|
| Thread: 9/11 Victims = Nazis? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
posted February 14, 2005 04:59 PM |
|
|
Although a literal comparison with the German National Socialist regime is over-reaching and somewhat trite, speaking personally and as an American, I have quite a bit of trouble referring to Guantanamo Bay in anything but terminology that bears a striking resemblance to the language used to describe the actions of Stalinist Russia or, yes, Hitler's Germany. The difference seems to be one of scale rather than kind. I, for one, find it impossible to reconcile such a place with the idea of the US as a tireless defender of human rights.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted February 14, 2005 07:50 PM |
|
|
Thanks for your acknowledgement Consis.
Now I know you're quite a bit younger than I am, but I'm wondering what your take on who, among the larger American socio-political community, who were the "we" who brought about those changes you speak of -- who were the moving forces that continued to press the for changes in question? Who of them were segregated and imprisoned and tortured and died in the process of forwarding the various sub-causes of civil rights? And whether you think those changes would have come about without such irrepressible decades-long voices of dissent, in the face of overwhelming, unrelenting opposition, by those who paid enormous prices -- in many cases the ultimate price?
Sorry. I'm on my moon, pissed about Ward and having an "ultra-liberal" moment....
I am still occasionally stricken.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 14, 2005 09:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Although a literal comparison with the German National Socialist regime is over-reaching and somewhat trite, speaking personally and as an American, I have quite a bit of trouble referring to Guantanamo Bay in anything but terminology that bears a striking resemblance to the language used to describe the actions of Stalinist Russia or, yes, Hitler's Germany. The difference seems to be one of scale rather than kind. I, for one, find it impossible to reconcile such a place with the idea of the US as a tireless defender of human rights.
When they start actively exterminating the Guantanamo
imates, you can make that comparison. Until then, its
only pushing the limits of international law to the
point where, well, there is no international law.
And to point out the other side, I wonder how legal
making videos of a beheading is? I guess maybe the
beheading is ok, but the video?..
Ok,ok, the point is what moral ground does anyone or
any country stand on when they themeselves disregard the
rules when convenient? How can you put on trial war
criminals when you want your own country exempt? If I
may make a very delicate moral judgement here, if you
kill or abuse anybody, you are breaking the law.
Therefore, any war is a crime. There always could have
been another way to work it out, but the problem is, we
aren't really as civilized as we thought. The jungle is
not far removed from our present state of evolution.
So the moral high-horse of the Bush admin is really a
sham, as bad as terrorism in the name of Allah..If I were
Allah, I would kick those guys off the team.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted February 14, 2005 11:02 PM |
|
|
bort,
.......ugh........*sigh*......*shakes head*.......I think you've lost your reason if you think those prisoners are being mistreated. My uncle was a prisoner of war to communist North Korea for 3 years. During this time he was subjected to tortures and communist indoctrination. He was even forced to kill other prisoners. I don't think you have a clue what real torture is. But neither do I blame you or anyone who doesn't know. Who in their right mind would actively seek to read about such horrors? It wouldn't be a pleasant thing to learn about. I've read the Guantanamo Bay reports. As long as they have adequate food, shelter, clothing, and aren't being raped or beaten by the guards then I have no objections to holding prisoners of war whom likely swore an oath to kill Americans or die trying. They are enemy combatants and you know that. The Geneva conventions of international laws are mostly being upheld except for one major statute. Suppose we release them bort; what then? They'll go back to Afghanistan and kill our own soldiers. Is that what you want bort? Or would you rather maintain your Michael Moore perception of being held indefinately as the ultimate civil rights injustice?
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted February 14, 2005 11:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
.......ugh........*sigh*......*shakes head*.......I think you've lost your reason if you think those prisoners are being mistreated. My uncle was a prisoner of war to communist North Korea for 3 years. During this time he was subjected to tortures and communist indoctrination. He was even forced to kill other prisoners. I don't think you have a clue what real torture is. But neither do I blame you or anyone who doesn't know. Who in their right mind would actively seek to read about such horrors? It wouldn't be a pleasant thing to learn about. I've read the Guantanamo Bay reports. As long as they have adequate food, shelter, clothing, and aren't being raped or beaten by the guards then I have no objections to holding prisoners of war whom likely swore an oath to kill Americans or die trying. They are enemy combatants and you know that. The Geneva conventions of international laws are mostly being upheld except for one major statute. Suppose we release them bort; what then? They'll go back to Afghanistan and kill our own soldiers. Is that what you want bort? Or would you rather maintain your Michael Moore perception of being held indefinately as the ultimate civil rights injustice?
Wow, typical Consis response. Step 1 : Attack poster. Step 2 : Claim that poster made statements that were not made.
The problem with Guantanamo bay is not that people are being held. It is that people are being held without charge or access to representation or independent oversight. All that is known is that people are being held. It is not stated who they are, what they did or why they are being held. Allegations about beatings and even deaths have come from the few people who have eventually been released. Now, these are not necessarily true, but since nobody is allowed to see what is going on, they aren't necessarily false either. They have been declared to be "enemy combatants" specifically so that Geneva does not apply. I absolutely love your "likely" swore an oath statement. Funny, I was always taught that one of the pinnacles of the US justice system is that there is the presumption of innocence. This separates us from, say Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. Or maybe we have to look to other things to separate us. Now I never said that everybody in Guantanamo Bay should be released. Actually I said nothing about what I felt should be done about the prisoners. But I'll say it now, there should be independent observers to make sure that torture isn't occuring, there should be access to legal counsel and the evidence against them should be presented to a judge and/or grand jury (I'll even let some tenets of civil rights slide and allow that the accused doesn't have to be present) to determine if they can be held. Then, yes, they should be put on trial.
Now, perhaps being held indefinitely isn't the ultimate civil rights violation, but I would definitely say that being held indefinitely without being charged or given a trial is a pretty damn big civil rights violation. There's a huge difference between life in prison for being proven guilty of a crime beyond reasonable doubt and being held for life in prison for secret undisclosed reasons that neither you nor any save a select few know. I'm sorry if this is apparently such a crazy view.
PS if the argument is "anything less than what happened to [your] uncle isn't torture" than I pray you never fall into the hands of someone who shares your beliefs.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
realitycheck
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted February 15, 2005 02:29 AM |
|
|
The guy is a Crazy Lunatic and has the right to talk but anybody with common sense as an attribute would ignore his rantings!!!!
____________
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted February 15, 2005 03:34 AM |
|
|
Holly cow, this thread’s got so big and diverse in topics that it would took me few hours to read and respond to everything deserving of a reply. I’ll just have to condense the material, so sorry for its rigid structure.
I guess the only thing about which I might not agree with Peacemaker is her disproval of the extreme flamboyant verbalism Ward has chosen to address this issue. Unfortunately radicalism is almost always a priori stigmatized with negative reputation. But in its nature, radicalism is an understanding of the problem to its roots and acting to eliminate it all the way to the roots. A powerful radicalized force always attracts elements from the opposing side, diffusing them along the specter. Had the American political system been able to address the problems it generated, calls for radical system reform (such as the one Ward demands) wouldn’t have existed. Therefore, this radicalism is both justified and necessary.
I also don’t think that Ward’s verbal extremism (when interpreted right) is counterproductive, for the same reasons as above. How many Native American Indians have so far moderately expressed their concern about the same issues, fearing not to ignite anyone, and their word didn’t reach anyone past their college classroom so to say? The media system didn’t pay any attention to what those people were saying, and now that Ward radicalized the rhetoric, he gets more attention and many people will have the chance to hear about the ignored Native American cause.
Another point discussed was the amount of influence over the current system an individual can have, and the moral guidelines for working against it.
Resignation is not an option. It is possible to change the system. It is possible to shape it as we want, because we constitute the system. To clear things up, I’m not an idealist believing that few people can change things, but those few people have the moral responsibility to disseminate ideas promoting such a change (to better, of course). Its only that too often people wish to delude themselves that voting once every 4 years is all that their responsibility is about. If its only casting one vote within the frames of the present US political system and staying idle the rest of the time, then I would argue, it is actually working in favor of the system, without any chance for change.
Shiva called American global domination to be manifested with “its shallow culture” and it’s a fortunate coincidence that it’s not some other “more evil” coutnry. I think you grossly underestimate American cultural and economical viciousness. Just because its hidden under the banner of freedom and democracy, doesn’t mean its any less dangerous than global Stalinism for example. The injustices it does every day can be expressed with numbers, but i don’t wanna bother you with statistics such as average income in Third World countries, literacy, deaths from disease, starvation etc. (Of course a great deal of blame goes to the countries respective people also.) But the USA is perhaps the most efficient country-exploitator ever in history.
Quote:
We are all human beings. Two people are not equal if only one can vote while the other is prevented. Giving a person the right to vote is my country's most powerful message. If this is the imperialism of America then I too am an imperialist.
I’ve been arguing ever since the first other side thread I posted in (“why the hatred” if i remember correctly), that in spite what most Americans (including Consis) think, the US have never done anything out of interest in spreading democracy and freedom. Not once. And I’m sick of hearing Americans praising ideals about freedom and human rights, thinking their country is the bright spot on the globe when it comes to that, and at the same time, not being aware that its precisely USA often working against them. American imperialism is about imposing political and economical standards, global and cultural hegemony over other countries, the very opposite of freedom and democracy on an international scene.
Sort of connected to it, is the legislative component of such democratic world community system, known as so called “international law”. USA has rejected the establishment of the International Criminal Court, an institution which would have prevented them from being in awkward situations (such as the Guantanamo Bay prisoners) which are against any internationally valid standards. The Americans have no right to put those men on trial in American Courts (as they have neither personal nor territorial jurisdiction), but seeing as they dont cooperate with international institutions for solving this kind of legal problems, I guess they’ll break the standards once again.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted February 15, 2005 06:19 AM |
|
|
bort,
I'm sorry but I simply don't understand. You haven't defined an enemy combatant. Please explain to me what your opinion is of a person who involves themself in a war against our country.
I like your idea of an independent observation panel/group/person to ensure prisoners aren't being mistreated but then who would they answer to? Would this sort of independent council of observers be a responsibility of the United Nations? How many U.N. members do you think would accept this proposal?
And another thing. The steps you wrote about me aren't quite right:
Step 1: infiltrate Deep Gnome merchant society
Step 2: enlist as lucrative agent for the radical leftist Underpants Gnomes
Step 3: steal underpants
Step 4: ???
Step 5: get rich
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted February 15, 2005 01:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
But the point is we DO have a degree of control over which direction this country takes, and through our own self-imposed blindness, or greed, or whatever reason, we fail to exert that control. We are therefore supposedly not only acquiescing through our overblown claims of helpless, we are actually perpetuating the juggernaut.
Quote:
In many cases, it would actually be immoral to do all one can do to prevent immoral acts. I'm going to leave that sentence as a hanger since I don't have time to finish my post right now and hopefully leaving a vaguely inflammatory statement like that will make sure that I remember to finish this as soon as possible.
Okay, what I mean by this is that when deciding on a course of action, you have to take into account not just the ideal result but the realistic result of your actions. Let us examine the case of "Judy." Judy is a single mom of two(she's also wicked hot, but that's only because this is my parable and if it's my parable, then many of the female characters will bear a striking resemblance to Tyra Banks). Judy does not get any child support nor does she have some sort of trust fund or anything to live off of, she's a working mother (working mother dammit, not working girl, get your mind outta the gutter). Anyway, it's a couple of years ago and Judy is appaled that the US is about to go to war with Iraq. She considers this an immoral act. What is her proper course of action? Should she write a letter to her congressman? Sign petitions? Go to protests? Refuse to pay her taxes so as not to fund the war? Quit her job and become a professional activist? Fly to Iraq and become a human shield? Set herself on fire outside of the White House? Sneak into a military base and try to blow something up? Given what she looks like, try to seduce enough of the senate to get them to vote against the war?
In order to honestly say that she did everything she possibly could to prevent the war, which she considers an immoral act, she'd have to do one of the more extreme options, from quitting her job to be an activist to grand, symbolic gestures like self immolation to actions that themselves can quite reasonably be considered immoral. Let's for the sake of argument that she chooses to quit her job and become a professional activist to try to prevent an immoral act. Is this a moral decision? What happens if she does? Does the war still happen? Almost definitely (remember, a lot of people devoted quite a bit of time and effort to preventing the war and it didn't get them a whole lot). What else happens? All of a sudden, she's not supporting her kids any more. She might feel good because she gets to shout slogans, but her kids are screwed. Yes, yes, fortunately we live in a nation that at least retains a small modicum of a sense of social responsibility, so the kids won't starve or anything, but I don't think it can be argued that Judy fulfilled her obligation to her children. I think that in Judy's case the most moral actions would be to write to her Congressman, sign what petitions come her way, but otherwise more or less go about her days as usual, even though by doing so she is complacent in an immoral act.
Of course a reasonable counterargument would be ,"Oh sure, bort, pull out the working mother example. That's easy isn't it, everybody feels so sorry for the brave single mom struggling to make ends meet, but what's your excuse, you don't have kids, so stop hiding behind Judy (no matter how hot she is)." Now, after I made some rather personal comments about your appearance, I would reply as such - well, that's true, but here's my excuse, I once again have to consider the totality of my actions. Of course, I have obligations to my wife, but she's a big girl (erm, not fat, I just mean that she's a grown up) she can take care of herself. Better than I can, actually. My excuse is that basically I have the best chance of making a real diffference through my research. Am I that likely to make a difference through my research? Well, most likely I'm make some tiny contribution to a field or two, but nothing big, but there's I chance I might manage something. Either way, I have a much greater chance of improving things through research than through activism. (note, I'm not claiming to be totally altruistic, my work has selfish motivations as well, but that's not totally the point) See, the argument about whether or not Judy could prevent the war applies to me as well (except that other than Rick Santorum, I'm unlikely to be able to seduce any senators). Even if I dropped everything, I wouldn't have been able to stop the war. So I wrote to my Congressman, Senators and even Bush, signed a couple petitions and otherwise, went about my day. Did this mean that I was essentially complacent in the war? Yeah. Am I happy about that? No, but I stand by my decision.
The standard argument against this is "what if everybody thought like that." The reply is that they do think like that. I can't change that. I can only react to it.
Hope that's enough of an explanation, Peacemaker.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted February 15, 2005 05:54 PM |
|
|
Svarog Wrote:Quote:
But in its nature, radicalism is an understanding of the problem to its roots and acting to eliminate it all the way to the roots. A powerful radicalized force always attracts elements from the opposing side, diffusing them along the specter. Had the American political system been able to address the problems it generated, calls for radical system reform (such as the one Ward demands) wouldn’t have existed. Therefore, this radicalism is both justified and necessary.
I also don’t think that Ward’s verbal extremism (when interpreted right) is counterproductive, for the same reasons as above. How many Native American Indians have so far moderately expressed their concern about the same issues, fearing not to ignite anyone, and their word didn’t reach anyone past their college classroom so to say? The media system didn’t pay any attention to what those people were saying, and now that Ward radicalized the rhetoric, he gets more attention and many people will have the chance to hear about the ignored Native American cause.
What you've stated in essence here Svarog is a rather concise distillation of the counter-point philosophies of reform vs. revolution. Personally, I slide back and forth on the scale. I used to be more of a philosophical revolutionary, but lean more toward reform the older I get. Reason being, the revolutionary track usually doesn't get us any farther than the reform philosophy, but alientates people on the fence in the meantime.
(I have concluded this after years of interaction with moderate to conservative thinkers. When I was a revolutionary, I did not do that, and so I did not have as much information as to the effect of the revolutionary approach. If we engage in preaching to the converted, we may not be aware that we are doing this, and may not be aware of its more deletirious effects to our cause on the undecideds or the opposition.)
Radicalism does attract the attention of elements from the opposing side as you say, but in my experience it does not diffuse them along the spectrum; it only emboldens their consolidation in opposition, and may even drive others into their camp who did not start there, unless it is done in precisely the most effective fashion. I haven't figured out what that fashion is yet, and clearly Ward hasn't either. Until we do, we run a serious risk of backlash.
No doubt, this article has sparked much debate among many people and trained the spotlight on the issue. But in my experience it's only done it for those who were already inclined to look at the issue to begin with. Everyone else seems to be training the spotlight -- or crosshairs, as the case may be -- on Ward. I have engaged in debate with some of the more conservative minds around me for the entirety of the "War on Terrorism," and have actually gotten somewhere with a few of them, and in some ways I feel like Ward's approach has undone much of the work. This is the reason I am ranked about what he did, but this doesn't mean I don't understand the reasoning behind it, because you and others have reminded me that at least a sound argument is to be made for the approach.
Consis wrote:Quote:
And another thing. The steps you wrote about me aren't quite right:
Step 1: infiltrate Deep Gnome merchant society
Step 2: enlist as lucrative agent for the radical leftist Underpants Gnomes
Step 3: steal underpants
Step 4: ???
Step 5: get rich
ROFL
bort wrote:Quote:
Hope that's enough of an explanation, Peacemaker.
I'm sure it is, but now I can't remember what the original question was, and if I go back a page to find out I will lose my post. However, I will post a response article by Ward himself in the next post, which I think is speaking directly to the issue you are discussing above.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted February 15, 2005 06:10 PM |
|
|
From the Mouth of the Messenger Himself
(Reprinted from Out Of Bounds Magazine)
February 3, 2005
On the Injustice of Getting Smeared
A Campaign of Fabrications and Gross Distortions
By WARD CHURCHILL
In the last few days there has been widespread and grossly inaccurate media coverage concerning my analysis of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, coverage that has resulted in defamation of my character and threats against my life. What I actually said has been lost, indeed turned into the opposite of itself, and I hope the following facts will be reported at least to the same extent that the fabrications have been.
The piece circulating on the internet was developed into a book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. Most of the book is a detailed chronology of U.S. military interventions since 1776 and U.S. violations of international law since World War II. My point is that we cannot allow the U.S. government, acting in our name, to engage in massive violations of international law and fundamental human rights and not expect to reap the consequences.
I am not a "defender"of the September 11 attacks, but simply pointing out that if U.S. foreign policy results in massive death and destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of that destruction is returned. I have never said that people "should" engage in armed attacks on the United States, but that such attacks are a natural and unavoidable consequence of unlawful U.S. policy. As Martin Luther King, quoting Robert F. Kennedy, said, "Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable."
This is not to say that I advocate violence; as a U.S. soldier in Vietnam I witnessed and participated in more violence than I ever wish to see. What I am saying is that if we want an end to violence, especially that perpetrated against civilians, we must take the responsibility for halting the slaughter perpetrated by the United States around the world. My feelings are reflected in Dr. King's April 1967 Riverside speech, where, when asked about the wave of urban rebellions in U.S. cities, he said, "I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed . . . without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today - my own government."
In 1996 Madeleine Albright, then Ambassador to the UN and soon to be U.S. Secretary of State, did not dispute that 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of economic sanctions, but stated on national television that "we" had decided it was "worth the cost." I mourn the victims of the September 11 attacks, just as I mourn the deaths of those Iraqi children, the more than 3 million people killed in the war in Indochina, those who died in the U.S. invasions of Grenada, Panama and elsewhere in Central America, the victims of the transatlantic slave trade, and the indigenous peoples still subjected to genocidal policies. If we respond with callous disregard to the deaths of others, we can only expect equal callousness to American deaths.
Finally, I have never characterized all the September 11 victims as "Nazis." What I said was that the "technocrats of empire" working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little Eichmanns." Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were legitimately targeted by the Allies.
It is not disputed that the Pentagon was a military target, or that a CIA office was situated in the World Trade Center. Following the logic by which U.S. Defense Department spokespersons have consistently sought to justify target selection in places like Baghdad, this placement of an element of the American "command and control infrastructure" in an ostensibly civilian facility converted the Trade Center itself into a "legitimate" target. Again following U.S. military doctrine, as announced in briefing after briefing, those who did not work for the CIA but were nonetheless killed in the attack amounted to no more than "collateral damage." If the U.S. public is prepared to accept these "standards" when the are routinely applied to other people, they should be not be surprised when the same standards are applied to them.
It should be emphasized that I applied the "little Eichmanns" characterization only to those described as "technicians." Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 9-1-1 attack. According to Pentagon logic, were simply part of the collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that's my point. It's no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or anyone else. If we ourselves do not want to be treated in this fashion, we must refuse to allow others to be similarly devalued and dehumanized in our name.
The bottom line of my argument is that the best and perhaps only way to prevent 9-1-1-style attacks on the U.S. is for American citizens to compel their government to comply with the rule of law. The lesson of Nuremberg is that this is not only our right, but our obligation. To the extent we shirk this responsibility, we, like the "Good Germans" of the 1930s and '40s, are complicit in its actions and have no legitimate basis for complaint when we suffer the consequences. This, of course, includes me, personally, as well as my family, no less than anyone else.
These points are clearly stated and documented in my book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, which recently won Honorary Mention for the Gustavus Myer Human Rights Award. for best writing on human rights. Some people will, of course, disagree with my analysis, but it presents questions that must be addressed in academic and public debate if we are to find a real solution to the violence that pervades today's world. The gross distortions of what I actually said can only be viewed as an attempt to distract the public from the real issues at hand and to further stifle freedom of speech and academic debate in this country.
Ward Churchill is the author of On the Justice of Roosting Chickens.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted February 16, 2005 03:54 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 16 Feb 2005
|
Major Differences = Ward Incorrect Assumptions
1. The internet has introduced a wave of international communication that would have never been possible before. Information can be shared over great distances by not only the wealthy but also populace majorities. If a train in Spain is bombed or some buildings in America are toppled then people from around the world will learn of this very quickly without having to get the information from their own government-controlled local media.
2. The importance of having a specialized skill and attention to detail within that field of expertise has grown exponentially since the days of the little eichmans. Indeed even the slightest numerical or procedural error today can have disastrous results. Space shuttle Challenger/Columbia, 3-mile island, Chernobal, discovery of N.E.A.'s, and the results of a cold war that threatened the destruction of the human race have proven that these are indeed different times we live in. More people than ever are taking their roles and responsibilities very seriously; as part of a unique contribution toward the continuation of our survival as a unified human species. There are still many that are historically selfish but now there are many more who take more responsibility for their actions. Today's human being is subjected to greater responsibility for the whole of man/woman-kind while yesterday's German citizen was mostly concerned with simply getting a job and maintaining stabalized national borderlines through the use of conventional warfare.
3. Gone are the days of conventional warfare. Now we face the war of the new millenium; terrorism. With today's technology, a single disgruntled employee/terrorist has the potential to effectively wipe out thousands, possibly millions, of innocent people with the push of a button.
I simply don't see the similarities that he does. To be a German of that time period is not to be American of today. These are different times in which we live.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted February 17, 2005 04:08 AM |
|
Edited By: Svarog on 16 Feb 2005
|
Peacemaker,
I’m also not much of a revolutionary myself when it comes to action. But I incline more towards speaking freely (and radically) on the battlefield of ideology.
I don’t know, I guess you are absolutely right when you say it strengthens conservative elements as well, according to your own experience. But from my experience in the Macedonian/regional political wilderness, radicality actually does a favor to the side of the spectrum it defends. I suppose it’s the good cop–bad cop theory at work here, pushing the more moderate option to the center, where the compromise usually gravitates. People tend to see the “moderate extremists” more as moderates and less as extremists, when they have something really extreme to compare with. As for the arousal of the conservative bunch, I think they are a lost case from the start, so no point in trying to win their sympathies. I don’t see anything wrong if the undecided individuals read Ward’s work in original; on the contrary, it only wins for our cause. Media misintepretation only is what can harm the left, and not its true principles, even if as crudely and bluntly presented as in Ward’s case.
Freedom of thought is an issue I feel strongly about, so it’s essential that what a leftist intellectual elite understands is fully and without any concessions in favor of the right, revealed and presented in the public. Anything less than that is hypocrisy.
Quote:
Today's human being is subjected to greater responsibility for the whole of man/woman-kind while yesterday's German citizen was mostly concerned with simply getting a job and maintaining stabalized national borderlines through the use of conventional warfare.
Oh yes, a task so noble that it included conquering and slaughtering nearly the entire of Europe. I’m fed up with this awful tendency to defend those who made mankind’s most evil episode in history possible. I’ll leave it at rest, though I still don’t understand whats ur argument here, Consis. Sounds to me like u’re saying that it’s an imperative today people to be more responsible, whereas that wasn’t quite the case in Nazi Germany, because back then it was justified for people not to care, since they knew no better than to take care only for themselves.
The faulty double-standard logic in ur argument apart, Ward is saying something completely opposite. He says that just as the Germans were guilty for not taking responsibility, so too the Americans of today should be guilty for supporting a morally currupt system.
Quote:
Gone are the days of conventional warfare. Now we face the war of the new millenium; terrorism.
wtf is with people who keep saying this? Do you have any idea how miniscule is the threat of terrorism compared to the threat from AIDS, poverty, starvation, civil wars fought in other countries (and god knows what else) that u don’t give a damn **** about? Of course u don’t. Do u have any idea that the number of people who die from cancer caused by smoking each year is hundred times bigger than the number of people killed in terrorist attacks? And not to mention the billions of people who live in unbearable conditions! But no one talks about this. Why? First, it doesn’t happen in America. Second, it cant be used as a poor excuse in front of the stupid public to sponsor wars against sovereign countries. All you ramble about in that country of urs is the few thousands of people who died by the crazy terrorists, and how big a threat that is to “freedom and liberty”. And read carefully Ward’s article and you’ll see this man’s desperate tries to get that in one of ur American heads. But nooo, what do u do instead? U flame him on the news, send him death threats like right after the “terrorists”, he’s the gravest threat in the country. Aaahrgh, God bless America!
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted February 17, 2005 06:58 AM |
|
|
Svarog,
I was talking about WWI Germany not II.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 17, 2005 08:21 PM |
|
|
It may be true that aids, starvation etc are bigger
killers than terrorism but that can change. The problem with violence is it has a habit of escalating into
much larger things. WWl started with an assasination,
which was terrorism. The actions of Germany took a few years before people started to recognize what was going on and it became WWll.
Now that nukes are are available to many, it is something to be worried about. In event of nuclear war,
nobody will be worrying about the loss of civil liberties or the moral correctness of any governments
actions. Survival will preclude all.
____________
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted February 18, 2005 01:42 AM |
|
|
Consis, OK. But Ward was talking about ww2 Germans (he clearly mentioned "good Germans of the 30's and 40's"), and that phrase was what you refered to in your post.
The problem with violence is it has a habit of escalating into much larger things. WWl started with an assasination, which was terrorism.
Absolutely incorrect interpretation of history. The reasons behind WW1 were anything but terrorism. The assasination of Ferdinand was used as an excuse by the Austrians to attack Serbia, but it had little to do with the real reasons. Actually its strikingly similar with how Bush (ab)used the 9/11 attacks. And while we're at it, assasination doesnt count as terrorism.
Quote:
Now that nukes are are available to many, it is something to be worried about. In event of nuclear war,
nobody will be worrying about the loss of civil liberties or the moral correctness of any governments
actions.
Another argument that worries me. You havent developed it entirely, but it's clearly suggested that because of the wider availabillity of nuclear weapons (and thus the possibility to fall into "terrorist" hands), the importance of civil liberties or moral correctness in politics fades in comparisson to the need to prevent such nuclear disasters. This argument aims to give full right to powerful governments to intervene in the name of preventing that from happening. The rest of the job is just too easy - convincing the uninformed and frightened public who's the "boogieman", which can practically be whoever they want. Bye bye liberties and morality and a warm welcome for the leader invading all evil countries - Classical case of fascist dictatorship.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
zsa
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 18, 2005 03:59 AM |
|
|
very true Svarog, the assasination was the starting point of WW1, but if you think that's the reason the war started :| .......
First of all the Austro-Hungarian Empire imposed some conditions to the serbian government that they fully knew the serbians will never agree to.
The assasination was just a pretext, and the parallel to mr. Bush is a very good one.
Again, very true with what you say about civil rights and weapons of mass destruction.
Bush: OMFG look they're developing weapons of mass destruction. Let's rape em!!
*Boom * *Caboom* *Crash*
---Some time later---
oh, we haven't found any weapons, oh well we're sorry.... OMFG look there's another one.
I don't wanna play the Devil's advocate here, and I do agree that in some situations renegade countries must be stopped from aquiring weapons of mass destruction. But that's why international organizations like the UN exist. Invading Iraq witout the UN consent was a big mistake made by the United States.
Bush used 9/11 as a pretext and exploited the fear generated by it.
Funny thing is Osama and a few other Taliban rebels received CIA training with the purpose of fighting USSR domination over Afganistan. Ironic isn't it?
And Peacemaker, the article by Ward you posted is more in the lines of what I thought he said. Taking things out of context is such a cheap shot :\.
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 18, 2005 04:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Absolutely incorrect interpretation of history. The reasons behind WW1 were anything but terrorism. The assasination of Ferdinand was used as an excuse by the Austrians to attack Serbia, but it had little to do with the real reasons. Actually its strikingly similar with how Bush (ab)used the 9/11 attacks. And while we're at it, assasination doesnt count as terrorism.
.
Absolutely incorrect interpertation of my
interpretation. The point is that a single event can
be used to escalate into a greater conflict. And yes, terrorism includes assasination. It just depends on what side of history you choose to analyze what
happened.
This is not an argument of whether Bush is right or not,
its a statement of how there can be a progression of
events leading to a global conflict, in response to you
saying terrorism is not so bad, aids is worse. I disagree. While not belittling aids as a problem, the use of violence always can grow and become
wider spread, and is serious in this world.
And I didn't expressly say that the US was not engaged
in state terrorism.
Nukes in the hand of anybody is worrisome. Again, the
point is not that fear is being used as an excuse
to take away liberties, but that a small group can
annihilate a large number of people. The power and the
possibility are there, for the first time in recorded
history, that a few people can destroy a whole city.
Religious and racial differences have always been the
flash point for conflict. They expose the worst in
humanity. The present conflicts in the world have
racial and religious undertones. That worries me.
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted February 18, 2005 06:02 PM |
|
|
The Debate
I would argue, I think quite successfully, that if the Russians assassinated President Bush today; and admitted to it; that we would indeed go to war with them. We are currently in decent relations with the Russians but our past has been riddled with conflict and senseless posturing.
I would support attacking any sovereign nation on earth for assassinating my country's freely elected President. I really must agree with Svarog's opinion though. Philosophically speaking, I believe the assassination of a country's leader is more political than terrorism. This is not to say the assassination itself is not terrifying. Although it might be quite fearful, an act such as this would cause national unity rather than chaos and anarchy. I believe the object of terrorism is to divide and conquer rather than bring your opponent together to face you in a massive war. Terrorists want recognition of sovereignty whereas assassination seeks to establish the political views of an already established sovereign nation.
I believe President Kennedy was assassinated by his his own top-level government countrymen stepping aside to let low-life mobsters play their petty games. In this instance I would argue that he was ultimately killed by the people he led. They may not have planned the execution or even been involved but they did know it was coming and decided to step aside when the time came. In my opinion of course; all of it.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 18, 2005 06:14 PM |
|
|
Each act has its own implications. If a member
of ETA planted a bomb and killed the Spanish PM, it
would be an assasination by a terrorist.
____________
|
| |
|
|
