Israel's 10 year racist law anniversary

[bleeding heart]

I think we've just seen an example. Terrorism by the West is everywhere...no, I can't show it to you.

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

[carepov]

I am not excusing Islamist violence...I oppose all terrorism.

Do you?

Of course the West has been deeply and consciously involved in terrorism.

Good example about East Timor.

Do you have any examples of Western countries committing or "deeply and consciously involved in" terrorism, let's say in the last 20 years or so?

[DogOnPorch]

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

Timor? Yawn...the soft bigotry of lowered expectations. While a horrible situation, that wasn't America's fault.

[bleeding heart]

Good example about East Timor.

Do you have any examples of Western countries committing or "deeply and consciously involved in" terrorism, let's say in the last 20 years or so?

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?

[bleeding heart]

Timor? Yawn...the soft bigotry of lowered expectations. While a horrible situation, that wasn't America's fault.

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"?

[DogOnPorch]

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"?

They did it to themselves. Folks are capable of making mischief w/o it being America's fault. Both of those d***he bags...Sukarno, Suharto... were just as happy helping the Japanese conduct WW2. The so-called revolutionaries were also capable of horrific deeds. Falintal, etc...just more severe looking dudes with automatic weapons and a hankering to tug the trigger.

[bleeding heart]

They did it to themselves. Folks are capable of making mischief w/o it being America's fault.

Of course they were capable of doing it without America's help.

But they didn't do it without America's help.

Obviously.

[DogOnPorch]

Of course they were capable of doing it without America's help.

But they didn't do it without America's help.

Obviously.

So? There wasn't an evil American behind each soldier saying "Shoot!, shoot, shoot...kill all the women and children." How did the Americans manage to convince these normally nice people to be evil again?

[bleeding heart]

So? There wasn't an evil American behind each soldier saying "Shoot!, shoot, shoot...kill all the women and children." How did the Americans manage to convince these normally nice people to be evil again?

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.

[carepov]

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?

It depends, exculpable to what crimes? In general, no.

I disagree with the claim that the "foreign policy intelligentsia" holds high esteem for Western foreign policy.

I try to be realistic as opposed to idealistic. I also try to be relativistic as opposed to absolute. Many Western policies are wrong, some are immoral - but overall the Western powers are the most restrained that the world has ever seen.

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?

Most people have no clue and worse yet have no care about Indonesia, East Timor, etc... This cause is hopeless.

[bleeding heart]

It depends, exculpable to what crimes? In general, no.

I disagree with the claim that the "foreign policy intelligentsia" holds high esteem for Western foreign policy.

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."

I try to be realistic as opposed to idealistic. I also try to be relativistic as opposed to absolute. Many Western policies are wrong, some are immoral - but overall the Western powers are the most restrained that the world has ever seen.

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.

Most people have no clue and worse yet have no care about Indonesia, East Timor, etc... This cause is hopeless.

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.

Edited July 26, 2013 by bleeding heart

[DogOnPorch]

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.

You're equating this to terrorism. So I need to see an American causing some actual terror. Oddly, the US sells us military weapons in Canada, as well. The average soldier fighting for the Falintil back then is going to be found carrying a variety of weapons from ancient looking M-16s to Factory 66 AK-47s. That's when he's not carrying the excellent (and oddly enough very common) Pindad PM2 or Pindad SS. I wonder who makes those?? Must be terrorists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pindad_SS2

Edited July 26, 2013 by DogOnPorch

[bleeding heart]

You're equating this to terrorism. So I need to see an American causing some actual terror.

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.)

Edited July 26, 2013 by bleeding heart

[DogOnPorch]

I see you decided not to address the fact that Indonesia makes it's own weapons. Pindad has been in business since the early 1800s. Their rifles are the most common in the area. Perhaps EVERYBODY is a terrorist....exceptin' yerself....of course.

[DogOnPorch]

And to be terrorism in my books...I'll need to see some Americans causing terror. That's how I base it. Don't show it? Fine...you're free to believe your definition of terrorism is actually the one the planet cares about.

[carepov]

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.

Generally agreed. And yes, it's the numbers that matter - and this supports my point. In the present times, let's say post-cold war, how many deaths have been caused by Western terrorist-type crimes? The numbers are very low and even lower if you take them as a percentage of the world's population. By no means are we innocent but we are the most innocent of any superpower in all of history.

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.

Well we do it already like you said with Natives, and we still don't get it. We should do it better with WW2 - Dresden, firebombing of Tokyo, two atomic bombs... We learn about the Holocaust and should all know about the failure to act in Rwanda and more modern human rights violations. But it is important to also look at all the progress that's been made.

Regretably for the East Timorese, their suffering will be ignored by most of the world like most other similar massacres.

[carepov]

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.

Also, if I understand you correctly, this comment also supports one of the main reasons for favoring Israel over the Arabs/Palestinians.

Israel is more moral than the Arab/Pallestinian powers. They have a much greater respect for human rights and are much more restrained with their power. Yes they could and should do better, but here in the real world, what regional power would have shown so much restraint?

[Guest American Woman]

By no means are we innocent but we are the most innocent of any superpower in all of history.

Israel is more moral than the Arab/Pallestinian powers. They have a much greater respect for human rights and are much more restrained with their power. Yes they could and should do better, but here in the real world, what regional power would have shown so much restraint?

Agreed.

Furthermore, where would showing complete restraint get Israel/us? There's a point where one becomes a martyr with such an attitude; a martyr on the losing end. - and where would that leave the world at large?

Edited July 26, 2013 by American Woman

[Scotty]

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

What Indonesia did was not terrorism. It was brutality and murder, but unfortunately, not all that atypical among the third world dictators who were the norm back then (and not all that uncommon today). I'm not going to get into the morality or ethics involved in western states backing deplorable regimes like the Indonesians and many others except to say that whatever that was it was not terrorism. The West, collectively or individually, pursues relationships with nations regardless of how brutal those regimes are towards their people. And it tries to ensure those relationships are to its own advantage wherever possible. Thus it has interest in sometimes assisting other nations against mutual enemies.

Again, that is mere explanation, but in order to say that it still does not constitute terrorism. Terrorism is a specific action taken against innocent people to deliberately terrorize them or their governments into supporting or abandoning support for particular political aims and goals. Hijacking airliners is terrorism. What Hitler did to the Jews is not terrorism. And supporting regimes which are brutal against their people (most of the world until fairly recently) is also not terrorism.

[Scotty]

If you knowingly, intentionally, materially support terrorism...you are....well, supporting terrorism. QED. That makes you guilty of terrorist crimes.

The problem I have is you're suggesting what the Indonesians did is terrorism. I don't agree. I don't think what Pol Pot did was terrorism either, or what Hitler did, or what Mao did or what Papa Doc Duvalier did.

The question is whether or not a foreign country has some moral responsibility to the citizens of another country which would cause it to do something which is not in its own best interests in order to help these foreign citizens. I know that our governments do a lot of international charity, but that's voluntary. Do nations have an actual moral duty to not act in the best interests of their own people by avoiding supporting a potential friend and ally because that friend and ally behaves with brutality towards their own people?

[jbg]

We have enough threads that get off topic to the point of stupidity. Hudson Jones may be considered a hack by some here, for the Arabic populations in the area does not mean we need to get off topic.

If you have a concern about another country, you could always make a thread and we can talk about it. You have options.

Do you mean "flack"?

[jbg]

The lines have been blurred. A "Canadian" was apparently behind the Hezbollah terror attack in Bulgaria. But, I'm sure he enjoys hockey.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/07/25/pol-bulgaria-suspect-canadian.html

He's a Mapleleaf fan, from at least the time the team won the Cup last.

[jbg]

The West does not commit acts of terrorism.

You have me in stitches here dude! Too funny.

Can you show me the last time the West blew up a pizza parlor?

Of I forgot, there is one example, Oklahoma City. But even there there were some Islamist fingerprints. Nicholson received some training either in the Philippines or from groups affiliated with Philippine terror.

[bleeding heart]

I see you decided not to address the fact that Indonesia makes it's own weapons. Pindad has been in business since the early 1800s. Their rifles are the most common in the area. Perhaps EVERYBODY is a terrorist....exceptin' yerself....of course.

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.

Edited July 27, 2013 by bleeding heart

[bleeding heart]

Generally agreed. And yes, it's the numbers that matter - and this supports my point. In the present times, let's say post-cold war, how many deaths have been caused by Western terrorist-type crimes?

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.

The numbers are very low and even lower if you take them as a percentage of the world's population.

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."

By no means are we innocent but we are the most innocent of any superpower in all of history.

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..

Regretably for the East Timorese, their suffering will be ignored by most of the world like most other similar massacres.

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.

Edited July 27, 2013 by bleeding heart