9/11 victims deserved their fate

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cruddy


What illogical remarks? Remark, maybe. Singular not plural.

The UN found no evidence of genocide in Darfur. You do. They've got a helluva lot more info than you have.Live with it.

You find no evidence of genocide in Palestine. There's a helluva lot of Arabs that disagree with you. Again, they've got a helluva lot info than you. Live with it.

C'mon now, reach behind, down... yeah, that's your butt.

Or is my humour too subtle for you?

Im quite aware there is a dispute about whether whats happening in Darfur is technically genocide or just ethnic cleansing. In my postings ABOUT Darfur I was concerned with taking action, not the technical definition. In my post to this thread, i listed Armenia, Rwanda, Cambodia and Kurdistan, which are indisputably genocides.

No one serious holds that '48 was a genocide. Even historians hostile to Israel have attempted only to make the case for instances of ethnic cleansing.

By the way, you dont know what info I have or dont have, or what ive studied or havent, or what any other individuals, arabs, un officials, etc have or dont have. Or whether said individuals are telling the truth. I suggest you argue with facts, not to appeals to people you claim to know more.

[DinoDoc]

I will say that I'm glad to have started a thread that interests me.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Cambodia [...], which are indisputably genocides.

Sorry for the threadjack, but I'm in need of education here:

I thought the Cambodians horrors were driven not by a willingness to wipe out the Cambodgian population (Pol Pot was a Combodgian himself, and I don't remeber the obliteration of his population was hi aim), but to re-organize the whole Cambodgian society by killing the "irrecuperables". It doesn't hamper on the fact that Cambodgia was a nightmare (for the record, I think Earth has never known a regime more evil than Pol Pot's), but I don't see it as a genocide. The "cide" component was available aplenty, but I have never heard of the "geno" component.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Sorry for the threadjack, but I'm in need of education here:

I thought the Cambodians horrors were driven not by a willingness to wipe out the Cambodgian population (Pol Pot was a Combodgian himself, and I don't remeber the obliteration of his population was hi aim), but to re-organize the whole Cambodgian society by killing the "irrecuperables". It doesn't hamper on the fact that Cambodgia was a nightmare (for the record, I think Earth has never known a regime more evil than Pol Pot's), but I don't see it as a genocide. The "cide" component was available aplenty, but I have never heard of the "geno" component.

You dont have to want to completely obliterate a population for it to count as genocide, IIUC. An attempt to substantially reduce it (hitler vis a vis the Poles, Saddam vis a vis the Kurds) will qualify. Attempts at complete obliteration (Rwanda, Hitler vis a vis Jews and Gypsies) are actually fairly rare compared to other genocides.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Sorry for the threadjack, but I'm in need of education here:

I thought the Cambodians horrors were driven not by a willingness to wipe out the Cambodgian population (Pol Pot was a Combodgian himself, and I don't remeber the obliteration of his population was hi aim), but to re-organize the whole Cambodgian society by killing the "irrecuperables". It doesn't hamper on the fact that Cambodgia was a nightmare (for the record, I think Earth has never known a regime more evil than Pol Pot's), but I don't see it as a genocide. The "cide" component was available aplenty, but I have never heard of the "geno" component.

You might want to check out Bob Kiernan's The Pol Pot Regime. It argues persuasively that the mass killings of Chams and other minorities constituted genocide on any conceivable definition of the word.

Arguably, the killings of Khmers also constitute genocide - they did try and exterminate an ethnic group "wholly or in part" as the UN convention says, specifically the "irrecuperable" part - but the Soviets, back in the day, did what they could to exclude political killings from condemnation.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by molly bloom



I'm quite fond of certain of the principles of Anglo-Saxon Common Law, which as I'm sure you'd agree, the United States government has certainly been complicit in circumventing, certainly with regard to say the internees at Guantanamo:

the presumption of innocence, innocent until proven guilty, habeas corpus, et cetera.

I don't recall either the passengers on the airliners nor the people (working class, middle class, upper class- the dead are all one class) in the Trade Centre buildings nor in the Pentagon being given the benefits that I'd extend to the detainees in 'occupied' Cuba.

Two wrongs don't make the world right, they just add to the sum of the world's woes.

Presuming people innocent in order to make a justice system fair is one thing, but actually believing that all people are innocent is quite another.

And again for those of you missed me saying it at least three times. I don't justify the attacks. I'm merely saying that not all of the people who died were innocent.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
So you'd agree that drug users fund terrorists because they too are a link in a chain of events leading to someone's murder?

I would say that's an interpretation that has some merit. As with Churchill's assertion, it is neither 100% correct nor 100% incorrect. Let's face it, if people didn't buy drugs, that money wouldn't be used to fund all sorts of bad things.

At what point do people within any democratic system become "innocent". These people who died on 9/11 didn't all vote for the Republicrats or their foreign policies, so how do they become cleansed of sin?

When they refuse to cooperate with the system. It's not an easy choice. It means living in poverty. It means not having nice things. People do it, willingly. I don't. I don't want to live like that. I accept that I am part of an evil system, because I don't want to live like a hippie anarchist, squatting in abandoned buildings and dumpster diving for food. The point is, if we wanted to ensure that we don't contribute to the oppression of others, there are things we could do.

Does that mean, me, buying my Coke products, which puts money in the pocket of a corporation that hires death sqauds to kill union organizers in Columbia bears the same responsibility as the corporate heads making the decisions? Does a mail clerk in Atlanta bear the same responsibility as para thug? Of course not. Will the Fed's still send a Mafia account to jail even though he isn't the one peddling the drugs or pulling the trigger? Yes, but not for as long. The fact we have reduced responsibility doesn't mean we have no responsibility. The fact that we have some responsibility doesn't mean we should be murdered for it. Just because we aren't as innocent as we want to believe doesn't mean we're as guilty as some would say we are.

You polled these people before they died?

Do I need to poll American generals in Iraq to find out whether or not they are engaging in activiites related to the war?

And just how many traders are we talking about? The terrorists didn't hit the WTO, IMF, or World Bank.

No, they hit the World Trade Center, a building which isn't merely a symbol of those things, but one which engages in the activity for which the IMF, World Bank, and WTO carriers out their neo-liberal agenda, squeezing the 3rd world so that traders in the 1st world can have more profitis.

So capitalist countries loan money to the 3rd world and that's bad, and its also bad when capitalist countries don't loan money.

It's not that they loan the money that's a problem, except when they do it knowing the country can't repay. It's what they force countries to do, after the fact. Like the heroin dealer giving out free samples, the World Bank and the IMF went around loaning money in the '60s and '70s on easy terms. When the oil crisis occurred, making it more difficult for these countries to pay their loans, they changed the terms on them, and started squeezing as much blood as they could get, starting a spiral of worsening conditions and worsening debt. Just so some rich guys in NYC, London, Paris, and Tokyo could get a little richer.

Borris, what part of the word some don't you understand?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
No, they hit the World Trade Center, a building which isn't merely a symbol of those things, but one which engages in the activity for which the IMF, World Bank, and WTO carriers out their neo-liberal agenda, squeezing the 3rd world so that traders in the 1st world can have more profitis.

[Saras]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Circle****.

[lord of the mark]

what OBL Said

"This is America, God has sent one of the attacks by God and has attacked one of its best buildings. And this is America filled with fear from the north to south and east to west, thank God.

And what America is facing today is something very little of what we have tasted for decades. Our nation, since nearly 80 years is tasting this humility. Sons are killed, and nobody answers the call. "

It was one of Americas "best" buildings, and by destroying it he would make Americans EVERYWHERE feel fear. Nothing about bond traders, the IMF, or economics of ANY kind.

Ergo OBL was NOT motivated by economic "crimes' so your point has nothing to do with OBL's motivation. And as you have said repeatedly, its not a justification. So whats the point?

[lord of the mark]

Guev thinks the IMF extended loans in the 1960s KNOWING they couldnt be repaid. He apparently thinks they knew about the oil price spikes in advance.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Ergo OBL was NOT motivated by economic "crimes' so your point has nothing to do with OBL's motivation. And as you have said repeatedly, its not a justification. So whats the point?

I was pointing out that Churchill's argument had some merit. You're also ignoring the fact people aren't always aware of what motivates them or those they oppose. Nor do they necessarily see the deeper causes of the problems against which they fight. The Iranian revolution called us the Great Satan, not just because of our culture (and its influence in Iran), but also because we imposed a cruel dictator on them for decades. In their rhetoric, did they talk about how greedy we were and how we oppressed them for money, or did they rail on about our immoral culutre? Which one, however, had more influence on why they were so mad at us to begin with?

As for when the IMF knew, it knew in the 80s that the new loans it was making could not be repaid, and made them anyway. It also made demands which clobbered the countries' economies. There was a change in the ideology at the IMF and the World Bank, from trying to develop internal markets in the 3rd world to getting them to develop for external markets and to guarantee the profits of 1st world investors.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


I was pointing out that Churchill's argument had some merit. You're also ignoring the fact people aren't always aware of what motivates them or those they oppose. Nor do they necessarily see the deeper causes of the problems against which they fight. The Iranian revolution called us the Great Satan, not just because of our culture (and its influence in Iran), but also because we imposed a cruel dictator on them for decades. In their rhetoric, did they talk about how greedy we were and how we oppressed them for money, or did they rail on about our immoral culutre? Which one, however, had more influence on why they were so mad at us to begin with?
.

Im all for a deeper social analysis of events. If you want to say that A. the economic structure of the world of the world caused US foreign policy and B. OBL attacked the WTC because of US foreign policy, ergo theres a causal chain between the economic structure of the world of and the attack on the WTC, that wouldbe coherent, though I disagree in SOME measure with both A and B. But if your analyzing at that level, its kind of silly to be talking about the moral responsibilities of the individual traders at Cantor Fitzgerald, as Churchill did. Or to make a statement about what should have surprised them. It would indeed, be surprising for them to have a revolutionary consciousness, would it not? A functioning society should suppress such consciousness, and to the extent its possible it should be only among the working class.

Marxism I can tolerate. Half assed radical posturing I cant. Now if you want to go post a MARXIST analysis of the world situation, feel free. This is a discussion of something different.

[Saras]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Guev thinks the IMF extended loans in the 1960s KNOWING they couldnt be repaid. He apparently thinks they knew about the oil price spikes in advance.

TEH EVIL CAPTALIST CONSIRACY CONTROLS TEH WORLD ECONOMY INCLUDING THE OIL PRICES!!! THEY KNEWW!!!1!!!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Marxism I can tolerate. Half assed radical posturing I cant. Now if you want to go post a MARXIST analysis of the world situation, feel free. This is a discussion of something different.

But what I'm getting at is that, despite his "half assed radical posturing" even a broken clock is right twice a day (unless it's on military time). He's not 100% wrong, though I wouldn't say he's mostly right. He touches on a couple truthes, but goes the wrong way with them, draws the wrong conclusions, etc.