i’ll respond in greater depth soon

Just a few more thoughts:

“this is why it is so strange that you deny U.S. state sponsored terrorism.”

I am not blind to America’s past mistakes. For example, I have said here that the U.S. patrticipation in the 1953 Iran coup was a terrible, short-sighted and morally questionable blunder, for which we are still paying the price more than 50 years later. I have conceded to Juan in previous debates that some U.S. military interventions in Latin Anmerica during the early part of the 20th century were not justified.

I do have a problem with your use of the term “terrorism” when describing certain U.S. actions. “Terrorism” is hijacking a civilain airliner and flying it into a civilian office building in New York City. “Terrorism” is setting off a car bomb in a crowded Baghdad marketplace. Terrorism is the deliberate deadly targeting of innocent civilains in order to…well…terrorize governments and the populace into taking some action desired by the terrorists.

One can disagree with U.S. actions in Chile in the 1970s or Nicaragua in the 1980s. I suupose one can even question the morality of those actions (Personally, I think both actions were morally justifiable)…but it is a stretch to call it terrorism. Allende was a bad guy. The Sandinistas were bad guys. And in neither situation did the U.S. target and deliberately slaughter civilains. When the U.S. flys a civilain airliner into an office building, then you can call it “terrorism.” Otherwise, I think it is hyperbolic to call U.S. actions with which you disagree terrorism.

They haven’t been used to directly encroach upon my life, but then again if George Bush suddenly declared all Jews needed to be thrown in concentration camps, that wouldn’t encroach on my civil liberties either, but i would protest it as “encroaching upon our civil liberties”.

A valid point. I just don’t agree, however, that Bush’s policies have curbed or restricted civil liberties at all. There has been a lot of hysterical and inaccurate talk about things like the NSA domestic surveillance program and the like, but if one reads the facts and understands the law, one soon sees the hysteria is unfounded and quite frankly silly. We could talk about the specifics of the NSA program if you’d like…

“U.S. actions are making the world MORE dangerous!”

Again, this statement is certainly debatable and I do not discount your statement. I think with regard to Iraq and our blunders there, you point of view is certainly understandable. I agree that Iraq has been less than successful (to put it mildly) and may have increased tensions in the Middle East and served as a “recruituing tool” for Al Qaeda.

I vehemently disagree with you that U.S. military actions in Afghanistan have made the world less safe or were not justified. Question: If you had been president on 9/11, what would have been your response to that attack? Would you have taken any kind of action against Al Qaeda? Military, legal, or law-enforcement wise?

I also disagree with your contention that all of Bush’s actions (and U.S. actions in the past) have been motivated by oil, greed, and “corporate interests” (whatever that means). As I said, U.S. actions in Iraq are certainly up for criticism and question. But I do honestly believe those actions were taken with the best of intentions, designed to increase U.S. and world security. Remember, it was not only Bush who believed and acted upon the belief that Saddam had WMDs. The United Nations had imposed sanction on Iraq since the early 1990s — long before Bush came into office — upon the belief that Iraq had WMDs. President Clinton launced military strikes against Iraq and threatened to undertake additional military action against Iraq based on the perceived threat of WMDs. Were Clinton and the United Nations also lying and merely looking to enhance “corporate interests?”

Well, that is enough for now, I suppose. Hopefully you will check back on this thread and we can continue this discussion. Thanks.

I appreciate your lengthy and thoughtful reply. To use a cliche, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on many topics.

(I would like to post an longer, more in-depth reply, but quite frankly I have been spending waaaaay to much of my time at the office reading and debating on ThinkProgress. I really should buckle down for the rest of the day…Perhaps when I go home tonight I will post a more in-depth reply, because you have said somethings here upon which I would like to comment further)….Until then, have a good day.

this is why it is so strange that you deny U.S. state sponsored terrorism.

No, i did not support the invasion of Afghanistan.

Ex, i totally agree: AlQaeda-bad, Bin Laden – bad, terrorism – bad.

(i feel like i have this discussion once a week with you, or vince, or whoever)

U.S. actions are making the world MORE dangerous! Bush is not interested in stopping “the terrorists”. Bush and Co. (and Dems. too) are interested in oil, resources, and corporate interests. Ex, don’t you see this? U.S. actions have forced other “weaker” states to seek the only protection from invasion: weapons of mass destruction.

No; when 9/11 happened, when i was standing there witnessing, when i wlked aorund in those days, i felt no desire for revenge, i felt: “please don’t let my govt use people’s anger and sadness to invade, attack and make war”. No more blood shed, is what I felt. It was so obvious that it would be used as a political tool by whoever happened to be in power. And just for the record, all the NewYorkers I know despise Bush, his lies and unabashed rogue state policies.

With the civil liberties piece. I don’t understand why you don’t see the dangers of losing civil liberties. Ex, this will always be a danger, in any society. And in a society that is so, arguably open, there is a danger of civil liberties being encroached upon, especially in times of war, especially when people are scared and angry… you have no problem with homeland security, warrentless wire tapping, secret prisons, “alternative interogation techniques”? They haven’t been used to directly encroach upon my life, but then again if George Bush suddenly declared all Jews needed to be thrown in concentration camps, that wouldn’t encroach on my civil liberties either, but i would protest it as “encroaching upon our civil liberties”.
I once asked this to Vince P, and he was disdainful, but I’ll ask you in the hopes that you will give it a try. Read Noam Chomsky’s Hegemony or Survival. He is intelligent and humane, and his sources impecable, his logic clear. Just try it, see what you think.
cheers

A few things:

‘I too was in NewYork on 9/11. I was shocked, I’ve never felt so empty. But it did not drive me to call for war or revenge, support encroaching upon civil liberties, etc. Juan is right, your okay, but you’re scared.”

I appreciate your comments. “I’ve never felt so empty” is an excellent way of phrasing how I and the entire city felt that day. However, I did indeed call for war that day. And yes, it was for revenge and justice, AND (and there is crucial) to make sure nothing like that ever happened again. You lived through it. You were there. Do you ever want to experience anythinh like that again or see it happen in any other city? I doubt it.

(Note: Does this mean you also did not support the U.S. military action in Afghanistan? I ask simply because many, many progressives / liberals I know (as well as many TP posters here) say that while they opposed the war in Iraq, they supported going to Afghanistan to go after Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Just wanted to know what side of the fence you fall on).

As for this curbing of civil iberties canard, come on, Karl…This charge is thrown around a lot, but could you tell me exactly which of your civil liberties have been restricted. I mean, here you are on a Web site that on a daily basis provides a forum for criticizing and lambasting and even mocking the government/administration….Doesn’t seem like a society that has had its civil liberties or free speech rights restricted.

As for being “scared,” okay…if you want to use that word. I might go with concerned, but yes, I am concerned (or “scared,” if you’d like) that the next 9/11 would be much, much worse…perhaps even involving nuclear weapons. 3,000 people were killed that morning. People who I went to high school with. People who lived up the block from me died on 9/11. Do you have any doubt that Al Qaeda would not hesitate to kill 30,000 or 300,000 in a single strike. They are nihilists and fanatics. So, yes, I do not deny what you and Juan say–I am scared that Al Qaeda will strike again and kill many, many more people. Do you think they have stopped in their planning to carry out strikes in America? Do you think they dusted off their hands after 9/11 and said, “Okay, that’s it. We made our point. Let’s go home?” I don’t.

You also wrote:
It is interesting however that you equate denial of U.S. state sponsored terrorism with denial of the holocaust

That is patently incorrect and false. I have never made such an argument. I said that those who deny that 9/11 was perpetrated by Al Qaeda and who argue, with no evidence, that it was a U.S.-Israeli conspiracy are similar to Holocaust denier in that they both attempt to deny a historical fact and instead spin conspiracy theories in order to justify a current political argumenment. Some extremist critics of Israel frequently deny the Holocaust as a way to undermine Israel’s right to exist or defend itself. Similarly, 9/11 deniers or conspiracy theorists deny Al Qaeda’s responsibility for 9/11 as a way to criticize U.S. policies in the Middle East or Third World. It is spinning a historical fiction to make a political point. And when you deny history, you derogate the victims of past atrocities.

I appreciate your empathy and sympathy. Yes, I do reference 9/11 quite frequently when debating foreign policy issues. For me and many, many Americans, 9/11 was the seminal and guiding historical event of our lives. It was “our” Pearl Harbor. It was a national tragedy and atrocity that traumatized this country, as well as much of the world (See the UN’s condemnation of the attack and NATO’s invoking for the first time ever of Article 5). Moreover, as someone who was in New York that day, it was especially horrifying (a rare piece of personal info).
comment by Exley

I just couldn’t let this pass by without commenting. I too was in NewYork on 9/11. I was shocked, I’ve never felt so empty. But it did not drive me to call for war or revenge, support encroaching upon civil liberties, etc. Juan is right, your okay, but you’re scared.

I don’t follow closely 9/11 “conspiracy” theory, but I’m certainly not offended to hear people give alternative “theories” on who dunnit. I know that in the afternoon of 9/11 I was talking to as many people as possible about the obvious fact: The U.S. gov’t is going to use this to make war and suppress the domestic population. So, it certainly seemed imporatnt to track down who was responsible, but I was more afraid of people like you who were raising their flags, calling for revenge, ready to go to war. Wouldn’t Nicaragua then have been justified in declaring war on the U.S.? and Invading? By your logic, yes; but they didn’t; they attmepted to use international insitutions as according to international law (although they has every right to invade indefense). But the U.S. contd their war of terror on them. The examples of American terrorism are numerous, very numerous, but not a single nation has declared war on the U.S. for our state sponsored terrorism.
To hear the “this is our pearl harbor”, makes me laugh, a sort of sick and sad laugh. Well, FDR knew in advance about Pearl Harbor, and knew he could use it as a way to get the U.S. into WWII; beyond that most parrallels break down.
And your references to holocaust denial and denial of U.S. state terrorism in Nicaragua and Chile, as examples of why you are angry when people do not beleive AlQaeda organized 9/11, are ridiculous Ex. The holocaust, contras and pinochet have years and years of documentation and observation and reports from numerous and varied sources. 9/11 was one single act of terrorism, and if it can be connected to one single terroist group the origins and documentation of that knowledge is anything but thorough.
It is interesting however that you equate denial of U.S. state sponsored terrorism with denial of the holocaust. I deny neither, you? I’d say they are two of the grosser evils of the past century.
Among many things you suffer from, one is obvious, you are unable to apply the same standards to yourself/the U.S. as you do to others. That would be a good start if you want to be taken seriously.

“Morality is that which is innate within all true humans and sustains Evolution.”

This is a topic which is scarcely ever addressed in our materialistic society. Rudolph Steiner addressed this idea to some extent, but his thoughts are somewhat difficult to unravel. I’d appreciate it very much if you would expand on your thoughts in this area. I’ll check back later to see if you care to continue.

What the WH cabal is doing now is reacting/monitoring/weighing, in a very sensitive and calculated manner, what the current perception is about them, like the press fracas yesterday, such that their aim of justifying an attack on Iran [in this instance] is not sunk further. When you have problems at home that you can’t handle, it is always easier to take the “national attention” outside and wars are uually the route whenever any ruling administration can find justification.

When we justify, we are selling and selling successfully needs credibility. The WH cabal are trying to rebuild their credibilty by trying to portray themselves as being sensible whereas the likes of The Chosen Ones, in all their forms and aspects, ranging from media, monentary, political & social [and more], are still pushing for the end game. Knowingly or unknowingly. Willingly or unwillingly. Taking the flak off the reality which is US=Israeli Interests. What a pity when the US, whose founding fathers are such Moral people, have succumbed to being a financial & military lackey for The Chosen Ones. And seemingly NO ONE can stop them. Not even logic. Perhaps Morality & Logic might. The difference between Morality and morality is that Morality do not [need to] justify. They are so [i.e. Moral] because Truth is what It is. Find the motive and you’ll find the Truth [and not truth] instead of being sucked into another conniving round of distraction called, “I am right/good, you are wrong/bad”.

Nonsense. Where is it? Your proposition is ludicrous.

Time for me to turn in…Maybe we can pick this up tomorrow. Good night.

As to your cited passage from the 1998 ‘Foreign Affairs’ article, Zelikow was exactly right. The 1993 WTC bombing was designed to topple the towers and kill tens of thousands. It indeed would have been a watershed moment in U.S. history, as 9/11 was.

Actually, though, you bring up an interesting question. Since you and Juan seem to believe that 9/11 was an inside job (perpetrated by whom is left unclear by you two), do you similarly claim that the 1993 WTC bombing was also am “inside job” (albeit, a botched one)?

What investigations might these be? Surely you not trying to make reference to the 9-11 Commission. Talk about specious, Zelikov didn’t even get the construction of the buildings down right.

Actually, while I believe a nuclear-armed Iran is hardly a good thing (indeed, I do not think nuclear proliferation is a positive development at all), given our experience, intelligence failures, and current situation in Iraq, I believe there is very little we can do or should do regarding Iran’s nuclear program.

The nuclear genie is out of the bottle. Militarily, I think there is little that can be done and even if there was, a military solution is temporary at best.

Juan, It has now been more than five years since the attacks of September 11 and every legitimate investigation of the attacks has demonstrated overwhelmingly that the attacks were carried out by Al Qaeda. There is simply no evidence that any other group or organization carried out that atrocity. It does make me feel better when I realize that these absurd 9/11 inside-job conspiracy theories are not shared by the majority of self-described progressives on this site.

And yes, Juan,,,when one denies the guilt of those who carried out the 9/11 attacks, onederogates the tragedy and the memory of those who were slaughtered. It is similar to that obscene conference held in Iran held several weeks ago about whether the Holocaust really happened or if the Nazis were truly responsible.

If you choose to claim otherwise, let’s your sources.

“This occupation, you like it or not, have produced more than 600,000 dead civilians, millions of exiled and a thousand of your soldiers.”

Let us set aside the fact that the 600,000 figure is specious, coming from a single now-discredited study. Thousands have been killed in Iraq since March, 2003. But the 600,000 figure is not considered credible by any serious observer. Your constant repeating of this canard does not make it any more true.

The main point is that the vast majority of those Iraqis killed in Iraq since 2003 have not been killed by Americans, but by the “insurgents.”

You once wrote the “insurgents” were simply Iraqis engaging is “self-defense:”

Exley: Self-defense is what the Iraqi insurgency is doing…
Comment by Juan C — July 24, 2006 @ 6:32 pm

Now, let me ask you this, Juan–How are the insurgents engaging in “self-defense” when they set car bombs off in marketplaces filled with Iraqi civilains (as they did this week and have done frequently over the past months)? How are the insurgents engaging in “self-defense” when they set off a car-bomb at Mustansiriya University in Gaghdad last month? Those bombings were directed at civilain Iraqi targets….Yet, you defend those violent acts directed at civilains as merely “self-defense.” How do you justify your defense of these attacks? These were not American military attacks on Iraqis. These were terrorist/”insurgent” attacks on Iraqi civilains. Yet, you do not condemn the terrorists who actually carry out these atrocities, but somehow twist the facts of these attacks to blame the U.S.

Exactly. But am I wrong?