The United States of Amnesia

[-lexus-]

Irrelevant, again - Chomsky is pointing out the U.S. consistency in using terrorism.

Most certainly not irrelevant. Chomsky is saying the US is the worst, while that is not the case. The USSR was way worse with its support of pretty much EVERY communist revolution and regime as well as their crimes against civilians. Yes, the US did the same, yes, the US got people killed. Only the USSR got way more people killed. Ergo, the USSR was worse. 30.000 people against millions of people.

Japan and Vietnam fits perfectly, as you admitted it yourself.

Meh, both were during wars, and people die during wars. Regrettable yes, but it has been like that forever. If you follow that strict of a definition of a terrorist state then every single state in this world is a terrorist state. Meh, if thats terrorism, its a necessary evil

 

[Cephal]

Most certainly not irrelevant. Chomsky is saying the US is the worst, while that is not the case. The USSR was way worse with its support of pretty much EVERY communist revolution and regime as well as their crimes against civilians. Yes, the US did the same, yes, the US got people killed. Only the USSR got way more people killed. Ergo, the USSR was worse. 30.000 people against millions of people.


Meh, both were during wars, and people die during wars. Regrettable yes, but it has been like that forever. If you follow that strict of a definition of a terrorist state then every single state in this world is a terrorist state. Meh, if thats terrorism, its a necessary evil

He has previously stated that believes all states are terrorist entities.

 

[Zero Phoenix]

Terrorism has nothing to do with wearing army uniform, or whether the culprit are hiding among the civilian. Terrorism is the the use of violence and threats against civilian population for political purposes, it can be done by any organizations - including States (States Terrorism).

There are many terrorist states in the world, but the United States is unusual in that it is officially committed to international terrorism, and on a scale that puts its rivals to shame.
Noam Chomsky
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199112--02.htm

A simple example: Nicaragua.

Don't hate Kaze-dono. America found it's niche and does it better than anyone else. It's not terrorism. It's politics. :badass:

Oh yes. Because the 1100 marines that occupied the country of that size committed numerous atrocities against the civilian population for what purpose? Oh wait, they were actually in that region because the president of the country asked for it himself.

Testify!

Really, if you want to accuse the US of using violence against civilians for political goals, there are far better examples. Like Hiroshima or Vietnam. Although Vietnam is inexcusable, Hiroshima was the right call, and neither actions make the US a terrorist state. Such classifications should be reserved for countries who deserve such a title like the former USSR or North Korea.

I have to disagree with you here. I don't think either of these incidents were excusable.

Extending Arachna's post, this State's act of terrorism is further established by ICJ Ruling in 1984 in favor of Nicaragua.

But what's more funny, is the notion that terrorist label can be applied to USSR and North Korea but not the U.S.. On what basis? Because those States are Communists States?

I will not acknowledge Arachna's post as it undermines the proven effective policies of these Great United States of America. :devil:

At best they sponsor terrorism when it suits their needs.

True.

But the US hardly uses actual force against civilians. They let others do it. Sure, its not nice, but thats politics for you.

True.

And well the USSR and North Korea things were a response to this statement: 'There are many terrorist states in the world, but the United States is unusual in that it is officially committed to international terrorism, and on a scale that puts its rivals to shame.'

Say what you want, but the sheer scale of atrocities conducted against civilians by communist regimes pales that of any other. Thats not because they are communist, its a simple historical fact. Khmer Rouge, Russian gulags, the cultural revolution. If you want to talk about terror, talk about that, not those few black ops conducted by the US.

You're on a roll [lexus].

If you just read the definition that Arachna provided, you will see that the amount of civilian casualties are not part of the definition. What Chomsky pointed out is the consistence use of terrorism in U.S. foreign policy - of which outdone any other countries on earth.

Politics is a zero sum gain for power. You act as though other countries of the world didn't kill people, rape the earth, steal resources to get ahead.

He has previously stated that believes all states are terrorist entities.

So am I correct in assuming that this discussion is a waste of time? :shrug: Oh yes, all states, all countries, all world systems are terrorist entities. But the worst one is the United States so let's talk about their atrocities.

 

[Kaze Araki]

Well, Zero.
Russian don't go half the way around the world, attacking a country that has nothing to do with them apart from having oil. Instead, the Russian do the Russian way; eliminating ethnic minorities that sought independence within her border while maintaining her influences in her own neighborhood.

 

[Zero Phoenix]

Well, Zero. Russian don't go half the way around the world, attacking a country that has nothing to do with them apart from having oil. Instead, the Russian do the Russian way; eliminating ethnic minorities that sought independence within her border while maintaining her influences in her own neighborhood.

So crimes against humanity have to be done abroad to be considered terrorism? :shrug:

 

[Kaze Araki]

But that's not the point.
The fact of the matter lies in the scales, of which outdone any other countries on earth.

 

[Zero Phoenix]

But that's not the point.
The fact of the matter lies in the scales, of which outdone any other countries on earth.

Which matters how? :shrug: Evil is evil. If Japan commits crimes against the Chinese and if Russia kills off it's minorities, how are they somehow "the lesser evil" simply because that evil is localized?



The U.S. commits atrocities abroad for the good of the people at home.

versus

Other countries commit crimes at home but don't spread those atrocities to abroad.

Under these conditions, how do you assert a moral superior?

 

[Kaze Araki]

I assert no moral superiority.
This thread is about U.S. terrorism.
Why would I comment about Darfur in here?
If you wish to make a thread about other countries terrorism - well, be my guess.

 

[Zero Phoenix]

I assert no moral superiority.
This thread is about U.S. terrorism.
Why would I comment about Darfur in here?
If you wish to make a thread about other countries terrorism - well, be my guess.

I haven't the liberty of time to rattle off a list of the world's crimes. As you seem to have no shortage thereof, and as this is your show the burden of being an objective intellectual lay on your shoulders. Typically when you create one of these, "exercises" America is typically the only country on the chopping block.

I've never seen you make a thread solely discussing the skeletons found in the closets of China, Japan, Russia, Germany, France, India, Burma, and so on. I can go on all day rattling off a list of countries just as ruthless as America which, for some reason, you never see fit to question.

Correct me if I'm wrong. I'll save you the effort. I'm never wrong.

 

[Kaze Araki]

It's a matter of priority.
Which country on earth that is currently a threat to world peace?
Venezuela?
Iran?
North Korea?

Certainly, the majority answers would be; The United States of America.

 

[noex1337]

Which matters how? :shrug: Evil is evil. If Japan commits crimes against the Chinese and if Russia kills off it's minorities, how are they somehow "the lesser evil" simply because that evil is localized?



The U.S. commits atrocities abroad for the good of the people at home.

versus

Other countries commit crimes at home but don't spread those atrocities to abroad.

Under these conditions, how do you assert a moral superior?

It doesn't matter about morals. Countries, like people, are very much self centered. So they tend to care less about another country's affairs unless they are impacted by them. The more countries that get involved, the more attention it will earn.

 

[Zero Phoenix]

It's a matter of priority.
Which country on earth that is currently a threat to world peace?
Venezuela?
Iran?
North Korea?

Certainly, the majority answers would be; The United States of America.

Wow really? My money was on Iran or North Korea. I may be an American, but I'm objective in everything there is. Iran poses a threat to world peace because the Iranians hate the entirety of the West, if the position of their president is any indication. It's not a simple matter of Iran hating the U.S. or them hating Great Britain. Iran has a very, very strong anti-West policy. Last time I checked the American people were ignorant as shit but they weren't anti-Islam contrary to the popular contrived view. Americans will believe whatever Congress tells them. They're sheep who cannot hate or love unless directed to do so by the government. Last time I checked, given that we're in bed with some of our Middle-Eastern brothers there probably aren't too many messages out there portraying them in a more negative light than normal.

Compare America's "We'll do business with anyone who will take us," policy with Irans, "All Westerners should die," policy and you tell me, objectively, who is a threat to world peace. "If" you are able to do so.

As I recall a couple months ago North Korea was firing missles at it's neighbors as a "test." These "tests" continued despite censure from the United Nations. North Korea continued it's aggressive behavior and paid no heed to the United Nations. So here we have a country, probably nuclear capable who more or less tested their ability to do anything they want to regardless of what the world has to say. So, I reiterate thus, "you tell me, objectively, who is a threat to world peace. "If" you are able to do so."

 

[Kaze Araki]

You want something objective?
Which of these countries has invaded and/or occupying other countries in the past 10 years?
A. Venezuela
B. Iran
C. North Korea
D. The United States of America.

 

[Zero Phoenix]

You want something objective?
Which of these countries has invaded and/or occupying other countries in the past 10 years?
A. Venezuela
B. Iran
C. North Korea
D. The United States of America.

You refuse to answer my questions and yet, you somehow expect me to answer yours? Magnificent.

 

[Kaze Araki]

About Iranian hating all Westerner?
I'm not a clairvoyant, so I can't answer that.
I only dwell in things that can be empirically verified.

 

[Zero Phoenix]

About Iranian hating all Westerner?
I'm not a clairvoyant, so I can't answer that.
I only dwell in things that can be empirically verified.

Is research not your area?

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/157...-islamic-uprisings-ayatollah-ali-khamenei.htm
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/iran-steps-anti-us-rhetoric-tightens-bon
http://middleeast.about.com/od/iran/p/mir-hossein-moussavi-profile.htm
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/irans-ahmadinijad-holds-massive-pro-egyptian-anti-american-rally/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4351843...zai-surrounds-himself-anti-american-advisers/

But I suppose I'm just imagining the wave of hatred that dominates Iran's foreign policy.

P.S. - You seemed rather clairvoyant when it came to the 9/11 Conspiracy. I'm not jazzing you here. I actually agree with your position regarding that. I just find it "suspect" that your clairvoyance would fail you here.

 

[Kaze Araki]

Is research not your area?

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/157...-islamic-uprisings-ayatollah-ali-khamenei.htm
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/iran-steps-anti-us-rhetoric-tightens-bon
http://middleeast.about.com/od/iran/p/mir-hossein-moussavi-profile.htm
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/irans-ahmadinijad-holds-massive-pro-egyptian-anti-american-rally/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4351843...zai-surrounds-himself-anti-american-advisers/

But I suppose I'm just imagining the wave of hatred that dominates Iran's foreign policy.

P.S. - You seemed rather clairvoyant when it came to the 9/11 Conspiracy. I'm not jazzing you here. I actually agree with your position regarding that. I just find it "suspect" that your clairvoyance would fail you here.

Say, where is it in your links that imply "Iranians hate the entirety of the West"?

 

[Zero Phoenix]

Say, where is it in your links that imply "Iranians hate the entirety of the West"?

Cut the crap Kaze-dono. This isn't the first time we've had this discussion so don't pretend you're new to this game. You know full well that I was generalizing, just as you do, all the time. You are also fully aware of the FACT that anti-Western sentimentality DOMINATES Iran's foreign policy.

You expect people to provide you with facts yet for some reason, refuse to acknowledge what is presented to you. Fine. This isn't the first time you've come out as being anti-West in your own right so I'll deal with it. My only issue is when you claim to be objective and clearly, well that's not the case is it?

I don't disagree with your "approach" but a little innovation wouldn't kill you.

 

[Kaze Araki]

So you assert political leaders commentaries as representation of the people?
For argument sake, let us accept your generalization; why do you think the Iranians hated the West?
There should be a reason behind it, right?

 

[Zero Phoenix]

So you assert political leaders commentaries as representation of the people?
For argument sake, let us accept your generalization; why do you think the Iranians hated the West?
There should be a reason behind it, right?

Don't give me that, "There must be a reason" nonsense as an argument. You know as well as I do that people will do and believe anything they are told to. If the president goes on television TONIGHT and alleges that Cuba was responsible for 9/11, 8 out of every 10 Americans will want to go to war. But I'll play your game. Why would Russia and Burma repeat cycles of ethnic cleansing? Why did the Japanese see fit to experiment on the Chinese during World War II? Why were Africans taken as slaves? There must surely be a reason for all these.

Besides, you still have yet to face reality. Anti-American sentiment dominates Iran's foreign policy. It doesn't matter what the people think because guess what, they're not the ones controlling their country. The people in power, i.e., the people whose views actually have an affect on the world, clearly subscribe to a belief that the West (not just America) should be destroyed. Are you really going to sit here and make an ass out of both of us. I'm going to keep hammering the fact that Iran has an anti-west policy because get this, IT DOES, and you're going to keep dancing around reality. This is a Black Waltz if I ever experienced one.


I've answered more than enough of your one-sided questions Kaze Araki. It's time you answered at least one of mine.

"Compare America's "We'll do business with anyone who will take us," policy with Irans, "All Westerners should die," policy and you tell me, objectively, who is a threat to world peace. "If" you are able to do so."

"As I recall a couple months ago North Korea was firing missles at it's neighbors as a "test." These "tests" continued despite censure from the United Nations. North Korea continued it's aggressive behavior and paid no heed to the United Nations. So here we have a country, probably nuclear capable who more or less tested their ability to do anything they want to regardless of what the world has to say. So, I reiterate thus, "you tell me, objectively, who is a threat to world peace. "If" you are able to do so."