|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
 Posted - 11/08/2001 : 11:52:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
GENEVA, Oct 15 (AFP) – A UN-appointed official dealing with hunger on Monday condemned US airdrops of food rations in Afghanistan as a catastrophe for humanitarian aid and warned that the US was effectively feeding Taliban fighters.
Jean Ziegler, UN special rapporteur on the right to food, said the airdrops of food by the same military force dropping bombs on Afghanistan undermined the credibility of humanitarian aid.
[from the article refered to by Gorgo]
Oh well, golly gosh. Pontificating about the evils of "snowdropping" from the warmth and security of an office in Geneva. No doubt he has done personal "field work" to determine the total effectiveness or lack thereof of the airdrops. Oh, but wait. That means he would have had to leave his Chardonney and finger sandwiches behind. War is Hell!
Let's see how far Jean Ziegler would get driving a food truck across a country plagued by bandits, cratered roads, roving bombers, artillery and land mines WITHOUT getting his ass blown off.
If Nintendo works fast they can get a new driving game out in time for Christmas. 
(:raig |
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2001 : 12:02:49 [Permalink]
|
??? Huh?
quote:
quote:
GENEVA, Oct 15 (AFP) – A UN-appointed official dealing with hunger on Monday condemned US airdrops of food rations in Afghanistan as a catastrophe for humanitarian aid and warned that the US was effectively feeding Taliban fighters.
Jean Ziegler, UN special rapporteur on the right to food, said the airdrops of food by the same military force dropping bombs on Afghanistan undermined the credibility of humanitarian aid.
[from the article refered to by Gorgo]
Oh well, golly gosh. Pontificating about the evils of "snowdropping" from the warmth and security of an office in Geneva. No doubt he has done personal "field work" to determine the total effectiveness or lack thereof of the airdrops. Oh, but wait. That means he would have had to leave his Chardonney and finger sandwiches behind. War is Hell!
Let's see how far Jean Ziegler would get driving a food truck across a country plagued by bandits, cratered roads, roving bombers, artillery and land mines WITHOUT getting his ass blown off.
If Nintendo works fast they can get a new driving game out in time for Christmas.
(:raig
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2001 : 12:03:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Unlike the U.S. and Great Britain whose funds trained the Taliban in Pakistan, or unlike the U.S. and Great Britain who funded the Taliban, or unlike the rest of the area who thought that the Taliban was the only alternative to the chaos that the USSR and U.S. left.
"Well, does this not double or triple our responsibility to remove them from power?"
I see that you don't trouble yourself to check my sources. Perhaps shouldn't bother...
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2001 : 12:04:24 [Permalink]
|
Yes, and I've already posted that the US has closed the borders and asked that the trucks be stopped to keep from feeding the Taliban. Meantime, all sides are starving out the population, again, for no good reason.
quote:
Interesting link...
"A UN-appointed official dealing with hunger on Monday condemned US airdrops of food rations in Afghanistan as a catastrophe for humanitarian aid and warned that the US was effectively feeding Taliban fighters."
"The Taliban authorities asked foreign relief workers to leave Afghanistan four weeks ago."
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2001 : 12:06:08 [Permalink]
|
Which sources didn't I check? I'm often lost, so if there's something important I missed, let me know.
quote:
quote:
Unlike the U.S. and Great Britain whose funds trained the Taliban in Pakistan, or unlike the U.S. and Great Britain who funded the Taliban, or unlike the rest of the area who thought that the Taliban was the only alternative to the chaos that the USSR and U.S. left.
"Well, does this not double or triple our responsibility to remove them from power?"
I see that you don't trouble yourself to check my sources. Perhaps shouldn't bother...
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2001 : 12:16:53 [Permalink]
|
From another thread:
'By the way, if you'll check out the New York Times on Sept. 16, "Washington has also demanded [from Pakistan] a cutoff of fuel supplies,...and the elimination of truck convoys that provide much of the food and other supplies to Afghanistan's population." On September 27 you'll see that officials in Pakistan "said today that they would not relent in their decision to seal off the country's 1400-mile border with Afghanistan, a move requested by the Bush administration because, the officials said, they wanted to be sure that none of Mr. bin Laden's men were hiding among the huge tide of refugees," (John Burns, Islamabad)'
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2001 : 21:05:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
From another thread:
'By the way, if you'll check out the New York Times on Sept. 16, "Washington has also demanded [from Pakistan] a cutoff of fuel supplies,...and the elimination of truck convoys that provide much of the food and other supplies to Afghanistan's population." On September 27 you'll see that officials in Pakistan "said today that they would not relent in their decision to seal off the country's 1400-mile border with Afghanistan, a move requested by the Bush administration because, the officials said, they wanted to be sure that none of Mr. bin Laden's men were hiding among the huge tide of refugees," (John Burns, Islamabad)'
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens
And a more recent link also points out that they whould like to take Mazar-el-Sharif (sp?) to open up a supply line from Uzbekistan (both military and humanitarian). Additionally, Pakistan has also been asked recently to reopen its borders for humanitarian aid to enter into Afghanistan (same link, I'll find it and add it here.)
quote:
Yes, and I've already posted that the US has closed the borders and asked that the trucks be stopped to keep from feeding the Taliban. Meantime, all sides are starving out the population, again, for no good reason.
Is it better then to leave things as they were? Holding the world hostage to fear of doing anything so millions might possibly die and maybe not - or is it better to remove the Taliban from power, let the UN sort it out and get the infrastructure rebuilt in Afghanistan?
As regards your earlier comments regarding Afghanistan and Masood (?). I don't think that Afghanistan has had a government outside the Taliban since the Soviet Invasion - at least I don't recall that in any of my research, with the exception perhaps of the region held by the Northern Alliance. I'll have to go back and provide links - if I can find them - somehow I seem to think that the number of hits for Afghanistan will have doubled or tripled since 9/11.
Added: I'm lying about finding the above link - cause I can't find the damned thing. I'll keep looking.
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
Edited by - Trish on 11/08/2001 21:13:14 |
|
|
|
lpetrich
Skeptic Friend
USA
74 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2001 : 02:23:30 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo:
LP: Chomsky has a lot to say about the Marshall Plan. You didn't answer my question about the thousand plane raid.
LP:
That "thousand-plane raid" was on the day BEFORE the surrender announcement. The next morning, Emperor Hirohito announced Japan's surrender. Noam Chomsky was just plain wrong about it.
Gorgo:
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/dd/dd-c01-s12.html
LP:
Which doesn't any ANYTHING about the Marshall Plan.
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2001 : 02:49:23 [Permalink]
|
I think that's what we're talking about, Trish. At least some part of what we call the Northern Alliance, anyway. Even the Taliban doesn't control the whole of Afghanistan, but other countries wanted them because they were more stable than the alternatives. The point was that the alternatives are not much better, if at all than the Taliban. This is not a bunch of small 'd' democrats. I think this is a case of doing what the U.S. has done in the past. Take the most expedient road not being concerned about the long term effects.
quote:
As regards your earlier comments regarding Afghanistan and Masood (?). I don't think that Afghanistan has had a government outside the Taliban since the Soviet Invasion - at least I don't recall that in any of my research, with the exception perhaps of the region held by the Northern Alliance. I'll have to go back and provide links - if I can find them - somehow I seem to think that the number of hits for Afghanistan will have doubled or tripled since 9/11.
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens
Edited by - Gorgo on 11/09/2001 02:58:13 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2001 : 02:54:50 [Permalink]
|
No, the thousand plane raid was on the day that Japan surrendered. Truman didn't announce it until the next day. I don't know the exact times involved and the procedures that they used to make a formal surrender, so that isn't saying that the U.S. had known about the surrender and accepted the surrender. That's just saying that there was a raid, "technically" was Chomsky's description, after Japan's surrendered. Your statement was that 800 planes were okay, but 1000 planes were, I forget your words, but you made that sound as if 800 was okay but 1000 was an abomination. The point is that it was just plain unnecessary and mean.
I went back a section too far on that link. Sorry.
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/dd/dd-c01-s14.html
quote:
Gorgo:
LP:
That "thousand-plane raid" was on the day BEFORE the surrender announcement. The next morning, Emperor Hirohito announced Japan's surrender. Noam Chomsky was just plain wrong about it.
Gorgo:
LP:
Which doesn't any ANYTHING about the Marshall Plan.
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens
Edited by - Gorgo on 11/09/2001 03:06:31
Edited by - Gorgo on 11/09/2001 03:08:27
Edited by - Gorgo on 11/09/2001 03:10:37 |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2001 : 04:37:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I think that's what we're talking about, Trish. At least some part of what we call the Northern Alliance, anyway. Even the Taliban doesn't control the whole of Afghanistan, but other countries wanted them because they were more stable than the alternatives. The point was that the alternatives are not much better, if at all than the Taliban. This is not a bunch of small 'd' democrats. I think this is a case of doing what the U.S. has done in the past. Take the most expedient road not being concerned about the long term effects.
quote:
As regards your earlier comments regarding Afghanistan and Masood (?). I don't think that Afghanistan has had a government outside the Taliban since the Soviet Invasion - at least I don't recall that in any of my research, with the exception perhaps of the region held by the Northern Alliance. I'll have to go back and provide links - if I can find them - somehow I seem to think that the number of hits for Afghanistan will have doubled or tripled since 9/11.
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens
Edited by - Gorgo on 11/09/2001 02:58:13
Just some links.
http://www.afgha.com/article.php?sid=7747
http://www.paknews.com/specialNews.php?id=75&date1=2001-11-03
http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/background/wtc_northernalliance.html
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/northern_alliance.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1612000/1612898.stm
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0%2C8599%2C179738%2C00.html
Well, it appears that the Northern Alliance is slightly better than the Taliban - at least women can be educated as long as they are not seen. OK, so if not the Taliban and not the Northern Alliance - then what? There is still an exiled King - though he has said he doesn't care whether he ever comes to power again as long as the Afghani people are out from under the rule of the Taliban.
Anyway, the Northern Alliance doesn't appear as narrow-minded as the Taliban - let's put it that way. Maybe some room for negotiation and progress there - given enough time?
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 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2001 : 07:02:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
No, the thousand plane raid was on the day that Japan surrendered. Truman didn't announce it until the next day. I don't know the exact times involved and the procedures that they used to make a formal surrender, so that isn't saying that the U.S. had known about the surrender and accepted the surrender. That's just saying that there was a raid, "technically" was Chomsky's description, after Japan's surrendered. Your statement was that 800 planes were okay, but 1000 planes were, I forget your words, but you made that sound as if 800 was okay but 1000 was an abomination. The point is that it was just plain unnecessary and mean.
I went back a section too far on that link. Sorry.
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/dd/dd-c01-s14.html
quote:
Gorgo:
LP:
That "thousand-plane raid" was on the day BEFORE the surrender announcement. The next morning, Emperor Hirohito announced Japan's surrender. Noam Chomsky was just plain wrong about it.
Gorgo:
LP:
Which doesn't any ANYTHING about the Marshall Plan.
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens
Edited by - Gorgo on 11/09/2001 03:06:31
Edited by - Gorgo on 11/09/2001 03:08:27
Edited by - Gorgo on 11/09/2001 03:10:37
If commanders in the field are unaware of the surrender, how can you justify saying the raids were unnessassary and mean? The commanders in charge of the bombing operation were preparing for a land invasion of Japan. They needed to attack military targets to soften resistance. As you know, military and civilian communication at that time did not travel instantaneously to all sections of command. After the commanders in the area were made aware of the end of hostilities, they stopped all bombing and shelling actions against Japanese positions which did not fire first.
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2001 : 07:14:10 [Permalink]
|
Yes, and this is all in hindsight and without the benefit of experience. However, the point has been made by those other than Chomsky that even if Hiroshima can be justified, which I don't think it can, then Nagasaki cannot be justified. Even if Nagasaki is justified, how can one justify the thousand plane raid? This is even if you don't agree with the assessment that the U.S. knew that the Japanese were ready to surrender in July.
quote:
If commanders in the field are unaware of the surrender, how can you justify saying the raids were unnessassary and mean? The commanders in charge of the bombing operation were preparing for a land invasion of Japan. They needed to attack military targets to soften resistance. As you know, military and civilian communication at that time did not travel instantaneously to all sections of command. After the commanders in the area were made aware of the end of hostilities, they stopped all bombing and shelling actions against Japanese positions which did not fire first.
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens
Edited by - Gorgo on 11/09/2001 07:15:04 |
|
|
|
miahking
New Member
USA
1 Post |
Posted - 11/09/2001 : 08:57:30 [Permalink]
|
I am sorry I don't have multiple hours to read every message and respond to every bit of misinformation and confusion i see. there is indeed much.
I will try to begin with some general notes:
1.) you indicated some confusion as to what chomsky was saying about various topics. I could help clarify them for you if you would like to understand what he's saying.
2.) I haven't yet seen one post that doesn't represent a nationalist conflict of interest. And these folks call themselves skeptics. I've seen many 'victim syndrome' whiny rants about how the US didn't deserve this. Well, did 500,000 Iraqi children deserve to starve, according to Albright "the price was worth it." to a nationalist, this doesn't prick the conscience, they are unworthy, uncivilized targets.
More importantly, I haven't seen any dialog on here about the CIA's potential role in these terrorist attacks, considering they trained the Islamic terrorist networks we're now accusing with no significant evidence.
Mike Ruppert did an excellent expose, given a heads up by the French media: the CIA visited bin Laden in July in a Hospital
http://www.copvcia.com/stories/nov_2001/lucy.html
for those of you having problems grasping these contorted and confusing power politc, resorting to ignorant nationalism could well be the best going price for widespread human death.
Why has the CIA obstructed the FBI's efforts to capture bin Laden (see http://emperors-clothes.com/news/probestop-i.htm
)? maybe we need to look to another historical situation:
when i speak of corporate terrorism, some may think i'm being sensationalist or exagerating the facts. in order to demonstrate what I mean by corporate terrorism, a historic case study is
appropriate.
"Early in 1934, Irene Du Pont and William S. Knudsen [General Motors president] reached their explosion point over president Roosevelt. Along with friends of the Morgan Bank and General Motors, certain Du Pont backers financed a coup d'etat that would overthrow the president with the aid of a $3 million-funded army of terrorists, modeled on the fascist movement in Paris known as the Croix de Feu...[Roosevelt] knew that in view of the backing from high banking
sources, this matter could not be dismissed as some crackpot enterprise... On the other hand, Roosevelt also knew that if he were
to arrest the leaders of the Houses of Morgan and Du Pont, it would create an unthinkable national crisis... Not for the first or last time in his career, he was aware that there were powers greater than
he in the United States." (Charles higham, Trading With the Enemy, (New York: Dell, 1984).
I have read that this coup was only prevented because hte general the industrialist chose as the primary fascist candidate was fortunately a democrat and brought this plan to the knowledge of the government.
As we have seen, Roosevelt and the government knew there were powers greater than them, and to challenge them would have in fact created a huge crisis and very likely could have resulted in a popular
overthrow of the private-power corporate economic model, as it easily demonstrated how the multinationals were hostile to popular governance. So Roosevelt allowed the story to be repressed and was satisfied the coup was unsuccessful, but in the end returned to serving them by avoiding such a 'crisis.'
As World war II came to the us, one might assume that these 'great' corporations would join in on the war effort, by force if
neccessary. in fact, the oposite is true. The actions of the multinations, for both Axis and Allies, could only be summarized as
acts of treason. And this is coming from me, a person who doesn't even believe in the concept unless it is a true emergency. Were
these corporations' state charters revoked and disbanded for this high treason of course not! they are greater than the government, not its servants.
again, the following quote came from Charles Higham
"What would have happened if millions of American and British people, struggling with coupons and lines at gast stations, had
learned that in 1942 Standard Oil of New Jersey managersshipped the enemy's fuel through neutral Switzerland and that the enemy was shipping Allied fuel? Suppose the public had discovered that the Chase Bank in Nazi-occupied Paris after Pearl Harbor was doing millions of dollars worth of business with the enemy with the full knowledge of the head office in Manhattan? Or that Ford trucks were being built for the German occupation troops in France with authoriazation from Dearborn, Michigan? Or that Colonel Sosthenes Behn, the head of the international American telephone conglomerate ITT, flew from New York to Madrid to Berne during the war to help
improve Hitler's communications systems and improve the robot bombs that devastated London? Or that ITT built the FockeWulfs that dropped bombs on British and American troops? Or that crucial ball bearings
were shipped to Nazi-associated customers in Latin America with the collusion of the vice-chairman of the US war production Board in
partnership with Goering's cousin in Philadelphia when American forces were desperately short of them? Or that such arrangements were known about in Washington and either sanctioned or delibrately
ignored?" (Charles higham, Trading With the Enemy, (New York: Dell, 1984).
these industrialist were more than 'business as usual-justified' traitors against America during a serious and frightening war, the
industrialists actively sought to overthrow our limited democracy based on the 'admirable'new fascist states, which lacked troublesome democratic features.
after the war, as if this wasn't enough, these same corporations sued the US government for damages against their factories that produced weapons, vehicles, and products for the Nazi war engine, AND THEY WON, in an America Court!
all this tells me is that we cannot liminate from the suspect list the multinational corporations with an interestin building an oil pipeline. in this particular casethere is a more prominent corporate suspect: the bin Laden family-owned contractor, which has been engage in terrorist covert ops profiteering as well as the Oil interests.
Why aren't we watching cipro for anonymous letters? it may seem whacked out, but how whacked out would I sound if I told you
in 1934, with a terrifying war approaching, that General motors, Morgan and Du Pont had a plot to establish a terrorist network to assassinate the president and create a fascist America?
it simply shows the close allegiance between fascist and corporate business objectives, and its consequential likelihood of resorting to terrorist measures to achieve its ends. not only in more abstract
forms of terrorism, but in direct employment of terrorist when needed, like Shell in Nigeria, or the attack of september 11.
what all of this demonstrates is the lack of skepticism against national security propaganda on this list.
ruby, fella. you seem to like to point out chomsky and otther dissenters as a fifth column. that is abuse of terminology similar to the communist usage in the spanish civil war.
Chomsky and other dissidents like me are questioning dubious policy. we have no grander designs than stopping horrendous and attrotios acts against human beings regardless of their nationality. we are not interested in justifying any nation on earth in their terrible human rights records, but to educate people of the lies.
the skepticism i see here against chomsky seems more like the emperor's court pointing at the fully dressed peasant boy calling him naked while the peasant boy says the emporer has no clothes. all loyal subjects and so-called skeptics will call the "alqueda" network the 'nak |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2001 : 09:39:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Yes, and this is all in hindsight and without the benefit of experience. However, the point has been made by those other than Chomsky that even if Hiroshima can be justified, which I don't think it can, then Nagasaki cannot be justified. Even if Nagasaki is justified, how can one justify the thousand plane raid? This is even if you don't agree with the assessment that the U.S. knew that the Japanese were ready to surrender in July.
quote:
If commanders in the field are unaware of the surrender, how can you justify saying the raids were unnessassary and mean? The commanders in charge of the bombing operation were preparing for a land invasion of Japan. They needed to attack military targets to soften resistance. As you know, military and civilian communication at that time did not travel instantaneously to all sections of command. After the commanders in the area were made aware of the end of hostilities, they stopped all bombing and shelling actions against Japanese positions which did not fire first.
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens
Edited by - Gorgo on 11/09/2001 07:15:04
The usage of atomic weapons against Japan is an ethical question that others have made. I believe it was justified due to the code of Bushido that the Japanese adhered to. It was this same code that caused some soldiers on bypassed islands to still be fighting the war 35 years after it's end. The US was projecting 1.5 million US casualties alone as a result of a Japanese island invasion. The projected enemy casualies were much higher. It would also include countless civilian casualities. The atomic bomb drops were to convince the Japanese people and military that continued conflict would be brutal. The Japanese had their industrial centers bombed so often that they needed to disperse material and processing so as to minimize affects. The thousand plane bombing was deemed appropriate by the military commanders in the area. I will defer to them.
Mean, perhaps. But war is mean. Japan had resorted to suicide bombs and torpedoes to sink allied warships. They knew it was a matter of time before they were defeated, but still they would not quit. Japan shares a large part of the culpability for this situation.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
