Thursday, July 06, 2006

Chomsky: Part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

At least, according to this post.

Chomsky systematically ignores the role of the fiat currency system which drives down wages, inflates prices, and puts the American economy under the iron claw of a few elite families. Since the dollar is the base currency for worldwide trade and the current economic house of cards, shouldn’t these topics be discussed?

Perhaps Chomsky stays mute because a central bank fits into his ideology. After all, one of the key planks in the Marxist and Fabian socialist agenda is a managed central bank in order to control the economy. Or perhaps he fears discussion of the Fed would expose the real hidden hand that secretly manages the world economy. For him it is easier to blast the front corporations and low-level grocery boys.


I can't tell you how good it is to have him on our side.

65 Comments:

At 06 July, 2006 16:36, Blogger shawn said...

Wow.

 
At 06 July, 2006 16:50, Blogger CHF said...

So with Chomsky now part of the plot, the list of people NOT involved in the Illuminati cover-up is now...

- Alex Jones
- Stephen Jones
- Judy Wood
- Jim Fetzer
- BG
- Joan
- nesnyc
- Roger

And I'm sure half of them are CIA spooks.

 
At 06 July, 2006 17:54, Blogger roger_sq said...

I already told you I'm part of the conspiracy. My official role is to spread disinformation in both camps, in the hopes of fomenting a civil war, whereupon you all turn on each other like so many Rwandans.

After the violence passes and most of you are gone, I get your house.

By the way, Chomsky doesn't believe any of the inside job theories. But, as the norm for the lower IQ's among us, everything he says is convuluted to meet the agenda of the critic. So I'll point out the more notable aspect of Chomsky's dissent from the Truffers. He said he couldn't see how it would matter at all if there was LIHOP/MIHOP complicity or not. It was, he says, not relevant.

carry on...

 
At 06 July, 2006 18:17, Blogger Pat said...

Roger sq, you always have to parse whatever Chomsky had with your secret decoder ring. In a sense he's right, in that if LIHOP were established to my satisfaction I would be calling for the impeachment and capital murder trial of Bush and Cheney and anybody else involved. I called for the death penalty for Moussaoui, the one person we so far know is guilty of LIHOP.

But obviously I cannot call for more than that if MIHOP were proven to my satisfaction. Yes, MIHOP is far more evil, but LIHOP would be plenty evil enough.

Of course, you can never tell with Chomsky what he's really saying when you have his words in front of you; it's probably a fruitless task to try to follow him from somebody else's synopsis.

 
At 06 July, 2006 18:48, Blogger shawn said...

Of course, you can never tell with Chomsky what he's really saying when you have his words in front of you; it's probably a fruitless task to try to follow him from somebody else's synopsis.

Chomsky purposely peppers anything he says with maybes and perhapses etc so that he never has to say he's sorry.

 
At 06 July, 2006 19:02, Blogger undense said...

Chomsky's a spook? I'll sleep much safer tonight knowing that.

I'm always amazed at how the left won't hesitate to eat their own.

 
At 06 July, 2006 19:54, Blogger Unknown said...

I've always despised Chomsky. Does this mean I'll have to like him now?

 
At 06 July, 2006 20:07, Blogger BoggleHead said...

Chomsky's just more proof.

No matter how cynical you get, it's hard to keep up.

 
At 06 July, 2006 20:09, Blogger BoggleHead said...

Did you guys ever think maybe Iran Contra was a conspiracy of some sort?

 
At 06 July, 2006 20:15, Blogger shawn said...

Did you guys ever think maybe Iran Contra was a conspiracy of some sort?

There's a difference between a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory.

That's why we use the phraseology.

 
At 06 July, 2006 20:49, Blogger roger_sq said...

Roger sq, you always have to parse whatever Chomsky had with your secret decoder ring. In a sense he's right, in that if LIHOP were established to my satisfaction I would be calling for the impeachment and capital murder trial of Bush and Cheney and anybody else involved.



I called for the death penalty for Moussaoui, the one person we so far know is guilty of LIHOP.

Moussaoui cannot be guilty of LIHOP if he is held to the same standard as you hold for the government. Did you miss Able Danger?


But obviously I cannot call for more than that if MIHOP were proven to my satisfaction. Yes, MIHOP is far more evil, but LIHOP would be plenty evil enough.

For the purpose of perspective... was the intelligence failure that sold the Iraq war MIHOP or LIHOP?


Of course, you can never tell with Chomsky what he's really saying when you have his words in front of you; it's probably a fruitless task to try to follow him from somebody else's synopsis.

I think he is a hopeless idealist, and I see nothing wrong with having hopeless idealists in the academic world. Notice he's never gone into politics, and I'm sure he could have at some point. But I agree with your general point.

 
At 06 July, 2006 21:04, Blogger BoggleHead said...

Judge Leonie M. Brinkema said she had just learned from prosecutors that a lawyer for the Transportation Security Administration gave portions of last week's trial proceedings to seven witnesses who have yet to testify. In e-mail messages, the lawyer also seemed to tell some of the witnesses how they should testify to bolster the prosecution's argument that Moussaoui bore some responsibility for the deaths caused by the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"In all my years on the bench, I've never seen a more egregious violation of the rule about witnesses," Judge Brinkema said before sending the jury home for two days. She said that the actions of the government lawyer, identified in court papers as Carla J. Martin, would make it "very difficult for this case to go forward."

 
At 06 July, 2006 21:06, Blogger BoggleHead said...

Defense attorney Edward MacMahon moved to have the judge dismiss the death penalty as a possible outcome, saying “this is not going to be a fair trial.” In the alternative, he said, at least she should excuse the government’s FAA witnesses from the case.

Prosecutor David Novak replied that removing the FAA witnesses would “exclude half the government’s case.” Novak suggested instead that the problem could be fixed by a vigorous cross-examination by the defense.

 
At 06 July, 2006 21:08, Blogger shawn said...

Boggle, do you just say the same thing over and over again?

 
At 06 July, 2006 21:26, Blogger BoggleHead said...

How much do you wanna bet that the reason the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry was derailed was because the FBI came knocking, intimidating congressmen?

Strange that bin Laden's cover should be that he's trying to bring down Saudi Arabia if meanwhile he keeps silent about Saudi Arabia ties to the hijackers that the FBI is busy intimidating congressmen to keep their Joint Congressional Inquiry quiet about.

 
At 06 July, 2006 22:48, Blogger Pat said...

Boggle, Iran Contra was discovered, and anyway, the focus was on the wrong side of the equation. Was I shocked that Reagan funded the Contras? Nope. Whas I shocked that Reagan sold arms to Iran? Yeah, but the Democrats only cared about Nicaragua.

Conspiracy Smasher, no, don't worry about liking Chom. It really does show how marginal this 9-11 stuff is despite its apparent recent popularity, that they can't get Chomsky or Amy Goodman (who's also criticized in that post) to go along with it.

 
At 06 July, 2006 22:52, Blogger Billythekid said...

From the Prison Planet: "If they did not have prior knowledge, why were Cheney and NORAD running drills that morning where hijacked jets flew into buildings in New York, Washington DC and Virginia?"

Was this even confirmed? I don't think so, other than that there were drills during the 90s.

 
At 06 July, 2006 23:28, Blogger Billythekid said...

Another quote from Alex Jones' distortion field: "But on 9-11, Ben Sliney, in his first day on the job as hijacking coordinator for the FAA, delayed calls to NORAD."

Apart from the fact that "first day on the job" means you have very little experience in handling these cases, this gives you a good account of all the confusion that went on at the early hours of 9/11:

http://911review.org/brad.com/archives/FAA_clear-skies.html

 
At 07 July, 2006 00:12, Blogger BoggleHead said...

Boggle, Iran Contra was discovered,

You mean it was "officially" discovered. I guess everything that really happens that's below board gets "officially" discovered or else it never happened.

and anyway, the focus was on the wrong side of the equation.

Such as that Lee Hamilton (who also was investigating Iran Contra) whitewashed CIA involvement in Iran-Contra related drug smuggling?

Even though the CIA IG later admitted not everything was above board there?

Funny how we know all about CIA drug smuggling just from looking at Barry Seal's biography, and yet some people can't even confirm it by looking up whether the Inspector General of the CIA can completely absolve the agency.

Was I shocked that Reagan funded the Contras? Nope.

Because it's a truism by now that these people are criminals?

Whas I shocked that Reagan sold arms to Iran? Yeah,

You were shocked at treason, huh? No kidding.

but the Democrats only cared about Nicaragua.

Well since the Executive's power to enforce law is clearly in some ways subordinated to the Congressional prerogative to determine what that law even is, that would appear to be a bigger overall issue than any one particular scandal, no matter how treasonous.

Since this is all about real conspiracies needing to be officially "discovered", why wasn't Saudi financing of terrorists "officially" discovered for public consumption by the Joint Congressional Inquiry into intelligence failures surrounding 9/11?

How much do you want to bet it's because the FBI came knocking on congress's door and told them to shut up?

 
At 07 July, 2006 00:26, Blogger BoggleHead said...

As for the actual topic of this post, although they're all fairly arbitrary, unlike on the forum where anyone can create their own topic....

I've met Noam Chomsky. I'm glad he's not taking a CT position because he's doing important work grounded in solid research that should continue without the taint of conspiracy theorism, because that taint is so unreasonable and excessive.

Saudi ties to the hijackers prove that 9/11 is not entirely above board but few are willing to hear out the evidence even when it comes from prominent members of congress.

 
At 07 July, 2006 01:57, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

Chomsky doesn't take such a position because he supports the blatantly obvious and correct line of thought that says: US foreign policy causes terrorism.

I know this is difficult for many of you people to take, but it's the truth. Look at the terrorists own words if you don't believe it. People around the world actually DON'T want the US to decide what form of government they should have, who their leaders should be, or how they organize their economy.

Given the amount of US military intervention and being the most offensively deployed military in the world- is it any wonder that someone would find a low-budget equivelant to a tomahawk cruise missile strike on financial(WTC) and military(Pentagon) targets?

Brutal murder of civilians? Yes. Criminal? Yes. Tragic, yes. But no less tragic than the bombing of Serbian or Iraqi civilians, the support of bloodthirsty dictatorships like that of Islam Karimov(Uzbekistan) for example.

Now I will leave the moral cowards the right to start whining about how "They hate us for our FREEDOM!" and "We're bringing everyone democracy!"

 
At 07 July, 2006 01:59, Blogger jackhanyes said...

You guys act like a bunch of brain washed idiots repeating the same shit you learned from year of being indoctrinated by government training centers.

BTW, the FED are increasing intrest rates to make it harder for companies to get loans and thus lay people off to increase unempolyment so wages are kept under control and thus slow down inflation. To bad it doesn't work.

Don't you know inflation didn't exist until the FED reserve came about? Which is a front for the central banks? Did you also know that Kennedy wanted to disband the CIA, wanted to get the secert government under control, remove the FED reserve, openly attacked secert groups (freemasons, etc..), and wanted to go back to gold reserve? It's little wonder he was killed.

But I'm an nut ball. Kennedy was killed becuase a lone gunman didn't like him.

There's a difference between a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory.

The only different is one is known and one is suspectted based on results of the actions of the conspirors.

 
At 07 July, 2006 02:51, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

Yeah....uh...ok. Here is the difference between a conspiracy and a conspiracy-theory. A conspiracy is a plan usually involving a few people that "conspire" together to pull-off some kind of nefarious deed. If and when a conspiracy is discovered, then we say it was a conspiracy e.g. Iran-Contra.

A conspiracy THEORY is something different, basically an unlikely alternate explanation for a historical event. Unlike historical events that involve conspiracies, they are non-falsifiable.

EXAMPLE:

Historical conspiracy: Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. This could be debunked if someone could present credible evidence that the Crna Ruka(Black Hand) was not involved or that someone other than Gavrilo Princip pulled the trigger.

Conspiracy Theory: 9-11 was an inside job; evidence that doesn't support this hypothesis is fabricated by the conspirators, all areas where evidence is lacking is due to government coverup.

See the difference? A historical conspiracy can be debunked like any other historical event if sufficient credible evidence is presented. A conspiracy theory is NEVER debunked(in the eyes of the believers) because every time evidence cannot be provided it is blamed on a coverup, and any contrary evidence presented is said to be false, no matter how obvious it is(like a plane hitting a builing).

 
At 07 July, 2006 07:02, Blogger Abby Scott said...

Don't you know inflation didn't exist until the FED reserve came about?

As someone who made her day job by tutoring economics, that has to be the stupidest line I have ever heard.

Good lord, just do a google search for inflation in any era and shit will pop up, Jack.

Jimminey. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's wrong.

Don't like the Fed? Want it shut down? Well I hope you saw It's a Wonderful Life, because you'll have to learn to enjoy runs on banks.

 
At 07 July, 2006 07:39, Blogger shawn said...

Because it's a truism by now that these people are criminals?

Tell me: who won when elections were actually held?

But no less tragic than the bombing of Serbian or Iraqi civilians

Well in the case of Serbia - guess we should've just allowed that genocide to go on. How about bringing up the bombing of Germany and Japan while you're at it.

I fucking hate moral equivalence. It's absolute nonsense.

"They hate us for our FREEDOM!"

While Bush isn't the brighest bulb in the circuit, I've never understood everyone guffawing over this. Technically speaking, they do hate us for that. The ultimate goal of al-Qaeda is a global caliphate, under which there would be submission of all to Islam.

You guys act like a bunch of brain washed idiots repeating the same shit you learned from year of being indoctrinated by government training centers.

Oh no, the evil public schools...where we weren't even taught about Iran-Contra, genius. I guess we somehow magically came across that information. Oh right SOME OF US ARE AUTODIDACTS.


Don't you know inflation didn't exist until the FED reserve came about?

I guess the government indoctrination centers didn't teach you that after the Civil War about half of all money in circulation was counterfeit. That causes inflation.

 
At 07 July, 2006 08:00, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

Sorry pal, but there was no proof of "genocide" in Kosovo; the Serbs were putting down a guerilla insurgency and "ethnic cleansing" did not begin until NATO began bombing. Good luck using the old "Hitler/Japan" canard. Tell me, what did NATO do to stop the ethnic cleansing of non-Albanians from Kosovo AFTER they took over? Nothing so far.

Sorry to say, but Al Qaeda does not have any nonsensical "world domination" goal, nor does it believe in a global Caliphate- there is no rightful Caliph left.

Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda members have repeatedly stated in plain language their grievances and goals- none of which involve converting the West into an Islamic regime. Sadly, such elements exist, and there is some overlap- but that is simply not the goal of most Muslim insurgents.

I highly suggest you pick up a book at Borders called What Al Qaeda Wants, which contains the text of many Al Qaeda communiques. Imperial Hubris would also be another good start.

If Muslims hate "freedom", "democracy", or the "Western lifestlye", why don't you see them bombing the Swiss?

 
At 07 July, 2006 08:39, Blogger undense said...

Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda members have repeatedly stated in plain language their grievances and goals- none of which involve converting the West into an Islamic regime. Sadly, such elements exist, and there is some overlap- but that is simply not the goal of most Muslim insurgents.

How utterly incorrect. Have you even bothered to read bin Laden's Letter to America and some of his other writings and edicts demanding the west all convert to Islam?

 
At 07 July, 2006 08:42, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

Were you aware that according to the religious doctrines regarding Jihad, a Muslim MUST offer their enemy the chance to convert? Once again you can read all about it in Imperial Hubris. My guess is that a 22-year CIA veteran who specifically worked on issues like these might know a little something about Bin Laden and his ideology.

 
At 07 July, 2006 08:45, Blogger undense said...

If Muslims hate "freedom", "democracy", or the "Western lifestlye", why don't you see them bombing the Swiss?

How moronic. That's like saying "If the Bush admin is all about the oil, why didn't we invade Canada or Mexicon instead?"

From OBL's letter:

(Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

(a) The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from associating partners with Him, and rejection of this; of complete love of Him, the Exalted; of complete submission to His Laws; and of the discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories and religions which contradict with the religion He sent down to His Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Islam is the religion of all the prophets, and makes no distinction between them - peace be upon them all.

It is to this religion that we call you; the seal of all the previous religions. It is the religion of Unification of God, sincerity, the best of manners, righteousness, mercy, honour, purity, and piety. It is the religion of showing kindness to others, establishing justice between them, granting them their rights, and defending the oppressed and the persecuted. It is the religion of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil with the hand, tongue and heart. It is the religion of Jihad in the way of Allah so that Allah's Word and religion reign Supreme. And it is the religion of unity and agreement on the obedience to Allah, and total equality between all people, without regarding their colour, sex, or language.

(b) It is the religion whose book - the Quran - will remained preserved and unchanged, after the other Divine books and messages have been changed. The Quran is the miracle until the Day of Judgment. Allah has challenged anyone to bring a book like the Quran or even ten verses like it.

(2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.

(a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest.

We call you to all of this that you may be freed from that which you have become caught up in; that you may be freed from the deceptive lies that you are a great nation, that your leaders spread amongst you to conceal from you the despicable state to which you have reached.

(b) It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind:

(i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator. You flee from the embarrassing question posed to you: How is it possible for Allah the Almighty to create His creation, grant them power over all the creatures and land, grant them all the amenities of life, and then deny them that which they are most in need of: knowledge of the laws which govern their lives?

(ii) You are the nation that permits Usury, which has been forbidden by all the religions. Yet you build your economy and investments on Usury. As a result of this, in all its different forms and guises, the Jews have taken control of your economy, through which they have then taken control of your media, and now control all aspects of your life making you their servants and achieving their aims at your expense; precisely what Benjamin Franklin warned you against.

(iii) You are a nation that permits the production, trading and usage of intoxicants. You also permit drugs, and only forbid the trade of them, even though your nation is the largest consumer of them.

(iv) You are a nation that permits acts of immorality, and you consider them to be pillars of personal freedom. You have continued to sink down this abyss from level to level until incest has spread amongst you, in the face of which neither your sense of honour nor your laws object.

Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he 'made a mistake', after which everything passed with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and remembered by nations?

(v) You are a nation that permits gambling in its all forms. The companies practice this as well, resulting in the investments becoming active and the criminals becoming rich.

(vi) You are a nation that exploits women like consumer products or advertising tools calling upon customers to purchase them. You use women to serve passengers, visitors, and strangers to increase your profit margins. You then rant that you support the liberation of women.

(vii) You are a nation that practices the trade of sex in all its forms, directly and indirectly. Giant corporations and establishments are established on this, under the name of art, entertainment, tourism and freedom, and other deceptive names you attribute to it.


Sure sounds as if he doesn't like the Western lifestyle. Apparently only he holds the key to righteousness and morality in this world.

 
At 07 July, 2006 08:46, Blogger Unknown said...

"BoggleHead said...

As for the actual topic of this post, although they're all fairly arbitrary, unlike on the forum where anyone can create their own topic....

I've met Noam Chomsky. I'm glad he's not taking a CT position because he's doing important work grounded in solid research that should continue without the taint of conspiracy theorism, because that taint is so unreasonable and excessive."

Bogglehead,

WHAT!

 
At 07 July, 2006 08:47, Blogger undense said...

Were you aware that according to the religious doctrines regarding Jihad, a Muslim MUST offer their enemy the chance to convert? Once again you can read all about it in Imperial Hubris. My guess is that a 22-year CIA veteran who specifically worked on issues like these might know a little something about Bin Laden and his ideology.

OBL is not offering. He demands it.

And please branch out a bit past a single book written by a partisan hack and stop with the lame appeals to authority.

 
At 07 July, 2006 08:49, Blogger undense said...

Here's explicitly how OBL demands we become Muslims:

If you fail to respond to all these conditions, then prepare for fight with the Islamic Nation. The Nation of Monotheism, that puts complete trust on Allah and fears none other than Him.

Have it your way OBL. The fight is on and you and yours will lose.

 
At 07 July, 2006 08:51, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

Sorry pal, but a rant against the US doens't equate to the specific lists of grievances that he has outlined again and again, particularly in his 1996 call to Jihad. Nobody doubts that Bin Laden and those like him are offended by the Western lifestyle. However, this is not what motivates them to blow themselves up for martyrdom. What motivates them to this act is the fear that these lifestlyes will be imposed on their societies, and to some extent they have in the past(see Egypt under Sadat or the Shah's Iran).

As Michael Scheuer has written, it doesn't matter if all of these beliefs are entirely accurate; the fact is that this is the reason why they fight.

 
At 07 July, 2006 08:54, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

Michael Scheuer is not a "partisan hack", he has often criticized people on the left as well. Scheuer is a 22-year CIA veteran who dealt with these specific issues.

You by stark contrast, are a total layman who is using ONE message of Bin Laden(which believes he is required to put out), without showing the numerous statements he has made regarding the specific grievances he has.

 
At 07 July, 2006 08:56, Blogger Unknown said...

"Abby Scott said...

Don't you know inflation didn't exist until the FED reserve came about?

As someone who made her day job by tutoring economics, that has to be the stupidest line I have ever heard.

Good lord, just do a google search for inflation in any era and shit will pop up, Jack.

Jimminey. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's wrong.

Don't like the Fed? Want it shut down? Well I hope you saw It's a Wonderful Life, because you'll have to learn to enjoy runs on banks. "

Abby,

First of all, I'm not one that likes to mix discussing banking public policy with what really happened with 9/11.

However, if this were the appropriate to discuss the Fed., I'd have to point out that you are conflating concepts, theories and facts (and movie plots) about banking in the US, thereby making a gooey mess of nonsense.

I have to agree with you, however, that Jack's comment to which you were responding is historically incorrect with regard to the FED and inflation.

 
At 07 July, 2006 08:59, Blogger Unknown said...

JPSlovjanski said...

....

Scheuer is part of the cover - up.

Analysis of any bin Laden statement as a way to get to truth is fruitless due to the layers of deception.

 
At 07 July, 2006 09:01, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

Uh yeah, sure. Well that's about as credible as calling him a "partisan hack" because he won't spout the "hate us for our freedom"/Clash of Civilizations bullshit.

 
At 07 July, 2006 09:01, Blogger undense said...

What motivates them is that they fear losing their power and control over people. THEIR lifestyle is not even the lifestyle of all Muslims. But they want to force that to be the case for everyone based on their personal preference.

Nobody is forcing people in the ME to choose the western lifestyle if that's how they want to live. But there are some in the ME forcing them NOT to choose that lifestyle and demanding they adhere to the beliefs of a very small percentage of fundamentalists.

If the fundamentalists want to practice their beliefs, more power to them. We have fundies here in the West too and they are welcome to practise their wacky beliefs. However, if Christian fundies ever take up arms and use terrorist tactics to atempt to force people to conform to their beliefs, I'll fight that just as vehemently as I do against fundy Muslims doing the same damn thing.

 
At 07 July, 2006 09:03, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

Right, you know far more about Muslims than people who studied Islam all their life, just like how you know more about Al Qaeda and Bin Laden than Michael Scheuer or Robert Fisk. No wonder people call Americans ARROGANT.

 
At 07 July, 2006 09:04, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

I should have added that Islam is the world's most rapidly expanding religion- so they are by no means "losing control of people".

 
At 07 July, 2006 09:08, Blogger undense said...

You by stark contrast, are a total layman who is using ONE message of Bin Laden(which believes he is required to put out), without showing the numerous statements he has made regarding the specific grievances he has.

I don't give a fuck what some fundy Islamic nutjob wants. And your lame ass attempts at trying to legitimize OBL is absolutely pathetic.

 
At 07 July, 2006 09:13, Blogger undense said...

Right, you know far more about Muslims than people who studied Islam all their life, just like how you know more about Al Qaeda and Bin Laden than Michael Scheuer or Robert Fisk. No wonder people call Americans ARROGANT.

You're the one coming off as arrogant and a self-righteous prick as well. Not only that, but you sound like you support terorism and OBL and that makes you scum too.

 
At 07 July, 2006 10:48, Blogger CHF said...

JPSlovjanski,

I agree with you to a point. US policy does create hatred of America that is solidly rooted in actual events - not some blind arrational hatred.

US backed regimes, coups, and bombing does create terrorists. Al Qaeida does believe in global Islamic rule, but without the actions of US governments their sales pitch wouldn't sell nearly as well as it does.

That said, I disagree with the moral equivalence of comapring terror attacks to civilians killed in Serbia or Iraq. It's the difference between manslaughter and first degree murder. They're just as dead in both cases, I grant you, but there's a reason why the courts don't treat them the same.

The US does try to avoid civilian deaths more than almost any other army on earth. The enemy knows this - hense the use of civilian shields. Why hide behind kids if the Americans don't care?

As for "They hate us for our freedom" I agree that it's 90% bullshit but it does help prove that Al Qaeda is not in league with Bush as CTers claim.

If Osama is a CIA spook then why isn't he saying the stuff that Bush says he believes? Instead of ranting about America's freedom he parrots Chomsky talking points about Iraq, Palestine and Saudi Arabia.

Perhaps he just didn't get the CIA memmo...

 
At 07 July, 2006 10:53, Blogger CHF said...

by the way,

while is was no genocide (the extermination of a people) in Kosovo, or Bosnia for that matter, there was plenty of ethnic cleansing.

There were 300,000 Albanian refugees before the first NATO bombs fell in March 1999.

 
At 07 July, 2006 11:31, Blogger undense said...

I agree with you to a point. US policy does create hatred of America that is solidly rooted in actual events - not some blind arrational hatred.

I mostly disagree. What the hatred is rooted in is solely a difference in ideology. OBL complains of US intervention, yet al Qaeda's goal is to intervene in practically every country in the world and not just politically, but religiously and personally as well. So how does that make the US goals evil and al Qaeda's goals laudible?

Nor does Western interventionism seem to be in driving factor in their aims. That claim appears merely to be a fig leaf and a cleverly crafted psychological ploy that works on the American tendency to have a guilt complex because of the fact that we are the most powerful nation on Earth.

If it were actually true, AQ would only be taking action against Western nations. So how does that explain their operations in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, The Philipines, Thailand, East Timor, Russia, and many countries in Africa? When one begins thinking on a global scale and where AQ is operating, their claims concerning US intervention crumbles to pieces and other motives have to be considered.

Don't buy into the ultra-leftist, "It's America's fault and we've brought this upon ourselves." A cusory examination of the facts doesn't lend any credence to that claim.

 
At 07 July, 2006 12:06, Blogger Alex said...

How does this line of thought explain the daily bombings in Iraq? If "western interference causes terrorism" the way JP claims, why are most terrorist incidents happening in non-western states, against non-western civilians?

Keep in mind also that the horrible, horrible US has in the past been fairly impartial when it comes to the muslim faith. In both Bosnia and Kosovo NATO fought to PROTECT Muslims, while fighting mainly against Christians.

Also, while there may not neccesarily have been a genocide in Kosovo, there certainly was one in Croatia/Bosnia. Past actions do count no matter how much you may want them not to. It's the same idea why Iraq was attacked on some fairly shoddy evidence. Once you've done something bad, and we had to kick your ass to stop you from doing it, people tend to be much more suspicious of you in the future and will act against you much more readily. If I go out for a coffee with you, and the moment I turn my back you clobber me with a chair, how often do you think I'll be turning my back on you in the future? Hell, the next time I see you carrying a chair I'll probably kick your ass before you have a chance to use it, regaurdless of whether you were planning to attack me or not.

 
At 07 July, 2006 14:01, Blogger CHF said...

undense,

I agree that radical Islam itself is not based on rational thought. It is religiously driven hate of all non-Muslims, hense the massacres of Christians in Sudan and the second-class status of other faiths. Anyone familiar with Dal-ar-Haub and Dar-al-Islam knows what the jihadists want. One of the main reasons they don't hate Europe as much as America is because they figure they'll take over Europe demographically without firing a shot.

My point is that this ideology is winning recruits thanks largely to US actions such as propping up dictators while claiming to stand for freedom.

Few Muslims look at Sudan or the Taliban and see a sucessful ideology that they'd like to live under. What they do see though is the only force willing to stand up to the US. That alone wins the jihadists a lot of admiration.

Radical Islam is a lot like communism in that it's something people turn to when they feel the status quo sucks. Remember the Marshall plan? The US implimented it to prevent a popular communist takeover in Turkey, France Italy etc. The logic being that if lives were improved then why would the people turn to the commies? It worked. Compare that to Central America (no Marshal plan) and the marxist movements that sprung up to counter US-backed police states.

It's absurd to claim we're all about freedom when the US backs regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan etc. That's not to say that an Islamist replacement would be better (it cerrtainly wouldn't) but the blatant hypocracy rubs a lot of people the wrong way.

A little less of that hypocracy would go a long way in defusing Al Qaeda's appeal.

 
At 07 July, 2006 16:44, Blogger undense said...

chf,

imo, militant Islamic ideology wins recruits beause it appeals to those with aspirations of death and destruction. It attracts a certain class of people just as CTs do. All the stuff about the US and every other reason they give is nothing more than a fig leaf to cover the corruption inherent in their own minds.

The fact that they lash out at their own people pretty much confirms that.

 
At 07 July, 2006 17:12, Blogger shawn said...

while is was no genocide (the extermination of a people) in Kosovo, or Bosnia for that matter, there was plenty of ethnic cleansing.

Err you do know ethnic cleansing is just a prettier term for genocide, right?

Sorry to say, but Al Qaeda does not have any nonsensical "world domination" goal, nor does it believe in a global Caliphate- there is no rightful Caliph left.

Yes, they only have the sensible goal of attacking the strongest country the world has ever known. Hmm I wonder who they'd have as caliphate if their goals were met? I'm gonna leave you one guess.

Never seen those maps you can buy? "Islam today" with northern Africa and the Middle East in green and "Islam tomorrow" with the entire world green.

I highly suggest you pick up a book at Borders called What Al Qaeda Wants, which contains the text of many Al Qaeda communiques. Imperial Hubris would also be another good start.


I work at Barnes and Noble, so I won't go to Borders. But I own and have read both of those books.

If Muslims hate "freedom", "democracy", or the "Western lifestlye", why don't you see them bombing the Swiss?

How about you collect those few brain cells you have left and think it through. Which country is the most visibile, which is the strongest, which has any kind of power to stop them? If Switzerland (a country that stayed neutral in a period where neutrality was a grevious sin) were attacked, it wouldn't cause a big uproar. And what the hell are the Swiss gonna do?

Sorry pal, but a rant against the US doens't equate to the specific lists of grievances

Do you ever notice how his grievances fluctuate? Early on, he cared nothing for the Palestinians. Later, he made his demands about Palestine more prominent in order to not only win them over to him. It also gives people who support Palestine (a disgusting proposition for any moral person) at least a moment's "hmmm maybe this guy has the right idea, if not the right course of action."

I agree with you to a point. US policy does create hatred of America that is solidly rooted in actual events - not some blind arrational hatred.

Disagree. I feel the blaming the US is like a killer blaming his abusive childhood.

America is damned if it does, damned if it doesn't. When we were isolationist, world wars occured. When we intervene we either royally screw up, or get all the negatives put on us while positives are ignored.

 
At 08 July, 2006 06:34, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

No Shawn, ethnic cleansing is not another term for "genocide". Ethnic cleansing means the forced removal of populations. Genocide is the widescale killing of a population. Ethnic cleansing was done by both sides in the Kosovo War. The difference is that the US supported one side in doing it.

Second, I seriously doubt that you could have read both of those books and still believe that Bin Laden would have the idiotic idea of somehow taking over the United States. Furthermore, Bin Laden has always cared about Palestinians; that has been a central issue of most Islamic fundamentalists regardless of whether they are Shiite or Sunni.

The handwringing about American foriegn policy is also ridiculous beyond belief. World War I, nor World War II occured because America was isolationist. I can't believe anyone would actually believe such a stupid idea. "Good news Franz Josef!! We can attack Serbia because America is following a policy of isolationism!!" Fast-Foward to 1939: "Mein Fuhrer!! America is still remaining neutral! The attack on Poland is on!!!" Were you not aware that America was not even much of a world power until AFTER WW2?

America gets the "negatives" it deserves, for the Banana-Republic wars, the Korean War, Vietnam, etc. Learn to take responsibility.

 
At 08 July, 2006 09:15, Blogger shawn said...

No Shawn, ethnic cleansing is not another term for "genocide". Ethnic cleansing means the forced removal of populations. Genocide is the widescale killing of a population.

Wrong. Folks let's go to the tape:

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as:

"Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

The emphasized portions include forced evacuation.

"[E]thnic cleansing is a well-defined policy of a particular group of persons to systematically eliminate another group from a given territory on the basis of religious, ethnic or national origin. Such a policy involves violence and is very often connected with military operations. It is to be achieved by all possible means, from discrimination to extermination, and entails violations of human rights and international humanitarian law." - Drazen Petrovic

Ethnic cleansing is cleaned up language for genocide.

Second, I seriously doubt that you could have read both of those books and still believe that Bin Laden would have the idiotic idea of somehow taking over the United States.

All of his ideas are idiotic, it's at the level of each. There are political leaders in the United States who think Jesus Christ is going to descend from the sky someday, but do they bring it up in their policy decisions (well, maybe with Israel)? I doubt you've read the Koran, as it says the goal of Islam is to remove Dar al-Harb. As these guys are fundamentalists (key word here), they want the world to be Dar al-Islam.

Furthermore, Bin Laden has always cared about Palestinians; that has been a central issue of most Islamic fundamentalists regardless of whether they are Shiite or Sunni.


No he hasn't always cared, it was a tiny little bit he had on his list early on, and as it became a bigger issue he made it a bigger deal.

Were you not aware that America was not even much of a world power until AFTER WW2?

Since I'm far more well read on the subject then you, yes I am aware America did not become a superpower till after WW2.

America gets the "negatives" it deserves, for the Banana-Republic wars, the Korean War, Vietnam, etc. Learn to take responsibility.

You list the negatives and put Korea in there? Wow, you're an absolute moron and I'm sad you're on our side in the CT debate. Anyone who thinks it's a bad idea Kim Jong Il isn't the sole ruler of the entirety of Korea needs a fucking reality check pronto. Of course a socialist is pissed we fought against Communism so South Korea could become capitalist and prosper. Then again, you think the Soviets were the good guys in the Cold War.

 
At 08 July, 2006 13:13, Blogger Alex said...

Well anyone who describes him/her self as a socialist isn't going to be all that rational in the first place. The difference between the CT's and JP is that he knows how to think, and how to logicaly analyze information. I have a feeling that he understand just why soviet or NK style socialism isn't viable. He just managed to fall into the european habit of blaming most of the worlds problems on the US. That's not entirely his fault, it's mainly due to the environment he grew up. I was similarily brainwashed untill I had the opportunity to work with American civilians and soldiers. That's about the time I started questioning the anti-American nonsense which I'd been immersed in since birth. Sure enough, after a bit of learning and research, things started to make much more sense. Education, and an open mind, are the key to defeating all sorts of bigotry. Unfortiunately, an open mind is a pretty rare thing.

 
At 08 July, 2006 18:34, Blogger CHF said...

shawn,

"Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part"

The "in part" thing is absurd. Anything is "in part." Technically killing, say, 5 civilians is "in part." Does that therefor equal genocide?

 
At 08 July, 2006 18:37, Blogger CHF said...

JPSlovjanski,

I sure as hell wouldn't put Korea on a list of US horrors.

Not even Chomsky is dumb enough to dwell on Korea because the end result (40 million people saved from North Korean rule) is so obvious that it's impossible to argue the world would be better off had the North won - regardless of the suffering during the war itself.

 
At 08 July, 2006 20:52, Blogger shawn said...

shawn,

"Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part"

The "in part" thing is absurd. Anything is "in part." Technically killing, say, 5 civilians is "in part." Does that therefor equal genocide?


Under your guys' definition Armenia and the Native American actions weren't genocide. They were both instances of forced relocation in which many died.

 
At 09 July, 2006 07:39, Blogger Alex said...

No, he's right, the "in part" bit is stupid. That technicaly means that if tomorrow I were to shoot a person of any religion or race, I would not only be guilty of murder, but also of genocide. That's the only part of the definition that stinks. Nobody was disagreeing your assesment of forced relocation falling under genocide.

 
At 09 July, 2006 07:54, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

What blatant ignorance you show on the Korean War issue. I suggest you take the time to read Bruce Cummings North Korea(or any of his works for that matter), and Selig Harrisman's Korean Endgame. Selig Harrisman and Cummings share the honor of being two of the few American analysts who have actually BEEN to North Korea. I'm not even going to bring up the issue of American and American-backed atrocities in the Korean war at this point, because that isn't the relevant issue.

The issue is that Korea was supposed to be unified after a nationwide referendum. Seeing that the Communist Partisans and their allies were very popular(which is natural given the history during WWII), the US deliberately delayed this referendum long enough for nationalist militias(many of whom were former collaborators with the Japanese) to make thousands of leftists and Communists "disappear". Lo' and behold, Syngman Rhee WON!

Then this corrupt jackass, propped up by a number of former-collaborators, constantly shot his mouth off about "liberating North Korea by force". In addition to this, it was found in South Korean archives that Rhee routinely sent partisan sabotuers into the North, the last major group before the start of the Korean War consisted of 250 partisans who carried out acts of sabotage in the port city of Wonson.

Clearly, Syngman Rhee should have waited for his artillery and tanks to arrive before picking such a fight. Again, these facts are documented by experts not only in America but in South Korea as well. South Korea itself was a dictatorship for many decades and survived only because of massive US military and economic intervention.


True to ignoramous form, some of the idiots here accuse me of "trying to legitimize" Osama Bin Laden. This cannot be further from the truth. Americans need to take some time to look at a map. Notice how many Muslim countries border the American continents. Ask yourself why Muslims are willing to cross an ocean in order to commit such acts.

Countries like Russia or Serbia have the unfortunate position of not being able to abstain from Muslim/non-Muslim issues(that is not to say they handle these problems correctly at present). America DOES have the ability to do this.

 
At 09 July, 2006 08:05, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

Those of you concerned about Islamic immigration and expansion in European countries, as am I, might want to direct your anger to the governments and their backers who INVITED the masses of immigrants into these nations for the purpose of cheap-labor. All the while critics of these policies were supressed and persecuted for "xenophobia". Only when it has become too apparent that these immigrants will not embrace Western-bankrupt culture would the liberal leaders of these nations allow, yes ALLOW, the rightists to have a free hand in speaking out against the influx of immigrants.

Of course the system is to blame, not the immigrants themselves. If Western Europe becomes a new Arabia, it will be the system's fault for letting them flood in and then agitating them with their behavior toward their real homelands in the Middle East.

 
At 09 July, 2006 08:15, Blogger Alex said...

JP...wow....I really thought you were a rational human being up untill now. But your interpretation of Korea is so fucked up that I really don't know what to say to you. I think you spent way too much time inside the Warsaw Pact borders buddy. It's too bad, you'd be really cool otherwise. As it is, you rather remind me of my nutty uncle.

Anyway, I'll deal with one part of your diatribe:

Countries like Russia or Serbia have the unfortunate position of not being able to abstain from Muslim/non-Muslim issues(that is not to say they handle these problems correctly at present). America DOES have the ability to do this.

Having the ability to abstain from something doesn't mean we SHOULD abstain from it. How many German countries did the US border in WW1 and WW2? What about Canada and England? All of them bordered exactly ZERO German countries. By your logic, none of them should have interfered untill the Germans were right next door. That's faulty soviet-style logic my friend. It's the same as that used by the whackos who claim that a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was justified because they're so close, but the US has no business being there because they live on a different continent. It's utter nonsense.

 
At 09 July, 2006 10:49, Blogger shawn said...

All the while critics of these policies were supressed and persecuted for "xenophobia".

Although I disagreed with pretty much everything else in your posts (because it was completely wrong), you're right on the money here. We're now being suppressed with cries of "Islamophobia" whenever bring up that it might be bad for Europe to descend into a sharia society.

 
At 09 July, 2006 12:01, Blogger Alex said...

All the while critics of these policies were supressed and persecuted for "xenophobia". Only when it has become too apparent that these immigrants will not embrace Western-bankrupt culture would the liberal leaders of these nations allow, yes ALLOW, the rightists to have a free hand in speaking out against the influx of immigrants.

Boy have you ever got things backwards. The last time I tried to give a speach on immigration reform, it certainly wasn't a "rightist" who started shouting "RACIST!" untill her and her friends drowned me out. At least, I'm assuming that her wearing a Che Guevera shirt and a peace sign (oh the irony) meant she wasnt a "rightist". I somehow got the feeling that most of her friends who were busy shouting me down also weren't big supporters of the Republican party.

But hey, what do I know eh. It's clearly the "rightists" who control our freedom of speach, while the lefties are more than happy to let us say whatever we want. Must be why I keep getting banned from Democratic Underground and Loose Change. It's that famous lefty support for free speech.

 
At 09 July, 2006 12:19, Blogger shawn said...

At least, I'm assuming that her wearing a Che Guevera shirt and a peace sign (oh the irony)

I own a shirt with a skull wearing a beret that says "Che's dead, get over it".

The great summary executing revolutionary - a force for peace everywhere.

 
At 09 July, 2006 12:24, Blogger Alex said...

Hrm, it seems I misread JP's post. Whoops. Sorry man. You're absolutely right, it's the "liberal leaders" (or liberals in general) who control speach in most western nations.

Shawn, where can I get a shirt like that? :)

 
At 09 July, 2006 13:14, Blogger shawn said...

Che is dead - get over it!

 
At 10 July, 2006 07:25, Blogger CHF said...

JPSlovjanski,

just so I understand...you think South Korea should have been swallowed up by the North?

As I understand it, the north refused to allow election period. In other words, neither side wanted to be unified under the control of the other.

Given how thing now stand I don't see how you can regret the north not being allowed to win.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home