BS: Is 9/11 overworked?

Subject: RE: BS: Is 9/11 overworked?
From: musicmick
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 05:20 PM

Mr. McGrath, you may, well, be right. Europe does not have a monopoly on America bashers. I know any number of Americans who have nothing good to say about the US but continue to live here because they are unwilling to endure the loss of freedom and lifestyle that emigration would cost. I have lived in some wonderful parts of the world and I have no illusions that the US is the only good place to live. But, if there is one thing I have found in my travels, it is that every land, every society has flaws and warts. If there is a heaven on earth, it is doing a damned fine job of hiding. Until I stumble across it, I will stay and support the land of my birth and the land of my choosing. I am an American and, warts and all, I am proud to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Is 9/11 overworked?
From: toadfrog
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 06:31 PM

Gee, musicmic, in what way are we "America bashers"? You are not expressing yourself very clearly. I have some ideas about what is essentially American. The recent media orgy does not seem to reflect any basic American values.

You sound as if you are afraid someone will blow you up. Statistically, that's not very likely. That particular band of crazies does not have really formidable weaponry. Not nearly so scary as when the Soviet Union was pointing all those hydrogen bombs at us. Nothing like the Cuban Missile crisis. Nothing like the threats Europe lived with in the Cold War, when they were the situs of hundreds of tactical nukes. Aside from that, it's hard to tell what you are saying. Am I unpatriotic because I'm not scared shitless? Is that what you are trying to say?

Subject: RE: BS: Is 9/11 overworked?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 06:47 PM

Over in England we had a lot of TV programmes about September, most of them not bad.

But there were enough of them that weren't good, that came across as cheap and manipulative, to give me a feeling of why some people might feel fed up with TV coverage and so forth if that was what was filling your screens in the USA.

As you say, like any place, musimmic, America has its faults and warts. But surely just because people love their country does that mean they don't want to mend those faults and mustn't criticise the warts?

Subject: RE: BS: Is 9/11 overworked?
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Sep 02 - 06:52 PM

"It's really not a number I'm terribly interested in." General Colin Powell, when asked about the number of Iraqi people who were killed by Americans in the 1991 Desert Storm campaign (200,000 people, incidentally) September 11th is an anniversary. And if you've watched too much telly or read too many newspapers this week, you may have been fooled into believing that September 11th is only the anniversary of one tragedy, in one nation. But it's not. On the same day in 1973, Salvador Allende, the socialist President of Chile, was killed in a violent, American- sponsored coup, led by General Augusto Pinochet. Pinochet's rise to power, dreamt-up and orchestrated by a Red-paranoid CIA and Mr. Henry Kissinger, began nearly twenty years of military dictatorship that led to thousands of deaths and countless incidences of oppression and torture. 30,000 people were massacred in the weeks following this other September 11th, as Pinochet tried to wipe out an entire layer of society who had identified with the left. Even in exile, many who had associated with the Allende government (or were vaguely perceived as some sort of communist threat) were assassinated by Pinochet's secret service. And all of this sponsored in the name of Freedom and Democracy. So when we're having a minute of silence for the people who died in the Twin Towers, why not a minute of silence for those who died at the hands of Pinochet's CIA-sponsored death squads? Or while we're at it, we could have a minute of silence for the people of the Congo, also subjected to a military dictatorship thanks to the CIA assassination of evil lefty Patrice Lumumba. Or how about Cambodia, which deserves at least two minutes of silence when one considers that America (and Britain) backed Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot to the tune of $85 million in his genocidal rampage which killed nearly 2 million Cambodians. Or what about a few minutes of silence for Nicaragua, where in 1936, the American National Guard helped Anastasio Somoza to establish and maintain a family dynasty which would rule over Nicaragua for the next 43 years. While the National Guardsmen, consistently maintained by the US, passed their time with rape, torture, murder of the opposition, and massacres of peasants, as well as less violent pursuits such as robbery, extortion, contraband, running brothels and other government functions, the Somoza clan laid claim to the lion's share of Nicaragua's land and businesses. Love that Freedom & Democracy, don't ya? The problem with this list is that it could go on and on — Brazil, Guatemala, El Salvador, Ecuador, Uruguay, the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Haiti, Iraq, Iran, Laos, East Timor, Grenada, Greece... All of these and more are countries who have suffered from oppression, torture, starvation, and death at the hands of American "intervention," whether it takes the form of bombs, sanctions, or our personal favourite, CIA sponsored military regimes. As ex-State Department employee and author William Blum writes, "An American holocaust has taken place…So great and deep is the denial of the American holocaust that the deniers are not even aware that the claimers or their claims exist. Yet, a few million people have died in the American holocaust and many more millions have been condemned to lives of misery and torture as a result of US interventions extending from China and Greece in the 1940s to Afghanistan and Iraq in the 1990s." "I will never apologise for the United States of America - I don't care what the facts are," said President George Bush Sr. in 1988, when the U.S. Navy warship Vincennes shot down an Iranian commercial airliner. The plane was on a routine flight in a commercial corridor in Iranian airspace. All 290 civilians on board the aircraft were killed. And while we're on the subject of bombs, it might be interesting to note that since the Second World War, the US government has bombed 21 countries: China in 1945-46 and again in 1950-53, Korea in 1950-53, Guatemala in 1954, 1960, and 1967-69, Indonesia in 1958, Vietnam in 1961-73, Congo in 1964, Laos in 1964-73, Peru in 1965, Cambodia in 1969-70, El Salvador throughout the 1980s, Nicaragua throughout the 1980s, Lebanon in 1983-84, Grenada in 1983, Bosnia in 1985, Libya in 1986, Panama in 1989, Iraq in 1991- 20??, Sudan in 1998, Former Yugoslavia in 1999, and Afghanistan in 1998 and 2002. To the best of our knowledge, none of the victims of bombings in these countries have ever received any apologies, memorial funds, or commemorative minutes of silence. Yes, it is a tragedy when 3,000 people lose their lives on a single day as the result of madmen. But it is also a tragedy that takes place in many countries around the world on a daily basis, often as a result of the madmen in Washington. And when this fact is not acknowledged, anniversary observances of September 11th sound hollow at best, and grossly hypocritical and offensive at worst. If we had to observe a moment of silence for all of the victims of American foreign policy, we'd be silent for the rest of our lives. So while George Bush Jr. demands that the world observe a minute of silence for the dead and injured civilians of September 11th, the 290 dead Iranian civilians of 1988 didn't even get an apology. Neither did the nearly 8,000 Afghani civilians who have died in the last year as a result of U.S. led air strikes in Afghanistan, a campaign appropriately titled "Enduring Freedom."

Subject: RE: BS: Is 9/11 overworked?
From: GUEST,Taliesn
Date: 17 Sep 02 - 08:16 PM

(quote) "Yes, it is a tragedy when 3,000 people lose their lives on a single day as the result of madmen. "

Oh how very civilized and gracious of you to state this faux disclaimer before relaunching into your hopelessly "one-sided" screed which has already been expressed elsewhere by better authors.

(quote) .".But it is also a tragedy that takes place in many countries around the world on a daily basis, often as a result of the madmen in Washington.And when this fact is not acknowledged, "

You're false argument of these facts not being acknpowledged renders your belabored position as merely the excuse that you've seized upon I s'pose out of some *ideologically correct* sense that it's not been acknowledged enough to *your* satisfaction. How bloated of you.

(quote) "...anniversary observances of September 11th sound hollow at best, and grossly hypocritical and offensive at worst."

There , feel better now? How convinient you haven't a care to make mention the Tibetians or the surviving Tiananmen Square witnesses simply because the so-called "madmen in Washington" aren't to blame.

Back in your ideological box.

Subject: RE: BS: Is 9/11 overworked?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 17 Sep 02 - 09:37 PM

sure the world after 9/11 may appear to be a scary place but its peanuts compared to what our parents & grandparents went through. How many people on this forum have ever been in a war? you can make your moralistic judgments on whether war is murder but it comes down to this: if your country is invaded and you defend yourself, are you murdering your invaders? the Danes or Poles for instance didnt have much choice in wwii as the Nazis overran them. When I was a kid my I watched Russian tanks surround my home town, after 750,000 Russian and warsaw pact troops invaded my country.

the fact is no matter how peace loving you may be, in a war you either die for your country or preferably make someone poor bastard die for his. (and Taliesin or Merlin or whatever ) War is not exclusive to Europe.

Subject: RE: BS: Is 9/11 overworked?
From: musicmick
Date: 18 Sep 02 - 02:04 AM

You bet there is every reason to be scared of theses nuts. This gang is fanatic and willing to kill the world and themselves to make their point. If they are not stopped, no one is safe. They kill for no tactical reason, they kill for their god. I have always known that these fugitives from an old Gunga Din movie are the only, real threat to the world, not the US, not the Soviets, not the uncomfortably expanding membership in the nuclear weapons club. Their agenda is not even self interest or exploitation. It is religeous fervor. On a related topic, Americans focus on 9/11 because we identify with the victims. We understand that those 3000 died because they were Americans (or they were assumed to be Americans). We are Americans. We are the target. We will continue to be endangered until we excise these malignent cells from the body of humanity. I might add (with a sad nod toward irony) that the US bashers and the Israel bashers are as imperiled as the rest of us. It should be obvious that these zealots are equal opportunity murderers. They dont really care if you hate Jews or Americans. They'll get you just the same. Scared? You bet I'm scared.

Subject: RE: BS: Is 9/11 overworked?
From: GUEST,Taliesn
Date: 18 Sep 02 - 07:33 AM

(quote) "you can make your moralistic judgments on whether war is murder but it comes down to this: if your country is invaded and you defend yourself, are you murdering your invaders?"

Well, then, just what does "kill or be killed " mean? You've also not bothered to recall my equally clear point : (quote)

"This does *not* mean that I can *not * recognize self-defense or coming to the defense of another under attack , but continuing to reinforce the concept of all *organized ( thus premditated) killing* is still *murder* ........"

Perhaps you'd feel more at ease with the more legalistically correct "manslaughter."

The *context* that you apparently need reminding of was another member here decided to take issue with my referring to the Twin Towers atrocity as *mass murder* and tried to make the misplaced *moral equivalency* case for the bombings of Dresden,Hiroshima, & Nagasaki because civilian targets were involved. I made the historic contextual case of the civilian population was a part of an already *declared* War effort and , while still an act of "organized killing" ( thus "premeditated") it was also employed to put an end to the cycle of War initiated and prosecuted by the Axsis powers. It worked. Case closed.

It seems that basic historic fact was *inconvinient* to the person whom tried and failed to make that "moral equivalency" case. Perhaps some would've prefered I use the other legalistic term of *executed*. In my mind the tactical intent and result are the same. I suppose the debate really only arrises over the *cause*, the reason for justifying civilian *execution*

The case for engaging in killing for self-defense or the defense of another has been made so I fail to understand why you're taking such a stance as if I had not.

Subject: RE: BS: Is 9/11 overworked?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Sep 02 - 01:27 PM

"another member here decided to take issue with my referring to the Twin Towers atrocity as *mass murder* and tried to make the misplaced *moral equivalency* case for the bombings of Dresden,Hiroshima

You sure about that, Teribus? As I recall it the post you refer to was making the point that September 11 wasn't an act of war, it was an act of murder; and that since acts of mass killing in war, such as Hiroshima and Dresden, aren't counted as murder, but as acts of war, calling September 11 an act of war serves in a way to give it a respect it doesn't deserve.

That's not a point I agree with (acts of war in my view can often be criminal, and I look forward to an effective International War Crimes Court, so that maybe that won't just be applied against the people who lose the wars) - but if my recollection is correct, thebwriter wasn't objectomh to September 11 being desrcibed as "mass murder", but to it being dignified with the term "an act of war".

Subject: RE: BS: Is 9/11 overworked?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Sep 02 - 01:28 PM

"another member here decided to take issue with my referring to the Twin Towers atrocity as *mass murder* and tried to make the misplaced *moral equivalency* case for the bombings of Dresden,Hiroshima

You sure about that, Teribus? As I recall it the post you refer to was making the point that September 11 wasn't an act of war, it was an act of murder; and that since acts of mass killing in war, such as Hiroshima and Dresden, aren't counted as murder, but as acts of war, calling September 11 an act of war serves in a way to give it a respect it doesn't deserve.

That's not a point I agree with (acts of war in my view can often be criminal, and I look forward to an effective International War Crimes Court, so that maybe that won't just be applied against the people who lose the wars) - but, if my recollection is correct, the writer wasn't objecting to September 11 being described as "mass murder", but to its being dignified with the term "an act of war".