All very good points, thank you. Unfortunately, this medium only allows so much, and many assumptions are left unspoken. To explain my complete view on the subject would be near impossible, but I'll say that I do not "know" and am continuing to explore -- and will probably remain so for quite some time. There are so many people professing that anyone who even considers such things as possible is a kook and unschooled in science. They have accepted one side only because the other side seems too unlikely.
Your analysis and rules of thumb are quite reasonable. I don't agree, however, with your statement that the doctor would not risk his career by publishing the story (though I do not know that he didn't in this case, as it was his colleague that related it). For him to relate the story, he would be saying that he believed the events had occured. True, he wouldn't have to say anything about believing that it was an OBE, but it would be assumed.
His peers would be left with deciding between (a) the doctor believes his patient had an OBE and (b) the doctor made the whole thing up. Neither option leaves the doctor in a good position, so it's better for him to simply let it go.
The same thing happens with so many UFO claims. If you see a light in the sky that is not explained by an airplane, satellite, or other "common" occurrance, it is necessarily a UFO because it is unidentified. But most people then jump to the conclusion that the reporter must believe it was a spacecraft from some other planet and is then obviously crazy or lying. People are reluctant to accept events that they cannot explain.
[Me:]The fact that I am aware of myself and my surroundings is incredible, and I cannot accept that this awareness arises simply from my electro-chemical brain.
...and in the next you disbelieve something as being too incredible!
True, I phrased it too strongly, but I do not accept that we are merely a brain not because it's incredible but because it seems unlikely. However, I am still open to that possibility, but I don't currently believe it to be the case.
Our behavior, emotions, etc. seem far too complex to arise out of a electric and chemical processes of the brain. I know that complex systems are usually made up of components that in themselves are quite simple. Yet to me our awareness seems more likely to originate elsewhere, using our brain to interact with our bodies and process information.
In the end, they are all just beliefs. Some people believe in a God. Some believe in hell and Heaven. Some believe the spark of life originated randomly or out of chaos. But for now, it's merely interesting conversation.:)
Science is based on a principle of testable observations and calculable data. You can't trust the account of someone whose only means of cognition is a set of dead or dying neurons.
You don't always have the luxury of setting up tests for your hypotheses. Sometimes all you get are observations of events that occur on their own. I for one am not willing to be hit by a bus just so someone can interview me for an NDE if I happen to survive. But that doesn't discount the evidence.
For example, this is from a book I'm currently reading.
An elderly lady, blind from diabetes, suffered a cardiac arrest during her stay in the hospital where I was the chairman of the psychiatry department. She was unconscious as the resuscitation team tried to revive her. According to her later report, she floated out of her body and stood near the window, watching, as the doctors administered medicines through hastily inserted intravenous tubes. She observed, without any pain whatsoever, as they thumped on her chest and pumped air into her lungs. During the resuscitation, a pen fell out of her doctor's pocket and rolled near the same window where her out-of-body spirit was standing and watching. The doctor eventuially walked over, picked up the pen, and put it back in his pocket. He then rejoined the frantic effort to save her. They succeeded.
A few days later, she told her doctor that she had observed the resuscitation team at work during her cardiac arrest. "No," he soothingly reassured her. "You probably were hallucinating because of the anoxia [lack of oxygen to the brain]. This can happen when the heart stops beating."
"But I saw your pen roll over to the window," she replied. Then she described the pen and other details of the resuscitation.
The doctor was shocked. His patient had not only been comatose during the resuscitation, but she had also been blind for many years.
No, I don't expect to convince you or anyone with one event, but there are thousands like this. And they are coming more frequently from established healthcare professionals who have every reason to keep them hidden for fear of damage to their careers.
If such things were occurring, I can assure you I'd have heard of it, barring some massive conspiracy.
Right, the established big media conglomerates would be sure to tell you about something that might actually touch your life instead of the various car wrecks and murders that occurred in other states. Let's just not even get started on that one. (Oops, just did.)
I take it you don't have any pets, and perhaps have never seen a live animal.
I've cared for six cats and five dogs. Close, but you're a little off.
Watching any higher-order mammal, emotions are obvious.
Yes, but when did I say that animals didn't have emotions, or that animals are any different from humans? You've made many assumptions here about my beliefs that are not correct.
Have you considered that fact that instincts are essentially desires in humans?
I have an instinct to eat and avoid death. I do not have an instinct to read. That is a learned behavior that comes from somewhere else. You might argue that reading gives me enjoyment, and I have an instinct to find joy. However, some of what I read is very unsettling (Noam Chomsky), but I read it because I have a desire to help society move beyond its current ego-based, competitive nature.
Are you aware of modern science? The Earth's revolution isn't extraordinary anymore.
Perhaps you missed the discussion about Galileo above. The point was that at one point in history, it was heretical to propose the Sun was the center of our solar system. Now of course we laugh at the 50% of Americans who purportedly believe the Earth is.
Additionally, your version of an open mind is accepting anything you don't feel hasn't not been disproved enough.
No. My version of an open critical mind doesn't discount what it cannot explain simply because it seems far-fetched. I look at the evidence, check in with my intuition, talk it out with others, and then form an opinion on the likelihood of its truthfulness.
You, on the other hand, seem to be advocating that we all deny the existence of anything that cannot yet be explained through "modern science." I'm telling you to neither deny nor accept -- simply to consider.
Night is the best time for verbal sparring. Oh, and for the record, I work for the CIA on the MK-Ultra mind control experiments, so I know a lot about the human (an Andoran) mind.;)
How would that make us special? We just are. It wasn't until Freud and Jung that people accepted on a mass scale that ailments could lie in the mind/psyche as well as the body. How long will it be before we learn that there is yet another layer beyond the mind?
Body... Mind... Spirit... ???
The thing that amazes me is that people will absolutely insist there is only the body. Then, someone shows them the mind, and they say, "Okay, I accept I was wrong about the body thing. There is a mind. But there's nothing beyond the mind. I'm positive!" At each step they admit they were wrong and revise their beliefs, yet they fall right back into insisting their new theories are correct beyond all doubt and that there is nothing else.
Yes I've heard similar explanations for NDEs, but that doesn't speak to cases where people have recalled conversations that took place in other rooms of a hospital while they were being operated on. Unfortunately, it all seems anecdotal for now until people can first accept the possibility and then research it. I've read enough to at least be open to the possibility.
Note that "the Earth revolv[ing] around the Sun" is part of "the planetary motions."
No. Galileo did not stand on the Sun and observe the Earth's motion. He did, however, stand on the Earth and observe the other planets. Regardless, had he been able to observe the Earth from the Sun, the observations would still be ordinary.
Not being skilled in Ebonics, I wouldn't know, but I do recommend looking up the word "jibe".
Pardon my typo. The sarcasm isn't necessary though.
Um, I hate to break it to you, but the Earth is closer to the Sun during parts of the year. None of the planetary objects travel a perfectly circular orbit -- they're all eliptical.
I agree completely until your last sentence. I believe that it's our nature to be curious and ask questions. Watch any infant or toddler. They inspect everything and constantly ask, "Why? Why?"
Unfortunately, our society works to stifle that creativity and questioning. At home you are told to obey your parents simply "because." In school you are taught to trust everything the teacher says as correct. By the time you get to your teens, you've been pressed into a nice little mold of conformity so as not to rock any boats.
Our society must change, but of course it's cyclical. Who if not these same conformists are going to change society?
This is why I am against universal standards. If you allow each school to try new techniques and teaching methods, you may run the risk of some children not being taught the "important" subjects. But of course that happens now anyway. More importantly, you enable the possibility that some students will escape the molding process, and everyone will learn from those schools.
Just as nature produces a variety of species to guard against the complete extinction of life, so too must we as humans explore multiple avenues of growth if we expect to remain strong.
Why? Galileo claimed the Earth revolves around the Sun, which at the time was quite controversial and extraordinary. However, simply observing the planetary motions proved him right. Nothing extraordinary there.
On the other hand, _every time_ any one of these claims is tested in a controlled, scientific matter, they _never_ work.
Wow, you've researched every claim and every test of those claims? Man, you must be exhausted. I rather expect that you're just repeating something you've heard from someone else. I have read quite a bit about near-death experiences, enough to convince me that there is more to us than our biological bodies.
I didn't stop there, however. I looked at the evidence with a critical mind. How does this jive with my own intuition and experiences? The fact that I am aware of myself and my surroundings is incredible, and I cannot accept that this awareness arises simply from my electro-chemical brain. I have emotions and desires, quite apart from food and shelter.
I don't care to convince you to believe it, but I emplore you to keep an open yet critical mind. And don't simply disbelieve because it seems too extraordinary, otherwise you might end up thinking the Sun revolves around the Earth.
If all your neighbours voted to tar and feather you, and only you and one of your friends voted against it, does that mean you are the problem?
It would certainly seem that way, would it not? Assuming they were acting rationally, I would have had to do something for them to feel it necessary to tar and feather me. If 100+ nations agree that Israel should withdraw from the territories it invaded in 1967, and only Israel and the U.S. disagreed, don't you think maybe there's something to it?
A peace enforced from without and without the consent of both parties is not a peace - it is an ultimatum.
Possibly, but that was exactly why the UN was created. Europe and the rest of the world was sick and tired of long bloody conflicts. They created a process whereby two nations in disagreement could settle their differences without going to war. Part of the process is having the Security Council and/or General Assembly vote on a resolution and all UN members uphold it. If the U.S. doesn't like it, they shouldn't have set it up in the first place.
The problem, as it has been from the beginning, is that the U.S. has a permanent seat on the SC and can veto any resolution at will. So the UN (some 160+ nations) is still partially at the whims of the U.S. (and France, the U.K., China, and Russia).
And on the other hand, do you really think it is only US intransigence that hobbles the UN?
No, not only, but primarily. That there are disagreements among member nations is part of the UN process -- not a problem. But I feel that five states having permanent veto power over a 160-member organization is a major problem. We don't give the two California senators veto power in the Senate simply because California is so populous. Why should the U.S. have that power in an organization whose charter is to maintain peace among all member states?
If the US were to INTENTIONALLY slaughter a large number of Afghans without having a provocation in the form of a massive attack on their population, then yes.
As my previous post stated, the U.S. is intentionally killing civilians -- not with their bombs (though that's debatable) but by starvation. That a terrorist organization whose leader is hiding in Afghanistan killed several thousand civilians is not a justification for killing more civilians. If you commit murder and then hide in the suburbs, the police don't make bombing raids hoping to take you out.
The coalition didn't throw the first punch in this round. bin Laden and the Taliban did, striking without warning.
You seem quite sure of your position. Did you see all of the classified evidence? Or are you just taking Bush and Blair at their word? I'm not comfortable doing that -- that's why courts of law were created. Gather and present evidence, then judge the case without bias. Letting the "victim" carry out a sentence against the accused without trial is barbaric.
Similar to why shooting someone trying to kill you is not murder.
No, that is a totally different situation. In that case, I am preventing an armed attack against me. In Afghanistan's case, we are retaliating against an entire population for a single act that some of their fellow citizens are accused of having committed. In your case the proof of my attempted crime is me pointing a gun at you. With Afghanistan, the proof is the good word of an unelected president with family business ties to bin Laden.
I thought the Pentagon was in Washington. As I recall, they crashed a plane into it.
You speak as if Afghanistan was responsible for the 9-11 crimes. Do you hold the U.S. government responsible for Timothy McVeigh's actions? Just because the accused party lives in Afghanistan does not mean the Taliban had anything to do with it. As well, the CIA funded and built those terrorist organizations to fight Russia, so the U.S. is as much to blame.
If that was the case, are you saying all a murderer has to do is hide among a population of the downtrodden and starving in order to evade justice?
If a murderer were to hide out among a crowd, the police would use snipers rather than grenades to avoid collateral damage. The steps that the UN ratified were akin to a sniper. Stop the money. Share intelligence. Apply political pressure and sanctions. The U.S. decided on its own to use grenades.
In terms of gross dollars, the US is the most generous nation on earth.
If you compare the dollars the U.S. spends on weaponry to that it spends on humanitarian aid, we don't look so rosy. If a crime syndicate donates some of its money to the Red Cross, do we call them generous? Sure, we were supplying some aid to Afghanistan, but we cut it off at the worst time: right before winter.
You have to look beyond the small view presented by the media. Why is the U.S. even trying to topple the Taliban government? That's not our right; it isn't in the UN charter; and it goes against the UN resolutions passed for this very situation. The U.S. has installed puppet dictatorships and funded military coups in South America for decades. Why is this one chosen to be dismantled?
Perhaps it's all that black gold in the Caspean Sea. The oil companies would love to have access to it, and there are three routes for a pipeline: Iran (no chance), Russia (no control), and Afghanistan. Once the Taliban is replaced by the Northern Alliance with U.S. help, Afghanistan becomes the prime candidate.
Bush: Surrender bin Laden to us -- not the UN, not the Hague, not Nuremberg -- to the U.S.: judge, jury and executioner. There will be no negotiations. We're going to start bombing if you do not comply.
Taliban: Show us evidence and we'll try him ourselves.
Bush: No!
Taliban: Okay, show us evidence and we'll hand him over to a third party.
Bush: No!
Taliban: Fine, show us just some of the evidence and we'll hand him over to a third party.
Bush: No!
Taliban: We'll hand him over to a third party, and at some future time please show us some of the evidence.
Bush: No!... OMFG, we tried every diplomatic means at our disposal, but they didn't cave in to our non-negotiable demands. Time to bomb.
We are now attacking those who protected the guy who sent the planes into the buildings.
No, not really. We're blowing up vacant training camps that we paid for, air fields, UN and Red Cross buildings (oops), and residential areas (sorry). And there's that "little" humanitarian crisis of 7 million starving civilians and refugees.
Have we nabbed bin Laden or crushed the Taliban? No. We haven't found him let alone captured him.
"Come on out or we'll burn the place down."
Nice metaphor, but it's not complete. You forgot that the saloon belongs to an innocent man; his wife, two children, and twenty patrons are also inside being held hostage by three gunmen that robbed a bank. Are you willing to have the sheriff murder 24 innocent civilians to execute 3 thieves?
That's precisely why we have laws that everyone must obey, and provisions for apprehending law breakers that do not include killing anyone that had the misfortune to be standing near them. I don't care how much you want revenge, you don't get to murder to achieve it.
And as for "vigalantism" keep in mind that the UN and NATO both gave us the green light before the first fuse was lit.
Reading through the latest UN Security Council Resolutions (1368 and 1373), I see no endorsement of military action. They mention steps to curb the financial activities of terrorist organizations and a desire for multilateral information-sharing agreements. They both conclude with the standard, "Decides to remain seized of this matter," meaning the Security Council must be petitioned for any new action to be taken.
Secretary-General Kofi Annan said, "To defeat terrorism, we need a sustained effort and a broad strategy that unite all nations, and address all aspects of the scourge we face. The cause must be pursued by many countries working together, using many different means - including political, legal, diplomatic and financial means."
Note the distinct lack of "military" as one of the options. Once again the U.S. is taking unilateral action against international law and treaties the U.S. has signed. Nothing new here.
Re:Globalisation for Greed
on
Globalization
·
· Score: 1
Another thing he's not saying is any sort of solution to any problem ever.... In my opinion, that addition is just a litany of abuses the US has committed with neither the balance of the US's good deeds or any sort of solution to the problems whatsoever.
First, with big media, the U.S. doesn't need any help singing its rare humanitarian deeds. But pointing out the inconvenient facts is very necessary if you intend to make good decisions and have real debate. While his goal is to provide facts and analysis and let the reader form their own opinion, he does sometimes offer solutions. Two clear unambiguous examples are Nicaragua and East Timor: stop the attacks and military support and bring in humanitarian aid. It doesn't get much clearer than that.
While understanding the reasoning behind the organizations that committed these crimes is certainly crucial, making it our main focus risks turning the debate into a question of "What can we do to make them happy again?"
The men that flew those planes aren't going to be made happy, so there's no use trying to appease them. However, we can take steps to assure more men and women like them don't stand up to take their place. It's not about keeping terrorists happy; it's about not pissing off more regular people such that they become terrorists.
The main problem most Islamic terrorists have with the US is its support of Israel, and we simply cannot just drop Israel. Our support of Israel is the only thing that has ever brought the Israelis and Palestinians to the peace table.
I wish I knew more of the history of Israel, so I cannot address the topic well. I can say, though, that on the surface the UN resolution calling on Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders (when it invaded Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank and Gaza Strip) is a good start. Everyone but the U.S. and Israel has ratified it. Chomsky, Fisk, et al claim that the U.S. has vetoed every Security Council issue trying to create a solution. The U.S. stance is an Israel with a subordinate Palestine or continued hostilities -- there is no middle ground.
What I can say is that we give an obscene amount of military aid to Israel and Turkey, and both are carrying out terrorist and/or genocidal campaigns in the region, just as Saddam Hussein did to the Kurds in northern Iraq before ever invading Kuwait, turning the U.S. against him, or rather the Iraqi civilians.
Allowing a decades-long civil war -- one in which more civilians are killed per day than in the entire US bombing campaign combined: is that helping or doing harm?
Neither. If we bomb, we kill millions. If we do nothing, yes they kill themselves, but we are not aggravating the situation. Now, I think there is middle ground, but that answers your question. Again realize that as a result of our bombing entirely one third of Afghanistan's 22 million people may die of starvation during winter -- 7 million people.
Instead of spending $40 billion on bombing them, why not spend the same $4 billion we send to Israel (for weapons) on food aid for Afghanistan and pocket the remaining $36 billion. Once people aren't starving in the streets they tend to value life higher and would probably be very open to UN run elections for a democratic government. That's one option among many.
The fact of the matter is that the US... will continue to be in the future the largest single supplier of humanitarian aid to the Afghani people. I don't remember hearing that in any of Chomsky's speeches.
Actually he has mentioned that the U.S. and UN supply humanitarian aid. Unfortunately all of it was cut off once the U.S. threatened to bomb. The aid wasn't getting them to sustainability; it was keeping people from starving. No more aid, starvation begins. And as covered many times, the food bombs we dropped were a PR scam, a mere bandaid applied to an amputated leg.
IndyMedia is without a doubt one of the most irresponsible "journalistic" sites on the web. Let's not forget the incident in which they claimed that footage of Palestinians celebrating on Sept. 11th was shot in 1991.
Please check your facts. To summarize, someone posted a rumor in the public forum of one of the 48 or so IMC sites. The following day an editor called CNN to confirm the rumor but got no reply. Later, someone posted a followup comment that the rumor was indeed false by simply examining the footage. The rumor was just like your posting. It was never put in the features nor touched by the editors. Blaming IndyMedia would be like blaming Andover.net for a false rumor posted by an AC on Slashdot.
[Bush's] speeches are about punishing criminals and aiding the Afghan people.
That's wonderful, but his actions speak louder. He hasn't set back the Taliban, nor found bin Laden, and he's killing the Afghan people. And law is about justice -- meaning presenting evidence to an impartial trial for judgment -- not revenge.
"You are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Bush wants no middle ground.
"God is on our side." Bush claims to be Christian, yet the first lesson of Christianity is forgiveness. Vengeance is of the Old Testament.
"Hand over bin Laden or we'll bomb you. There will be no negotiations."... "We have exhausted all diplomatic avenues." How can you have diplomacy without negotiating? So Bush made one lame attempt: a childish ultimatum.
Bin Laden makes no such claims to generosity - he only wants to help if it involves killing Americans or Jews.
I have the same disdain for bin Laden as I do for Bush, and I never said he was a nice guy. But he did make four clear points in his speech as to why so many Muslims would want to inflict pain on the U.S. While he may privately want all of Israel to go away, he asked only for us to stop supporting them. While he may want to rule the world, he only asked that we remove our military bases from Saudi Arabia.
And I'll say it again: we still have no evidence linking bin Laden to 9-11. Sure, some of his money probably helped pay for the flight schools and tickets, and that makes him partly responsible. But then realize that part of your taxes paid for the bombs that destroyed the two Red Cross buildings and the UN Land Mine Removal Headquarters. Should the UN bomb your suburb to punish you?
Re:Hmmm.... that's a nice quote... but....
on
Globalization
·
· Score: 1
Similarly, waiting for the UN to accomplish anything (ha ha, World Court, good joke...) is pretty utopian and also allows these villains to work their evils.
The U.N. and World Court are ineffective because the U.S. is constantly working against them. Look at the history with Nicaragua and Israel. The U.S. ignored international law in its war against Nicaragua (remember the Iran-Contra scandal?), and the U.S. and Israel have consistently stood alone in voting against peace resolutions in the Middle East.
But to suggest that we can allow 6000 murders to go unpunished or unprosecuted is equally reprehensible. I don't (frankly) care what excuse bin Laden has (or the hijackers) - 6000 murders is still 6000 people slaughtered with malice of forethought.
So if the U.S. took actions that it knew would cause the deaths of thousands of Afghani civilians, then Afghanistan would be obliged to retaliate against the U.S.?
Innocents will get killed.
So Afghanistan should begin bombing Washington?
This is probably one of the few wars in history where anyone has TRIED to distinguish between civilian and military targets.... There is a conscious effort NOT to hurt those already brutalized by war. Will some be hurt or killed? Probably. But not all that many.
Once we announced we were going to bomb Afghanistan, 1) all food aid stopped from the U.N., 2) all aid stopped from Pakistan, 3) massive numbers of starving refugees fled to the closed Pakistani border. At the time, an estimated 6 to 7 million people were on the brink of starvation. It is expected that if bombing continues into winter such that crops are not harvested, several million people will starve before spring.
The U.S. planners expect this to happen, as do the U.N. and many top aid organizations. So the U.S. took actions that it fully expects will result in millions of civilian casualties. Sure, they (probably) aren't targeting them with their cluster bombs, but they're killing them by direct action nonetheless.
I understand your desire for security from people like bin Laden, but you must understand that U.S. foreign policy created him and his network. If we didn't treat the Muslim population like worthless garbage, there wouldn't be so much enmity toward us, and his network would not be able to recruit.
We are bringing justice to a people that have no concept of what justice really is.
You call this justice? Maybe even Infinite Justice? Let's look at the simple facts.
When a murder is committed, the police conduct an investigation, collect evidence, ask questions, and finally build a case they think will convict. Then the suspect is arrested and brought to trial. All evidence is presented and both sides have a chance to argue their case. Then the jury deliberates and makes a decision. Finally, a judge determines a sentence in case of a guilty verdict.
There's a similar process on the world stage. When the U.S. was attacking Nicaragua, the latter took its case to the World Court to stop the war. The Court decided in Nicaragua's favor and demanded that the U.S. stop all hostilities and pay substantial reparations for the damage it had inflicted. The U.S. ignored the Court and intensified the war. Nicaragua then went to the U.N. Security Council with a resolution calling on all states to obey international law. The U.S. vetoed the resolution as it has a permanent seat. Finally, Nicaragua went to the U.N. General Assembly with the same resolution which passed since there is no veto there. The U.S. ignored all this.
Now airplanes are used as missiles, resulting in thousands of lost civilian lives and billions of dollars of damage. Does the U.S. take its evidence to court? Does it seek extradition? Does it go to the U.N. as demanded by treaties it signed? No. Instead, Bush displays cowboy diplomacy where he declares bin Laden "wanted, dead or alive." No evidence is presented; bombing simply commences on the country believed to be the home of the prime suspect. And we're not even targeting the suspect himself because, heck, we just don't know where he is!
There were very good reasons for outlawing vigilantism in this country, and our judicial system is based on innocence until guilt is proven with hard evidence and in a court of law. This is about as far from justice as we could possibly fly. But what did you expect from a president that came to power via a military coup (several thousand "lost" military votes in Florida got him the state)?
Re:Globalisation for Greed
on
Globalization
·
· Score: 1
That's a very Chomskian viewpoint - "I don't know what to do, but what the US is doing is wrong."
I've read a lot of Chomsky, and that's not what he's been saying. The first step is to ask the right questions. If you don't, you can't possibly hope to make an informed decision. The first question that must be asked is "Why were the crimes of Sept. 11th committed?" Only then can we hope to stop the violence.
Hint: It has nothing to do with America being the land of the free and the home of the brave.
More hints: Palestine and Isreal. 10 years of sanctions and bombing of Iraq. U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia. Supporting oppressive regimes that are friendly to oil interests.
As Chomsky has made very clear, there are more choices than attack, aid, or ignore. But any solution should start with the basic premise of "first, do no harm."
Bombing an already starving population ruled by an oppressive regime right before winter sets in is going to result in the deaths of millions of civilians by winter's end. Is that helping or doing harm? We haven't taken out the Taliban, and now there's talk of keeping some of the "moderates" in poower to rule with the Northern Alliance. Hello?! The Northern Alliance is the world's major heroine producer.
Before the U.S. began its viscious revenge (God bless America -- He's on our side), Afghanis were at least receiving U.N. food aid and aid from Pakistan. That stopped soon after 9-11. In fact we demanded that Pakistan stop its food shipments to Afghanistan and close its borders to contain the anticipated massive refugee flight.
Yes, but only one of those places hosts a group that murdered 5000 US civilians.
And that's the key isn't it? That the U.S. has murdered -- either directly or through military training and aid -- millions of civilians in the past fifty years alone isn't a problem because they weren't U.S. civilians. We've overthrown democratically-elected governments, targeted civilians with cluster bombs, and flagrantly disregarded international law and U.N. resolutions to keep the profits flowing. But as long as we always export our terror, all is well.
Keep reading. ZNet. IndyMedia. Listen to the rhetoric Bush is spouting. Take a Bush speech and replace "God" with "Allah" and "U.S." with "Islam" and you can't tell him apart from bin Laden.
That's all really nice until you consider that every invention has more than one use. You can't simply say that an invention is bad once someone uses it for a bad purpose.
The research that created the nuclear bomb will one day produce a safe, cheap, earth-friendly source of abundant energy. Once this occurs, not only will we have vast amounts of energy without destroying our environment, but oil will become useless and we (U.S.) will have less reason to meddle in the Middle East.
True, many lives have been lost in truly sad ways, but the bomb didn't get up on its own and jump out of a plane over Nagasaki. It took an American president to make the decision that it was okay to kill thousands of civilians to achieve our political goals. That, by the way, was the *same* conclusion the terrorists came to.
Encryption technology has enabled many benefits. Besides, it's really just a more advanced form of whispering. If you're going to blame cryptologists for the actions of terrorists, then you need to blame airplane manufactures, oil companies, flight attendants, travel agencies, car rental agencies, airport security personnel, et al.
If you *really* feel a strong need to blame someone for what happened last week, you can pretty safely point your finger at the U.S. State Department. It's been discussed here ad nauseum, but to sum up the majority of the population in the Middle East hates America *not* because we have more freedom but because our government takes action that directly impacts their access to freedom.
If you ban encryption thinking it will keep you safe, they'll turn to other methods. If you outlaw box cutters, they'll smuggle on letter openers. The only real solution is to find the root cause of the problem and solve that. Until then you're merely patching holes in the hopes that the dam won't burst.
That's all certainly true, and the intelligence community knows it. However, that's not what Congress is saying. Backdoors for encryption? Email sifting? These are technical solutions; not human solutions. My fear is that there will be even more proposed soon.
The blame will come soon enough. I've heard on nearly every report talk about the "failure of the U.S. intelligence effort." What is this failure, and how can it be fixed? I suspect that Carnivore will be put forth as the solution.
"We could have known about it ahead of time if only we had read the emails."
I'm afraid that will be all it takes. People here will say, "Sure, I don't want them reading my email, but I'm not a terrorist, so it's ok." This little bit of leverage will bend public opinion and allow Congress to pass legislation mandating the sifting of all private communications.
(a) Yes, the CIA is a terrorist organization. They've staged military coups, performed assassinations, trained other terrorists (at the time they were our "friends" somehow), etc.
(b) Even the mainstream media has reported that we trained bin Laden's men and supplied them initially with money and arms. Are you saying that the DoD is lying about that?
(c) No, I didn't say that at all. I said we need to look for the real problem and solve that. The problem that some people kill other people is not solvable by politics and military force. So we have no hope of "curing the world of terrorism." And when you look around and realize the U.S. causes a lot of the violence, you might want to think about solving the problem right here.
What happened Tuesday was wrong, but going after the terrorists will not stop it from happening again. I'm sick of the U.S. taking on the role of the world's cop. Not only is it not our place and against our Constitution, but it draws the anger of many other nations. No thanks!
That is bullshit, but it's not what I said. Try again: "... most everyone killed in Tuesday's attack died instantly." But who cares whether it was all or only most? Either way, thousands will have died by the end of this.
Don't tell me that this is any kind of payback for attrocities done 10,000 miles away by people these victims never knew or met
I suspect that Tuesday's action was payback for atrocities done 10,000 miles away by the United States Armed Forces. The Arab nations view the U.S. military as the source of their misery.
But they know they cannot fight our military head-on. Thus they go for terrorizing civilians in the hopes that we will stand up and speak for them. That's similar to the U.S. hoping that sanctions will force the Iraqi public to revolt against Saddam.
All the Arab states are run by military totalitarian regimes (that's a very general statement, and I'll probably step in it shortly), and the populations of those states blame the U.S. We've done the same in South and Central America, so I suppose we may be dealing with their anger soon as well.
The US may harm civilians, but civilians have NEVER been the intentional target. Not since WWII.
Now you're just making stuff up. Even you can't be unaware of our mischief. Remember when we invaded South Vietnam? Millions of tons of bombs were dropped on Southeast Asia to "stop communism." We targeted the rural population that wanted a change in government. Our targets were specifically civilian.
We bombed damns and irrigation and farms in order to starve the population en masse. We drove them to the cities where they couldn't farm and had to work in factories to survive.
Unexploded ordnance and land mines continue to kill children in Laos and Cambodia to this day.
In Iraq, we know that our sanctions aren't hurting the military. We know they're getting food somehow. So the sanctions are truly targeted at civilians.
The U.S. is the world's leading terrorist organization. We can outspend anyone, and we're pretty good at diverting attention externally. Internally, it's rare to find a U.S. citizen that is aware of what our government does. That's some very effective propoganda.
This does not condone Tuesday's attack! But if you don't dig to find out why we were attacked in the first place, you're just blindly following violence with more violence, and you'll never solve the true problem.
We bomb people, and shit happens. Leftists moan. We don't bomb, and instead try to enact pressure via sanctions, and rules elect to let their people starve. And leftists moan.
You're missing the point. Hypothetical situation. A very nasty dog has your hand in its mouth and is trying to rip it from your arm. Your other hand is gripped around its neck, trying to kill it. Both of your choices (kill dog or lose hand) suck.
We are not moaning about your choices, we're saying,
Don't stick your fscking hand in a dog's mouth!
The U.S. government has provided money, weapons, training, personnel, planes, tanks, etc. to many organizations throughout the world. In nearly every case they've been used to promote terror against civilians rather than protect them. We've arranged countless coups. The CIA is the world's premiere terrorist organization.
You say it doesn't matter that we've trained terrorists. Those very terrorists may in fact be responsible for Tuesday's attack. Had we not trained them or provided them with money, they would not have been able to do it.
Instead of pissing off every nation on this planet, I think we need to take a step back and really examine what our government has been up to. If you do, you will at least come to understand the point of view taken by terrorists. To them, this is the option of last resort, but it's preferable to the death of their culture.
For most Americans, the only worry is whether we'll have to "suffer" higher gas prices.
First of all, Iraq gets tons of food and medical supplies, which are often intercepted by the military away from their own people
A UN inspection group found that well over 95% of the food and medical supplies were reaching Iraqi civilians directly. They reported it as one of the most effective humanitarian projects in history.
Second of all, maybe they forgot that Iraq invaded a sovereign nation in order to steal their oil.
American oil companies use U.S. military and political force to obtain their oil. They do it in secret, using the State Department and CIA, to escape justice. In most cases only money is required to grease the wheels, but on several occasions we've provided all but the soldiers.
Neither side is right. They both must be stopped. Don't try to claim that "they" are somehow more "evil" because they attacked civilians, for the U.S. does that as well. What happened is an atrocity, but at least most everyone killed in Tuesday's attack died instantly. Iraqi children have been starving to death by the thousands for well over a year.
The terrorists are probably hoping that this will result in the American public pressuring our government to change some particular action. I believe they are, unfortunately, just as wrong as our government in believing that the starving citizens of Iraq are going to suddenly revolt against their leadership.
Most Americans not only don't know what our government does, they don't want to. The majority believe they have no say in what the government does, so the last thing they want is to learn of U.S. atrocities. They don't want to feel any more guilt or responsibility. They pay their taxes, and that means they don't have to think about all the terror that money buys.
Seems to me it was plenty good for workers. Mexican workers, anyway: they have jobs with a good company.
It would be if Ford was required to follow any of the health and safety laws that they must in the U.S. Instead, however, the Mexican workers do not receive health coverage, time off, over-time, workers compensation for injuries. They also work longer hours under sadly dangerous conditions.
You could argue that this the Mexican government's fault for not enacting laws to protect workers, and that is true. However, the reason for the lack of laws is that U.S. corporations pay foreign leaders (and the U.S. government pressures them with sanctions) to maintain a "business-friendly" climate.
Sure, they may have work and earn enough to subsist, but they are then effectively enslaved and kept from making internal changes that would improve their conditions. And in the meantime they are over-worked, underpaid, and in danger... and Ford rakes in the profits.
Even for US workers it may be a good thing: perhaps they will realise that they do not have a deathgrip on their employers--there's a labour market and not a labour monopoly, as before.
That's exactly the point. Wage workers (nearly everyone) are capital -- a commodity. We're not worth anything beyond how much money we can make for someone else. By creating this situation, no one is ever allowed to feel any sense of security.
We're pressed to be consumers, to buy buy buy. We pile on debt underwriting it with our houses and cars. Thus we constantly live in fear that our job will simply vanish in a day and we'll be left out to dry. That is no way to live, my friend.
Perh. the unions will realise that they need to compete. Or perh. workers will realise that unions are just as evil as monopsonist employers.
When I experienced my first union in high school, working as a bag-boy at a grocery store, I thought unions were complete crap too. Why am I paying $10/week to a union when I simply want to work. I looked at it as robbery. However, now that I've grown and matured, I can see the reason for unions. True, they are corrupt (like any organization with power) and probably all run by the mob (whatever).
But what of corporations? They are organizations of power whose sole reason for existence is to maximize profit. At least unions have to pretend to take the workers' interests to heart (and I believe they mostly do). Corporations, on the other hand, routinely violate the privacy of their customers, screw workers, break laws, bribe government officials, ad nauseum.
The Yankees are interested in an increased population (more surfs).
No. NAFTA and its recent followup FTAA are about one thing: freedom of capital. While the U.S. talks up free trade, the goal is to allow transnational corporations to freely move the capital about the two continents to maximize profit. That's it.
Normally, countries place restrictions on the movement of foreign capital across their borders. If a corporation builds a factory in another country and later sells that factory, they can't just take the money from the sale and pull it back to their home country without paying massive taxes, fees, and often must schedule the transfer over many years.
This causes many headaches for them as they can't just close a plant in one country and open it in another as needs warrent. Take a recent example. A strike was being planned at one of Ford's manufacturing plants where the workers were demanding higher wages. Instead of negotiating or dealing with the strike, Ford closed the plant, shipped all the equipment to Mexico, and reopened it in a matter of months. Bonus: the locals were willing to work for one tenth the wage of the U.S. workers. Good for Ford; bad for workers.
While the U.S. claims this brings freedom to workers as they can move about to find their work, the true effect is freedom for corporations from the threat of strikes or wage increases. Local wages rising? Fuck it, move to Ecuador. With enough U.S.-sponsored state terror the wages can be kept low and the workers effectively enslaved.
That's the goal of NAFTA and FTAA. More corporate welfare. It seems the corporations feel that things have gotten too cushy for the lowly wage-slave. Corporations want their "fair share," and the U.S. government is giving it to them.
Slashdot Mirror
Must not all evidence be "extraordinarily strong"? What scientific theory should be accepted as proven based on weak evidence?
Your analysis and rules of thumb are quite reasonable. I don't agree, however, with your statement that the doctor would not risk his career by publishing the story (though I do not know that he didn't in this case, as it was his colleague that related it). For him to relate the story, he would be saying that he believed the events had occured. True, he wouldn't have to say anything about believing that it was an OBE, but it would be assumed.
His peers would be left with deciding between (a) the doctor believes his patient had an OBE and (b) the doctor made the whole thing up. Neither option leaves the doctor in a good position, so it's better for him to simply let it go.
The same thing happens with so many UFO claims. If you see a light in the sky that is not explained by an airplane, satellite, or other "common" occurrance, it is necessarily a UFO because it is unidentified. But most people then jump to the conclusion that the reporter must believe it was a spacecraft from some other planet and is then obviously crazy or lying. People are reluctant to accept events that they cannot explain.
True, I phrased it too strongly, but I do not accept that we are merely a brain not because it's incredible but because it seems unlikely. However, I am still open to that possibility, but I don't currently believe it to be the case.
Our behavior, emotions, etc. seem far too complex to arise out of a electric and chemical processes of the brain. I know that complex systems are usually made up of components that in themselves are quite simple. Yet to me our awareness seems more likely to originate elsewhere, using our brain to interact with our bodies and process information.
In the end, they are all just beliefs. Some people believe in a God. Some believe in hell and Heaven. Some believe the spark of life originated randomly or out of chaos. But for now, it's merely interesting conversation. :)
You don't always have the luxury of setting up tests for your hypotheses. Sometimes all you get are observations of events that occur on their own. I for one am not willing to be hit by a bus just so someone can interview me for an NDE if I happen to survive. But that doesn't discount the evidence.
For example, this is from a book I'm currently reading.
No, I don't expect to convince you or anyone with one event, but there are thousands like this. And they are coming more frequently from established healthcare professionals who have every reason to keep them hidden for fear of damage to their careers.
If such things were occurring, I can assure you I'd have heard of it, barring some massive conspiracy.
Right, the established big media conglomerates would be sure to tell you about something that might actually touch your life instead of the various car wrecks and murders that occurred in other states. Let's just not even get started on that one. (Oops, just did.)
I take it you don't have any pets, and perhaps have never seen a live animal.
I've cared for six cats and five dogs. Close, but you're a little off.
Watching any higher-order mammal, emotions are obvious.
Yes, but when did I say that animals didn't have emotions, or that animals are any different from humans? You've made many assumptions here about my beliefs that are not correct.
Have you considered that fact that instincts are essentially desires in humans?
I have an instinct to eat and avoid death. I do not have an instinct to read. That is a learned behavior that comes from somewhere else. You might argue that reading gives me enjoyment, and I have an instinct to find joy. However, some of what I read is very unsettling (Noam Chomsky), but I read it because I have a desire to help society move beyond its current ego-based, competitive nature.
Are you aware of modern science? The Earth's revolution isn't extraordinary anymore.
Perhaps you missed the discussion about Galileo above. The point was that at one point in history, it was heretical to propose the Sun was the center of our solar system. Now of course we laugh at the 50% of Americans who purportedly believe the Earth is.
Additionally, your version of an open mind is accepting anything you don't feel hasn't not been disproved enough.
No. My version of an open critical mind doesn't discount what it cannot explain simply because it seems far-fetched. I look at the evidence, check in with my intuition, talk it out with others, and then form an opinion on the likelihood of its truthfulness.
You, on the other hand, seem to be advocating that we all deny the existence of anything that cannot yet be explained through "modern science." I'm telling you to neither deny nor accept -- simply to consider.
Night is the best time for verbal sparring. Oh, and for the record, I work for the CIA on the MK-Ultra mind control experiments, so I know a lot about the human (an Andoran) mind. ;)
Body ... Mind ... Spirit ... ???
The thing that amazes me is that people will absolutely insist there is only the body. Then, someone shows them the mind, and they say, "Okay, I accept I was wrong about the body thing. There is a mind. But there's nothing beyond the mind. I'm positive!" At each step they admit they were wrong and revise their beliefs, yet they fall right back into insisting their new theories are correct beyond all doubt and that there is nothing else.
Yes I've heard similar explanations for NDEs, but that doesn't speak to cases where people have recalled conversations that took place in other rooms of a hospital while they were being operated on. Unfortunately, it all seems anecdotal for now until people can first accept the possibility and then research it. I've read enough to at least be open to the possibility.
No. Galileo did not stand on the Sun and observe the Earth's motion. He did, however, stand on the Earth and observe the other planets. Regardless, had he been able to observe the Earth from the Sun, the observations would still be ordinary.
Not being skilled in Ebonics, I wouldn't know, but I do recommend looking up the word "jibe".
Pardon my typo. The sarcasm isn't necessary though.
Um, I hate to break it to you, but the Earth is closer to the Sun during parts of the year. None of the planetary objects travel a perfectly circular orbit -- they're all eliptical.
Unfortunately, our society works to stifle that creativity and questioning. At home you are told to obey your parents simply "because." In school you are taught to trust everything the teacher says as correct. By the time you get to your teens, you've been pressed into a nice little mold of conformity so as not to rock any boats.
Our society must change, but of course it's cyclical. Who if not these same conformists are going to change society?
This is why I am against universal standards. If you allow each school to try new techniques and teaching methods, you may run the risk of some children not being taught the "important" subjects. But of course that happens now anyway. More importantly, you enable the possibility that some students will escape the molding process, and everyone will learn from those schools.
Just as nature produces a variety of species to guard against the complete extinction of life, so too must we as humans explore multiple avenues of growth if we expect to remain strong.
Why? Galileo claimed the Earth revolves around the Sun, which at the time was quite controversial and extraordinary. However, simply observing the planetary motions proved him right. Nothing extraordinary there.
On the other hand, _every time_ any one of these claims is tested in a controlled, scientific matter, they _never_ work.
Wow, you've researched every claim and every test of those claims? Man, you must be exhausted. I rather expect that you're just repeating something you've heard from someone else. I have read quite a bit about near-death experiences, enough to convince me that there is more to us than our biological bodies.
I didn't stop there, however. I looked at the evidence with a critical mind. How does this jive with my own intuition and experiences? The fact that I am aware of myself and my surroundings is incredible, and I cannot accept that this awareness arises simply from my electro-chemical brain. I have emotions and desires, quite apart from food and shelter.
I don't care to convince you to believe it, but I emplore you to keep an open yet critical mind. And don't simply disbelieve because it seems too extraordinary, otherwise you might end up thinking the Sun revolves around the Earth.
Exactly. Look at the referer, and if it isn't the main site, simply redirect them to a page with a link to the article and like twenty more ads.
It would certainly seem that way, would it not? Assuming they were acting rationally, I would have had to do something for them to feel it necessary to tar and feather me. If 100+ nations agree that Israel should withdraw from the territories it invaded in 1967, and only Israel and the U.S. disagreed, don't you think maybe there's something to it?
Possibly, but that was exactly why the UN was created. Europe and the rest of the world was sick and tired of long bloody conflicts. They created a process whereby two nations in disagreement could settle their differences without going to war. Part of the process is having the Security Council and/or General Assembly vote on a resolution and all UN members uphold it. If the U.S. doesn't like it, they shouldn't have set it up in the first place.
The problem, as it has been from the beginning, is that the U.S. has a permanent seat on the SC and can veto any resolution at will. So the UN (some 160+ nations) is still partially at the whims of the U.S. (and France, the U.K., China, and Russia).
No, not only, but primarily. That there are disagreements among member nations is part of the UN process -- not a problem. But I feel that five states having permanent veto power over a 160-member organization is a major problem. We don't give the two California senators veto power in the Senate simply because California is so populous. Why should the U.S. have that power in an organization whose charter is to maintain peace among all member states?
As my previous post stated, the U.S. is intentionally killing civilians -- not with their bombs (though that's debatable) but by starvation. That a terrorist organization whose leader is hiding in Afghanistan killed several thousand civilians is not a justification for killing more civilians. If you commit murder and then hide in the suburbs, the police don't make bombing raids hoping to take you out.
You seem quite sure of your position. Did you see all of the classified evidence? Or are you just taking Bush and Blair at their word? I'm not comfortable doing that -- that's why courts of law were created. Gather and present evidence, then judge the case without bias. Letting the "victim" carry out a sentence against the accused without trial is barbaric.
No, that is a totally different situation. In that case, I am preventing an armed attack against me. In Afghanistan's case, we are retaliating against an entire population for a single act that some of their fellow citizens are accused of having committed. In your case the proof of my attempted crime is me pointing a gun at you. With Afghanistan, the proof is the good word of an unelected president with family business ties to bin Laden.
You speak as if Afghanistan was responsible for the 9-11 crimes. Do you hold the U.S. government responsible for Timothy McVeigh's actions? Just because the accused party lives in Afghanistan does not mean the Taliban had anything to do with it. As well, the CIA funded and built those terrorist organizations to fight Russia, so the U.S. is as much to blame.
If a murderer were to hide out among a crowd, the police would use snipers rather than grenades to avoid collateral damage. The steps that the UN ratified were akin to a sniper. Stop the money. Share intelligence. Apply political pressure and sanctions. The U.S. decided on its own to use grenades.
If you compare the dollars the U.S. spends on weaponry to that it spends on humanitarian aid, we don't look so rosy. If a crime syndicate donates some of its money to the Red Cross, do we call them generous? Sure, we were supplying some aid to Afghanistan, but we cut it off at the worst time: right before winter.
You have to look beyond the small view presented by the media. Why is the U.S. even trying to topple the Taliban government? That's not our right; it isn't in the UN charter; and it goes against the UN resolutions passed for this very situation. The U.S. has installed puppet dictatorships and funded military coups in South America for decades. Why is this one chosen to be dismantled?
Perhaps it's all that black gold in the Caspean Sea. The oil companies would love to have access to it, and there are three routes for a pipeline: Iran (no chance), Russia (no control), and Afghanistan. Once the Taliban is replaced by the Northern Alliance with U.S. help, Afghanistan becomes the prime candidate.
Bush: Surrender bin Laden to us -- not the UN, not the Hague, not Nuremberg -- to the U.S.: judge, jury and executioner. There will be no negotiations. We're going to start bombing if you do not comply.
Taliban: Show us evidence and we'll try him ourselves.
Bush: No!
Taliban: Okay, show us evidence and we'll hand him over to a third party.
Bush: No!
Taliban: Fine, show us just some of the evidence and we'll hand him over to a third party.
Bush: No!
Taliban: We'll hand him over to a third party, and at some future time please show us some of the evidence.
Bush: No! ... OMFG, we tried every diplomatic means at our disposal, but they didn't cave in to our non-negotiable demands. Time to bomb.
No, not really. We're blowing up vacant training camps that we paid for, air fields, UN and Red Cross buildings (oops), and residential areas (sorry). And there's that "little" humanitarian crisis of 7 million starving civilians and refugees.
Have we nabbed bin Laden or crushed the Taliban? No. We haven't found him let alone captured him.
Nice metaphor, but it's not complete. You forgot that the saloon belongs to an innocent man; his wife, two children, and twenty patrons are also inside being held hostage by three gunmen that robbed a bank. Are you willing to have the sheriff murder 24 innocent civilians to execute 3 thieves?
That's precisely why we have laws that everyone must obey, and provisions for apprehending law breakers that do not include killing anyone that had the misfortune to be standing near them. I don't care how much you want revenge, you don't get to murder to achieve it.
Reading through the latest UN Security Council Resolutions (1368 and 1373), I see no endorsement of military action. They mention steps to curb the financial activities of terrorist organizations and a desire for multilateral information-sharing agreements. They both conclude with the standard, "Decides to remain seized of this matter," meaning the Security Council must be petitioned for any new action to be taken.
Secretary-General Kofi Annan said, "To defeat terrorism, we need a sustained effort and a broad strategy that unite all nations, and address all aspects of the scourge we face. The cause must be pursued by many countries working together, using many different means - including political, legal, diplomatic and financial means."
Note the distinct lack of "military" as one of the options. Once again the U.S. is taking unilateral action against international law and treaties the U.S. has signed. Nothing new here.
First, with big media, the U.S. doesn't need any help singing its rare humanitarian deeds. But pointing out the inconvenient facts is very necessary if you intend to make good decisions and have real debate. While his goal is to provide facts and analysis and let the reader form their own opinion, he does sometimes offer solutions. Two clear unambiguous examples are Nicaragua and East Timor: stop the attacks and military support and bring in humanitarian aid. It doesn't get much clearer than that.
The men that flew those planes aren't going to be made happy, so there's no use trying to appease them. However, we can take steps to assure more men and women like them don't stand up to take their place. It's not about keeping terrorists happy; it's about not pissing off more regular people such that they become terrorists.
I wish I knew more of the history of Israel, so I cannot address the topic well. I can say, though, that on the surface the UN resolution calling on Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders (when it invaded Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank and Gaza Strip) is a good start. Everyone but the U.S. and Israel has ratified it. Chomsky, Fisk, et al claim that the U.S. has vetoed every Security Council issue trying to create a solution. The U.S. stance is an Israel with a subordinate Palestine or continued hostilities -- there is no middle ground.
What I can say is that we give an obscene amount of military aid to Israel and Turkey, and both are carrying out terrorist and/or genocidal campaigns in the region, just as Saddam Hussein did to the Kurds in northern Iraq before ever invading Kuwait, turning the U.S. against him, or rather the Iraqi civilians.
Neither. If we bomb, we kill millions. If we do nothing, yes they kill themselves, but we are not aggravating the situation. Now, I think there is middle ground, but that answers your question. Again realize that as a result of our bombing entirely one third of Afghanistan's 22 million people may die of starvation during winter -- 7 million people.
Instead of spending $40 billion on bombing them, why not spend the same $4 billion we send to Israel (for weapons) on food aid for Afghanistan and pocket the remaining $36 billion. Once people aren't starving in the streets they tend to value life higher and would probably be very open to UN run elections for a democratic government. That's one option among many.
Actually he has mentioned that the U.S. and UN supply humanitarian aid. Unfortunately all of it was cut off once the U.S. threatened to bomb. The aid wasn't getting them to sustainability; it was keeping people from starving. No more aid, starvation begins. And as covered many times, the food bombs we dropped were a PR scam, a mere bandaid applied to an amputated leg.
Please check your facts. To summarize, someone posted a rumor in the public forum of one of the 48 or so IMC sites. The following day an editor called CNN to confirm the rumor but got no reply. Later, someone posted a followup comment that the rumor was indeed false by simply examining the footage. The rumor was just like your posting. It was never put in the features nor touched by the editors. Blaming IndyMedia would be like blaming Andover.net for a false rumor posted by an AC on Slashdot.
That's wonderful, but his actions speak louder. He hasn't set back the Taliban, nor found bin Laden, and he's killing the Afghan people. And law is about justice -- meaning presenting evidence to an impartial trial for judgment -- not revenge.
"You are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Bush wants no middle ground.
"God is on our side." Bush claims to be Christian, yet the first lesson of Christianity is forgiveness. Vengeance is of the Old Testament.
"Hand over bin Laden or we'll bomb you. There will be no negotiations." ... "We have exhausted all diplomatic avenues." How can you have diplomacy without negotiating? So Bush made one lame attempt: a childish ultimatum.
I have the same disdain for bin Laden as I do for Bush, and I never said he was a nice guy. But he did make four clear points in his speech as to why so many Muslims would want to inflict pain on the U.S. While he may privately want all of Israel to go away, he asked only for us to stop supporting them. While he may want to rule the world, he only asked that we remove our military bases from Saudi Arabia.
And I'll say it again: we still have no evidence linking bin Laden to 9-11. Sure, some of his money probably helped pay for the flight schools and tickets, and that makes him partly responsible. But then realize that part of your taxes paid for the bombs that destroyed the two Red Cross buildings and the UN Land Mine Removal Headquarters. Should the UN bomb your suburb to punish you?
The U.N. and World Court are ineffective because the U.S. is constantly working against them. Look at the history with Nicaragua and Israel. The U.S. ignored international law in its war against Nicaragua (remember the Iran-Contra scandal?), and the U.S. and Israel have consistently stood alone in voting against peace resolutions in the Middle East.
So if the U.S. took actions that it knew would cause the deaths of thousands of Afghani civilians, then Afghanistan would be obliged to retaliate against the U.S.?
So Afghanistan should begin bombing Washington?
Once we announced we were going to bomb Afghanistan, 1) all food aid stopped from the U.N., 2) all aid stopped from Pakistan, 3) massive numbers of starving refugees fled to the closed Pakistani border. At the time, an estimated 6 to 7 million people were on the brink of starvation. It is expected that if bombing continues into winter such that crops are not harvested, several million people will starve before spring.
The U.S. planners expect this to happen, as do the U.N. and many top aid organizations. So the U.S. took actions that it fully expects will result in millions of civilian casualties. Sure, they (probably) aren't targeting them with their cluster bombs, but they're killing them by direct action nonetheless.
I understand your desire for security from people like bin Laden, but you must understand that U.S. foreign policy created him and his network. If we didn't treat the Muslim population like worthless garbage, there wouldn't be so much enmity toward us, and his network would not be able to recruit.
You call this justice? Maybe even Infinite Justice? Let's look at the simple facts.
When a murder is committed, the police conduct an investigation, collect evidence, ask questions, and finally build a case they think will convict. Then the suspect is arrested and brought to trial. All evidence is presented and both sides have a chance to argue their case. Then the jury deliberates and makes a decision. Finally, a judge determines a sentence in case of a guilty verdict.
There's a similar process on the world stage. When the U.S. was attacking Nicaragua, the latter took its case to the World Court to stop the war. The Court decided in Nicaragua's favor and demanded that the U.S. stop all hostilities and pay substantial reparations for the damage it had inflicted. The U.S. ignored the Court and intensified the war. Nicaragua then went to the U.N. Security Council with a resolution calling on all states to obey international law. The U.S. vetoed the resolution as it has a permanent seat. Finally, Nicaragua went to the U.N. General Assembly with the same resolution which passed since there is no veto there. The U.S. ignored all this.
Now airplanes are used as missiles, resulting in thousands of lost civilian lives and billions of dollars of damage. Does the U.S. take its evidence to court? Does it seek extradition? Does it go to the U.N. as demanded by treaties it signed? No. Instead, Bush displays cowboy diplomacy where he declares bin Laden "wanted, dead or alive." No evidence is presented; bombing simply commences on the country believed to be the home of the prime suspect. And we're not even targeting the suspect himself because, heck, we just don't know where he is!
There were very good reasons for outlawing vigilantism in this country, and our judicial system is based on innocence until guilt is proven with hard evidence and in a court of law. This is about as far from justice as we could possibly fly. But what did you expect from a president that came to power via a military coup (several thousand "lost" military votes in Florida got him the state)?
I've read a lot of Chomsky, and that's not what he's been saying. The first step is to ask the right questions. If you don't, you can't possibly hope to make an informed decision. The first question that must be asked is "Why were the crimes of Sept. 11th committed?" Only then can we hope to stop the violence.
Hint: It has nothing to do with America being the land of the free and the home of the brave.
More hints: Palestine and Isreal. 10 years of sanctions and bombing of Iraq. U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia. Supporting oppressive regimes that are friendly to oil interests.
As Chomsky has made very clear, there are more choices than attack, aid, or ignore. But any solution should start with the basic premise of "first, do no harm."
Bombing an already starving population ruled by an oppressive regime right before winter sets in is going to result in the deaths of millions of civilians by winter's end. Is that helping or doing harm? We haven't taken out the Taliban, and now there's talk of keeping some of the "moderates" in poower to rule with the Northern Alliance. Hello?! The Northern Alliance is the world's major heroine producer.
Before the U.S. began its viscious revenge (God bless America -- He's on our side), Afghanis were at least receiving U.N. food aid and aid from Pakistan. That stopped soon after 9-11. In fact we demanded that Pakistan stop its food shipments to Afghanistan and close its borders to contain the anticipated massive refugee flight.
And that's the key isn't it? That the U.S. has murdered -- either directly or through military training and aid -- millions of civilians in the past fifty years alone isn't a problem because they weren't U.S. civilians. We've overthrown democratically-elected governments, targeted civilians with cluster bombs, and flagrantly disregarded international law and U.N. resolutions to keep the profits flowing. But as long as we always export our terror, all is well.
Keep reading. ZNet. IndyMedia. Listen to the rhetoric Bush is spouting. Take a Bush speech and replace "God" with "Allah" and "U.S." with "Islam" and you can't tell him apart from bin Laden.
The research that created the nuclear bomb will one day produce a safe, cheap, earth-friendly source of abundant energy. Once this occurs, not only will we have vast amounts of energy without destroying our environment, but oil will become useless and we (U.S.) will have less reason to meddle in the Middle East.
True, many lives have been lost in truly sad ways, but the bomb didn't get up on its own and jump out of a plane over Nagasaki. It took an American president to make the decision that it was okay to kill thousands of civilians to achieve our political goals. That, by the way, was the *same* conclusion the terrorists came to.
Encryption technology has enabled many benefits. Besides, it's really just a more advanced form of whispering. If you're going to blame cryptologists for the actions of terrorists, then you need to blame airplane manufactures, oil companies, flight attendants, travel agencies, car rental agencies, airport security personnel, et al.
If you *really* feel a strong need to blame someone for what happened last week, you can pretty safely point your finger at the U.S. State Department. It's been discussed here ad nauseum, but to sum up the majority of the population in the Middle East hates America *not* because we have more freedom but because our government takes action that directly impacts their access to freedom.
If you ban encryption thinking it will keep you safe, they'll turn to other methods. If you outlaw box cutters, they'll smuggle on letter openers. The only real solution is to find the root cause of the problem and solve that. Until then you're merely patching holes in the hopes that the dam won't burst.
That's all certainly true, and the intelligence community knows it. However, that's not what Congress is saying. Backdoors for encryption? Email sifting? These are technical solutions; not human solutions. My fear is that there will be even more proposed soon.
The blame will come soon enough. I've heard on nearly every report talk about the "failure of the U.S. intelligence effort." What is this failure, and how can it be fixed? I suspect that Carnivore will be put forth as the solution. "We could have known about it ahead of time if only we had read the emails." I'm afraid that will be all it takes. People here will say, "Sure, I don't want them reading my email, but I'm not a terrorist, so it's ok." This little bit of leverage will bend public opinion and allow Congress to pass legislation mandating the sifting of all private communications.
(b) Even the mainstream media has reported that we trained bin Laden's men and supplied them initially with money and arms. Are you saying that the DoD is lying about that?
(c) No, I didn't say that at all. I said we need to look for the real problem and solve that. The problem that some people kill other people is not solvable by politics and military force. So we have no hope of "curing the world of terrorism." And when you look around and realize the U.S. causes a lot of the violence, you might want to think about solving the problem right here.
What happened Tuesday was wrong, but going after the terrorists will not stop it from happening again. I'm sick of the U.S. taking on the role of the world's cop. Not only is it not our place and against our Constitution, but it draws the anger of many other nations. No thanks!
I suspect that Tuesday's action was payback for atrocities done 10,000 miles away by the United States Armed Forces. The Arab nations view the U.S. military as the source of their misery.
But they know they cannot fight our military head-on. Thus they go for terrorizing civilians in the hopes that we will stand up and speak for them. That's similar to the U.S. hoping that sanctions will force the Iraqi public to revolt against Saddam.
All the Arab states are run by military totalitarian regimes (that's a very general statement, and I'll probably step in it shortly), and the populations of those states blame the U.S. We've done the same in South and Central America, so I suppose we may be dealing with their anger soon as well.
Now you're just making stuff up. Even you can't be unaware of our mischief. Remember when we invaded South Vietnam? Millions of tons of bombs were dropped on Southeast Asia to "stop communism." We targeted the rural population that wanted a change in government. Our targets were specifically civilian.
We bombed damns and irrigation and farms in order to starve the population en masse. We drove them to the cities where they couldn't farm and had to work in factories to survive.
Unexploded ordnance and land mines continue to kill children in Laos and Cambodia to this day.
In Iraq, we know that our sanctions aren't hurting the military. We know they're getting food somehow. So the sanctions are truly targeted at civilians.
The U.S. is the world's leading terrorist organization. We can outspend anyone, and we're pretty good at diverting attention externally. Internally, it's rare to find a U.S. citizen that is aware of what our government does. That's some very effective propoganda.
This does not condone Tuesday's attack! But if you don't dig to find out why we were attacked in the first place, you're just blindly following violence with more violence, and you'll never solve the true problem.
You're missing the point. Hypothetical situation. A very nasty dog has your hand in its mouth and is trying to rip it from your arm. Your other hand is gripped around its neck, trying to kill it. Both of your choices (kill dog or lose hand) suck.
We are not moaning about your choices, we're saying,
Don't stick your fscking hand in a dog's mouth!
The U.S. government has provided money, weapons, training, personnel, planes, tanks, etc. to many organizations throughout the world. In nearly every case they've been used to promote terror against civilians rather than protect them. We've arranged countless coups. The CIA is the world's premiere terrorist organization.
You say it doesn't matter that we've trained terrorists. Those very terrorists may in fact be responsible for Tuesday's attack. Had we not trained them or provided them with money, they would not have been able to do it.
Instead of pissing off every nation on this planet, I think we need to take a step back and really examine what our government has been up to. If you do, you will at least come to understand the point of view taken by terrorists. To them, this is the option of last resort, but it's preferable to the death of their culture.
For most Americans, the only worry is whether we'll have to "suffer" higher gas prices.
A UN inspection group found that well over 95% of the food and medical supplies were reaching Iraqi civilians directly. They reported it as one of the most effective humanitarian projects in history.
American oil companies use U.S. military and political force to obtain their oil. They do it in secret, using the State Department and CIA, to escape justice. In most cases only money is required to grease the wheels, but on several occasions we've provided all but the soldiers.
Neither side is right. They both must be stopped. Don't try to claim that "they" are somehow more "evil" because they attacked civilians, for the U.S. does that as well. What happened is an atrocity, but at least most everyone killed in Tuesday's attack died instantly. Iraqi children have been starving to death by the thousands for well over a year.
The terrorists are probably hoping that this will result in the American public pressuring our government to change some particular action. I believe they are, unfortunately, just as wrong as our government in believing that the starving citizens of Iraq are going to suddenly revolt against their leadership.
Most Americans not only don't know what our government does, they don't want to. The majority believe they have no say in what the government does, so the last thing they want is to learn of U.S. atrocities. They don't want to feel any more guilt or responsibility. They pay their taxes, and that means they don't have to think about all the terror that money buys.
It would be if Ford was required to follow any of the health and safety laws that they must in the U.S. Instead, however, the Mexican workers do not receive health coverage, time off, over-time, workers compensation for injuries. They also work longer hours under sadly dangerous conditions.
You could argue that this the Mexican government's fault for not enacting laws to protect workers, and that is true. However, the reason for the lack of laws is that U.S. corporations pay foreign leaders (and the U.S. government pressures them with sanctions) to maintain a "business-friendly" climate.
Sure, they may have work and earn enough to subsist, but they are then effectively enslaved and kept from making internal changes that would improve their conditions. And in the meantime they are over-worked, underpaid, and in danger ... and Ford rakes in the profits.
That's exactly the point. Wage workers (nearly everyone) are capital -- a commodity. We're not worth anything beyond how much money we can make for someone else. By creating this situation, no one is ever allowed to feel any sense of security.
We're pressed to be consumers, to buy buy buy. We pile on debt underwriting it with our houses and cars. Thus we constantly live in fear that our job will simply vanish in a day and we'll be left out to dry. That is no way to live, my friend.
When I experienced my first union in high school, working as a bag-boy at a grocery store, I thought unions were complete crap too. Why am I paying $10/week to a union when I simply want to work. I looked at it as robbery. However, now that I've grown and matured, I can see the reason for unions. True, they are corrupt (like any organization with power) and probably all run by the mob (whatever).
But what of corporations? They are organizations of power whose sole reason for existence is to maximize profit. At least unions have to pretend to take the workers' interests to heart (and I believe they mostly do). Corporations, on the other hand, routinely violate the privacy of their customers, screw workers, break laws, bribe government officials, ad nauseum.
No. NAFTA and its recent followup FTAA are about one thing: freedom of capital. While the U.S. talks up free trade, the goal is to allow transnational corporations to freely move the capital about the two continents to maximize profit. That's it.
Normally, countries place restrictions on the movement of foreign capital across their borders. If a corporation builds a factory in another country and later sells that factory, they can't just take the money from the sale and pull it back to their home country without paying massive taxes, fees, and often must schedule the transfer over many years.
This causes many headaches for them as they can't just close a plant in one country and open it in another as needs warrent. Take a recent example. A strike was being planned at one of Ford's manufacturing plants where the workers were demanding higher wages. Instead of negotiating or dealing with the strike, Ford closed the plant, shipped all the equipment to Mexico, and reopened it in a matter of months. Bonus: the locals were willing to work for one tenth the wage of the U.S. workers. Good for Ford; bad for workers.
While the U.S. claims this brings freedom to workers as they can move about to find their work, the true effect is freedom for corporations from the threat of strikes or wage increases. Local wages rising? Fuck it, move to Ecuador. With enough U.S.-sponsored state terror the wages can be kept low and the workers effectively enslaved.
That's the goal of NAFTA and FTAA. More corporate welfare. It seems the corporations feel that things have gotten too cushy for the lowly wage-slave. Corporations want their "fair share," and the U.S. government is giving it to them.