You're not gonna see these videos on CNN.

[bush_cheney2004]

Speaking about what happned constitutes an "ivory tower"?

Speaking...no...lecturing...yes. Your obsession with East Timor is yours...not mine. Hell, my own country provided you with the documents to read, and a way to easily access them from Canada. No big deal.

Now you show me yours!

You still haven't read the supplied document?

No...I just need to read my birth certificate.

Edited April 8, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[bloodyminded]

Speaking...no...lecturing...yes.

You just don't like my opinions. There's no issue here.

Your obsession with East Timor is yours...not mine.

It's not an obssesiso, but an interest, just as your fascination with canadians does not have to be viewed negatively as your obssession.

Hell, my own country provided you with the documents to read, and a way to easily access them from Canada. No big deal.

I agree, not a big deal.

No...I just need to read my birth certificate.

You opine on a document you haven't read. That's a fact. That you don't like that fact is also unimportant.

[bush_cheney2004]

You just don't like my opinions. There's no issue here.

Look...those of us who mock your attacks on old windmills do so with glee, not because they are often wrong, but because they fail to get traction. Where are the protests?

It's not an obssesiso, but an interest, just as your fascination with canadians does not have to be viewed negatively as your obssession.

But it is an obsession for me...and a whole lot of fun. See the difference?

I agree, not a big deal.

Now you're getting it...the documents have been declassified and released just like millions of others. And you know what? The USA would do the same thing today if required. Now, I will wait for the Canadian documents that will never come.

You opine on a document you haven't read. That's a fact. That you don't like that fact is also unimportant.

I don't care about the document...any mildly informed idiot knows what was going on back then...and to use your term...you just don't like it. Tough shit.

[Jack Weber]

And I don't condemn countries for having "relationships" with dictators; it could scarcely be avoided.

I just don't think we should be working with them on matters of oppression, torture, murder and so forth.

That's the beauty of that deck of cards...

It shows how the US was either directly,or indirectly (through it's foreign policy front groups like the WACL) in the affairs of other countries....

And therefore,complicit in the crimes of those regimes...

Edited April 8, 2011 by Jack Weber

[GostHacked]

Because it doesn't need defending...and most certainly not from an assault from your ivory tower. The very notion of a "green light" strips the issue of time and context. At this basic level, America armed/arms Canada too..for dastardly deeds across the sea. Oh my!

If it did not need defending, you would not be here defending it as you do. Because, 'Canada'.

[Black Dog]

You mean how everything seems to relate to his glorious Mediteranean pile of rocks??

God-given pile of rocks, thank you.

[Michael Hardner]

BC - those windmills are from the 1970s.

[bloodyminded]

Look...those of us who mock your attacks on old windmills do so with glee, not because they are often wrong, but because they fail to get traction. Where are the protests?

No, you mock the very fact of the murders themselves. Again, I don't know that this fact is terriby important.

But it is an obsession for me...and a whole lot of fun. See the difference?

Sure, why not?

Now you're getting it...the documents have been declassified and released just like millions of others. And you know what? The USA would do the same thing today if required. Now, I will wait for the Canadian documents that will never come.

If you're looking to have an entirely different discussion than the one we're having, that's ok too.

I don't care about the document...any mildly informed idiot knows what was going on back then

Unfortunately, that's not true. Very few people seem to know about it, as evidenced by this very discussion; hence the pretty strange and interesting claims that are made about a situation in which several people appear hostile even to the existence of documents that solidly prove my assertions.

Neither your hypothetical "idiots," nor the highly intelligent folks like yourself and Bob, had much awareness of the situation.

But as that's now been rectified, it's not a big deal.

...and to use your term...you just don't like it. Tough shit.

I appreciate your well-meaning concern, but I'm a pretty happy and content man. Thanks, though.

Edited April 8, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

Unfortunately, that's not true. Very few people seem to know about it, as evidenced by this very discussion; hence the pretty strange and interesting claims that are made about a situation in which several people appear hostile even to the existence of documents that solidly prove my assertions.

You may not realize this, but such documents have been available and studied for a long time. The US State Dept championed human rights even as the US (and other nations) were complicit in such actions. It's how the game was/is played.

Neither your hypothetical "idiots," nor the highly intelligent folks like yourself and Bob, had much awareness of the situation.

Of course...you are just so much smarter and superior in Canada when armed with an American web browser and search engine. Back then, poor dumb 'merkins only had the Washington Post and New York Times.

I appreciate your well-meaning concern, but I'm a pretty happy and content man. Thanks, though.

Great, I was afraid there would be yet another round of "sad little pantywaist".

[bloodyminded]

You may not realize this, but such documents have been available and studied for a long time. The US State Dept championed human rights even as the US (and other nations) were complicit in such actions. It's how the game was/is played.

Certainly true. And quite distinct from the fact that not many people are aware of the situation that occured. Again, as evidenced by the very discussions on this thread (and other near-identical ones, almost word-for-word, really, with other posters, elsewhere.)

Of course...you are just so much smarter and superior in Canada when armed with an American web browser and search engine. Back then, poor dumb 'merkins only had the Washington Post and New York Times.

I'm not sure how my remarks about your intelligence, and my placing of your use of "idiots" in scare quotes, has elicited this response.

Great, I was afraid there would be yet another round of "sad little pantywaist".

Not at all. I'm happy to accomodate.

Edited April 8, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

Certainly true. And quite distinct from the fact that not many people are aware of the situation that occured. Again, as evidenced by the very discussions on this thread (and other near-identical ones, almost word-for-word, really, with other posters, elsewhere.)

Again...I disagree, because Suharto was only one of many like minded and well known tools for American, British, French...and even Canadian policy (e.g. mining). Gerald Ford's memoirs were published in 1979...his presidential library opened in 1981. Other media channels reported (or didn't report) just like any other rumbles in the jungles of the world at that time.

I can only imagine that you are comparing the historical luxury of integrating all the facts, disclosed and undisclosed, since that time to the real time analysis and reporting in the media of the day. There was much more to come....hell, Oliver North hadn't even been promoted to O-6 yet!

[bloodyminded]

Again...I disagree, because Suharto was only one of many like minded and well known tools for American, British, French...and even Canadian policy (e.g. mining). Gerald Ford's memoirs were published in 1979...his presidential library opened in 1981. Other media channels reported (or didn't report) just like any other rumbles in the jungles of the world at that time.

Right, but again, I don't see what this has to do with my arguments.

I can only imagine that you are comparing the historical luxury of integrating all the facts, disclosed and undisclosed, since that time to the real time analysis and reporting in the media of the day. There was much more to come

Yes, but we can do pretty straitforward analyses of what the media were reporting, versus what they weren't.

In '99, when Western-backed Indonesian Generals and militias were engaged in a fine orgy of Western-backed murder and torture, the media were reporting on the "New humanitarianism," marked by the glorious liberal governments of the Anglo allies, now shedding their dark past (forced by the evil Soviets, of course, but still "unfortunate"...now that they could admit to it at all, since it was too late to do anything about it); now, war was about intervention, about stopping genocide. (NATO Commander Wesley Clark disagreed with this premise, but what did he know about it?)

So, while the media reported the minutiae (correctly or incorrectly) of our "humanitarian" war in Europe, they remained unknowing or uncaring about the far more serious--far more serious--terrors occurring under the boot of an ally, with direct Western help.

Which, not incidentally, they're focussed reporting could have had some positive effect upon, another interesting matter. At the very least, they could be doing what they claim they do. But that would have quite damaged their "noble humanitarian" narrative, which they crave like meth.

Edited April 8, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

...In '99, when Western-backed Indonesian Generals and militias were engaged in a fine orgy of Western-backed murder and torture, the media were reporting on the "New humanitarianism," marked by the glorious liberal governments of the Anglo allies, now shedding their dark past (forced by the evil Soviets, of course, but still "unfortunate"...now that they could admit to it at all, since it was too late to do anything about it); now, war was about intervention, about stopping genocide. (NATO Commander Wesley Clark disagreed with this premise, but what did he know about it?)

Well, to be fair to Clark, the NATO actions were not technically about stopping "genocide" at all, that would just happen to be an outcome of the primary goal of forcing a return to a negotiated peace. A post Cold War NATO needed something to do to remain relevant. The echoes of Rwanda spurred action, even as a different policy around the world would necessarily kill thousands again.

It's all about policy context, and sometimes that context is deadly by design. You can judge that if you please, but the methods and motivations still remain.

So, while the media reported the minutiae (correctly or incorrectly) of our "humanitarian" war in Europe, they remained unknowing or uncaring about the far more serious--far more serious--terrors occurring under the boot of an ally, with direct Western help.

Sorry, but you can't change the filters of the past to today. Playing the "terrorism" angle is an insult to....real terrorists!

Which, not incidentally, they're focussed reporting could have had some positive effect upon, another interesting matter. At the very least, they could be doing what they claim they do. But that would have quite damaged their "noble humanitarian" narrative, which they crave like meth.

Sure, they could have, but again I would emphasize that the humanitarian angle was just part of the mix and cover story, a thin veneer for noble legitimacy. This is when the very term "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" began their journey to being co-opted for any third world slaughter on the planet, regardless of magnitude or context. East Timor was just not relevant enough to win a Pulitzer!

[bloodyminded]

Well, to be fair to Clark, the NATO actions were not technically about stopping "genocide" at all, that would just happen to be an outcome of the primary goal of forcing a return to a negotiated peace. A post Cold War NATO needed something to do to remain relevant. The echoes of Rwanda spurred action, even as a different policy around the world would necessarily kill thousands again.

It's all about policy context, and sometimes that context is deadly by design. You can judge that if you please, but the methods and motivations still remain.

I do please, as you can well see, but I don't think I disagree with your points here.

Sorry, but you can't change the filters of the past to today. Playing the "terrorism" angle is an insult to....real terrorists!

I can live with insulting the terrorists. But I don't think I'm forcing terrorism as a descriptor onto a subject to which it doesn't belong. There's no reason at all for "terrorism" to refer to, say, subnational agents and leave it at that. Indeed, state terrorism used to be considered a more serious problem, notably under Khadaffi 1.0, in the early eighties. If terrorism is the "intentional murder of civlians, as targets and purpose of the violence itself, for the sake of attempting to political goals" (and we can quibble about this or that semantic point, but that's basically it) then what happened constitutes terrorism, by definition and by design. If Suharto's aim were killing Fretelin rebels, and civilian deaths were incidental to that, we perhaps shouldn't view it as "terrorism," however awful we thought it. But civilians were the targets, hundreds of thosuands of them, their deaths the purpose of the attacks themselves.

Sure, they could have, but again I would emphasize that the humanitarian angle was just part of the mix and cover story, a thin veneer for noble legitimacy. This is when the very term "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" began their journey to being co-opted for any third world slaughter on the planet, regardless of magnitude or context. East Timor was just not relevant enough to win a Pulitzer!

I agree completely. "Genocide" has become as drained of meaning as has "terrorism," or "genius." Except that, terms like genocide aside, the magnitude was indeed very great. Eclipsing anything that demanded our "humanitarian" intervention in Serbia, for instance, and probably one of the top dozen slaughters of the postwar era...no small achievement, considering the competition for this prize.

[bush_cheney2004]

I do please, as you can well see, but I don't think I disagree with your points here.

That's fine, but regardless of opinions stated here, the process will obviously continue in much the same way.

If Suharto's aim were killing Fretelin rebels, and civilian deaths were incidental to that, we perhaps shouldn't view it as "terrorism," however awful we thought it. But civilians were the targets, hundreds of thosuands of them, their deaths the purpose of the attacks themselves.

This would be the start of a much larger and abstract discussion, including the very notion of government sponsored military and civilian actions resulting in death and injury. In such a framework, one doesn't get more points for quantity over quality, unless there is a severe lobbying effort to do so. For whatever reason, East Timor failed to garner such attention.

I agree completely. "Genocide" has become as drained of meaning as has "terrorism," or "genius." Except that, terms like genocide aside, the magnitude was indeed very great. Eclipsing anything that demanded our "humanitarian" intervention in Serbia, for instance, and probably one of the top dozen slaughters of the postwar era...no small achievement, considering the competition for this prize.

Again, magnitude will not win the day....it sure didn't in Rwanda. Humanitarian intervention is a fabricated pretext for underlying economic and/or political objectives. Civilains are quite comfortable with the notion of killing each other for far more trivial reasons.

Edited April 9, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[bloodyminded]

That's fine, but regardless of opinions stated here, the process will obviously continue in much the same way.

Definitely.

This would be the start of a much larger and abstract discussion, including the very notion of government sponsored military and civilian actions resulting in death and injury.

Sure. But such discussions would have to be inclusive in order to be meaningful. Agents like Hamas, or Iran, would have to be viewed as dispassionately and disinterestedly as are our own foreign policy planners.

As it is, the "we are noble, they are not" premise doesn't lead to many useful discussions.

In such a framework, one doesn't get more points for quantity over quality, unless there is a severe lobbying effort to do so. For whatever reason, East Timor failed to garner such attention.

Again, magnitude will not win the day....it sure didn't in Rwanda.

No, you're right. I maybe misread your remark, thinking you were asserting a low magnitude of casualties, and so was only correcting what I thought was a factual error.

Humanitarian intervention is a fabricated pretext for underlying economic and/or political objectives. Civilains are quite comfortable with the notion of killing each other for far more trivial reasons.

Can't argue with either point there.

Edited April 9, 2011 by bloodyminded