of commerce a meaningful,
reachable objective. Or unless one considers a drop in morale a
meaningful, reachable objective.
> You have totally confused 'rationalize'
> with analyze' and accuse the folks doing the later as seditious. RES
What self reflective analysis do you demand that is neither
rationalization nor introspection? The US is completely blameless in
these attacks. Or are you honestly arguing that the liberation of
Kuwait justifies bin Laden's attacks? Are you suggesting that the US
should just leave Saddam to work whatever evil he desires?
What, exactly, would you have the US do differently? Roll over and
die?
> This way lies madness. The victims of violence do not
> > require introspection.
>
> The people wanting a safer word demand answers to the problem.
Criminal trials will not make the world safer. The only way to make
the world safer is removal of the terrorists' means to wreak havoc.
This means destruction of those regimes who sponsor terrorism. This
means making sure that none of these regimes succeeds in producing
weapons of mass destruction. This means identifying and eliminating
the existing fifth column in our own countries.
> You frame
> a tendentious argument designed to stifle honest criticism in a free
> society. RES
First, I have attempted to stifle nothing. Second, the "criticism" was
never honest in the first place.
> To heal, we require confrontation.
>
> We require Justice.
We can have no justice without confrontation. The just response to
uprovoked aggressive acts of war is war -- or, better yet, victory.
> And in the short term justice means finding the
> people responsible and removing the thread however it can be done.
Yes, we must wage war. I agree.
> Simple confrontation will lead to mistakes.
Who said war is simple? Your prejudices about me, about the US
response and about this war are astoundingly arrogant.
> It is the counsel of despair
> and fortunately Bush and the US appear to be heeding these important
Of course they are. They are intelligent, moral people. How did you
expect them to wage war?
> For some
> > strange reason, I doubt that these same socialists and terrorist
> > sympathizers would counsel a rape victim to introspect.
>
> Bogus argument and analogy. Are socialists terrorist sympathizers?
Yes, most of them have revealed themselves as such. Insofar as the
socialists are anti-american, they sympathize with the anti-american
sentiments of the terrorists. They have repeatedly stated or implied
that the US is ultimately to blame for these attacks. They have
repeatedly called for restraint, when restraint will kill us all.
> Tony Blair and Labour Taliban symps? Bin Ladin Symps? You are the
> thinnest of ice here. RES
You mean the Tony Blair who "sanitized his party of any recognizable
sign of socialism" ?
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/emmetttyrrell/et000713.shtml
http://www.voiceoftheturtle.org/archives/sarris_turks.shtml
I like this one: "No to US militarism in the Middle East!"
http://www.voiceoftheturtle.org/index.htm
"Only peaceful solutions can defeat [terrorism]."
"Coalition Against War and Racism" (As if anyone who recognizes we are
at war is automatically a racist as well. What blind, stupid
arrogance!)
http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/columns/rebick/rebick010917.html
I wonder if this guy understands the fact that he is the canadian
media?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/columns/zolf/zolf010924.html
The ice seems thick enough to drive a truck across.
> > Those of us who are truly "cognisant of the reasons why it happened"
> > know that the US is blameless.
>
> You are now using the language of the victim.
I am a victim. The people I work with every day are victims. Everyone
in the US is a victim of these heinous acts of violence. Fortunately,
most of us are also survivors, and we have no intention of wallowing
in self-pity. We have every intention of destroying our enemies before
they destroy us.
> No country deserved to be
> attacked in the way it has. Yet you assume any reflection as to the
> causes, any analysis as to why this thing has happened, is tantamount to
> being complicit with terrorism.
Your accusation is false. I have reflected on the causes, and I have
analyzed why this thing happened. Insane wackos commit evil deeds for
insane reasons. Of course, that doesn't require the "self reflection"
you demand.
Just out of curiosity, what cause do you ascribe? Was this just
punishment for liberating the muslim people of Kuwait from an evil
aggressor? What this punishment for liberating the muslim people of
Kosovo from an evil aggressor? Are you suggesting that we should
simply ignore evil tyrants like Hitler and Saddam?
Do you realise that bin Laden is mainly pissed at the presence of
American Kafirs on holy arab ground? Do you realise that those Kafirs
are stationed there to contain Saddam's evil regime?
As an aside: The rumours I have heard indicate Saddam has put nuclear
weapons on the back-burner (for now) to focus on bioweapons instead.
They are cheaper and potentially have a higher casualty rate.
When it comes right down to it, these lunatics hate the US because the
US is big and successful while they are wretched failures. Their
failure combined with an interpretation of the Qur'an that tells them
they should be superior drives them insane.
> You use Orwell to buttress your argument
> inappropriately.
Really? You disagree that those in a democratic society who oppose war
against an aggressive, insane totalitarian regime implicitly support
the regime?
> Blair and Bush are clearly not pacifists or apologists
> yet you unwittingly call them that because they appear to be taking
> steps which reveal some degree of reflection in their actions, garnering
> Islamic support for their actions.
Non sequitur. Bush is just acting like the rational, intelligent
leader he is, and I do not see any special self reflection in that.
The leader of the free world and the commander in chief of the US
military should be a responsible, rational individual. Bush is.
Clinton wasn't.
I haven't heard Bush apologize for US foreign policy in an attempt to
appease bin Laden. I have heard him state emphatically that the US is
at war.
> Your logic would have them strike
> outright as a reflex.
That is not my logic -- it's your mischaracterization.
> The evil and wretched will always
> > attack the good and great simply to remove the comparison. This holds
> > especially true for wretchedness dissonant with ideology, which is as
> > much the case for the socialists and communists who apparently
> > hijacked the CBC as it is for the terrorists who hijacked the jets.
>
> Ahh now the bile comes out.
The socialists have been choking on their bile for a decade or more. I
see no bile in the above; I see a rational analysis of the causes of
the attack based on careful reflection and study.
I apologize that it is not the navel-gazing self-blame you so
desperately want.
> This is the foundation of your logic.
I disagree with your mischaracterization of my conclusion as
axiomatic. It is the conclusion of careful, educated reasoning
untainted by ideology.
> must really goad you into apoplexy to see Britain and Blair back Bush.
Not at all. Why should it?
> But then using your logic they are complicit with the terrorists,
> afterall they appear to be doing some analysis as to the *whys* of this
> event, otherwise why on earth would they be soliciting world support?
> RES
...in order to wage effective war. I do not see either of them trying
to analyse "why" fanatical lunatics attacked them; I think they are as
clear on "why" as I am.
> > > This is totalitarian language &
> > > technique designed to stifle all dissent in a free and democratic
> > > society.
> >
> > Bullshit. Orwell's argument is a rational, logical analysis of the
> > eventualities and morals of one's behaviour. Are you aware of the
> > irony in accusing Orwell of using "totalitarian language & technique"
> > ?
> >
> You aren't aware of your ironic use of Orwell. You attribute analysis
> and reflection as pacifism.
No, I do not. I merely observe that those in a democratic society who
oppose war against a totalitarian aggressor aid the totalitarian
aggressor. By the way, I notice that you changed "self reflection" to
reflection. Are you back-pedalling?
> Your logic is flawed. Using Orwell to defend
> your view doesn't cut it. RES
Since you have my logic backward, I doubt you are qualified to judge.
> > Those who attempt to redefine war as crime use totalitarian technique.
> > Those who use overqualified, meaningless arguments use totalitarian
> > technique. Those who redefine oppressors as the oppressed use
> > totalitarian technique. Those who confuse the rules of evidence in a
> > courtroom for the rules of probable cause on the streets use
> > totalitarian technique.
> >
>
> And those who attribute pacifism to 'analysis and reflection' are simply
> incorrect.
I did not do that. It does not take much to see through the straw man
you constructed.
> > When disgusting lefties demand "evidence of wrongdoing" against a man
> > who has publicly declared war and incited insurrection, whose song do
> > you think they sing?
> >
>
> Get with the program.
Get with what program? Singing the Battle Hymns of Mullah Omar?
> Questions re: evidence is meaningful to the people
> who need to be onside, namely Islamic countries like SA and Pakistan,
> Jordan et al.
bin Laden was indicted by a Grand Jury. Pakistan is actually the
source of most of the intelligence against bin Laden. The demand for
"evidence" was a cynical delaying tactic and nothing more.
> For most (including me and others in the West who disgust you (like
> Blair), the evidence is clear enough, but I'm not in an Islamic country
> or a leader of a Muslim nation) Geez do we have to spell it out? RES
Apparently. Consider the following Fatwa when you spell it out:
http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=2494
I like this little gem too:
http://islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=1376
> > > One would hope at some point there is a realization somewhere that a
> > > more just world would likely be a safer world.
> >
> > The US is a just country, and it is a safe country. The rational
> > people in this world have known this for a very long time.
> >
> Problem is Afghanistan isn't. And it was the petrie dish for a virulent
> form of global terrorism. So much for a safe America. Surely the safety
> of Americans (and Canadians) is now an illusion shattered by the events
> of 11 sept. The rational people of this world nows exactly how 'safe' it
> is. RES
The US is still much safer than Afghanistan. The rational people of
this world knew exactly how safe it was even before McVeigh blew up
the federal building in Oklahoma. We are also aware how safe Canada
is.
Consider: If the US has air marshalls on flights while Canada does
not, where do you think they will try to get the jet they want to fly
into the Sears Tower?
> > > Now I can almost hear the
> > > apoplexia of those who agree that any critical analysis of US foreign
> > > policy is aiding and abetting the terrorists. Congrats! You are
> > > fulfilling objective #2 of the terrorists.
> >
> > First, I do not know of any such apoplexia. Second, critical analysis
> > of US foreign policy will yield the conclusion that Clinton blew it by
> > not engaging the enemy in any realistic manner eight years ago.
> >
> Well, to hear Clinton there was a great deal of effort to get bin Ladin.
Yeah, he spent close to $80 million on missiles to blow up some tents
in the desert and a pharmaceutical factory. After that debacle, he
started to train a team for the purposes of killing bin Laden -- not
that that would have eliminated the threat, mind you.
> Unfortunately, he didn't succeed. But here you engage in the very thing
> that you are against. You have undertaken some reflection.
You have changed your tune. I have never said we should not reflect on
the causes of this war or on how best to execute it. You suggested we
need to "self reflect", which is an entirely different matter.
> You are
> practicing an "evil, dangerous, disgusting sedition" by your own flawed
> reasoning. RES
By your flawed reasoning... my reasoning is sound.
> > > I guess by that perverted
> > > logic these people are aiding and abetting the terrorists by their
> > > actions.
> >
> > It is an interesting straw man you have constructed, but it doesn't
> > prove much beyond your imaginative capabilities.
> >
> > > Of course, this is a flawed logic, as flawed as the 'far
> > > rights' logic.
> >
> > Who do you think is "far right" and what logic do you think they
> > employ? It would interest me to know exactly what you argue against.
Cat got your tongue?
> > > Orwell was bang on on his assessment of pacifism's negative effect on
> > > the British war effort. It is flawed logic to employ a similar
> > > parallel/comparison to those who want to prosecute the terrorists and,
> > > at some point, reflect on our own sins.
> >
> > What sins? The liberation of the muslim people of Kuwait? The
> > liberation of the muslim people of Kosovo? Attempting to provide aid
> > to the famine-stricken people of Somalia?
>
> Liberation of Kuwait my ass. More like a hostile takeover bid of Kuwaiti
> Oil Corp thwarted (Scowcroft on Board of Kuwaiti oil). Propaganda.
Yes, I see you spout typical anti-american propaganda.
> #2 I
> supported NATO involvement in Kosovo. I guess there goes any assumption
> about me being anti-american. Somalia too was a progressive attempt and
> a act of compassion showing how much the US had changed in the past 10
> years. RES
And the gratitude they get for protecting the muslims of Kosovo from
Serbian war crimes are manned missile attacks against the WTC and the
Pentagon?
I am sure the Serbs would have a few "Liberation of Kosovo my ass"
comments of their own.
> > I don't suppose you mean our actual sins like when we knowingly
> > ignored the plight of the East Timorese at the hands of Indonesia for
> > political expediency.
> >
> There's a good one. VP Ford and Kissinger meet with Suharto and the next
> day a countercoup is launched ending in 2 million dead Indonesians. RES
Of course, bin Laden is not attacking the US for their support of the
Islamist regime in Indonesia, is he?
Um, let's tally up your position so far:
The US steps in to liberate Kuwait -- that's bad.
The US steps in to liberate Kosovo -- that's good.
The US fails to aid East Timor -- that's bad.
The US fails to aid itself and the oppressed people of Afghanistan --
that's good?
> > > Funny thing a world which isn't as black and white as we would like,
> > > isn't it. RES
> >
> > What is not black and white about it?
>
> I'll let you figure that one out. RES
I don't need to -- the world has sufficient contrast. But then again,
I am not blinded by anti-american ideology.
Hartmann Schaffer
bba...@golden.net (Bob Badour) writes:
> ...
> war. Even if we accept your definition, the Taliban are a nation-state
> and bin Laden's mujahideen fight for the Islamic people. (In their own
the taliban are a relatively small clique of religious zealots who
managed to gain almost complete control of a nation state
> minds, if in nobody else's.)
>
>
>> My guess, and it's only a guess, is that
>> crimes against humanity will be the easiest to prosecute and easiest to
>> justify.
>
> The manned missile attacks on the World Trade Center and on the
> Pentagon were acts of war calculated to interfere with America's
> war-making capability. There were no crimes against humanity. Ergo,
> the charge would prove impossible to prosecute in anything but a
> kangaroo court. You guessed wrong.
considering that based on what has been published about the
investigations they hit the pentagon because they couldn't find the
white house and that the wtc hardly represents america's war making
capabilities (you might want to argue that a lot of what was inside
represented its ability to support a war effort in the long run, but
that's a different matter), your claim lacks merit
> ...
hs
--
War is not healthy for children and other living beings
RES
Has the US Congress declared 'war'? RES
Even if we accept your definition, the Taliban are a nation-state
> and bin Laden's mujahideen fight for the Islamic people. (In their own
> minds, if in nobody else's.)
>
> > My guess, and it's only a guess, is that
> > crimes against humanity will be the easiest to prosecute and easiest to
> > justify.
>
> The manned missile attacks on the World Trade Center and on the
> Pentagon were acts of war calculated to interfere with America's
> war-making capability.
Bulllshit. They were meaningless from a strictly military point of view.
Do you think the US's military capability was affected one iota? It was
calculated to inflict maximum civilian death and symbolically 'stab the
heart' of America, showing that it wasn't invulnerable. RES
There were no crimes against humanity. Ergo,
> the charge would prove impossible to prosecute in anything but a
> kangaroo court. You guessed wrong.
>
Well, perhaps we'll leave that up to the UN and International Courts
and, I imagine the US Government. I'd sooner take their opinion than
yours. I do hope you don't mind. RES
> > If its a war there's no crime, right? By virtue of the example
> > you give below re: Br./Churchill bombing of Germany(civilians). RES
>
> War crimes involve "violations of the laws or customs of war."
>
> Crimes against humanity comprise "Atrocities and offences, including
> but not limited to murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation,
> imprisonment, torture, rape, or other inhumane acts committed against
> any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or
> religious grounds whether or not in violation of the domestic laws of
> the country where perpetrated..."
>
> http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/ccno10.htm
>
Thank you for pointing out my case for me. Certainly unprovoked murder
would be included. RES
> I don't think one will meet the burden of proof for either of those
> charges.
>
Let's see what international jurisprudence produces. RES
> One might meet the burden of proof for "Crimes against Peace", but
> that would mean we are at war, in any case.
>
There is warfare to be sure, but no 'war' in the conventional or even
legal (US) sense. RES
> > > For instance, they have not yet attempted genocide against any of
> > > their subjects; although, the Taliban's treatment of the Afghani
> > > population borders on it.
> > >
> >
> > Genocide is merely (poor word) one particular 'crime against humanity'.
> > RES
>
> The manned missile attack did not enslave, deport, exterminate,
> imprison, torture or rape, either.
>
Yes, I kinda figured that out. RES
> > > > I certainly support a deliberate, meaningful persecution of
> > > > the terrorists and the necessary attendant force that needs to be used.
> > >
> > > What do you think "war" means?
> > >
> > War is between nation states.
>
> war n.
>
> A condition of belligerency to be maintained by physical force.
>
> The waging of armed conflict against an enemy.
>
> An active struggle between competing entities.
>
> A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between
> nations, states, or parties.
>
> A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something
> considered injurious.
>
> I do not limit myself to your highly constrained definition of the
> word. Even if I did, I would simply point out that the Taliban is the
> ruling regime of a nation state. (Note too that Iraq is a nation
> state.)
>
Perhaps if/when the Congress passes a resolution declaring 'war' and the
subsequent delegation of powers/authority to the Commander-in-Chief,
beyond peacetime powers, it'll be War. RES
> We will not end terrorism until we topple the regimes that sponsor
> terrorism.
>
'Topple'? 'Regimes'? Terrorism will not end until we live in a more just
world. RES
> > I'm for the use of necessary and appropriate force re:
> > these terrorists, and while the US/UN needs to use all the weapons at
> > their disposal, it, nonetheless, seems to me that declaring war on a
> > group of wackos devalues the concept of war and misrepresents the nature
> > of the terrorist problem which itself has a social dimension. RES
>
> War has a social dimension -- several in fact.
Didn't mean to imply that it didn't. How else would you describe a fight
against a regime while providing aid to the regime's ostensible
citizens, before an attack? RES
Again, if not the use
> of necessary and appropriate force, what do you think "war" is?
Seems to me the US was successful in removing many regimes without
declaring 'war' on them. There is a difference between 'warfare' and
War. Was the bombing of Serbia a 'war'? Not in my books. RES
Your
> ideological prejudice doesn't cause you to presume "war" means
> ineffective, overblown, knee-jerk missile attacks or indiscriminate
> carpet bombing, does it?
>
Ideological prejudice? You are assuming things here. Perhaps we are
operating under different definitions. I have a conventional
interpretation of what war is, especially as it pertains to the US and
the 21st C. There are varying degrees of warfare, but until Congress
passes a resolution declaring WAR, the US is simply employing the
necessary force to apprehend guilty parties - and who can blame them.
RES
> > > > It seems anyone who is hoping for the US to undertake some measure of
> > > > self reflection as to *why* the world is less safe for them is
> > > > 'complicit' with the attackers.
> > >
> > > I addressed these points in another thread:
> > >
> > > >>> Repeat broadcast
> > >
> > > Those who require "rationalization or introspection" from North
> > > America practise an evil, dangerous, disgusting sedition.
> >
> > This is meaningless. What is 'rationalization or introspection'. It is
> > not pacifism.
>
> I never claimed that rationalization or introspection is pacifism. I
> was responding to your request for self reflection. On that point, I
> will repeat: I must not and I will not attempt to rationalize the
> irrational acts of lunatics. The victims of violence require
> confrontation, not introspection, to heal.
>
I'm not aware of anyone who is entertaining 'rationalization'. Do you
really think the US or anyone else is going to go down the same path as
they did in Afghanistan re: proxy wars and backing a category of
religious extremism again? Don't you think the CIA will build into their
analyses these kinds of factors. Well, that's a bit of self-reflection.
I guess it's seditious on their part to do so. If the CIA has
'rationalized' their behavior, I guess they too are complicit in the WTC
attacks and future murders. RES
> > It is simply a heightened consciousness re: tackling the
> > problem.
>
> Bullshit. It is self-blame for the blameless. Would you counsel a rape
> victim to rationalize the actions of her rapist? Would you counsel her
> to introspect on her role in the rape?
You think I am blaming the innocent people killed and injured in the WTC
attack and the subsequent damage to the world economy? You are
overwrought if you think so. RES
>
> As I said, it is evil, dangerous, seditious and disgusting.
>
> > We are not fighting a conventional war.
>
> I am well aware of the type of war we wage. It will be a long and
> difficult war requiring careful statesmanship, frequently covert
> action, careful courtship of the enemies of our enemies, infiltration
> of our enemies' ranks, ground assaults, air superiority and the
> determination to face our enemies wherever we find them.
>
Sounds like you have undertaken some reflection here. You are being
seditious. Are you are counseling an equivocation to moral
retribution.RES
> We face an enemy who has probably established a sizable fifth column
> in our midst.
>
True enough. Steps will have to be taken. RES
> Most importantly, this war will require resolute determination over a
> period of many years, if not decades, which makes morale and our will
> to fight paramount.
>
> > This is a dangerous and
> > irresponsible accusation.
>
> First, it is not an accusation as much as it is an observation.
> Second, it is the height of responsibility, and the recognition that
> we are responsible for those who depend on us. We are responsible for
> removing this threat before it destroys our children, our values, our
> civilization, our way of life and our future.
>
I trust that the US has so far kept these considerations in mind. I
would give them high marks so far. It's important to me and everyone I
know they get this right. RES
> > It is a sedition in itself. RES How's them
> > apples?
>
> Sedition n.
>
> An illegal action inciting resistance to lawful authority and
> tending to
> cause the disruption or overthrow of the government.
>
> In Afghanistan and Iraq, one could argue my words are seditious. In
> North America, I urge the government to defend itself from those who
> would disrupt or overthrow it, which is the antithesis of sedition.
>
> Since I do not recognize the Taliban, Saddam or any other dictator as
> "lawful authority", I am not sure my words are even seditious in
> Afghanistan and Iraq.
>
I am the one accused of sedition. I am merely using your logic. You are
defending yourself from the arguments *you* have imposed on this
discussion. RES
> > I must not
> > > and will not attempt to rationalize the irrational acts of fanatical
> > > lunatics.
> >
> > No one is doing this. This is a false premise. These acts were
> > irrational in that they had no meaningful or reachable objective other
> > than to kill innocent people.
>
> Unless one considers the disruption of commerce a meaningful,
> reachable objective. Or unless one considers a drop in morale a
> meaningful, reachable objective.
>
Although this might have been a goal, I personally don't give them that
much credit. Yes, commerce has been disrupted. Absolutely. However, as
to 'morale', I think you would agree that this has had the opposite
effect for most Americans. I don't include, of course, those many people
who lost lived ones and friends, or jobs as a result.
However, their big hope was to ignite a massive retribution against all
Islam I think, thus getting more recruits. RES
> > You have totally confused 'rationalize'
> > with analyze' and accuse the folks doing the later as seditious. RES
>
> What self reflective analysis do you demand that is neither
> rationalization nor introspection?
How did the Taliban gain power? What is the real effect of Proxy Wars?
How has the sales of arms to combatants affected the body politic of
this particular country? How can the West avoid the creation of
cesspools of refugee camps where the Taliban and Islamic Fundamentalist
ideology breed like a virus.
It's quite a common worry amongst political theorists that new
technologies will allow for countries to commit suicide, launching
weapons of mass destruction against the West knowing that they will be
destroyed in counter attack. And finally, what policies in place ought
to be changed to reflect the changing political realities.
All these questions are seditious, but necessary I believe for our
survival. If it's evil, then I'm happy to say I'm evil. RES
The US is completely blameless in
> these attacks.
If you believe this then you must categorize the questions I have asked
above as evil. RES (I see you make no distinction between the US
Government and it's citizens)
Or are you honestly arguing that the liberation of
> Kuwait justifies bin Laden's attacks?
You are overwrought. Do you think you are talking to a terrorist? RES
Are you suggesting that the US
> should just leave Saddam to work whatever evil he desires?
>
Back in 1979-80 I and others were calling US policy on Iraq precisely
this. Now this shit gets thrown back. RES
> What, exactly, would you have the US do differently? Roll over and
> die?
>
Actually, I think the US response to this attack has been measured and
hopefully effective. Why you think I would advocate inaction is simply a
reflection of preconceived notions on your part. RES
> > This way lies madness. The victims of violence do not
> > > require introspection.
> >
The victims of violence require justice. I have not advocated
'introspection' in its place. This is your flawed interpretation of my
position based on some faulty preconceptions. RES
> > The people wanting a safer word demand answers to the problem.
>
> Criminal trials will not make the world safer.
Glib statement. Certainly apprehending or 'eliminating' terrorists will.
RES
The only way to make
> the world safer is removal of the terrorists' means to wreak havoc.
Agreed. Who has argued differently? RES
> This means destruction of those regimes who sponsor terrorism.
************Perhaps the US may have a bit of reflection and stop giving
aid to these regimes.*************** I say that with all the indignancy
(sic) I can muster. Syria, the great scourge that may yet have its
fingerprints all over this, gets a break now and then for being part of
the coalition against Saddam. I note that Syrian intelligence is
reported to have supplied the Al Queda with the NSA codes needed to
establish the whereabouts of Air Force 1 the day of the attack. This may
certainly be the case re: the downing of Pan Am Flight over Lockerbie,
where the Libyans were tagged for what was a breach of security
exploited by Syrian Intelligence. There are many sources for this charge
including the former DIA agent currently granted asylum in Sweden for
blowing the whistle on the DEA. (Instead of drugs being planted on the
plane as the DEA hoped, it was a bomb). While current US policy has
improved greatly, and was not intended to have overtly negative results,
even to bring these things up is now 'seditious'. RES
This
> means making sure that none of these regimes succeeds in producing
> weapons of mass destruction.
Perhaps the pharmaceutical and chemical companies selling these
technologies and materials should be made to cooperate. Certainly the US
looked askance at many strategic products sold to Saddam during the Gulf
War (Iraq-Iran). This was certainly true of Britain, France and Germany.
RES
This means identifying and eliminating
> the existing fifth column in our own countries.
>
True enough. Never argued against this. But how? RES
> > You frame
> > a tendentious argument designed to stifle honest criticism in a free
> > society. RES
>
> First, I have attempted to stifle nothing. Second, the "criticism" was
> never honest in the first place.
>
Well if you think I'm not being honest, perhaps you should end this
discussion. RES
> > To heal, we require confrontation.
> >
> > We require Justice.
>
> We can have no justice without confrontation. The just response to
> uprovoked aggressive acts of war is war -- or, better yet, victory.
>
Against who? I would say against the terrorists and those who choose to
support them. Now in attacking this virus, what methods will you use to
minimize 'collateral damage'? Certain methods will inherently cause
innocent death. Certainly this was true for Clinton when he bombed,
mistakenly, Sudan's only pharmaceutical plant. There were only a few
deaths there but perhaps you're not aware, the Sudanese death rate for
children went up dramatically, unable to access the needed
drugs/medications - I think it was estimated 10,000 deaths. But of
course, this is sedition and evil thoughts.<sarcasm> RES
> > And in the short term justice means finding the
> > people responsible and removing the thread however it can be done.
>
> Yes, we must wage war. I agree.
>
> > Simple confrontation will lead to mistakes.
>
> Who said war is simple?
Never said that or implied that. Simple confrontation will lead to
mistakes. Thankfully Bush has appeared to avoid that. The confrontation
is international in scope and measured. this howl from the right that
the US should start bombing right away is counterproductive an immoral.
As an aside, I note that an increase of 10,000 child deaths with a few
cruise missiles certainly has complicated things. RES
Your prejudices about me, about the US
> response and about this war are astoundingly arrogant.
>
Now you call me arrogant after you call me evil and seditious. Awww. RES
> > It is the counsel of despair
> > and fortunately Bush and the US appear to be heeding these important
>
> Of course they are. They are intelligent, moral people. How did you
> expect them to wage war?
>
I didn't 'expect' anything different actually. What I did expect to see
was the clamour for nuking and carpet bombing etc from the nutbar
contingent of this ng, who are less and less active here recently . I'm
thinking for example of Iconoclast/Ciceroii and a few others. RES
> > For some
> > > strange reason, I doubt that these same socialists and terrorist
> > > sympathizers would counsel a rape victim to introspect.
> >
> > Bogus argument and analogy. Are socialists terrorist sympathizers?
>
> Yes, most of them have revealed themselves as such. Insofar as the
> socialists are anti-american, they sympathize with the anti-american
> sentiments of the terrorists. They have repeatedly stated or implied
> that the US is ultimately to blame for these attacks. They have
> repeatedly called for restraint, when restraint will kill us all.
>
Now the real rant begins. Restraint will kill us all. The mantra of the
loony right. YOu quote a socialist Orwell and you presumably agree with
Blair, whether you agree with his label as a social democrat or whatever
his political party is a bona fide member of the Socialist International
along with most of the governing parties of Europe.
Take your bile about 'socialists' being 'anti-American' and shove them.
RES
> > Tony Blair and Labour Taliban symps? Bin Ladin Symps? You are the
> > thinnest of ice here. RES
>
> You mean the Tony Blair who "sanitized his party of any recognizable
> sign of socialism" ?
I guess you see some redeeming aspects to Blair's Labour. Gotta call
them non-social democratic right? So what about the other governing
parties of Europe. Germany, Greece, france, Netherlands, Norway etc.
etc. All evil and anti-American. Your strawman is on fire. RES
> http://www.townhall.com/columnists/emmetttyrrell/et000713.shtml
>
> http://www.voiceoftheturtle.org/archives/sarris_turks.shtml
>
> I like this one: "No to US militarism in the Middle East!"
> http://www.voiceoftheturtle.org/index.htm
>
> "Only peaceful solutions can defeat [terrorism]."
> "Coalition Against War and Racism" (As if anyone who recognizes we are
> at war is automatically a racist as well. What blind, stupid
> arrogance!)
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/columns/rebick/rebick010917.html
>
I see, you think the world is made of monoliths. Great view from where
you are isn't it? What about Europe? RES
> I wonder if this guy understands the fact that he is the canadian
> media?
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/columns/zolf/zolf010924.html
>
> The ice seems thick enough to drive a truck across.
>
> > > Those of us who are truly "cognisant of the reasons why it happened"
> > > know that the US is blameless.
> >
Again you use a language intended to obfuscate. For a person who throws
Orwell around pretty shabby. I suppose the terrorism just 'happened
mystically'. RES
> > You are now using the language of the victim.
>
> I am a victim. The people I work with every day are victims. Everyone
> in the US is a victim of these heinous acts of violence. Fortunately,
> most of us are also survivors, and we have no intention of wallowing
> in self-pity. We have every intention of destroying our enemies before
> they destroy us.
>
Fine. RES
> > No country deserved to be
> > attacked in the way it has. Yet you assume any reflection as to the
> > causes, any analysis as to why this thing has happened, is tantamount to
> > being complicit with terrorism.
>
> Your accusation is false. I have reflected on the causes, and I have
> analyzed why this thing happened. Insane wackos commit evil deeds for
> insane reasons.
Wonderful insightful analysis <sarcasm> consistent from your point of
view. Happily is as simplistic as your accusations about sedition. RES
Of course, that doesn't require the "self reflection"
> you demand.
>
> Just out of curiosity, what cause do you ascribe?
'Cause'?? Perhaps a safer and more just world. Oh the sedition!!! RES
Was this just
> punishment for liberating the muslim people of Kuwait from an evil
> aggressor?
You frame your questions in a way that avoids any chance for addressing
the long term nature of the terrorist problem. RES
What this punishment for liberating the muslim people of
> Kosovo from an evil aggressor? Are you suggesting that we should
> simply ignore evil tyrants like Hitler and Saddam?
Haven't followed the argument very well, have you. RES
>
> Do you realise that bin Laden is mainly pissed at the presence of
> American Kafirs on holy arab ground?
Yep. RES
Do you realize that those Kafirs
> are stationed there to contain Saddam's evil regime?
Yep?
> As an aside: The rumours I have heard indicate Saddam has put nuclear
> weapons on the back-burner (for now) to focus on bioweapons instead.
> They are cheaper and potentially have a higher casualty rate.
>
He's been doing this for many years. He gassed his own people for
Christ's sake during his US supported proxy war. But it was sedition
then, too, to mention it!!! RES
> When it comes right down to it, these lunatics hate the US because the
> US is big and successful while they are wretched failures. Their
> failure combined with an interpretation of the Qur'an that tells them
> they should be superior drives them insane.
>
And you've missed the point. RES
> > You use Orwell to buttress your argument
> > inappropriately.
>
> Really? You disagree that those in a democratic society who oppose war
> against an aggressive, insane totalitarian regime implicitly support
> the regime?
>
Now the terrorists are an insane totalitarian regime? Better give Bush a
call. RES
> > Blair and Bush are clearly not pacifists or apologists
> > yet you unwittingly call them that because they appear to be taking
> > steps which reveal some degree of reflection in their actions, garnering
> > Islamic support for their actions.
>
> Non sequitur.
It's yours. RES
Bush is just acting like the rational, intelligent
> leader he is, and I do not see any special self reflection in that.
I believe Bush's/US actions show some reflection. You do not. RES
> The leader of the free world and the commander in chief of the US
> military should be a responsible, rational individual. Bush is.
> Clinton wasn't.
>
What cause do you have? Trashing democrats with sexual piccalillis? RES
> I haven't heard Bush apologize for US foreign policy in an attempt to
> appease bin Laden. I have heard him state emphatically that the US is
> at war.
>
On a 'crusade' in fact. An unfortunate word that unintentionally put all
US and Christian lives at risk in Pakistan for instance. RES
> > Your logic would have them strike
> > outright as a reflex.
>
> That is not my logic -- it's your mischaracterization.
>
Then you have mischaracterized analysis and reflection. RES
> > The evil and wretched will always
> > > attack the good and great simply to remove the comparison. This holds
> > > especially true for wretchedness dissonant with ideology, which is as
> > > much the case for the socialists and communists who apparently
> > > hijacked the CBC as it is for the terrorists who hijacked the jets.
> >
> > Ahh now the bile comes out.
>
> The socialists have been choking on their bile for a decade or more.
What cause do you have again? Oh yea, fighting the evil scourge of
democracy and freedom, right? Your bile reveals an idiotic view of the
world. RES
I
> see no bile in the above; I see a rational analysis of the causes of
> the attack based on careful reflection and study.
>
Yea, I've seen your analysis. the terrorists are nuts and they do
irrational things. Try winning the 'war' against them with that juvenile
analysis. What a laugh. If I sound insulting it's because of your
language, calculated to be insulting. But still, even though I'm choking
on my bile, I can still identify rightoid bullshit when I hear it, no
matter how veiled it is with quotes from socialists like Orwell ( the
irony is laughable) . RES
> I apologize that it is not the navel-gazing self-blame you so
> desperately want.
>
Your insightful analysis I guess was predictable. RES
> > This is the foundation of your logic.
>
> I disagree with your mischaracterization of my conclusion as
> axiomatic. It is the conclusion of careful, educated reasoning
> untainted by ideology.
>
Yes, I can see that. You have no ideas. RES
> > must really goad you into apoplexy to see Britain and Blair back Bush.
>
> Not at all. Why should it?
>
> > But then using your logic they are complicit with the terrorists,
> > afterall they appear to be doing some analysis as to the *whys* of this
> > event, otherwise why on earth would they be soliciting world support?
> > RES
>
> ...in order to wage effective war. I do not see either of them trying
> to analyse "why" fanatical lunatics attacked them; I think they are as
> clear on "why" as I am.
>
> > > > This is totalitarian language &
> > > > technique designed to stifle all dissent in a free and democratic
> > > > society.
> > >
> > > Bullshit. Orwell's argument is a rational, logical analysis of the
> > > eventualities and morals of one's behaviour. Are you aware of the
> > > irony in accusing Orwell of using "totalitarian language & technique"
> > > ?
> > >
Socialists like Orwell spew bile remember? RES
> > You aren't aware of your ironic use of Orwell. You attribute analysis
> > and reflection as pacifism.
>
> No, I do not. I merely observe that those in a democratic society who
> oppose war against a totalitarian aggressor aid the totalitarian
> aggressor.
First the terrorists themselves are a totalitarian regime, then they are
nuts who act irrationally. Now they are totalitarian aggressors again.
Nevermind, whoever they are let's declare War on them right? Some
analysis. RES
By the way, I notice that you changed "self reflection" to
> reflection. Are you back-pedalling?
>
SELF REFLECTION. RES
> > Your logic is flawed. Using Orwell to defend
> > your view doesn't cut it. RES
>
> Since you have my logic backward, I doubt you are qualified to judge.
>
It's you looking through the rear view mirror. RES
> > > Those who attempt to redefine war as crime use totalitarian technique.
> > > Those who use overqualified, meaningless arguments use totalitarian
> > > technique. Those who redefine oppressors as the oppressed use
> > > totalitarian technique. Those who confuse the rules of evidence in a
> > > courtroom for the rules of probable cause on the streets use
> > > totalitarian technique.
> > >
> >
> > And those who attribute pacifism to 'analysis and reflection' are simply
> > incorrect.
>
> I did not do that. It does not take much to see through the straw man
> you constructed.
>
> > > When disgusting lefties demand "evidence of wrongdoing" against a man
> > > who has publicly declared war and incited insurrection, whose song do
> > > you think they sing?
> > >
> >
> > Get with the program.
>
> Get with what program? Singing the Battle Hymns of Mullah Omar?
>
No, of getting as many Islamic countries on side and allowing them to
bring their people with them. You may not be aware of this but Pakistan
is an unstable country vulnerable to the same virus as Afghanistan. RES
> > Questions re: evidence is meaningful to the people
> > who need to be onside, namely Islamic countries like SA and Pakistan,
> > Jordan et al.
>
> bin Laden was indicted by a Grand Jury. Pakistan is actually the
> source of most of the intelligence against bin Laden. The demand for
> "evidence" was a cynical delaying tactic and nothing more.
>
Thank goodness Blair is a bit more understanding of Pakistan's actual
political needs. RES
The far right thinks the US Government has not made any mistakes, and to
point them out is anti-American and seditious. The US must not make the
same mistakes again. Simple enough? RES
> > > > Orwell was bang on on his assessment of pacifism's negative effect on
> > > > the British war effort. It is flawed logic to employ a similar
> > > > parallel/comparison to those who want to prosecute the terrorists and,
> > > > at some point, reflect on our own sins.
> > >
> > > What sins? The liberation of the muslim people of Kuwait? The
> > > liberation of the muslim people of Kosovo? Attempting to provide aid
> > > to the famine-stricken people of Somalia?
> >
Right wing bullshit. Kuwait and the Saddam was handled was indeed an
egregious error. RES
> > Liberation of Kuwait my ass. More like a hostile takeover bid of Kuwaiti
> > Oil Corp thwarted (Scowcroft on Board of Kuwaiti oil). Propaganda.
>
> Yes, I see you spout typical anti-american propaganda.
>
yea, I'm just so anti-American <sarcasm> You are a perfect illustration
of where oversimplifications can lead. I guess the entire Islamic world
is irrational. RES
> > #2 I
> > supported NATO involvement in Kosovo. I guess there goes any assumption
> > about me being anti-american. Somalia too was a progressive attempt and
> > a act of compassion showing how much the US had changed in the past 10
> > years. RES
>
> And the gratitude they get for protecting the muslims of Kosovo from
> Serbian war crimes are manned missile attacks against the WTC and the
> Pentagon?
>
All those little brown Islamic buggers are alike to you aren't they?
Bomb them all and let God sort them out? Of course not. RES
> I am sure the Serbs would have a few "Liberation of Kosovo my ass"
> comments of their own.
>
> > > I don't suppose you mean our actual sins like when we knowingly
> > > ignored the plight of the East Timorese at the hands of Indonesia for
> > > political expediency.
> > >
> > There's a good one. VP Ford and Kissinger meet with Suharto and the next
> > day a countercoup is launched ending in 2 million dead Indonesians. RES
>
> Of course, bin Laden is not attacking the US for their support of the
> Islamist regime in Indonesia, is he?
>
> Um, let's tally up your position so far:
>
> The US steps in to liberate Kuwait -- that's bad.
> The US steps in to liberate Kosovo -- that's good.
> The US fails to aid East Timor -- that's bad.
> The US fails to aid itself and the oppressed people of Afghanistan --
> that's good?
>
Let's tally up yours: America is pure and good and makes no mistakes.
I'm not going to get into Kuwait here, but this liberation nonsense is
an international joke. It's Saddam that needed to be muzzled. RES
> > > > Funny thing a world which isn't as black and white as we would like,
> > > > isn't it. RES
> > >
> > > What is not black and white about it?
> >
> > I'll let you figure that one out. RES
>
> I don't need to -- the world has sufficient contrast. But then again,
> I am not blinded by anti-american ideology.
Take off those rose-colored glasses. RES
David Deilley
> was the clamour for nuking and carpet bombing etc from the nutbar
> contingent of this ng, who are less and less active here recently . I'm
> thinking for example of Iconoclast/Ciceroii and a few others. RES
It has actually been ten days since we heard from John
"Iconoclast/Ciceroii" Lambourn. I speculate that between his libelour
lies and his hate mongering lies his ISP's pulled the plug for
violating the Terms of Service.
Bob Badour
> In article <cd3b3cf.01100...@posting.google.com>,
> bba...@golden.net (Bob Badour) writes:
> > ...
> > war. Even if we accept your definition, the Taliban are a nation-state
> > and bin Laden's mujahideen fight for the Islamic people. (In their own
>
> the taliban are a relatively small clique of religious zealots who
> managed to gain almost complete control of a nation state
How do they differ from the Nazis with whom we warred in the previous
world war?
> > minds, if in nobody else's.)
> >
> >
> >> My guess, and it's only a guess, is that
> >> crimes against humanity will be the easiest to prosecute and easiest to
> >> justify.
> >
> > The manned missile attacks on the World Trade Center and on the
> > Pentagon were acts of war calculated to interfere with America's
> > war-making capability. There were no crimes against humanity. Ergo,
> > the charge would prove impossible to prosecute in anything but a
> > kangaroo court. You guessed wrong.
>
> considering that based on what has been published about the
> investigations they hit the pentagon because they couldn't find the
> white house
Both the pentagon and the white house are military targets.
> and that the wtc hardly represents america's war making
> capabilities
Sufficient disruption to American commerce and to American financial
markets would render the US incapable of military action in the Middle
East. They failed, but that doesn't mean they didn't try.
> (you might want to argue that a lot of what was inside
> represented its ability to support a war effort in the long run, but
> that's a different matter), your claim lacks merit
If my claim that the attacks did not constitute crimes against
humanity lacks merit, presumably you can offer reasonable
demonstration that such criminal acts took place. You have not offered
any such demonstration.
>
> > ...
>
> hs
E. Barry Bruyea
>h...@heaven.nirvananet (Hartmann Schaffer) wrote in message news:<3bbf...@news.sentex.net>...
>> In article <cd3b3cf.01100...@posting.google.com>,
>> bba...@golden.net (Bob Badour) writes:
>> > ...
>> > war. Even if we accept your definition, the Taliban are a nation-state
>> > and bin Laden's mujahideen fight for the Islamic people. (In their own
>>
>> the taliban are a relatively small clique of religious zealots who
>> managed to gain almost complete control of a nation state
>
>How do they differ from the Nazis with whom we warred in the previous
>world war?
Virtually the entire German population was fully behind Hitler. From
all reports coming out of Afghanistan, only a small number of the
total population fully support the Taliban. That could change if
co-alition attacks become general across Afghanistan. Stalin found
out you can stay in power without dissent by having a common enemy to
hate. It could work the same way for the Taliban, depending on the
size and nature of the actions against the country in general.
Bob Badour
> Bob Badour wrote:
> >
> > RES <resc...@home.com> wrote in message news:<3BBBE600...@home.com>...
> > > Bob Badour wrote:
> > > >
> > > > RES <resc...@home.com> wrote in message news:<3BB79522...@home.com>...
> > > > > Bob Badour wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Archie Kennedy <aken...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3BB731D4...@hotmail.com>...
[snip]
> > > I believe cats of war can only be committed by nation-states or
> > > 'peoples'. This doesn't apply.
> >
> > By your definition, civil war is not war, and militia cannot engage in
> > war.
>
> Has the US Congress declared 'war'? RES
Does it matter? Did the US Congress declare war on North Korea?
> > > My guess, and it's only a guess, is that
> > > crimes against humanity will be the easiest to prosecute and easiest to
> > > justify.
> >
> > The manned missile attacks on the World Trade Center and on the
> > Pentagon were acts of war calculated to interfere with America's
> > war-making capability.
>
> Bulllshit. They were meaningless from a strictly military point of view.
I guess that means the battle for the North Atlantic during the second
world war was meaningless from a stricly military point of view. All
those submarines sinking merchant ships were crimes against humanity.
> Do you think the US's military capability was affected one iota?
Yes, it was. Whether, in the short term, the effect was significant to
the current war is a different matter.
> It was
> calculated to inflict maximum civilian death and symbolically 'stab the
> heart' of America, showing that it wasn't invulnerable. RES
What it was calculated to do is arguable. It certainly inflicted
significant civilian death. I thought the symbolism more closely
resembled castration ie. cutting off or collapsing the symbols of
American potency.
Other effects the attacks had and that one could argue they were
calculated to do are: they closed the US financial markets for an
extended period of time, they demoralized investor confidence, they
disrupted commerce, they disrupted communications, they disrupted
travel, they dragged down the US economy etc.
> There were no crimes against humanity. Ergo,
> > the charge would prove impossible to prosecute in anything but a
> > kangaroo court. You guessed wrong.
> >
>
> Well, perhaps we'll leave that up to the UN and International Courts
> and, I imagine the US Government. I'd sooner take their opinion than
> yours. I do hope you don't mind. RES
In case you hadn't noticed, the US Government is pursuing war and not
legal prosecution in International Courts. Perhaps they share my
opinion.
> > > If its a war there's no crime, right? By virtue of the example
> > > you give below re: Br./Churchill bombing of Germany(civilians). RES
> >
> > War crimes involve "violations of the laws or customs of war."
> >
> > Crimes against humanity comprise "Atrocities and offences, including
> > but not limited to murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation,
> > imprisonment, torture, rape, or other inhumane acts committed against
> > any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or
> > religious grounds whether or not in violation of the domestic laws of
> > the country where perpetrated..."
> >
> > http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/ccno10.htm
> >
>
> Thank you for pointing out my case for me. Certainly unprovoked murder
> would be included. RES
First, one would have to prove the issue of provocation. Second, one
would have to prove the deaths were the result of murder and were not
collateral to an act of war.
> > I don't think one will meet the burden of proof for either of those
> > charges.
>
> Let's see what international jurisprudence produces. RES
If it ever happens, which I doubt.
> > One might meet the burden of proof for "Crimes against Peace", but
> > that would mean we are at war, in any case.
>
> There is warfare to be sure, but no 'war' in the conventional or even
> legal (US) sense. RES
Are you also going to quibble over the meaning of the word "is" ?
war (wôr)
n.
A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between
nations, states, or parties.
Is the conflict covert or unarmed? Or are you claiming that a period
of at least five years is not prolonged?
> > > > > I certainly support a deliberate, meaningful persecution of
> > > > > the terrorists and the necessary attendant force that needs to be used.
> > > >
> > > > What do you think "war" means?
> > > >
> > > War is between nation states.
> >
> > war n.
> >
> > A condition of belligerency to be maintained by physical force.
> >
> > The waging of armed conflict against an enemy.
> >
> > An active struggle between competing entities.
> >
> > A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between
> > nations, states, or parties.
> >
> > A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something
> > considered injurious.
> >
> > I do not limit myself to your highly constrained definition of the
> > word. Even if I did, I would simply point out that the Taliban is the
> > ruling regime of a nation state. (Note too that Iraq is a nation
> > state.)
> >
>
> Perhaps if/when the Congress passes a resolution declaring 'war' and the
> subsequent delegation of powers/authority to the Commander-in-Chief,
> beyond peacetime powers, it'll be War. RES
I am not an expert on constitutional law, but here is what others have
had to say:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/WTC_war_definition010913.html
"The Constitution vests in the president, as commander in chief, the
authority to take actions he deems necessary to protect and defend the
United States," said White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, noting
that only five of the 125 military actions launched by past presidents
have involved formal declarations of war.
"I doubt whether it would be necessary to declare war to take whatever
action that will be taken," said Walter Berns, a constitutional law
expert with the American Enterprise Institute. "We have allowed that
power to slip away from the Congress."
After the Vietnam War, Congress tried to reclaim some of that power,
passing the War Powers Act in 1973 over President Nixon's veto. The
resolution, which many administrations including the current one have
suggested is unconstitutional, requires presidents to notify Congress
within 48 hours of sending U.S. armed forces "into hostilities" and
withdrawing them within 60 days if Congress does not approve.
But the act provides for an exception that is more relevant now than
ever: "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States."
"You could make a case … that the president was free to respond once
the United States was attacked," said James Lindsay, a national
security expert with the Brookings Institution.
...
Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., told reporters on Capitol
Hill: "Whether we declare it or however you describe it, we are at
war."
> > We will not end terrorism until we topple the regimes that sponsor
> > terrorism.
> >
> 'Topple'? 'Regimes'? Terrorism will not end until we live in a more just
> world. RES
We cannot live in a more just world until we topple unjust regimes.
> > > I'm for the use of necessary and appropriate force re:
> > > these terrorists, and while the US/UN needs to use all the weapons at
> > > their disposal, it, nonetheless, seems to me that declaring war on a
> > > group of wackos devalues the concept of war and misrepresents the nature
> > > of the terrorist problem which itself has a social dimension. RES
> >
> > War has a social dimension -- several in fact.
> Didn't mean to imply that it didn't. How else would you describe a fight
> against a regime while providing aid to the regime's ostensible
> citizens, before an attack? RES
>
> Again, if not the use
> > of necessary and appropriate force, what do you think "war" is?
>
> Seems to me the US was successful in removing many regimes without
> declaring 'war' on them.
Whether they declared war is irrelevant to whether they waged war.
> There is a difference between 'warfare' and
> War. Was the bombing of Serbia a 'war'? Not in my books. RES
In your books, you can believe whatever fantasy you desire.
> Your
> > ideological prejudice doesn't cause you to presume "war" means
> > ineffective, overblown, knee-jerk missile attacks or indiscriminate
> > carpet bombing, does it?
> >
> Ideological prejudice? You are assuming things here. Perhaps we are
> operating under different definitions. I have a conventional
> interpretation of what war is, especially as it pertains to the US and
> the 21st C. There are varying degrees of warfare, but until Congress
> passes a resolution declaring WAR, the US is simply employing the
> necessary force to apprehend guilty parties - and who can blame them.
> RES
By your reasoning above, the second world war would not have been a
war unless congress declared war. By your reasoning, the second world
war did not start until late in 1942.
I quoted several conventional definitions of the word "war" above.
Perhaps you also have a different understanding of the word
"conventional" ? You seem to enjoy hairsplitting.
> > > > > It seems anyone who is hoping for the US to undertake some measure of
> > > > > self reflection as to *why* the world is less safe for them is
> > > > > 'complicit' with the attackers.
> > > >
> > > > I addressed these points in another thread:
> > > >
> > > > >>> Repeat broadcast
> > > >
> > > > Those who require "rationalization or introspection" from North
> > > > America practise an evil, dangerous, disgusting sedition.
> > >
> > > This is meaningless. What is 'rationalization or introspection'. It is
> > > not pacifism.
> >
> > I never claimed that rationalization or introspection is pacifism. I
> > was responding to your request for self reflection. On that point, I
> > will repeat: I must not and I will not attempt to rationalize the
> > irrational acts of lunatics. The victims of violence require
> > confrontation, not introspection, to heal.
> >
>
> I'm not aware of anyone who is entertaining 'rationalization'. Do you
> really think the US or anyone else is going to go down the same path as
> they did in Afghanistan re: proxy wars and backing a category of
> religious extremism again?
It could happen. I cannot predict the outcome or the actions of all
the players.
> Don't you think the CIA will build into their
> analyses these kinds of factors.
I think the CIA will analyze information and execute the orders given
them.
> Well, that's a bit of self-reflection.
I was thinking it was a bit tenuous, actually.
> I guess it's seditious on their part to do so. If the CIA has
> 'rationalized' their behavior, I guess they too are complicit in the WTC
> attacks and future murders. RES
By now, your argument becomes absurdly tenuous.
> > > It is simply a heightened consciousness re: tackling the
> > > problem.
> >
> > Bullshit. It is self-blame for the blameless. Would you counsel a rape
> > victim to rationalize the actions of her rapist? Would you counsel her
> > to introspect on her role in the rape?
>
> You think I am blaming the innocent people killed and injured in the WTC
> attack and the subsequent damage to the world economy? You are
> overwrought if you think so. RES
You hoped for US self reflection and would apparently offer that as
counsel for the US. Would you offer the same counsel to a rape victim?
Would express a hope for a rape victim to undertake some measure of
self reflection as to *why* the world is less safe for her?
> > As I said, it is evil, dangerous, seditious and disgusting.
> >
> > > We are not fighting a conventional war.
> >
> > I am well aware of the type of war we wage. It will be a long and
> > difficult war requiring careful statesmanship, frequently covert
> > action, careful courtship of the enemies of our enemies, infiltration
> > of our enemies' ranks, ground assaults, air superiority and the
> > determination to face our enemies wherever we find them.
> >
>
> Sounds like you have undertaken some reflection here.
None of which was the variety called "self reflection". Recommending
or hoping for self reflection would be evil, dangerous, seditious and
disgusting.
In any case, I never said that victims of violence who self reflect
are seditious. When a victim of violence falls prey to "self
reflection", I feel heartrending sadness.
Requiring, counselling or hoping for "self reflection" from victims of
violence is evil, dangerous, seditious and disgusting.
As much as you might like to argue against a different position, that
is the position I stated previously and the position I continue to
hold. I have enough faith in human compassion to believe that the
majority of people, who are ethical and moral, would agree.
> You are being
> seditious.
You are beating up a straw man.
> Are you are counseling an equivocation to moral
> retribution.RES
I am not the one who is equivocating.
> > > It is a sedition in itself. RES How's them
> > > apples?
> >
> > Sedition n.
> >
> > An illegal action inciting resistance to lawful authority and
> > tending to
> > cause the disruption or overthrow of the government.
> >
> > In Afghanistan and Iraq, one could argue my words are seditious. In
> > North America, I urge the government to defend itself from those who
> > would disrupt or overthrow it, which is the antithesis of sedition.
> >
> > Since I do not recognize the Taliban, Saddam or any other dictator as
> > "lawful authority", I am not sure my words are even seditious in
> > Afghanistan and Iraq.
> >
>
> I am the one accused of sedition.
You are the one hoping for the US to undertake some measure of self
reflection as to *why* the world is less safe for them in response to
what you call "unprovoked murder".
> I am merely using your logic.
Your logic is entirely alien to me.
> You are
> defending yourself from the arguments *you* have imposed on this
> discussion. RES
I am pointing out the twists you have applied to my arguments to
construct your straw man. You have not applied my arguments at all.
> > > I must not
> > > > and will not attempt to rationalize the irrational acts of fanatical
> > > > lunatics.
> > >
> > > No one is doing this. This is a false premise. These acts were
> > > irrational in that they had no meaningful or reachable objective other
> > > than to kill innocent people.
> >
> > Unless one considers the disruption of commerce a meaningful,
> > reachable objective. Or unless one considers a drop in morale a
> > meaningful, reachable objective.
> >
>
> Although this might have been a goal, I personally don't give them that
> much credit. Yes, commerce has been disrupted. Absolutely. However, as
> to 'morale', I think you would agree that this has had the opposite
> effect for most Americans. I don't include, of course, those many people
> who lost lived ones and friends, or jobs as a result.
The emotions expressed to me by family, friends and acquaintances on
both sides of the Canada/US border comprise apprehension, depression,
confusion, mistrust, hatred, horror, sadness, anger and anxiety. I am
not convinced the general population has yet gained the moral
certainty required to carry us through this war successfully.
> However, their big hope was to ignite a massive retribution against all
> Islam I think, thus getting more recruits. RES
I agree.
> > > You have totally confused 'rationalize'
> > > with analyze' and accuse the folks doing the later as seditious. RES
> >
> > What self reflective analysis do you demand that is neither
> > rationalization nor introspection?
>
> How did the Taliban gain power?
1. They appealed to religious chauvinism.
2. They were aided by the government of Pakistan.
3. They recruited foreign auxiliary forces through bin Laden's al
Qaeda organization.
> What is the real effect of Proxy Wars?
In the case of Afghanistan, the effect of the proxy war was nothing
less than the collapse of soviet communism. In the case of Viet Nam,
the effect of the proxy war was nothing less than the only decisive
defeat of the USA in a major war.
I hope and pray that China does not funnel aid to the Taliban in a
proxy war against both the US and Russia.
> How has the sales of arms to combatants affected the body politic of
> this particular country?
During the proxy war, it defeated a much larger and much better
equipped invader. During the civil war, it brought to power a
government sympathetic to the country supplying the arms.
> How can the West avoid the creation of
> cesspools of refugee camps where the Taliban and Islamic Fundamentalist
> ideology breed like a virus.
The Taliban recruit most of their fundamentalist zealots from other
countries -- from Pakistan mostly. The refugee camps probably
contribute more to the Taliban's enemies than to the Taliban.
> It's quite a common worry amongst political theorists that new
> technologies will allow for countries to commit suicide, launching
> weapons of mass destruction against the West knowing that they will be
> destroyed in counter attack.
I am much more worried about a suitcase nuke or WMD launched by
terrorists within our borders. We might never be able to trace the
source to a country for the US to destroy.
> And finally, what policies in place ought
> to be changed to reflect the changing political realities.
While the US has drastically altered some policies and realigned many
of its allegiances recently, I find the changes consistent with
reflection on how best to confront the enemy and not at all consistent
with self reflection on any US provocation of the attack.
> All these questions are seditious, but necessary I believe for our
> survival. If it's evil, then I'm happy to say I'm evil. RES
Asking these questions is not seditious or evil. Suggesting that the
US must self reflect on their role in causing the attacks is seditious
and evil.
> The US is completely blameless in
> > these attacks.
>
> If you believe this then you must categorize the questions I have asked
> above as evil. RES (I see you make no distinction between the US
> Government and it's citizens)
No, I do not. I categorize the assumption that the US is to blame for
the attacks on the WTC as evil.
> Or are you honestly arguing that the liberation of
> > Kuwait justifies bin Laden's attacks?
>
> You are overwrought. Do you think you are talking to a terrorist? RES
I don't know what I am talking to. In the case of bin Laden, he is
pissed at the US presence in Saudi Arabia during and after the Gulf
War. If you are honestly suggesting that US foreign policy is
ultimately to blame for the WTC attacks, you are suggesting that the
US should not have liberated Kuwait and should not contain Saddam.
> Are you suggesting that the US
> > should just leave Saddam to work whatever evil he desires?
> >
>
> Back in 1979-80 I and others were calling US policy on Iraq precisely
> this. Now this shit gets thrown back. RES
In that case, you have apparently been consistently against US foreign
policy for over two decades regardless of their policy.
> > What, exactly, would you have the US do differently? Roll over and
> > die?
> >
>
> Actually, I think the US response to this attack has been measured and
> hopefully effective. Why you think I would advocate inaction is simply a
> reflection of preconceived notions on your part. RES
How would you answer the questions you posed above? Apparently, you
believe the answers require "self reflection".
> > > This way lies madness. The victims of violence do not
> > > > require introspection.
> > >
>
> The victims of violence require justice. I have not advocated
> 'introspection' in its place. This is your flawed interpretation of my
> position based on some faulty preconceptions. RES
Perhaps my interpretation is flawed. Do you hope for the US to
undertake some measure of self reflection as to *why* the world is
less safe for them?
> > > The people wanting a safer word demand answers to the problem.
> >
> > Criminal trials will not make the world safer.
>
> Glib statement. Certainly apprehending or 'eliminating' terrorists will.
> RES
Without war, how many terrorists (or even criminals against humanity)
have we apprehended or 'eliminated' through criminal trials?
Terrorists are cheap and easily manufactured. We will never address
terrorism without addressing the regimes who manufacture them.
> The only way to make
> > the world safer is removal of the terrorists' means to wreak havoc.
>
> Agreed. Who has argued differently? RES
>
> > This means destruction of those regimes who sponsor terrorism.
>
> ************Perhaps the US may have a bit of reflection and stop giving
> aid to these regimes.*************** I say that with all the indignancy
> (sic) I can muster.
Yes, I agree. The US needs to reflect on who the regimes are and how
to end their support for terrorism. In some cases, economic sanctions
and withdrawal of aid may achieve the desired result. In some cases,
the US must invade. In others, the US must support existing active
insurrections in proxy wars against the ruling regime.
> Syria, the great scourge that may yet have its
> fingerprints all over this, gets a break now and then for being part of
> the coalition against Saddam.
Already, in the few weeks since the start of WWIII, the world has
realigned itself in many ways -- some drastic.
> I note that Syrian intelligence is
> reported to have supplied the Al Queda with the NSA codes needed to
> establish the whereabouts of Air Force 1 the day of the attack.
I have not seen this report. It is certainly conceivable.
> This may
> certainly be the case re: the downing of Pan Am Flight over Lockerbie,
> where the Libyans were tagged for what was a breach of security
> exploited by Syrian Intelligence. There are many sources for this charge
> including the former DIA agent currently granted asylum in Sweden for
> blowing the whistle on the DEA. (Instead of drugs being planted on the
> plane as the DEA hoped, it was a bomb).
This sounds farfetched but certainly possible.
> While current US policy has
> improved greatly, and was not intended to have overtly negative results,
> even to bring these things up is now 'seditious'. RES
Bringing these things up might be seditious and might not. Whether it
is seditious would depend on how one brings them up and why.
> This
> > means making sure that none of these regimes succeeds in producing
> > weapons of mass destruction.
>
> Perhaps the pharmaceutical and chemical companies selling these
> technologies and materials should be made to cooperate. Certainly the US
> looked askance at many strategic products sold to Saddam during the Gulf
> War (Iraq-Iran). This was certainly true of Britain, France and Germany.
> RES
I don't know how you intend to "make them cooperate". I am sure that
most, if not all, would cooperate in any case.
> This means identifying and eliminating
> > the existing fifth column in our own countries.
>
> True enough. Never argued against this. But how? RES
Careful and diligent intelligence gathering and investigation.
> > > To heal, we require confrontation.
> > >
> > > We require Justice.
> >
> > We can have no justice without confrontation. The just response to
> > uprovoked aggressive acts of war is war -- or, better yet, victory.
> >
>
> Against who? I would say against the terrorists and those who choose to
> support them. Now in attacking this virus, what methods will you use to
> minimize 'collateral damage'?
I think "limit" would be a better word than "minimize". I would
suggest using intelligent, discriminate target identification and
acquisition.
> Certain methods will inherently cause
> innocent death.
Innocent death is unavoidable, regardless.
> Certainly this was true for Clinton when he bombed,
> mistakenly, Sudan's only pharmaceutical plant.
Clinton was neither intelligent nor discriminate.
> There were only a few
> deaths there but perhaps you're not aware, the Sudanese death rate for
> children went up dramatically, unable to access the needed
> drugs/medications - I think it was estimated 10,000 deaths. But of
> course, this is sedition and evil thoughts.<sarcasm> RES
Where, in the above, did you reflect on *why* the world is less safe
for the US?
> > > And in the short term justice means finding the
> > > people responsible and removing the thread however it can be done.
> >
> > Yes, we must wage war. I agree.
> >
> > > Simple confrontation will lead to mistakes.
> >
> > Who said war is simple?
>
> Never said that or implied that. Simple confrontation will lead to
> mistakes.
I never suggested simple confrontation or implied that it is
desirable.
> Thankfully Bush has appeared to avoid that. The confrontation
> is international in scope and measured. this howl from the right that
> the US should start bombing right away is counterproductive an immoral.
I don't know what "right" you hear howling. Would you care to be a
little more explicit?
> As an aside, I note that an increase of 10,000 child deaths with a few
> cruise missiles certainly has complicated things. RES
Are you suggesting we send Clinton off to the Hague for trial? I would
not object.
> > > It is the counsel of despair
> > > and fortunately Bush and the US appear to be heeding these important
> >
> > Of course they are. They are intelligent, moral people. How did you
> > expect them to wage war?
> >
>
> I didn't 'expect' anything different actually. What I did expect to see
> was the clamour for nuking and carpet bombing etc from the nutbar
> contingent of this ng, who are less and less active here recently . I'm
> thinking for example of Iconoclast/Ciceroii and a few others. RES
I don't know them, and they have not posted in this thread.
> > > For some
> > > > strange reason, I doubt that these same socialists and terrorist
> > > > sympathizers would counsel a rape victim to introspect.
> > >
> > > Bogus argument and analogy. Are socialists terrorist sympathizers?
> >
> > Yes, most of them have revealed themselves as such. Insofar as the
> > socialists are anti-american, they sympathize with the anti-american
> > sentiments of the terrorists. They have repeatedly stated or implied
> > that the US is ultimately to blame for these attacks. They have
> > repeatedly called for restraint, when restraint will kill us all.
> >
>
> Now the real rant begins. Restraint will kill us all. The mantra of the
> loony right.
Apparently, you think I am ranting and a member of the loony right. I
fear that I am neither of those things.
> Take your bile about 'socialists' being 'anti-American' and shove them.
> RES
Take your bile about the US deserving the WTC attacks and shove them.
PLONK!
RES
Bob Badour wrote:
>
> RES <resc...@home.com> wrote in message news:<3BBFAE28...@home.com>...
> > Bob Badour wrote:
> > >
> > > RES <resc...@home.com> wrote in message news:<3BBBE600...@home.com>...
> > > > Bob Badour wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > RES <resc...@home.com> wrote in message news:<3BB79522...@home.com>...
> > > > > > Bob Badour wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Archie Kennedy <aken...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3BB731D4...@hotmail.com>...
>
> [snip]
>
> > > > I believe cats of war can only be committed by nation-states or
> > > > 'peoples'. This doesn't apply.
> > >
> > > By your definition, civil war is not war, and militia cannot engage in
> > > war.
> >
> > Has the US Congress declared 'war'? RES
>
> Does it matter? Did the US Congress declare war on North Korea?
>
Precisely. That was obviously a conventional war undertaken under UN
auspices and resolutions. RES
> > > > My guess, and it's only a guess, is that
> > > > crimes against humanity will be the easiest to prosecute and easiest to
> > > > justify.
> > >
> > > The manned missile attacks on the World Trade Center and on the
> > > Pentagon were acts of war calculated to interfere with America's
> > > war-making capability.
> >
> > Bulllshit. They were meaningless from a strictly military point of view.
>
> I guess that means the battle for the North Atlantic during the second
> world war was meaningless from a stricly military point of view.
Non sequitor. RES
All
> those submarines sinking merchant ships were crimes against humanity.
>
Those were acts of War. RES
> > Do you think the US's military capability was affected one iota?
>
> Yes, it was. Whether, in the short term, the effect was significant to
> the current war is a different matter.
>
> > It was
> > calculated to inflict maximum civilian death and symbolically 'stab the
> > heart' of America, showing that it wasn't invulnerable. RES
>
> What it was calculated to do is arguable. It certainly inflicted
> significant civilian death. I thought the symbolism more closely
> resembled castration ie. cutting off or collapsing the symbols of
> American potency.
>
> Other effects the attacks had and that one could argue they were
> calculated to do are: they closed the US financial markets for an
> extended period of time, they demoralized investor confidence, they
> disrupted commerce, they disrupted communications, they disrupted
> travel, they dragged down the US economy etc.
>
> > There were no crimes against humanity. Ergo,
> > > the charge would prove impossible to prosecute in anything but a
> > > kangaroo court. You guessed wrong.
> > >
> >
> > Well, perhaps we'll leave that up to the UN and International Courts
> > and, I imagine the US Government. I'd sooner take their opinion than
> > yours. I do hope you don't mind. RES
>
> In case you hadn't noticed, the US Government is pursuing war and not
> legal prosecution in International Courts. Perhaps they share my
> opinion.
>
Call it what you want. Military force is being used to punish and help
eliminate a rogue regime secondly, and primarily 'get' the terrorists Al
Queda. While bin Ladin can justly be tried in a US court (should he be
caught), it would be more politic to try him in International Courts as
well. RES
> > > > If its a war there's no crime, right? By virtue of the example
> > > > you give below re: Br./Churchill bombing of Germany(civilians). RES
> > >
> > > War crimes involve "violations of the laws or customs of war."
> > >
> > > Crimes against humanity comprise "Atrocities and offences, including
> > > but not limited to murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation,
> > > imprisonment, torture, rape, or other inhumane acts committed against
> > > any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or
> > > religious grounds whether or not in violation of the domestic laws of
> > > the country where perpetrated..."
> > >
> > > http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/ccno10.htm
> > >
> >
> > Thank you for pointing out my case for me. Certainly unprovoked murder
> > would be included. RES
>
> First, one would have to prove the issue of provocation.
??? RES
Second, one
> would have to prove the deaths were the result of murder and were not
> collateral to an act of war.
>
Are you suggesting bin Ladin is acting as a person engaged in a
legitimate 'act of war'? RES
I suppose if bin Ladin is captured (which I doubt) he can claim as some
of his defence that he was engaged in legitimate acts of war? RES
> >
> > Perhaps if/when the Congress passes a resolution declaring 'war' and the
> > subsequent delegation of powers/authority to the Commander-in-Chief,
> > beyond peacetime powers, it'll be War. RES
>
> I am not an expert on constitutional law, but here is what others have
> had to say:
> http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/WTC_war_definition010913.html
>
> "The Constitution vests in the president, as commander in chief, the
> authority to take actions he deems necessary to protect and defend the
> United States," said White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, noting
> that only five of the 125 military actions launched by past presidents
> have involved formal declarations of war.
>
He is surely protecting the US. That's my point. No resolution is
required because the US is not at war - and no other authority (UN) has
given authority. RES
> "I doubt whether it would be necessary to declare war to take whatever
> action that will be taken," said Walter Berns, a constitutional law
> expert with the American Enterprise Institute. "We have allowed that
> power to slip away from the Congress."
>
This is a different argument. I'm assuming that Congress still has these
powers.RES
> After the Vietnam War, Congress tried to reclaim some of that power,
> passing the War Powers Act in 1973 over President Nixon's veto. The
> resolution, which many administrations including the current one have
> suggested is unconstitutional, requires presidents to notify Congress
> within 48 hours of sending U.S. armed forces "into hostilities" and
> withdrawing them within 60 days if Congress does not approve.
>
> But the act provides for an exception that is more relevant now than
> ever: "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States."
>
Exactly. RES
> "You could make a case … that the president was free to respond once
> the United States was attacked," said James Lindsay, a national
> security expert with the Brookings Institution.
>
> ...
>
> Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., told reporters on Capitol
> Hill: "Whether we declare it or however you describe it, we are at
> war."
>
Well Trent Lott subscribes to your view. RES
> > > We will not end terrorism until we topple the regimes that sponsor
> > > terrorism.
> > >
> > 'Topple'? 'Regimes'? Terrorism will not end until we live in a more just
> > world. RES
>
> We cannot live in a more just world until we topple unjust regimes.
>
Like in Brazil, Chile, El Salvador, Dominican republic, Indonesia etc.
RES
For the US correct. RES
Like yours. RES
> > > > It is simply a heightened consciousness re: tackling the
> > > > problem.
> > >
> > > Bullshit. It is self-blame for the blameless. Would you counsel a rape
> > > victim to rationalize the actions of her rapist? Would you counsel her
> > > to introspect on her role in the rape?
> >
> > You think I am blaming the innocent people killed and injured in the WTC
> > attack and the subsequent damage to the world economy? You are
> > overwrought if you think so. RES
>
> You hoped for US self reflection and would apparently offer that as
> counsel for the US. Would you offer the same counsel to a rape victim?
>
> Would express a hope for a rape victim to undertake some measure of
> self reflection as to *why* the world is less safe for her?
>
Depends on the circumstances but generally no. RES
> > > As I said, it is evil, dangerous, seditious and disgusting.
> > >
> > > > We are not fighting a conventional war.
> > >
> > > I am well aware of the type of war we wage. It will be a long and
> > > difficult war requiring careful statesmanship, frequently covert
> > > action, careful courtship of the enemies of our enemies, infiltration
> > > of our enemies' ranks, ground assaults, air superiority and the
> > > determination to face our enemies wherever we find them.
> > >
> >
> > Sounds like you have undertaken some reflection here.
>
> None of which was the variety called "self reflection". Recommending
> or hoping for self reflection would be evil, dangerous, seditious and
> disgusting.
>
> In any case, I never said that victims of violence who self reflect
> are seditious. When a victim of violence falls prey to "self
> reflection", I feel heartrending sadness.
>
Well I make a distinction between the US Government and the citizens of
the US. I'm not suggesting the citizens undertake self reflection. RES
True. RES
> > It's quite a common worry amongst political theorists that new
> > technologies will allow for countries to commit suicide, launching
> > weapons of mass destruction against the West knowing that they will be
> > destroyed in counter attack.
>
> I am much more worried about a suitcase nuke or WMD launched by
> terrorists within our borders. We might never be able to trace the
> source to a country for the US to destroy.
>
24 suitcase bombs are missing. RES
> > And finally, what policies in place ought
> > to be changed to reflect the changing political realities.
>
> While the US has drastically altered some policies and realigned many
> of its allegiances recently, I find the changes consistent with
> reflection on how best to confront the enemy and not at all consistent
> with self reflection on any US provocation of the attack.
>
> > All these questions are seditious, but necessary I believe for our
> > survival. If it's evil, then I'm happy to say I'm evil. RES
>
> Asking these questions is not seditious or evil. Suggesting that the
> US must self reflect on their role in causing the attacks is seditious
> and evil.
>
> > The US is completely blameless in
> > > these attacks.
> >
> > If you believe this then you must categorize the questions I have asked
> > above as evil. RES (I see you make no distinction between the US
> > Government and it's citizens)
>
> No, I do not. I categorize the assumption that the US is to blame for
> the attacks on the WTC as evil.
>
Oversimplifying language. RES
> > Or are you honestly arguing that the liberation of
> > > Kuwait justifies bin Laden's attacks?
> >
> > You are overwrought. Do you think you are talking to a terrorist? RES
>
> I don't know what I am talking to. In the case of bin Laden, he is
> pissed at the US presence in Saudi Arabia during and after the Gulf
> War. If you are honestly suggesting that US foreign policy is
> ultimately to blame for the WTC attacks, you are suggesting that the
> US should not have liberated Kuwait and should not contain Saddam.
>
Not by adding to Scowcroft's share values in Kuwait, yet. RES
> > Are you suggesting that the US
> > > should just leave Saddam to work whatever evil he desires?
> > >
> >
> > Back in 1979-80 I and others were calling US policy on Iraq precisely
> > this. Now this shit gets thrown back. RES
>
> In that case, you have apparently been consistently against US foreign
> policy for over two decades regardless of their policy.
>
I've been pretty consistent. It's the US that's been inconsistent. RES
> > > What, exactly, would you have the US do differently? Roll over and
> > > die?
> > >
> >
> > Actually, I think the US response to this attack has been measured and
> > hopefully effective. Why you think I would advocate inaction is simply a
> > reflection of preconceived notions on your part. RES
>
> How would you answer the questions you posed above? Apparently, you
> believe the answers require "self reflection".
>
> > > > This way lies madness. The victims of violence do not
> > > > > require introspection.
> > > >
> >
> > The victims of violence require justice. I have not advocated
> > 'introspection' in its place. This is your flawed interpretation of my
> > position based on some faulty preconceptions. RES
>
> Perhaps my interpretation is flawed. Do you hope for the US to
> undertake some measure of self reflection as to *why* the world is
> less safe for them?
>
> > > > The people wanting a safer word demand answers to the problem.
> > >
> > > Criminal trials will not make the world safer.
> >
> > Glib statement. Certainly apprehending or 'eliminating' terrorists will.
> > RES
>
> Without war, how many terrorists (or even criminals against humanity)
> have we apprehended or 'eliminated' through criminal trials?
>
There's that word again. I'm happier with the words 'force'. RES
> Terrorists are cheap and easily manufactured. We will never address
> terrorism without addressing the regimes who manufacture them.
>
> > The only way to make
> > > the world safer is removal of the terrorists' means to wreak havoc.
> >
> > Agreed. Who has argued differently? RES
> >
> > > This means destruction of those regimes who sponsor terrorism.
> >
> > ************Perhaps the US may have a bit of reflection and stop giving
> > aid to these regimes.*************** I say that with all the indignancy
> > (sic) I can muster.
>
> Yes, I agree. The US needs to reflect on who the regimes are and how
> to end their support for terrorism. In some cases, economic sanctions
> and withdrawal of aid may achieve the desired result. In some cases,
> the US must invade. In others, the US must support existing active
> insurrections in proxy wars against the ruling regime.
>
Sedition!! RES
> > Syria, the great scourge that may yet have its
> > fingerprints all over this, gets a break now and then for being part of
> > the coalition against Saddam.
>
> Already, in the few weeks since the start of WWIII, the world has
> realigned itself in many ways -- some drastic.
>
> > I note that Syrian intelligence is
> > reported to have supplied the Al Queda with the NSA codes needed to
> > establish the whereabouts of Air Force 1 the day of the attack.
>
> I have not seen this report. It is certainly conceivable.
>
> > This may
> > certainly be the case re: the downing of Pan Am Flight over Lockerbie,
> > where the Libyans were tagged for what was a breach of security
> > exploited by Syrian Intelligence. There are many sources for this charge
> > including the former DIA agent currently granted asylum in Sweden for
> > blowing the whistle on the DEA. (Instead of drugs being planted on the
> > plane as the DEA hoped, it was a bomb).
>
> This sounds farfetched but certainly possible.
>
> > While current US policy has
> > improved greatly, and was not intended to have overtly negative results,
> > even to bring these things up is now 'seditious'. RES
>
> Bringing these things up might be seditious and might not. Whether it
> is seditious would depend on how one brings them up and why.
>
You give a carte blanche charge of sedition whatever the context. RES
I'm saying the US made a mistake. RES
> > > > And in the short term justice means finding the
> > > > people responsible and removing the thread however it can be done.
> > >
> > > Yes, we must wage war. I agree.
> > >
> > > > Simple confrontation will lead to mistakes.
> > >
> > > Who said war is simple?
> >
> > Never said that or implied that. Simple confrontation will lead to
> > mistakes.
>
> I never suggested simple confrontation or implied that it is
> desirable.
>
> > Thankfully Bush has appeared to avoid that. The confrontation
> > is international in scope and measured. this howl from the right that
> > the US should start bombing right away is counterproductive an immoral.
>
> I don't know what "right" you hear howling. Would you care to be a
> little more explicit?
>
> > As an aside, I note that an increase of 10,000 child deaths with a few
> > cruise missiles certainly has complicated things. RES
>
> Are you suggesting we send Clinton off to the Hague for trial? I would
> not object.
>
A simple case of admitting a mistake would be a good start. RES
Look at your words and then look at mine. You dismiss me as having an
illegitimate point of view by definition then say I say the US deserved
the attack. You are a blowhard. RES
Valentine Michael Smith
wrote:
Did you read what was written ?
nkennedy
How typically of a pseudo libertarian.
Two weeks later he decides to respond with nothing, just a dance
Go hide for another two weeks, keep resurfacing under different names,
who gives a fuck for wispy bits of lint like you
Neil K
Honest John
wrote:
Have you ever thought of adding some content to your posts?
nkennedy
John
You mean dumb them down to such a level that EVEN you could understand?
I'm good, but no one is THAT good.
Neil K
Honest John
wrote:
So where do you think Bin Laden will try to hide when the Taliban
fall?
nkennedy
I dunno, the Bronx, the lower Eastside, Ames, Mayberry, UBC ?
What the fuck does this have to do with anything?
Neil K
David Johnston
Oh hey, we aren't demanding. Just something that isn't nothing but personal
invective seasoned with hatred.
E. Barry Bruyea
What, and let the world know how much he really doesn't know? It's
easier to post 'sites' that he thinks back him up, praying that nobody
will bother to check. Neil is the guy walking around with a protest
sign, never bothering to look up and see what it says.
E. Barry Bruyea
wrote:
>"Have you ever thought of adding some content to your posts"->Honest
You are a prime example of the "Emporers New Clothes" Neil. And
what's worse, there was a time when you could be amusing, but that
seems to have passed.
E. Barry Bruyea
wrote:
Excellent and typical spin, Neil. No content, no committment.
E. Barry Bruyea
He's contracted the "West Neil Carrickature Syndrome".
>
>
Valentine Michael Smith
wrote:
I take it you didn't bother to read the post, and figure a few silly
insults will divert attention from the lack of substance. Maybe for
some - but for the rest - enough of this silliness.
Probably not worth the typing to ask you to substantiate the claim I
post under more than one name either - I presume.
Valentine Michael Smith
Michael Smith) wrote:
Still no word on who else I am posting as - as you acuse me of -
perhaps an appology is in order .....
nkennedy
You know how it is with Randian idiotites posing as libertarians, they
all "look the same". So you will have to wait until you start behaving
as an honest man before any apology is even considered.
Neil K
E. Barry Bruyea
wrote:
Neil, when are you going to stop all this pompous, holier-than-thou
crap you've been laying on us lately? You sound like some out-of-work
elitist who hasn't realized the crowd around the soap box left an hour
ago.
Valentine Michael Smith
Worse - this nkennedy admits they have lied (accusing me of being
dishonest when he doesn't even have the vaguest reason why or how) -
and then uses his own admitted fabrications to state that I am
dishonest ?
The more I debate wth the authoritarians the more I become convinced
the base problem is they are incapable of either reason or fairness.