bleeding heart

Then you haven't been following the discussion. I can't either, and never made the claim. In the analysis which we're debating, I opine that the Western allies of Suharto's Indonesia (and not only the United States) simply didn't give a rat's *** about the killing (and torturing, and raping, and enforced starvation) of the East Timorese civilians. This is evidenced by the fact that they knowingly, materially aided the behavior for 25 years, and blocked diplomatic resolutions. It's not that they "wanted to kill civilians"...it's that they we were willing to accept it, and no big deal after all, so long as the fascists achieved their goals of taking over East Timor. First of all, I didn't mention Israel. Second, I have never--not once--called Israel terrorists. You should cite where I did so if you don't agree. Third, I only pointed out the truism, that if somebody intentionally aids Hamas in murder...and goes so far as to diplomatically ensure it can continue the bloodshed without interference....everyone immediately recognizes this as "supporting terrorism." Well, the analogy is precise....but too generous to us and to Indonesia, since what was done to the East Timorese was by far and away more devastating and horrific than anything Hamas could ever manage. Finally, why insinuate?: Go ahead, spell it out.

You're promiscuously twisting the analogy around. Hamas is the listed terror group: my hypothetical intentional aider and abettor is not a "listed terrorist group." Suharto was a fascist or pseudo-fascist dictator; his aiders and abettors were not. I'm not "smugly" thinking myself correct; I offer an array of documentation, up to and including declassified records...and you determined it better for your sensitive mental health to avoid even looking at it, and pretending I'm inventing it all. And there was plenty of machete-hacking in the situation I describe. As you'd know, if you reigned in your reflexive sensitivity and looked soberly at the matter. And it's precisely your heroes, those who make you all dewy-eyed, who share direct responsibility for it. I'm sure you don't design to be an outright apologist. It's just a peculiar blind spot you've got.

Well, the thing is that I even have sympathy for the "liberals complain about this, but remain silent on that" theme. That's unquestionably true. Unfortunately the people making this observation are--arguably without a single exception--guilty of exactly the same sins of omission. That too is self-evident. And just by the way, what's with this whole Harper-Victim-Complex? (I mean among his defenders, not from himself.) It's frankly bizarre. It reeks a little of sycophancy, frankly.

Scribblett is right that fat people tend to receive a lot of derision, even apparent hatred...even as society fattens up all around them. It's just cruel behavior, flat-out. But I agree that the health problems are very real, and I seriously doubt this case has anything to do with disgust at obese people.

Hmmmmmm: Yeah, it looks like you're right.

And your indoctrination into the Community-State at that level, at the expense of the Individual, wherein you learned not to be "self-determined and make [your] own choices in life," remains part of the reason you cannot understand Pliny's theories of....uh........

I agree completely. I do take American Woman's point. Discriminatory gender laws are designed to benefit men at the expense of women. However, extrapolating from a point you made, most men are not going to benefit at the expense of women, and many don't wish to do so.

I have answered these points--including the PLO one directly--above. But I find it interesting that you hold this stance: if someone gives Hamas militants some shiny new bombs, says, "do what you will with those": knows they are using the bombs to kill innocent Israeli citizens; and also helps keep the aid on the downlow, so that the press and the public doesn't get wind of it; and blocks any international condemnation of Hamas's terrorism....that you don't consider that "support for terrorism." Well, of course you do. It's just when Western states are among the culprits that you become suddenly sensitive to the documented facts.

Like I said, that's a fair question, and people can have rational discussions about it. Just as we can reasonably debate about alliances with various regimes. This case is quite different. We weren't offering aid to a nation that was acting brutally; we were intentionally aiding the brutality itself, our leaders fully cognizant of what was happening. That is, the purpose of the help we were giving was for the invasion. That's why Ford and Kissinger wanted the American part in it to be kept from the public. Much the same was true of the other nations involved. That's why Congress was circumvented, so that the weapons transfers--technically illegal under US law, given their purpose--could continue unabated. That's why, when they sent Special Forces to train the killers, they engaged in the doublespeak of claiming it was actually a training exercise for the Special Forces themselves...because aiding a murderous aggressor with military training was also illegal under US law. The British engaged in similar machinations as they sent fighter aircraft to the Generals. My analogy holds, your perspective on it doesn't. Many countries, including the US, have sent aid to the PLO, to Fatah, etc. But they are not sending aid for the purposes of Palestinian terrorism. That's a gigantic difference. In this case (far from the only one) we weren't showing any respect for human rights, whatsoever. We were opposed to human rights, in favour of larger policy goals...such as supporting an anti-communist (indeed, virtually fascist) government, in opposition to a hundred thousand..and possibly two hundred thousand victims. I have yet to hear a single justification for it specifically, as opposed to vague remarks about Cold War alliances. Such August figures as Paul Wolfowitz and Daniel Patrick Moynihan were actively engaged in allowing the Generals to continue their rampage. Various Presidents and Prime Ministers, well, it goes without saying. And I'm not talking about "shun[ining] them," as that implies that we perhaps "looked away" while atrocities were occurring, as in Rwanda. But we didn't "look away"; we were directly involved, and looking straight on. So that's another difference. For a legal analogy, it's the difference between negligence and first-degree murder. Which isn't insignificant. with all due respect, all you've offered as rebuttal so far is that "the West doesn't behave this way." And when it's demonstrated--including with official documents, such as declassified records (provided in my links in the earlier post)--that the West demonstrably does behave this way...you simply disagree, as if the documentary record is a matter of opinion. They clearly have exactly the same goals on that fundamental level....it's just that they're wrong, and that terrorism is a perverse and always illegitimate method for achieving political aims. And supporting the murder of many tens of thousands of innocent civilians is just as illegitimate. It is not better, it is not more justifiable. I fail to see how what our terrorist enemies have engaged in is any worse than this. It's of course hard to reconcile the fact that people who are not grinning, evil men could help subject people to such evils. I think the answer is in the basic lunacy of institutionalized evils. But to deny that the Western nations have resorted to supporting (not allowing--supporting) murder and suffering on such an epic scale, without even a half-decent justification, is to remain ensconced in doctrinal myths about the noble West; and its incestuous sibling: hostility towards the harsher facts themselves. It's as if the principles that we admire are more real than the objective facts on the ground. And that stance is worse than useless.

You're repeating that which has already been responded to. I said nothing about anyone ordering the Indonesians to do anything. And I like the way you talk about the murderous behavior of the East Timorese.... as a deflection. After all, it's our leaders who were supporting murder, rape and starvation....the victims of this behavior? Slightly less supportive of it.. Perhaps you think they're equal partners in atrocities. After all, in any conflict, bad things are done "by both sides." So it must be equal. And maybe you'd like to expand on this a little...discuss the way the resistance was as bad as the fascist invaders? meh.

I guess some of those old Royal peccadilloes die hard! I suppose it hearkens back to the idea of the Monarch as the country, not only the ruler, but also belonging to the country, almost literally as property. I doubt it's so much that kings and queens didn't wish to tie their own laces or prepare their toothbrush--it's that their entire lives were symbolic and ceremonial. On the other hand...it's frigging silly and mock-worthy...so there's that too......

You're right. Interesting how we've lost focus on what was uncontroversially and unquestionably the most salient goal: decreasing the threats of terrorism.

I'll ask you the same question I asked someone else: If someone explicitly supports Hamas' terrorist behavior; supplies them with the weapons to carry it out, and then resupplies as needed; is fully aware of what it is doing; and uses propaganda and diplomatic machinations to ensure that no one interferes with Hamas's terrorist behavior...do you honestly not consider that to be outright support for murder, intentionally so? Do you not consider that other party to share in the blame of the consequent murders? I do. Because that analogy, unlike most analogies, is actually quite precise. That is just what happened. What could you possibly gain from such apologetics, aside from holding on to cherished myths about the benign nature of Western power, a belief that is slightly more loony-tunes than the 9/11 truther movement?

It was certainly terrorism, of the "state terror" variety. Theirs was an institutional policy to terrorize the population, and therefore subdue recruitment to the resistance. Rape was part of the policy, not just a gift to the rapists. Torture and dismemberment, and enforced starvation of large swaths of the populace. Terrorism is the intentional targeting of civilians in order to achieve political ends. Remember, the "War on terror" was not instituted by George W. Bush. It was instituted by Reagan. That he too was a terrorist supporter does not negate the truth of his pronouncements about the "evils of state terrorism." Even if you believe, counter the very definition of terrorism, that it was not such, surely you agree that what the military and militias did was every bit as egregious as what you consider "terrorism"...and substantively worse than most, actually, if numbers of dead and suffering are the measurement. Which they must be. The rest of your post is so undefined as to be platitude, designed to acquit us of responsibility for what we have done. Rather than use vague remarks about alliances with dictators--each of which is specific to itself, and different from the others--I am concentrating on what objectively was done. For example, your reflex on this matter has caused you to speak about "mutual enemies"...so perhaps you can explain how the East Timorese were our "enemy"? They had nothing to us...they weren't even planning on joining the non-aligned nations, and were reaching out to the Western nations as their natural allies. Of course, we preferred the fascist murderers over the democratic and independence-minded side of the equation. Quite dramatically in this case. You deem them "enemy" because we played a part in killing them. But that's entirely the fault of Indonesia and its coterie of gangster supporters--that's us. East Timor, in a relatively rare case, actually shares none of the blame. Also, you unintentionally indict the involved Western nations more severely than I do, by conflating all alliances with autocrats as the same. But they're not the same, not even close. For example, we could debate, and rationally, till the cows come home about support for men like Mubarak. But a strong case can be made that, even if he did use Western aid to repress his people, that was not the specific intent of the aid. I'm not justifying it; but it's different. the reason Indonesia was sent arms, and the reason for the diplomatic activism, was precisely for the purpose of helping Suharto to do what he did. That's a key point...and it's unjustifiable no matter how you paint it. Except, as usual, to Commissars. And I doubt you yearn to be of their party.

I don't know--what percentage of the killings we're discussing did take place "post-cold-war," from, say, '90-99? It is a lot of people. And I should add that the Cold War justifies precisely zero of what happened. If anything, the point is the opposite of the one you seem to be faintly implying...because the Cold War had ended, even that laughable pretext went out the window in the East Timor situation. But monumentally higher than--for a salient example--Hamas. It's not even close. I am struggling to remember where you have downplayed their actions, or suggested that "the numbers [of Hamas terror victims] are very low...as a percentage of world population." Even if that's true, and with all due respect, I'm frankly not sure that this point is in any way relevant to a single thing I've written in this thread.. No doubt. Incidentally (or not really...it is part of the point I was making) if we had colluded in the Rwandan genocide, or in the Serbian atrocities....most of us wouldn't know much about them either. And I believe I would be hearing the same objections from posters....as if I should better concentrate on the sins of enemies, or at least spend more bandwidth extolling our own virtues.

I didn't address your deflective, utterly irrelevant fact, that's true. I mean, it's not as if the US, UK et al didn't supply weapons for the express purpose of aiding the invasion and mass killings...that's not a debatable point (in fact not even debated) and is public record. Perhaps you find too high the personal cost of openly admitting what you already know--that leading Western powers, most certainly the United States, have colluded full-throatedly in murderous behaviour, completely unjustifiable...up to and including the patented Evil Of The Day: terrorism. It's a weakness that undergirds your rather unpleasant apologetics...which in any other scenario, you rightly ridicule.

If you knowingly, intentionally, materially support terrorism...you are....well, supporting terrorism. QED. That makes you guilty of terrorist crimes. If someone passes arms to Hamas, knowing exactly what Hamas is going to do with those arms (and also use diplomatic clout to ensure that they aren't stopped, mind you)...you're going to tell me that's not "supporting terrorism"? (The difference being that the ones I'm talking about caused far more destruction and misery than Hamas has done...so I'm being generous with my analogy..) Fill your boots; let's hear the rationale. (Also, how you think Falintil could be compared to the Indonesian military and militias...which is preposterous.)

Richard Holbrooke, Madeline Albright, Daniel Patrick Moynihan? All part of the sordid affair, all held up as Statespeople of great renown. The farther Left has little use for them, true enough...but I'm differentiating between "the left" and what we might term "establishment liberals." that's possible, and at any rate is worth thinking about. But my point, which started this discussion, was that Western powers are not only not guiltless of intentional mass murder and explicit support of state terrorism....but have been worse in this regard than many of those we condemn for terrorism. Not worse in a fundamental moral sense....that difference is nothing more than a disparity in power, reach, and influence. But guilty is guilty. Who commits to mass murder is less relevant than the fact of it. At any rate, that we behave well in some instances doesn't free us from culpability in others. For now. But why shouldn't we be teaching youth about the atrocities to which we've been partnered? We do it on occasion, say with slavery, the encounter with Natives, etc.

You're misreading everything I've said, no doubt willfully. Again: the Americans supported the (existing) state terrorists. They offered and provided weapons, training, and diplomatic support. And it wasn't just the Americans. The Aussies were on board, the British sent aircraft and weapons so that the (already murderous, if that helps you) military and militias could mow down more people than they were already doing. Why you defensively invented my posture of Americans convincing the Indonesians to murder, rape and starve people is anyone's guess--obviously not from my own posts, however, nor from any of the links I offered.

Of course they were capable of doing it without America's help. But they didn't do it without America's help. Obviously.

How in the world did you reach such a conclusion? And what in the world do you mean by "the soft bigotry of lowered expectations"?

I'm honestly not sure. Since we haven't had any fundamental institutional changes, I don't see why behavior would be different....but in all fairness, I realize that's not much of an answer without some direct, evidence-based allegations. However, just to clarify a little, we're talking 14 years, not twenty...Clinton was a terrorist supporter right up until the last year of his second term, when he realized (thanks to the anticipation of public pressure) that the gig was about to be up. That's when the UN suddenly grew some real teeth on the matter too...which tells us a little about US influence on that body, perhaps. I'd also point out that many more contemporary public figures, like Wolfowitz, were involved...which would make him criminally liable in a sane world. As I said, the institutional factors all remain in place. Indonesia itself has not by a long shot come to terms with the fact that it is responsible for one of the worst acts of mass murder--proportional to population--in the postwar era, no small achievement. But all this aside, to answer you directly: No, I'm not aware of any cases so explicit in the past fourteen years. It bears looking into, with genuine honesty on people inclined towards certain "feelings" in either direction. Just curious: do you see the (possible) lack of such behavior in such a short span of time to be somewhat exculpatory for the Western powers, especially considering the high esteem that many of the actors involved in are currently held, including by the liberal foreign policy intelligentsia? If we would come to terms with such parts of our histories, would such things not properly be taught in public schools, alongside histories of our more beneficial and justifiable international actions?

Well said.

I showed it to you already, before. You must have forgotten.