bleeding heart

I am not excusing Islamist violence...I oppose all terrorism. Do you? Of course the West has been deeply and consciously involved in terrorism. In my view, the most obvious example is the material and diplomatic defense and support for the state terror that Indonesia visited first upon its own people, culminating in the bloodbath of 1965; and then the invasion and brutalization of the East Timorese people. The latter is an especially telling example because so many Western nations played a part (including Canada, at least diplomatically), and because its primary supporter, the United States, supported it for 25 years, under five administrations, making it a perfectly bipartisan affair. The usual response is that Western leaders "looked away," in the manner of, say Rwanda. That's a convenient way of putting it. But it has the slight problem of being false, as we know by (literally) thousands of documents....including declassified US documents, such as the one in which Ford and Kissinger explicitly gave Suharto the green light for the invasion, and offer assistance for it, the only proviso being that the Indonesian military and paramilitaries wait till Ford is back in Washington, so as to avoid any public embarrassment. The invasion and the numerous massacres (ultimately killing somewhere between 90 000 and 200 000 East Timorese, overwhelmingly non-combatants, innocent civilians) was supported, including militarily, with detailed understanding of what was going on. (As you can see in the National Security Archive link below. The "leftist media" remained, of course, sedulously silent (with a couple of notable exceptions). It appears their inclination was to support Power, in the usual formulation. So this was uncontroversially a case of terrorism--state terrorism, which Reagan (one of the attempted genocide's several supporters) famously deemed one of the world's greatest threats. Perhaps he was right; he should know, being a defender, supporter and enabler of it himself. But then, so were previous and subsequent Presidents, as well as numerous governments: The UK, Australia, France, and the rest of the rogues gallery. Canada too, though our involvement is murky, perhaps because less attention was focused on us, as activists (mostly leftists and Catholic groups, in concert with the courageous East Timorese dissidents) were mostly concerned with who was helping the most...with weapons. But there is a little info on the Canadian schizophrenic position, if you feel like looking at it. The UN lagged about as usual, but part of the problem was direct US interference, so that the essentially fascist regime could carry out its plans with, the US hoped, a quick finish so that embarrassing media reports would cease and the Indonesian occupation could be a success. So they upped their military aid, and sent US Special Forces to help train the military and paramilitary personnel. Since this was technically illegal, they adopted a bit of doublespeak, and said that the training exercises were really about training US Special Forces, rather than training a murderous occupation army, and machete-wielding militias...a side effect, evidently, incidental and coincidental. A tough propaganda sell....except of course to the usual Commissars screaming about "commies" (Which the East Timorese were not.) Hell, Madeline Albright opposed a referendum on East Timorese independence because "The [indonesian] army opposes it"; while Richard Holbrooke thought Indonesia should be given credit for stopping the E. Timor famine...which Indonesia had directly caused through genocidal policies. This was the way the Western powers were talking and thinking about the murderous situation in which they were directly complicit. So, there...that's one case, heavily documented, with more information coming out all the time. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB174/index.htm http://www.yale.edu/gsp/east_timor/ http://www.greens.org/s-r/14/14-16.html http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Asia/GenocideEastTimor_Z.html http://www.newrepublic.com/book/review/yet-another-disgrace-east-timor-genocide#

Sure, and my verbal carelessness aside, I actually wasn't insinuating anything racist, which I know full well is not your shtick. I was only referring to your apparent lack of concern over Western terrorism in general...which, like I said, has been far more expansive and devastating than anything dreamed of by Hamas.

Does your enthusiasm for laying a beat-down on terrorists apply universally? Or does it start and stop oh-so-conveniently with Arabs?

Well, I see the tu quoque arguments are out in full force. Well, then, of course--given the self-evident honesty and principled stances of everyone involved--every time Islamist terrorism is brought up, they must of course mention terrorism conducted or supported by the West...which, after all, eclipses (for a salient example) Palestinian terrorism by a good measure.

??? There were some mentioned in this thread. On this very page.

No, they're not "intended" for any specific sector. That's not even logical.

Whatever reason sparked the fact of the trial, the notion that there shouldn't have been one is silly. The "defense laws" don't immunize you from a trial, based almost exclusively on your own accounting of events.(Remember, no witness saw the entire altercation, so are useless in whether or not a trial is justified.) That's insanity. .The shivering logic of the NRA losers, perhaps.

No, the case going to trial was perfectly legitimate. That doesn't mean the verdict was wrong....but to say it shouldn't have gone to trial at all is preposterous.

Why meet trouble (more accurately, boring irritants) halfway?

This sounds as if they're socially engineered for a certain sector of society. They're not. They're not "intended"--nor not intended--for anybody.

Just so. There was also already existing a de facto confederation of principled opposition, with humane (and sometimes secular) democratic ideals....these forces, some of them led by women (RAWA, the "Malalai Joya movement," etc) were--and remain--opposed to both the Taliban and to the Taliban's equally-reactionary enemies, like "The Northern Alliance" warlords and so on. When the West went in, it chose the retrograde enemies of the Taliban to work with, rather than the liberal secularists and democratic-reform-minded components. It was a conscious choice.

I think these were the least of it. The primary purpose was geostrategic, involving matters like control. On a related note, undoubtedly it was meant a an object lesson (that was under the assumption that things wouldn't go as badly as they did, of course). It is the logic of power. As for Israel, I think that's a non-starter, reason-wise. The United States does not undertake such a large-scale, politically- and financially-costly operation for Israel's sake. I believe Israel's influence on US foreign policy is often massively overstated. Let's remember who is the client state...and who is the boss in that relationship. For the same reason, I think concerns about the Israel lobby are greatly exaggerated as well.

Once is once more than it occurred. Since you don't understand how these things work, I will generously educate you: you make a claim about what somebody says; that poster asks you to cite the claim; you refuse to do so......you lose. Some of us are big enough to retract claims made in haste, claims that have no basis in reality. You know, like I did with my wrongheaded remark about homophobia. You should try it sometime.

A very dark comedy, and an excellent movie.

I have asked you--multiple times--to cite precisely where I have said or even faintly implied any of the opinions or slurs you continue to attribute to me. Since you cannot do so--preferring instead to act like a sniveling little moral coward--I now invite you to perform a difficult and potentially dangerous sex act upon your own person. Enjoy.

no one has ruled anyone "innocent," outside of extra-criminal proceedings dealing with cases of, for example, prosecutorial malfeasance. He wasn't found "innocent"...and doesn't have to be, as that's not the purpose of the justice system.

No, it certainly isn't. It is our fault when we do the things that are our fault. So...I think you're talking to a phantom whom you've unaccountably mistaken for myself.

I get this, sure. But criticism of ourselves, as nations and international actors, supercedes our patting ourselves on the back. So sure, credit where it's due. But the other side of the coin is that most of us are insufficiently critical. So even if some evenness, some balance, were warranted...we don't have that.

I think Black Dog nails it. I note we are eager to take credit for any good that happens, on the other hand. Having it both ways is awesome.

Doesn't sound like an insult...though it's certainly intended that way. I guess the slurs are pretty tiresome all around.

I hear you. My wife wanted it, I thought $21/mo, while not a lot, was merely a waste....but it turns out that I like it very much.

Ok, then let's cover a couple of the salient points that have been going back and forth. 1. I apologize for mischaracterizing you as some sort of homophobe. It seems clear enough that I was in error. 2. I have never, not a single time in my entire posting history, criticized Zionism. I'm not anti-Zionism. I challenge you to find a single instance. I can't imagine where you have gotten this....as you have noted before that it is not my shtick in any way. 3. I was not defending Hudson Jones, about whom I know nothing beyond your opinion of him; I was remarking (including with my error, as stated) on your characterization of his identity. That I may well have misread you is not a defense of hatred for the Jews. Surely. 4. This was 100% unrelated to any notions of Jewish identity....obviously. 5. Crucially, my disagreements with you have nothing, nothing whatsoever, to do with any notion of "uppity Jews." When I disagree with you, plainly I am not criticizing the Jewish people or any notion of "collective identity...and I would have thought this obvious enough. To me, you are just another poster. That's not an insult...more to the point, it's not anti-Semitic. I hope you feel able to retract your disgusting slur, as I have my own. So while we will never be in complete agreement, and there's no reason that we should...the twin, bidirectional accusations of homophobia and Jew-hatred are, I hope we can agree, fallacious and unfair, and we can next time move on to more honest arguments.

They also didn't like her economic policies; they didn't like the way she masturbated to the glories of a violent British Empire; they didn't like that she claimed warm friendship with Pinochet, and considered the torturer and killer as a champion of freedom..... But, no your political theory--"The Left! The Left!", in the usual nuanced formulation--sounds much more sober and reasoned.

I liked the old ones too. The relationship to the new one is obvious enough...but it is also different enough to make the remake worthwhile. (I'm looking at you, scene-by-scene remake of Psycho! ) This one is also, in my view, somewhat more vicious than the original. I suppose that's a sign of the times.

I'm baffled absolutely by the OP...but being a generous sort, I'll assume it's my own fault.