[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

[Aloofi]

Check this out:

"Has anyone noticed an indifference in the precincts of the far Left to the fatalities of 9/11 and the horrors of Saddam Hussein?

Right after the 9/11 attack, German composer Karlheinz Stockhausen called it "the greatest work of art for the whole cosmos." Eric Foner, an ornament of Columbia University's Marxist firmament, trivialized it by announcing himself unsure "which is more frightening: the horror that engulfed New York City or the apocalyptic rhetoric emanating daily from the White House." Norman Mailer called the suicide hijackers "brilliant."

More recently, it appears that none of the millions of antiwar demonstrators have a bad word to say about Saddam Hussein nor an iota of sympathy for those oppressed, tortured and murdered by his regime. Instead, they vent fury against the American president and British prime minister.

Why is the Left nonchalant about the outrages committed by al Qaeda and Baghdad?

Lee Harris, an Atlanta writer, offers an explanation in a recent issue of the Hoover Institution's journal, Policy Review. He does so by stepping way back and recalling Karl Marx's central thesis about the demise of capitalism resulting from an inevitable sequence of events:

Business profits decline in the industrial countries;

Bosses squeeze their workers;

Workers become impoverished;

Workers rebel against their bosses, and

Workers establish a socialist order.
Everything here hangs on workers growing poorer over time - which, of course, did not happen. In fact, Western workers became richer (and increasingly un-revolutionary). By the roaring 1950s, most of the Left realized that Marx got it wrong.

But rather than give up on cherished expectations of socialist revolution, Harris notes, Marxists tweaked their theory. Abandoning the workers of advanced industrial countries, they looked instead to the entire populations of poor countries to carry out the revolution. Class analysis went out the window, replaced by geography.

This new approach, known as "dependencia theory," holds that the First World (and the United States above all) profits by forcefully exploiting the Third Word. The Left theorizes that the United States oppresses poor countries; thus Noam Chomsky's formulation that America is a "leading terrorist state."

For vindication of this claim, Marxists impatiently await the Third World's rising up against the West. Sadly for them, the only true revolution since the 1950s was Iran's in 1978-79. It ended with militant Islam in power and the Left in hiding.

Then came 9/11, which Marxists interpreted as the Third World (finally!) striking back at its American oppressor. In the Left's imagination, Harris explains, this attack was nothing less than "world-historical in its significance: the dawn of a new revolutionary era."

Only a pedant would point out that the suicide hijackers hardly represented the wretched of the earth; and that their objectives had nothing at all to do with socialism and everything to do with - no, not again! - militant Islam.

So desperate is the Left for some sign of true socialism, it overlooks such pesky details. Instead, it warily admires al Qaeda, the Taliban and militant Islam in general for doing battle with the United States. The Left tries to overlook militant Islam's slightly un-socialist practices - such as its imposing religious law, excluding women from the workplace, banning the payment of interest, encouraging private property and persecuting atheists.

This admiring spirit explains the Left's nonchalant response to 9/11. Sure, it rued the loss of life, but not too much. Dario Fo, the Italian Marxist who won the 1997 Nobel Prize for literature, explains: "The great [Wall Street] speculators wallow in an economy that every year kills tens of millions of people with poverty, so what is 20,000 dead in New York?"

The same goes for Saddam Hussein, whose gruesome qualities matter less to the Left than the fact of his confronting and defying the United States. In its view, anyone who does that can't be too bad - never mind that he brutalizes his subjects and invades his neighbors. The Left takes to the streets to assure his survival, indifferent both to the fate of Iraqis and even to their own safety, clutching instead at the hope that this monster will somehow bring socialism closer.

In sum: 9/11 and the prospect of war against Saddam Hussein have exposed the Left's political self-delusion, intellectual bankruptcy and moral turpitude. "

[Hunkpapa]

Do you really think that the people would still hate us if they enjoyed the same freedoms as us?

As for religon...no where in the Koran does it say to hate Americans and blow yourself up to kill the infidels. if the people were able to eliminate the fanatics from power we would not have these issues.

Another note...Jihad is constantly being taken out of context by these fanatics and suicide bombers to suite their needs. (Much like the Christian fanatics take specific exerts from the bible to suite theirs) The Jihad is the battle between good and evil that every person battles internally in determineing their own fate...it was never to be taken against other people.

[Master Belisarius]

Originally posted by Hunkpapa:
Do you really think that the people would still hate us if they enjoyed the same freedoms as us?

Of course yes.
If would exist a free election in all the Muslim world today, I can bet Ossama Bin Ladin would be elected president hands down.

[Unknown_Enemy]

"Has anyone noticed an indifference in the precincts of the far Left to the fatalities of 9/11 and the horrors of Saddam Hussein?

A sick piece of opinion that assume all opposition to war are Saddam/Al Quaeda supporters. I am sure we are all able to find some equivallent trash explaining you how the USA helped 9/11 by their policie.

So desperate is the Left for some sign of true socialism

From this sentence I would hint the author is around 60 and has spend his prime time fighting in the cold war. Sadly he was not able to evolve. If someone were to tell him that communist ideology is gone, may be he would retire.

[dogscoff]

Aloofi, that "article" really is a heap of crap. It offers no evidence, other than a few misquoted or misguided comments from obscure lefties.

Has anyone noticed an indifference in the precincts of the far Left to the fatalities of 9/11 and the horrors of Saddam Hussein?

Not really.

Norman Mailer called the suicide hijackers "brilliant."

Any quote of just one word is suspicious from the start.
From the Oxford concise English Dictionary: "Brilliant: 2exceptionally clever or talented."
In terms of concept and planning, the WTC attack was brilliant. Anyone planning an attack would be looking for something that was simple, low cost, low risk and devastatingly effective. the 9/11 attacks were all of those things. The fact that loads of innocent people died wasn't brilliant, but the effectiveness and cleverness of the plan cannot be denied.

unsure "which is more frightening: the horror that engulfed New York City or the apocalyptic rhetoric emanating daily from the White House."

I agree with this sentiment completely. As far as I'm GWB has desecrated the memories of the 9/11 victims by using their deaths to advance his own agenda. He has used the attack as nothing more than political currency, with which he has bought draconian anti-freedom legislation and unjustifiable warmongering in the middle east. Sure 9/11 was scary, but isn't an Orwellian America even scarier? Do we really have to start reeling out those "he who is willing to sacrifice freedom for security..." quotes again?

More recently, it appears that none of the millions of antiwar demonstrators have a bad word to say about Saddam Hussein nor an iota of sympathy for those oppressed, tortured and murdered by his regime.

As has been mentioned several times lately, an anti-war stance is NOT a pro-Saddam stance. He is a monster, but I don't believe for one minute that the proper way to get rid of a monster is to feed him to an even bigger one.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by primitive:
Sorry Geo:
It was very late yesterday and I edited that post about a 1000 times to make it right. Then of course I screwed up.

That first sentence should have been: Your Posts is by far NOT the worst.
Makes more sense grammatically as well as logically with people like …… around.

So now I get to be ignored. Thanks.

DS:

The fact that loads of innocent people died wasn't brilliant, but the effectiveness and cleverness of the plan cannot be denied.

Sure it was. That was a big part of the plan, after all. Just destroying the WTC on off-days when less people are there (or late at night) would not have had as profound an effect as destroying the WTC when lots of people were in it. Using lots of innocent people in the attack itself was also rather clever because it magnified the effects of terror from the action. Incredibly wrong, yes. Brilliant, definitely.

[ April 11, 2003, 19:52: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
Aloofi, that "article" really is a heap of crap. It offers no evidence, other than a few misquoted or misguided comments from obscure lefties.

Hey, don't take it on me. I never supported the Iraki war because, frankly, it doesn't go along with my interests, since the American victory means the creation of a Palestinian state to "compensate" the Arabs for the loss of Irak, which, as you know, means the destruction of Israel.

This article I quoted I founded it interesting because it kind of match with the European anti-Israeli Left, which its extremely annoying, and definitively not interested in peace in the Middle East.
My question is, how can a liberal leftish not support the only Democracy in the Middle East, the only country with women rights, religion freedom, freedom of expression and so on, how can they support the Palestinians when they have "honor killings" against their women for the simplest reasons, when they execute any Palestinian wanting peace with Israel and don't even have a peace movement as Israel have.

[Andrés]

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Askan Nightbringer:
Maradona's "Hand of God" effort and just about everything else that might get someone behind the invasion.

Do you really think that's why the Brits invaded?

---

Do you really think that's why the Brits invaded?

---

Wow, why would have Saddam helped us win?

Why accuse us of have been helped by Saddam?
We did help in Gulf War I, even if our help was merely symbolical.
We could have helped now too. No reason to piss us off.

BTW some say that the terrorist attacks we suffered in the AMIA and Israel Embassy were "punishment" for that help. And that that was the reason we didn't help now.

[ April 11, 2003, 23:57: Message edited by: Andr&eacutes Lescano ]

[geoschmo]

Primitive, Thank you for that clarifcation.

Geoschmo

[Master Belisarius]

Originally posted by Andr&eacutes Lescano:
Wow, why would have Saddam helped us win?

Why accuse us of have been helped by Saddam?
We did help in Gulf War I, even if our help was merely symbolical.
We could have helped now too. No reason to piss us off.

BTW some say that the terrorist attacks we suffered in the AMIA and Israel Embassy were "punishment" for that help. And that that was the reason we didn't help now.

This topic is still hot!!!
Reading the Ashkan's post, I believed he wanted to state that USA/UK were looking for any excuse to justify their invasion to Iraq... not that Argentina has been helped by Saddam! (Check his other post about the Rugby!)

Che Andrés, tranquilo!!! Además, si el Turco vuelve seguro que en la invasión a Siria, Argentina dice PRESENTE!!!

[ April 12, 2003, 01:00: Message edited by: Master Belisarius ]