|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
 Posted - 11/07/2001 : 13:28:15 [Permalink]
|
About the only thing bothering me currently about the Afghan military campaign is that we haven't formally declared war. Everything we are doing there resembles a war except for the fact of a formal declaration. I would prefer it if we made it clear what our intentions are.
I also am forced to take back what I said recently about the coalition being non-existent. In recent days Canada and Germany have pledged real troops that could do real fighting. Combined with Britain and the US that is the start of a real coalition and it looks as if NATO members are going to accept their responsibilites.
I don't see how bombing Afghanistan is criminal. Ultimately the citizens of a nation are responsible for what their government does. The Taliban enabled bin Laden to have a safe place to operate from and while the Taliban may not have been elected that is what they call "tough shit."
If they won't get rid of the Taliban we will. It's not as if the Taliban cares all that much for the average Afghan in general and women not in the slightest. In the end we may be doing Afghanistan a huge favor though things are grim right now for those living there. Actually, things we grim long before we dropped a single bomb. Now things are grim for the Taliban as well as the rest of them.
You might want to check up on what the UN had been saying about conditions in Afghanistan before September 11th. The Taliban even made it difficult for aid workers to try to help ease suffering. Would you anyone like to make the case for the Taliban?
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
 |
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2001 : 13:43:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You know, I wish I was a lawyer right now. I could get all my clients off by saying, "You know, it's bad timing to find Americans guilty of crimes. UNITED WE STAND!"
It was a criminal act to kill thousands of people in NY and D.C. It is a criminal act to attack the people of Afghanistan, and risk thousands, maybe millions of lives. This is not an act of courage, but one of cowardice. It's never bad timing to show cowardice and criminal behavior for what it is.
Really, we are now cowards as well as criminals? Don't accept your assertion, that we are "attacking the people of Afghanistan." In case you didn't notice, "thousands, maybe millions of lives" were at risk before the US lifted a hand. How courageous of you to hold such a noble positions. We just aren't a 'team player,' are we? What must you think of the misguided patriotic fools, that are at this moment, risking life and limb, so you may spout your noble and treacherous ideals?
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2001 : 14:01:31 [Permalink]
|
Hopefully you'll be just as hard on Rubysue who actually did engage in ad hominem attacks.
quote:
One long ad hominem. I'm not into them. You attempt to couch your offensive views of others who do not fall in line with you in pretty words. Well, dear, I don't tend to take people like you very seriously either. I will tell this to you once again - falling in line with you because you say so is no more skeptical than you claim others to be. Where is the skepticism in falling in line with you like good little sheep being led to slaughter? I don't think so - I've said it before and I will say it again - I am a product of my past very blue collar background. I learned to think for myself at a young age - because I didn't want to be like all the other silly girls in the grade school I went to who were only concerned with their clothes and putting others down for whatever reason they thought they were better than them. I was one of them, because I didn't/wouldn't faun over the girl that thought she was an exiled queen. I've always gone my own way.
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2001 : 14:10:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I don't see how bombing Afghanistan is criminal. Ultimately the citizens of a nation are responsible for what their government does.
Ah, so you agree with Osama Bin Laden, then?
quote:
You might want to check up on what the UN had been saying about conditions in Afghanistan before September 11th. The Taliban even made it difficult for aid workers to try to help ease suffering. Would you anyone like to make the case for the Taliban?
The UN says that there are steps to take before one country invades another. Or are you saying it was good for Iraq to invade Kuwait?
Yes, the Taliban is nasty. They're better for the country than what they had before, which was basically the Northern Alliance. Imagine if our leaders actually worked towards some kind of solution, rather than making the subjects of nasty dictators suffer even more.
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2001 : 14:14:39 [Permalink]
|
"We?" "Team?" This is a game to you?
Millions of people will probably die now that the U.S. has cut off most aid. That would not have happened if the U.S. had not cut off aid. Yes, many might have, but not the numbers we might soon see if something doesn't happen quickly.
quote:
Really, we are now cowards as well as criminals?
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2001 : 14:43:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
I don't see how bombing Afghanistan is criminal. Ultimately the citizens of a nation are responsible for what their government does.
Ah, so you agree with Osama Bin Laden, then?
You mean "Kill the infidels"?? Let's not confuse bin Laden with a regular human being reflecting on mistakes. He only cares about US policy mistakes for propaganda and for recruiting. I personally want to see US foreign policy cleaned up to limit the recruiting pool terrorists draw from and so that we can take the moral high ground. I agree that policy should be improved but this will never make bin Laden stop. If we improve our relationship in that region we will isolate him but terrorists don't respond to rationality and we shouldn't make foreign policy for them.
quote:
quote:
You might want to check up on what the UN had been saying about conditions in Afghanistan before September 11th. The Taliban even made it difficult for aid workers to try to help ease suffering. Would you anyone like to make the case for the Taliban?
The UN says that there are steps to take before one country invades another. Or are you saying it was good for Iraq to invade Kuwait?
The UN can say what it wants till the cows come home. Any nation has the right to protect itself. As for Iraq attacking Kuwait, I have absolutely no idea how Saddam's desire for more power equates with the US retaliating for an attack against it's citizens. Don't you see what you are doing? You are just quick to criticize the US at each and every turn and then try to show the US is wrong by using examples that are utterly unrelated. Give an example that makes sense and we can talk more.
quote:
Yes, the Taliban is nasty. They're better for the country than what they had before, which was basically the Northern Alliance. Imagine if our leaders actually worked towards some kind of solution, rather than making the subjects of nasty dictators suffer even more.
Our leaders our working towards a solution. You just refuse to accept that any form of violence is valid at any time. That's your right but don't be surprised to find that hardly anyone agrees with you. And that's not because we all suckle at the teat of corporate media, it's because your views are extreme.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2001 : 15:15:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Yes, the Taliban is nasty. They're better for the country than what they had before, which was basically the Northern Alliance. Imagine if our leaders actually worked towards some kind of solution, rather than making the subjects of nasty dictators suffer even more.
Unless your discussing the soviet invasion of Afghanistan - I'd like to see some support for this statement. Everything I've researched has shown that Afghanistan was one of the most progressive Muslim countries in the Middle East prior to 1979.
It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them. -Mark Twain |
|
|
|
Gandalf
New Member
13 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2001 : 16:57:54 [Permalink]
|
Are you claiming that the victims of the Taliban are responsible for the Tabliban? Citizens who live in countries which are not democratic, who do not actively participate in the atrocities commited by those governments, are assuredly not responsible for the actions of that government. By your logic, the Jews were responsible for the atrocities commited against themselves in Germany during WWII!
The refugees are victims of the Taliban, not the other way around. And we aren't defending, we are attacking. You can say it's a justified attack to prevent further attacks if you like (a suspect argument, in my opinion), but it is not defense . . . otherwise we've entered an Orewellian world in which "attack" means "defense."
quote:
About the only thing bothering me currently about the Afghan military campaign is that we haven't formally declared war. Everything we are doing there resembles a war except for the fact of a formal declaration. I would prefer it if we made it clear what our intentions are.
I also am forced to take back what I said recently about the coalition being non-existent. In recent days Canada and Germany have pledged real troops that could do real fighting. Combined with Britain and the US that is the start of a real coalition and it looks as if NATO members are going to accept their responsibilites.
I don't see how bombing Afghanistan is criminal. Ultimately the citizens of a nation are responsible for what their government does. The Taliban enabled bin Laden to have a safe place to operate from and while the Taliban may not have been elected that is what they call "tough shit."
If they won't get rid of the Taliban we will. It's not as if the Taliban cares all that much for the average Afghan in general and women not in the slightest. In the end we may be doing Afghanistan a huge favor though things are grim right now for those living there. Actually, things we grim long before we dropped a single bomb. Now things are grim for the Taliban as well as the rest of them.
You might want to check up on what the UN had been saying about conditions in Afghanistan before September 11th. The Taliban even made it difficult for aid workers to try to help ease suffering. Would you anyone like to make the case for the Taliban?
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2001 : 17:17:27 [Permalink]
|
If you want to liken this to Germany in WWII don't forget how we liberated the jews: We bombed them to ruble, then the Soviets moved in and probably would have killed every last man, woman and child if left to themselves. So while the jews were not responsible it was military action that saved the day. So what we are doing now is bombing them to ruble and then the Northern Alliance can move in and kill every last man woman and child. Will you be happy then?
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
rubysue
Skeptic Friend
USA
199 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2001 : 21:22:48 [Permalink]
|
I can see that the discussion is getting quite interesting about the war; I'll study the thread when I get a chance..
Getting back to Chomsky, as promised, I have now uncovered more information that I will provide to you to evaluate and decide for yourselves about the "great" linguist. IMHO, this just adds to the "legacy" of one of the greatest moral degenerates of our times. The Holocaust denial connection really chaps my hide - this guy has been caught in the "lie" so many times and made such outrageous statements of denial that it's sickening.
1) In bed with the Holocaust deniers, revisited: Here are two links from that vile depository known as the IHR (Institute for Historical Research), the sanctuary of revisionists. One, from an American Holocaust denier Arthur Butz, has a lengthy discussion about Chomsky and his promotion of Faurisson and how his coy denial of knowledge about Robert Faurisson's viewpoints is not really believable. The other link is to the official publishing group of the IHR, Noontide Press; note that they have published at least two of Chomsky's lectures for him. It's quite interesting that the high priest of equivocation and denial can't seem to take notice that his publications share the stage with some of the most vile and ugly revisionist "history". He actually receives royalties from this group; it also amply demonstrates the type of individuals who admire Chomsky - they are so pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel that they would also gladly believe in historical revisionism to support their cause.
http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/3/3/Butz341-351.html
http://noontidepress.com/cgi/search.pl?selectName=Audio%20tapes
And here is a lengthy excerpt from yet another long disavowal that Chomksy published about the Faurisson connection:
“No rational person will condemn a book, however outlandish its conclusions may seem, without at least reading it carefully; in this case, checking the documentation offered, and so on. One of the most bizarre criticisms has been that by refusing to undertake this task, I reveal that I have no interest in six million murdered Jews, a criticism which, if valid, applies to everyone who shares my lack of interest in examining Faurisson's work. One who defends the right of free expression incurs no special responsibility to study or even be acquainted with the views expressed.
I even wrote in 1969 that it would be wrong to bar counterinsurgency research in the universities, though it was being used to murder and destroy, a position that I am not sure I could defend.
There are, in fact, far more dangerous manifestations of ``revisionism'' than Faurisson's. Consider the effort to show that the United States engaged in no crimes in Vietnam, that it was guilty only of ``intellectual error.'' This ``revisionism,'' in contrast to that of Faurisson, is supported by the major institutions and has always been the position of most of the intelligentsia, and has very direct and ugly policy consequences. Should we then argue that people advocating this position be suspended from teaching and brought to trial? The issue is, of course, academic. If the version of the Zhdanov doctrine now being put forth in the Faurisson affair were adopted by people with real power, it would not be the ``Vietnam revisionists'' who would be punished.”
Source: http://www.mit.edu/activities/safe/writings/chomsky-on-free-expression
[Again, some comments are in order: A) One who incurs the right of free expression doesn't have a responsibility to know what he/she is defending?? What a pile of horse crap! Chomsky's very lucky that he didn't go to jail for defending a kiddie porn publisher or being in cahoots with the Unabomber; anyone with half a brain would read first what they elect to defend or condemn! b) Chomsky is "not sure" that it would be wrong to give counterinsurgents information that could result in murder and destruction? If he did this, or advocated this, among the little radicals that infected universities in the late sixties, then he is as guilty as anyone who actually planted a bomb; it's called, in the legal system, "acting as an accomplice" or "aiding and abetting a felony act" or even "criminal indifference". The moral question isn't even considered, apparently. c) Finally, we're back to the old "bait and switch" on revisionism: Holocaust denial isn't nearly as bad as US revisionism about the war in Vietnam,which is, naturally, supressed by that old bogie, the corporate media. Once again, let's not focus on the issue at hand, but change the subject: the United States has done more evil than anyone else, so why worry about Holocaust revisionism?. This is another classic example of tu quoque or red herring fallacy argument. Chomsky's treatises are full of fallacious arguments.]
Now, I have a few interesting links associated with the terrorism that has plagued Sri Lanka for years. I focused on this today after reading an editorial in the Washington Post from the president of Sri Lanka. They have suffered from suicide and other terrorist attacks from the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) for almost twenty years, to the tune of 64,000 lives. I wondered what Chomsky thought about this situation, given his predilection for supporting "freedom fighters" (and not having encountered much in the way of opinions about the LTTE in the many Chomsky articles I have read, although I must admit that reading Chomsky is a quite effective cure for insomnia, if you can quell your nausea first). The situation in Sri Lanka is probably as complex as that in Israel or Northern Ireland and probably cannot be dissected easily and I confess that I'm not familiar with the details (the LTTE, by the way, assassinated Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1991). However, I was not surprised to discover that Chomsky has naturally aligned himself with the LTTE and other Tamil "dissidents"! Not only that, but then I also discovered a very recent analysis in the Times of India that the Al-Qaeda and the LTTE are probably linked! Boy, if I was a conspiracist, I would begin to wonder if ol' Chomsky was in cahoots with bin Laden himself (they sound so similar in many of their denunciations of the United States and Israel that they could be sharing scripts). Here are the links, if anyone is interested.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51698-2001Nov6.html
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~eelam/310397.html
http://timesofindia.com/articleshow.asp?art_id=780319387
Ok, so let's tote up the score so far:
1) Chomsky obfuscates
2) Chomsky makes many outrageous statements of "fact" that cannot be independently verified or are found to be incomplete or incorrect
3) Chomsky defends terrorists and their acts
4) Chomsky is very fond of the red herring argument to deflect the discussion from the topic at hand to his favorite monologue (hate the US government)
5) Chomsky not only defended the rights of Holocaust revisionists to publish their works, he uses the same publishing agency!
6) Chomsky has spent almost two decades cleaning up the debris left from his North Vietnam and Cambodia statements,in particular his denial of the scope of the Pol Pot atrocites in Cambodia (I have many more anti-Chomsky sources, Gorgo, before you blow another gasket).
7) Chomsky is currently "on tour" in India and Pakistan spreading the lie that we are deliberately engaged in the genocide of Afghani citizens instead of targeting the Taliban. He insists that the US is demanding that aid be withheld from the refugees in or near Pakistan:
"The US has demanded that Pakistan kill possibly millions of people who are themselves victims of the Taliban. This has nothing to do even with revenge. It is at a far lower moral level even tha |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2001 : 01:29:50 [Permalink]
|
Too much to respond to.
Trish: I don't know where I got the idea that the Northern Alliance is worse than the Taliban. There are too many people involved to keep score. I can tell you that Massood is part of the Northern Alliance, and was part of the government(s) between the time the Soviet puppet government fell and the Taliban took almost full control. None of these people are democratic. They all seem to be Islamic fundamentalists, at least according to RAWA. I don't know enough about it and your question helped me to realize that, thank you. Hopefully I'll have the time and the energy to study that aspect more fully.
Atomic: I am not a complete pacifist. I am a member of the WRL (warresisters.org) because I can agree with the statement that war is a crime against humanity. I have seen no instance where it is a good idea to conscript innocent people to kill other innocent people. The U.S. v Iraq war is a good example. The U.S. managed to weaken and kill Saddam Hussein's enemies for him. Having said that, even non-pacifists like Chomsky agree that attacking the Afghan people in this way is a dumb idea.
Rubysue: I doubt that you even read what you write or the URL's that you post. When others are done reading the lies that you spread, I can get them some information about people who claim to have the cure for all diseases.
Chomsky is not a supporter of Faurisson. If you don't like the fact that Chomsky focuses on linguistics and criticism of U.S. foreign policy, I imagine you don't like the idea that Ben & Jerry's focuses on ice cream. You read something negative in people trying to make the world a better place. I don't understand that, but that's your thing I guess. I don't see your thing as being constructive at all. I see what you do as attempting to slur Chomsky with lies rather than dealing with the substance of his messages. Or is that just your famous "sense of humor?"
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens |
|
|
|
lpetrich
Skeptic Friend
USA
74 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2001 : 03:39:43 [Permalink]
|
Although I certainly don't support jingoistic nationalism; I am forced to agree with rubysue here.
Noam Chomsky is silent about what he might hail as US foreign-policy successes:
The rebuilding of Western Europe and Japan after WWII, if only out of Cold-War expediency. Although it certainly helped that the US's worst war damage had been at an outlying military base (Pearl Harbor).
Peace treaties between Israel, Egypt, and Jordan.
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2001 : 04:10:22 [Permalink]
|
The Security Council is not the UN. The UN is much more than the Security Council, and parts of the UN want the bombing to stop so that trucks can get back in and so that the borders can be opened, etc. This is just P.R. bullshit on the part of the U.S. and its brothers. The Taliban is to blame for a lot of things, the Russians are to blame for a lot of things, the U.S. is to blame for a lot of things, Pakistan is to blame, Britain is to blame. All of that means nothing to people who are starving, and who need the food that the U.S. is keeping from them.
quote:
"Life" is a game to me, albeit a very serious one. Uh, the US hasn't cut off its aid.
U.N.: Taliban to blame for humanitarian crisis
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
