Interesting article in Irish Times today...

Gargoyle · 19-12-2001 6:27am #1

I know most of you will disagree with this article , but I thought it might be an interesting read.

Stuck in neutral: Ireland's
smug America-bashers

It is an issue that is particularly close to the bone for Irish Americans. Of the 3,000 who lost their lives at the World Trade Centre, an estimated 25 per cent have Irish backgrounds. In the case of the fire-fighters, at least 110 of the 343 killed were of Irish ancestry.

Anyone who has spent time with the families of such victims knows the fierce pride they continue to have in their Irish heritage and the cultural and social framework it provides for them. Thus, there is considerable shock and anger in the Irish-American community over Irish criticism of the United States and the war to defeat those who carried out September 11th.

The possibility of an Irish-American backlash over what has been perceived as rabid American bashing in Ireland should not be underestimated. Just one letter to the Irish Voice, from Patricia Farrell of Long Island, gives a flavour of how many Irish Americans feel.

She writes: "What fools we Irish-Americans have been. Why did we keep the tradition alive here all these years? We must have been laughing stocks going to Ireland, sending money . . . My mother-in-law who scrubbed floors at night to support five kids always sent clothes and more home when she needed help herself . . . this has really put an end to anything I will ever have to do with Ireland."

Her bitter comments are not unusual as the full impact of the war hits home and the extraordinary ordeal of those Americans who lost loved ones on September 11th becomes apparent.

At a time when the heroism and bravery of so many Irish-Americans is rightly being remembered in America and across the world, reports of anti-American sentiment have been flooding across the Atlantic from Ireland, ancestral home to the largest number of victims on September 11th.

Published criticisms in Ireland have received widespread distribution here. Comments such as comparing Bush and any Western leader who supports him to "war criminals" are viewed with utter disbelief. It has been clear for some time that American actions, no matter how justified, are opposed by a certain mindset in Ireland which professes a bogus moral superiority when it comes to the use of force.

Many are the same people who justified every brutal crackdown by eastern European regimes under communism in order to protect the old order.

The reflexive anti-Americanism we have witnessed is unable to distinguish between military actions that are clearly correct and flow from a moral prerogative, and those that have no such clear-cut definition. There is a massive difference between the just wars in Afghanistan, and the US air campaign in Serbia to remove Milosevic, and other American actions which are correctly scrutinised and criticised such as in Vietnam and in Central America.

Nobody is arguing that American foreign policy in the past has been blameless in stirring many conflicts around the world. Yet it is barely stated in Ireland, for instance, that the biggest giver of humanitarian aid to Afghanistan, even under the Taliban, was the US.

This lack of nuance, and the outright condemnations of American foreign policy sits strangely in a world where the question of whether you support armed actions to protect democracy or violence on behalf of religious fundamentalism has suddenly been placed front and centre.

Many Irish critics are using the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and American support for Israel as the convenient explanation for what happened on September 11th. Islamic fundamentalism, as vicious as any fascism that Hitler practised, is somehow excused in that context.

The fact that so many Arab countries have no democracy, no rights for women and malevolent dictatorships that harbour murderous Islamic fundamentalists is not as a result of American foreign policy but is of a much deeper historical origin. Yet the Irish critics are unable to acknowledge that because they are blinded by prejudice.

What is particularly insulting is the attempt by some to somehow shape a moral equivalence between the actions of President George Bush and Osama bin Laden, as if one was equal to the other.

TO MANY Americans now, Ireland seems stuck in a time warp, as the questions and dithering about whether it should join an EU peacekeeping force for Afghanistan show.

Bin Laden and al-Qaeda are the Hitler and Wehrmacht of this generation, bent on mass destruction, and to pretend otherwise is ridiculous. As Martin Luther King jnr has stated: "It is not where you stand at times of comfort and convenience, but at times of challenge and controversy that is important."

Right now Ireland is marooned in a no-man's-land.

Perhaps that is why Irish attitudes are hard to fathom. A well-connected friend in Ireland seriously suggested last week that the US should have sent in ground troops only because that would have levelled the playing field and not so many Afghan civilians would have been killed.

War by the Marquis of Queensbury rules is a new phenomenon when we are facing the deadliest enemy since Hitler, who, with the speed of lightning would gladly obliterate London, Dublin and any other major city where the infidels live. As the Observer newspaper reported last weekend, bin Laden's lieutenants were ready to carry out a major bombing in London, plans for which had already been drawn up and which would have likely cost thousands of lives.

Are the Irish completely blind to such realities? In fairness, the national day of mourning and the steadfast support of the Irish government have shown the other side of the coin, and thousands of ordinary Irish believe that the US is doing the right thing.

Yet the recent survey by the Eurobarometer agency, which showed 56 per cent in Ireland opposing the use of Irish airports for American supply planes, reinforced American suspicions that the Irish want to remain the hurlers on the ditch of Europe, always ready to criticise, never to act.

What are the Irish waiting for? A nuclear explosion in London or Washington before they even think about acting?

As Dante has stated, the hottest place in hell will be reserved for those who remain neutral in a time of moral crisis. Ireland is in danger of entering that circle of the damned.

duran duran · 19-12-2001 8:05am

It's heartfelt, but overstated - like a lot of this mans views generally. The anti Americanism he sees all around him is for the most part his emotional overreaction to any form of nuanced thinking at this time about Americas history, aims or intentions in the Middle East.

The WTC in downtown New York has only recently stopped smoking, so I don't blame him for feeling pissed at the mealy mouthed platitudes being expressed by the usual Irish suspects. But the Irish are world class at seeing the speck in their brothers eye and missing the beam in thier own.

That unfortunate tendency, ironically, is really what this article is both displaying and addressing. The political tensions that exist between the Irish and Irish Americans also exist between the many groups within Irish Americans itself. Niall O'Dowd writes as though he never learned this. Irish America is a more diverse proposition than either himself or his paper ever let on.

Easier to scorn the old sod than face the multitude of opinions in your own backyard. It makes things look more unified too. (This from the city that gives us the "No gay Irish need apply" St.Patrick's Day Parade)

Last week he told Irish American gays and lesbians to shut up about the heroic - and gay - Father Mychal Judge. This week he's telling the Irish to shut up. Next week I do hope that he'll tell the conservative Republican Irish Americans to shut up too, but I wouldn't count on it...

bonkey · 19-12-2001 9:42am

Its an interesting read, but at the end of the day it seems to me that O'Dowd is basically writing a piece about how pissed he is that some / many Irish people disagree with him.

He draws constant comparisons between bin Laden and Hitler - a style of reporting I find particularly loathsome. It is not enough for bin Laden's crimes to stand on their own. The comparison is, quite frankly ludicrous (in my personal opinion), as are some of the "throwaway" comments.

After going on about the Irish criticism of the US actions, O'Dowd then goes on to "strengthen" his point through illustration - and mentions those who are opposed to Irish airports refuelling US military planes. It apparently has escaped Mr O'Dowd's attention that Ireland is still a neutral nation, and to many people this refuelling is a direct affront to that neutrality.

But no - no objectivity is offered. No reasoning for these people's actions is offered. All we get is scorn heaped on those he sees as hurlers on the ditch. I completely lost the thread when he came out with the line Many are the same people who justified every brutal crackdown by eastern European regimes under communism in order to protect the old order. Now, maybe my history is wrong, but I dont recall Ireland ever being a major supporter of communism - but O'Dowd is basically saying that those who criticise the US in their current actions are (for lack of a better term) "commie-lovers", which is obviously particularly offensive to a pro-US person like himself.

The article raises an interesting question - why is Ireland so vocal about this issue? Unfortunately, the article doesnt even attempt to answer said question - it is simply a vehicle for O'Dowd to heap scorn on those who dare to share an opinion which differs to his own.

I'm glad that the page the link leads to classifies this as an "opinion", because as anything else it is the epitomy of bad reporting. As a piece of "thought-provocation", I guess its not too bad.

jc

Sand · 19-12-2001 1:21pm

I agree with the overall opinion of the writer. Im glad that the government at least is offering the use of our airspace and airports for american aircraft involved in the operation. Given the woeful state of our milatary which is basically a mix of dads army and the boy scouts, we cant offer much else that the americans might actually need. I do feel the views of those who criticise this war (concern for civillian loss of life is a given, but saying americans should have sent in ground troops so less civillian lives and more american lives wouldve been lost- zero sum solution?) are based more on knee jerk anti americanism rather than a realistic grasp of the situation.

And I agree it is sad that this country contains so many of them, who will take American capital investment (on which the celtic tiger was founded) and American styles and products, whose security is realistically based on hoping NATO bails us out- but at the same time reserve the right to be smug. And why is Ireland so vocal about the issue- unknown, but my guess is that if you enter a college campus all you will see are left wing posters decrying American(s) [Foreign Policies/Domestic Policies/Idealogy/on Jerry Springer]. You wont see any right thinking groups, and not many centrist either. That imbalance continues right through Irish society (There are a few exceptions, Myers being one of them) which could go some way to explaining the vocalism of anti americanism.

Lefties reading that might go "But its not anti -american". My response would be that theres seems to be little interest in Frances (for example) indiscretions in foreign policy or domestic policy- despite France being closer to us and having more of a role in the EU than the US does?

I'm glad that the page the link leads to classifies this as an "opinion", because as anything else it is the epitomy of bad reporting. As a piece of "thought-provocation", I guess its not too bad.

If you want to see a piece of bad reporting in the Irish Times, where the reporter crosses from reporting the facts to making propaganda read Lara Marlowe's article on page 12 (World News) for Monday 17th December, entitled "Arafat seeks return to talks"
Example- "Israeli troops kidnapped more than 10 men" - I thought arrested or captured wouldve been more factual.

Or- "Washington chose this time of intense crisis to recall its Middle East peace envoy" - A way of writing "Washington has recalled its Middle East peace envoy" while at the same time criticising the US.

Theres a few other turns of phrase and wordings that display an inability to report the facts without allowing personal opinion to colour them.

Celt · 19-12-2001 1:39pm

Originally posted by Sand
I do feel the views of those who criticise this war are based more on knee jerk anti americanism rather than a realistic grasp of the situation.

Coo.
You know this how? I have friends and family in america, i also play game and am good friends with a lot of americans online, and i still think there wrong.

And I agree it is sad that this country contains so many of them

So not agreeing with america is sad?
If your not able to say, in your opinion, america is in the wrong, what kind of democracy are we living in?

who will take American capital investment (on which the celtic tiger was founded)

As does almost every other country in the world.

and American styles and products, whose security is realistically based on hoping NATO bails us out- but at the same time reserve the right to be smug.

America makes moeny out of us when we buy there goods, do you think they would have it any other way? America is the land of the religion of $$$.

And why is Ireland so vocal about the issue- unknown, but my guess is that if you enter a college campus all you will see are left wing posters decrying American(s) [Foreign Policies/Domestic Policies/Idealogy/on Jerry Springer].

Lol, if you dont agree with america, your either
a) immature
or
b) not normal?

You wont see any right thinking groups, and not many centrist either.

Most people who seem to think america is wrong, are idividuals, ie: they make up there own opinion.

Lefties reading that might go "But its not anti -american". My response would be that theres seems to be little interest in Frances (for example) indiscretions in foreign policy or domestic policy- despite France being closer to us and having more of a role in the EU than the US does?

France isnt in the news, america is, hence the reason.

Example- "Israeli troops kidnapped more than 10 men" - I thought arrested or captured wouldve been more factual.

Havent heard about this, but if they were in palestinian controlled areas when they were taken, would it not be kidnapped?

Theres a few other turns of phrase and wordings that display an inability to report the facts without allowing personal opinion to colour them.

No-one can report facts factually

Sand · 19-12-2001 2:49pm

White please read my post carefully a few times.

Ill illustrate

And I agree it is sad that this country contains so many of them
So not agreeing with america is sad?

Not trying to be sarcastic or anything but it seems quite clear from reading that quote you took means I think it is quite sad there is so many people who are anti- american/disagree-with-the-war, in this country. Not that disagreeing with America is sad. I wont say that youre lying about what I said because it appears to me that you merely misunderstood.

You know this how? I have friends and family in america, i also play game and am good friends with a lot of americans online, and i still think there wrong.

I believe their right because certain values have to be defended and hostile idealogies such as Bin Laden and his fundamentalist/terrorist buddies should be eliminated. You havent given any/any-good-reason why they shouldnt be eliminated- hence knee jerk anti americanism.

P.S Ive always stated that I dont care who (anyone on the board) you are friends with or where your family is. I also have family in the US, does that suddenly raise your opinion of my views? If not why do you think I care about your family/friends?

Lol, if you dont agree with america, your either a) immature
or
b) not normal

Please post where I said youre immature or not normal for not agreeing with the US? Im getting quite tired of people posting outright lies about what I have or havent said. Especially given the quote you used where I did not mention You, or individuals disagreeing with the US.

France isnt in the news, america is, hence the reason.

France has never faced the sustained bile that the US receives from left wing groups. Left wing groups have a dogged attitude as regards the US. If they had a choice between criticising France and the US it would be the US every time.

No-one can report facts factually

Which is why papers and other news sources have switched from being sources of news to being sources of propaganda- usually the lefts propaganda at that? That is not a satisfactory or acceptable position.

bonkey · 19-12-2001 2:53pm

Originally posted by Sand
I agree with the overall opinion of the writer. Im glad that the government at least is offering the use of our airspace and airports for american aircraft involved in the operation.

Given the woeful state of our milatary which is basically a mix of dads army and the boy scouts, we cant offer much else that the americans might actually need.

[/b]
Its not a question of what the Americans need. I believe that Ireland is militarily neutral, but not plitically so. Therefore, they can (and do) choose a side in a conflict, and support that side morally, without getting involved in the military side of things at all.

By giving the Americans use of our airspace for refuelling military assets, Ireland is also giving up any claim to military neutrality. We are actively supporting a military body involved in a foreign conflict.

The argument of "its the least we can do" is fine, as long as you acknowledge and support the casting away of Irish neutrality. For those who do not support such a decision, they are obliged by their beliefs on Irish neutrality to speak out, regardless of their position on teh right or wrong of the US in Afghanistan.

Mr. O'Dowd fails to recognise this, and takes their dissent as anti-American sentiment.

Switzerland is also a neutral nation. Unlike Ireland, it does not support in any active way. The Swiss have declared their support for the US in this action, and have offered assistance in any non-military aspects where they can be helpful. If the US wanted to refuel its military assets in Switzerland, it would be told politely to shag off. Does this mean that the Swiss are also anti-American? I dont think so.

I do feel the views of those who criticise this war (concern for civillian loss of life is a given, but saying americans should have sent in ground troops so less civillian lives and more american lives wouldve been lost- zero sum solution?) are based more on knee jerk anti americanism rather than a realistic grasp of the situation.

Well, I'm one of the biggest proponents of the "less civilian deaths". Here's why....armies are about protecting the lives of the defenceless. The US army is not conscription-based, so it is fair to say that those who are in Afghanistan are there because they chose a career which is potentially deadly, and where part of your job involves going into harm's way if necessary.

The civilians in Afghanistan are the defenceless that these soldiers are supposed to be protecting. The soldier is supposed to go into harm's way to protect these people.

Instead, we have a situation where the soldier is being kept out of harms way, because it is efficient to do so...but the net result appears to be more civilian deaths. Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps as many civilians would have died from M1A1 or M16 rounds as died from the smart-bombs, but I dont believe that would be the case, and I acknowledge that we will never know.

I'm not interested in the total "head count", I'm interested in the protection of civilian lives. If someone said to me that it was a toss-up between 10 US soldier's lives and 10 innocent Afghani lives, then I would ask who made the decision, and why the soldier's lives were considered more important. If it is a "zero-sum-game", then I still maintain that a greater premium should have been placed on civilian lives.

Mopst people have argued "its war, civilians die. Cope". Some have argued that I should not be so filppant with the soldiers lives. Well, I'm sorry, but "its war, soldiers die. Cope.", and you shouldnt be so flippant about civilian lives.

And I agree it is sad that this country contains so many of them, who will take American capital investment (on which the celtic tiger was founded) and American styles and products, whose security is realistically based on hoping NATO bails us out- but at the same time reserve the right to be smug.

I reserve the right to criticise. I wasnt aware that the cost of US investment was my personal freedom.

I would also point out that few (if any) US companies invested in Ireland cause we're such nice people. Its economics - we were a good place to invest in. It benefits the US companies and the US economy as much if not more than Ireland that these companies are here, yet we are supposed to be so grateful that we lose any right to criticise?

Lefties reading that might go "But its not anti -american". My response would be that theres seems to be little interest in Frances (for example) indiscretions in foreign policy or domestic policy- despite France being closer to us and having more of a role in the EU than the US does?

First of all, could you please, just once, try writing a post without having to brand those who take a differing stance to you? it is possible that there are those opposed to the actions in Afghanistan who are not "lefties". Could you explain why I am a lefty, for example? I wasnt aware that offering criticism was limited to one side of the spectrum of political ideology .

AS for criticisms of France....I seem to recall massive criticism heaped on them for some little nukes they went testing a while ago. Oh - gosh - maybe I should have criticised the US instead for trying to object to the tests, because I'm supposed to be anti-American, right?

Why is it so hard to grasp that it is possible to be against Al Qaeda, in favour of increasing the fight against terrorism, and still object to the methodology employed. Its not an attack on a nation - its a disagreement about a policy.

Example- "Israeli troops kidnapped more than 10 men" - I thought arrested or captured wouldve been more factual.

That depends.

If the men were captured or arrested inside Palestine, and removed to Israel, then technically it is international kidnapping. Unless Israel have formally declared war on Palestine, that is.

Theres a few other turns of phrase and wordings that display an inability to report the facts without allowing personal opinion to colour them.

Headlines are (and always will be) sensationalised. However, when the body of the text is clearly one-sided then there is no objective journalism taking place - and objectivity is what these people are supposed present.

jc

Typedef · 19-12-2001 5:04pm

Anyone who has spent time with the families of such victims knows the fierce pride they continue to have in their Irish heritage and the cultural and social framework it provides for them. Thus, there is considerable shock and anger in the Irish-American community over Irish criticism of the United States and the war to defeat those who carried out September 11th.

There is shock and anger in Ireland that the United State unilaterally abrogates the rights of people in other countries to gaurantee American "interests" and "freedoms". At which point did the American constitution get rewritten to , "all men in America are equal, everyone else can be rolled wholesale for American interests"?

The possibility of an Irish-American backlash over what has been perceived as rabid American bashing in Ireland should not be underestimated.

Irish-American backlash? Is America a vengeful god now or is this some kind of veiled threat?

She writes: "What fools we Irish-Americans have been. Why did we keep the tradition alive here all these years?

Presumably for yourself and your culture, you don't want your tradition or you do want your tradition then that is your issue, please don't try to dictate your socio-political agenda to me because you or one of your ancestors five generations ago claimed to be Irish ok?

We must have been laughing stocks going to Ireland, sending money . . . My mother-in-law who scrubbed floors at night to support five kids always sent clothes and more home when she needed help herself . . . this has really put an end to anything I will ever have to do with Ireland."

I don't know if you were laughing stocks, you sent money to people in Ireland that is your issue not mine, I most certainly did not receive any money from that lady so I feel in no way endebted to her, in fact I have worked for American firms for comparitively low wages, ergo the massive corporations that don't pay tax in Ireland but do in the US have in part been made into big corporations by low cost Irish workers like me. If you support Ireland and Irish causes then do so or do not, but kindly don't make that support contingent on support of the Bush administration and it's actions in Afghanistan by people in Ireland. Most people supported the Clinton Administration's foreign policies but, most in this country do not feel the same way for Bush and his policies, your mother-in-laws money is a non issue in this regard as far as I'm concerned.

Her bitter comments are not unusual as the full impact of the war hits home and the extraordinary ordeal of those Americans who lost loved ones on September 11th becomes apparent.

It's quite sickening that this guy is trying to make a kind of tacit suggestion that if you don't agree with war in Afghanistan that you should feel some kind of association and contrition for the bombing of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. I didn't fly the planes into the buildings and all I want is a peaceful world, your adopted contry the USA is waging war and killing thousands in Afghanistan, excuse me if I don't think that the killing of more innocents will somehow bring balance back to the Western world or the World at large.

At a time when the heroism and bravery of so many Irish-Americans is rightly being remembered in America and across the world, reports of anti-American sentiment have been flooding across the Atlantic from Ireland, ancestral home to the largest number of victims on September 11th.

Anti-Americanism is a pretty strong word, is there some kind of text book definition of it? I am against the actions of the US government in many areas and my geographic location or ancestory has no bearing or remit on the fortitude of my opinions, it's almost racist to suggest my views should be influenced by the former nationality of the people who lost their lives, I'm a little offended by that comment.

Published criticisms in Ireland have received widespread distribution here. Comments such as comparing Bush and any Western leader who supports him to "war criminals" are viewed with utter disbelief. It has been clear for some time that American actions, no matter how justified, are opposed by a certain mindset in Ireland which professes a bogus moral superiority when it comes to the use of force.

Sorry but the murder of innocent of little childern fobed off as "collateral damage" is no kind of justified war, and this guy seems to suggest that the hundreds of captured Taliban who were murdered some with their hands tied behind their backs is not a war crime. Also it is racist in the extreme to sugges that somehow being Irish implies that you have a propensity for superiority or moral fortitude, it is arrogant to brand the "mindset in Ireland" as bogus, under which set of circumstances does this guy get to pass judgement on the opinions of a nation of 4.5 million people?

Many are the same people who justified every brutal crackdown by eastern European regimes under communism in order to protect the old order.

Mindless drivel, I never supported the Soviet supression of the Hungarians, I wasn't even born so this argument is attempting to cast an illogical aspresion onto the opinion of a person because of their nationality or my nationality in retrospect, sorry but that is a seriously racist non-thought argument. This is the kind of thinking that gave rise to McCarthyism in the USA, reds in under the beds or in this case, Reds in Ireland.

The reflexive anti-Americanism we have witnessed is unable to distinguish between military actions that are clearly correct and flow from a moral prerogative

What reflixive anti-Americanism, the same muck-savage Irish communist anti-Americanism? Well excuse me for having an opinion I didn't realise anyone who disagreed with the US was a supporter of totalitarian communism and was intrinsicly nay reflexively anti-American, thanks for clearing that up. Also military action is not clearly correct it is clearly wrong and which moral perogative is it the US thinks it is endowed with the tabernacle of moral fortitude? No,no,no the United States is not entitled to fund Saddam Hussein, go to war with him, levy sanctions and kill millions in the process and brand itself as the protector of morality. Bottom line, killing "non-combatants" in Afghanistan is the most abhorant distain for morality there is. If the US had fortitude then it would not be prepared to take more innocent life. There exist no circumstances where it is morally correct to kill innocent people in retaliation for the killing of innocent people, this is a spiral of violence and is wrong.

There is a massive difference between the just wars in Afghanistan, and the US air campaign in Serbia to remove Milosevic, and other American actions which are correctly scrutinised and criticised such as in Vietnam and in Central America.

Slobodan Milosevice participated in ethnic cleansing but, to compare the bombing of Afghanistan (and who next Iraq, the same Iraq starving by the millions at the hands of US sactions?) is not on a par, it is a war of revanche and reflex. Further more the CIA has been usurping the rights of people throughout the world for the sake of "US interests" and "freedom & democracy", but the US constitution says "all men are created equal", so how is it feasible in the scheme of American foreign policy to subrogate the rights of non-American men? This is a form of slavery and elitism. Also acknowledging that America has perpitrated crimes against the the spirit of it's constitution and has crossed the line of moral fortitude in Vietnam and Central America is welcome, but does not vindicate military action in Afghanistan.

Nobody is arguing that American foreign policy in the past has been blameless in stirring many conflicts around the world. Yet it is barely stated in Ireland, for instance, that the biggest giver of humanitarian aid to Afghanistan, even under the Taliban, was the US.

Yes and the only giver of military aid to Israel to the tune of 8 billion dollars a year is the USA, the USA has vetoed over 20 resolutions which call for UN monitors to be placed in the Mid-East conflict so the 200 million dollars the US gave to Afghanistan before it invaded it seems relitavely irrelevant.

This lack of nuance, and the outright condemnations of American foreign policy sits strangely in a world where the question of whether you support armed actions to protect democracy or violence on behalf of religious fundamentalism has suddenly been placed front and centre.

The war in Afghanistan is supposed to be about toppeling the Taliban and catching Osama bin Laden, when did the war become a titanic struggle for democracy? The government being inserted into Afghanistan won't even hold elections for four years and in order to placate the Pakistani government a military dictator is being supported, Democracy? I think not.

Many Irish critics are using the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and American support for Israel as the convenient explanation for what happened on September 11th. Islamic fundamentalism, as vicious as any fascism that Hitler practised, is somehow excused in that context.

Great how original. Anyone who disagrees with the Israeli government's policy of annexation and colonization of Palestinian land must be a Nazi, or wait I thought we were all communists who supported the Soviet Union, the Soviet and Nazis fought the most terrible war in human history so I don't think it is possible to be both, but maybe I'm wrong? Make up your mind willl you?

Typedef · 19-12-2001 5:05pm

The fact that so many Arab countries have no democracy, no rights for women and malevolent dictatorships that harbour murderous Islamic fundamentalists is not as a result of American foreign policy but is of a much deeper historical origin. Yet the Irish critics are unable to acknowledge that because they are blinded by prejudice.

Clearly people are prejudiced by nature, but at which point in time did the US and it's war become typified by "moral prerogative" and the critics of the war in Ireland become "blinded by prejudice", the very suggestion of this kind of "moral perogative" is prejudiced and racist, why should your nationality or view on the war have any baring on your objectivity?

What is particularly insulting is the attempt by some to somehow shape a moral equivalence between the actions of President George Bush and Osama bin Laden, as if one was equal to the other.

Both have (allegedly) taken innocent human life. The taking of innocent life is the taking of innocent life no matter if our so-called friends to it or our so-called enemies do it. Taking of life is taking of life George Bush has no-more right to do it than I, he has more ability because he as an army of agencies who are willing to cast away the rights of others and murder others in the name of US interests, but he has no more weight of divine remit to do this than I.

TO MANY Americans now, Ireland seems stuck in a time warp, as the questions and dithering about whether it should join an EU peacekeeping force for Afghanistan show.

To many Irish, America seems to be a neo-colonial power, I happen to think one of the most wonderful things about living in Ireland is the country is (theoretically) militarily neutral and if that offends American citizens then I am sorry, but in no time in the future to I intend to vote for nor allow this country to participate in wars of aggression and revanche like in Afghanistan.

Bin Laden and al-Qaeda are the Hitler and Wehrmacht of this generation, bent on mass destruction, and to pretend otherwise is ridiculous. As Martin Luther King jnr has stated: "It is not where you stand at times of comfort and convenience, but at times of challenge and controversy that is important."

Hitler was the leader of Nazi Germany and the Wehrmacht the army of Nazi Germany, as far as I am aware Bin Laden leads no country nor is al-Queda a legitimate army of any country, therefore it is wholly wrong to suggest either. Also if the anti-Israeli Irish are Hitler supporters is this guy comparing the Irsh to al-Queda?

Right now Ireland is marooned in a no-man's-land.

Go ahead make sweeping statements without the least bit of effort to substanciate them.

Perhaps that is why Irish attitudes are hard to fathom. A well-connected friend in Ireland seriously suggested last week that the US should have sent in ground troops only because that would have levelled the playing field and not so many Afghan civilians would have been killed.

Conjecture proves nothing, also the only time this guy is mentioning Irish in a good light is when as above his Irish "friend" is suggesting sterner military action, a subtle form of subliminal suggestion actually.

War by the Marquis of Queensbury rules is a new phenomenon when we are facing the deadliest enemy since Hitler, who, with the speed of lightning would gladly obliterate London, Dublin and any other major city where the infidels live. As the Observer newspaper reported last weekend, bin Laden's lieutenants were ready to carry out a major bombing in London, plans for which had already been drawn up and which would have likely cost thousands of lives.

The Irish don't have their army in the holiest place of Islam (unlike the USA, this is Osama Bin Ladens primary motivation apparently), the Irish and British don't support the brutal occupation of Palestine by Israel, and the Irish are in theory militarily neutral , also the Irish don't support the inhumane sanctions levied against Iraq, which is a humanitarian disaster in progress, so the likely hood of an attack on Dublin is remote as to be nothing more than unintelligent hysteria.

Are the Irish completely blind to such realities? In fairness, the national day of mourning and the steadfast support of the Irish government have shown the other side of the coin, and thousands of ordinary Irish believe that the US is doing the right thing.

Reality, the reality is that the USA is trying to dictate terms to the world on how to conduct it's business. The fact that "terrorists" are willing to kill themselves and many others in order to try and change US foreign policy is evidence enough that people be they Irish or otherwise should not blindly and without question simply divorce the act of terrorism from it's socio-political intent. There are reasons people want to harm US citizens and no matter how much the US and it's allies deny it those reasons are not because the West lets it's women prance around in tight clothes, the reality of the situation is that the situation in Iraq and the Middle-East and the (precieved) occupation of Saudi-Arabia is the primary motivation behind the bombing of the Pentagon and the World trade center end of story.

Yet the recent survey by the Eurobarometer agency, which showed 56 per cent in Ireland opposing the use of Irish airports for American supply planes, reinforced American suspicions that the Irish want to remain the hurlers on the ditch of Europe, always ready to criticise, never to act.

I am quite proud of Irish neutrality and in my view anyone who wants to go and murder innocent non-combatants in Afghanistan in support of US neo-Imperialism in Afghanistan, Palestine and Iraq can do it under the name of some other country as frankly I would not live in a state that would participate in that kind of moral crime.

This entire article is not well argued and is filled with quasi-racial implications that I find offensive and badly argued, it plays on people's fear and emotions and suggests that anyone who does not agree with US foreign policy and the war in Afghanistan is a Nazi or Communist and that is shameful.

Sand · 19-12-2001 7:37pm

For anyone who cant be arsed to read all that(The previous two posts) I will summarise it for you
1)Its okay to not agree with the US. In fact youd be a neo colonialist not to.

2)The US is clearly wrong, they support Israel.

3)Bin Laden isnt Hitler, a threat to democracy or a threat to the western world in general. Not even a little.

4)Bush and Blair are clearly evil war crinimals.

5)Bombing Afghanistan is not correct, several hundred civillian might or have die(d) as a result of bombing. Weighed against the benefits of toppling a repressive regime ruling over 25 million people and defeating a significant portion of fundamentalist terrorists it is quite clear to see its not worth it, even in self defence.

Next bit is by implication given that Typedef has given no hint as to what he believes is an alternative he can agree with.

Seeing as economic sanctions might harm ordinary civillians as they have done in Iraq, they shouldnt be used either. The best thing to do is to get the UN to issue a strongly worded resolution. That or do nothing at all. Or better yet completely retreat from any region where people might get offended by a US presence.

Anyone recognising how completely unrealistic that last paragraph is?

mike65 · 19-12-2001 8:17pm

Thanks for the summary Sand!

Typedef, less is more and verbosity looses readers.

I agree with Sands' view, the Irish just love a war to wag thier fingers at!, hurlers on the ditch to the very end.

"We'll take your money every time but don't ask us to be of any practical help in a time of crisis."

Mike.

Sharkey · 19-12-2001 9:09pm

Originally posted by Sand
... The best thing to do is to get the UN to issue a strongly worded resolution. That or do nothing at all. Or better yet completely retreat from any region where people might get offended by a US presence. ...

You forgot about the part where the U.N. adds a paragraph to their resolution where they really do understand bin Laden's angst about U.S. foreign policy and Koffi Anon invites bin Laden over for tea to talk about those darn Israelis.

Typedef · 19-12-2001 10:25pm

If you can't be bothered reading it, that makes you s spectator not a participant, here's some free advice, the red button on your sky remote control is hard wired for windows Xp, with windows Xp you can, yes you can, push the red-button.

:cool: Thoughtcrime :cool:

Sand · 20-12-2001 1:37am

You cant blame them for not reading it typedef, why waste their time doing so when I provide a conscise summary of your views?

Celt · 20-12-2001 1:48pm

Not trying to be sarcastic or anything but it seems quite clear from reading that quote you took means I think it is quite sad there is so many people who are anti- american/disagree-with-the-war, in this country. Not that disagreeing with America is sad. I wont say that youre lying about what I said because it appears to me that you merely misunderstood.

You said, that it was sad there are so many anti americans in Ireland. Ergo, it is a sad thing that people dis agree with america.

You havent given any/any-good-reason why they shouldnt be eliminated- hence knee jerk anti americanism.

Of course i havent, this thread isnt about that, and i'm all for eliminitaing bin laden and al qaeda, i disagree with americas method.

Please post where I said youre immature or not normal for not agreeing with the US? Im getting quite tired of people posting outright lies about what I have or havent said. Especially given the quote you used where I did not mention You, or individuals disagreeing with the US.

er, my mistake, i took it that you meant that it was only college students dis agreeing.

France has never faced the sustained bile that the US receives from left wing groups. Left wing groups have a dogged attitude as regards the US. If they had a choice between criticising France and the US it would be the US every time.

As I said before, as far as im aware everyone here is an individual and are posting there own opinions.

Which is why papers and other news sources have switched from being sources of news to being sources of propaganda- usually the lefts propaganda at that? That is not a satisfactory or acceptable position.

*shrugs*
Both sides use propoganda, you will have to deal with it because i dont see it changing.

bonkey · 20-12-2001 2:22pm

Originally posted by Sand
Seeing as economic sanctions might harm ordinary civillians as they have done in Iraq, they shouldnt be used either. The best thing to do is to get the UN to issue a strongly worded resolution. That or do nothing at all. Or better yet completely retreat from any region where people might get offended by a US presence.

Anyone recognising how completely unrealistic that last paragraph is?

Yup - you manage to completely miss the issue about the complaints against the sanctions, and list a very short and incomplete list of solutions to attempt to illustrate that the sanctions are necessary.

Put a different way, the words you put into Typedef's mouth are ridiculously simplistic, and take the typical approach of "what is being done is right, because, well, there are only <n> other options all of which are stupid". Unfortunately (for you), there are far more possibilities than the ones you put forward.

Basically, you're right - your "implications" show how weak your understanding of the possibilities are, which rather than undermining Typedef's arguments (as you intended) seems to show your inability or unwillingness to even comtemplate the possibility that realistic alternatives exist.

Also...given your propesnity to constantly refer to "lefties", could you answer the following simple questions :

1) Are there any "lefties" who are also American citizens?
2) If so, are they *all* anti-American, or opposed to the current conflict?
3) Are there any "lefties" who are in favour of the war?
4) If the newspapers are full of "the lefts propaganda", why are they so supportive (in general) of the war in Afghanistan? Why isnt every Irish headline decrying the war every day?

Sand · 20-12-2001 9:41pm

Put a different way, the words you put into Typedef's mouth are ridiculously simplistic, and take the typical approach of "what is being done is right, because, well, there are only <n> other options all of which are stupid". Unfortunately (for you), there are far more possibilities than the ones you put forward

Fair enough. However neither you nor Typedef have outlined alternatives that I am aware of. And whether what is being currently done is more or less right isnt a terribly practical consideration, more that is far more effective- that was my point.

seems to show your inability or unwillingness to even comtemplate the possibility that realistic alternatives exist.

See above.

1) Are there any "lefties" who are also American citizens?

The closest thing to a european socialist in the US would be a Democrat Id imagine. Even they are more to the centre than your average european socialist though.

2) If so, are they *all* anti-American, or opposed to the current conflict?

Oh no, theyre american lefties you see- patriotism and all that is quite high and over rides the natural need to criticise. The minority that is criticising the war is mostly of the left as far as i can see. On the other hand Senator John McCain also criticised the war, but his criticism was that ground troops shouldve been sent in to do the job right.

3) Are there any "lefties" who are in favour of the war?

Clinton is apparently (Lets face it, it would be political suicide not to be in favour of the war, for the US politicians anyway), but Ive yet to see a leftie on this board endorse the war and neither have the local Socialist Workers Communist Lennist Marxist Judean Peoples Front student groups put up any posters calling for the elimination of terrorism.

4) If the newspapers are full of "the lefts propaganda", why are they so supportive (in general) of the war in Afghanistan? Why isnt every Irish headline decrying the war every day?

They do decry the war- subtly of course but they do. Youll notice how the Taliban were hyped up from just a bunch of thugs with guns into this army the US could never hope to defeat easily. As the Taliban collapsed the emphasis switched to reporting how the bombing was killing ordinary civillians etc etc. Any US reverse was hyped up- remember those flimsy claims that the Taliban made about capturing special forces and shooting down choppers etc- all a load of rubbish but it was good enough for the media to report nearly gleefully.
However the left wing bias is not related just to the afghan war.

JustHalf · 20-12-2001 10:57pm

Of course you won't see student SWP's providing realistic alternatives - most (not all) of who I've talked to aren't exactly reasonable people. I had an argument with two about the war (me being pro, if you haven't already guessed). They couldn't give me a single reason against the war. All of their points (most of which based in pseudo-fact) could be boiled down to "America is evil"

Apparently, the US, along with supporting Israel (which is bloody despicable, apparently - no reasons given for this opinion either), have also supplied weapons to every single terrorist organisation on the planet.

What, including Hamas?

After they'd ranted, they ignored me. They never addressed any of my points.

Sand · 21-12-2001 12:56am

They rarely will. Theyve already made up their minds. Dont confuse them with facts.

Typedef · 21-12-2001 6:00am

They?

Anyhow, here is an alternative. Instead of trying to murder eveyone who you brand as a "terrorist" try understanding the motivation behind the action of "terror". Here is a newsflash, ordinary people don't just up and decide to become "terrorists", ordinary people are driven to "terrorism", but if given a choice most would rather be doctors and lawyers. In fact I would suspect most people on "their" side as opposed to "our" side are much like "us". An alternative to the current war would be to recognise that the "other side" is made up of people who have been driven to desperate acts, people who are much like "us", in a different set of circumstances "we" could be "them", so lets not try to kill "them" wholesale, no, instead understand that legitimate grievances exist that "we" collectively may seek to placate and that this would be an entirely more intellegent and illucidated course of action.

The USA may be able to kill lots of the so-called "terrorists", but here is another newsflash, the USA will never kill all of al-Queda and so long as the causes of "terrorism" exist, so will the "terrorist".

If the USA were serious about placating the "terrorist" the action being taken now would be political not military. Example UK and Ireland, the UK is a military superior foe, but short of killing every man, woman and child in Ireland the UK could never militarily defeat the "terrorist", but if you remove the reason for "terrorism" people don't want to commit "terrorist" acts anymore so your problem ceases to exist.

Come on lads, this concept is not exactly rocket science.
Again I will say, the USA will make martyrs of al-Queda and that is more valuable to the cause of al-Queda then the military effectiveness of the organisation would ever or will ever be.

The 1916 rising used the same logic you know.... a bloodbath, that's what Pearse wanted, to make martyrs of men rising up against the British, to stir nationalism, or so the idealised history of him goes.... so it must have worked.

Alternative to military action? A state for the Palestinians, extend of the law of return to the four million Palestinian refugees expelled from Jewish Israel (if you are Jewish though, you need not have been born in Israel to become a citizen under the law of return, what a shining example of democracy huh?), get rid of the sanctions against Iraq(remove Saddam if you have to, I don't really care, millions of people are dying here, stop making pith excuses and remove the sanctions now), remove American troops from Muslim holy soil in Saudi Arabia, some Muslims find this an affront to the Muslim religion realise this and do something about it(aside from making more excuses or calling the Muslims fundamentalist or terrorists).
Or to put it another way, stop ignoring and belittling the grievances of the people who support al-Queda, Hamas and other involved groups. Sure I accept that there will be hardliners in the previous groups, but there will be hardliners (or the colourful term "hawks") on "this" side who just want to "nuke" people, but that will only spur people to retaliate, that is called a spiral of violence, it's the same mad kind of destructive thinking that rationalises war and turns the murder of people because of war into "collateral damage", but no-one has the right to abrogate the rights of the other side, nor place the needs and "interests" of "this" side as pre-eminant to the needs and rights of the "other" side this is the problem ok?

Sand · 21-12-2001 12:16pm

Its Terrorist, not "Terrorist". Same for "terror" and "terrorism"

We might be like them? Well you might find it conceivable to murder women and children but I dont.

Placate the terrorists? Like Chamberlain placated the "legimate greviances " of Hitler?

Remove the reason for terrorism and there will be no terrorism? Hmmm Omagh, Real IRA, Continuity IRA etc etc- these remind you of anything given the peace process and the British bending over backwards to placate the terrorists?

State for palestinians? Not under US juristiction.

Law of return for palestinians? Not under US juristiction.

Get rid of sanctions against Iraq? Conceivable only insofar as
they bury Saddam the same day.

Remove American troops from muslim holy soil? Theyre there to protect Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

stop ignoring and belittling the grievances of the people who support al-Queda, Hamas and other involved groups.

Just wondering, do these people call al-Queda and Hamas "terrorists" too?

JustHalf · 21-12-2001 1:46pm

No... they're freedom fighters. Sure they're fighting against "the man", so they must be good!!!

tools · 21-12-2001 2:44pm

Originally posted by Sand

Placate the terrorists? Like Chamberlain placated the "legimate greviances " of Hitler?

From Chomsky's *Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies*

"Two days after the overwhelming U.N. votes in favor of the unreported disarmament resolutions that the United States opposed virtually alone, a Times story reported a vote on a resolution that 'reaffirms the United Nations' previous strong condemnation of international terrorism in all its forms,' calls 'on all countries to cooperate in eradicating terrorism,' and 'invites the Secretary General to seek the views of member states on terrorism and on 'the ways and means' of combating it.' The resolution passed 128 to 1, Israel alone in opposition, with the United States abstaining and 'the other 128 members present vot[ing] in favor.' The headline reads, 'Syria, Isolated at U.N. Drops Terrorism Plan.' Five days later, the General Assembly passed a resolution condemning 'Terrorism Wherever and by Whomever Committed.' The vote was 153 to 2, with Israel and the United States opposed and Honduras alone abstaining. In particular, all NATO countries voted for it. This vote was unreported, and unmentioned in the December 26 review of the session. The U.S.-Israel objection was presumably based on the statement that 'nothing in the resolution would prejudice the right of peoples, particularly those under colonial or racist regimes, or under foreign occupation or other forms of domination, to struggle for self-determination, freedom and independence, or to seek and receive support for that end'" (p. 85)

The rationale given by the U.S. for rejecting the U.N. resolution, if applied, would in effect, make the French, Dutch, Belgian, etc resistance and partisans who fought against fascist occupation "terrorists".

Out of curiosity, since you're using irrelevant 1930's analogies, who would you have supported in the spanish civil war? Franco or the reds? Or would you have concurred with the "non-intervention" policy of britain and france? which of course favoured Franco heavily, and gave Hitler the confidence to start WW2.

Sand · 21-12-2001 3:21pm

presumably based eh?

As for the french dutch and belgians i again must explain what i find unjustifiable as regards terrorism. Tried and failed to explain it to typedef but lets see if i can succeed here.

Terrorists target and murder women and children. They attack targets with no milatary value, seeking simply to terrorise a population into giving them what they want. This would fit the profile of the suicide bombers attacking Israel, and the attacks on the WTC, the pentagon (It hardly has milatary value- its a big office for all intents and purposes) and the other downed aircraft. Sadly there are a few people here who confuse milatary action ( a brave struggle for freedom by a guerilla army) with outright murderous terrorism.

Given the WW2 partisans tactics for fighting fascism did not include (that i know of and certainly not to any significant degree) bombing german civillians in resteraunts, pubs and supermarkets and instead on targeting their troops and logistics it might be safe to assume they were not terrorists.

As for Spain? I would have gone for the non- intervention route myself. Sure the communists were the elected government but they and their lackeys went on a campaign of terror that claimed the lives of thousands of men and women of the Church, and as we all know Franco was hardly a better choice. I can see your hoping to spring "Why get involved in afghanistan then?" on me next. To forestall you id say because Afghanistan got involved with Bin Laden. And the Interim Government appears to be a better option than the Taliban. At the very least women arent treated as chattel and there isnt as many public executions on the football fields.

bonkey · 21-12-2001 3:32pm

Originally posted by tools
The vote was 153 to 2, with Israel and the United States opposed <snip>. In particular, all NATO countries voted for it.

Exactly how is this possible, when the US is a member of NATO?

jc

tools · 21-12-2001 4:41pm

Originally posted by Sand
Terrorists target and murder women and children. They attack targets with no milatary value, seeking simply to terrorise a population into giving them what they want.

So you'd take the line the IRA took for a while and say that "legitimate targets", security forces' personnel and installations, are fine. Collateral damage to use an expression is likely in these cases. Of course there's no need to mention loyalist paramilitaries who didn't even bother excusing their actions. All catholics were legitimate targets. Of course WW2 resistance groups hit civilian targets such as trains, collaborators , puppet government officials etc).

Sadly there are a few people here who confuse milatary action ( a brave struggle for freedom by a guerilla army) with outright murderous terrorism.

At what point does freedom fighting become terrorism? It's arguable that resistance forces only made things worse for people in the occupied countries. The Massacres at Tulle and Oradour-sur-Glane are a case in point.

As for Spain? I would have gone for the non- intervention route myself. Sure the communists were the elected government but they and their lackeys went on a campaign of terror that claimed the lives of thousands of men and women of the Church,

Not quite. The government was not communist for a start. As with World War I, the spark that ignited the conflict was an assassination. In revenge for the murder of a Communist lieutenant, the former finance minister of Spain, José Calvo Sotelo, was arrested and killed on July 13, 1936, by men in officers' uniforms. Four days later an army mutiny, led by Franco, broke out in Spanish Morocco. Within 48 hours army units all over Spain had joined the revolt against political instability and the forces of the left. Then the bloodbath started. The church was firmly on the side of fascism. However Franco's forces killed many more civilians.

tools · 21-12-2001 4:43pm

Originally posted by bonkey

Exactly how is this possible, when the US is a member of NATO?

jc

That's fierce nitpicking. All NATO countries BUT the US we assume Chomsky meant.

bonkey · 21-12-2001 5:27pm

Originally posted by tools
That's fierce nitpicking. All NATO countries BUT the US we assume Chomsky meant.

It is fierce nitpicky. Unfortunately, I feel it is incumbent on any form of reporter or historian to be accurate in their portrayal and usage of words. While its not necessarily relevant in this case, entire meanings and subtexts can be changed/added/removed by such apparently careless errors.

I have no issue with typos and poor grammar. Its when the actual statement is incorrect that I draw the line.

Call me a pedant

jc

Typedef · 21-12-2001 6:09pm

If I could just move my arm
Pendant

Sand · 21-12-2001 6:17pm

So you'd take the line the IRA took for a while and say that "legitimate targets", security forces' personnel and installations, are fine.

No, Id take the line that the IRA are terrorists. They target women and children with their bombs.

At what point does freedom fighting become terrorism?

When they start targeting civillian and/or non- milatary targets.

The church was firmly on the side of fascism. However Franco's forces killed many more civilians.

And thus legimate targets in your opinion? It might be fairer to say that the government was hostile towards the church and fascism was supportive of it.

And again, whose keeping the scorecard where if you kill X amount of civillians deliberately its okay, as long as the other guy kills more?

Typedef · 21-12-2001 9:40pm

When they start targeting civillian and/or non- milatary targets.

What does that mean that because of bloody Sunday, the British military are terrorists? Thought not, so if you are not a terrorist but, a soldier when you kill in the name of a state does that mean that al-Queda are not terrorists, as by all accounts al-Queda were running the Taliban, where the Taliban were the government of Afghanistan whether recognised as so or not? Or was it that the Taliban were "terrorists"? If the Taliban were "terrorists" then by which criteria are the Taliban being labeled so? By the criteria laid down by the USA? The same criteria that has allowed untold human rights abuses to be perpitrated in various countries for the "good" of the USA? Please clarify.

And again, whose keeping the scorecard where if you kill X amount of civillians deliberately its okay, as long as the other guy kills more?

Apparently, it's ok by supporters of the war in Afghanistan to kill because the USA has a "moral perogative" but, watch out, if you are deemed to be a "terrorist" then you are not entitled to kill people. The topic is drifting towards who are legitimate targets Sand, you seem to think that when the USA and it's allies kill innocent people that it is legitimate and justifiable, but the same moral equivalence cannot be extended to the "other" side, which if I may suggest seems a bit ilogical? Sure, the Americans have a saying "mights is right", but by that definition you might well vindicate the Chinese annexation and colonization of Tibet, which last time I checked "we" still didn't.

This notion of them and us, that somehow "their" side are a load of murdering monsters is a non-thought, it's propaganda. "They" are much like "us" Sand, they are people, just like us.

Hath not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?

"They" have rights, "they" can't be bombed into submission, that is the lesson of "fighting terrorism", the act of fighting the "terrorist" only makes their cause the stronger, makes martyrs for "them", in the end military action has to be self defeating, it is self defeating for the "terrorist" because he/she does not have a media propaganda machine ready to explain away their murder as "collateral damage" and it is futile for the attacking power because the act of supression makes the grievance of the terrorist all that bit stronger.

Sand · 21-12-2001 11:36pm

Bloody Sunday was hardly a text-book case of the British Army.

For the next part I want you to concentrate very hard. Al-Queda are terrorists because they deliberately target civillians. The US does not. I have told you that several times, and you still ask me why i think that terrorism is unjustified. Dont ever ask me again, because it will only be a sign that you cant read.

And giving them everything they want will make them weaker? Where does their wish list end? Pure genius.

And you still insist on using "terrorist" in relation to Al-Queda and suicide bombers. Can I ask why?

JustHalf · 22-12-2001 12:08am

Typedef, the primary targets of the US are not civilians. And I don't remember the status of those poor people in the WTC ever being militarised. Also, when you try to ask a question please ask one clearly? The first paragraph of your last post is all over the place.

Oh, and with regards to Chomsky:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/guestcolumnists/horrad12-19-01.htm

Typedef · 22-12-2001 1:09am

Bloody Sunday was hardly a text-book case of the British Army.

How easy it is for you to cast aside the actions of people on "our" side yet prosecute the "other" side for their transgressions.

For the next part I want you to concentrate very hard. Al-Queda are terrorists because they deliberately target civillians. The US does not.

Beg to differ, the USA deliberately dropped atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, now I know you will say the USA was in a state of war so the killing and maiming of hundreds of thousands of people was justafied,but al-Queda supporters would claim that al-Queda is and was at war with the US so how is the mass murder of one set of people by another become excusable on one side but not another for you? This dualistic method of enforcing "our" moral values is a kind of elitist dogma that proports the US as the supreme exponent of fortitude and it is at it core a great big load of it. How about during the Vietnam war US forces quite delibrately murdered villages of people who were suspected of being communists example Mai Lai? I'm sure you might define quite a few incidents as "hardly a text-book" but at a certain point, the blanket ascription of such nonsenses become glaringly obvious and entirely untenable.

Really I find it absurd that you claim the USA may kill innocent people in the course of war, sometimes as above delibrately and in a premeditated fashion but somehow all of these atrocites are excusable under the umbrella of fighting terrorism or fighting communism or fighting (insertyourism).

I have told you that several times, and you still ask me why i think that terrorism is unjustified. Dont ever ask me again, because it will only be a sign that you cant read.

Don't you think that you are oversimplifying the argument here a little? Lumping "terrorism" as one seperate and tangible enemy that has no motive but it's own perpetuation and ingratiation is a fallacy.

And giving them everything they want will make them weaker? Where does their wish list end? Pure genius.

Them who? The Palestinians? The Iraqi's dying by the millions? The villagers in afghanistan who did nothing wrong but still got murdered(justafiably according to your, "smoke em out" view of "terrorism") or someone else? Please define who you mean by them? Are you trying to suggest that all terrorists want the same thing and that "they" all have the same agenda? I don't know where "their" wish list ends because I'm sure lots of the so-called "terrorist" groups have massively different "wish-lists". Please clarify.

And you still insist on using "terrorist" in relation to Al-Queda and suicide bombers. Can I ask why?

Not that I'm trying to suggest you haven't read my post, or haven't understood it, but again like I say, one person's "terrorist" is another persons hero, martyr, whatever. Look a Pearse, at the time a terrorist to both British and Irish, and then a hero and martyr to the Irish once the British put him to death. My point? It is arrogant to kill people because that person or those people are branded "terrorists", because pretty soon one persons terrorist, is a martyr and then a national hero.

JustHalf, I'm not trying to say that the bombing of the World Trade Center was justafied as a "legitimate target", but the USA has in the past like in the bombing of Japan and the various massacres in Vietnam murdered innocent people quite delibrately, so under which set of circumstances did the US endow itself with the right to "accidentally" kill more civilians?

Who really believes that when "military" targets are bombed by the US with the US aware that it's weapons are not 100% acurate that the resulting civilian or innocent death if you prefer is justafiable as "collateral damage"?
How can the US say "it's ok for the US to take innocent life, but only because we don't really mean to". Even if I were to believe that all the so-called "collateral-damage" casaulties were accidents and not a means of trying to undermine the base of support for regieme X or Y, collateral damage or acceptable loss is as much a calculated and premeditated taking of life as any other and thus if you condemn one form of innocent life being taken via "terrorism"(however you define that?) then you must also recognise and condemn the taking of more innocent life via the colourful term "collateral damage", or if collateral-damage does not do it for you, how about "protecting American interests"? How does it sit on the pallette of the high and mighty "terrorist" hater when the evidence of USA sending the CIA to support oppressive dictators, or toppel governments, or simply assisinate people often with civilian "collateral damage" is presented? All to easy to sit back in "our" little enclave of privelege in the West and brand preceived oppoents as terrorists then actually force "our" politicians to deal with the "terrorist's" issues.

So while the people in the World Trade Center were "non-combatants", the USA has killed quite a few or supported people who have killed quite a few (the Israelis spring to mind) innocent non-military people. Lets face it, if it were not for the vehement pro-Israeli stance of the USA, the Palestinians would not be living under brutal and constant state-terrorism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would have been settled long ago. I'm not saying destroy Israel, I'm saying, if the US can't be objective enough to mediate an accord (as supplying Israel with 8 billion dollars of mostly military aid each year would suggest) then at least step back and allow the UN, or the European Union mediate. Stop trying to militarily crush those who would oppose the US and it's policies, clearly that kind of policy is doomed only to a miasma of ever spiraling death, a cycle of suffering, lets end it now, not in 30 or 40 or 50 years.

Sand · 22-12-2001 1:11am

Hmm well I dont know about you but this Chomsky chap looks totally unbiased and reasonable to me.

Sand · 22-12-2001 1:25am

Im Irish. If I was going to fall for your obvious "debating" style of baiting your opponent with emotive arguments dont you think i wouldve railed on about the British Army? Keep it for the Judean Peoples Front meetings.

You obviously didnt read the next part hard enough. Try again.

Terrorism is quite simple. You either support it or oppose it. And its a philosophy/methodology used by tangiable enemies.

They=Terrorists.

Its not arrogant to kill terrorists. Its pretty bloody smart to kill them before they kill you.

Lets face it, if it were not for the vehement pro-Israeli stance of the USA.......the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would have been settled long ago.

Youe right- but not in the way you think.

Im going to ask you straight out now to answer Yes, or No-

1)Do you believe that acts of terrorism including suicide bombings of women and children in Israel, the bombings carried out by dissident republicans and loyalists in Northern Ireland, and the 9/11 attacks are justifiable?

2)If you believe they are not justifiable will you condemn them unreservedly?

I know youll write a small novel trying to cloud your answer so Im asking you to begin your answer with Yes, or No.

Lets face it, if it were not for the vehement pro-Israeli stance of the USA, the Palestinians would not be living under brutal and constant state-terrorism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would have been settled long ago.

Hobbes · 22-12-2001 6:02am

Originally posted by Sand
Terrorism is quite simple. You either support it or oppose it. And its a philosophy/methodology used by tangiable enemies.

Certainly we oppose it but I like how you claim the IRA as an example of Terrorism without citing any of the other factors of Northern Ireland? What about the Unionist terrorist groups? Or the state run terrorism that happend 20-30 years ago? Or the climate in N.I. that brought about those groups?

So if a group scares a population into submission, then I guess that would make America Terrorists too?

Removing the terrorists (in your case by killing them) is not removing the causes of terrorism.

Sand · 22-12-2001 1:03pm

Nothing justifies terrorism. There is no justifification for targeting women and children. You mention the other factors in Northern Ireland. How many of those have been addressed by bombing pubs and resteraunts? And how many have been addressed by political action?

And the IRA are terrorists.

Typedef · 22-12-2001 3:01pm

Strange really how you Sand, have managed to miss my point about
Japan, Vitenam, Central America, Countries in the arab world. You have managed to miss my point about how the US has quite delibrately killed innocent people in the afore mentioned countries and regions, you have also managed to miss my point about the US and it's platitudes about how civilian casaulties are "collateral-damage", quite a convienent fob-off that phrase really "collateral-damage". Seems as if the high and mighty "terrorist" hater is only capable of passing judgement on the "other" side, while "this" side and it's atrocities are excusable.

Lets face it, if it were not for the vehement pro-Israeli stance of the USA.......the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would have been settled long ago.

Youe right- but not in the way you think.

What's this meant to mean? If the USA did not supply billions in military aid to Israel, but instead gauranteed it's safety much like it does with Kuwait, the Palestinians would not live under state terrorism and repression. Yes go ahead make ascenine implications if you wish, the fact remains that the USA is the real problem in the Middle East and the US could achieve the aims it sets out ot safeguarding Israeli security without arming Israel to the teeth and allowing annexation and colonization of land by force.
Somehow though the equivalence of American supported Israeli occupation and aggression and the counter-aggression of "terrorist" groups opposed to said aggression seems to be irrelevant to pro-war, pro-Israeli, anti-"terrorism" people. It's abit hard to understand how the equivalence escapes some people, really it is, no-one bar the USA itself has endowed the USA with the moral power of life and death, the righteousness and fortitude to decide who is a terrorist and who is not, who has the right to protection and who is "evil" and must be "smoked out".

They=Terrorists.

Its not arrogant to kill terrorists. Its pretty bloody smart to kill them before they kill you.

Are you mad? How in the name of god can you lump "terrorists" into one convient little pot, point to it and say, there right there that is the enemy, yes some of the "terrorist" groups have different aims, but "we" should kill them all anyway, and instead of dealing with the "terrorist's" issues "we" should just keep killing successive waves of "them" and the more we kill the more "terrorists" "we" will create and so on.

Also on the point of killing innocents you have yet again managed to miss my point, I don't know if this is by design or not, but, what I say is , how can "we" (I use the term loosely here) get high and mighty about attacks perpitrated against the United States to such a degree that "we" may feel quite justified in waging war, when the United States itself has killed maimed and murdered , toppeled governments, installed dictators , the list goes on. The crux? The US has itself murdered innocent people delibrately is doing so right now and will do so in the future, so how is this murder excusable by your criteria while the "terrorist" murder is not? Who made the United States god here? Oh wait I forgot, the United States did that all for itself didn't it?

Sand · 22-12-2001 5:13pm

You cant read can you Typedef?
See my previous posts for definition of terrorism as opposed to milatary action (including guerillas). And nothing justifies terrorism.

Its meant to mean that if the US did not back Israel, Israel would not exsist.

Its not mad to kill terrorists- its smart.

You point blank refused to clarify your posistion on terrorism, or "terrorism" as you refer to it. I can only assume you believe terrorist actions including those of suicide bombers, republicans/loyalists and the 9/11 attacks to be justifiable. Given that, there is little point arguing with you.

Typedef · 22-12-2001 6:43pm

You cant read can you Typedef?

I know you are but, what am I?

See my previous posts for definition of terrorism as opposed to milatary action (including guerillas). And nothing justifies terrorism.

Oh wait, big difference, terrorism & military action. Why do you fail to understand that one side's terrorism is the other sides military action? Maybe you believe all the propagandist tripe that the US and sadly the Republic's government would have "us" believe? Do you honestly believe that al-Qeada are just evil and that it's members hate freedom and democracy and that is what this whole war is about? Has the thought entered your head that the members of the pertinant "terrorist" groups might have a motive other than hatred of TV and Big-Macs to attack the US? Say Israel-Palestine, say Iraq, say support of the Saudi Royal family? What planet are you living on? How can you just swallow all the crap that the media feeds "us" in the west about "terrorists", it's blatantly obvious that it is propaganda, pure and simple. The "justafied military action" is a skewed one-sided affair, the UN pressured by the world's only super-power has "sanctioned" America's right of self defence, tell me something, do the Palestinians not have the same right? What about the starving Iraqi people being crushed under oil-sanctions, how do the Iraqi's defend themselves, by rising up against a dictator the USA installed? The same dictator the US did not remove but instead placed embargos and economic sanctions against Iraq, letting it's people die under those sanctions? Just when did a country that could so tertly sanction millions to death become the champion of fortitude and the bearer of the secptre of military righteousness?

Its meant to mean that if the US did not back Israel, Israel would not exsist.

Big difference between "backing" Israel and making Israel into a nuclear power, (Israel has the bomb in case you missed that). Maybe 30 or 40 years ago Israel was in danger, but not today, today Israel a nuclear power and is acting like the Imprerialists of the last 500 years, the only real difference is that no other contry in the world has even attempted to do what Israel is doing right now vis-a-vis colonization, for near 50 years. Oh poor Israel, hey if it's such a humanitarian support, then how could the US have let it's enfeebled partner make refugees of millions of Palestinians? Poor Israel indeed.

Its not mad to kill terrorists- its smart.

Great argument there.

You point blank refused to clarify your posistion on terrorism, or "terrorism" as you refer to it. I can only assume you believe terrorist actions including those of suicide bombers, republicans/loyalists and the 9/11 attacks to be justifiable.

Damnit, no-one has the right to take innocent life end of story. I don't think the attack was justifiable, but the way the US had/has been conducting it's foreign policy, in the Mid-East, Iraq and Central/South America it was surprising that no group hadn't already tried it. The warning signs were there, but instead of giving substance to the grievances of the "terrorist" the US government said , "no these are evil people, they hate freedom, it's not our foreign policy, it's TV and video games they hate so we will bomb them into submission and show them the way, the American way", and still the US denies the reasons it was attacked, Palestine and Iraq, and instead it tries to bomb away it's problems but, can it really bomb all the problems away, you Sand seem to think so, I do not. I think that until the causes of terrorism are healed the terrorist will still exist, maybe too simplistic a notion but at the core I think it has alot more merit than what you suggest. I suggest coming to an agreement with the "terrorist" while you suggest killing him. The fact is "we" have been killing "them" and that's what got "us" into this mess to begin with, so killing more of "them" is useless, realise this and move on.

Without quoting myself, no I don't believe that killing is right, what I say is, if it is wrong for al-Queda to kill, why is it right for the US to kill, you exactly made the US the judge of who should live or die? I'll tell you who, the US did, that's wrong, that's why supporting war in Afghanistan is akin to supporting Hamas or al-Qeada. I'lll qualify that statement. If you support the US' right of self-defence then you must support the Palestinian right of self defence. If you allow for the killing of innocent's as a "collateral-damage" the you must also set aside the death of innocent people caused by so-called terrorists, as the US knows it will kill innocent people in the course of it's war, in fact it has killed many innocent people in Iraq via sanctions, it has funded and exponenciated dictators, desposts and oppressive regiemes, it has used the CIA to murder people out right. The fact this is not plastered all over the news is endemic of the stranglehold the US has over propaganda.
Therefore to say this groups of humans over here is right in killing that group, but if that groups retaliates in kind , no that is wrong, is a fallacy of logic if you catch my drift?

Sand · 22-12-2001 7:21pm

There is a difference- Check my previous posts for the difference.

Neither Israel nor the Arabs can win a conventional victory. The US hopes this would lead to negotiation- instead the arabs have resorted to terrorism.

I dont waste that much time on you typedef.

Funny that- You say the attack wasnt justifiable and then go on a massive spiel to justify it.

Bin Laden and co are terrorists. The US is not. See definition fo terrorism to understand that distinction. Deal with it.

By the way- Im probably wasting my time here, but lets check this out. Terrorists murder civillians. You feel the response should be to satisfy the terrorists wish list. Assuming the US did this the terrorists probably pinch themselves. Now whats stopping them from demanding something more? Like i dunno, that $30,000 Bin Laden says each Arab is owed from the West? And that pan-Islamic state Bin Laden wants from North Africa to the Middle East and into Asia?

the Palestinian right of self defence.

Self defence? Oh right, my mistake. I thought suicide bombers murdering Israeli teenagers in pizza parlours was terrorism- but now i see it was "self defence".

Look this is getting repetitive. If you have to reply fair enough but Im not going to bother anymore- Were never going to agree (cant even agree on the nature terrorism) and as long as you never reach public office the world is safe so we can all sleep soundly.

Hobbes · 23-12-2001 9:09am

article on terrorism. Mandala was once a terrorist.

tools · 23-12-2001 11:48pm

Originally posted by Sand

As for Spain? I would have gone for the non- intervention route myself.

This is my point. You accuse anyone who says that terrorists might have legitimate grievances as being Chamberlain-like appeasers of evil then you say you would have allowed Hitler Mussolini and co have their way in Spain! It's illogical! Here's another question. Given the straight choice between socialist democracy and fascism in the Spanish civil war, even with the benefit of hindsight, if you had to pick a side, who would you have supported? You should probably read up on the conflict before answering. There's plenty of books on it in the library.

Sand · 24-12-2001 12:24am

No, my point is theyll be as successful as Chamberlain.

Pick between fascism and a socialist democracy that murdered thousands of its own citizens to intimidate them? Thats where non-intervention comes into play.

tools · 24-12-2001 8:15am

Originally posted by Sand
No, my point is theyll be as successful as Chamberlain.

So the british and irish governments were actually wrong to negotiate with sinn fein to end the IRA's "armed struggle"? They should have sent in more troops? 20,000 couldn't do the job. What were they doing wrong? We'd all be dead now if we'd adhered to your Paisleyite right wing logic.

Pick between fascism and a socialist democracy that murdered thousands of its own citizens to intimidate them? Thats where non-intervention comes into play.

You've given no indication that you know anything about the spanish civil war, its origins or spain's political system at the time. Any attempts at social reform or workers organization were crushed. For example, after the 1934 Asturias strike was put down, 3000 workers were executed while thousands more were imprisoned. The church backed this kind of repression so a backlash was inevitable.

Orwell's Homage To Catalonia is an informative account of the war.

Sand · 24-12-2001 7:43pm

You forget that the Republicans were the ones that announced a (meaningful) ceasefire and came to the table looking to deal.

Civil wars tend be nasty and brutish- Youve given me no indication as to why anyone would have wanted to intervene between two groups which as willing as the other to carry out atrocities.

tools · 26-12-2001 5:01am

Originally posted by Sand
You forget that the Republicans were the ones that announced a (meaningful) ceasefire and came to the table looking to deal.

And you forget that when the IRA didn't like the way things were going, we got Canary Wharf.

Civil wars tend be nasty and brutish- Youve given me no indication as to why anyone would have wanted to intervene between two groups which as willing as the other to carry out atrocities.

To prevent the onset of fascism in europe seemed a good enough reason to allow arms and supplies to be sold to anti-fascist forces and to allow international volunteers to go fight. *If* franco had been defeated, hitler's plans to invade europe would have been seriously affected because the western liberal democracies would have demonstrated that they weren't going to take nazi aggression lying down. In WW2, Spain was of huge strategic importance to both Mussolini and Hitler. Operations in north africa and the mediterranean countries would have been very difficult if not impossible with an anti fascist Spain.

As far as we can gather your logic runs something like this:
Appeasement of the nazis in march 1936 (rhineland) was wrong.
Appeasement of the nazis in july 1936 (spain) was right.
Appeasement of the nazis in 1938 (sudetenland) was wrong.

The point is, comparing palestinian demands with appeasing Hitler is way off the mark. Sooner or later, Israel (if it wants peace, and I don't think Sharon does) will have to treat the palestinians fairly. Even if the palestinians get 100% of what was agreed there will still be terrorist attacks on israel but the PA will be in a far better position to help deal with them, just as the british and irish governments are dealing with the RIRA bit by bit.

Sand · 26-12-2001 8:19pm

Hmm were getting dragged off point here into a discussion of the IRA and the peace process- To get back on topic, my whole point only uses the IRA as an example because they were seriously interested in a negotiated settlement and understood settlement would not include *everything*. Fundamentalist terrorists have not shown this - as such appeasing them is suicidial.

You overestimate the importance of Spain. A fascist Spain did not aid Hitler in WW2. And Hitler was not deterred from his invasion of Poland by Britian and France demonstrating (by agreeing to defend Poland) they werent going to take nazi agression lying down. Why then would they demonstrating such a determination in Spain be any more successful?

Again however were getting far far off topic (To think this thread began with a discussion of an article regarding the Irish (Ive not met them mind you-apart from this board) who disagree with the coalition war in afghanistan).

I dont compare the demands of Hitler to the demands of the palestinians...I simply stated that the appeasement of terrorism will be as successful as the appeasement of Hitler- simply because the terrorists have not shown any interest in meaningful negotiation.

Again however were getting offtopic...if you want to discuss the merits of appeasement open a new thread.

JustHalf · 26-12-2001 8:57pm

Right. Sand posted: "You cant read can you Typedef?", which Typedef replied to with "I know you are but, what am I?".

Jeez. I mean, given the question, that's not even a grammatically correct answer.

Typedef · 26-12-2001 11:21pm

Apparently Just-Half has nothing better to do with his time then try and find himself a sense of humour, go figure huh?