 |
|
Wycoff
|
|
Anytime anyone wants to malign anything, they simply call them Nazis. Its getting a little boring. Why is everyone so intellectually lazy when it comes to insulting people? Little Eichmans? Get real.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999 time: 23:27
|
|
quote: As for what he wrote, it has some merit. Most of the people in the WTC were not completely innocent, but rather engaged in global trade, which is what drives the U.S. to do things like bomb and starve Iraq (and while Winston might object that it was the U.N. that imposed the sanctions, by the late 90s, it was the certainty of a U.S. veto that kept them from being dismantled), overthrow Central American democracies, prop up various dictators around the world, etc. |
So you'd agree that drug users fund terrorists because they too are a link in a chain of events leading to someone's murder? At what point do people within any democratic system become "innocent". These people who died on 9/11 didn't all vote for the Republicrats or their foreign policies, so how do they become cleansed of sin?
quote: It is in the interests of the traders in the WTC that the World Bank, the WTO, the IMF, impose heavy economic burdens on the people of the 3rd world, burdens which kill millions annually. |
You polled these people before they died? And just how many traders are we talking about? The terrorists didn't hit the WTO, IMF, or World Bank.
quote: They may not be the one's pulling the trigger, but they are th ones for whom the trigger is pulled and they are the ones who manipulate the market so that the weak perish. |
So capitalist countries loan money to the 3rd world and that's bad, and its also bad when capitalist countries don't loan money.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001 time: 15:27
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Kidicious
I think Che has a better understanding of the average American Joe. Boris is a bit naive, although definitely there were inocent people killed that day. Christ, there were children in the building! |
I'm quite fond of certain of the principles of Anglo-Saxon Common Law, which as I'm sure you'd agree, the United States government has certainly been complicit in circumventing, certainly with regard to say the internees at Guantanamo:
the presumption of innocence, innocent until proven guilty, habeas corpus, et cetera.
I don't recall either the passengers on the airliners nor the people (working class, middle class, upper class- the dead are all one class) in the Trade Centre buildings nor in the Pentagon being given the benefits that I'd extend to the detainees in 'occupied' Cuba.
Two wrongs don't make the world right, they just add to the sum of the world's woes.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark
Why dont you actually learn something about what happened in '48, instead of making illogical remarks? |
What illogical remarks? Remark, maybe. Singular not plural.
The UN found no evidence of genocide in Darfur. You do. They've got a helluva lot more info than you have.Live with it.
You find no evidence of genocide in Palestine. There's a helluva lot of Arabs that disagree with you. Again, they've got a helluva lot info than you. Live with it.
C'mon now, reach behind, down... yeah, that's your butt.
Or is my humour too subtle for you? 
Last edited by Cruddy on 03-02-2005 at 18:31
|
|
|  |
 |
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000 time: 00:27
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Cruddy
What illogical remarks? Remark, maybe. Singular not plural.
The UN found no evidence of genocide in Darfur. You do. They've got a helluva lot more info than you have.Live with it.
You find no evidence of genocide in Palestine. There's a helluva lot of Arabs that disagree with you. Again, they've got a helluva lot info than you. Live with it.
C'mon now, reach behind, down... yeah, that's your butt.
Or is my humour too subtle for you? |
Im quite aware there is a dispute about whether whats happening in Darfur is technically genocide or just ethnic cleansing. In my postings ABOUT Darfur I was concerned with taking action, not the technical definition. In my post to this thread, i listed Armenia, Rwanda, Cambodia and Kurdistan, which are indisputably genocides.
No one serious holds that '48 was a genocide. Even historians hostile to Israel have attempted only to make the case for instances of ethnic cleansing.
By the way, you dont know what info I have or dont have, or what ive studied or havent, or what any other individuals, arabs, un officials, etc have or dont have. Or whether said individuals are telling the truth. I suggest you argue with facts, not to appeals to people you claim to know more.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Last Conformist
|
 |
of Calakmul
Jul 2003 time: 06:27
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Spiffor
Sorry for the threadjack, but I'm in need of education here:
I thought the Cambodians horrors were driven not by a willingness to wipe out the Cambodgian population (Pol Pot was a Combodgian himself, and I don't remeber the obliteration of his population was hi aim), but to re-organize the whole Cambodgian society by killing the "irrecuperables". It doesn't hamper on the fact that Cambodgia was a nightmare (for the record, I think Earth has never known a regime more evil than Pol Pot's), but I don't see it as a genocide. The "cide" component was available aplenty, but I have never heard of the "geno" component. |
You might want to check out Bob Kiernan's The Pol Pot Regime. It argues persuasively that the mass killings of Chams and other minorities constituted genocide on any conceivable definition of the word.
Arguably, the killings of Khmers also constitute genocide - they did try and exterminate an ethnic group "wholly or in part" as the UN convention says, specifically the "irrecuperable" part - but the Soviets, back in the day, did what they could to exclude political killings from condemnation.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003 time: 21:27
|
|
quote: Originally posted by molly bloom
I'm quite fond of certain of the principles of Anglo-Saxon Common Law, which as I'm sure you'd agree, the United States government has certainly been complicit in circumventing, certainly with regard to say the internees at Guantanamo:
the presumption of innocence, innocent until proven guilty, habeas corpus, et cetera.
I don't recall either the passengers on the airliners nor the people (working class, middle class, upper class- the dead are all one class) in the Trade Centre buildings nor in the Pentagon being given the benefits that I'd extend to the detainees in 'occupied' Cuba.
Two wrongs don't make the world right, they just add to the sum of the world's woes. |
Presuming people innocent in order to make a justice system fair is one thing, but actually believing that all people are innocent is quite another.
And again for those of you missed me saying it at least three times. I don't justify the attacks. I'm merely saying that not all of the people who died were innocent.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000 time: 00:27
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Berzerker
So you'd agree that drug users fund terrorists because they too are a link in a chain of events leading to someone's murder? |
I would say that's an interpretation that has some merit. As with Churchill's assertion, it is neither 100% correct nor 100% incorrect. Let's face it, if people didn't buy drugs, that money wouldn't be used to fund all sorts of bad things.
quote: At what point do people within any democratic system become "innocent". These people who died on 9/11 didn't all vote for the Republicrats or their foreign policies, so how do they become cleansed of sin? |
When they refuse to cooperate with the system. It's not an easy choice. It means living in poverty. It means not having nice things. People do it, willingly. I don't. I don't want to live like that. I accept that I am part of an evil system, because I don't want to live like a hippie anarchist, squatting in abandoned buildings and dumpster diving for food. The point is, if we wanted to ensure that we don't contribute to the oppression of others, there are things we could do.
Does that mean, me, buying my Coke products, which puts money in the pocket of a corporation that hires death sqauds to kill union organizers in Columbia bears the same responsibility as the corporate heads making the decisions? Does a mail clerk in Atlanta bear the same responsibility as para thug? Of course not. Will the Fed's still send a Mafia account to jail even though he isn't the one peddling the drugs or pulling the trigger? Yes, but not for as long. The fact we have reduced responsibility doesn't mean we have no responsibility. The fact that we have some responsibility doesn't mean we should be murdered for it. Just because we aren't as innocent as we want to believe doesn't mean we're as guilty as some would say we are.
quote: You polled these people before they died? |
Do I need to poll American generals in Iraq to find out whether or not they are engaging in activiites related to the war?
quote: And just how many traders are we talking about? The terrorists didn't hit the WTO, IMF, or World Bank. |
No, they hit the World Trade Center, a building which isn't merely a symbol of those things, but one which engages in the activity for which the IMF, World Bank, and WTO carriers out their neo-liberal agenda, squeezing the 3rd world so that traders in the 1st world can have more profitis.
quote: So capitalist countries loan money to the 3rd world and that's bad, and its also bad when capitalist countries don't loan money. |
It's not that they loan the money that's a problem, except when they do it knowing the country can't repay. It's what they force countries to do, after the fact. Like the heroin dealer giving out free samples, the World Bank and the IMF went around loaning money in the '60s and '70s on easy terms. When the oil crisis occurred, making it more difficult for these countries to pay their loans, they changed the terms on them, and started squeezing as much blood as they could get, starting a spiral of worsening conditions and worsening debt. Just so some rich guys in NYC, London, Paris, and Tokyo could get a little richer.
Borris, what part of the word some don't you understand?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000 time: 00:27
|
|
quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark
Ergo OBL was NOT motivated by economic "crimes' so your point has nothing to do with OBL's motivation. And as you have said repeatedly, its not a justification. So whats the point? |
I was pointing out that Churchill's argument had some merit. You're also ignoring the fact people aren't always aware of what motivates them or those they oppose. Nor do they necessarily see the deeper causes of the problems against which they fight. The Iranian revolution called us the Great Satan, not just because of our culture (and its influence in Iran), but also because we imposed a cruel dictator on them for decades. In their rhetoric, did they talk about how greedy we were and how we oppressed them for money, or did they rail on about our immoral culutre? Which one, however, had more influence on why they were so mad at us to begin with?
As for when the IMF knew, it knew in the 80s that the new loans it was making could not be repaid, and made them anyway. It also made demands which clobbered the countries' economies. There was a change in the ideology at the IMF and the World Bank, from trying to develop internal markets in the 3rd world to getting them to develop for external markets and to guarantee the profits of 1st world investors.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000 time: 00:27
|
|
quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I was pointing out that Churchill's argument had some merit. You're also ignoring the fact people aren't always aware of what motivates them or those they oppose. Nor do they necessarily see the deeper causes of the problems against which they fight. The Iranian revolution called us the Great Satan, not just because of our culture (and its influence in Iran), but also because we imposed a cruel dictator on them for decades. In their rhetoric, did they talk about how greedy we were and how we oppressed them for money, or did they rail on about our immoral culutre? Which one, however, had more influence on why they were so mad at us to begin with?
. |
Im all for a deeper social analysis of events. If you want to say that A. the economic structure of the world of the world caused US foreign policy and B. OBL attacked the WTC because of US foreign policy, ergo theres a causal chain between the economic structure of the world of and the attack on the WTC, that wouldbe coherent, though I disagree in SOME measure with both A and B. But if your analyzing at that level, its kind of silly to be talking about the moral responsibilities of the individual traders at Cantor Fitzgerald, as Churchill did. Or to make a statement about what should have surprised them. It would indeed, be surprising for them to have a revolutionary consciousness, would it not? A functioning society should suppress such consciousness, and to the extent its possible it should be only among the working class.
Marxism I can tolerate. Half assed radical posturing I cant. Now if you want to go post a MARXIST analysis of the world situation, feel free. This is a discussion of something different.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27. Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|