'They Had It Coming' Brigade - Propaganda Getting Smarter
Wavell
the radio talk shows and the newspapers - the THIC-ers are getting
subtler.
After all, the best sort of propaganda doesn't feel like propaganda -
the well-known footage of the Palestinian street-party celebrating the
attack might well be thought to have been organised by the CIA (had
they not proved themselves incapable of organising a pissup in a
brewery).
One of the key emotions their campaign is intended to engender in the
British public is guilt. Guilt, that is, for their support of the US
in general, and, in particular, for their support of US military
action following the WTC attacks.
And one popular line used for this purpose is 'America [and, by
extension, Britain] thinks its lives are more important than [several
names could fill the blank]'.
This is a great line for the THIC-ers. It's short, and wraps up two
lies in one.
First, it suggests that anyone who doesn't care the same about every
human life on the planet is unnatural in some way, subhuman, even. The
fact that Americans devote so much airtime (and politician-time) to
the deaths of a few thousand on its soil - but ignore the greater loss
of life in [fill in the blank] means they have been blinkered by their
money-grubbing, obsession with consumption, etc, etc, and lost a key
element of their humanity.
The welter of globalophobe propaganda in recent years (albeit directed
to a different purpose), together with pre-existing prejudices, mean
that a significant part of the British population is now accustomed to
thinking of Americans as greedy and selfish (in the context of global
warming, for instance).
And the way they incessantly boost the country and every portion of it
has naturally registered as egotism on a unique scale.
In fact, nothing is more natural, more human than to care most about
those with which one has most connection. As an intellectual matter,
one may want peace, democracy and the rule of law for every inhabitant
on the planet (and wish that one's government should take reasonable
steps to help in bringing this about).
But naturally, the people one cares about are ranked, according to
intensity of emotion. To an American, another, unknown, American ranks
higher than an unknown Bengali, say (for obvious reasons of
identification). But both rank way below his spouse or child.
It's a great line because it links up with the 'geopolitical
illiteracy' line of attack. Obviously part (not the biggest part) of
the reason for the ranking is a parallel ranking of knowledge of other
countries. They seem to imply that the mere fact of American
prosperity and the global impact of the system that underpins it makes
an American holding anything less than a graduate degree in
international relations guilty of smug and wilful ignorance.
The other lie is the same point from the reverse viewpoint. Other
peoples, especially in the Third World, but to a lesser extent in
Europe, have a natural empathy with their brethren all over the world.
They are closer to nature as being less sullied by American
materialism (despite the best endeavours of the capitalist behemoth).
They are better human beings than the Americans.
This is usually not stated in so many words. But, clearly, if the
Americans are relatively less caring about the citizens of other
nations, it follows that other peoples are more caring.
The lack of any evidence to support this conclusion doesn't dampen its
propaganda effect much.
For an extended version of the sort of stuff I'm referring to, savour
this thoroughly nasty piece of work from the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/from_our_own_correspondent/newsid_1554000/1554940.stm
Our correspondent is effusive about his hosts
"I have never known such consistently courteous, generous people." The
coded meaning is obvious - and not a little racist, you may think.
We are treated to a charming travelogue of the 'Balham, Gateway to the
South' variety in what is clearly a latter-day Eden of good
fellowship.
Then he looses both barrels:
"America has been rightly punished for supporting the brutality of
Israel".
And other similar observations from the Edenites.
Then he gets to the nub:
Talking of the Vincennes incident, one upstanding citizen asked:
"Did the Americans weep for those 200 dead?" he asked. "Tears of the
same colour whoever is weeping? Grief makes the same pain."
From our correspondent from the supposedly impartial BBC, no challenge
to these observations. Nothing is permitted to taint their pristine
purity.
Pakistan, you will recall, is the site of some of the bloodiest ethnic
cleansing of the 20th century. Moslem extremists, and their Hindu
counterparts, gloried in slaughter and rape to the extent (for the
entire subcontinent) of several hundreds of thousands of deaths,
barely two generations ago.
This was murder without consumerist trappings, neighbour slitting
neighbour's throat with weapons of local manufacture. And all (on the
Moslem side) in the name of that peaceful religion of theirs.
And it was the same Pakistan that, in 1971, slaughtered several
hundreds of thousands, perhaps a million of its citizens - and fellow
Moslems - in East Pakistan -
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+bd0027).
Yet the racist implication is, the upstanding citizens interviewed by
our correspondent are better human beings than the Americans!
Priceless is the contribution from the banker - surely there is no
suggestion of rhyming slang here? - who
"thinks the Americans are astonishingly and dangerously solipsistic."
Not only is the banker a better human being than you, wretched
listener, he has a larger vocabulary, too!
The parting shot really puts us in our place:
"....one of the assistants Hafez Amin said to me in halting English:
"It is bad, but our lives bad too. Please for us work, and food - no
revenge.""
This enterprising chap tells the Americans their loss is nothing
special - then holds out his begging bowl!
If a supposedly impartial BBC correspondent is able to get this sort
of stuff on the air, imagine the possibilities for other contributors!
Of course, none of this suggests one should view statements from US
(or any other) official sources with other than thoroughgoing
distrust.
The difference is, one expects governments to churn out propaganda -
notions of spin, credibility gap, and so on are factored into the way
we deal with such product.
The temptation is to believe that the 'ordinary Joe' is 'telling it
from the heart', without artifice or 'angle'.
Which, from Islamabad to Islington, ain't necessarily so.
Alexskidot
>peoples, especially in the Third World, but to a lesser extent in
>Europe, have a natural empathy with their brethren all over the world.
>They are closer to nature as being less sullied by American
>materialism (despite the best endeavours of the capitalist behemoth).
>They are better human beings than the Americans.
I agree to a certain extent that your view is that of many people around the
world. However, though you attempt to refute the logic of it, you really do not
present any real evidence that backs your claim that their views are in reality
based on false assumptions or propaganda in themselves.
Are you not merely producing anti-propaganda that has no substance to it? I say
this because of your insistance in using the word "lie" and other words that
are clearly "weighted" or with "value". These words must be seen for what they
are - of use to the propagandist and not for those who aim to get at the truth.
Alex
SteveL
>My impression is that, in the main vehicles for UK popular opinion -
>the radio talk shows and the newspapers - the THIC-ers are getting
>subtler.
>
>After all, the best sort of propaganda doesn't feel like propaganda -
>the well-known footage of the Palestinian street-party celebrating the
>attack might well be thought to have been organised by the CIA (had
>they not proved themselves incapable of organising a pissup in a
>brewery).
Actually, a lot of the time they succeed. Guatemala, Chile, Nicaragua
(in the end). Sure they screw up a lot too, but your dismissal of them
is complacent.
>
>One of the key emotions their campaign is intended to engender in the
>British public is guilt. Guilt, that is, for their support of the US
>in general, and, in particular, for their support of US military
>action following the WTC attacks.
That's some master plan you've dreamed up. However, "we" have no
campaign. The campaigners are Bush's "crusaders".
>
>And one popular line used for this purpose is 'America [and, by
>extension, Britain] thinks its lives are more important than [several
>names could fill the blank]'.
>
>This is a great line for the THIC-ers. It's short, and wraps up two
>lies in one.
>
>First, it suggests that anyone who doesn't care the same about every
>human life on the planet is unnatural in some way, subhuman, even. The
>fact that Americans devote so much airtime (and politician-time) to
>the deaths of a few thousand on its soil - but ignore the greater loss
>of life in [fill in the blank] means they have been blinkered by their
>money-grubbing, obsession with consumption, etc, etc, and lost a key
>element of their humanity.
And there are plenty of options for the blanks. Vietnam, Laos,
Cambodia, Chile, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran,
Kuwait, and others I'm too tired to remember now.
The cliches about insular Americans have been doing the rounds as long
as I've been around. It's a truism that the average American only
knows or really cares about America. American servicemen stationed
abroad always refer to the US as "the world". How about the tales of
Americans not wanting to fly to Britain during the Balkan troubles
because they thought Britain is so close to Yugoslavia and they might
get caught up in it.
Well, you know the cliche about cliches. Ever watch the US news? 95%
domestic. And foreign news is pitched at an emotional kindergarten
level, Middle eastern coverage is basically Israel=good, and
arabs=bad. And it rarely goes any deeper than that.
And before you get on my case, I'm American. Give me credit for
knowing my own people.
>
>The welter of globalophobe propaganda in recent years (albeit directed
>to a different purpose), together with pre-existing prejudices, mean
>that a significant part of the British population is now accustomed to
>thinking of Americans as greedy and selfish (in the context of global
>warming, for instance).
<snip>
>It's a great line because it links up with the 'geopolitical
>illiteracy' line of attack. Obviously part (not the biggest part) of
>the reason for the ranking is a parallel ranking of knowledge of other
>countries. They seem to imply that the mere fact of American
>prosperity and the global impact of the system that underpins it makes
>an American holding anything less than a graduate degree in
>international relations guilty of smug and wilful ignorance.
You should read some of the "let's nuke Afghanistan now, so we can get
back to normal" posts in alt.politics before you defend accusations of
American ignorance. And these aren't totally dumb people. Many of the
people showing this ignorance of the effects of nuclear weapons are
fully aware of the fine details of internecine domestic politics. But
their picture of the outside world is all broad strokes in primary
colors - and that's being generous.
>
>The other lie is the same point from the reverse viewpoint. Other
>peoples, especially in the Third World, but to a lesser extent in
>Europe, have a natural empathy with their brethren all over the world.
>They are closer to nature as being less sullied by American
>materialism (despite the best endeavours of the capitalist behemoth).
>They are better human beings than the Americans.
>
>This is usually not stated in so many words. But, clearly, if the
>Americans are relatively less caring about the citizens of other
>nations, it follows that other peoples are more caring.
>
>The lack of any evidence to support this conclusion doesn't dampen its
>propaganda effect much.
Nonsense. People are people. That's all. Nobody's "better" than anyone
else. That's the *point*. What pisses me off is the automatic
assumption by the American press and politicians that the US has a
moral superiority, virtually by default - and all because, for once,
they are the victims of a terrible and evil act.
>
>For an extended version of the sort of stuff I'm referring to, savour
>this thoroughly nasty piece of work from the BBC
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/from_our_own_correspondent/newsid_1554000/1554940.stm
>
>Our correspondent is effusive about his hosts
>
>"I have never known such consistently courteous, generous people." The
>coded meaning is obvious - and not a little racist, you may think.
That interpretation is full of shit. So saying nice things about
Pakistanis is out of order now is it?
<snip the rest>
So Pakinstanis aren't perfect. Wow. They have violence in their past.
Bigger wow.
Criticism of US foreign policy has been a regular occurance in the
British news for decades. Politicians and commentators from all over
the spectrum have expressed this on a regular basis. Sometimes with
anger. Often with a kind of bemused or patronising "wish they'd stop
and think" attitude.
There's nothing new about this, and in my view they're right. The
awful events of Sept 11th doesn't alter the fact that past US abuses
have caught up with them.
While we're on the subject of lies, how about the official American
answer to why it could possibly be that these foreigners could hate
the US enough to commit such an act. Why of course, they hate the
freedoms we enjoy, especially the religious freedom, and women having
the vote. Hell they just *hate*.
That's a very convenient answer.....
The Wall St Journal (perhaps this organ meets with your approval where
the BBC doesn't) had a survey of wealthy Muslim businessmen on Sept
14th. They expressed resentment of US policies of supporting Israel's
"crimes", the US's constant vetoing of UN sanctions against them. They
resented the continued US military attacks on Iraq, the bombing of
Iraqi civilians, and supporting anti-democratic regimes in the area.
These were well to do, educated people. Aren't the ordinary dirt poor
people actually suffering these things going to feel even more bitter
about it? To the point perhaps of resorting to acts of terrorism?
Europeans have resorted to violence and revolution with far less
justification.
But no of course not. They're just muslim fanatics who hate
freedom.....
TheHipCrimeVocab
coming".
However, quite a few people say "Barbarous actions have happened before, and
often as not the American Government was involved"
No one condones what happened in New York. Lots of people see it as being more
than simply "An assault on civilization".
History:-
Papa Hegel he say that all we learn from history is that we learn nothing from
history.I know people who can't even learn from what happened this morning.
Hegel must have been taking the long view.
Chad C Mulligan - The HipCrimeVocab.
Edward Cowling London UK
<wav...@club.lemonde.fr> writes
>My impression is that, in the main vehicles for UK popular opinion -
>the radio talk shows and the newspapers - the THIC-ers are getting
>subtler.
>
I think the event in is too recent in peoples minds to have a reasoned
debate on the subject. One BBC journalist likened America to a mother
that had just lost a child. They may want to act in an unreasonable way
due to natural grief, but friends should try to calm them.
The one question we shouldn't ignore is...
Why should around 20 people commit suicide to attack America ?
Their grievances must have been very real to them. America has to ask
this question, and try to do something about it. Maybe not now when the
pain is so raw, but eventually all of us the west need to consider how
we treat the Islamic nations and the third world in general.
--
Edward Cowling London UK
Paris
news:c9176e77.01092...@posting.google.com...
This THIC-ers thing of yours...
Is this like 'anti-semite' or 'nigger'?
<snip>
--
Paris. Not the City
http://www.theprotocols.co.uk
Marc Living
<edw...@genghis0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Why should around 20 people commit suicide to attack America ?
Because they were promised an eternity of nubile virgins and celestial
delights?
>Their grievances must have been very real to them. America has to ask
>this question, and try to do something about it.
I do love the reality reversal inherent in this comment. If you see
somebody being punched and kicked in the street, do you immediately
assume that the person being punched and kicked is to blame for the
whole incident?
--
Marc Living (remove "BOUNCEBACK." to reply)
"The first objective of any tyrant in Whitehall would be to make
Parliament utterly subservient to his will; and the next to overturn or
diminish trial by jury ..." Lord Devlin (http://www.holbornchambers.co.uk)
Barton Whoops
<edw...@genghis0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>The one question we shouldn't ignore is...
>
>Why should around 20 people commit suicide to attack America ?
>
>Their grievances must have been very real to them. America has to ask
>this question, and try to do something about it. Maybe not now when the
>pain is so raw, but eventually all of us the west need to consider how
>we treat the Islamic nations and the third world in general.
Perhaps it was because of the presence of western infidels
[non-muslims] in Saudi Arabia? This, according to Bin Laden, is reason
enough to wage a holy war on the west. Just how do you propose we
'understand' this sort of ideology? Would you ask us all to
'understand' the National Front if they propose that all non-whites in
the UK should be expelled or killed?
Barton Whoops
>My impression is that, in the main vehicles for UK popular opinion -
>the radio talk shows and the newspapers - the THIC-ers are getting
>subtler.
Excellent post. Welcome to the world of biased BBC reporting.
Cliff Morrison
BW324re...@HOTMAIL.COM wrote:
Ideally, yes - as "understand" and "agree with" are quite separate things,
neither of which necessarily implies the other.
SteveL
<black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote:
>>Their grievances must have been very real to them. America has to ask
>>this question, and try to do something about it.
>
>I do love the reality reversal inherent in this comment. If you see
>somebody being punched and kicked in the street, do you immediately
>assume that the person being punched and kicked is to blame for the
>whole incident?
You're analogy assumes you "happened upon" the incident with no
knowledge of the circumstances. Perhaps if you've seen a whole series
of violent encounters in which the current victim was the aggressor
(or had hired others to do the same), it might give you a different,
and probably more valid, perspective.
Reasonable and knowledgable people have been criticising US
Middle-East policy for decades, and some even predicted an explosion
of anger against the US if it didn't begin to moderate it's policies.
No way did the US *deserve* what happened to it. The actual people
behind it deserve retribution. But the US had set itself up for some
kind of retribution. The sad thing is that, once again, innocent
people were the victims - as will be the case when the US attacks
Afghanistan in it's fit of righteous indignation.
Richard Caley
ml> I do love the reality reversal inherent in this comment. If you see
ml> somebody being punched and kicked in the street, do you immediately
ml> assume that the person being punched and kicked is to blame for the
ml> whole incident?
It's not a question of blame. Blame lies with whoever indoctrinated
the idiots who crashed the planes and no one sane disputes that.
However, to take your analogy, if one part of town keeps producing
generations of thugs who go out and attack people, it is stupid to
just keep arresting them year after year. Someone needs to sit back
and think about what is happening in that part of town to create such
people.
--
Mail me as MYFIR...@MYLASTNAME.org.uk _O_
|<
Jim Patterson
<Ste...@stevelon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>You should read some of the "let's nuke Afghanistan now, so we can get
>back to normal" posts in alt.politics before you defend accusations of
>American ignorance. And these aren't totally dumb people. Many of the
>people showing this ignorance of the effects of nuclear weapons are
>fully aware of the fine details of internecine domestic politics. But
>their picture of the outside world is all broad strokes in primary
>colors - and that's being generous.
And I assume that you DO know the effects of nuclear weapons?
You are aware of the differences and the breeds? You do know the
difference in nuclear and thermonuclear and ERW? No? Am I
surprised? Most people don't
Everything looks and affects like the Ivy Mike H-bomb, right?
Most people do.
How can you talk about American ignorance, when you apparently
wield a broad brush with a single color?
And NO, I did not suggest that any should be used.
jim
Edward Cowling London UK
<BW324re...@HOTMAIL.COM> writes
If bias in your eyes means thinking about both sides of a conflict, and
pondering on long term implications.... rather than running with the
hysterical mob.
I'm glad to be biased !
No one has ever beaten terrorists by armed action, it needs diplomacy
and political will.
Jim Patterson
<MYFIR...@MYLASTNAME.org.uk> wrote:
>However, to take your analogy, if one part of town keeps producing
>generations of thugs who go out and attack people, it is stupid to
>just keep arresting them year after year. Someone needs to sit back
>and think about what is happening in that part of town to create such
>people.
Would it be too much if we took that analogy just a leetle
further and say that the criminals were spawned in a faraway town
with people that were not alike in all ways of those in my town?
Could I make the PC observation that there is absolutely no
reason why I should be less comfortable around a Pit Bull than
around a cocker spaniel? I mean, really, all Pit Bulls don't
kill children.
It is just stupid that so many countries collect and kill those
poor dogs.
jim
Jim Patterson
<edw...@genghis0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>No one has ever beaten terrorists by armed action, it needs diplomacy
>and political will.
U.S. vs. Barbary Pirates, starting in 1801 to about 1803.
Words of Admiral Nelson on one US act in a Tripoli harbor:
"Nelson, at that time in the Mediterranean, and the
best judge of a naval exploit as well as the greatest naval
commander who has ever lived, pronounced it "the most bold and
daring act of the age." "
Tripoli declared war on the US<guffaw> after the first ship had
sailed from home, the objective was the Barbary Pirates who
ceased to be a problem.
jim
Richard Caley
jp> Would it be too much if we took that analogy just a leetle
jp> further and say that the criminals were spawned in a faraway town
jp> with people that were not alike in all ways of those in my town?
What if you do, it still doesn't make sense to ignore underlying
causes.
jp> Could I make the PC observation that there is absolutely no
jp> reason why I should be less comfortable around a Pit Bull than
jp> around a cocker spaniel?
This on the other hand just makes it plain just what a mindless bigot
you are.
Richard Caley
>> No one has ever beaten terrorists by armed action, it needs diplomacy
>> and political will.
jp> U.S. vs. Barbary Pirates, starting in 1801 to about 1803.
The Barbary pirates were still there after this attempt to end the
problem. The British tried later. I think the problem finally went
away when the French took a firm grip on the area.
Besides which, piracy is very different from political or religious
terrorism. Piracy is a business, like, say, the drug trade. You can
stop it by making it unprofitable (or makeing something else more
profitable).
SteveL
<jrp32...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>And I assume that you DO know the effects of nuclear weapons?
>You are aware of the differences and the breeds? You do know the
>difference in nuclear and thermonuclear and ERW? No? Am I
>surprised? Most people don't
I have no personal experience of nuclear weapons, no. Thank god.
Neither do you, I suspect.
Yes, I do know the differences. It's been a while since I did
Chemistry at University (with physics as a minor), but from memory:
1) The "ordinary" atomic bomb works by holding near-critical masses of
heavy elements like Uranium (235) and Plutonium, activated by
triggering a large conventional explosion symmetrically to force the
"fuel" into critical mass for an uncontrolled chain reaction of
collisions between atoms causing one or both to split, the products of
which hit other atoms and split them and so on and so on. Far less
yield than the thermonuclear H-bomb, but much dirtier.
2) Then there's the H-bomb. Works by fusing hydrogen into helium
(similar to the sun) causing a small energy release per "transaction".
Cleaner in terms of poisoning the environment long term (but only in
theory - you need fission bombs to explode one in the same manner as
the conventional explosive with the "normal" weapon - so you still get
long term pollution).
3) ERW is the neutron bomb. Bet they love that in the US. Kills people
with "Enhanced Radiation" as it's ephemistically put, but leaves
property relatively intact. It's been dubbed the "Ultimate Capitalist
Weapon" for that reason.
Hope that's enough for now. Or are you going to keep going until you
trip me up?
The posters I was refering to just think of a nuclear bomb (whatever
type) as just a bigger bang than normal. "Let's just nuke 'em and get
on with our lives" is an ignorant viewpoint.
>
>Everything looks and affects like the Ivy Mike H-bomb, right?
No.
>Most people do.
Or they think it's just a like a bigger conventional bomb as above.
>
>How can you talk about American ignorance, when you apparently
>wield a broad brush with a single color?
In your imagination, at least.
>
>And NO, I did not suggest that any should be used.
Then what's your point?
>
>
>jim
Bill Willis
Richard Caley wrote:
This is true enough and it is/will happen(ing). But right now, it is a matter of
priority. Regardless of *why* this happened the task right now is to deal with what
*did* happen.
Bill
Marc Living
<MYFIR...@MYLASTNAME.org.uk> wrote:
The traditional solution to such a problem has been to demolish that
part of town.
Marc Living
<edw...@genghis0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>No one has ever beaten terrorists by armed action,
Baader Meinhof still around then?
> it needs diplomacy
>and political will.
It certainly needs political will.
Marc Living
wrote:
>On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 17:35:29 +0100, Marc Living
><black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote:
>>>Their grievances must have been very real to them. America has to ask
>>>this question, and try to do something about it.
>>I do love the reality reversal inherent in this comment. If you see
>>somebody being punched and kicked in the street, do you immediately
>>assume that the person being punched and kicked is to blame for the
>>whole incident?
>You're analogy assumes you "happened upon" the incident with no
>knowledge of the circumstances. Perhaps if you've seen a whole series
>of violent encounters in which the current victim was the aggressor
>(or had hired others to do the same), it might give you a different,
>and probably more valid, perspective.
It might well do *if* I had indeed seen such.
>Reasonable and knowledgable people have been criticising US
>Middle-East policy for decades, and some even predicted an explosion
>of anger against the US if it didn't begin to moderate it's policies.
In what way do you say that US policy towards Afghanistan would
reasonably be expected to lead to an "explosion of anger" against
them? They assisted the Mujahaddin against the Soviet Union, and
recently gave the Taliban some £48m as a result of their ridiculous
"war against drugs" (which, I can see would lead the anti-taliban
people of Afghanistan to get a bit hacked off, but they do not appear
to have been the guilty parties here).
As regards Bin Laden, he was happy to accept US assistance during the
Soviet occupation, and only got upset with the US because of the
presence of "infidels" in the "holy land" (notwithstanding that they
were there by invitation).
Which of the above policies do you say were immoderate?
>No way did the US *deserve* what happened to it. The actual people
>behind it deserve retribution. But the US had set itself up for some
>kind of retribution.
So you assert. Care to put a bit of meat onto that bone?
>The sad thing is that, once again, innocent
>people were the victims - as will be the case when the US attacks
>Afghanistan in it's fit of righteous indignation.
It may, or may not. We have no idea yet what the US is planning. One
thing which *is* certain however - they are not planning to do
nothing.
SteveL
<black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote:
>
>It might well do *if* I had indeed seen such.
Well, I have no trouble seeing it.
>In what way do you say that US policy towards Afghanistan would
>reasonably be expected to lead to an "explosion of anger" against
>them? They assisted the Mujahaddin against the Soviet Union, and
>recently gave the Taliban some £48m as a result of their ridiculous
>"war against drugs" (which, I can see would lead the anti-taliban
>people of Afghanistan to get a bit hacked off, but they do not appear
>to have been the guilty parties here).
>
>As regards Bin Laden, he was happy to accept US assistance during the
>Soviet occupation, and only got upset with the US because of the
>presence of "infidels" in the "holy land" (notwithstanding that they
>were there by invitation).
>
>Which of the above policies do you say were immoderate?
Not Afghanistan, but all over the region. Supporting Israel's
virtually apartheid policy towards the Palestinians for decades, their
invasion of Lebanon (killing tens of thousands of civilians during
their stay), disobeying UN resolutions asking them to withdraw etc.
And the US continued full (billions of dollars as well as political
muscle) support all the time. But that's just the US being one sided
forgiving Israeli crimes.
Yet while being consistent in supporting Israel, the US itself has
exacerbated tensions in the region by first supporting Iraq against
Iran (even forgiving Saddam's gassing of the Kurds). Then (rightly, in
my view, but not in many Arab's) reversing this by attacking Iraq for
invading Kuwait - to which Iraq alleges a legitimate claim. At any
rate, even after driving out them back out the US has continued
regular bombings of Iraq for the last 10 years. The UN (no friend of
Iraq) has estimated perhaps 500,000 children have been killed in Iraq
during and since the Gulf War (mostly as a result of continued
sanctions). And all because of alleged violations of resolutions from
the same source (the UN), which the US cheerfully ignores when applied
to Israel.
Ok you can argue the figures. You can say it's not deliberate policy
by the US to kill civilans through the sanctions or the bombings but
they occur. Put yourself in the position of a patriotic person seeing
an outside force pursue policies leading to the deaths of 500,000 of
your children, and sponsor another (perceived) outside force causing
even more deaths, and being a daily humiliating presence in your
region. Would you not maybe consider the perpetrators to be a "Great
Satan"? Is it not reasonable to expect that such things might
eventually trigger a negative response against them??
And that's just part of it. Here's a reference to a recent interview
with Noam Chomsky:
3bab1770...@news.ntlworld.com
And a recent article by John Pilger:
http://pilger.carlton.com/print/77937
They put this case a lot more articulately than me.
>
>>No way did the US *deserve* what happened to it. The actual people
>>behind it deserve retribution. But the US had set itself up for some
>>kind of retribution.
>
>So you assert. Care to put a bit of meat onto that bone?
See above.
>
>>The sad thing is that, once again, innocent
>>people were the victims - as will be the case when the US attacks
>>Afghanistan in it's fit of righteous indignation.
>
>It may, or may not. We have no idea yet what the US is planning. One
>thing which *is* certain however - they are not planning to do
>nothing.
I'm not advocating they do nothing. I'm just saying their policy
towards ridding the world of terrorism should include an honest
analysis of their own part in triggering it. That could be the first
genuinely helpful step towards stamping it out for good.
Jim Patterson
No desire to. See your next sentence.
>The posters I was refering to just think of a nuclear bomb (whatever
>type) as just a bigger bang than normal. "Let's just nuke 'em and get
>on with our lives" is an ignorant viewpoint.
>
Sadly, that is commonly true. Besides the fact that it is
loosely tossed out as a 'simple' solution. And that is my
point.
>>
>>Everything looks and affects like the Ivy Mike H-bomb, right?
>
>No.
>
>>Most people do.
>
>Or they think it's just a like a bigger conventional bomb as above.
>
>>
>>How can you talk about American ignorance, when you apparently
>>wield a broad brush with a single color?
>
>In your imagination, at least.
>
>>
>>And NO, I did not suggest that any should be used.
>
>Then what's your point?
See above.
>
Well, Steve, you obviously know a good bit abut these things.
And true, I have no personal experience with such weapons.
AIUI, the thermonuclear device is 3 layers. You are correct in
the first two. The third is a blanket of plutonium which is set
off in an enhanced blast by the bombardment of free neutrons from
layer 2.
AIUI, the yield from the Ivy Mike test was unexpectedly huge.
The principle of the ERW becomes rather simple in operation in
that the third layer is removed and the free neutrons are fatal
to all living things within hundreds of yards. It was originally
considered as a battlefield device. The trigger can be what is
known as an MFD (Miniaturized Fissile Device) that has a blast
area of only a few metres. (China announced that they had MFDs
sometime about 1999, but that's another story)
I understand that these things can be as small as a softball,
that leave some, but supposedly inconsequential, residual
radiation in a few hours.
In the 70s, there were 350 produced for delivery by artillery
shells.
It is truly the weapon from hell.
The extreme bad PR as the 'ultimate capitalist weapon' has kept
things really quiet on it. Capitalist weapon? And China boasts
of it?
>>
>>
>>jim
Jim Patterson
Erm, uh, they ceased to be a problem to ships under the American
flag.
SteveL
<jrp32...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
<snip my stuff>>
Hey, I didn't make the name up. There's a catchy satirical symbolism
about it. And besides, China is anything but hardline communist
anymore. They're still a totalitarian state of course, but their
economy is moving so rapidly towards capitalism that they now probably
qualify as a capitalist nation (the favored nation status -
controversial as it was - would seem to indicate that too).
>
>>>
>>>
>>>jim
Thanks for the added info on these weapons. But now I'm confused. Ok
it's Sunday morning and I'm a little hungover and I haven't been up
long, but it seems we both agree they are awful weapons, we both agree
that many people are sadly unaware of what they do, and we probably
also agree that to call for their use as a weapon of choice is
dangerously stupid (and ignorant).
So. Why were we arguing?
Chaz
London UK <edw...@genghis0.demon.co.uk> writes
<snip>
>No one has ever beaten terrorists by armed action, it needs diplomacy
>and political will.
>
I heard a 'contributor' (on Today (last Wed/or/Thurs, between 6 & 7) say
'military action has never defeated terrorism, with one possible
exception' - I waited for Ma-NockKnees to ask him (even as an aside)
what was *the one* he had in mind - but true to the 'Calvinistic style'
that he follows - he did not!
I hate to say it but I fancy Humpty would have delved & dallied down
that path for a quick response.
I have an idea but would welcome suggestions - any idea what the answer
is? Or, indeed may it be pluralistic?
So the question is; what military action definitively defeated a
particular terrorist organisation? - the exception to the (oft quoted)
rule, so to speak.
--
Cheers Chaz
Richard Caley
jp> Erm, uh, they ceased to be a problem to ships under the American
jp> flag.
You got a reference for that? I have only ever read that the US attack
kicked them in the head for a while and they then started to build up
as a problem.
As I said, if you are dealing with (sane) organised criminals it
is only matter of changing the proffit structure. Terrorists aren't
out to make a quick buck.
Richard Caley
bw> This is true enough and it is/will happen(ing). But right now, it
bw> is a matter of priority. Regardless of *why* this happened the
bw> task right now is to deal with what *did* happen.
But the point in hand is a claim that anyone thinking about underlying
causes is some kind of pinko commie anti-American fag running do
lackey.
Unless you personally are in a position to grab bin Laden or provide
proof beyond reasonable doubt that he was behind it, or help out
someone directly affected, thinking about the real issues is the only
thing available which is more productive than oogling the explosion
pictures.
Richard Caley
ml> The traditional solution to such a problem has been to demolish that
ml> part of town.
Indeed. Which is why our big cities are now crime free.
Richard Caley
c> So the question is; what military action definitively defeated a
c> particular terrorist organisation? - the exception to the (oft quoted)
c> rule, so to speak.
I suspect it depends too much on ones definition of terrorism and also
on that old issue the difference between terrorists and freedom
fighters.
Marc Living
wrote:
>On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 23:51:50 +0100, Marc Living
><black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote:
>>It might well do *if* I had indeed seen such.
>Well, I have no trouble seeing it.
>>In what way do you say that US policy towards Afghanistan would
>>reasonably be expected to lead to an "explosion of anger" against
>>them? They assisted the Mujahaddin against the Soviet Union, and
>>recently gave the Taliban some £48m as a result of their ridiculous
>>"war against drugs" (which, I can see would lead the anti-taliban
>>people of Afghanistan to get a bit hacked off, but they do not appear
>>to have been the guilty parties here).
>>As regards Bin Laden, he was happy to accept US assistance during the
>>Soviet occupation, and only got upset with the US because of the
>>presence of "infidels" in the "holy land" (notwithstanding that they
>>were there by invitation).
>>Which of the above policies do you say were immoderate?
>Not Afghanistan, but all over the region. Supporting Israel's
>virtually apartheid policy towards the Palestinians for decades, their
>invasion of Lebanon (killing tens of thousands of civilians during
>their stay), disobeying UN resolutions asking them to withdraw etc.
>And the US continued full (billions of dollars as well as political
>muscle) support all the time. But that's just the US being one sided
>forgiving Israeli crimes.
I see that you have taken no notice of all those who are reminding us
that muslims are not a form of Borg, all thinking alike, and have
instead assumed that all muslims would be overly concerned about what
happens in Palestine.
Bin Laden certainly doesn't appear to be much concerned about
Palestine - he was happily working for the CIA whilst the israelis
were invading Lebanon.. His beef is the presence of "infidels" in
Arabia.
>Yet while being consistent in supporting Israel, the US itself has
>exacerbated tensions in the region by first supporting Iraq against
>Iran (even forgiving Saddam's gassing of the Kurds). Then (rightly, in
>my view, but not in many Arab's) reversing this by attacking Iraq for
>invading Kuwait - to which Iraq alleges a legitimate claim.
Likewise, this does not appear to have motivated Bin Laden - since he
offered his mujahhadin faction to the Saudi King for use in the war
against Iraq. His offer was rejected - and I don't suppose that that
did much for his self-esteem: nor would it have increased his liking
for the "infidels" whose help *was* requested.
>At any
>rate, even after driving out them back out the US has continued
>regular bombings of Iraq for the last 10 years. The UN (no friend of
>Iraq) has estimated perhaps 500,000 children have been killed in Iraq
>during and since the Gulf War (mostly as a result of continued
>sanctions). And all because of alleged violations of resolutions from
>the same source (the UN), which the US cheerfully ignores when applied
>to Israel.
>Ok you can argue the figures. You can say it's not deliberate policy
>by the US to kill civilans through the sanctions or the bombings but
>they occur. Put yourself in the position of a patriotic person seeing
>an outside force pursue policies leading to the deaths of 500,000 of
>your children, and sponsor another (perceived) outside force causing
>even more deaths, and being a daily humiliating presence in your
>region. Would you not maybe consider the perpetrators to be a "Great
>Satan"? Is it not reasonable to expect that such things might
>eventually trigger a negative response against them??
Yet none of these matters appear to be the motivating force behind Bin
Laden (nor, indeed, the Taliban). Saddam Hussain is, in particular, an
unlikely hero to muslims, being a secular socialist who has only
recently jumped on a muslim bandwagon in the hope of eliciting
sympathy.
Do you have any concrete evidence that Bin Laden, or the Taliban, gave
any thought or care to the matters you mention before it came to be in
their interests to pretend to do so?
>And that's just part of it. Here's a reference to a recent interview
>with Noam Chomsky:
>3bab1770...@news.ntlworld.com
>And a recent article by John Pilger:
>http://pilger.carlton.com/print/77937
Good old Pilger. Still rattling on, is he?
>They put this case a lot more articulately than me.
>>>No way did the US *deserve* what happened to it. The actual people
>>>behind it deserve retribution. But the US had set itself up for some
>>>kind of retribution.
>>So you assert. Care to put a bit of meat onto that bone?
>See above.
>>>The sad thing is that, once again, innocent
>>>people were the victims - as will be the case when the US attacks
>>>Afghanistan in it's fit of righteous indignation.
>>It may, or may not. We have no idea yet what the US is planning. One
>>thing which *is* certain however - they are not planning to do
>>nothing.
>I'm not advocating they do nothing. I'm just saying their policy
>towards ridding the world of terrorism should include an honest
>analysis of their own part in triggering it. That could be the first
>genuinely helpful step towards stamping it out for good.
You do not put out a fire by sitting around and asking how it was
started. That exercise comes after the fire has been put out.
Marc Living
<Cha...@obelisksystems.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>So the question is; what military action definitively defeated a
>particular terrorist organisation? - the exception to the (oft quoted)
>rule, so to speak.
Depending on how wide your definition of "terrorism" (and, indeed,
"military action") might be, the following come to mind:-
Malaya
Baader Meinhof
Red Brigades
Weathermen
Black September
The various "rebel rider" groups after the US civil war
The Thugees
The 1950s IRA*
Piracy
Slavery
(*although, whilst it did effectively destroy the official IRA (which
even discussed dissolving itself in the early 1960s and which never
regained its stomach for the fight) it did not destroy Irish
terrorism, which re-emerged in the early 1970s through the Provisional
IRA.)
Marc Living
<MYFIR...@MYLASTNAME.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <mhvpqtctai0enlv9m...@4ax.com>, Marc Living (ml) writes:
>ml> The traditional solution to such a problem has been to demolish that
>ml> part of town.
>Indeed. Which is why our big cities are now crime free.
The traditional solution wasn't to replace the demolished part with
tower blocks:-)
Jim Patterson
<Ste...@stevelon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2001 09:05:50 GMT, in uk.politics.misc you wrote:
>On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 21:48:36 -0400, Jim Patterson
><jrp32...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
><snip my stuff>>
>
<more large snippage to preserve.....something>
>>It is truly the weapon from hell.
>>The extreme bad PR as the 'ultimate capitalist weapon' has kept
>>things really quiet on it. Capitalist weapon? And China boasts
>>of it?
>
>Hey, I didn't make the name up. There's a catchy satirical symbolism
>about it.
I know you didn't, it was an outgrowth of this by Nikita
Khrushchev:
" This, in effect, is what the neutron bomb is... a bomb by
means of which it would be possible to kill people
but to preserve all riches - here it is, the bestial
ethics of the most aggressive representatives of
imperialism. -Nikita Khrushchev, in a speech to the
Rumanian Party Congress, 1961"
>And besides, China is anything but hardline communist
>anymore. They're still a totalitarian state of course, but their
>economy is moving so rapidly towards capitalism that they now probably
>qualify as a capitalist nation (the favored nation status -
>controversial as it was - would seem to indicate that too).
>
Current red china reminds me of the last scene of 'Animal Farm'.
>
> ... but it seems we both agree they are awful weapons, we both agree
>that many people are sadly unaware of what they do, and we probably
>also agree that to call for their use as a weapon of choice is
>dangerously stupid (and ignorant).
>
>So. Why were we arguing?
LOL! We aren't.
Usenet is not only a forum for arguing, it is also a forum for an
exchange of information and ideas. (That's something that a lot
of people miss as they cuss back and forth :-))
Regards,
jim
Chaz
<black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> writes
>On Sun, 23 Sep 2001 10:07:07 +0100, Chaz
><Cha...@obelisksystems.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>So the question is; what military action definitively defeated a
>>particular terrorist organisation? - the exception to the (oft quoted)
>>rule, so to speak.
>
>Depending on how wide your definition of "terrorism" (and, indeed,
>"military action") might be, the following come to mind:-
>
>Malaya
were expecting a 'fairground shoot' not jungle guerrilla tactics.
>Baader Meinhof
They were assassinated by police - not by military action. Andreas and
Ulriche were part of a pan-europe movement - as was the Angry
Brigade(UK), Red Brigade(Italy) - they were small and vulnerable. It
was their ideas that frightened the status quo. The Basques and IRA have
'independent land for us' (as do PLF, Polisario etc) as their
fundamental demand - Andreas & co had a bigger vision - it was a
revolution over western capitalism, that is why they were dealt with
asap with the dirtiest methods available - but those methods were not
military.
Assertive Revolution is dealt with quite differently - as in Algeria,
Chechnya etc. But the what was the birth of the USA? A War of
Independence springs to mind. But then, for them, it is do as I say not
do as I do, or did!
>Red Brigades
As above but remnants are still there.
>Weathermen
Remind me when the US military bombed these jumped up students? Also
go's for the SLF, Black (and White) Panthers. And the latest estimates
for 'Militia' movements is five million US citizens!
>Black September
They changed their name - just as the Irgun and the Stern Gang (which
hanged British soldiers in Palestine) is now call the Israeli
Intelligence / MOSSAD. But they also shop at M&S so that's OK with
Whitehall.
>The various "rebel rider" groups after the US civil war
War leftovers - all wars have some - mostly mopped up by their 'own'
people.
>The Thugees
Remind me of their 'political' aspirations, I thought they were a
secret society/sect of ruthless thieves?
>The 1950s IRA*
You have to be joking! Are you so desperate that you have to slice a
'movement' into decades? Using your logic we could say that GB was
defeated in 1941? Look up the word 'phase' (battles and war?) and
understand that a 'Freedom War' never ends until it either succeeds or
all proponents are obliterated + memories/records + injustices re-
written. That is why they remain a sore in the side of colonial powers.
We - the Western people would gladly let go and relinquish any interest
but we have a super-set of power brokers who are making lots of money in
all aspects of the situation - that us the real 'demon' - and it is our
'demon'!
>Piracy
Thieves & Rogues that loot booty - and are still there - mostly in
Airport luggage handling.
>Slavery
Who would that be then - nearly all of history is implicated - as
Piracy, it is hardly a Terrorist movement!
>(*although, whilst it did effectively destroy the official IRA (which
>even discussed dissolving itself in the early 1960s and which never
>regained its stomach for the fight) it did not destroy Irish
>terrorism, which re-emerged in the early 1970s through the Provisional
>IRA.)
69 actually - but you are obviously looking through 'rose, white and
blue tainted glasses'. so if that is what you have painted on your
garden wall then there's no point arguing with you!
--
Cheers Chaz
Bill Willis
Marc Living wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2001 00:38:49 GMT, SteveL <Ste...@stevelon.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >Not Afghanistan, but all over the region. Supporting Israel's
> >virtually apartheid policy towards the Palestinians for decades, their
> >invasion of Lebanon (killing tens of thousands of civilians during
> >their stay), disobeying UN resolutions asking them to withdraw etc.
> >And the US continued full (billions of dollars as well as political
> >muscle) support all the time. But that's just the US being one sided
> >forgiving Israeli crimes.
>
> I see that you have taken no notice of all those who are reminding us
> that muslims are not a form of Borg, all thinking alike, and have
> instead assumed that all muslims would be overly concerned about what
> happens in Palestine.
>
> Bin Laden certainly doesn't appear to be much concerned about
> Palestine - he was happily working for the CIA whilst the israelis
> were invading Lebanon.. His beef is the presence of "infidels" in
> Arabia.
I think you are on to something here. I can't fathom Bin Laden but ISTM that
his fundamental hatred is directed at what he sees as the secularization of
Islam. He sees the US as the leading cause of this secularization. He may be
right on that but not because the US forces western ways on Islam but because
much of Islam find western ways very appealing.. I'm sure he is not happy
with Israel existing in the land of Islam, nor is he happy that the West uses
the area as a gas station but these issues (I think) are secondary to the
secularization issue.
Israeli policy and Oil policy are at least in control of the West but the
fact that much of the Islamic world is enticed by western culture - What can
we do about that? I imagine that Bin Laden is even more enraged by many of
the secular leaders in the Arab world such as Mubarak and even our old friend
Saddam Hussein.
Bill
Bill Willis
Richard Caley wrote:
I think the underlying causes are on everyone's mind. There is nothing
wrong or unpatriotic to focus on them if you want and come to any
conclusion you want. Like the expression goes - It's a free country.
For myself and my own concentration of interest I am more interested in the
response to this attack on my homeland than I am about the motivations of
whoever did this. But that is for right now. This is such a monumental
event that debates as to motivation and the response to the attack and the
eventual resolution will be debated actively for the next 100 years.
I have no doubt that September 11, 2001 will become some kind of holiday
in the US and much of the Western world. I predict that for the 21st
century this date will eclipse (not replace) Veterans/Remembrance Day as a
focus for reflection and contemplation . What will be reflected and
contemplated on that date isn't quite clear yet but these answers will
emerge soon enough.
Bill.
Barton Whoops
Morrison) wrote:
>In article <3bac9c11...@news.claranews.com>,
>BW324re...@HOTMAIL.COM wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 14:02:50 +0100, Edward Cowling London UK
>> <edw...@genghis0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >Their grievances must have been very real to them. America has to ask
>> >this question, and try to do something about it. Maybe not now when the
>> >pain is so raw, but eventually all of us the west need to consider how
>> >we treat the Islamic nations and the third world in general.
>>
>> Perhaps it was because of the presence of western infidels
>> [non-muslims] in Saudi Arabia? This, according to Bin Laden, is reason
>> enough to wage a holy war on the west. Just how do you propose we
>> 'understand' this sort of ideology? Would you ask us all to
>> 'understand' the National Front if they propose that all non-whites in
>> the UK should be expelled or killed?
>
>Ideally, yes - as "understand" and "agree with" are quite separate things,
>neither of which necessarily implies the other.
A bad choice of words on my part. Perhaps 'tolerate' or 'agree with'
would have been clearer.
Marc Living
<Cha...@obelisksystems.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <najrqtk42459qaoc7...@4ax.com>, Marc Living
><black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> writes
>>On Sun, 23 Sep 2001 10:07:07 +0100, Chaz
>><Cha...@obelisksystems.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>So the question is; what military action definitively defeated a
>>>particular terrorist organisation? - the exception to the (oft quoted)
>>>rule, so to speak.
>>Depending on how wide your definition of "terrorism" (and, indeed,
>>"military action") might be, the following come to mind:-
>>Malaya
> I would call that a war, which we called terror
Since you have proffered no definition of what you consider to be
terrorism, you cannot be surprised if I use my own.
>- 'cos our conscripts
>were expecting a 'fairground shoot' not jungle guerrilla tactics.
Ah. You are an adolescent. One who (it appears) fondly believes
himself to be a class warrior (armchair division).
Come back on this topic when you have grown up.
>>Baader Meinhof
> They were assassinated by police - not by military action.
Likewise, if you do not offer a definition of what you consider to be
"military action", you should not be surprised if I use my own
<snip - more adolescent twaddle and/or petulant quibbles about what
constitutes terrorism or military action>
>>(*although, whilst it did effectively destroy the official IRA (which
>>even discussed dissolving itself in the early 1960s and which never
>>regained its stomach for the fight) it did not destroy Irish
>>terrorism, which re-emerged in the early 1970s through the Provisional
>>IRA.)
>69 actually -
1971 actually.
> but you are obviously looking through 'rose, white and
>blue tainted glasses'. so if that is what you have painted on your
>garden wall then there's no point arguing with you!
What on earth is this supposed to mean?
Richard Caley
bw> I think the underlying causes are on everyone's mind.
I've seen too many idiots ranting on about how we should go bomb kabul
back into the stone age to accept this.
bw> For myself and my own concentration of interest I am more interested in the
bw> response to this attack on my homeland than I am about the motivations of
bw> whoever did this. But that is for right now.
However, any response which is `right now' is likely to useless at
best.
In any situation, the _first_ thing to think about (after
firefighting) is the underlying causes. Without sitting back and doing
that any response is just wild random thrashing.
bw> I have no doubt that September 11, 2001 will become some kind of holiday
bw> in the US and much of the Western world. I predict that for the 21st
bw> century this date will eclipse (not replace) Veterans/Remembrance Day as a
bw> focus for reflection and contemplation .
That is a pretty terible thing to say about the US population.
Ophelia
"Richard Caley" <MYFIR...@MYLASTNAME.org.uk> wrote in message
news:87adzld...@bast.r.caley.org.uk...
> In article <3BAE0BD7...@bcpl.lib.md.us>, Bill Willis (bw) writes:
>
> bw> I think the underlying causes are on everyone's mind.
>
> I've seen too many idiots ranting on about how we should go bomb kabul
> back into the stone age to accept this.
Pah,. they are already there!
Ophelia
SteveL
<Damian...@nospam.preston-couriers.co.uk> wrote:
>Regular bombings of what, civilian towers or Anti aircraft batteries
>that threaten the aircraft enforcing the no fly zone ?
Sigh....
>
>> The UN (no friend of
>>Iraq) has estimated perhaps 500,000 children have been killed in Iraq
>>during and since the Gulf War (mostly as a result of continued
>>sanctions).
>The sanctions in no way affect the ability of Saddam Hussein to feed
>his people, the fact that he chooses not to is not the fault of the
>US. (And remember these are UN sanctions that are being enforced)
>
>> And all because of alleged violations of resolutions from
>>the same source (the UN), which the US cheerfully ignores when applied
>>to Israel.
>>
>Which UN resolutions does the _US_ ignore in relation to Israel ?
Come on. You could answer your own question if you wanted to. It only
took me two minutes to search for this on the web.
One quote:
"the 500 resolutions by the UN against Israel have all been vetoed by
the USA".
Here's what I got from just one site, and this only covers 1955-1992.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A list of UN Resolutions against "Israel"
1955-1992:
* Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".
* Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that
killed fifty-six people".
* Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's
zone' in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
* Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in
its attack on Syria".
* Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in
the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
* Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967
Palestinian refugees".
* Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on
Karameh in Jordan".
* Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding
military parade in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in
Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
* Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify
Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
* Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as
'flagrant violation".
* Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN
mission to probe occupation".
* Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut
airport".
* Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt
in Jordan".
* Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to
change the status of Jerusalem".
*Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages
in southern Lebanon".
* Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN
resolutions on Jerusalem".
* Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from
Lebanon".
* Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against
Lebanon".
* Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form
Lebanon".
* Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status
of Jerusalem".
* Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against
Lebanon".
* Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on
Lebanon".
* Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs
abducted in Lebanon".
* Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against
Lebanon".
* Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's
sovereignty".
* Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces
from Lebanon".
* Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal
from Lebanon.
* Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with
UN peacekeeping forces".
* Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a
'serious
obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth
Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking
Lebanon".
* Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building
settlements in occupied territories".
* Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all
member
states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
* Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military
intervention in Lebanon".
* Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal
expulsions of
two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
* Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to
observe the
council's order not to deport Palestinians".
* Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure
to abide
by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to
Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
* Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms'
for its
claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".
* Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel
re-admit two deported
Palestinian mayors".
* Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on
Iraq's
nuclear facility".
* Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of
Syria's Golan
Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its
decision forthwith".
* Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
* Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against
Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
* Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces
forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
* Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of
Beirut and
allow food supplies to be brought in".
* Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN
resolutions
and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with
UN forces in Lebanon".
* Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West
Beirut".
* Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing
Tunisia
in attack on PLO headquarters.
* Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to
withdraw
its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
* Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of
Palestinian students
at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
* Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and
practices
denying the human rights of Palestinians.
* Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians
and strongly
requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
* Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the
United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
* Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of
Palestinian civilians.
* Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation
of Palestinians.
* Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against
Palestinians
at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
* Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate
with the United
Nations.
* Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the
deportation of
Palestinians.
* Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of
Palestinians and
calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
* Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of
Palestinians.
* Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of
413 Palestinians
and calls for there immediate return.
>
>Regards
>Damian
>September 11th 2001
>Pictures From Around The World
>http://www.omen1.demon.co.uk/thanks.html
SteveL
<black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote:
>
>
>Yet none of these matters appear to be the motivating force behind Bin
>Laden (nor, indeed, the Taliban). Saddam Hussain is, in particular, an
>unlikely hero to muslims, being a secular socialist who has only
>recently jumped on a muslim bandwagon in the hope of eliciting
>sympathy.
>
>Do you have any concrete evidence that Bin Laden, or the Taliban, gave
>any thought or care to the matters you mention before it came to be in
>their interests to pretend to do so?
Whether bin Laden (assuming he's responsible for this) cares about
these things doesn't matter much if the "foot soldiers" he recruited
do.
>
>>And that's just part of it. Here's a reference to a recent interview
>>with Noam Chomsky:
>>3bab1770...@news.ntlworld.com
>
>>And a recent article by John Pilger:
>>http://pilger.carlton.com/print/77937
>
>Good old Pilger. Still rattling on, is he?
With the truth, yes. He was dead on 20 years ago about Nicaragua and
was among the first to reveal the truth about the Contras - such as 46
out of the top 48 Contra commanders were members of former dictator
Somoza's Gestapo-like National Guard - so much for being the "modern
day equivalent of our founding fathers" or "freedom fighters" (well
they were definitely fighting freedom, that's for sure). Pilger had a
nice cushy job on the Mirror. He'd already made his name. What's in it
for him to become a renegade in the eyes of ordinary people like you?
If you want to belittle the man, start by belitting his arguments,
otherwise it's just an Ad hominem, a logical fallacy.
>You do not put out a fire by sitting around and asking how it was
>started. That exercise comes after the fire has been put out.
But if it started because someone left the stove on too high, you turn
the gas off before you try to put out the fire, otherwise your efforts
are wasted..
SteveL
Must improve my reading comprehension skills. I could have sworn you
were having a go at me :-)
Jim Patterson
<Ste...@stevelon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Must improve my reading comprehension skills. I could have sworn you
>were having a go at me :-)
I hate to drag this out, but you are correct. I originally was.
However, you acquitted yourself well and I tried to respond in
kind.
So cheers and be thee well!
Edwina Frogbucket
"Marc Living" <black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote in message
news:aa4sqt89p86vpumdr...@4ax.com...
> > but you are obviously looking through 'rose, white and
> >blue tainted glasses'. so if that is what you have painted on your
> >garden wall then there's no point arguing with you!
>
> What on earth is this supposed to mean?
Bloody MI5 agents....
:)
--
Edwina Frogbucket
Wavell
> On 21 Sep 2001 14:26:59 -0700, wav...@club.lemonde.fr (Wavell) wrote:
>
> >My impression is that, in the main vehicles for UK popular opinion -
> >the radio talk shows and the newspapers - the THIC-ers are getting
> >subtler.
> >
> >After all, the best sort of propaganda doesn't feel like propaganda -
> >the well-known footage of the Palestinian street-party celebrating the
> >attack might well be thought to have been organised by the CIA (had
> >they not proved themselves incapable of organising a pissup in a
> >brewery).
>
> Actually, a lot of the time they succeed. Guatemala, Chile, Nicaragua
> (in the end). Sure they screw up a lot too, but your dismissal of them
> is complacent.
>
I'll let their hemispheric achievements pass (though I suspect certain
sensitive souls might balk at calling Chile a 'success' for them.)
My concern is rather with their more recent performance.
One might refer, for instance to
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jdw/jdw010911_1_n.
shtml
http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/14/human_spies/index.html
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/18/spooks/index.html
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/12/spies/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/16/international/16INTE.html?searchpv=past7da
and find just cause for concern.
And the regular appearance of 'regular' spies (of Aldrich Ames type)
scarcely gives confidence.
> >
> >One of the key emotions their campaign is intended to engender in the
> >British public is guilt. Guilt, that is, for their support of the US
> >in general, and, in particular, for their support of US military
> >action following the WTC attacks.
>
> That's some master plan you've dreamed up. However, "we" have no
> campaign. The campaigners are Bush's "crusaders".
There's no need to assume a conspiracy. Yankees fans don't need to
hold a public meeting to agree to go along to Yankee Stadium when
their
team's playing.
The objective is a simple enough one - to undermine support for US
military action in response to the attack. The means is equally plain
- to call into question the legitimacy of the US cause of action.
Of course, the complaints of callers and letter-writers are pretty
repetitive. But that's because they're copying each other's work, not
because they're working from a Taliban crib-sheet!
>
> >
> >And one popular line used for this purpose is 'America [and, by
> >extension, Britain] thinks its lives are more important than [several
> >names could fill the blank]'.
> >
> >This is a great line for the THIC-ers. It's short, and wraps up two
> >lies in one.
> >
> >First, it suggests that anyone who doesn't care the same about every
> >human life on the planet is unnatural in some way, subhuman, even. The
> >fact that Americans devote so much airtime (and politician-time) to
> >the deaths of a few thousand on its soil - but ignore the greater loss
> >of life in [fill in the blank] means they have been blinkered by their
> >money-grubbing, obsession with consumption, etc, etc, and lost a key
> >element of their humanity.
>
> And there are plenty of options for the blanks. Vietnam, Laos,
> Cambodia, Chile, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran,
> Kuwait, and others I'm too tired to remember now.
>
Every country's foreign policy treats the lives and interests of its
own citizens above those of the citizens of other countries.
To take a non-war example, to my knowledge no serious politician of
any Western country has ever proposed a redistribution of income to
the poorest of the Third World on a scale in any way comparable to the
extent of redistribution between rich and poor in his own country.
Despite regular images of suffering on the TV screens, even the UN
0.7% of GDP target for overseas aid is reached by few if any Western
countries.
Why not? Because, however social democratic and
anti-American-greed-and-consumerism they might be, their governments
know their people wouldn't stand for it.
(Consider the difficulties in today's South Africa in levelling out
First and Third World living standards.)
The same principle applies to US military interventions. They should
be judged in historical context (the existence and extent of a Soviet
threat at the time is relevant), and questions of excessive or
ill-directed force, as well as of competence are also relevant.
What is absurd is to suggest that those interventions should not have
prioritised US lives and interests.
> The cliches about insular Americans have been doing the rounds as long
> as I've been around. It's a truism that the average American only
> knows or really cares about America. American servicemen stationed
> abroad always refer to the US as "the world". How about the tales of
> Americans not wanting to fly to Britain during the Balkan troubles
> because they thought Britain is so close to Yugoslavia and they might
> get caught up in it.
>
> Well, you know the cliche about cliches.
So you're telling me it's true Irishmen are pig-thick, Scotsmen mean,
Italians cowards and African men have prodigiously large genitalia?
Didn't think so.
The cliché about clichés is that they are a substitute for thought and
research.
>Ever watch the US news? 95%
> domestic. And foreign news is pitched at an emotional kindergarten
> level, Middle eastern coverage is basically Israel=good, and
> arabs=bad. And it rarely goes any deeper than that.
>
> And before you get on my case, I'm American. Give me credit for
> knowing my own people.
>
> >
> >The welter of globalophobe propaganda in recent years (albeit directed
> >to a different purpose), together with pre-existing prejudices, mean
> >that a significant part of the British population is now accustomed to
> >thinking of Americans as greedy and selfish (in the context of global
> >warming, for instance).
>
> <snip>
>
> >It's a great line because it links up with the 'geopolitical
> >illiteracy' line of attack. Obviously part (not the biggest part) of
> >the reason for the ranking is a parallel ranking of knowledge of other
> >countries. They seem to imply that the mere fact of American
> >prosperity and the global impact of the system that underpins it makes
> >an American holding anything less than a graduate degree in
> >international relations guilty of smug and wilful ignorance.
>
> You should read some of the "let's nuke Afghanistan now, so we can get
> back to normal" posts in alt.politics before you defend accusations of
> American ignorance. And these aren't totally dumb people. Many of the
> people showing this ignorance of the effects of nuclear weapons are
> fully aware of the fine details of internecine domestic politics. But
> their picture of the outside world is all broad strokes in primary
> colors - and that's being generous.
So that's how know your 'own people'! And Alf Landon was a shoo-in in
'36.
If you want another completely unrepresentative sample, I saw an
interview with a couple of guys in a diner in Texas a couple of nights
ago on the BBC. Straight out of 'King of the Hill'.
One was all for retaliation now. The other said, hold on, we'd better
check our facts and take care before we act.
I doubt if this guy could find Afghanistan on a blank map of the
world. But then, I doubt whether his father could have found
Guadalcanal or Okinawa.
And let's not exempt the Europeans from the blank map test, either.
Giving a man a passport doesn't increase his knowledge of the world -
especially when he travels no further than Ibiza, and his intercourse
with the locals is limited to 'dos cervezas, por favor'.
>
> >
> >The other lie is the same point from the reverse viewpoint. Other
> >peoples, especially in the Third World, but to a lesser extent in
> >Europe, have a natural empathy with their brethren all over the world.
> >They are closer to nature as being less sullied by American
> >materialism (despite the best endeavours of the capitalist behemoth).
> >They are better human beings than the Americans.
> >
> >This is usually not stated in so many words. But, clearly, if the
> >Americans are relatively less caring about the citizens of other
> >nations, it follows that other peoples are more caring.
> >
> >The lack of any evidence to support this conclusion doesn't dampen its
> >propaganda effect much.
>
> Nonsense. People are people. That's all. Nobody's "better" than anyone
> else. That's the *point*.
At last we agree.
What pisses me off is the automatic
> assumption by the American press and politicians that the US has a
> moral superiority, virtually by default - and all because, for once,
> they are the victims of a terrible and evil act.
Couldn't last.
Of course, normally, anything that politicians and the like say in
public is normally filtered for any possible offence it might cause,
or any hostages to fortune it might offer. Above all, one wants to set
the right tone.
And you get different messages for different audiences.
I guess, last week, the whole world was getting the US domestic
message. And folks were a tad too preoccupied with other matters to
change that filter.
If I were American, I reckon I might suggest a little reordering of
priorities for those complaining about tone. And I don't think I'd use
a filter either.
>
> >
> >For an extended version of the sort of stuff I'm referring to, savour
> >this thoroughly nasty piece of work from the BBC
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/from_our_own_correspondent/newsid_1554000/1554940.stm
> >
> >Our correspondent is effusive about his hosts
> >
> >"I have never known such consistently courteous, generous people." The
> >coded meaning is obvious - and not a little racist, you may think.
>
> That interpretation is full of shit. So saying nice things about
> Pakistanis is out of order now is it?
My suspicion is that these compliments served two purposes - to
contrast with the stereotypical Ugly American - boorish and selfish;
and to set up his little coup de thčâtre.
I should have been happier to treat the comments as merely
observational had it not been for the ulterior motive.
>
> <snip the rest>
>
> So Pakinstanis aren't perfect. Wow. They have violence in their past.
> Bigger wow.
You only snipped the odd million deaths! 'Violence in their past'
sounds like a couple of youthful fist fights.
The point is, the Pakistanis' complaint that the US has blood on its
hands is somewhat compromised by the fact that their own are dripping
with the stuff.
All the more so, since the 1971 killings, at least, may come as rather
a surprise to some whose sympathy they are soliciting. (Such ignorance
being far from confined to those on the other side of the Atlantic.)
The more so given that even the chief representative of the Great
Satan is wont to repeat that Islam is a peaceful religion, a statement
clearly requiring a deal of parsing.
>
> Criticism of US foreign policy has been a regular occurance in the
> British news for decades. Politicians and commentators from all over
> the spectrum have expressed this on a regular basis. Sometimes with
> anger. Often with a kind of bemused or patronising "wish they'd stop
> and think" attitude.
>
> There's nothing new about this, and in my view they're right. The
> awful events of Sept 11th doesn't alter the fact that past US abuses
> have caught up with them.
Congratulations! Perhaps the neatest expression of the THIC idea.
It accepts a causal link between the attacks and US 'abuses' without
actually saying in so many words that the US deserved the attacks.
Because, if the attack follows the 'abuses' as cause and effect, then
the US has nobody to blame but itself.
If it doesn't commit 'abuses', then it won't get attacked.
If it hadn't have been bin Laden, it would have been somebody else.
Perhaps bin Laden has done the US a favour, giving it a chance to
repent its 'abuses'; otherwise, it will go on 'abusing' before some
more terrible angel of vengeance comes along and wreaks worse havoc!
>
> While we're on the subject of lies, how about the official American
> answer to why it could possibly be that these foreigners could hate
> the US enough to commit such an act. Why of course, they hate the
> freedoms we enjoy, especially the religious freedom, and women having
> the vote. Hell they just *hate*.
>
> That's a very convenient answer.....
You omitted the relevant paragraph:
"Of course, none of this suggests one should view statements from US
(or any other) official sources with other than thoroughgoing
distrust."
>
> The Wall St Journal (perhaps this organ meets with your approval where
> the BBC doesn't) had a survey of wealthy Muslim businessmen on Sept
> 14th. They expressed resentment of US policies of supporting Israel's
> "crimes", the US's constant vetoing of UN sanctions against them. They
> resented the continued US military attacks on Iraq, the bombing of
> Iraqi civilians, and supporting anti-democratic regimes in the area.
>
> These were well to do, educated people. Aren't the ordinary dirt poor
> people actually suffering these things going to feel even more bitter
> about it? To the point perhaps of resorting to acts of terrorism?
> Europeans have resorted to violence and revolution with far less
> justification.
>
> But no of course not. They're just muslim fanatics who hate
> freedom.....
The businessmen's complaints, are scarcely surprising (one wouldn't
expect national feeling to be confined to the medina).
Question is, what do they propose?
Just on the US-Israel alliance: how, practically, could Bush change
this, to become 'even-handed'?
Not only would he be up against the Jewish Lobby, led by AIPAC (the
real Jewish conspiracy).
But public opinion, even before the attack, was pretty solidly for the
status quo.
I've heard dozens of calls for change to this policy - but none has
suggested how.
The parallel in this country is Mrs Thatcher's curbing of trade union
power.
It was tried by her predecessor in the early 70s. But public opinion
wasn't ready, and he was defeated by the unions.
When Thatcher came to office, the public had suffered enough from
strikes, and backed reform. (Though many wondered how exactly it could
be done.)
She still took a slow, piecemeal approach, and came close to being
defeated by a strike in the coal mines.
The tentacles of trade union power were so wrapped round the body
politic that they took a lot of unravelling.
Seems to be the Jewish lobby is just as tricky a proposition. If any
politician were brave enough to take them on.
(Sound of pin dropping)
SteveL
<Damian...@nospam.preston-couriers.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>> And all because of alleged violations of resolutions from
>>>>the same source (the UN), which the US cheerfully ignores when applied
>>>>to Israel.
>>>>
>>>Which UN resolutions does the _US_ ignore in relation to Israel ?
>>
>>Come on. You could answer your own question if you wanted to. It only
>>took me two minutes to search for this on the web.
>>
>That's because you didn't read the question properly !!
Let's see. your question was "Which UN resolutions does the _US_
ignore in relation to Israel ?" I interpret that to mean "Which UN
resolutions, relating to Israel, has the US ignored?" Sorry, but I
don't see any other way to parse it.
>
>>One quote:
>>"the 500 resolutions by the UN against Israel have all been vetoed by
>>the USA".
I.e. all of them (apart from one, which passed by accident because the
US screwed up and didn't get anyone over to veto it).
>>
>If a resolution has been vetoed it is not in effect therefore it has
>not been ignored by the US.
Oh I see. It was a trick question? Well if dancing on the head of a
pin gets you off, fair enough.
>
>>Here's what I got from just one site, and this only covers 1955-1992.
>
>All those resolutions were against Israel not the USA.
Correct.
>
>Let me rephrase the question then you can have another go.
>
>How many UN resolutions against the USA relating to Israel have the
>USA ignored which is what you initially alleged.
It is *not* what I initially alleged. Therefore, I don't need another
go, because answering a question based upon something I didn't say is
a bit pointless.
What I *did* say was that the primary justification the US uses to
legitimise its continued campaign against Iraq is UN resolutions
against *Iraq*. At the same time they *ignore* UN resolutions against
*Israel*, demonstrating a lack of even handedness. I didn't think that
was particularly badly put, so I'm at a loss to think why you thought
I said something different.
You respond that because they've been vetoed they're not "real"
resolutions. Well, that only means "passed" resolutions aren't "real"
either, as they will only reflect US approved views. You then have to
accept that the US's quoting UN resolutions as defining their duty
against Iraq is therefore bullshit, and that you effectlvely admit
they have no right to be there, because their justification boils down
to "We're attacking Iraq because we want to".
SteveL
>SteveL <Ste...@stevelon.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<NxRq7.606681$ai2.46...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>...
>> On 21 Sep 2001 14:26:59 -0700, wav...@club.lemonde.fr (Wavell) wrote:
<snip>
>>
>I'll let their hemispheric achievements pass (though I suspect certain
>sensitive souls might balk at calling Chile a 'success' for them.)
They subverted and dethroned Allende, which was their aim. So I say
that's a success.
>
>My concern is rather with their more recent performance.
>
>One might refer, for instance to
>
>http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jdw/jdw010911_1_n.
>shtml
>http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/14/human_spies/index.html
>http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/18/spooks/index.html
>http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/12/spies/index.html
>http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/16/international/16INTE.html?searchpv=past7da
>
I'll check them out, thanks.
>
>and find just cause for concern.
>
>And the regular appearance of 'regular' spies (of Aldrich Ames type)
>scarcely gives confidence.
>
>
>
>> >
>> >One of the key emotions their campaign is intended to engender in the
>> >British public is guilt. Guilt, that is, for their support of the US
>> >in general, and, in particular, for their support of US military
>> >action following the WTC attacks.
>>
>> That's some master plan you've dreamed up. However, "we" have no
>> campaign. The campaigners are Bush's "crusaders".
>
>There's no need to assume a conspiracy. Yankees fans don't need to
>hold a public meeting to agree to go along to Yankee Stadium when
>their
>team's playing.
Not sure about your analogy. Baseball games aren't spontaneous either.
>
>The objective is a simple enough one - to undermine support for US
>military action in response to the attack. The means is equally plain
>- to call into question the legitimacy of the US cause of action.
You see, you *are* assuming a (hidden?) agenda.
>
>Of course, the complaints of callers and letter-writers are pretty
>repetitive. But that's because they're copying each other's work, not
>because they're working from a Taliban crib-sheet!
I thought we didn't have to assume a conspiracy.
<snip>
>> And there are plenty of options for the blanks. Vietnam, Laos,
>> Cambodia, Chile, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran,
>> Kuwait, and others I'm too tired to remember now.
>>
>
>Every country's foreign policy treats the lives and interests of its
>own citizens above those of the citizens of other countries.
Yes. But the US's self-proclaimed, unofficial role as world policeman
should moderate that impulse, not enhance it, because in the long run
the (as perceived by others) abuses can catch up with you, and be
detrimental your own people's interests.
>
>To take a non-war example, to my knowledge no serious politician of
>any Western country has ever proposed a redistribution of income to
>the poorest of the Third World on a scale in any way comparable to the
>extent of redistribution between rich and poor in his own country.
I know, and the active prevention of that has been a cornerstone of US
policy for at least 75 years. You are correct that it is unworkable to
actively re-distribute wealth, but the US goes beyond that and lays
claim to the internal wealth of those countries. It defeats attempts
by indigenous populations to control their own resources (and pay
their own way) by installing "friends" as dictators who will let the
US get raw materials at rock bottom prices. Whenever these "friends"
were overthrown, out would come the accusations of "Communism in our
backyard" and proxy armies would duly bring about a return of the
status quo. It happened time and again in Latin America, and modified
versions of the story abound elsewhere.
>
>Despite regular images of suffering on the TV screens, even the UN
>0.7% of GDP target for overseas aid is reached by few if any Western
>countries.
>
>Why not? Because, however social democratic and
>anti-American-greed-and-consumerism they might be, their governments
>know their people wouldn't stand for it.
As I said above, just letting those countries have their *own* wealth
would be a start.
>
>(Consider the difficulties in today's South Africa in levelling out
>First and Third World living standards.)
>
>The same principle applies to US military interventions. They should
>be judged in historical context (the existence and extent of a Soviet
>threat at the time is relevant), and questions of excessive or
>ill-directed force, as well as of competence are also relevant.
>
>What is absurd is to suggest that those interventions should not have
>prioritised US lives and interests.
>
>> The cliches about insular Americans have been doing the rounds as long
>> as I've been around. It's a truism that the average American only
>> knows or really cares about America. American servicemen stationed
>> abroad always refer to the US as "the world". How about the tales of
>> Americans not wanting to fly to Britain during the Balkan troubles
>> because they thought Britain is so close to Yugoslavia and they might
>> get caught up in it.
>>
>> Well, you know the cliche about cliches.
>
>So you're telling me it's true Irishmen are pig-thick, Scotsmen mean,
>Italians cowards and African men have prodigiously large genitalia?
>Didn't think so.
>
>The cliché about clichés is that they are a substitute for thought and
>research.
Okay, I got lazy there. It is true though that Americans are not
exposed to the rest of the world as much as, say, the British are. I
stand by everything else in that paragraph though.
>>>
>> You should read some of the "let's nuke Afghanistan now, so we can get
>> back to normal" posts in alt.politics before you defend accusations of
>> American ignorance. And these aren't totally dumb people. Many of the
>> people showing this ignorance of the effects of nuclear weapons are
>> fully aware of the fine details of internecine domestic politics. But
>> their picture of the outside world is all broad strokes in primary
>> colors - and that's being generous.
>
>So that's how know your 'own people'! And Alf Landon was a shoo-in in
>'36.
No that isn't how I know my people. Did you check out those threads?
>
>If you want another completely unrepresentative sample, I saw an
>interview with a couple of guys in a diner in Texas a couple of nights
>ago on the BBC. Straight out of 'King of the Hill'.
I haven't got time to do a proper statistically significant survey.
Have you done one?
>
>One was all for retaliation now. The other said, hold on, we'd better
>check our facts and take care before we act.
>
>I doubt if this guy could find Afghanistan on a blank map of the
>world. But then, I doubt whether his father could have found
>Guadalcanal or Okinawa.
>
>And let's not exempt the Europeans from the blank map test, either.
>Giving a man a passport doesn't increase his knowledge of the world -
>especially when he travels no further than Ibiza, and his intercourse
>with the locals is limited to 'dos cervezas, por favor'.
True but could you see a Brit being put off flying to Ibiza because of
the Balkan wars?
<snip>
>Of course, normally, anything that politicians and the like say in
>public is normally filtered for any possible offence it might cause,
>or any hostages to fortune it might offer. Above all, one wants to set
>the right tone.
>
>And you get different messages for different audiences.
>
>I guess, last week, the whole world was getting the US domestic
>message. And folks were a tad too preoccupied with other matters to
>change that filter.
>
>If I were American, I reckon I might suggest a little reordering of
>priorities for those complaining about tone. And I don't think I'd use
>a filter either.
But tone matters. It seeps into the psyche more that reams of facts
do, unfortunately.
>
>>
>> >
>> >For an extended version of the sort of stuff I'm referring to, savour
>> >this thoroughly nasty piece of work from the BBC
>> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/from_our_own_correspondent/newsid_1554000/1554940.stm
>> >
>> >Our correspondent is effusive about his hosts
>> >
>> >"I have never known such consistently courteous, generous people." The
>> >coded meaning is obvious - and not a little racist, you may think.
>>
>> That interpretation is full of shit. So saying nice things about
>> Pakistanis is out of order now is it?
>
>My suspicion is that these compliments served two purposes - to
>contrast with the stereotypical Ugly American - boorish and selfish;
>and to set up his little coup de thčâtre.
>
>I should have been happier to treat the comments as merely
>observational had it not been for the ulterior motive.
Let's agree to disagree about that one.
<snip more>
>> Criticism of US foreign policy has been a regular occurance in the
>> British news for decades. Politicians and commentators from all over
>> the spectrum have expressed this on a regular basis. Sometimes with
>> anger. Often with a kind of bemused or patronising "wish they'd stop
>> and think" attitude.
>>
>> There's nothing new about this, and in my view they're right. The
>> awful events of Sept 11th doesn't alter the fact that past US abuses
>> have caught up with them.
>
>Congratulations! Perhaps the neatest expression of the THIC idea.
There's where we really differ. My saying the above does not mean I
think they *deserved* it
>
>It accepts a causal link between the attacks and US 'abuses' without
>actually saying in so many words that the US deserved the attacks.
>
>Because, if the attack follows the 'abuses' as cause and effect, then
>the US has nobody to blame but itself.
Again, accepting a causal link does not imply "deserving" or "had it
coming". A heavy drinker abuses his body. There is a causal link
between heavy drinking and cirrhosis of the liver. If that person
subsequently develops cirrhosis one doesn't gloat "had it coming" or
he "deserved it". Nevertheless one led to the other, his drinking has
"caught up with him", and to point that out doesn't imply advocacy
that drinkers deserve to die.
OTOH, it is dishonest and extremely unhelpful to simply deny that link
>
>If it doesn't commit 'abuses', then it won't get attacked.
That is true. And it doesn't imply "had it coming".
And if a person doesn't drink he (probably) won't die of cirrhosis.
>
>If it hadn't have been bin Laden, it would have been somebody else.
>
>Perhaps bin Laden has done the US a favour, giving it a chance to
>repent its 'abuses'; otherwise, it will go on 'abusing' before some
>more terrible angel of vengeance comes along and wreaks worse havoc!
Taking this too far, I think.
>
>
>
>>
>> While we're on the subject of lies, how about the official American
>> answer to why it could possibly be that these foreigners could hate
>> the US enough to commit such an act. Why of course, they hate the
>> freedoms we enjoy, especially the religious freedom, and women having
>> the vote. Hell they just *hate*.
>>
>> That's a very convenient answer.....
>
>You omitted the relevant paragraph:
>
>"Of course, none of this suggests one should view statements from US
>(or any other) official sources with other than thoroughgoing
>distrust."
Because it is untrustworthy. It's a case of finding the explanation
least likely to reflect any blame on America.
In my view it's like the drinker denying his drinking caused his
illness, because he's ashamed or is genuinely blocking it out.
Either way it's not only untrue, but unhelpful and potential harmful
to others in the future.
>
>
<snip>
>
>The businessmen's complaints, are scarcely surprising (one wouldn't
>expect national feeling to be confined to the medina).
>
>Question is, what do they propose?
>
>Just on the US-Israel alliance: how, practically, could Bush change
>this, to become 'even-handed'?
Stop subsidising them to tune of billions of dollars and tons of
weaponry. Stop blindly vetoing every UN resolution against them. Let
them sort themselves out. I'd bet they'd be a lot less obstreperous
without their "big brother" backing them up.
>
>Not only would he be up against the Jewish Lobby, led by AIPAC (the
>real Jewish conspiracy).
>
>But public opinion, even before the attack, was pretty solidly for the
>status quo.
>
>I've heard dozens of calls for change to this policy - but none has
>suggested how.
>
>The parallel in this country is Mrs Thatcher's curbing of trade union
>power.
>
>It was tried by her predecessor in the early 70s. But public opinion
>wasn't ready, and he was defeated by the unions.
>
>When Thatcher came to office, the public had suffered enough from
>strikes, and backed reform. (Though many wondered how exactly it could
>be done.)
>
>She still took a slow, piecemeal approach, and came close to being
>defeated by a strike in the coal mines.
>
>The tentacles of trade union power were so wrapped round the body
>politic that they took a lot of unravelling.
>
>Seems to be the Jewish lobby is just as tricky a proposition. If any
>politician were brave enough to take them on.
Apart from financial muscle I don't see what real power the Jewish
lobbies really have. In contrast, the trade unions were immensely
powerful, with the backing of millions of people with the power to
bring the country to a stop. I seriously doubt the jewish lobby would
have anything like that much muscle.
Lobbies are only powerful because politicians let them be. It's part
of the game. Politicians have the power to change the rules. Sure,
money talks, but Israel is a loss leader. Non-Jewish money interests
could be persuaded. If the lobbies move to someone else and try to get
them elected, bring it out into the public, then show that certain
people are trying to bypass the democratic process by
buying/cajoling/threatening and using economic power as political
muscle. That wouldn't go down too well with Joe Sixpack, and reforms
would likely have public backing - especially with the bonus that it
might simmer down Islamic hatred.
Just a thought, off the cuff, probably naive. I refuse to accept that
the current situation is a natural sink, though. Not when it takes so
much effort and money to maintain the status quo.
>
>(Sound of pin dropping)
Crash! <g>
Regards.
Jon
All BBC reporting feels like propaganda to me
It's interesting to see how BBC reporters have suddenly had to stop being
rude and sneering about Bush. It takes a disaster to teach them a little
professionalism
"Wavell" <wav...@club.lemonde.fr> wrote in message
news:c9176e77.01092...@posting.google.com...
> My impression is that, in the main vehicles for UK popular opinion -
> the radio talk shows and the newspapers - the THIC-ers are getting
> subtler.
>
> After all, the best sort of propaganda doesn't feel like propaganda -
> the well-known footage of the Palestinian street-party celebrating the
> attack might well be thought to have been organised by the CIA (had
> they not proved themselves incapable of organising a pissup in a
> brewery).
>
> One of the key emotions their campaign is intended to engender in the
> British public is guilt. Guilt, that is, for their support of the US
> in general, and, in particular, for their support of US military
> action following the WTC attacks.
>
> And one popular line used for this purpose is 'America [and, by
> extension, Britain] thinks its lives are more important than [several
> names could fill the blank]'.
>
> This is a great line for the THIC-ers. It's short, and wraps up two
> lies in one.
>
> First, it suggests that anyone who doesn't care the same about every
> human life on the planet is unnatural in some way, subhuman, even. The
> fact that Americans devote so much airtime (and politician-time) to
> the deaths of a few thousand on its soil - but ignore the greater loss
> of life in [fill in the blank] means they have been blinkered by their
> money-grubbing, obsession with consumption, etc, etc, and lost a key
> element of their humanity.
>
> The welter of globalophobe propaganda in recent years (albeit directed
> to a different purpose), together with pre-existing prejudices, mean
> that a significant part of the British population is now accustomed to
> thinking of Americans as greedy and selfish (in the context of global
> warming, for instance).
>
> And the way they incessantly boost the country and every portion of it
> has naturally registered as egotism on a unique scale.
>
> In fact, nothing is more natural, more human than to care most about
> those with which one has most connection. As an intellectual matter,
> one may want peace, democracy and the rule of law for every inhabitant
> on the planet (and wish that one's government should take reasonable
> steps to help in bringing this about).
>
> But naturally, the people one cares about are ranked, according to
> intensity of emotion. To an American, another, unknown, American ranks
> higher than an unknown Bengali, say (for obvious reasons of
> identification). But both rank way below his spouse or child.
>
> It's a great line because it links up with the 'geopolitical
> illiteracy' line of attack. Obviously part (not the biggest part) of
> the reason for the ranking is a parallel ranking of knowledge of other
> countries. They seem to imply that the mere fact of American
> prosperity and the global impact of the system that underpins it makes
> an American holding anything less than a graduate degree in
> international relations guilty of smug and wilful ignorance.
>
> The other lie is the same point from the reverse viewpoint. Other
> peoples, especially in the Third World, but to a lesser extent in
> Europe, have a natural empathy with their brethren all over the world.
> They are closer to nature as being less sullied by American
> materialism (despite the best endeavours of the capitalist behemoth).
> They are better human beings than the Americans.
>
> This is usually not stated in so many words. But, clearly, if the
> Americans are relatively less caring about the citizens of other
> nations, it follows that other peoples are more caring.
>
> The lack of any evidence to support this conclusion doesn't dampen its
> propaganda effect much.
>
> For an extended version of the sort of stuff I'm referring to, savour
> this thoroughly nasty piece of work from the BBC
>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/from_our_own_correspondent/newsid_155
4000/1554940.stm
>
> Our correspondent is effusive about his hosts
>
> "I have never known such consistently courteous, generous people." The
> coded meaning is obvious - and not a little racist, you may think.
>
> We are treated to a charming travelogue of the 'Balham, Gateway to the
> South' variety in what is clearly a latter-day Eden of good
> fellowship.
>
> Then he looses both barrels:
>
> "America has been rightly punished for supporting the brutality of
> Israel".
>
> And other similar observations from the Edenites.
>
> Then he gets to the nub:
>
> Talking of the Vincennes incident, one upstanding citizen asked:
>
> "Did the Americans weep for those 200 dead?" he asked. "Tears of the
> same colour whoever is weeping? Grief makes the same pain."
>
> From our correspondent from the supposedly impartial BBC, no challenge
> to these observations. Nothing is permitted to taint their pristine
> purity.
>
> Pakistan, you will recall, is the site of some of the bloodiest ethnic
> cleansing of the 20th century. Moslem extremists, and their Hindu
> counterparts, gloried in slaughter and rape to the extent (for the
> entire subcontinent) of several hundreds of thousands of deaths,
> barely two generations ago.
>
> This was murder without consumerist trappings, neighbour slitting
> neighbour's throat with weapons of local manufacture. And all (on the
> Moslem side) in the name of that peaceful religion of theirs.
>
> And it was the same Pakistan that, in 1971, slaughtered several
> hundreds of thousands, perhaps a million of its citizens - and fellow
> Moslems - in East Pakistan -
> http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+bd0027).
>
> Yet the racist implication is, the upstanding citizens interviewed by
> our correspondent are better human beings than the Americans!
>
> Priceless is the contribution from the banker - surely there is no
> suggestion of rhyming slang here? - who
>
> "thinks the Americans are astonishingly and dangerously solipsistic."
>
> Not only is the banker a better human being than you, wretched
> listener, he has a larger vocabulary, too!
>
> The parting shot really puts us in our place:
>
> "....one of the assistants Hafez Amin said to me in halting English:
> "It is bad, but our lives bad too. Please for us work, and food - no
> revenge.""
>
> This enterprising chap tells the Americans their loss is nothing
> special - then holds out his begging bowl!
>
> If a supposedly impartial BBC correspondent is able to get this sort
> of stuff on the air, imagine the possibilities for other contributors!
>
> Of course, none of this suggests one should view statements from US
> (or any other) official sources with other than thoroughgoing
> distrust.
>
> The difference is, one expects governments to churn out propaganda -
> notions of spin, credibility gap, and so on are factored into the way
> we deal with such product.
>
> The temptation is to believe that the 'ordinary Joe' is 'telling it
> from the heart', without artifice or 'angle'.
>
> Which, from Islamabad to Islington, ain't necessarily so.
Richard Caley
j> It's interesting to see how BBC reporters have suddenly had to stop being
j> rude and sneering about Bush. It takes a disaster to teach them a little
j> professionalism
Do you know you have your mind attached to the universe back to
front?