Is the USA a rogue State?

JarJar blinks

I've picked up this:

If a rogue state is one that supports terrorism, disregards human rights, opposes the formation of an international criminal court, has no regard for what the rest of the world or even its allies think, discourages free trade with unfair trade subsidies, bombs civilians, manufacturers weapons of mass destruction and threatens to use them against their enemies, then America is the biggest rogue state of them all. In fact, the United States is both a terrorist state and a haven for terrorists. Here are some interesting facts.

The US is the only state in the world to go on record for having been condemned by the World Court for international terrorism (in Nicaragua).

More terrorists are given training and sanctuary in the United States than anywhere on earth. They include mass murderers, torturers, former and future tyrants and assorted international criminals. This is virtually unknown to the general public, thanks to the freest media on earth.

There is no terrorist sanctuary to compare with Florida. A former senior State Department official Bill Blum describes a typical Florida trial of three anti-Castro terrorists, who hijacked a plane to Miami at knifepoint. 'Even though the kidnapped pilot was brought back from Cuba to testify against the men,' he wrote, 'the defence simply told the jurors the man was lying, and the jury deliberated for less than an hour before acquitting the defendants.'

General Jose Guillermo Garcia has lived comfortably in Florida since the 1990s. He was head of El Salvador's military during the 1980s when death squads with ties to the army murdered thousands of people. General Prosper Avril, the Haitian dictator, liked to display the bloodied victims of his torture on television. When he was overthrown, he was flown to Florida by the US Government. Thiounn Prasith, Pol Pot's henchman and apologist at the United Nations, lives in New York. General Mansour Moharari, who ran the Shah of Iran's notorious prisons, is wanted in Iran, but untroubled in the United States.

Al-Qaeda's training camps in Afghanistan were kindergartens compared with the world's leading university of terrorism at Fort Benning in Georgia. Known until recently as the School of the Americas, it trained tyrants and some 60,000 Latin American special forces, paramilitaries and intelligence agents in the black arts of terrorism.

In 1993, the UN Truth Commission on El Salvador named the army officers who had committed the worst atrocities of the civil war; two-thirds of them had been trained at Fort Benning. In Chile, the school's graduates ran Pinochet's secret police and three principal concentration camps. In 1996, the US government was forced to release copies of the school's training manuals, which recommended blackmail, torture, execution and the arrest of witnesses' relatives.

In recent months, the Bush regime has torn up the Kyoto treaty, which would ease global warming, to which the United States is the greatest contributor.

It has threatened the use of nuclear weapons in 'pre-emptive' strikes (a threat echoed by Defence Minister Geoffrey Hoon).

It is preparing to invade another country to replace its leader with a more compliant thug, in order to seize control of the worlds second largest oil resource, on the pretext of destroying a mad dictators store of weapons of mass destruction without any evidence to support the allegations. In the meantime the Iraqi people who are never mentioned as if the whole country is Saddam Hussein, live under severe economic sanctions administered by Washington which are every bit as brutal as the dictator the people have no control over. According to American defence experts own estimates, an invasion will result in at least 10,000 civilian deaths, yet this is never mentioned by the drum beaters.

America has tried to destroy the creation of an international criminal court, and has vetoed a UN Security Council resolution calling on governments to observe international law.

It has further undermined the United Nations by blocking a UN investigation of the Israeli assault on a Palestinian refugee camp; and it has ordered the Palestinians to replace their elected leader with an American stooge.

America fully support, finance and arm a crypto-fascist regime in Israel brutally terrorising innocent Palestinians with collective punishment for the crimes of a few. Bush openly embraces hugs and shakes hands with a man described by a Belgium court as an indictable war criminal for the slaughter of hundreds, while thousands of innocent Palestinian families languish in the slums of the west bank under brutal military curfew, unable to get food to their children suffering malnutrition for fear of being shot.

At summit conferences in Canada and Indonesia, Bush's people have blocked hundreds of millions of dollars going to the most deprived people on earth, those without clean water and electricity.

These facts will no doubt beckon the slur of 'anti-Americanism', interestingly the Nazis also silenced argument and criticism with 'anti German' slurs. The similarities don't end there; like the Nazis, Americans are also intoxicated with fanatical nationalism, attend patriotic flag waving rallies singing patriotic songs, absorb themselves in self-adoring patriotism, and suffer from an absurd, unknowing sense of self-importance, a self-congratulatory smugness so surrealistically theatrical that they don't realise the extent to which it turns off the rest of the world.

Hitler knew he ruled a nation of cowards, and knew he had to spend the money to make the new war something cowards could fight and win. He decorated his troops with regalia to make them proud of themselves, further trapping them in their self-image. Knowing that it takes courage to kill the enemy face to face, Hitler spent vast sums of money on his wonder weapons, airplanes, submarines, ultra-long range artillery, the world's first cruise missile and the world's first guided missile, weapons that could be used to kill at a distance, so that those doing the killing need not have to face the reality of what they were doing.

The German people were lured into WW2 not because they were brave, but because they were cowards who wanted to be seen as brave, and found that shooting long range weapons at people they could not see took less courage than standing up to Hitler. Sent into battle by a false self-image of bravery, the Germans were dependent on their wonder-weapons. When the wonder-weapons stopped working, the Germans lost the war.

Americans today are like the cowardly obedient Germans of the 1930's, kept ignorant by the freest press in the world (who simply echo Washington's rhetoric rather than engage in investigative journalism and which would put any state run propaganda machine to shame), subservient to the system, entrapped by a false self-image. Falsely believing they are defending freedom and western values, American troops dress in regalia to make them proud of themselves and think they are brave, but in reality, are only capable of fighting wars by dropping weapons from aircraft flying high in the stratosphere, and launching long range cruise missiles from ships anchored safely out at sea.

The USA is a rogue terrorist superpower, only Americans brainwashed like the Germans of the 1930's, cannot comprehend the truth, or tolerate dissent. Carried away with a patriotic fantasy, most Americans are either blind or afraid to question the system for fear of being labelled 'anti-American' an 'enemy of the state', and a 'terrorist' by a patriotic culture which is so full of itself, it is incapable of self-criticism.

>>>>>


Just a thought, is it true?

The Gopher

The USA has for decades been selective in its treatment of certain states and groups.Whereas Al Quaida are terrorists,groups fighting a cause in the interests of the USA,such as the anti communist rebels of Laos in the 70s,are freedom fighters.Iraq is an opressive state which opresses political opponents.So are Israel,Saudi Arabia and a few others that are seldom mentioned in white house press meetings.General Pinochet,Zaires Pres Mobuto,Indonesias Suharto,Saddam Hussein(he was well liked for his hatred of hardline Islam in the 80s,but fell out of favour for the attack on Kuwait and support for palestinian terrorists),and a host of other leaders implicated in disappearences and genocide were all on the CIA Christmas card list.The US criticises commies and hardline muslims who violate rights-leaders of economically useful countries are let off the hook.

Biffa Bacon

The US is the only state in the world to go on record for having been condemned by the World Court for international terrorism (in Nicaragua).

The US was not condemned by the World Court for “international terrorism”. It was condemned by the World Court for “unlawful use of force” in Nicaragua. The writer of this piece has simply parrotted the leftist spin that Noam Chomsky put on it by calling it “international terrorism”. Two points need to be made about the World Court though. First, it has no legal authority, unless both sides in a conflict agree to abide by its decisions. Second, it is highly politicised. Members of the Court at that time included judges from Communist countries such as China and Poland and from corrupt dictatorships such as Nigeria and Senegal. What does the fact that the US is the only country to be condemned by the Court tell you about its impartiality?

More terrorists are given training and sanctuary in the United States than anywhere on earth. They include mass murderers, torturers, former and future tyrants and assorted international criminals.

The writer makes no attempt to substantiate this.

This is virtually unknown to the general public, thanks to the freest media on earth.

No, it’s because it’s only true in the minds of America-hating paranoid leftists.

There is no terrorist sanctuary…arrest of witnesses’ relatives.

This section is lifted almost word-for-word from John Pilger’s latest book, The New Rulers of the World.

There is no terrorist sanctuary to compare with Florida.

America-hating leftist hyperbole.

A former senior State Department official Bill Blum describes a typical Florida trial of three anti-Castro terrorists, who hijacked a plane to Miami at knifepoint. 'Even though the kidnapped pilot was brought back from Cuba to testify against the men,' he wrote, 'the defence simply told the jurors the man was lying, and the jury deliberated for less than an hour before acquitting the defendants.'

I don’t know anything about the case in question. Pilger doesn’t explain what it’s “typical” of though.

General Jose Guillermo Garcia has lived comfortably in Florida since the 1990s. He was head of El Salvador's military during the 1980s when death squads with ties to the army murdered thousands of people. General Prosper Avril, the Haitian dictator, liked to display the bloodied victims of his torture on television. When he was overthrown, he was flown to Florida by the US Government. Thiounn Prasith, Pol Pot's henchman and apologist at the United Nations, lives in New York. General Mansour Moharari, who ran the Shah of Iran's notorious prisons, is wanted in Iran, but untroubled in the United States.

I don’t know anything about these guys either. Are they being protected by the US government, or is that they are legally within their rights to remain in the US? Pilger doesn’t tell us.

Al-Qaeda's training camps in Afghanistan were kindergartens compared with the world's leading university of terrorism at Fort Benning in Georgia. Known until recently as the School of the Americas, it trained tyrants and some 60,000 Latin American special forces, paramilitaries and intelligence agents in the black arts of terrorism.

In 1993, the UN Truth Commission on El Salvador named the army officers who had committed the worst atrocities of the civil war; two-thirds of them had been trained at Fort Benning. In Chile, the school's graduates ran Pinochet's secret police and three principal concentration camps. In 1996, the US government was forced to release copies of the school's training manuals, which recommended blackmail, torture, execution and the arrest of witnesses' relatives.

The School of the Americas was set up to aid those fighting Communist insurgents or corrupt régimes in Latin America. People trained there may have committed outrages against civilians but this was not what they were trained for. The difference with al-Qaeda is that they trained their fighters exactly for the purpose of attacking civilian targets. Of course, the real reason Pilger wants to label the School of the Americas “the world's leading university of terrorism” is that it was set up to fight Communism.

In recent months, the Bush regime has torn up the Kyoto treaty, which would ease global warming, to which the United States is the greatest contributor.

That’s because they consider it unfair to America, would impose crippling costs on the American economy and is not the best way of combatting global warming, even if it is caused by a build-up of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere (which is by no means certain).

It has threatened the use of nuclear weapons in 'pre-emptive' strikes (a threat echoed by Defence Minister Geoffrey Hoon).

I don’t know what context this remark was made in. Conveniently, we’re not told.

It is preparing to invade another country to replace its leader with a more compliant thug…

Just like they did in Afghanistan?

…in order to seize control of the worlds second largest oil resource…

And exactly how are they planning to “seize control” of Iraqi oil? Unless they’re planning on making Iraq the 51st state.

…on the pretext of destroying a mad dictators store of weapons of mass destruction without any evidence to support the allegations.

Apart from the testimony of Iraqi defectors who worked in the country’s weapons of mass destruction programs, and the fact that Saddam seems strangely reluctant to allow UN inspectors back in?

In the meantime the Iraqi people who are never mentioned as if the whole country is Saddam Hussein, live under severe economic sanctions administered by Washington…

The UN surely?

…which are every bit as brutal as the dictator the people have no control over.

Sanctions designed to prevent a genocidal maniac from acquiring weapons of mass destruction and which do not prevent the import of food and medicines are every bit as brutal as a man who uses chemical weapons against his own people, makes war on his neighbours, tortures and murders his political opponents and is quite content to see his people starve rather than spend less on his military and his palaces?

According to American defence experts own estimates, an invasion will result in at least 10,000 civilian deaths, yet this is never mentioned by the drum beaters.

This figure, I believe, was given to the Clinton administration. It is by no means a definitive figure and would depend on the invasion plans.

America has tried to destroy the creation of an international criminal court…

It believes, quite reasonably, that it will not be impartial and will be used as a political weapon against the US. It’s not that it’s opposed to bringing war criminals to justice.

…and has vetoed a UN Security Council resolution calling on governments to observe international law.

This resolution was introduced in the aftermath of the World Court ruling in favour of Nicaragua and was simply an attempt to stop the US aiding rebels fighting a corrupt Communist dictatorship.

It has further undermined the United Nations by blocking a UN investigation of the Israeli assault on a Palestinian refugee camp…

I’m not certain but I think this was because they didn’t like the make-up of the investigating team as it was biased against Israel. The writer fails to tell us that the investigation has gone ahead and found no evidence of a massacre as the Palestinians were insisting.

…and it has ordered the Palestinians to replace their elected leader with an American stooge.

It has suggested that if the Palestinian people want peace they should elect a leader who also wants peace. Arafat is not such a leader.

America fully support, finance and arm a crypto-fascist regime in Israel…

Surely he means “democratic government”?

…brutally terrorising innocent Palestinians with collective punishment for the crimes of a few.

I don’t agree with deportations and destruction of homes either, if that’s what he’s referring to, but the punishments are only supposed to be against those who knew about the suicided bomber beforehand but failed to do anything to stop it.

Bush openly embraces hugs and shakes hands with a man described by a Belgium court as an indictable war criminal for the slaughter of hundreds…

I agree that Sharon is probably guilty of complicity in the Sabra and Chatilla massacres, but he is the democratically-elected leader of a friendly nation.

…while thousands of innocent Palestinian families languish in the slums of the west bank under brutal military curfew, unable to get food to their children suffering malnutrition for fear of being shot.

Well how else are the Israelis supposed to stop suicide bombings?

At summit conferences in Canada and Indonesia, Bush's people have blocked hundreds of millions of dollars going to the most deprived people on earth, those without clean water and electricity.

Don’t know what he’s referring to here. I’m sure they did it out of spite though.

Biffa Bacon

These facts will no doubt beckon the slur of 'anti-Americanism'…

That’s because the author is, objectively speaking, anti-American.

…interestingly the Nazis also silenced argument and criticism with 'anti German' slurs.

That and the Gestapo.

The similarities don't end there; like the Nazis, Americans are also intoxicated with fanatical nationalism, attend patriotic flag waving rallies singing patriotic songs, absorb themselves in self-adoring patriotism, and suffer from an absurd, unknowing sense of self-importance, a self-congratulatory smugness so surrealistically theatrical that they don't realise the extent to which it turns off the rest of the world.

What can you say?

Hitler knew he ruled a nation of cowards and knew he had to spend the money to make the new war something cowards could fight and win.

Yes, Hitler envisioned the German Volk, the Aryan Master Race, as a nation of cowards.

He decorated his troops with regalia to make them proud of themselves, further trapping them in their self-image.

Uniforms. Truly the most sinister of the Nazis’ innovations.

Knowing that it takes courage to kill the enemy face to face, Hitler spent vast sums of money on his wonder weapons, airplanes, submarines, ultra-long range artillery, the world's first cruise missile and the world's first guided missile, weapons that could be used to kill at a distance, so that those doing the killing need not have to face the reality of what they were doing.

The German people were lured into WW2 not because they were brave, but because they were cowards who wanted to be seen as brave, and found that shooting long range weapons at people they could not see took less courage than standing up to Hitler. Sent into battle by a false self-image of bravery, the Germans were dependent on their wonder-weapons. When the wonder-weapons stopped working, the Germans lost the war.

This bit was taken from the Onion, wasn’t it?

Americans today are like the cowardly obedient Germans of the 1930's, kept ignorant by the freest press in the world (who simply echo Washington's rhetoric rather than engage in investigative journalism and which would put any state run propaganda machine to shame), subservient to the system, entrapped by a false self-image.

Yes, anyone who doesn’t share the author’s loony-leftie anti-American paranoid world view is simply echoing Washington’s rhetoric.

Falsely believing they are defending freedom and western values, American troops dress in regalia to make them proud of themselves and think they are brave, but in reality, are only capable of fighting wars by dropping weapons from aircraft flying high in the stratosphere, and launching long range cruise missiles from ships anchored safely out at sea.

Fancy his chances against the Navy SEALS or Delta Force does he?

Just a thought, is it true?

Of course not. A leftie wrote it. Lefties aren't interested in the truth.

Venom

JarJar blinks - thats a very interesting article bro.Was it emailed to you,off a website or did you write it?

If off a website can you be a pal and post the links please

Biffa Bacon - you dont honestly belive that America is all innocent and sweet do you?

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Venom
JarJar blinks - thats a very interesting article bro.

No it's not, it's leftie paranoid pinko Commie America-hating intellectually dishonest garbage, as I've just shown.

Biffa Bacon - you dont honestly belive that America is all innocent and sweet do you?

No country is. But why lie about it?

GerK

I suggest reading Noam Chomskys "Rogue States" for a truly even handed and fact based analysis of this topic all backed up by credible reference and example.

In fact I would guess that the author of that peice has read some Chomsky and chosen to condense it to a more emotive and sensationalist article, which isnt really needed if you've read any of his stuff.

Venom

No it's not, it's leftie paranoid pinko Commie America-hating intellectually dishonest garbage, as I've just shown.

Think of this all by yourself or just rip it off from some 1950's redneck newsletter from the states.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by GerK
I suggest reading Noam Chomskys "Rogue States" for a truly even handed and fact based analysis of this topic all backed up by credible reference and example.

I think that's the first time "Noam Chomsky", "even handed" and "fact based analysis" have ever been used in the same sentence.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Venom



Think of this all by yourself or just rip it off from some 1950's redneck newsletter from the states.

Excellent refutation of the points raised.
Seriously though, it's just an objective, factual description of the article that I thought of all by my self.

Jaden

"Thought"

(snicker).

JustHalf

I like reading the "Socialist Worker" for the laugh. It's a ton of dog crap, but it's better than this garbage.

Blade

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

It has suggested that if the Palestinian people want peace they should elect a leader who also wants peace. Arafat is not such a leader.

Oh and Sharon is such a man of peace? I don't recall Sharon ever winning a nobel prize for peace, He's a war criminal who has done nothing but escalate the violence since he got into power.

I agree that Sharon is probably guilty of complicity in the Sabra and Chatilla massacres, but he is the democratically-elected leader of a friendly nation.

Oh, how you tame it all down, why don't you say it as it is, the mans a war criminal and should be behind bars, Arafat was also democratically elected and as for Israel being a 'friendly nation'? Don't make me laugh!

ReefBreak

This:

Oh and Sharon is such a man of peace? I don't recall Sharon ever winning a nobel prize for peace, He's a war criminal who has done nothing but escalate the violence since he got into power.

Oh, how you tame it all down, why don't you say it as it is, the mans a war criminal and should be behind bars, Arafat was also democratically elected and as for Israel being a 'friendly nation'? Don't make me laugh!

and this:

Bush openly embraces hugs and shakes hands with a man described by a Belgium court as an indictable war criminal for the slaughter of hundreds…

…while thousands of innocent Palestinian families languish in the slums of the west bank under brutal military curfew, unable to get food to their children suffering malnutrition for fear of being shot.

...both summarise for me the sickening attitude of a lot of Irish (and European) attitudes to Israel and the Palestinians. i.e.
Israel is the oppressor and Palestine is the victim. False and False. The suicide bombings speak for itself. As do the IDF murder of civilians. No suicide bombings = no Israeli incursions. No Israeli incursions = No suicide bombings. Or does it? Do Hamas not want to destroy the Israeli state? Anyway...

The opinions of Blade, JarJar Blinks and the rest of the far-left in Ireland is very similar to the opinions of Irish-Americans during the 80s on N. Ireland. Naive, uninformed and, worst of all, sympathic to the terrorists. America's "Irish freedom-fighters" in the 80s/90s are Ireland's "Palestinian freedom fighters" today.

The majority in Ireland had no sympathy for the IRA scum in the past. The majority should have no sympathy for palestinian suicide bombing scum today.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Blade

Oh and Sharon is such a man of peace?

No.

He's a war criminal who has done nothing but escalate the violence since he got into power.

No, that was Arafat who escalated the violence before Sharon became PM by launching the new Intifada (for reasons that had nothing to do with Sharon visiting the Temple Mount btw). Sharon is only responding to Arafat's escalation.

Oh, how you tame it all down, why don't you say it as it is, the mans a war criminal and should be behind bars...

He's possibly a war criminal but if he should be behind bars then so should Arafat, which probably wouldn't do the cause of peace much good.

...as for Israel being a 'friendly nation'? Don't make me laugh!

Friendly to the US I meant.

Aspro

That’s because the author is, objectively speaking, anti-American.

Pilger is not anti-American. He is one of the very few anti-imperialist, brutally honest, investigative reporters in the world. He treats the British and his own Australian government with the same disdain. What is this balance you seek btw Biffa? There's hardly going to balance in the mainstream media considering it's all owned by a few multi-billionaires who will make every effort to silence dissent and keep the government of the day happy.

I don't see any balance in your comments either. Just the usual knee-jerk reactionary anti-left-wing bile that we can find in the likes of Francis "the end of history - socialism is dead" Fukuyama and our own wonderful Charlie "Sorry I mismanaged the fruits of the boom, but you ordinary folks are going to have to pay for it now in cutbacks" McCreevy.

You don't have to be anti-American to see the destructive nature of America's rulers hunger for all out world economic and military hegemony and their double standards towards dictators who are "friendly" or "rogue". When it suited America's ruling class they armed vicious regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan at the expense of ordinary people. When the balance of forces changes they just choose who their new allies or enemies are. So therefore in the Bush administration's own parlance if their old arms buying buddies are now "rogue" states then the same must apply to them.

Biffa Bacon

Pilger is not anti-American.

Well, I was referring to the author of the piece JarJar posted but, yes, John Pilger too is anti-American. Anti-American in that he interprets everything in such a way as to put the most negative slant possible on the actions of the US.

He is one of the very few anti-imperialist, brutally honest, investigative reporters in the world.

John Pilger is not honest. He is brutally dishonest. He is simply a leftist propagandist masquerading as a journalist.

He treats the British and his own Australian government with the same disdain.

Of course he does. He’s a leftie and they’re not. That doesn’t make him honest.

What is this balance you seek btw Biffa?

I never called for balance. A bit of intellectual honesty would be nice though.

There's hardly going to balance in the mainstream media considering it's all owned by a few multi-billionaires who will make every effort to silence dissent and keep the government of the day happy.

Just because the mainstream media doesn’t put the paranoid America-hating pinko slant on every news story that Pilger does, doesn’t mean that dissent is being silenced.

I don't see any balance in your comments either. Just the usual knee-jerk reactionary anti-left-wing bile that we can find in the likes of Francis "the end of history - socialism is dead" Fukuyama and our own wonderful Charlie "Sorry I mismanaged the fruits of the boom, but you ordinary folks are going to have to pay for it now in cutbacks" McCreevy.

Well if I’ve said anything that’s untrue, point it out.

You don't have to be anti-American to see the destructive nature of America's rulers hunger for all out world economic and military hegemony and their double standards towards dictators who are "friendly" or "rogue".

You have to be anti-American to distort the truth like Pilger does.

When it suited America's ruling class they armed vicious regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan at the expense of ordinary people. When the balance of forces changes they just choose who their new allies or enemies are.

Sometimes you have to choose the lesser of two evils. This isn’t hypocrisy – it’s expediency.

Blade

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

No, that was Arafat who escalated the violence before Sharon became PM by launching the new Intifada (for reasons that had nothing to do with Sharon visiting the Temple Mount btw). Sharon is only responding to Arafat's escalation.

Bull$hit, he did that to rile the Palestinians and he did a good job of it. The suicide bombings escalated as a direct result of that. If he was a man of peace like ReefBreak would like to believe, would he have gone to the Temple Mount? Thats just like those Orange Ba$tards up north marching to increase tensions and escalate violence.

Friendly to the US I meant.

Oh well thats all that counts really isn't it.

Blade

Originally posted by ReefBreak
Naive, uninformed and, worst of all, sympathic to the terrorists

Get your facts straight ReefBreak, my anti Israeli comments were not pro Hamas. Just because a lot of Europeans criticise America and Israel doesn't mean they're sympathetic to the terrorists. I know that your beloved Bush administration's propaganda has lead your simple mind to believe this but most Europeans aren't quite that dumb.

Fidelis

Originally posted by ReefBreak
No suicide bombings = no Israeli incursions. No Israeli incursions = No suicide bombings

If only both sides could see how simple the answer really is :rolleyes: You should send that idea to them on a postcard, don't forget to stamp it.

Do Hamas not want to destroy the Israeli state?

So what if they do? The countless republican factions wanted to destroy the British in the North, but that didn't mean that Maggie could send the Para's into the surrounding border counties.

Naive, uninformed and, worst of all, sympathic to the terrorists

That, in itself, is a naive generalisation of Irish people.

The majority in Ireland had no sympathy for the IRA scum in the past. The majority should have no sympathy for palestinian suicide bombing scum today

The IRA 'scum', as you so eloquently put it, had a great deal of support in the past. I see no need in backing up my statement, as you haven't bothered to back-up yours.

Pro-Sharon opinions bemuse me. Basically, you're saying that this guy is perfectly right in bulldozing homes & launching missile attacks on civilian populated areas. Does it not register with you that this is simply unethical. The Israeli government tries to suppress terrorist activities with military responses, so maniacal, so devoid of any form of tact or reason, that, unfortunately, you have little sympathy left for the Israelis.

gandalf

OK calm down the lot of you. If I see any more personalised insults I will "ethnically cleanse" all your a$$es. Stop attacking each other and discuss the topic at hand.

Gandalf.

Blade

Originally posted by ReefBreak
The opinions of Blade, JarJar Blinks and the rest of the far-left in Ireland is very similar to the opinions of Irish-Americans during the 80s on N. Ireland

And another thing ReefBreak, JarJar blinks simply posted an article he found somewhere and asked for peoples opinions on it, if your that dumb not to see that they weren't actually his opinions then I think you should refrain from posting your accusations and pro Israeli cr@p to us.

bugler

He asked for an answer as to whter the article was truthful or not. For the most part it is. Wake up folks. Governments do not and will never give a shít about the little guy. There is nothing beneath those in power. It's fairly well known here that the mainstream american media is a joke, what do you expect when it's owned by huge corporations entwined with the powerful?

A few points. Almost noone brings cases before the world court. Why? Well look at what happened in th US- Nicaragua case. The US support to the mercenaries/rebels wasn't halted at all. As Biffa points out, the world court is just like everyother instrument that supposedly dispenses justice on an international scale. That is to say it's totally useless at worst and very flawed at best, a bit like the UN. Both sides have to agree to the decision. Maybe we should bring that into our own society !

Judge : "You've been found guilty of rape, I sentence you to 15 years."

Rapist: "No, I don't agree to that."

Judge : "Ok, you can go."

It's quite amusing to see some of the views here, which like to interpret themselves as impartial, when it must surely be obvious to anyone that they are biased fairly heavily. Biffa can't write a post without having a go at the "left", which are constantly trying to distort the truth about the fairest and most just regime in the world. The U.S government is utterly bereft of moral integrity. But then morals have no place in politics, and they never will. That's even more true on the international stage than domestic. No one is looking out for you, everyone is looking out for themselves and their interests. Once you accept that, it's fairly easy to interpret the actions of any government. Be sceptical, at least one of the contributors to this thread is a proven liar. Oh and be thankful. For at least you live in a western society. It won't be your stomach rumbling, child dying, or family killed because of what the powerful in Washington/Paris/wherever decided to do/not to do.

A hundred years ago, thousands of people starved and died of simple to cure diseases. A hundred years from now, despite our technological advances, people will still starve and die of easy to cure diseases. It's human nature. Deep down, we're not bothered about saving some starving, disease ridden non-whites, whatever ails or threatens them. Accept it.

shotamoose

Originally posted by bugler
A hundred years ago, thousands of people starved and died of simple to cure diseases. A hundred years from now, despite our technological advances, people will still starve and die of easy to cure diseases. It's human nature. Deep down, we're not bothered about saving some starving, disease ridden non-whites, whatever ails or threatens them. Accept it.

No. Refusing to accept that politics is eternally amoral is in itself a political decision. The extent to which politics is influenced by moral concerns is itself a matter of politics. So while I agree with you that we shouldn't expect governments (especially those with most interests to protect and the power to do so) to behave with impeccable morals, I don't agree that we should stop asking or demanding that they do.

Biffa Bacon

Bull$hit, he did that to rile the Palestinians and he did a good job of it.

You should have a read of this article: Did Sharon Spark the Riots?
And why shouldn’t an Israeli be allowed visit the Temple Mount anyway? It’s one of the holiest sites in Judaism.

Oh well thats all that counts really isn't it.

Bush shook hands with Sharon because he is the prime minister of a country friendly to the US. That’s all I’m saying.

Biffa Bacon

He asked for an answer as to whter the article was truthful or not. For the most part it is.

I went through the article and demonstrated that practically every claim in it was either an outright lie or a gross distortion of the facts. The only thing I wrote that anyone has chosen to dispute is whether or not John Pilger is anti-American. If people think it is so truthful, why is no one trying to defend it?

henrykissenger

Originally posted by shotamoose
No. Refusing to accept that politics is eternally amoral is in itself a political decision. The extent to which politics is influenced by moral concerns is itself a matter of politics. So while I agree with you that we shouldn't expect governments (especially those with most interests to protect and the power to do so) to behave with impeccable morals, I don't agree that we should stop asking or demanding that they do.

I disagree.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

I went through the article and demonstrated that practically every claim in it was either an outright lie or a gross distortion of the facts. The only thing I wrote that anyone has chosen to dispute is whether or not John Pilger is anti-American. If people think it is so truthful, why is no one trying to defend it?

Try applying the intellectual standards you set for others to yourself. In your answer you rightly pointed out a couple of distortions, and the rest of the time you quibbled ("I don't know this case ... what's the context? etc), threw in your own distortions and euphemisms (the School of Americas as 'set up to fight Communism'), or rationalised answers to various points without disputing the facts (see answers on Kyoto, Jenin, Arafat).
Generally you didn't make any real points of your own, instead you spread insults ("scum"), invective ("die lefties die") and propaganda. That article was certainly ideologically slanted, but if anything you're worse, since you're the one accusing everyone else of hypocrisy. You're keen to call Chomsky and Pilger liers and hyperbolists but you don't back this up, so I wonder if it's based on anything more than an ideological disagreement.

In the end, the whole argument about rogue states is about whether or not a country consistently applies the same criteria to all, including itself. The US clearly doesn't, and you clearly have no problem with this ("Sometimes you have to choose the lesser of two evils. This isn’t hypocrisy – it’s expediency").

Blade

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

You should have a read of this article: Did Sharon Spark the Riots?
And why shouldn’t an Israeli be allowed visit the Temple Mount anyway? It’s one of the holiest sites in Judaism.

Thats a Jewish website written by Jewish people for Jewish people, what the hell are you expecting them to admit that Sharon is doing anything wrong? Is this your 'hard evidence' to back up your comments? Because thats all you seem to be doing in your posts. John Pilger is Anti-American and does go overboard on a lot of his comments, but your worse.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
I never called for balance. A bit of intellectual honesty would be nice though.

You mean intellectual honesty like referring to all these people who happen to take a stance you dont like as "commie, lefty, pinko scum", or words to that effect?

jc

Blade

Just looking through your ' unbiased ' web site there and just look at the type of cr@p thats in it:

http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/mediaobjectivity/This_is_CNN$.asp

Their not too happy when a news channel like CNN actually speaks up about them that they have to try and replace it in Israel with Fox News thats always ki$$ing Israeli and American a$$es. Heres a sample of the bull$hit on your honest web site:

Or recall the more recent blood libel regarding the imaginary slaughter in Jenin. CNN constantly repeated the lies of the Arabs, reporting unsubstantiated numbers of between 500 and 1000 helpless Palestinian civilians slaughtered by Israeli soldiers. All the while, Israel, which has a reputation for truth and accuracy, protested that the casualty figure was closer to 50, most of them combatants. Which, of course, turned out to be the truth.

' Israel, which has a reputation for truth and accuracy ' Yeh right! Amongst who themselves and the Americans? LOL

JustHalf

Originally posted by Blade
Oh well thats all that counts really isn't it.

When it was used in the original statement it was obvious this was what was meant.

Can you reread that?

Chaos-Engine

Explantion for the increased US/EU tension:

EUropeans aren't anymore Anti-American than they usually are.
Its just that Americans are highly Anti-European. Alot more than usual....

Biffa Bacon

In your answer you rightly pointed out a couple of distortions, and the rest of the time you quibbled ("I don't know this case ... what's the context? etc),…

Well what am I supposed to say if I’m not familiar with the cases in question?

…threw in your own distortions and euphemisms (the School of Americas as 'set up to fight Communism'),…

Was it not?

…or rationalised answers to various points without disputing the facts (see answers on Kyoto, Jenin, Arafat).

What’s wrong with that? Surely we can dispute the interpretation of the facts without disputing the facts themselves?

Generally you didn't make any real points of your own, instead you spread insults ("scum"), invective ("die lefties die") and propaganda.

None of my arguments resorted to insults, invective or propaganda, apart from the revisionist history of Nazi Germany which was beyond parody.

That article was certainly ideologically slanted, but if anything you're worse, since you're the one accusing everyone else of hypocrisy.

I didn’t accuse anyone of hypocrisy. And no, that writer of that article is worse as he distorted the facts. I didn’t.

You're keen to call Chomsky and Pilger liers and hyperbolists but you don't back this up, so I wonder if it's based on anything more than an ideological disagreement.

Do you think “There is no terrorist sanctuary to compare with Florida” is a reasonable assertion?

In the end, the whole argument about rogue states is about whether or not a country consistently applies the same criteria to all, including itself. The US clearly doesn't, and you clearly have no problem with this ("Sometimes you have to choose the lesser of two evils. This isn’t hypocrisy – it’s expediency").

I disagree. Just because America might ally itself with human rights-violating nations, it doesn’t mean it approves of them. Short of invading these places and installing liberal democratic governments, what else can you do?

Biffa Bacon

Thats a Jewish website written by Jewish people for Jewish people, what the hell are you expecting them to admit that Sharon is doing anything wrong?

But the article didn’t address the question of whether or not Sharon was right to visit the Temple Mount, it was only arguing that the present intifada was not sparked off by the visit as many seem to think. The fact that they’re Jewish doesn’t make them pro-Sharon either.

Just looking through your ' unbiased ' web site there and just look at the type of cr@p thats in it:

I never said it was unbiased.

Their not too happy when a news channel like CNN actually speaks up about them…

What they’re unhappy about is what they perceive as CNN’s anti-Israeli bias.

…they have to try and replace it in Israel with Fox News thats always ki$$ing Israeli and American a$$es.

But they’re not trying to “replace” it.

Israel, which has a reputation for truth and accuracy ' Yeh right! Amongst who themselves and the Americans?

As a democratic nation with a free press I’d trust Israeli claims far more readily than I would Palestinian.

Biffa Bacon

You mean intellectual honesty like referring to all these people who happen to take a stance you dont like as "commie, lefty, pinko scum", or words to that effect?

I don’t think that’s either honest or dishonest, it’s just a bit of invective.

Blade

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
I never said it was unbiased.

As a democratic nation with a free press I’d trust Israeli claims far more readily than I would Palestinian.

You admit it's biased then and yet you use it to back up your comments. Any idiot can see even from just the paragraph I posted from it that it's nothing but Jewish propaganda that so blatent that it looks like it's written by a load of Jewish school children. I suppose you watch Fox News too.

dmcc

Originally posted by ReefBreak

...both summarise for me the sickening attitude of a lot of Irish (and European) attitudes to Israel and the Palestinians. i.e.
Israel is the oppressor and Palestine is the victim. .

This 'sickening attitude' seems to me to be shared by ALL other nations bar Israel, America and the most accompished occupier of them all, England.

Israel IS the oppressor you muppet, the palestinians were not occupying Israel last time I looked.

dmcc

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

Well what am I supposed to say if I’m not familiar with the cases in question?

Hmmm.. let me think... you could have a bit of good grace and say nothing instead of spouting out a pile of horse**** maybe.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Well what am I supposed to say if I’m not familiar with the cases in question?

Nothing.

I have no problem with your basic disagreement of the validity of the initial article. However, to start dismissing the validity of points on no more grounds then the fact that you are not aware of them strikes me as a bit strange.

Maybe you werent trying to invalidate them. Maybe you were simply saying "I cant comment on this". If thats the case, then sorry for the misinterpretation, but I would generally take the approach that if I cant comment, I dont

It seems as if you are trying to show that every single word of the article is either a misinterpretation, irrelevant, a lie, and so on. Thats simply not true. A lot of what is in the article is true....but the overall slant isnt.

You talk about intellectual honesty/dishonesty. There is no possibility of anyone being intellectually honest while they maintain that this is a one-sided affair. Neither your pro-Israeli sites, nor the original anti-Israeli article are intellectually honest. No-one who thinks the whole affair is the fault of one side or the other is being intellectually honest, regardless of which side they favour.

The truth lies somewhere in between.

Then again - I'm pretty sure you'd agree with that anyway

jc

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Blade


You admit it's biased then and yet you use it to back up your comments.

It was the only link I could find to a site that refuted the claim that the Intifada was started by Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount. To be honest, I don't care if it's biased or not, I only care if it's true. Is it?

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by dmcc

Hmmm.. let me think... you could have a bit of good grace and say nothing instead of spouting out a pile of horse**** maybe.

But that's exactly what I did.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by bonkey
Maybe you werent trying to invalidate them. Maybe you were simply saying "I cant comment on this".

Absolutely that's what I was doing. I was just trying to leave it open to anyone else who knew about the cases in question and wanted to expand on them.

Blade

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
I never said it was unbiased.

As a democratic nation with a free press I’d trust Israeli claims far more readily than I would Palestinian.

It was the only link I could find to a site that refuted the claim that the Intifada was started by Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount. To be honest, I don't care if it's biased or not, I only care if it's true. Is it?

Do you not see the obvious problems with your statements here??? The ONLY site on the entire Internet you could find to back up your statement was a site that you admit is biased and one that everyone here can see is riddled with Jewish propaganda making statements like ' Israel, which has a reputation for truth and accuracy ', What does that tell you? Then you say you trust these Israeli claims? Whatever man!

Biffa Bacon

Try this: Palestinian Authority admits: warfare was planned
Both a neutral press agency, Associated Press, and the Palestinian daily, Al-Ayyam, report comments made on two separate occasions by Palestinian Communications Minister Imad Falouji that the Intifada was not sparked by Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount. You can protest if you want that the link is to a pro-Israeli site, but I couldn't find any defence of the opposing view anywhere.

Blade

Well again http://arabterrorism.tripod.com/ is pro-Israeli but you could very well be right that it was planned anyway, we'll never know the truth. But one things for sure that Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount fueled the violence even more in exactly the same way Orange parades fuel the violence up north. And this is my point that Sharons only causing more tension in the region and yet America is suggesting that Arafat be replaced cause he's not a man of peace while they continue to fund Israel so that a wanted war criminal like Sharon can continue murdering dozens of innocent people in order to kill a few Palestinian terrorists.

JustHalf

We may never know the truth?

*sigh*

GerK

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

I think that's the first time "Noam Chomsky", "even handed" and "fact based analysis" have ever been used in the same sentence.

Ah yes well done Biffa, I now see why you are a professor of linguistics, esteemed intellectual, acclaimed columnist and author with dozens of successful books (many used as standard educational texts) and Chomsky is just some chump who posts crap he can't back-up on message boards.

W e l l d o n e.

That drivel is easy to write but not so easy to substantiate.