Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Robert Fisk: Lost in the rhetorical fog of war

By hjw in MLP
Wed Oct 10, 2001 at 01:12:38 PM EST
Tags: News (all tags)
News

Read this article by Robert Fisk


Robert Fisk writes for the London Independent newspaper. He has lived in Beruit for years and has been a constant source of balancing opinion on the 'Middle East' question in European media.

Some claim that he has lost his sense of objectivity. I find him very interesting, and feel it's important to think about some of the questions he poses in his articles.

It surprises me how bland the mass-media reporting on the war can be. Do any of you know of any other sources of news that provide critical thinking on these issues. I'm concerned about a percieved lack of critical thought put forward by our leaders, in our names.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Do you feel the media is fulfilling it's responsibility to report thorough objective coverage?
o Yes, western media tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth 1%
o Yes, western media tells what it believes to be true. 1%
o Western media is aware of discrepancies between what it reports and what it knows, but avoids publishing unpopular stories. 15%
o Western media reports rehashed versions of government press reports, and fills in the gaps with poor journalism. 30%
o Western media does it's best, but fails to understand the issues as percieved by the Arab/Muslim world. 3%
o The media is biast towards our position. 9%
o The media is under the control of government spin doctors. 9%
o The media is incompetent, all other theories must factor this in first. 28%

Votes: 53
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Read this article by Robert Fisk
o Also by hjw


Display: Sort:
Robert Fisk: Lost in the rhetorical fog of war | 27 comments (19 topical, 8 editorial, 0 hidden)
Its Beirut ! (none / 0) (#2)
by pallex on Tue Oct 09, 2001 at 12:18:45 PM EST

Fix that and its +1 for you!

Holy Freak (4.57 / 7) (#6)
by Dlugar on Tue Oct 09, 2001 at 01:05:01 PM EST

If this is true, I'm pissed. Royally.

I'm watching Al Jazeera right now. "Inciting anti-Americanism"? Powell needs to get a grip. Yeah, just like Kuro5hin is inciting anti-Americanism. Good thing we're not a mainstream Middle Eastern news source!

Does anyone have some "more mainstream" coverage of Powell's statements against Al Jazeera? I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't even exist.

Dlugar

BBC Is The Running Lap-Dog of Bush (3.50 / 2) (#9)
by jasonab on Tue Oct 09, 2001 at 01:49:09 PM EST

Does anyone have some "more mainstream" coverage of Powell's statements against Al Jazeera? I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't even exist.
See the editorial comment above from the BBC. I also read about this on CNN, although I can't find that link now.

While your comment above speaks your personal bias for itself, why exactly is it wrong for Powell to not want OBL to have his own personal propoganda outlet? Why can he not express his opinion? Qatar cannot shut down this source, and Powell has the right to express his perspective to the owner.

[ Parent ]

He may be biased... (4.75 / 4) (#13)
by SvnLyrBrto on Tue Oct 09, 2001 at 02:53:38 PM EST

... but he has a point.

There is an unfortunate trend among some people; mostly among self-described "progressives".

They will (rightfully so), disregard a source such as the national review, the american spectator, or foxNews as the right-wing chest thumping "America can do no wrong (so long as the president is a republican)" propaganda rags that they are.

Unfortunately, these people will cite far-left "America can do no right" propaganda sources such as The Independent, indymedia, or noam chomsky as though they were the absolute, unbiased, gospel truth.

Sorry guys, but if you go far enough left, you'll find people just as loony as you will if you look to the right.

Perhaps the solution is to read both the writeings of the right wing AND left wing oddjobs. And that's what I do *try* to do. But it's hard. The national review, indymedia, Rush Limbaugh, and Noam Chomsky all leave equally bad tastes in my mouth.


cya,
john

Imagine all the people...
[ Parent ]

The Independent ? (4.33 / 3) (#14)
by Simon Kinahan on Tue Oct 09, 2001 at 03:29:26 PM EST

I agree with the general remarks in your comment: many so-called progressives have a tendency to believe anything that goes against the establishment line. However, have you ever actually read the Independent ? Its a very moderate newspaper. Traditionally almost exactly balanced between political poles. The Guardian is broadly left-wing, and some of its commmentators (George Monbiot springs to mind) do exhibit the tendency you mention. Fisk - who I guess is the person you have in mind in naming the Independent - have said several non-derogatory things about US policy in the middle east, especially in pointing out that the Arabs must bear some responsibilty for their own problems.



Simon

If you disagree, post, don't moderate
[ Parent ]
Ack... sorry... (3.50 / 2) (#15)
by SvnLyrBrto on Tue Oct 09, 2001 at 03:56:16 PM EST

Arragh!!!

Boneheaded call on my part. I should've said the Guardian. ESPECIALLY boneheaded on my part because the ultra super-duper mega liberal newspaper right here in San Francisco is ALSO called the Guardian!!!

(Tho the SF Guardian has a sence of humor and irony that seems to be lacking in much of the radical left)

But to be honest, I'm NOT overly familiar with the various British print media. Most of my British news comes from BBC World Live via Quicktime TV. I often leave the BBC on the computer in the background as audio stimulation, as silence drives me nutty.


cya,
john

Imagine all the people...
[ Parent ]

According to the Rt Hon Jim Hacker, MP (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by pw201 on Thu Oct 11, 2001 at 08:18:33 AM EST

"The Times" is read by the people who run the country. The "Daily Mirror" is read by the people who think they run the country. "The Guardian" is read by the people who think they ought to run the country. "The Independent" is read by people who don't know who runs the country but are sure they're doing it wrong. The "Daily Mail" is read by the wives of the people who run the country. The "Financial Times" is read by the people who own the country. The "Daily Express" is read by the people who think the country ought to be run as it used to be run. The "Daily Telegraph" is read by the people who still think it is their country. And the "Sun's" readers don't care who runs the country providing she has big tits.

(from "Yes, Prime Minister" by Jonathan Lynn and Anthony Jay)

[ Parent ]

It's not about Powell (5.00 / 3) (#20)
by phliar on Wed Oct 10, 2001 at 12:13:21 AM EST

... why exactly is it wrong for Powell to not want OBL to have his own personal propoganda outlet? Why can he not express his opinion?
Powell can of course think whatever he wants. However here he was the Secretary of State of the United States of America, talking to the Amir of the State of Qatar during a state visit. This was the US talking to Qatar. And the US believes in free speech for all - for criminals, mass murderers, Nazis - don't we?


Faster, faster, until the thrill of...
[ Parent ]

Rights vs Responsibility (4.00 / 3) (#23)
by jasonab on Wed Oct 10, 2001 at 10:57:29 AM EST

Powell can of course think whatever he wants. However here he was the Secretary of State of the United States of America, talking to the Amir of the State of Qatar during a state visit. This was the US talking to Qatar. And the US believes in free speech for all - for criminals, mass murderers, Nazis - don't we?
Yes, we do. But the Emir is also a major funder of that station (from his own private stash), and we believe in responsible free speech. If the news station is being used as a dupe of OSL to convince people to commit more attacks, that's probably not a good idea, regardless of what rights the station has. The station hasn't been forced to close, or bombed, but as the Emir said in the various links in this thread, it's been given an opinion.

[ Parent ]
AP Is Running Lap-Dog of Bush (4.00 / 2) (#11)
by jasonab on Tue Oct 09, 2001 at 02:24:24 PM EST

AP coverage from Yahoo News: Arab TV Channel Rejects Criticism

[ Parent ]
CNN/State Department Cover-up (4.00 / 2) (#12)
by jasonab on Tue Oct 09, 2001 at 02:37:12 PM EST

From the front page (www.state.gov) of the US State Department:
Remarks with His Highness Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, Amir of the State of Qatar

Note the last question asked.

Also see CNN for a bullet point on the topic.

[ Parent ]

How do you receive Al Jazeera (3.50 / 2) (#16)
by Chrisfs on Tue Oct 09, 2001 at 08:03:57 PM EST

How do you receive Al Jazeera ? Does it havce a web feed ? Chris S

[ Parent ]
The best source (4.00 / 3) (#10)
by Wing Envy on Tue Oct 09, 2001 at 02:23:46 PM EST

Is refdesk.com. You have access to practically all newspapers in the world. Although some require translation, this site also provides extensive coverage of vital statistics, etc. You can find the answers here if you look hard enough.


You don't get to steal all the deficiency. I want some to.
-mrgoat
Robert Fisk (3.71 / 7) (#17)
by WombatControl on Tue Oct 09, 2001 at 10:21:03 PM EST

Fisk, for those of you who aren't familiar with his work, is in the same school of thought as Edward Said and Noam Chomsky. That is, a school of thought that reflexively blames the West for all the evils in the world without being able to rationally or logically point to what specific policies are causing this so-called "imperialism"

Fisk critizes the US for siding with powers that may not be the most morally correct. Fine. What he neglects to mention is that in nearly every case, we did so in the knowledge that we were protecting the population from an even greater threat. Yes, we funded the mujahadeen in Afghanistan. However, we knews that the Soviets would slaughter millions. In the end, unfortunately, the Taliban took over, but the US could not have predicted that at the time. It was a clear-cut case of the devil you know versus the potential devils down the road. Had we interceded further after the Soviet defeat, Fisk, Said, and Chomsky would all be complaining about further US "imperialism".

In other words, one can sum up this rediculous school of thought with: US bad... terrorists can't be judged. Try reading some real informed commentary, like Christopher Hitchen's brilliant pieces on the conflict against radical Islam. Or better yet, read Samuel Huntington's brilliant The Clash of Civilizations. These people actually try to get the facts ahead of their biases, and present reasoned arguments supported by facts for the real reasons why the West is fighting this war, and why the West must win.

Pardon me, your prejudices are showing (4.36 / 11) (#18)
by phliar on Tue Oct 09, 2001 at 11:41:09 PM EST

Fisk, for those of you who aren't familiar with his work, is in the same school of thought as Edward Said and Noam Chomsky. That is, a school of thought that reflexively blames the West for all the evils in the world without being able to rationally or logically point to what specific policies are causing this so-called "imperialism"
This may even be a correct statement; however, I see no critique of the article itself. You make some statements about "this school of thought". Perilously close to an ad hominem argument, I'd say.

The thrust of Fisk's article - I'm assuming you haven't read it, based on the lack of anything substantive in your message - is that the western media, in particular the BBC, is reporting the same sort of video game stuff we got in the "Desert *" series. Oblique references to "collateral damage"; the US State Dept trying to get Qatar to shut down Al Jazeera for "anti-American thoughts"; rhapsodies on the clarity of the night and how smart our weapons are.

Even if Fisk is the evil anti-American monster you claim he is, do these points deserve any refutation?

Although it has nothing to do with Fisk, the Taliban or bin Laden, I can't resist this one, on US foreign policy siding with the corrupt:

...in nearly every case, we did so in the knowledge that we were protecting the population from an even greater threat. ... the Soviets would slaughter millions.
Did they?

How come we weren't so eager to step in in other places where millions were being slaughtered: the Khmer Rouge; East Timor; Burma.

How many civilians - children - have died in Iraq as a result of our sanctions? Excuse me, I mean "UN sanctions."

No, we've always had trouble dealing with the rest of the world. Now that the Soviet threat is gone, perhaps it's time for some soul-searching.


Faster, faster, until the thrill of...
[ Parent ]

Criticism of article (4.83 / 6) (#24)
by epepke on Wed Oct 10, 2001 at 06:44:43 PM EST

This may even be a correct statement; however, I see no critique of the article itself. You make some statements about "this school of thought". Perilously close to an ad hominem argument, I'd say.

That's fair enough, so I'll jump in with both feet as a third party and submit a critique of the article. Normally I wouldn't, as the original article was asking for sources, but since you ask so nicely...

My first criticism is general. Since the attacks, I have at a conservative minimum seen the exact same opinion about 30 times, expressed almost exactly the same way. Literally the only new wrinkle from this argument is the mention of the September 11/12 discrepancy. Almost all of the 30, including this one, either claim straight out or strongly imply that the media aren't reporting it. If this be the case, then why have I seen this opinion over and over and bloody over again, with little or nothing new? I certainly support the right of people to see the same opinion repeated ad infinitum, but if every time it is repeated it contains the claim that it is never heard, it is reasonable to judge it as wanking.

Now for some specific criticisms:

The most wanted man in the whole world has been suggesting that he's angry about the deaths of Iraqi children under sanctions, about the corruption of pro-western Arab regimes, about Israel's attacks on the Palestinian territory, about the need for US forces to leave the Middle East. And after insisting that bin Laden is a "mindless terrorist'' - that there is no connection between US policy in the Middle East and the crimes against humanity in New York and Washington - the Americans need to close down Al-Jazeera's coverage.

I don't doubt that bin Laden is angry about those things. Nor do I doubt him when he said that he hates Jews (not Israel in general; Jews). Nor did I doubt the man in the institution I worked in who was convinced that Timothy Leary opened the pyramids and discovered all the psychotropic medication he was taking. A lot of people are angry about a lot of things. Bin Ladn's angry about the treatment of the Palestinians by Israel? Guess what, so am I.

The real problem Fisk has is not that bin Laden sees a connection, but that he thinks everyone else should see a connection, and it is the media's duty to point it out again and bloody again until we do. However, there's an old saying: be careful what you wish for; you just might get it.

I do not with to kill millions of Arabs, and I also have a functioning brain, so I would never make the suggestion seriously. However, sometimes I fantasize about how ironic it would be if the U.S. were to do exactly what angry Muslims and feeble-minded commentators want them to do: abandon Israel and get out of the Middle East.

Listen, folks. Israel doesn't need our help to kill Arabs. They're good at it, and they like to do it. If we take away all their American assualt rifles that are designed to be less lethal than Uzis, they'll just go back to using Uzis. Bin Laden's trying to get some isotopes? Israel already has enough for about a hundred warheads and plenty of good physicists to boot. The principle effect of U.S. foreign policy has been to keep Israel on a very short leash. Which brings me to

...no one could think of any event that month that might have propelled Atta to his murderous behaviour.
Not the Israeli bombardment of southern Lebanon, nor the Qana massacre by Israeli artillery of 106 Lebanese civilians in a UN base, more than half of them children.

Yeah, I feel bad about massacres of children, too. I don't suppose that Fisk would consider in a million years the hundreds of thousands of Egyptian children the didn't die because the U.S. used its alliance to prevent Israel from invading Egypt, or those that didn't die when the U.S. clamped down on Isreal after the seven-day war.

Arabs and Jews have been hating and wanting to kill each other for thousands of years before the U.S., and Muslims and Jews have hated each other since the inception of Islam in C.E. 540. The U.S. didn't invent it; they just try to keep the lid on.

The U.S. policy in the Middle East has been far from perfect, but it has also been far from the worst. Of one thing, I'm certain. No matter what the U.S. did, murderous sociopaths would get angry in the Middle East, because "murderous sociopath" is a career choice in that area. Also, people like Fisk would criticize the U.S. no matter what it did. I am certain that, if the U.S. had done nothing to expel Iraq from Kuwait, Fisk would have been up in arms about our tacitly supporting Iraq by permitting it to take over a helpless Muslim state, saying that it was a continuation of our murderous campaign against Iran and laying the blame for slaughtered Kuwaiti children at our feet. The U.S. will be blamed no matter what happens.

the West's baleful history in the Middle East

Sure it's baleful, but which part was baleful? Maybe it was the establishment of the State of Isreal in the place where all the Jews had to leave to keep from getting killed many years before. I'd like some of what they were smoking when they thought that was a great idea. However, for that you have to look primarily to England, who had taken over the whole area and pretty much built the modern Middle East by drawing lines on a map. The U.S. foreign part has been far from perfect, but from the very beginning it was a clusterf*ck made up by people most of whom washed their hands of the matter and left the U.S., pretty much by default, to try to minimize the negative effects of an untenable situation.

If you throw matter and antimatter together, it goes boom. If someone like the U.S. scrambles around trying to keep the reaction controlled, it's a cheap shot to laugh at his antics and say he's responsible for when it gets hot.

But isn't it worth just a little mention, just a tiny observation, that an Egyptian mass-murderer-to-be wrote a will of chilling suicidal finality in the month when the massacre in Lebanon enraged Arabs across the Middle East?

No, it isn't worth a little mention, not particularly. I could go back to the place where the Leary Pyramid guy hangs out and get you a dozen, for any date you care to name. Unlike the Middle East and, to some extent Europe, we give them Haldol, not elect them. We elect feebs instead, because they're safer.

Why at least not tell us how these "terrorism experts" came to be so expert? And what are their connections with dubious intelligence services?

This I agree with. However, I think my reasons for agreeing are probably different from Fisk's. Fisk speaks as if he believes that, without the U.S., the Middle East would be a land of happy bunny rabbits where everyone got along and nobody ever got massacred. He seems to me incredibly naive, responding more to a mythological notion of the relationship of the U.S. to Isreal than to anything the U.S. actually does. You can call this ad hominem if you like, but I have a hard time believing that such a mind could come to the same conclusion as mine for exactly the same reasons.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
That would not be so bad, except.. (4.66 / 6) (#21)
by Apuleius on Wed Oct 10, 2001 at 01:38:29 AM EST

Fisk has access to Syrian government officials. That is a damn rare asset. Only one other man has more access - Patrick Seale. But to keep this asset, Fisk is more than ready to parrot what the Syrians want him to say, which is why, even though he regularly goes to Lebanon, he has not once reported on the ongoing Syrian crackdown against reporters and activists who criticize the Syrian military presence in Lebanon. He is also ready to echo spokesmen if it saves him a trip outside his hotel room. One egregious incident, a recent one, was his willingness to describe a Palestinian "work accident" (bomb preparation gone wrong) as an Israeli missile attack, when AFP reporters who visited the scene saw for themselves that there was no rocket entry into the basement where the explosion happened.

We're all biased. I certainly am. Fisk goes beyond that.




There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
US involvement as false dichotomy (4.40 / 5) (#25)
by crank42 on Wed Oct 10, 2001 at 07:02:41 PM EST

In the end, unfortunately, the Taliban took over, but the US could not have predicted that at the time. It was a clear-cut case of the devil you know versus the potential devils down the road. Had we interceded further after the Soviet defeat, Fisk, Said, and Chomsky would all be complaining about further US "imperialism".

The problem with this view is that it suggests that the U.S. either could have been involved or not after the Soviet war. But it was already involved. The US policy in Afghanistan was exactly the same as it was anywhere else: back up the anti-Soviet guys, no matter who they were or how unsavoury; and leave 'em to starve (or to the IMF, which is the same) after the Soviets lost. All over Africa, Central and South America, and Asia the same policy has failed over and over. To suggest that the US was somehow exercising restraint in leaving the Afghanis high and dry by cutting off the money that flowed in to fight some second-rate Warm War is to strain the bounds of credibility. (To use Hitchens in such a context is even more incredible, but we'll leave that alone for now.)

No-one is saying, "Terrorists can't be judged." But they can be explained, and past (and, possibly, present) US foreign policy is a perfectly good explanation for the existence of people like Bin Laden.

[ Parent ]

Practice what you preach (4.42 / 7) (#26)
by wji on Wed Oct 10, 2001 at 07:14:36 PM EST

> Fisk, for those of you who aren't familiar with his work, is in the same school of thought as Edward Said and Noam Chomsky. That is, a school of thought that reflexively blames the West for all the evils in the world without being able to rationally or logically point to what specific policies are causing this so-called "imperialism"

1) The article is about a specific factual event, namely, Colin Powell asking the kingdom of Qatar to censor, even shut down, a satellite TV station for 'anti-Americanism'. Since you have not adressed this fact, I'll presume you don't dispute its truth.

2) The allegation that Chomsky, Said, and Fisk 'reflexively' condemn the West without evidence is ridiculous. The following are excerpts from recent articles or interviews by Chomsky, Said, and Fisk:

"It should be unnecessary to point out that massive terrorism is a standard device of powerful states, just as Stohl observes. Some cases are not even controversial. Take the us war against Nicaragua, leaving tens of thousands dead and the country in ruins. Nicaragua appealed to the world court, which condemned the us for international terrorism ("the unlawful use of force"), ordering it to desist and pay substantial reparations. The us responded to the court ruling by sharply escalating the war, and vetoing a security council resolution calling on all states to observe international law. ... Michael Kinsley, at the liberal extreme of the mainstream, argued that...a "sensible policy" must "meet the test of cost-benefit analysis," an analysis of "the amount of blood and misery that will be poured in, and the likelihood that democracy will emerge at the other end" -- "democracy" as the US understands the term, an interpretation illustrated quite clearly in the region." [Noam Chomsky]

"Ask an Arab how he responds to 20 or 30 thousand innocent deaths and he or she will respond as good and decent people should, that it is an unspeakable crime. But they will ask why we did not use such words about the sanctions that have destroyed the lives of perhaps half a million children in Iraq, why we did not rage about the 17,500 civilians killed in Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon, why we allowed one nation in the Middle East to ignore UN Security Council resolutions but bombed and sanctioned all others who did. And those basic reasons why the Middle East caught fire last September - the Israeli occupation of Arab land, the dispossession of Palestinians, the bombardments and state sponsored executions, the Israeli tortures ... all these must be obscured lest they provide the smallest fractional reason for yesterday's mass savagery." ['The Awesome Cruelty of a Doomed People', Fisk]

"The overall result is that any attempt to place the horrors of what occurred on 11 September in a context that includes US actions and rhetoric is either attacked or dismissed as somehow condoning the terrorist bombardment.

"Intellectually, morally, politically such an attitude is disastrous since the equation between understanding and condoning is profoundly wrong, and very far from being true. What most Americans find difficult to believe is that in the Middle East and Arab world US actions as a state -- unconditional support for Israel, the sanctions against Iraq that have spared Saddam Hussein and condemned hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis to death, disease, malnutrition, the bombing of Sudan, the US "green light" for Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon (during which almost 20,000 civilians lost their lives, in addition to the massacres of Sabra and Shatila), the use of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf generally as a private US fiefdom, the support of repressive Arab and Islamic regimes -- are deeply resented and, not incorrectly, are seen as being done in the name of the American people. There is an enormous gap between what the average American citizen is aware of and the often unjust and heartless policies that, whether or not he/she is conscious of them, are undertaken abroad." ['Backlash and Backtrack', Said]


> Fisk critizes the US for siding with powers that may not be the most morally correct. Fine. What he neglects to mention is that in nearly every case, we did so in the knowledge that we were protecting the population from an even greater threat. Yes, we funded the mujahadeen in Afghanistan. However, we knews that the Soviets would slaughter millions.

When? Specify and substantiate even one case where the US has intervened in a foreign country to protect the population from 'an even greater threat'. Look at the greatest 'official' threats to the innocent population of a country. The Holocaust? The public didn't even know about that until the concentration camps started being 'liberated'. The Japanese in China? We didn't care -- the US was more than happy to massacre civillians in Asia. 200,000 murdered at Nanking - 600,000 murdered by America in the Phillipenes (I'm referring here to resistance to colonization in the 1910s, not the 1944 battles). We didn't 'contain Communist imperialism' in Viet Nam. We furthered the goals of Western imperialism. Did the Soviets send Tu-26s to carpet-bomb the fields outside Saigon? Did they employ defoliants to destroy the livelihood and sustenance of civillians? Did Viet Cong round up peasents and herd them into camps -- excuse me, 'strategic hamlets', in government-controlled -- excuse me, 'secure' locations? When was the last time you read an account by a former VC saying 'The way we operated, any Vietnamese seen running away from VC could be shot. It was standard operating procedure. One day I shot a woman in a rice field because she was running - just running away from the Communists. And I killed her. Fifty-five or sixty years old, unarmed, and at the time I didn't even think twice about it." None of the examples I've mentioned come from the VC -- they were all perpetuated by the side fighting for 'freedom and democracy'. We didn't even destroy Viet Nam in order to save it. We destroyed Viet Nam to further our imperialist goals. Likewise, we didn't support noble rebels fighting the Sandindista imperialists in Nicaragua -- we supported a gang of murderous, brutal 'Sons of Reagan' in the rape and destruction of a democratic society. Why? They threatened America. The risk was not a Sandindista march on Texas -- it was a Sandindista government serving as an example to the region. Democracy in Latin America has always been a dreadful threat to America. That's the reason we destroyed the fairly elected (by a landslide) president of Haiti in the early nineties. He beat the pants off the 'suitable' candidate, a former World Bank-er, and threatened US corporate interests. We sent him back in in 1995, having exacted a promise that he would 'open Haiti to the free market' -- a market dominated by the US, which subsidizes its farmers to the tune of forty percent. And so thousands starve. These are not conspiracy theories. They are solid facts available in just about any resource but the US mainstream press. The civilized world does not even remark on these facts.

As for the suggestion that 'the Soviets would slaughter millions' -- if they wanted to, why didn't they when they were in power? I've never came across a comprehensive description of the Soviet regime, other than a few references to building schools and hospitals. Is it true? I don't know.


In short, your comments are ridiculous. In the civilized world you would be laughed at and dismissed instantly for supporting this kind of agressively paternalistic imperialism.

++wji+ [oxford_thames-REMOVE-@on.aibn.REMOVE.com]

In conclusion, the Powerpuff Girls are a reactionary, pseudo-feminist enterprise.
[ Parent ]

Robert Fisk: Lost in the rhetorical fog of war | 27 comments (19 topical, 8 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!