Log in

View Full Version : The great charade: War of terror a smokescreen - by John Pil



Conghaileach
16th July 2002, 21:38
The Observer Comment

The great charade
As the West prepares for an assault on Iraq, John
Pilger argues that 'war on terror' is a smokescreen created by the
ultimate terrorist ... America itself War on Iraq? Discuss it here
John Pilger
Sunday July 14, 2002 The Observer

It is 10 months since 11 September, and still the great charade plays on. Having
appropriated our shocked response to that momentous day, the rulers of
the world have since ground our language into a paean of cliches and
lies about the 'war on terrorism' - when the most enduring menace, and
source of terror, is them.

The fanatics who attacked America came from Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
No bombs fell on these American protectorates. Instead, more than
5,000 civilians have been bombed to death in stricken Afghanistan, the
latest a wedding party of 40 people, mostly women and children. Not a
single al-Qaeda leader of importance has been caught. Following this
'stunning victory', hundreds of prisoners were shipped to an American
concentration camp in Cuba, where they have been held against all the
conventions of war and international law. No evidence of their alleged
crimes has been produced, and the FBI confirms only one is a genuine
suspect. In the United States, more than 1,000 people of Muslim
background have 'disappeared'; none has been charged. Under the
draconian Patriot Act, the FBI's new powers include the authority to
go into libraries and ask who is reading what.

Meanwhile, the Blair government has made fools of the British Army by
insisting they pursue warring tribesmen: exactly what squaddies in
putties and pith helmets did over a century ago when Lord Curzon,
Viceroy of India, described Afghanistan as one of the 'pieces on a
chessboard upon which is being played out a great game for the
domination of the world'.

There is no war on terrorism; it is the great game speeded up. The
difference is the rampant nature of the superpower, ensuring infinite
dangers for us all. Having swept the Palestinians into the arms of
the supreme terrorist Ariel Sharon, the Christian Right
fundamentalists running the plutocracy in Washington, now replenish
their arsenal in preparation for an attack on the 22 million suffering
people of Iraq. Should anyone need reminding, Iraq is a nation held
hostage to an American-led embargo every bit as barbaric as the
dictatorship over which Iraqis have no control. Contrary to propaganda
orchestrated from Washington and London, the coming attack has nothing
to do with Saddam Hussein's 'weapons of mass destruction', if these
exist at all. The reason is that America wants a more compliant thug
to run the world's second greatest source of oil.

The drum-beaters rarely mention this truth, and the people of Iraq.
Everyone is Saddam Hussein, the demon of demons. Four years ago, the
Pentagon warned President Clinton that an all-out attack on Iraq might
kill 'at least' 10,000 civilians: that, too, is unmentionable. In a
sustained propaganda campaign to justify this outrage, journalists on
both sides of the Atlantic have been used as channels, 'conduits', for
a stream of rumours and lies. These have ranged from false claims
about an Iraqi connection with the anthrax attacks in America to a
discredited link between the leader of the 11 September hijacks and
Iraqi intelligence. When the attack comes, these consorting
journalists will share responsibility for the crime.

It was Tony Blair who served notice that imperialism's return journey
to respectability was under way. Hark, the Christian gentleman-
bomber's vision of a better world for 'the starving, the wretched, the
dispossessed, the ignorant, those living in want and squalor from the
deserts of northern Africa to the slums of Gaza to the mountain ranges
of Afghanistan.' Hark, his 'abiding' concern for the 'human rights of
the suffering women of Afghanistan' as he colluded with Bush who, as
the New York Times reported, 'demanded the elimination of truck
convoys that provide much of the food and other supplies to
Afghanistan's civilian population'. Hark his compassion for the
'dispossessed' in the 'slums of Gaza', where Israeli gunships,
manufactured with vital British parts, fire their missiles into
crowded civilian areas.

As Frank Furedi reminds us in The New Ideology of Imperialism , it is
not long ago 'that the moral claims of imperialism were seldom
questioned in the West. Imperialism and the global expansion of the
western powers were represented in unambiguously positive terms as a
major contributor to human civilisation.' The quest went wrong when it
was clear that fascism was imperialism, too, and the word vanished
from academic discourse. In the best Stalinist tradition, imperialism
no longer existed. Today, the preferred euphemism is 'civilisation';
or if an adjective is required, 'cultural'. From Italy's Prime
Minister Silvio Berlusconi, an ally of crypto-fascists, to impeccably
liberal commentators, the new imperialists share a concept whose true
meaning relies on a xenophobic or racist comparison with those who are
deemed uncivilised, culturally inferior and might challenge the
'values' of the West. Watch the 'debates' on Newsnight. The question
is how best 'we' can deal with the problem of 'them'.

For much of the western media, especially those commentators in
thrall to and neutered by the supercult of America, the most salient
truths remain taboos. Professor Richard Falk, of Cornell university,
put it succinctly some years ago. Western foreign policy, he wrote, is
propagated in the media 'through a self righteous, one-way moral/legal
screen [with] positive images of western values and innocence
portrayed as threatened, validating a campaign of unrestricted
violence'. Perhaps the most important taboo is the longevity of the
United States as both a terrorist state and a haven for terrorists.
That the US is the only state on record to have been condemned by the
World Court for international terrorism (in Nicaragua) and has vetoed
a UN Security Council resolution calling on governments to observe
international law, is unmentionable. 'In the war against terrorism,'
said Bush from his bunker following 11 September, 'we're going to hunt
down these evil-doers wherever they are, no matter how long it takes.'
Strictly speaking, it should not take long, as more terrorists are
given training and sanctuary in the United States than anywhere on
earth. They include mass murderers, torturers, former and future
tyrants and assorted international criminals. This is virtually unknown
to the American public, thanks to the freest media on earth.

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

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

Al-Qaeda's training camps in Afghanistan were kindergartens compared
with the world's leading university of terrorism at Fort Benning in
Georgia. Known until recently as the School of the Americas, it
trained tyrants and some 60,000 Latin American special forces,
paramilitaries and intelligence agents in the black arts of terrorism.
In 1993, the UN Truth Commission on El Salvador named the army
officers who had committed the worst atrocities of the civil war; two-
thirds of them had been trained at Fort Benning. In Chile, the
school's graduates ran Pinochet's secret police and three principal
concentration camps. In 1996, the US government was forced to release
copies of the school's training manuals, which recommended blackmail,
torture, execution and the arrest of witnesses' relatives. In recent
months, the Bush regime has torn up the Kyoto treaty, which would ease
global warming, to which the United States is the greatest
contributor. It has threatened the use of nuclear weapons in 'pre-
emptive' strikes (a threat echoed by Defence Minister Geoffrey Hoon).
It has tried to abort the birth of an international criminal court. It
has further undermined the United Nations by blocking a UN
investigation of the Israeli assault on a Palestinian refugee camp;
and it has ordered the Palestinians to replace their elected leader
with an American stooge. At summit conferences in Canada and
Indonesia, Bush's people have blocked hundreds of millions of dollars
going to the most deprived people on earth, those without clean water
and electricity.

These facts will no doubt beckon the inane slur of 'anti-Americanism'.
This is the imperial prerogative: the last refuge of those whose
contortion of intellect and morality demands a loyalty oath. As Noam
Chomsky has pointed out, the Nazis silenced argument and criticism
with 'anti German' slurs. Of course, the United States is not Germany;
it is the home of some of history's greatest civil rights movements,
such as the epic movement in the 1960s and 1970s. I was in the US
last week and glimpsed that other America, the one rarely seen among
the media and Hollywood stereotypes, and what was clear was that it
was stirring again. The other day, in an open letter to their
compatriots and the world, almost 100 of America's most distinguished
names in art, literature and education wrote this: 'Let it not be
said that people in the United States did nothing when their
government declared a war without limit and instituted stark new
measures of repression. We believe that questioning, criticism and
dissent must be valued and protected. Such rights are always contested
and must be fought for. We, too, watched with shock the horrific
events of September 11. But the mourning had barely begun when our
leaders launched a spirit of revenge. The government now openly
prepares to wage war on Iraq - a country that has no connection with
September 11.

'We say this to the world. Too many times in history people have
waited until it was too late to resist. We draw on the inspiration of
those who fought slavery and all those other great causes of freedom
that began with dissent. We call on all like-minded people around the
world to join us.' It is time we joined them.

Capitalist Imperial
16th July 2002, 22:27
The typical liberal diatribe that I would expect to find in a wretched rag such as The Observer.

John Pilger probably would have been with the Pacifist party in england, saying,"just let the nazis have czekeslovakia! Then they'll leave us alone!"

guerrillaradio
16th July 2002, 23:10
You actually got an intelligent retort rather than sweeping statements I'd expect from my granddad??

vox
16th July 2002, 23:22
guerrillaradio,

What makes you think CI even read the piece? Judging from his response, he did not, or it's a particularly silly response considering what Pilger wrote about the Nazis in this very piece.

vox

Capitalist Imperial
16th July 2002, 23:49
Quote: from vox on 11:22 pm on July 16, 2002
guerrillaradio,

What makes you think CI even read the piece? Judging from his response, he did not, or it's a particularly silly response considering what Pilger wrote about the Nazis in this very piece.

vox

I read it, anyone can put the nazis down now, hindsight is 20/20, what I'm saying is that this artcle, while I appreciate CirianB posting it, is just another canned liberal rehash against the war on terror that is heavy on misrepresentations ("5000 civilians have been bombed to death"), bad analogies ("exactly what squaddies...did a century ago") and sensationalising events yet to even happen ("...the plutocracy in Washington, now replenish their arsenal in preparation for an attack on the 22 million suffering people of Iraq.").

I mean, come on, last time we were in the gulf, did we attack "the people" of Iraq?
And why are they suffering? Our embargo allows for food and medicine for the people. Saddam is reallocationg those allowances for his own purposes.

Oh, don't forget complete conjecture bordering on a desperate attempt to be some sort of breakthrough pundit: "Contrary to propaganda orchestrated from Washington and London, the coming attack has nothing to do with Saddam Hussein's 'weapons of mass destruction', if these exist at all. The reason is that America wants a more compliant thug to run the world's second greatest source of oil."

I mean, come on. Now he wonders if Saddams WOMD exist at all? Do you, vox, or anyone else really believe the the US claim of saddam developing WOMD is propoganda, when we found them in the gulf and that was 10 years ago, he used themon Iraqi kurds, our sattelite and survelliance photos have shown missle batteries near "chemical plants", and he refuses to let UN weapons inspectors search his facilities?

And you are suggesting this author has credibility how?

vox
17th July 2002, 00:30
"I mean, come on, last time we were in the gulf, did we attack "the people" of Iraq? "

Yes. There is evidence that the US committed war crimes in Iraq (http://www.twf.org/News/Y1998/WarCrimes.html) and there can be absolutely no doubt that the US defied the Geneva Convention (http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11398) by intentionally degrading the water supply available to Iraqi divilians, knowing full well what would happen. (The government documents were declassified and you can read them for yourself.)

"Do you, vox, or anyone else really believe the the US claim of saddam developing WOMD is propoganda, when we found them in the gulf and that was 10 years ago, he used themon Iraqi kurds, our sattelite and survelliance photos have shown missle batteries near "chemical plants", and he refuses to let UN weapons inspectors search his facilities?"

I believe that the US has gone out of its way to avoid peaceful solutions and to engage in a war of aggression in Iraq, a war that even the Iraqi oppostion does not want to happen (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0715-02.htm).

Saddam charged that the UN weapons inspection teams were actually spies. The validity of this statement was later confirmed by the US government. However, when the former head of the OPCW, Jose Bustani, suggested that Iraq sign the chemical weapons convention, and therefore be subject to the same inspections all other signatories are, the US forced Bustani out of power (http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0416-07.htm). This was the first time ever that the head of an international body was deposed in that manner. In this manner the US manufactured another excuse for war.

Indeed, the US and Britain do not have carte blanche in dealing with Iraq. The planned war (Bush has stated that he remains committed to regime change) is not covered by the Security Council resolutions.

"5000 civilians have been bombed to death"

The figure ranges from 3,000 to 5,000, from the best estimates I can find.

"exactly what squaddies...did a century ago"

I don't think this was an analogy so much as a direct comarison. Where do you find the flaw?

"...the plutocracy in Washington, now replenish their arsenal in preparation for an attack on the 22 million suffering people of Iraq."

You mean plans for war can't be talked about? That seems odd to me.

Not only am I suggesting credibility, I'm stating that this piece is filled with facts. Indeed, your major complaint seems to be what Saddam Hussein may or may not be doing and what the Western response should be, which is more of a debate about philosophy than a statement of facts.

Of course, maybe you don't think that General Jose Guillermo Garcia is living in Florida, but the rest of the world does. Or, perhaps, you don't see any hypocrisy in the US training people who most of us would call terrorists and then assisting them when they are finally overthrown.

But the rest of the world does.

vox

Anonymous
17th July 2002, 02:58
well CI about your first reply, i dont remember America show any care about the nazis, even when america knew about the consentration camps in europe before the war Ameriac dodnt give a shit, about the nazis trying to invade england America dind give a shit, about the japonese entering Hong kong America didnt give a damn, about the nazis almost winning the war America didnt give a damn, but when america was attacked sudently all america is aware of the nazis danger! and after the war America was the hero! when it was britain and its common wealth that valliently fgouth and won the nazis, when it was la resistance that gived that preciouse info about the germans, but when america enters a war everyone has to be with america because if they arent they are enemys! "or you are with America or you are with the terrorists" amazing isnt it? america wants to arrest tyrans but when is up to enter a internatial court to judge all crimes of war america is out! Amazing! And one more thing, American embargo to Iraq may let food pass, but does it allow Iraq to rebuild the water suply destroyed during american attacks? dos it allow toreconstruct the hospittals so valliently bombarded by americans? one more thing how can Iraq build chemical weapons when america is doing an embargo to Iraq? If america is soo strong why is Sadam still in power? oh wait! America puted Sadam in power didn it? Usa sucks, war against terror sucks, and most of all Bush SUCKS!

Ymir
17th July 2002, 03:15
Good article.

marxistdisciple
17th July 2002, 19:34
Fabulous. I am glad the mainstream press are picking up things spoken about on this board for months :)

Capitalist Imperial
17th July 2002, 19:41
Quote: from marxistdisciple on 7:34 pm on July 17, 2002
Fabulous. I am glad the mainstream press are picking up things spoken about on this board for months :)



"The Observer", mainstream press?

Please

Capitalist Imperial
17th July 2002, 20:59
Quote: from vox on 12:30 am on July 17, 2002
"I mean, come on, last time we were in the gulf, did we attack "the people" of Iraq? "

Yes. There is evidence that the US committed war crimes in Iraq (http://www.twf.org/News/Y1998/WarCrimes.html) and there can be absolutely no doubt that the US defied the Geneva Convention (http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11398) by intentionally degrading the water supply available to Iraqi divilians, knowing full well what would happen. (The government documents were declassified and you can read them for yourself.)

"Do you, vox, or anyone else really believe the the US claim of saddam developing WOMD is propoganda, when we found them in the gulf and that was 10 years ago, he used themon Iraqi kurds, our sattelite and survelliance photos have shown missle batteries near "chemical plants", and he refuses to let UN weapons inspectors search his facilities?"

I believe that the US has gone out of its way to avoid peaceful solutions and to engage in a war of aggression in Iraq, a war that even the Iraqi oppostion does not want to happen (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0715-02.htm).

Saddam charged that the UN weapons inspection teams were actually spies. The validity of this statement was later confirmed by the US government. However, when the former head of the OPCW, Jose Bustani, suggested that Iraq sign the chemical weapons convention, and therefore be subject to the same inspections all other signatories are, the US forced Bustani out of power (http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0416-07.htm). This was the first time ever that the head of an international body was deposed in that manner. In this manner the US manufactured another excuse for war.

Indeed, the US and Britain do not have carte blanche in dealing with Iraq. The planned war (Bush has stated that he remains committed to regime change) is not covered by the Security Council resolutions.

"5000 civilians have been bombed to death"

The figure ranges from 3,000 to 5,000, from the best estimates I can find.

"exactly what squaddies...did a century ago"

I don't think this was an analogy so much as a direct comarison. Where do you find the flaw?

"...the plutocracy in Washington, now replenish their arsenal in preparation for an attack on the 22 million suffering people of Iraq."

You mean plans for war can't be talked about? That seems odd to me.

Not only am I suggesting credibility, I'm stating that this piece is filled with facts. Indeed, your major complaint seems to be what Saddam Hussein may or may not be doing and what the Western response should be, which is more of a debate about philosophy than a statement of facts.

Of course, maybe you don't think that General Jose Guillermo Garcia is living in Florida, but the rest of the world does. Or, perhaps, you don't see any hypocrisy in the US training people who most of us would call terrorists and then assisting them when they are finally overthrown.

But the rest of the world does.

vox


es. "There is evidence that the US committed war crimes in Iraq (http://www.twf.org/News/Y1998/WarCrimes.html) and there can be absolutely no doubt that the US defied the Geneva Convention (http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11398) by intentionally degrading the water supply available to Iraqi divilians, knowing full well what would happen. (The government documents were declassified and you can read them for yourself.)"

OK, you have me here, usually I would chalk this up as incidental collateral damage, but apparently the documents do suggest a premeditated objective to compromise civilians. Although writers of this article basically refer to all americn foreign policy officials as some breed of imperialists, and to our president and generals as "defendents". A little presumptuous? I know its not the point, but on the subject of journalism it doesn't seem to be very objective.

"I believe that the US has gone out of its way to avoid peaceful solutions and to engage in a war of aggression in Iraq, a war that even the Iraqi oppostion does not want to happen (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0715-02.htm)."

I don't agreee here, If the UN was simply let in to allow weapons inspectors to do their job, we would not have cuurrent conflict. While I acknowledge this article, it:

#1) represents basically a few exiles who actually do support some military action, they just do not agreee with the proposed scale of said action

#2) does not represent even close all iraqi opposition

"Saddam charged that the UN weapons inspection teams were actually spies. The validity of this statement was later confirmed by the US government. However, when the former head of the OPCW, Jose Bustani, suggested that Iraq sign the chemical weapons convention, and therefore be subject to the same inspections all other signatories are, the US forced Bustani out of power (http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0416-07.htm). This was the first time ever that the head of an international body was deposed in that manner. In this manner the US manufactured another excuse for war."

The spy thing does not surprise me, however, Bustani's removal was allegedly due to mis-management and ill-advised policy decisions. His removal was subject to a mojority vote, and the US had the necessary support: http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:vvAiD...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 (http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:vvAiDLXSfvAC:www.state.gov/t/ac/cwc/fs/9631.htm+jose+bustani&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)

Besides, If Saddam did not honor the original UN weapons inspection treaty, what would make the US think he would honor future conventions?

"The figure ranges from 3,000 to 5,000, from the best estimates I can find."


That is what I find, too, but true estimates are hard to come by, but one thing to consider is this: how many of these "civilian" were taliban or al-queda, or taliban/al-queda sympathizers that would potentially compromise US operations in the future? US forces must err on the side of preserving opertional security. In the end, all death in afghanistan is really the responsibility of alqueda and the taliban, as:

#1)they were given plenty of time to assist us with our objectives peacefully

#2) They deliberately hide among and behind civilians in populated areas, with full knowledge of clear and present danger.


"I don't think this was an analogy so much as a direct comarison. Where do you find the flaw?"

It is my opinion that you are comparing territorial imperialism with a concerted response to having our financial epicenter and military headquarters attacked, as well as having 3000+ innocent civilians murdered.

"You mean plans for war can't be talked about? That seems odd to me."

Yes, it can be discussed, but should notbe re-interpreted by an america-basher posing as a journalist. He suggests absolutely no pretense of objectivity.

The US is planning more a limited interdiction to topple saddams regime and remove him from power permanently. This operation would be about 1/4 scale against operation desert storm.

The US is not planning to attack 22 million people.


"Not only am I suggesting credibility, I'm stating that this piece is filled with facts. Indeed, your major complaint seems to be what Saddam Hussein may or may not be doing and what the Western response should be, which is more of a debate about philosophy than a statement of facts.

Of course, maybe you don't think that General Jose Guillermo Garcia is living in Florida, but the rest of the world does. Or, perhaps, you don't see any hypocrisy in the US training people who most of us would call terrorists and then assisting them when they are finally overthrown.

But the rest of the world does."

No, I belive that general Guillermo is here. I understand that the USA is not 100% perfect, but its occasional contridictions in policy are par for the course among industrialized, militirized nations.

However, the scrutiny it receives for these contradictions is out of proportion with its relative frequency compared to other nations.

Anonymous
17th July 2002, 22:09
Yes CI you are right! Ups america bombed some stupid shepherds in a weeding! we are sorry! Now is all right again because america apoligized! yes now all is right in the world!Because there was a good cause in that war and america was fighting for freedom! yes freedom to the poor helpless oil reserves in cenrtal asia! And North allience deserves to be in power because .... err.... they dint fight the soviets..... because they prefered peace.... and vecause of that they deserve the power in Afghanistam! Yes long live the capitalist cause of America! long live the corporated west crimes! yes Long live america! And dont mess with our oil reserves! expecialy our oil reserves in koweit! we killed for them and we will kill again! Long live Amerikkka!

vox
17th July 2002, 22:14
"Bustani's removal was allegedly due to mis-management and ill-advised policy decisions."

That's what the US said, though many say it was a completely manufactured argument. Many nations abstained rather than vocally supporting the US, which never made a case against Bustani (try to find one) but rather threatened to cut off funding. The writing on the wall is in neon this time. Only those who refuse to see can miss it.

"In the end, all death in afghanistan is really the responsibility of alqueda and the taliban, as:

"#1)they were given plenty of time to assist us with our objectives peacefully

"#2) They deliberately hide among and behind civilians in populated areas, with full knowledge of clear and present danger."

Let me get this straight. Are you saying that, because the unelected leaders of a nation (from which none of the terrorists came) did not please the unelected president of the US, it's okay for the US to kill as many civilians as it wants to and the blame all goes somewhere else? Is that the kind of moral contortionism the right-wing has been reduced to? Hell, you even say that, because the enemy was hiding, it was okay to kill civilians.

How truly vile.

"This operation would be about 1/4 scale against operation desert storm."

According to the article I linked, and many other articles, the US is planning on a force 250,000 strong. That's not a small operation at all. That's a ground invasion.

"I understand that the USA is not 100% perfect, but its occasional contridictions in policy are par for the course among industrialized, militirized nations."

Occasional? Perhaps you missed the part about the School of the Americas? That's not occasional, CI, that's a major part of our foreign policy.

It's funny to me, in a pathetic kind of way, how you right-wingers, when confronted with inconvenient facts, always say, without any substantiation at all, that it's an abberation. Not this time, CI. It's policy. We have the evidence, from Chile to Nicaragua.

vox

Anonymous
17th July 2002, 22:17
I totaly agree with vox (and it isnt because he is against CI point of view!)

marxistdisciple
17th July 2002, 22:22
The observer is very mainstream compared to a che discussion board, or www.indymedia.org.
It sells in most newsagents in the country, is that mainstream enough for you? It's not as popular as the sun, but I don't think one person on this board really takes the sun's political critique seriously.

The truth is the American soldiers are very trigger happy in most wars. They are often so blinded by mindless patriotism that they will shoot at most anything that moves. this is expressed with the huge number of friendly fire incidents in most every war america have fought in the last century. It is also expressed by the high number of civilian casualties. Do you think the soliders are really that careful about who they shoot? Why should they be, their government will protect them, and even then they can't be charged with war crimes because Bush refused to sign the agreement!

Most of the article is fact. Fact is indisputable, whatever your opinions.

Thirdly, when was the last time the US brought a war tyrant to justice? I seem to remember that milosovich was eventually tried in an international court (the hague) for genocide. When we are sentencing people like that, the US sees reason not to support such a court? Or perhaps it is due to the simple fact that the US has comitted more war crimes than most of the rest of the west put together?

Capitalist Imperial
17th July 2002, 22:37
The School of the Americas is a legitimate program.

It is a training grounds for reactionary forces learning to defend against, and sometimes take a proactive approach on, political insurgents that would seek to compromise capitalism and american interests in central and south america.

marxistdisciple
17th July 2002, 22:44
Wasn't that where Bin Laden was trained? Talk about the student outdoing the teacher. he was certainly trained in a similar camp. Really helped the americans that one.

vox
17th July 2002, 22:54
"The School of the Americas is a legitimate program."

SOA graduates have included many of the most notorious human rights abusers from Latin America. SOA graduates have led military coups and are responsible for massacres of hundreds of people. Among the SOA's nearly 60,000 graduates are notorious dictators Manuel Noriega and Omar Torrijos of Panama, Leopoldo Galtieri and Roberto Viola of Argentina, Juan Velasco Alvarado of Peru, Guillermo Rodriguez of Ecuador, and Hugo Banzer Suarez of Bolivia. SOA graduates were responsible for the Uraba massacre in Colombia, the El Mozote massacre of 900 civilians in El Salvador, the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero, and the Jesuit massacre in El Salvador, the La Cantuta massacre in Peru, the torture and murder of a UN worker in Chile, and hundreds of other human rights abuses. In September 1996, under intense pressure from religious and grassroots groups, the Pentagon released seven Spanish-language training manuals used at the SOA until 1991. The New York Times reported, "Americans can now read for themselves some of the noxious lessons the United States Army taught thousands of Latin Americans... [The SOA manuals] recommended interrogation techniques like torture, execution, blackmail and arresting the relatives of those being questioned."

Source: http://www.soaw.org/new/faq.php

It's a shame you want to split up the post into different subjects, CI. I find it's easier to respond to things when the whole is left intact.

vox

Capitalist Imperial
17th July 2002, 23:40
"[The SOA manuals] recommended interrogation
techniques like torture, execution, blackmail and arresting the relatives of those being questioned."

We prefer the term "political re-education"

Besides, that's not a big surprise or secret, that is the MO in south and central america no matter what your affiliation is.



Source: http://www.soaw.org/new/faq.php

"It's a shame you want to split up the post into different subjects, CI. I find it's easier to respond to things when the whole is left intact."

I thought the 1st subject was addressed adequately as both points of view have been dictated.

marxistdisciple
17th July 2002, 23:49
Political re-education? Isn't it against the constitution to torture people? Probably not. It should be.

I am never quite sure of your point of view CI, sometimes you change it when you are losing an argument so you end up just looking immoral instead of wrong. In this case you just look silly to me. What exactly is good about training people to torture? Aren't americans more civilised than that? and if it is such a great lesson, why isn't it in the educational curriculum? Surely it is an essential part of the american way?

Unless the government is ashamed about it's activities, or at least trying to make sure most people don't know about it.

vox
17th July 2002, 23:55
"Besides, that's not a big surprise or secret, that is the MO in south and central america no matter what your affiliation is."

But we're not talking about a South American country, are we? No, of course we're not. We're talking about material paid for by US taxpayers and used on US soil.

I believe that you chose to break this issue off from the rest of the post because you didn't want it connected to what you previously said, which, if anyone needs a reminder, was "I understand that the USA is not 100% perfect, but its occasional contridictions in policy are par for the course among industrialized, militirized nations."

Of course, having a taxpayer-funded school which teaches how and when to use torture is not an "occasional contridiction in policy" but the actual policy of a brutal nation. Then, of course, we have to consider that US taxpayer money follows these "students" back to their country of origin, sometimes in order to topple democratically elected governments which are then replaced with brutal dictatorships, all, of course, done in the name of freedom and democracy.

Give it up, CI.

vox

Capitalist Imperial
18th July 2002, 00:04
I'm sorry it can't always be black and white, Vox, but sometimes certain elements of the US government take part in certain clandestine operations that could be considered "marginally questionable", but it is in the interests of the American people.

marxistdisciple
18th July 2002, 00:14
They train terrorists. I thought America had a war on that? Or did I missunderstand what a terrorist is? Easy to do it seems.

Is there a clause about if they come from America they don't count as terrorists? Is there an asterisk somewhere in the small print?

vox
18th July 2002, 00:28
"I'm sorry it can't always be black and white, Vox, but sometimes certain elements of the US government take part in certain clandestine operations that could be considered "marginally questionable", but it is in the interests of the American people."

Don't be sorry, CI, just be truthful.

I have not asked for anything at all to be black and white, have I? Nope. So why do you bring this up?

Indeed, you're oddly silent on the facts of this thread, aren't you?

You say that occasionally there is a "contradiction" in our policy. Then I show you that, far from being a contradiction, brutality is deeply ingrained in our foreign policy, as is supporting brutal dictators, and the best you can do is say that things can't always be black and white?

That's just bizarre.

And "marginally questionable" is a good one, too, considering that some of these things violate international law, which the US supposedly follows. The US certainly talks about it when it's in her interest, but then, when, oh, let's say when she's convicted of war crimes in Nicaragua, international law doesn't mean anything to her.

CI, you can use qualifiers all you want. You can candy-coat it, but it doesn't change the facts.

vox

Capitalist Imperial
18th July 2002, 00:37
The United States reserves the right to employ "situational interpretation" of international law. It is a benefit of our sovereignty.

vox
18th July 2002, 00:55
Is that a response or did a troll steal your computer?

vox

marxistdisciple
18th July 2002, 20:59
It's not "sovereignty," it's simply arrogance. They can get away with not conforming to rules which are in the best interests of humanity. That's what they are there for - the US chooses to ignore humanity though, unless it would be in the interests of the United States.

They choose to ignore global warming, because it would harm the US economy. It's not exactly complicated science - it makes sense to High School dropouts - they choose to ignore it, not because it doesn't exist, but because it would harm the economy. CI will now argue it doesn't exist of course, but the only people who really believe that are the ones putting the ridiculous amount of crap the US emits into the atmosphere. (They are probably the ones who funded the 'scientists' too.)