Muslim televangelist Zakir Naik banned from Toronto conference

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Their assumption, based precisely and only on what they have repeatedly been told without evidence , is that the Western democracies, while occassionally "making mistakes," will always act fundamentally with benign intentions.

This is false on several levels, from the consort of "western democracies" to benign intentions, when in many cases it was anything but and explicitly communicated as such. Time and time again we are asked to believe that were it not for such propaganda, these "mistakes" would not have transpired...but this is nonsense. And we have yet another guest appearance of that famous American "Green Light" that is stored in a special locker on Air Force One.

[bloodyminded]

Nicaragua actually wasn't all that different from numerous other extended bloody guerrilla struggles around the world, some of which continue to this day. I think it was unnecessary, but then I'm not paid to defend the world against Communism. But I think you miss, in these rants of yours, the key element of intent. Now I'll be the first to admit that US officials can be as ignorant and close-minded as any, but the actual intent with regard to Nicaragua was to prevent Communism from taking hold on the mainland in the Western hemisphere, from which it could spread to the numerous vulnerable nations of central and South America.

I'm aware of the conventional pieties. I simply consider them highly dubious.

The U.S. waged a long, bloody struggle against Communist and Marxist guerrillas funded, equipped and trained by China, Russia and Cuba to keep the Communists out, and the greater good, both of the locals and of the US and its allies, was seen, at the time, as being worth supporting some pretty nasty people in the process.

Of the locals? Hundreds of thousands were killed in Latin America by our allies alone, while living standards plummetted--not rose--under most of the right-wing regimes which we supported (and sometimes installed, actively against democratic will...let's not forget that.) So let's drop the pretence about the "greater good" for "the locals." That wasn't on the radar. The only locals who were supported and cared for were the wealthy elites and the political leaderships who were sufficiently obedient. That's it.

You always leave out, btw, that the primary reason for the violence was not the salivating greed of the US but the sly, cold-blooded calculation of the Soviets in advancing arms, training and money to a variety of brutal Marxist and Communist groups throughout Central and South America.

I'm not convinced that blaming official enemies for our own actions is always a sober response.

It's kind of difficult to make the case that the people of those areas would be better off today had the US just drawn back and let the chips fall as they may.

It's certainly hard to make a case for something that the US wouldn't allow, Imperial-style, so that we'll never know the alternatives. Quite an argument.

As for the people there...hundreds of thousands dead. We do know that; it's not a hypothetical, or politicized speculation. Your assumption must be that it would have been worse had the U.S. not intervened; had they not supported death squads who killed more innocents than did the Marxist guerillas; had they not helped in the overthrow of democracies in order to install puppet-regimes friendly to Northern/Western business and investment interests.

Nor can you even say there'd have been fewer murders, less butchery. Communists seem like Jehova's Witnesses, incapable of sitting quietly at home, driven to export their religion or ideology. Hell, Che Guevera went all the way to Africa to try to start a communist uprising in the congo.

No, I can't read a reality that never happened, but of course neither can you. You begin your missive by saying you don't think their actions (at least in Nicaragua) were necessary; but then you go on to justify them.

And just to be clear: at bottom, you are justifying the use of terrorism. Which means that terrorism is not an objectionable, always-wrong tactic: it depends on "intent."

which you take at face value, based on the claims of a few powerful men.

another assumption of yours is that providing a little cover at the UN, and selling weapons, gives the US or anyone else control over a particular nation. That's ludicrous on the face of it, especially when we're dealing with tyrants in full and absolute control. You imagine that the US could simply tell Suharto to ease back on killing people and he would have obeyed.

Since that's precisely, to the letter, what occurred in 1999 under Clinton, I find it ludicrous that you have trouble believing it.

There's really no reason to believe that. For most of his reign he could simply have found another backer, one with less scruples, like the Soviets, and such a possibility was considered far too dangerous by the US given Indonesia's size and location.

He was more capitalist than Ayn Rand, so I don't think so, but that's beside the point: supporting genocide is hardly justifiable under some speculative rubric in which the Soviets might have supported genocide too...if we didn't beat them to it.

I scarcely know how to respond to such a jaw-dropper, honestly.

Whether they tried to modify his brutality is a question, but given their success at doing so with the Shah of Iran and what happened there I wonder why they'd try.

Aside from the persistent lies, notably from Wolfowitz, that the "moderate" Suharto (who literally rivalled Saddam Hussein, giving us a nice taste of what "moderate" means in OfficialSpeak) was always and apparently invisibly improving his human rights record, there is a way they could have modified his brutality: stop enthusiastically supporting his brutality.

Once again, in case i haven't been crystal clear: we totally supported his actions, even materially: we didn't just turn a blind eye, as is often the case. Here, we are utterly complicit.

Interestingly, people seem to have little problem perceiving this in far, far less egregious cases; I don't hear you asserting that Iran is free from responsibility for the terror groups it funds, or that they don't share direct responsibility for terrorism which they, personally, do not commit.

Ultimately, the US government, like ours, is put in place to look out for the well being of their own citizens, not foreigners. If their perception is that playing one group of violent people off against another group, or supporting one dictator so that he doesn't turn to an enemy is needed to safeguard their own people I don't think either you or I have the training or ability to counter that.

This assumes that a) their intention was benign, which is a matter of religious faith, not analysis; and b)that they are Straussian philosopher kings who understand much better than we do, and thus need to deceive us, and that our criticisms, if too negative, must surely derive from lack of "training and ability."

And again I raise their intent. It is not conquest but defense. Modern terrorism is not about defense, but conquest and power.

We're talking about "modern terrorism" in both cases. Terrorism is not defined by agent, but by itself.

What you're saying is that our terrorism is about defense (by definition, I suppsoe, reverting to the usual tautology); while theirs is about conquest.

Furthermore, there is a difference between reluctantly supporting some miserable dictator type because the alternative is worse, and deliberately targeting, planning, and executing murderous acts of terror against civilians just for the purpose of terrorizing them, just for the purpose of killing.

Two things wrong with this: first of all, I have seen no evidence, none at all, of "reluctance," so again you're declaring from an act of faith.

Second, the terrorists you're talking about aren't committing terror for terror's sake, or murder for murder's sake: there are political goals behind the actions. You even point this out yourself, earlier, before contradicting yourself and assuming they're kill-crazy psychopaths without political motivation, somewhere along the lines of Jeffrey Dalmer.

Mind you, I think their acts of terrorism are plain wrong; I think they're wrong no matter what their intent. Perhaps here is another point on which we differ.

Edited June 25, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

This is false on several levels, from the consort of "western democracies" to benign intentions, when in many cases it was anything but and explicitly communicated as such. Time and time again we are asked to believe that were it not for such propaganda, these "mistakes" would not have transpired...but this is nonsense. And we have yet another guest appearance of that famous American "Green Light" that is stored in a special locker on Air Force One.

Sometimes it is explicitly stated, yes: as when Clinton claimed the unilateral right to attack countries to protect our resources. ("Our" resources are under other's feet, by an accident of history, as someone else wittily said.) So ok, that's explicit, you're right. That makes it all the more astonishing that intellectuals, commentators, and the mainstream news media will ignore such statements and declare a noble fight against this or that -ism, and believe it religiously.

As for the propaganda; well, the lack of it, which is scarcely imaginable, would not solve all the problems. But because leaders are ultimately accountable, without the propaganda it would become difficult for them to say, "We've supporting mass murder in East Timor, and the Communist threat is not really credible in this case." So yes, it would have a mjaor effect, I believe.

Edited June 25, 2010 by bloodyminded

[dre]

And now, a little reality. Guys like this are not going to get on a stage in Toronto and start screaming about how all the Jews and faggots need to be executed. That's not how they operate. No, if allowed to come, he'll speak from the koran, he'll stick strictly to Islamic duty and responsibility. He won't mention Osama bin laden, or terrorism.

He'll play the part of the respectable, learned holy man. If he uses any harsh language at all it will be to decry secularism and godlessness, to reinforce the idea that the west is filled with immorality, and that true Muslims must guard against it. And that Islam must be defended.

If you read the comments of the imams who were quoted with regard to that 16yo girl murdered by her father and brother in an honor killing last week, none said "You must kill girls who refuse to wear the hijab!" That's not how they work here. Instead they say things like "Parents fail and bring shame upon themselves if a child chooses to abandon holy writings and not wear the hijab." and "If we stay away from the teachings of Islam, we will pay for it. . . . Women who wear hijabs occupy higher positions in Islam, according to religious teachings."

Neither one came out and said "The bitch got what she deserved" but that's pretty clearly their opinion, and any Muslim hearing that would get it.

Anyway, he would keep his comments legal, and encourage people to see him on u-tube and on his own web sites, where they could hear his unvarnished opinions, and, having already been impressed with what a great and important man he is from watching him headline the conference, they might be inclined to take his words more seriously than they otherwise would have.

Equating this vermin to Anne Coulter is also transparently foolish. Coulter might say outrageous things, but they come a long way from the kind of encouragement of terrorism and mass murder this guy is guilty of.

Equating this vermin to Anne Coulter is also transparently foolish. Coulter might say outrageous things, but they come a long way from the kind of encouragement of terrorism and mass murder this guy is guilty of.

Actually thats not true at all. Anne Coulter has advocated invading muslim countries and using force to convert them to Christianity. The number of people who would be killed in such an adventure would likely number in the 10's or 100's of millions. If anything Coulter makes this other guy look like a pussycat.

Of course... the bottom line is that both these people are makin a career out of this... being a hardline speaker these days is big big bux, and you can never tell how much of the crap these people spout is real, and how much is just marketing.

[M.Dancer]

. Anne Coulter has advocated invading muslim countries and using force to convert them to Christianity. The number of people who would be killed in such an adventure would likely number in the 10's or 100's of millions.

I am always amazed that kooks take her seriously.

http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=17332

I began running Coulter columns on Frontpagemag.com shortly after she came up with her most infamous line, which urged America to put jihadists to the sword and convert them to Christianity. Liberals were horrified; I was not. I thought to myself, this is a perfect send-up of what our Islamo-fascist enemies believe – that as infidels we should be put to the sword and converted to Islam. I regarded Coulter’s phillipic as a Swiftian commentary on liberal illusions of multi-cultural outreach to people who want to rip out our hearts.

[bloodyminded]

I am always amazed that kooks take her seriously.

http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=17332

You decry "kooks" even as you cite David Horowitz: a proven liar (I can offer you the proof if you like), and a paid propagandist for the Republican Party. (See his Art of Political War: How Republican Can Fight To Win, if you don't believe me.)

Or read the catastrophic destruction of his book The Professors--one of those Campus-Left-Indoctrination-Screeds--which was demonstrated to be one of the most dishonest political books produced in recent years.

As for his remarks about Coulter: he might want to take this up with Coulter herself, since she disagrees with him.

When asked by an interviewer if she had been joking, she emphatically stated that she was not joking, and said, "[i'd like to point out] that two of these three ideas are now official policy."

Edited June 26, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Argus]

I'm not convinced that blaming official enemies for our own actions is always a sober response.

It doesn't sound like you're ever convinced of that. But I don't believe you ever answered the question I posed on this subject before. Should the west have simply walked away every time the Soviets or Chinese or Cubans started funding a violent guerrila group in some third world country? Should they have done all they could to urge the existing government to respect human rights and democracy, to not go overboard in combating these guerrilas (notwithstanding the fact that when Canada had a tiny terrorist group the government suspended civil liberties). Is there a case anywhere of a democratic government which respected human rights fighting off a large, violent, foreign funded insurgency?

As for the people there...hundreds of thousands dead. We do know that; it's not a hypothetical, or politicized speculation. Your assumption must be that it would have been worse had the U.S. not intervened

Do you know it wouldn't have been? What would a government made up of the Shining Path be like, I wonder.

No, I can't read a reality that never happened, but of course neither can you. You begin your missive by saying you don't think their actions (at least in Nicaragua) were necessary; but then you go on to justify them.

I said I don't believe the Contras were the way to go in Nicaragua. I haven't analysed every case of American allied regimes combating insurgency to see whether the tactics employed were right or not.

And just to be clear: at bottom, you are justifying the use of terrorism. Which means that terrorism is not an objectionable, always-wrong tactic: it depends on "intent."

No, I'm not. You're equating the execution of a killer with a murder and saying "Hey, they're both killing. They're both morally equivilent." I'm saying that, depending on situations, motivations and abilities, there are a lot of shades of gray.

I can't imagine any situation where if the US or Canadian government, military or police built a bomb and set it off in a restaurant full of random civilians that could be called anything but terrorism. However, again, support for dictators you have limited control over in order to oppose people you perceive as just as bad or worse isn't in the same moral ballpark.

Since that's precisely, to the letter, what occurred in 1999 under Clinton, I find it ludicrous that you have trouble believing it.

I'm sure it hasn't escaped your notice that 1999 - 8 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union was a whole other world from 1975, which was tail ending the Vietnam warm era in the heart of the cold war.

He was more capitalist than Ayn Rand, so I don't think so, but that's beside the point: supporting genocide is hardly justifiable under some speculative rubric in which the Soviets might have supported genocide too...if we didn't beat them to it./quote]

I think terming it genocide is more than a mild exageration. And "supporting" it is probably pretty far from the actual situation as well. The US might have supported "cracking down on Communists" or whatever presumption they were operating under, but I rather doubt the US or Canada were, as you portray them, enthusiastic supporters of butchery and slaughter. Egypt attacked Israel AFTER it had become an American client state, you know. I'm pretty sure that wasn't what the Americans wanted them to do. I'm pretty sure that the nasty folks the US have suporterd over the years have had more than a few screws loose on occasion, and were not altogether as controllable or predictable as anyone would have liked. U.S. foreign policy actions have been, through the years, a litany of screwups, confusion and misunderstandings whereby the State Department had little more than the barest clue of what was actually happening in the far flung corners of the world.

Interestingly, people seem to have little problem perceiving this in far, far less egregious cases; I don't hear you asserting that Iran is free from responsibility for the terror groups it funds, or that they don't share direct responsibility for terrorism which they, personally, do not commit.

You didn't hear me say the US wasn't responsible for the Contras either. The difference between supporting a terrorist/guerrila group which would not exist without you, and supporting a foreign government are immense.

Further, you still seem to make no distinction about intent. The fact that the US and other Western nations were ultimately fighting against an inhumane menace and in favour of freedom for their people doesn't seem to resonate with you. Nor does it seem to make a difference that Iran, on the other hand, is fighting on behalf of a brutal, vicious, inhumane tyranny.

That's like saying the Canadian army and the German army were equally guilty for their violent behaviour, despite the fact we were fighting to free the world while they were fighting to conquer it.

What you're saying is that our terrorism is about defense (by definition, I suppsoe, reverting to the usual tautology); while theirs is about conquest.

As I said, if we started blowing up schools, pizza parlors and murdering random people on the beach, in parks and on airplanes there'd be nothing I can imagine which would call that other than terrorism. I simply disagree with your assertion that support for regimes which violate human rights is neccesarily properly defined in that manner.

Second, the terrorists you're talking about aren't committing terror for terror's sake, or murder for murder's sake: there are political goals behind the actions.

A political goal of wanting to enslave people is not morally equivilent to a political goal of wanting to protect freedom.

You are simply once again making the blanket assumption that fighting for evil purposes should not be considered to be on any different moral level than fighting for good purposes.

[Argus]

Actually thats not true at all. Anne Coulter has advocated invading muslim countries and using force to convert them to Christianity. The number of people who would be killed in such an adventure would likely number in the 10's or 100's of millions. If anything Coulter makes this other guy look like a pussycat

I believe Coulter wrote that column on September the 12th, 2001, did she not? Do you not think she might have been just a little emotionally overcharged at that particular moment?

[bloodyminded]

It doesn't sound like you're ever convinced of that. But I don't believe you ever answered the question I posed on this subject before. Should the west have simply walked away every time the Soviets or Chinese or Cubans started funding a violent guerrila group in some third world country?

You take it a premise--not once, ever, producing even a shred of evidence--that every time a Western nation acts with profound violence, it is doing it solely out of a noble effort to "preserve freedom" and so on.

Until you take the cases I present and explain specifically how this is the case, rather than blandly repeating "Cold War" or "terrorism" as if that's an actual answer, I don't know how you expect me to address any of these generalities.

Do you know it wouldn't have been? What would a government made up of the Shining Path be like, I wonder.

I'm talking about the actually-existing historical record, what WE have committed. Your response is some speculation about what might have been.

No, I'm not. You're equating the execution of a killer with a murder and saying "Hey, they're both killing. They're both morally equivilent."

I think you;re debating some phantom, mistaking him for me. I was talking about the murder of innocent civilians...not "the execution of a killer."

I'm saying that, depending on situations, motivations and abilities, there are a lot of shades of gray.

I agree, but you have set the parameters here: you don't seem to think that enemies have any shades of grey: they're simply old-fashioned forces of motiveless evil, along the lines of Satan perhaps. But as soon as Western crimes are mentioned, the with lightning suddenness I'm informed of the complexities of international relations. You can't have it both ways. At any rate, I think those Palestinians who shoot rockets into civilian Israeli areas (for example) are committing terrible acts in doing so. That I feel sympathy for the Palestinian cause doesn't change that at all.

In a similar way (but more important, since it's my society, my country, and its allies) i object to murder, terrorism, brutality committed by us.

And this is far more important, as a moral stance, than objecting to the evils of the official enemies, anyway.

I can't imagine any situation where if the US or Canadian government, military or police built a bomb and set it off in a restaurant full of random civilians that could be called anything but terrorism. However, again, support for dictators you have limited control over in order to oppose people you perceive as just as bad or worse isn't in the same moral ballpark.

"Having limited control" is not the same thing as intentionally, knowingly, and materially supporting terrorism while you lie to your populace. That is direct culpability, unambiguously.

Every time you make the same point, and every time I say it doesn't apply in every case...certainly not this one.

I'm sure it hasn't escaped your notice that 1999 - 8 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union was a whole other world from 1975, which was tail ending the Vietnam warm era in the heart of the cold war.

Even if I accepted your premise (just a rehash but in different words), what's the difference, then, between, say, 1994 and 1999? That's five years of mass murder and oppression.

Doesn't matter, because I don't accept your premise; your premise, again, is "the Cold War," that magical catch-all phrase.

I'm wondering specifically--very specifically--why we needed to fund and support mass murder (under a cloak of lies, to boot) to fight the Soviets. You have so far refrained from responding, aside from the bizarre notion in an earlier post that if we hadn't supported mass murder, the Soviets might have.

As I said, if we started blowing up schools, pizza parlors and murdering random people on the beach, in parks and on airplanes there'd be nothing I can imagine which would call that other than terrorism. I simply disagree with your assertion that support for regimes which violate human rights is neccesarily properly defined in that manner.

And if that's only what I was talking about, I would feel inclined to agree with you.

A political goal of wanting to enslave people is not morally equivilent to a political goal of wanting to protect freedom.

Certainly not, not even in the same universe. I'm saying there are plenty of examples where, by sheer virtue of our actions, protecting freedom was not the goal.

You are simply once again making the blanket assumption that fighting for evil purposes should not be considered to be on any different moral level than fighting for good purposes.

No, that's how you're choosing to read me, but I have never said nor faintly implied any such thing. I object to the things I'm objecting to precisely on the principle that I oppose fighting and violence for anything but good purposes.

Edited June 27, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Battletoads]

A man who is trying to insight death and destruction on Canada and it citizens. My question is why this man would even be aloud in Canada.

[Argus]

You take it a premise--not once, ever, producing even a shred of evidence--that every time a Western nation acts with profound violence, it is doing it solely out of a noble effort to "preserve freedom" and so on.

I never suggested any such thing. As I said, ultimately, Western governments serve the interests of their own people first. US actions in south/central America over the years has had as much to do with preserving the right of US corporations to exploit raw materials there as anything else. Still, military action or support for military action in that regard began to fade away some decades ago and I'm hard-pressed to consider when the last use of western military action was made without any background motivation of expanding freedom and democratic ideals. The French have done some of that in isolated pockets of Africa, however.

As for support for nasty, brutish dictators, you could suggest U.S. support for some of the middle east types qualifies. But that is done out of the belief that these oil producing nations need to be placated and supported lest they fall to extremist Muslim groups which will cut off our oil - and be just as brutal. There is certainly some truth to that. It's hard to believe that any revolution which took over Saudi Arabia or Egypt would result in a more liberal regime, for example.

Until you take the cases I present and explain specifically how this is the case, rather than blandly repeating "Cold War" or "terrorism" as if that's an actual answer, I don't know how you expect me to address any of these generalities.

Specifically? How much do you actually think I know about specific U.S. actions with regard to Suharto anyway? You say they supplied him with arms and support. Well, okay. I can believe it, though I'm uncertain what this support entailed. But your slant on things kind of makes it sound like American generals, upon hearing casualty reports, pumped their fists in the air in celebration. "Yeah! Another thousand dead kids! Woohoo!" And I just don't buy it.

As I said in my earlier post American foreign policy is not exactly an unbroken record of wise decisions and sterling accomplishments. And in that era it didn't take a lot to convince the administration that some group was full of "reds" and was a threat to American interests - whether it was or not. It also didn't take much for them to dismiss contrary information, even claims of massive civilian casualties and brutality as "communist propaganda". So what I'm suggesting is that support for Suharto was based upon a belief he had to be held up as one of our pawns, as it were, lest he be taken over by the other side and used against us. How realistic that belief was I really can't say.

I agree, but you have set the parameters here: you don't seem to think that enemies have any shades of grey: they're simply old-fashioned forces of motiveless evil, along the lines of Satan perhaps.

What I'm saying is that while we try to advance our agenda, they try to advance theirs. But if there are any positive elements to their agenda I haven't yet come across them. Perhaps you have? Their agenda seems to involve theocratic control over every element of life and a lot of dead Jews.

In a similar way (but more important, since it's my society, my country, and its allies) i object to murder, terrorism, brutality committed by us.

Are we committing any these days? Because it seems more like you're objecting to things which happened quite some time back.

"Having limited control" is not the same thing as intentionally, knowingly, and materially supporting terrorism while you lie to your populace. That is direct culpability, unambiguously.

Perhaps, but you have yet to point out how, other than providing weapons which can be had almost anywhere, we intentionally, knowingly and materially supported terrorism".

And intentionally supporting Suharto in overcoming communists, or what you believe are communists is not the same as intentionally supporting him in a bloody slaughter of innocents.

[dre]

I believe Coulter wrote that column on September the 12th, 2001, did she not? Do you not think she might have been just a little emotionally overcharged at that particular moment?

Most hate/rage merchants are emotionally overcharged.

In any case I think the biggest factor is what I said before. My guess is that Zakir Naik and Anne Coulter make decent ammounts of cash saying these kinds of things. Unfortunately its just good business these days.

[bloodyminded]

I never suggested any such thing. As I said, ultimately, Western governments serve the interests of their own people first.

US actions in south/central America over the years has had as much to do with preserving the right of US corporations to exploit raw materials there as anything else. Still, military action or support for military action in that regard began to fade away some decades ago and I'm hard-pressed to consider when the last use of western military action was made without any background motivation of expanding freedom and democratic ideals. The French have done some of that in isolated pockets of Africa, however.

Well, the French have never totally expunged imperial ambitions, and are restrained mostly by others' imperial ambitions. But the clear leader is the United States, a Republic explicitly founded as an empire. (According to George Washington, for example.)

As for support for nasty, brutish dictators, you could suggest U.S. support for some of the middle east types qualifies. But that is done out of the belief that these oil producing nations need to be placated and supported lest they fall to extremist Muslim groups which will cut off our oil - and be just as brutal. There is certainly some truth to that. It's hard to believe that any revolution which took over Saudi Arabia or Egypt would result in a more liberal regime, for example.

I agree with you completely that it's a complex state of affairs. But like complex state of affairs, there are other sides and aspects which we ignore at our peril. For example, general Muslim disaffection with the Western powers, while usually caricatured by us (and sometimes self-caricatured by themselves, I freely concede) obviously has some legitimate points, arising from legitimate complaints; that is, we are not always supporting brutal regimes to avoid worse ones. To claim this demands a level of insight and wisdom on our policymakers', not to mention fundamentally good intentions...that are at odds with your other (correct) remarks that at times the great powers act with incoherence and shortsightedness.

So while some Muslims hate powerful secularism, social change, and what have you, others know that we have supported brutal tyrants while undermining democratic movements and the like.

How could anyone not be angry about this, had they watched the behaviour of the most influential countries acting in favour of tyrants and in opposition to freedom?

Specifically? How much do you actually think I know about specific U.S. actions with regard to Suharto anyway? You say they supplied him with arms and support. Well, okay. I can believe it, though I'm uncertain what this support entailed. But your slant on things kind of makes it sound like American generals, upon hearing casualty reports, pumped their fists in the air in celebration. "Yeah! Another thousand dead kids! Woohoo!" And I just don't buy it.

I'm not talking about the military, but the civilian leadership. And no, I don't think for a second that they celebrated the slaughters. I think they just didn't give a fuck. After all, they knew it was occurring, they lied to us, the publics that they represent, about the circumstances, they gave the green light for it in the first place, and they made it possible fir it to continue, when they could have stopped it.

The chief moral question is not whether or not they cheered the destruction and murder, or merely shrugged. What's relevant is the responsibility for it.

As I said in my earlier post American foreign policy is not exactly an unbroken record of wise decisions and sterling accomplishments.

No, no one's is. That doesn't mean we shouldn't condemn it, under some notion of "this is the way it is."

And in that era it didn't take a lot to convince the administration that some group was full of "reds" and was a threat to American interests - whether it was or not.

No doubt that's true. But they weren't shining examples of ignorance, either, so that we can always use the Reds as justification. That's special pleading in favour of the most powerful people on the planet.

And the Communist threat sounds even more a dubious argument in, say, 1999, i should think. But it was never a reason anyway, so it's moot.

It also didn't take much for them to dismiss contrary information, even claims of massive civilian casualties and brutality as "communist propaganda".

Not applicable in this case. We're not talking about Eastern Europe stifled silently behind the Iron curtain. We're talking about the fight for independence of a small region off the coast of a major ally, where information could be freely and easily gathered. There is no evidence of communist infiltraiton, either in 1975 or in 1988. I mean, the powers-that-be didn't even try to propagandize about the communsit threat there, try to exaggerate it, or in fact mention it...so it's not a credible argument.

They knew just what was going on. You cannot kill three hundred thousand people, in a region in which America is heavily and profoundly involved, where there are no legal press restrictions, while activists (including some conservative Catholic groups, albeit not sanctioned by the Church) were screaming about it...while the nation supplying the arms and munitions, with the most sophisticated intelligence apparatus in the history of Earth, remain blithely unaware.

It's preposterous. In fact, it's a conspiracy theory, though the supposed conspirators remain unknown.

So what I'm suggesting is that support for Suharto was based upon a belief he had to be held up as one of our pawns, as it were, lest he be taken over by the other side and used against us. How realistic that belief was I really can't say.

But again: how do you know that was the "belief." You believe it was the belief, based on premises contrary to evidence, even as you admit you don't know much about the situaiton.

Which begs the question: why? Why in god's name would you believe this, and on what are you basing these beliefs?

What I'm saying is that while we try to advance our agenda, they try to advance theirs. But if there are any positive elements to their agenda I haven't yet come across them. Perhaps you have? Their agenda seems to involve theocratic control over every element of life and a lot of dead Jews.

Prefacing my answer with the reiteration that I think Hamas a rotten, corrupt, and murderous institution (to avoid damning and tiresome acusations of "supporting terrorists" or what have you..not from you, but from other posters I won't bother naming):

Hamas, and moreso a larger, if inchoate Islamic movement ostensibly in support of the Palestinians (often dceceitfully and for other purposes, as you correctly pointed out elsewhere)...have more than a single motivation. Many activists, violent and otherwise, are concerned genuinely with the mistreatment of the Palestinians by Israel.

Never mind the arguments for a moment; I'm not talking about the correctness of their position, nor of Israel's. I'm saying that is often sincerely the reason.

Hamas itself is made up of factions, not all of them in agreement. The most important parts of the leadership are not good, as you agree. But there are many things goiung on here; it's not all Jew-hating and theocracy.

Exactly like Western behaviours, the matter is extremely complex, even contradictory at times.

Are we committing any these days? Because it seems more like you're objecting to things which happened quite some time back.

to my knowledge, nothing remotely like our support for Indonesian state terror is occurring. However:

1. I would have said "no" to this question as recently as 1999, since the public at large remained unaware. given history, it's too early to say, "Nope. We're relatively clean."

2. 1999 is not really "quite some time back." It's extremely recent.

3. I mention this issue because it is recent, and is so egregious, and makes us easily as bad as Hamas. Easily.

Perhaps, but you have yet to point out how, other than providing weapons which can be had almost anywhere, we intentionally, knowingly and materially supported terrorism".

Providing weapons with the understanding of what they're being used for. This is not Israeli delf-defense, or something. There is no such possible pretext.

Also, diplomatic support. Wolfowitz lying through his teeth the whole time. Moynihan telling us he was "tasked" with undermining potential UN action, and that he suceeded perfectly. (The fact that he can un-self-critically admit it tells us we're not talking about sociopathy: we're talking about institutionalized insanity, doublethink, and a kind of imperial indoctrination.

The French don't gloat about murdering Algerians, rubbing their palms and chuckling.

And Palestinian suicide bombers don't glory in murder; they glory in fighting "evil" oppressors (Their view, not mine.)

I just don't know why we think our crimes are somehow more acceptable. they're exactly as unacceptable.

Maybe worse: The powerful must always be held to greater account than the less powerful, in my view.

but even if one disagrees with this, and some people do, then surely the powerful must be held to the same standards of behaviour as the less powerful. That's elementary.

[Non_Partisan]

I personally view it from a security angle. If you abhor the values of western culture and democracy you shouldn't be here. All we need is for him to come here and give a speech that profoundly influences young Muslims towards homegrown political extremity. We've already had one incident.

The problem with the free speech argument is that you will always have a certain number of dispossessed people in the country that are ripe for indoctrination, so in essence your spreading the seeds that will allow the plant to grow down the road, whether it be Islamic fundamentalism, National Socialism or Anarchism.

[Jack Weber]

I personally view it from a security angle. If you abhor the values of western culture and democracy you shouldn't be here. All we need is for him to come here and give a speech that profoundly influences young Muslims towards homegrown political extremity. We've already had one incident.

The problem with the free speech argument is that you will always have a certain number of dispossessed people in the country that are ripe for indoctrination, so in essence your spreading the seeds that will allow the plant to grow down the road, whether it be Islamic fundamentalism, National Socialism or Anarchism.

Of course...

There's always fringe loons who belive all sorts of completely crazy ideas...But we should allow aourselves to be afraid to let these people say whatever idiocy they want to say.It's best to get it out there,and expose the followers of this stuff in this society,than falsely insulating ourselves by disallowing it.

Sticking our heads in the sand and pretending people who truly believe what this Islamofascist don't live amongst us is just as bad....

[Non_Partisan]

Of course...

There's always fringe loons who belive all sorts of completely crazy ideas...But we should allow aourselves to be afraid to let these people say whatever idiocy they want to say.It's best to get it out there,and expose the followers of this stuff in this society,than falsely insulating ourselves by disallowing it.

Sticking our heads in the sand and pretending people who truly believe what this Islamofascist don't live amongst us is just as bad....

I don’t view it as sticking our heads in the sand to pretend it doesn’t exist. You can go to the library and read Mein Kampf, and you can go on the internet and watch Zakir Naik give a speech, but I wouldn’t invite him into the country, just as I wouldn’t invite Alfred Rosenberg to give a speech in Canada to drum nazi support, if it was 1936.

I don’t believe in censorship, but I do believe in national security, we don’t allow criminals into the country, nor should we allow those whose motive is to circumvent our constitutional democracy.

The black Anarchists who rioted in Toronto didn’t magically appear, its been a movement that’s been growing since the last G20 because some very twisted adults have been indoctrinating some very troubled youth that capitalism is their barrier towards utopia. I wouldn’t invite anarchist intellectuals into the country either.

[bloodyminded]

I personally view it from a security angle. If you abhor the values of western culture and democracy you shouldn't be here. All we need is for him to come here and give a speech that profoundly influences young Muslims towards homegrown political extremity. We've already had one incident.

The problem with the free speech argument is that you will always have a certain number of dispossessed people in the country that are ripe for indoctrination, so in essence your spreading the seeds that will allow the plant to grow down the road, whether it be Islamic fundamentalism, National Socialism or Anarchism.

Well, everybody is indoctrinated in one way or another. I'm not trying to be coy, nor argumentative: I mean, literally, and in some ways for the worse, indoctrinated. I'd be surprised to hear somebody deny this.

Certainly, some types of indoctrination are more troubling, and more dangerous, than others. But I don't think we should continue with the delusional habit of thinking of ourselves as "Enlightened Westerners," in the usual formulation.

I hear politically moderate, perfectly decent, highly thoughtful Canadians and Americans say (and believe) things that should make our blood run cold, so fanatically insane and brutal are they; and this is normal, it's an everyday thing.

As for free speech...I'm with Jack Weber on this, 100%.

Edited June 28, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Rue]

Instinctively, I agree with the freedom of speech argument, that we should allow these people to speak and that the idiocy of their statements will work against them more effectively than any attempt at banning them.

At the same time, however, freedom of speech means that people in Canada can speak their minds as they wish. It doesn't necessarily mean that the government is required to accept visa requests from foreign radicals who come here with the purpose of making inflammatory statements. I would argue that the government is well within its rights to reject visa applications from such individuals.

I agree with your comments 100%.

[Rue]

I wouldnt invite anarchist intellectuals into the country either.

Non Part I agreed with the rest of your statement but personally think you went too far with the last statement and I will tell you why I think that keeping in mind I appreciate why you said it.

There is a very very fine line in a democratic state between deciding when something someone says advocates engaging in a crime, violence, terrorism, and simply being unpopular.

You would be hard pressed to start holding back ALL extremist intellectuals because many are actually well respected academics who never step over the line and advocate anything violent, criminal, or terrorist although I suppose some would say they do it indirectly or by couching their terms of reference and using coded expressions.

Still if we start screening out people merely because of their political beliefs being unpopular its a slippery slope and what lithmus test would you use?

I think right now the Immigration policy tries its best to indentify the content of the speaker coming in and if it contains advocacy of crime, terrorism, violence or hatred of a specific group, then that is blocked. I am not sure though we would want to try screen out libertarians or anarchists who advocate no government if they don't advocate hate or crime.

A democracy tries to balance its security needs with free speech. Its not easy.

Some of the fools who protested and call themselves Black Boc anarchists I personally think haven't a clue who say Kropotkin was or any other anarchist philosopher-I think they are simply angry young people who blame the world for their own failures-children having tantrums-no more no less-it would be hard to screen them out.

I agree though if a supposed "anarchist intellect" (is that an oxymoron?) openly advocates violence then that is grounds to say, no, stay out.

There are far too many angry fools out there looking to come to this country to scream and incite anger and violence.

I would also like to point out that the majority of protesters as much as I personally may disagree with some of their views, have a right to peacefully march and did and were no problem. I also sympathize with people protesting environmental concerns, health concerns, poverty concerns. If they do not do so at such meetings where else would they? They have a right to try speak out however futile it may be.I think the organizers of the demonstrationscould have done a better job of controlling their participants and screening out these fools though and I think with such events they should try work with the police by having volunteers cleary indentified to lead their people away from hooligans who emeerge and keep them calm and let the police do their thing.

I also think there is no way these events should be placed in large cities. They should be placed in the same place each time which is isolated and so easy to control.

In fact some would argue these things belong at the United Nations.

I personally think all these events are-are expensive photo ops. In this day and age not to have a conference by tele-video is ludicrous. Its simply an opportunity for the host country's leader and other leaders to try get some brownie points with his or her domestic audience.

I saw everyone fighting to stand next to Sarkozy so they can look taller.

Also my only lasting impression of the G-8 or G-20 is that Stephen Harper has a very large balloon like head compared to the others. Also the Russian leader looks like a little pervert.

Also next time can they at least show more of Carla Bruni maybe let her sing a song?

Edited June 28, 2010 by Rue

[bloodyminded]

I wouldnt invite anarchist intellectuals into the country either.

So you wouldn't invite Noam Chomsky?

That would make Canada the third country that wouldn't let him in: joining Israel (who has apologized for the incident)....and the Soviet Union.

Edited June 28, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

I think the organizers of the demonstrationscould have done a better job of controlling their participants and screening out these fools though

How could they screen out people coming freely to a protest, much less control them?

[Mr.Canada]

We cannot have free speech for some and not for others.

If we don't allow white supremacists to speak publicly and deport people like Ernst Zündel and don't allow him to speak how can we allow this man in?

Either let everyone speak whatever they want or don't we cannot have it both ways where it's ok for some to spew hatred but not others.

[Shwa]

We cannot have free speech for some and not for others.

If we don't allow white supremacists to speak publicly and deport people like Ernst Zündel and don't allow him to speak how can we allow this man in?

Either let everyone speak whatever they want or don't we cannot have it both ways where it's ok for some to spew hatred but not others.

Interestingly enough, your opinion points to a simple white/black type argument and ignores all the range or degrees in between. We do - by and large - allow people to speak their mind except in situations that prove harmful to others. As it ought to be.

[Jack Weber]

We cannot have free speech for some and not for others.

If we don't allow white supremacists to speak publicly and deport people like Ernst Zündel and don't allow him to speak how can we allow this man in?

Either let everyone speak whatever they want or don't we cannot have it both ways where it's ok for some to spew hatred but not others.

Incorrect...

We did allow Ernst Zundel to spew his NAZI drivel..

And we properly used his drivel as the weapon to hang him with....

[Non_Partisan]

So you wouldn't invite Noam Chomsky?

That would make Canada the third country that wouldn't let him in: joining Israel (who has apologized for the incident)....and the Soviet Union.

I should have chosen my words more carefully in my last statement. I was alluding to anarchists abroad who believe violence is necessary to overthrow the capitalist state.

The Noam Chomsky comment brings up an interesting issue though. He is defiantly one of the world's top intellectuals, I've read at least three books by him, and he's excellent at critiquing and researching the abuses of his own government. He is also however, an anarchist and in my opinion an ideological fanatic.

To my knowledge, Noam Chomsky has never incited violence to achieve his methods, but I still have problem with him, chiefly because he's been instrumental in convincing thousands of impressionable youths that state capitalism is inherently evil and corrupt and should be replaced by some loosely defined democratic communes that will lead us to some near utopia.

Yet he himself doesn't offer any reasonable solution.

Depict, if you can, how an ideal anarchist society would function day-to-day. What sorts of economic and political institutions would exist, and how would they function? Would we have money? Would we shop in stores? Would we own our own homes? Would we have laws? How would we prevent crime?

I wouldn't dream of trying to do this. These are matters about which we have to learn, by struggle and experiment.

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19961223.htm

I personally think Noam Chomsky is a kook, he's not a policy maker he's an ideologue. He doesn't take responsibility for indoctrinating impressionable people into anarchism, who for many spend their lives rallying against the system and instead of improving their own position in life.

So would I bar him from the country, no, but if he's invited in there should defiantly be some sort of warning on his content.