Israeli Bombing an Accident

[Guerilla poster]

An accident? This seems silly. They should learn how to lie a little better than that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2148548.stm

Those who decided to go ahead with the operation were "apparently not aware" that they were releasing a bomb onto a densely-populated area, otherwise they would not have done it, he said.

[Paddyboy1]

I like the part where it says the US has "strongly condemned the attack". GWB: "This was a heavy handed action that does not contribute to peace".

Careful, George! One agressive word too many and the Israelis might not let us put our nation at risk of terrorist attack so that we might fund their occupation of the Palestinians in perpetuity. People used to say that the rest of the world was laughing at us because we were prosecuting Clinton for his grand jury actions. This is a lot more shameful than upholding our own laws. Let me say that this is still a very minor incident on a global scale - the humiliation isn't that we don't show compassion for these dead few - but its better to say nothing than to use this as another opportunity to give the Israelis a bj.

[fallout]

Calling it an accident may have been a mistake.
They struck a military leader, and civilians were killed in the attack.

I find this much less deplorable than sending a teenager strapped with bombs into a pool hall to kill as many young Israelis as he can.

I am glad to see there is finally outrage about the death of innocent civilians, but I question why we waited for the civilians to be Palestinians.

[Laocoön]

The thing is, fallout, the teenagers strapped with explosives are acting under the direction of fringe Palestinian groups; the pilots bombing apartment buildings are acting under the direction of the Israeli government.

[fallout]

Laocoon,

I question how "fringe" these groups really are. Do any palestinian leaders denounce these suicide bombings? Has any Palestinian group tried to stop them?

[Laocoön]

Perhaps most illustrating is the different attitudes taken by the US regarding the recent assassination of the Hamas leader (which killed 14 others) and the assassination of Rehavam Ze'evi, the militant racist Israeli politician. Ze'evi, you may recall, refered to Arabs in Israel as "lice" and "cancer," and supported both ethnic cleansing and military action against civilians in the Occupied Territories.

The US condemned the assassination of Ze'evi, which involved no other casualties, as an act of terrorism, and the Palestinian Authority denounced it and at least said it would help track down the assassins. The most the US would say about the Hamas leaders' assassination, and the 14 other deaths that went with it, was that it was "heavy handed," and Ariel Sharon called it one of Israel's "greatest successes" and only regretted the collateral damage.

[Laocoön]

Laocoon,

I question how "fringe" these groups really are. Do any palestinian leaders denounce these suicide bombings? Has any Palestinian group tried to stop them?

Yes, Palestinian leaders denounce the suicide bombings again and again. They are criticized only for being insincere in their denouncements. And, before the IDF blew up most of the jails in the Occupied Territories, there were hundreds of Palestinians held in them by the Palestinian Authority for their involvement with bombings.

[fallout]

Perhaps most illustrating is the different attitudes taken by the US regarding the recent assassination of the Hamas leader (which killed 14 others) and the assassination of Rehavam Ze'evi, the militant racist Israeli politician. Ze'evi, you may recall, refered to Arabs in Israel as "lice" and "cancer," and supported both ethnic cleansing and military action against civilians in the Occupied Territories.

The US condemned the assassination of Ze'evi, which involved no other casualties, as an act of terrorism, and the Palestinian Authority denounced it and at least said it would help track down the assassins. The most the US would say about the Hamas leaders' assassination, and the 14 other deaths that went with it, was that it was "heavy handed," and Ariel Sharon called it one of Israel's "greatest successes" and only regretted the collateral damage.

It seems that one guy was speaking, while the other was murdering. I do not support the things he said, but I do not believe in stifling speech either.

[fallout]

Laocoon,

I question how "fringe" these groups really are. Do any palestinian leaders denounce these suicide bombings? Has any Palestinian group tried to stop them?

Yes, Palestinian leaders denounce the suicide bombings again and again. They are criticized only for being insincere in their denouncements. And, before the IDF blew up most of the jails in the Occupied Territories, there were hundreds of Palestinians held in them by the Palestinian Authority for their involvement with bombings.

Are these the same palestinian leaders that give money to the families of the bombers? The same ones that tell us in english that the bombings are wrong, but would never speak that way to their civilians?

[Laocoön]

fallout:

The IDF murders, too, encouraged and funded by politicians like Ze'evi.

Some of the Palestinian leaders who condemn the bombings allegedly (Israel's ham-handed "proof" of Arafat's complicity included alleged Palestinian Authority documents with English letterhead, which I guess would spare the US the trouble of translating in order to verify the "proof") also fund them.

If you've heard the condemnations in English and do not understand Arabic, why were you playing stupid earlier when you asked if any Palestinian leaders condemn the bombings?

[fallout]

For them to truly condemn an action, they would have to do it to their own people.

I liken it to a hockey coach saying to the media, "there's no place for cross checking in hockey", and then telling his player "good physical play out there", and giving him more playing time.

I have heard the reports of people that do understand arabic that tell me the story being told is different then the english version.

[Paddyboy1]

Wait, you're saying that nobody is concerned about civilian deaths in Israel, that we had to "wait" for Palestinian casualties to show up to hear about the death? Yeah right. We have been deluged with reports of suffering on both sides, for 2 years now.

I would say if you add in the number of women murdered by the family of their in-laws to the number who die in muslim/hindu ethnic riots, that you're probably getting more innocent dead people in India (and for far less noble reasons) than in Israel over the past 2 years. How long do we have to wait to hear about those suffering dead?

Suffering dead?

[fallout]

Paddy,

I seem to have a hard time following a post-thread when you get involved.

I agree there is a lot of suffering in the world, and a lot of injustice, and that no one group of people completely innocent or pure, and that the US has done many bad things to many people for many years.

But women's inlaws in India?

I think you need to brighten your outlook a little. Maybe post something positive. just once I would like to see you say someone, some nation, some goverment did something good, right or even nice, without dragging in a lot of negativity.

I am fairly new to these forums and you will rpobably slam me for writing this, but why should I be different from everything else in the world.

[The Diabolical Biz Markie]

I have to agree with those posters that find it odd that suicide bombing is such a pernicious evil...but drop that bomb from a plane with a similar disregard for collateral deaths...and it's somehow not quite as bad.

it does look suspiciously like the sanctity of live is a variable function depending one's "Arab-ness".

[Guerilla poster]

Not to pick a fight with you. But how do you differentiate between what Israel did and what the US did in Afghanistan. Many civilians were killed in pursuit of the Taliban/Queda. If we put men on the ground we could have killed more Taliban and less civilians rather than just dropping bombs. I do not support the bad American argument anymore than you that some other posters throw around here. But I do struggle with this question. Inherently, I think the idea of Israel as a Jewish state is a terrible. The Israeli's think the land belongs to them because God says so and just does not seem right to me in any context.

[Tony the Tiger]

I am fairly new to these forums and you will rpobably slam me for writing this, but why should I be different from everything else in the world.
Fairly new? You joined last November, before Paddy1 and have 119 posts!

[The Diabolical Biz Markie]

But how do you differentiate between what Israel did and what the US did in Afghanistan

The short answer is "intent".

but, to your knowledge, when did we do something similar in Afghanistan?

If we did something like this, than I would say we shouldn't have.

And...my point was not so much about absolute right and wrong...merely that regardless of the morality of the bombing, I can say that it is strange that one would treat it so much differently than a suicide bombing. It is more about pots calling kettles black. Israelis, if they are going to stand by this, should not act like the Arabs are sub-humans for being so barbaric as to use suicide bombers. Afterall...if the Palestinians could send in jets unmolested into Israel, I am sure they rather opt for the more civilized way of blowing up civilians, as Israel has just done.

[Guerilla poster]

You are claiming that suicide bombing is a legitimate act of war. Was September 11th a legitimate act of war? I think I know your answer but I want to confirm that I am following your mindset.

[The Diabolical Biz Markie]

But, GP...this ties in to my point about terrorism and the futility of defining it.

Al Qaeda is at war with us--and they were before we were aware of it. If they had jets and bombs and the like, I am sure they'd have used them instead of doing what they did. It is of little consequence how they try to kill us.

The main point is...they are at war with us...they are trying to kill us. Much like any other war.

[Guerilla poster]

You answered the question in my post at the same time I posted it- scary.

Rightocrat mind control, beware :P

[The Diabolical Biz Markie]

You are claiming that suicide bombing is a legitimate act of war. Was September 11th a legitimate act of war? I think I know your answer but I want to confirm that I am following your mindset.

I don't know what you mean by "legitimate act of war".

If wasn't smart or, in the long run, effective....but it is an act of war...intrinsically no different than firebombing Dresden.

[Guerilla poster]

I am with you so far. But doesn't Israel then have the right to overrun Palestine and take over all the land. how would you separate the radicals from the non-radicals?

[The Diabolical Biz Markie]

Your analogy is losing referential integrity...

If Israel were to act like the US....it would have, in a matter of months, taken over all Palestinian land, hunted down or chased out the bad guys (to a large extent) and then established a democratic government supported by the international community.

OR...if the US were to act like Israel, we'd be in Afghanistan for the next 40 years, getting shot at and suffering suicide bombers, but never taking the necessary steps to form a democratic gummint.

Keep in mind...we didn't negotiate with the Taliban or the bad guys to set up a democracy in Afghanistan. We defeated them militarily, and then set up a democracy.



When you look at it this way, Israel's actions for the last 40 years seem really stupid. They are going out of their way to make people hate them.

[Quasi]

I am with you so far. But doesn't Israel then have the right to overrun Palestine and take over all the land. how would you separate the radicals from the non-radicals?

From where I'm sitting there don't seem to be too many non-radicals in that part of the world...

[Guerilla poster]

Thanks, Shekky. I have to admit that I agree with you on this topic.

I know you couldn't resist one cut on me though -mocking my referential integrity.

[The Diabolical Biz Markie]

I left out one thing.

If the US were acting like Israel, it would have set up settlements of Americans in Afghanistan--with an eye towards incorporating those settlements in the US.

Let's face it, if the US acted like Israel, Europe and much of Asia would be 100% ours at the moment. Ooops...the Axis attacked us. I see no alternative but to occupy them indefinitely.

I might add, also, that if you look at our behavior in WWII, you'll see that however we did it, we--in short order...less time than Israel has been in Palestine--turned 2 of our biggest enemies into our biggest allies. Hell, between 1950 and now we turned our VERY biggest and most bitter enemy into an ally.

Israel has spent the last few years insuring that their enemies remain their enemies.

[Guerilla poster]

Historically, we learned from the British, this is probably why we avoided the colonialist approach to the world - it is a major pain in the ass to try to control colonies.

[fallout]

...

I might add, also, that if you look at our behavior in WWII, you'll see that however we did it, we--in short order...less time than Israel has been in Palestine--turned 2 of our biggest enemies into our biggest allies. Hell, between 1950 and now we turned our VERY biggest and most bitter enemy into an ally.

Israel has spent the last few years insuring that their enemies remain their enemies.

Are you implying that Israel did not attack strongly enough to force complete surrender from the Plaestinians? Do you think they should approach the war like the US approached WW2, tossing a few nukes at Palestinian/Arab targets and end this war quickly?

[Guerilla poster]

The answers are in order: Yes and No.

[The Diabolical Biz Markie]

First...you are abusing my analogy. My point was that the US did what it had to do to win a total victory, and then, mercifully, re-built the destroyed country and turned it back to the natives, who then became allies.

Of course I am not saying that Israel should nuke the occupied areas...they don't have to. They are, by any measure, more than a match militarily for anything the Palestinians could bring against them. In fact...one could argue, they already DID win the war, they just decided to stick around for 40 years after they did w/o bothering to give the inhabitants a vote.

I am sure if we did the same thing to Germany, there would be Germans itching to kill us, too.

But, I fail to see how you drew your conclusion based on my analogy. There area ways to win apart from using nukes...in the US's case in WWII, the adversary was MUCH more powerful, and we felt we needed to do that to win. Israel doesn't need to Nuke Gaza to win.

[Guerilla poster]

Obviously, the difference is that the Israeli's want all the land. I suppose a better analogy would be with the American Indians.

Manifest Destiny = Zionism?
Suicide Bombing = beheading Settlers to create fear
Settlements = Settlements
Reservations = Palestinian land
Tribal Council = PLO
Crazy Horse = Arafat

[Paddyboy1]

1. I don't post more negatively than everyone else. You are just confused because I post about the things that your TV hasn't told you you can dissent on. Would we be friends if I started saying the Red Sox suck or the liberals suck instead of the Hegemony sucks? And if it is so obviously wrong for someone to disagree with such things, then why can't you just pick one of my points and argue *it*? Why does it have to be "you're always wrong" rather than "I disagree. This is why I believe 100 dead Palestinians and Israelis is more important than 1000 dead Indian wives."?

2. Someone posted that we should have put men on the ground so that we could kill more Taliban and fewer civilians. I don't know about you, but I don't *want* to kill more Taliban. Much of the Taliban was essentially civilian government employees and clerics. It was only when they were invaded by America that htey turned into savage suicide bombers or whatever you know believe them to be. If you want to go kill some mean people, you should try heading over to Myanmar or Tibet, and see how many of their civil employees we can kill.

[Guerilla poster]

pretty weak argument Paddy. The Taliban supported those who attacked us. We overthrew their government. Not sure what Myamar has to do with that. Would you have preferred the Taliban to stay in power? If so, please tell me why? I would support the argument that the Palestinians have the right to attack us but of course that might not be a good strategic decision.

[The Drunken Actuary]

Thanks, Shekky. I have to admit that I agree with you on this topic.
I do to...the rightocrat mind control must be on full power today.

[The Diabolical Biz Markie]

Paddy...I have no clue who are are addressing...but anyway...

1. I don't post more negatively than everyone else.
!?

You are just confused because I post about the things that your TV hasn't told you you can dissent on.
:roll:

Would we be friends if I started saying the Red Sox suck or the liberals suck instead of the Hegemony sucks?
No, for all value of "we".

And if it is so obviously wrong for someone to disagree with such things, then why can't you just pick one of my points and argue *it*? Why does it have to be "you're always wrong" rather than "I disagree. This is why I believe 100 dead Palestinians and Israelis is more important than 1000 dead Indian wives."?
?!?

2. Someone posted that we should have put men on the ground so that we could kill more Taliban and fewer civilians.
Who?---I don't remember that.

I don't know about you, but I don't *want* to kill more Taliban. OK then.

Much of the Taliban was essentially civilian government employees and clerics. It was only when they were invaded by America that htey turned into savage suicide bombers or whatever you know believe them to be.
Yeah...they were a great bunch of guys...that's why all of 3 nations even recognized them as a legitimate gummint. It was our invasion that turned them into xenophobic murderous fanatics.

If you want to go kill some mean people, you should try heading over to Myanmar
What does this have to do with the price of tea in China??

or Tibet and see how many of their civil employees we can kill.

What?!

I am forwarding this to your psychiatrist. MY TV TOLD ME TO SAY THAT....

[Guerilla poster]

I think Paddy was addressing fallout on #1 and me on #2 ( i made the statement about the Taliban).

[The Diabolical Biz Markie]

Thanks...I may hire you from time to time to act as an interpreter for me when reading paddy posts. I just wish he'd use English.

[The Drunken Actuary]

Much of the Taliban was essentially civilian government employees and clerics. It was only when they were invaded by America that htey turned into savage suicide bombers or whatever you know believe them to be. If you want to go kill some mean people, you should try heading over to Myanmar or Tibet, and see how many of their civil employees we can kill.Have you read about the drums of amputated limbs in the middle of the children's soccer field or their treatment of women? I realize this stuff was reported on TV and in the mainstream media so your tendency is to disregard it or to disregard anyone who believes it as a mindless automotan but I think your suggestion that the Taliban were just a bunch of happy-go-lucky clerics until the evil USA in its quest to strengthen the hegamony started bombing them is somewhat suspect and perhaps grounded in wishful thinking rather than fact.

[The Diabolical Biz Markie]

Yeah...the fact that everyone's TV all over the world was pretty much humming the same tune about the Taliban should make paddy suspicious that maybe our TVs were right this time.

In that one instance, we didn't need our trusty tin foil hats... :tfh:

And, to close the loop...

One can look at the response of the public, the media and the gummints in other countries to give us a sanity check about our positions.

Much of the rest of the world seems comfortable with the fact that the Taliban was overthrown...including the few nations that recognized them as legit.

Contrast this with America & Israel. We aren't getting that same level of support for what Israel is doing--with American support--to the Palestinians...uh hold on....MY TV IS TELLING ME TO GET BACK TO WORK....

[Guerilla poster]

You are all falling into Paddy's trap. If you support the US cause by saying the Taliban are bad and that justified our approachj he will come back with the fact that there are places around the world where bad people who do bad things rule and we do nothing about it. As was the case with Afghanistan prior to 9/11.

[fallout]

1. I don't post more negatively than everyone else. You are just confused because I post about the things that your TV hasn't told you you can dissent on. Would we be friends if I started saying the Red Sox suck or the liberals suck instead of the Hegemony sucks? And if it is so obviously wrong for someone to disagree with such things, then why can't you just pick one of my points and argue *it*? Why does it have to be "you're always wrong" rather than "I disagree. This is why I believe 100 dead Palestinians and Israelis is more important than 1000 dead Indian wives."?

I never say you are always wrong. You are very knowledgable about many things and definetly more informed about world issues than I am. I just think you sometimes dwell on things that do not matter to the current debate and always cast things in a negative light. I await a post from you saying, what a nice thing _______ did...

Just for the record, the Red Sox aren't that good and Liberals do suck.

[The Drunken Actuary]

You are all falling into Paddy's trap. If you support the US cause by saying the Taliban are bad and that justified our approachj he will come back with the fact that there are places around the world where bad people who do bad things rule and we do nothing about it. As was the case with Afghanistan prior to 9/11.And I will agree with that. What I disagree with is the assertion that the Taliban were a great bunch of guys.

[The Diabolical Biz Markie]

I would never argue that we overthrew the Taliban because they were bad.

We overthrew them because if we didn't, our enemies would have a safe haven to train, hide, recruit etc.

And, pre-empting the discussion of Tibet...there is an easily understandable reason why we don't invade Tibet. It would start world war III. You do have to take into account probability of success and likely outcomes when deciding who you fight.

[Guerilla poster]

I am just hoping to get a big check in the mail from Shekky by translating Paddy's thoughts. btw, please don't report it I don't want to pay the taxes. :wink:

[Paddyboy1]

1. We could remove the monarchy in Nepal without starting WW III. We could bust up the slave trade in Sudan without starting WWIII. We could have at least asked Russia not to bomb refugees in Chechenya without starting WWIII. There are plenty of things we can do to bad people, and yes, slave traders, kidnappers, and militias in Sudan *are* worse than the Taliban pre and post 9/11. The argument is not was the organization bad. Yes the organization was bad. The argument is was it worth it to kill thousands of civilian non-Taliban and thousands more civilian Taliban whose job may have been to deliver mail or build houses, not to train terrorists. My original argument wasn't whether it was necessary to step on Taliban toes to get to Al Qaeda, it was whether it was an end of itself to kill as many Taliban as possible, as if the Taliban were flying around knocking down buildings. In fact, it has not suspected that even a single member of the Taliban was involved in or had knowledge of the attacks on the WTC. These Taliban were followers of a very fuct observance of Islamic law. Its called Sharia. And it exists in a couple african regions and most Muslim countries throughout the world have a party which is trying to encode it into law. They are very bad people who don't respect civil rights. I dont' want them making laws here. On the other hand, I'm not willing to break the law and kill thousands of them EVEN IF IT HELPS TO STOP THE SPREAD OF SHARIA. Its called international law. Me not liking something does not imply that the UNited States is allowed to kill thousands to eradicate it.

2. I think the US took the right course of action in defending itself against Al Qaeda. I think they acted in accordance with international law until the point where they made it a war goal to overthrow the Taliban and replace it with their own puppet. The words Taliban and Al Qaeda melted together in everyone's mind and then all of a sudden there were 100,000 terrorists in Afghanistan. 100,000 extremely slow-moving terrorists who had only been able to piece together 4 terror attacks in 10 years. And of course as a result of the Taliban-eradicating policy, many civilians had to die and personally I feel as bad about poppy farmer or a bond trader eating it. Either way its some sucker I don't know. I wonder how many people you'd be willing to kill to stop an American terrorist who might strike again, perhaps the man who organized the terrorist Contra movement. How many American forests would we be willing to bomb to protect us from the Militias that spawned Tim McVeigh? Oh, you say, they didn't know that McVeigh was going to strike? They don't even call for armed struggle against the US? They just harbor some people who have crazy beliefs and who may support McVeigh? Sounds like the Taliban without a beard.

[fallout]

1. We could remove the monarchy in Nepal without starting WW III. We could bust up the slave trade in Sudan without starting WWIII. We could have at least asked Russia not to bomb refugees in Chechenya without starting WWIII. There are plenty of things we can do to bad people, and yes, slave traders, kidnappers, and militias in Sudan *are* worse than the Taliban pre and post 9/11. The argument is not was the organization bad. Yes the organization was bad. The argument is was it worth it to kill thousands of civilian non-Taliban and thousands more civilian Taliban whose job may have been to deliver mail or build houses, not to train terrorists. My original argument wasn't whether it was necessary to step on Taliban toes to get to Al Qaeda, it was whether it was an end of itself to kill as many Taliban as possible, as if the Taliban were flying around knocking down buildings. In fact, it has not suspected that even a single member of the Taliban was involved in or had knowledge of the attacks on the WTC. These Taliban were followers of a very fuct observance of Islamic law. Its called Sharia. And it exists in a couple african regions and most Muslim countries throughout the world have a party which is trying to encode it into law. They are very bad people who don't respect civil rights. I dont' want them making laws here. On the other hand, I'm not willing to break the law and kill thousands of them EVEN IF IT HELPS TO STOP THE SPREAD OF SHARIA. Its called international law. Me not liking something does not imply that the UNited States is allowed to kill thousands to eradicate it.

2. I think the US took the right course of action in defending itself against Al Qaeda. I think they acted in accordance with international law until the point where they made it a war goal to overthrow the Taliban and replace it with their own puppet. The words Taliban and Al Qaeda melted together in everyone's mind and then all of a sudden there were 100,000 terrorists in Afghanistan. 100,000 extremely slow-moving terrorists who had only been able to piece together 4 terror attacks in 10 years. And of course as a result of the Taliban-eradicating policy, many civilians had to die and personally I feel as bad about poppy farmer or a bond trader eating it. Either way its some sucker I don't know. I wonder how many people you'd be willing to kill to stop an American terrorist who might strike again, perhaps the man who organized the terrorist Contra movement. How many American forests would we be willing to bomb to protect us from the Militias that spawned Tim McVeigh? Oh, you say, they didn't know that McVeigh was going to strike? They don't even call for armed struggle against the US? They just harbor some people who have crazy beliefs and who may support McVeigh? Sounds like the Taliban without a beard.

I don't think we are judging better or worse. What we did was try to make a point that if you attack the US, or protect those that do, we will make life very unpleasant for you. We are allowing countries to do a cost/benefit analysis to form their allegiances. Hopefully other countries will not be so willing to provide refuge and training to groups that would do us harm.

The one thing I regret is that the US did not make their attack "terribly impressive". Something that would scare the heck out of the rest of the terrorist harboring nations and create stronger reactions. Something that would show the world we have the muscle to back up the talk, and we are willing to use it.

Edited because I can't type.

[Paddyboy1]

My claim is that the US does not consistently act in the self-defense mode that you describe. I believe instead that the US acts consistently in defense of the Hegemony. There are plenty of examples of coutnries who attacks us who we *don't* make life difficult for, and examples of countries who don't attacks us who we *do* make life difficult for. Here's a quick list:

1. Israel and Iraq separately attacked two of our naval ship in the 1980s. Americans were told not to care and we did not invade these countries.

2. Most of the 9/11 people and Osama himself were from Saudi Arabia. The ruling princes of this nation have many more *ties* to Al Qaeda than Abu Sayaff in the (these *ties* were used to justify mil8itary intervention in the Phillipines). After 9/11, the Taliban offered us help if we would prove Osama did it. Saudi Arabia didn't wait for proof either way. They said no matter who did it, that we could not use our own military bases as a launching pad to attack Al Qaeda terrorists. We did not invade Saudi Arabia in response. Surprisingly, there was unanimous agreement among 535 congressman in favor of invading Afghanistan and all 535 just so happened not to want to invade Saudi Arabia. I'm guessing if they *had* invaded Saudi Arabai that you would be all in favor of it too.

3. Nicaragua did not threaten the US at all. The US raised an army of terrorists and trained them in Panama to launch an invasion that killed many innocents.

4. Venezuala did not invade the United States or threaten to. The US is suspected of kidnapping their democratically elected president and putting a military junta in charge.

[fallout]

1. Israel and Iraq separately attacked two of our naval ship in the 1980s. Americans were told not to care and we did not invade these countries.

2. Most of the 9/11 people and Osama himself were from Saudi Arabia. The ruling princes of this nation have many more *ties* to Al Qaeda than Abu Sayaff in the (these *ties* were used to justify mil8itary intervention in the Phillipines). After 9/11, the Taliban offered us help if we would prove Osama did it. Saudi Arabia didn't wait for proof either way. They said no matter who did it, that we could not use our own military bases as a launching pad to attack Al Qaeda terrorists. We did not invade Saudi Arabia in response. Surprisingly, there was unanimous agreement among 535 congressman in favor of invading Afghanistan and all 535 just so happened not to want to invade Saudi Arabia. I'm guessing if they *had* invaded Saudi Arabai that you would be all in favor of it too.

3. Nicaragua did not threaten the US at all. The US raised an army of terrorists and trained them in Panama to launch an invasion that killed many innocents.

4. Venezuala did not invade the United States or threaten to. The US is suspected of kidnapping their democratically elected president and putting a military junta in charge.

1) That appears to have been a military target, not on US soil. Although I think we should defend our armed forces abroad, it is not unheard of to have armed forces out of the US expect an attack.

2) The difference with Saudi Arabia is that they were not harboring the terrorists. I can understand jumping on the bandwagon when your country is declaring war, which explains the unanimity of thought in attacking Afghanistan. What is your source that all 535 did not want to invade Saudi Arabia?

3) The US is not completely pure and innocent. Only Canada is.

4) Wasn't that an X-files episode?

[Paddyboy1]

Your ignorance of what went on in Nicaragua and Venezuala isnt cute. Its sad. You haven't been told about the suffering, but it is much worse than what happened at WTC. Your defense that everybody does it is a defense of Osama to kill civilians. It is no X-files episode that at our terrorists training facility we instructed the rebels in illegal acts and that declassified documents show that we asked them to hit soft, civilian targets rather than attack the Nicaraguan government police and army. Just because you don't know your own country's history as well as Al Qaeda's history doesn't make it right. It just means you're ignorant. Don't go parading around waving the flag until you know what it represents.

I have never heard a congressman call for the invasion of Saudi Arabia. If people felt as strongly about it as Afghanistan, they wouldn't keep their thoughts to themselves, they would debate it in congress.

[The Diabolical Biz Markie]

Don't go parading around waving the flag until you know what it represents.

And what is that?

[Paddyboy1]

Haven't you been paying attention? The Hegemony.

To a man in Uzbekistan, America is not the land of opportunity, it is the land that gives their dictator enough guns to eliminate dissent. To the ignorant man in Houston, America is a safe and wonderful place, the land of the free. I think things are great here in America, I wish all people could live like us, with plenty of cash to go around, and plenty of freedom. But its not, and America does not act abroad with the intention of bringing it about. Our actions abroad are intended to maintain and promote our control internationally. Sometimes it acts in the interest of non-Americans, and sometimes it doesn't. Its an immoral policy. Its difficult for you to understand because America is so great in domestic policy that you can't imagine that George Bush would orchestrate a military coup of a democratic nation. But its what happened. We have evidence of it. If you suspected Clinton was lying about grand jury testimony you'd shit your pants but if you were convinced that he was fighting a secret war, killing plenty of folks *and* keeping it secret from his constitutents, you'd turn the page. Its a huge failing of our public school system that dissenting views of history are ignored. Especially when the dissenting view is undisputed academically. My advice to you, Shekky, is to broaden your horizons and read a history book and decide what you think about our shadow government without any preconceived notions of military=Good or America=altruistic.

[DonkeyPunch (Banned)]

To a man in Uzbekistan, America is not the land of opportunity, it is the land that gives their dictator enough guns to eliminate dissent.

Sure. But if we offered him a 1 room apartment and a job mopping floors here in the USA, he'd be here faster than you can say "militaristic racist opressive phallocracy".

[Paddyboy1]

No shit. Thats what I just said. Kazakhstan was a model of post-soviet progression. A budding democracy, it had a bunch of political dissent and real elections, and sitting on all kinds of gas and oil reserves, its bigger than Texas with the population of metro NY. It could be the next Saudi Arabia. Then America came in and gave its leader guns. He's now outlawing 15 out of the 19 parties. The other four support him. Now it looks like it might be the next Saudi Arabia after all.

[DonkeyPunch (Banned)]

No, you said:

To a man in Uzbekistan, America is not the land of opportunity

[Paddyboy1]

And you said, "But..." as if to counter my claim. But you didn't counter it. You countered with something else, that to an Uzbek-American it is the land of opportunity.

[DonkeyPunch (Banned)]

No, I said in reference to this hypothetical Uzbek:

Sure. But if we offered him a 1 room apartment and a job mopping floors here in the USA, he'd be here faster than you can say "militaristic racist opressive phallocracy".

No mention of Uzbek-Americans. Although I think you're being deliberately dense to bait me.

And I'm sure their leader was a nice guy until he got his hands on American guns. Maybe if he bought AK-47s they'd still be a democracy!

[Paddyboy1]

I'm nto being deliberately dense, but I dont get your last post.

I don't follow asian politics that closely,but from what I understand, the Uzbek guy was violent and opressive to begin with and the Kazhak guy either wasn't opressive or wasn't effectively opressive enough to outlaw political opposition. This isn't isolated. As I've pointed out before, the Colombian peace talks were called off by the government when they got American guns. In Pakistan, Musharaff put on a sham election keeping him in power without a peep from the United States, and so now anyone claiming his illegitimacy would be a 'terrorist', and so a target of America's war. In Nepal the government's offensive against the rebels coincided with GWB's call for more guns for the king. On the other hand when the Clinton admin cut off the guns to Indonesia, they ended their campaign of terror against the East Timorese.

Now you could say, sure those are 4 isolated instances, because we give guns to dozens of countries, and some of them will have outbreaks of govt violence or escalations of fighting with rebels whether we gave them guns or not. But the policies I'm talking about specifically earmark arms for these purposes. The house voted the other day taht guns be used in the rebel wars of colombia, bush called for weapons to be used against the Nepal rebels, and in addition to Kazhakstan, the US is providing training and guns to tajikistan, uzbekistan, and probably some other stans I forgot about with the express purpose of destroying the fundamentalist voice in those nations, violent and otherwise. And of course they throw out that old saw, "Al Qaeda-linked", when in fact a more valid Al Qaeda linkage can be made to the United States, the Northern Alliance and the house of Saud.

[DonkeyPunch (Banned)]

You said that Uzbeks don't consider America the land of opportunity. Yet you agree any one of them would move here in a second, because of the (wait for it) opportunities.

Evidently, America is the only country from which other countries can buy guns. I'm sure if we decided not to sell to them, the Chinese, Russians, etc. would respect that decision and not sell to them either. Or maybe they would, but it's only *American* guns that make governments bad -- they could buy AK-47s, and suddenly develop respect for human rights.

[Paddyboy1]

DP -

1. You know exactly what I'm saying, you're just being a pain. I don't consider lottery tickets to be the way out of my financial situation, but of course if I won the lotto I would be out of my situation. Until then, it is a waste of my money and not the solution.

2. We are giving these guns away, not selling them. No matter how they feel about gun control, the republicans are unanimously opposed to gun control abroad. Colombia couldn't get guns from teh Russians and Chinese. The world turned against Indonesian opression decades before the US. Nepal can't afford guns. or food. We're sending them the former. I doubt the Russians would give these central asians guns. I believe in some nations the Russians have an adversarial relationship with them and allow the corrupt leaders to grant them military bases. They keep the peace, extend their area of control, and the rulers can do whatever they want.

3. China and Russia do not give away weapons like we do. I'm guessing that neither nation gives guns to any nation not bordering it. And since when is Chinese policy something we should strive for?

[DonkeyPunch (Banned)]

OK, I get it now.

(1) Uzbeks would move here in a second, but this is *not* the land of opportunity.

(2) Guns make people bad -- those governments wouldn't be bad if it wasn't for American guns. We probably supplied the machetes used by the Hutus as well.

(3) China and Russia are better than us because they're broke and have to sell their guns.

[Paddyboy1]

3. You had said our distribution of weapons intended to be used to terrorize people is amoral because the people will get weapons anyway. GWB responds no, you're a terrorist state if you give weapons or sell weapons to terrorize people. PB says I second what GWB says, and on top of that, these nations are too poor to effectively oppress their people without free help and we're the only one giving it away.

2. Oh you really argued me into a corner there. The Hutus didn't get guns and the Hutus killed people, therefore guns are irrelevant. Brilliant.

1. This point is dumb. We both know what I meant - Uzbeks in America are treated as decent people, with opportunities. Uzbeks in Uzbekistan suffer because America trades guns and control over their government in exchange for their freedoms.

[DonkeyPunch (Banned)]

In conclusion, America bad.

[Paddyboy1]

The whole point of this conversation was that America is good at home, America is bad abroad. Then you started to nitpick and I reiterated, "I was trying to cotnrast that America is good at home and bad abroad", and then you write, "so what you're trying to say is America is bad". Thats brilliant.

Let me paraphrase your argument, a bit more accurately:

America is not bad because we know America is good.

[E. Blackadder]

So if we absorbed the world, then America would be good everywhere. I like it.

[DonkeyPunch (Banned)]

So if we absorbed the world, then America would be good everywhere. I like it.

But America bad! BAD!

[E. Blackadder]

For you, I recommend WC Chicks who like spanking (http://actuary.ca/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=983&sid=daa6e401a9e3e6229d76b9b05c8421e0) four times per day.

Just breathe deeply and slowly.

[fallout]

For you, I recommend WC Chicks who like spanking (http://actuary.ca/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=983&sid=daa6e401a9e3e6229d76b9b05c 8421e0) four times per day.

Just breathe deeply and slowly.

So what is "WC" anyways?

[E. Blackadder]

The Water Cooler, a precursor to the rebel outpost. Located on the CAS website. Unfortunately, the moderation was first too hands-off, then became airport-style.