State sponsored crime

[bumab]

Suggested reading:

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

 

I've read Mere Christianity many times, and if you think a simplistic understanding of CS Lewis will show your opinions are always right (as you seem to think), you should try reading a little deeper. Seriously.

[bumab]

We (the whites) were told for years that everything the State did, is good and right. We were blasted with propaganda to such an extent that we never saw the suffering of the non-whites in this country. What we did see, was bomb attacks, limpet mines, land mines on farm roads, and all of these went to discredit the black masses. They didn't have a choice - we didn't give them a political voice to raise their issues. My father's office in Natal province was blown up with a limpet mine in 1987, his interpreter (a black guy) blown to shreds, bits of the poor guy lying all over the show. My dad only lost his hearing for a couple of months. We lived through it. Academic instruction was sidelined in schools to teach kids how to discern between different bombs. We had plastic models of different Russian and Chinese-made bombs and rifles hanging in every public space so we can recognize them. Nowhere were we told that the Blacks were suffering, and an armed struggle was their last resort. We were living in a fool's paradise, much like your average German was in the late '30s and early '40s...

 

Thanks, B. That's exactly the point I wanted to bring up with the thread.

 

Was the average German culpable in the holocaust?

Was the average white South African culpable?

 

Good question. The Nazi government was democratically elected, so can we presume they were the will of the people? Hitler kept his promises- the evil was broadcast ahead of time.

 

Sure - both the Germans and South Africans plucked the fruits of these immoral systems, but they were both blind to the truth.

 

Hopefully.

 

And State-sponsored propaganda is rife in the US, and we'll probably only see the injustices they're hiding with the benefit of hindsight, say, fifty years from now....

 

While I'm not sure it's as thouroughly malicious as you seem to think, I get your point. How do we know the actions of our military overseas is moral? We know what we are told. In Germany, all news that reached the public was colored to support the state, regardless of it's source. While you can argue the media is predominantly left-leaning (while the people involved may be, I'd still argue the organization is very conservative- see Manufacturing Consent for a good, generalized description), the nation has become more nationalist since 9/11, not without good reason.

 

But can we assume that everything we are being told is the truth? How culpable are the average Americans? Like Bio, I can honestly say that the information we are presented with generally shows us as the champions of right. But all states tell that to their citizens.

 

Terrorism is probably the only means a suppressed minority can make itself heard.

 

Very true. The American revolution was a terrorist act, essentially. We are certainly part of the cause, we did partially engender an environment where that was the extremists response. It was wrong, we should be chasing them down. I agree with that. But to just call them "nuts" and leave it at that is idiotic. But that's a topic for another thread.

 

How would the public (any country) become aware of their own state-sponsored crimes? Do you just have to wait until you get conquered for some reason, and get a new morality imposed? I have my own answers, of course, but I'd like to hear yours :)

[Boerseun]

Bio, the point I tried to make was that the US might easily be busy with some evil deed and nobody will know about it. 50 years worth of hindsight might give a different impression of the 'States.

 

Bumab - I suppose the only way to judge your own country is to look what the foreign press writes about you. The best place to read up on the condition of the US, will be in Europe, or the East. There you'd find the most balanced, unprejudiced opinions. Asking a killer if he's a good person, will allways give you the wrong answer. Ask his neighbours, and you might get closer to the truth. Same with countries. And if foreign nationals start blowing your country up in suicide attacks, there might just be something seriously wrong - and not necessarily with them. A little bit of introspection might be the order of the day...

[Biochemist]

..And if foreign nationals start blowing your country up in suicide attacks, there might just be something seriously wrong - and not necessarily with them. A little bit of introspection might be the order of the day...

Please tell me you are not blaming the US for the 9/11 attacks.

[Boerseun]

Please tell me you are not blaming the US for the 9/11 attacks.

No. I did not say or even imply that the US is responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

 

What I did say, which I think was pretty clear, at that, was that the US created the environment in which attacks such as 9/11 can happen. The US got attacked, right? What causes somebody to attack somebody else? Plain malice? Or is that the only response a supressed people can give to raise its voice against Empire America? The US will not, cannot, understand another nation seeing as they flatly refuse to go to the effort of trying.

 

If France doesn't agree with your policies of invading another 'sovereign' nation on a whim because somebody in the bar told you there was Weapons of Mass Distruction under Saddam's bed, you rename your French fries to 'Freedom' fries. How's that for grown-up behaviour...

 

Reality check:

Not all people in the world speak English.

Not all people in the world are Christians.

Not all people in the world think of the US as the guiding light of civilization and the torch-bearer of peace and prosperity.

Most people in other countries are pretty loyal to their countries, and don't condone the US trampling on their sovereignty. This kind of behaviour has been known in the past to agitate people to such a degree that they are willing to take up arms against the agressor.

If they do take up arms against the US, will it be conventional? No. There is no standing army anywhere in the world that can deck the US, seeing as the US spends a ridiculous amount on its Department of Defence every single year.

What options does it leave them? Yeah - you guessed it: Terrorism.

 

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

[Biochemist]

.....The US got attacked, right? What causes somebody to attack somebody else? Plain malice?

Were we attacked by the French? Were we attacked by the Chinese? Is it reasonable by anyone's standards to lop the heads off of civilians on television?

Or is that the only response a supressed people can give to raise its voice against Empire America?

The US was not suppressing Al Queda in any sense. They attacked the US becasue they disagreed with us. They killed 3000 innocent civilians. This is an act of war in any civilization.

...If France doesn't agree with your policies of invading another 'sovereign' nation on a whim because somebody in the bar told you there was Weapons of Mass Distruction under Saddam's bed, you rename your French fries to 'Freedom' fries. How's that for grown-up behaviour...

A whim? There were between 500 and 1000 act-of-war violoations of the no fly zone. Saddam attempted to assasinate a US president. Saddam sponsored terrorist training camps. This is hardly a whim. The UN was acting gutlessly and not enforcing their own resolutions, at least partially because France and Russia were taking bribes in exchange for favorable security council treatment.

 

You can disagree all you like about the relative import of Iraq in the war on terror. But is is absolutly ludicrous to suggest that invasion of Iraq was on a whim.

 

And who cares about the French? Of course they wouldn't help us get Saddam out of Irag. They wouldn't help get the Germans out of Paris!

Reality check:

Not all people in the world speak English.

Not all people in the world are Christians.

Not all people in the world think of the US as the guiding light of civilization and the torch-bearer of peace and prosperity.

Interesting standard. Because folks don't agree with the US,the US should abdicate the right to respond to attacks on our civilians?

There is no standing army anywhere in the world that can deck the US, seeing as the US spends a ridiculous amount on its Department of Defence every single year.

That is because everyone else depends on the US to do so. No one is stopping the EU from building up NATO, or a new force. The EU expects most of NATO costs to be born by the US, just like the largest fraction of UN costs. Fish or cut bait.

What options does it leave them? Yeah - you guessed it: Terrorism.

By this model, the US would have had unquestioned right to bomb South Africa during Apartheid. There is no moral equivalency here. We are comparing mass murder to political disagreement.

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

Thus proving the loss of moral boundaries.

[Boerseun]

Were we attacked by the French? Were we attacked by the Chinese?

I do not see the justification in this statement. Would the attacks have been any different if it was the French or Chinese?

Is it reasonable by anyone's standards to lop the heads off of civilians on television?

Apparently so, seeing as they did it. Governments executing criminals is also against my standards, if we want to keep consistency in moral matters in mind here. When's the next inmate going to take his final walk in Texas?

The US was not suppressing Al Queda in any sense. They attacked the US becasue they disagreed with us. They killed 3000 innocent civilians. This is an act of war in any civilization.

True. And how do we stop future terrorism? By invading country after country on a flase premise and totally disregard and ignore their cultural values and stomping over their human rights? Or actually try and get to the core of the problem, which is more philosophical in nature than the barrel of a gun can explain. If you look at the World Trade Center, it's clear that the attacks were symbolic in nature. They didn't just pick the two highest towers in Manhattan and flew into them.

A whim?

...and a prayer

There were between 500 and 1000 act-of-war violoations of the no fly zone. Saddam attempted to assasinate a US president. Saddam sponsored terrorist training camps. This is hardly a whim. The UN was acting gutlessly and not enforcing their own resolutions, at least partially because France and Russia were taking bribes in exchange for favorable security council treatment.

 

You can disagree all you like about the relative import of Iraq in the war on terror. But is is absolutly ludicrous to suggest that invasion of Iraq was on a whim.

Yes. I'm sure that oil had nothing to do with it. I'm sure that it was all about emancipating the poor Iraqis. I'm sure, in the two weeks before the war began, Hans Blix was just pulling ole' Dubya's left leg when he told the UN that there was no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

 

Embedded journalism = State sponsored propaganda

And who cares about the French? Of course they wouldn't help us get Saddam out of Irag. They wouldn't help get the Germans out of Paris!

Okay. That just proves my whole point about the US being the cause of its own downfall. Today you don't care a tom tit's tosser for the French, and you stomp all over them. Anger rises in the French community, and ten, fifty, hundred years from now they decide they've had enough of your arrogance and start blowing you up. It was unavoidable, if only you didn't have that brash "who cares about the French" attitude. You should care about the French. You should care about any nation you could care to mention, because if you don't, it'll come round and bite you in the butt.

Interesting standard. Because folks don't agree with the US,the US should abdicate the right to respond to attacks on our civilians?

No - not at all. Of course your sovereignty and national integrity is yours to protect. And that being the case, the sovereignty and national integrity of other nations should be respected. If you don't respect it, they will bite you - and seeing as your army, air force and navy is so ridiculously inflated beyond common sense, the only way they can bite you is via terrorism.

That is because everyone else depends on the US to do so.

No one depends on the US to do so. It's just in the USA's best interest to have its defence forces deployed world-wide on a constant basis, same reason Rome stationed garrisons throughout the ancient world. Global stability = good environment for trade. If some cultures need to be vanquished in our eternal greed, well, tough luck to them.

No one is stopping the EU from building up NATO, or a new force.

The only people stopping the EU from spending more money on defence, is the EU itself. They see no need to inflate the military to Cold War levels, seeing as its not necessary.

The EU expects most of NATO costs to be born by the US, just like the largest fraction of UN costs.

NATO was a organization created by the US, in conjunction with Western European states to serve as a bulwark against Soviet expansion to the west. It was created to serve US interests. The Soviets are gone. The threat is no more. If the US still wants a defunct organization to serve a redundant purpose, it should certainly foot the bill. Or get a new mission for NATO.

Fish or cut bait.By this model, the US would have had unquestioned right to bomb South Africa during Apartheid.

Another funny thing - you wanna know why the US never bombed South Africa? Because, even with the morally corrupt system that was running SA back then, it was in the USA's interest to have a capitalist, western-oriented nation in South Africa to counter the wave of communism spreading through the newly-independent countries in Africa. So, the US can ignore human rights violations like Apartheid if the violating state is to America's benefit. And here, the issue was Capitalism vs. Communism. It boils down to money. Dollars and cents. America will ***** and moan about its constitutionally protected freedoms and rights as much as it wants to, but the US lacks the moral fibre to practice what it preaches. You SHOULD have bombed South Africa, if you wanted to be consistent.

But okay - there's no oil in SA, so there's no profit in bombing Pretoria to shreds.

There is no moral equivalency here. We are comparing mass murder to political disagreement. Thus proving the loss of moral boundaries.

Hahaha... see previous line

[Biochemist]

Apparently so, seeing as they did it.

We have nothing more to talk about. You are suggesting that any behavior or any motivation that someone acts upon is reasonable. This framework is at odds with common sense, and at odds with the fundamentals of society. You are authorizing organizations to kill civilians because they disagree with something, even if the disagreement is unrelated to the civilians. If this morally acceptable, anything is. This is an abject loss of boundaries.

 

You should then not hold anyone responsible for killing your family because they don't like you. It would seem perfectly reasonable given your logic.

And how do we stop future terrorism? By invading country after country on a flase premise and totally disregard and ignore their cultural values and stomping over their human rights?

Sure. As long as the country involved commited acts of war as defined in normal international law. Certainly Al Quada did. Certainly Iraq did.

I'm sure that oil had nothing to do with it.

Me too. It is ludicrous to suggest this has something to do with oil. Was Afganistan for oil? Is the US getting any of the Iraqi oil? If the US wanted more oil in the world markets, they would have left Saddam in power and had him pump to his heart's content. This is a completely unfounded argument.

...Of course your sovereignty and national integrity is yours to protect.

According to you, we do not need sovereignty or integrity. Whatever we do is justified by the fact that we did it.

No one depends on the US to do so.

Do you honestly believe that no one expects the US to deploy resources to constrain North Korea? Iran? Is the US the country the most at risk for these rogue states? But guess where the military resources will come from.

The only people stopping the EU from spending more money on defence, is the EU itself.

We agree on that.

NATO was a organization created by the US, in conjunction with Western European states to serve as a bulwark against Soviet expansion to the west. It was created to serve US interests.

This is ludicrous. NATO was to serve NATO interests. Are there any political anomalies in the world that are not caused byt he US? I guess not.

[nkt]

We have nothing more to talk about. You are suggesting that any behavior or any motivation that someone acts upon is reasonable. This framework is at odds with common sense, and at odds with the fundamentals of society. You are authorizing organizations to kill civilians because they disagree with something, even if the disagreement is unrelated to the civilians. If this morally acceptable, anything is. This is an abject loss of boundaries.

So you disagree with the moral relativity of your government? Sure you aren't a terrorist/freedom fighter?

You should then not hold anyone responsible for killing your family because they don't like you. It would seem perfectly reasonable given your logic.

If I killed, or ordered killed, someones family, then laughed at them from a distance, rubbed their faces in their inability to do anything, and called them cowards for not dying "bravely" by running headlong into my tanks armed with a pop gun, then yes, most non-Americans can see that terrorism has a basis for justification.

Sure. As long as the country involved commited acts of war as defined in normal international law. Certainly Al Quada did. Certainly Iraq did.

As defined by the USA's intelligence and a closed off court? Or as seen by the rest of the world? And isn't unilateral invasion of another country even more illegal under international law?

Me too. It is ludicrous to suggest this has something to do with oil.

And there was me thinking you Americans didn't understand sacasm!

Was Afganistan for oil? Is the US getting any of the Iraqi oil?

Gee, I wonder which large American company got the oil contracts for the whole of Iraq before the fighting even (officially) ended? See http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/25/news/companies/war_contracts/

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The first contracts for rebuilding post-war Iraq have been awarded, and Vice President Dick Cheney's old employer, Halliburton Co., is one of the early winners.

So no conflict of interest there, then!

 

What about Afghanistan?

Interest in oil and gas projects in Afghanistan has usually focused on the country's potential as a transit route, as part of a larger project to take gas from energy-rich Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India.

 

But there are also unsubstantiated reports that the country has significant gas reserves.

 

Soviet Union authorities in the 1970s estimated Afghanistan's proven and probable gas reserves at up to five trillion cubic feet (141.5bn cubic metres).

 

Gas output peaked at 385 million cubic feet a day at the end of the 1970s, according to the US department of energy.

You still sure this has nothing to do with oil?

NATO was to serve NATO interests.

Hmmm... Founded by the USA, funded by the USA, backed and armed by the USA... So NATO had the same interests as who?

Are there any political anomalies in the world that are not caused byt he US? I guess not.

Well, if you look at almost every single conflict that has gone on for more than five years anywhere in the world, you will find the USA in there. Let's not mention El Salvador, Cuba, Viet Nam, North/South Korea, Afghanistan (vs. the Soviets and now), Iraq and Iran, Panama, the list isn't endless, not quite... Angola, Korea, Grenada, Libya, Hiati, Yugoslavia... In fact, name one war/coup/revolt where the USA hasn't "helped" one side or the other to further US interests? Even the Northern Ireland situation was largely funded by the USA!

 

I've not included even half the incidents in my list. See http://www.ilaam.net/Sept11/AmericanWars.html for a list of 100 *overt* *military* interventions, plus numerous assasinations and other naughty tricks.

 

I have little doubt you will rubbish that article due to the name of the author, but that doesn't make it any less true.

[Boerseun]

We have nothing more to talk about.

I might just be in agreement with you here.

 

The point we're trying to make is that the US is no angel when it comes to international behaviour, and might be engaged in "State sponsored crimes", as the title of this thread goes. And the real danger is that no American will know it, because they are in it - they don't have the perspective that distance brings.

 

Same with nazi Germany. And no, even before you answer to this, I'm not *equating* the US with Hitler and nazi Germany, it should be obvious. I'm just sparing you a redundant reply - what I am saying, what this whole thread is about, is that neither the Germans nor the Americans had any perspective about what they were/are doing. And that's the real danger.

[Queso]

i totally agree with that.

[nkt]

I do too.

 

Very few of the Americans I meet online seem to be capable of realising the truth of that statement, or the moral relativity of the US government.

 

I think it is because of something a friend pointed out the other day. Most Americans don't have a passport. They don't even consider going anywhere else than America, and to a lot of them, it seems like it is some abstract concept. Most of those who do leave America go to somewhere full of Americans, and so nothing is really very different.

 

To an American, why would you leave? Where would you go that is better? There isn't really anywhere you can't get within America.

 

And this is, perhaps, why Americans cannot understand that some people feel that the only way that they can get the voices of their dead heard is to kill themselves dramatically.

[Biochemist]

...As defined by the USA's intelligence and a closed off court? Or as seen by the rest of the world? ...

As defined by both the UN and the US Congress. Anyone read the UN resolutions about force and threats of force If Saddam would not comply with a couple of simple items"? Like ceasing to shoot at coalition airplanes?

 

Anyone who suggests there was not a basis in international law to pursue Iraq has not read the facts. Again, you could certainly argue that there were better places to confront terror. But it is absolutely ludicrous to contend that there was not a basis in broadly accepted internaiotnal law for action against Iraq.

[Boerseun]

Yes. I can cite quite a few places off the top of my head where UN resolutions are being trampled underfoot and ignored as we speak.

 

Zimbabwe, Haiti, the DRC, Burundi - and for some reason the US isn't really interested in doing anything about it, in spite of their lofty resolve to enforce UN resolutions.

 

Now, Biochemist - you tell me. Is it just a coincidence that the one common denominator amongst these countries is an absolute lack of resources, i.e. no oil, i.e. no reason for kind uncle Sam to dirty his hands?

 

What's that you said about morals?

[nkt]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8608425/

 

U.S. reportedly tried to influence Iraq vote

Article contradicts White House claim that covert assistance was called off

 

:xx: I'm shocked... How did they let this get out so soon? :)

[Boerseun]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8608425/

 

U.S. reportedly tried to influence Iraq vote

Article contradicts White House claim that covert assistance was called off

 

:xx: I'm shocked... How did they let this get out so soon? :)

Hahahahaha... (ironic, rather sarcastic tone of voice...)

 

Talk about freedom and democracy! What's the reason they got rid of Saddam again? Oh yes - to give the Iraqis the freedom to elect their own government...

 

Haha - they should rename the Iraqi senate/parliament to 20W40 or something

[Biochemist]

..Zimbabwe, Haiti, the DRC, Burundi - and for some reason the US isn't really interested in doing anything about it, in spite of their lofty resolve to enforce UN resolutions....Is it just a coincidence that the one common denominator amongst these countries is an absolute lack of resources, i.e. no oil, i.e. no reason for kind uncle Sam to dirty his hands?...

I am pretty sure the list of UN offenders where the offending countries have committed acts of war against neighboring countires is pretty short. And it helps if (like Iraq) the infractions on unenforced resolutions are at least 10 years old (and recurring) to give the UN time to look foolish.

 

As to the continued irrelevance of the oil discussion, the US has acted with its military in Bosnia and Somalia with UN support. The US has also interceded in Panama and in Grenada. I believe those did not relate to the UN. The US military also supplied significant support to the Indonesiam tsunami victims. Nope, no oil there.

 

The list of places where there was no oil (including Afganistan) far outstrips the list where there is (isn't Iraq the only example?). Besides, exactly how does the US benefit from the Iraqi oil anyway? It is their oil. We are spending money to get the oil fields working to that they can keep the oil. How is the US benefiting exactly?