And one man's wife-beating is another man's way of showing he cares about where she was and what she did.
But it's still wife-beating, even if the second man calls it "caring", as a way to try to hide from others or from himself the fact that he's a wife-beater.
The "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" cliche is only true in the sense that terrorism supporters decline to call the actions they support "terrorism".
He mentioned the oppression in iran plenty of times, but he's a political commentator that likes to draw comparisons between events in different countries.
I am just interested in the facts. It is a well established fact that countries like Iran and others throughout the Middles East kill thousands of innocent women, gays, and those accused of blasphemy every year.
It really doesn't matter what you label that kind of action, it is still a fact that we have to deal with, and Chomsky's response has been to ignore the problem and attack those who do bring it up.
As you are just interested in the facts, perhaps you could substantiate your claim that that countries like Iran and others throughout the Middle East kill thousands of innocent women, gays, and those accused of blasphemy every year.
It is only in the US that the Democrats are considered left wing. Their policies are mostly right wing and Obama's are virtually indistinguishable from his predecessor's
For war...There is nothing in that coordination of attacks on innocent civilians that can be blamed on Egypt, or the US, or anyone else but those leaders of Al-Qaeda that are choosing to kill those thousands of innocent people. Chomsky's deplorable actions on this subject do nothing to help prevent more war or more innocent deaths.
The US also chooses to kill thousands of innocent people in the wars it chooses to wage, year after year. Violence breeds violence.
Al Qeada's civilian body count is insignificant next to that to the US', which is in the millions.
We need realistic plans, and realistic policies to prevent wars, and I am happy to stand up to people on the Left like Chomsky that do the opposite. That is what makes us better than the Right who cannot stand up to the counterproductive polices of the Tea Party and who sell their souls and votes to the highest corporate bidder.
The Tea Party, in that respect, is no different than the two mainstream parties.
Dismantling the transnational Military/Industrial/Financial complex is the only realistic plan to stop the wars that it feeds off and promotes.
“The few own the many because they possess the means of livelihood of all ... The country is governed for the richest, for the corporations, the bankers, the land speculators, and for the exploiters of labor. The majority of mankind are working people. So long as their fair demands - the ownership and control of their livelihoods - are set at naught, we can have neither men’s rights nor women’s rights. The majority of mankind is ground down by industrial oppression in order that the small remnant may live in ease.” — Helen Keller, 1911
The US is going to leave Afghanistan, and the killing of Osama Bin Laden has a done a lot to help that, but we have to be honest about what peace and women's rights in Afghanistan after we leave are actually going to mean.
Perhaps you could familiarize yourself with The Looming Tower before jumping to further, erroneous, knee-jerk conclusions based on single words (and screen names). Lawrence Wright is not what you'd call a "terrorist apologist".
Al-Qaeda was not performing peaceful bake sales and flower arrangements for caliphates before the evil Egypt came along and made them kill thousands of innocent people instead.
Al Qaida didn't exist prior to or during the time that many its founding members were being tortured in Egypt. Violence breeds violence.
I'd also like to remind you that you earlier claimed that this torture never happened.
What a terrible non-answer.
I suggest you look more into the statements of people who have participated in the Arab Spring before making a statement like that.
There is nothing in the Arab Spring to show that they would do anything to stop or even decrease the pointless legalized executions of gay people across the Muslim world.
The position that you have taken and the position that Chomsky has taken who parades around his $50,000 "human rights" prize while actively supporting those groups that perpetrate some of the largest human rights abuses in the world is financially savvy, but morally reprehensible.
Desperate, childish smearing, of the sort that I normally associate with rabid rightwingers, hilited.
While you have yet to show that Chomsky does actually support these "groups" rather than simply seeking to understand and acknowledge what motivates them (something you apparently are not interested in at all beyond the level of "Ooh, they're so evil!") and observing that they have some valid grievances, you have shown a remarkably persistent inability to distinguish between the words "excuse" and "explain". This suggests that you yourself are operating from a blame-based consciousness.
Ongoing (it's got a long way to go...) gay and lesbian liberation in the West grew out of the liberation movements of the 1960s. There is no reason that the same cultural shift won't happen in the East if Arab youth and others are able to maintain the revolutionary momentum which gay and lesbian Arabs have welcomed and participated in.
Liberation is best when it is homegrown. The West's influence in the Middle East is at its lowest ebb for decades, not least because of its long-term support for oppressive homophobic regimes like Mubark's in Egypt.
This does not change that Chomsky is still a purveyor of false hope and a blame based understanding system that blames the West, and specifically the US for almost all of the worlds problems.
This is an idiotic and untrue statement (hilited). What you conveniently dismiss as a blame game is actually an academic's description of the realities of US foreign policy, something that is mostly hidden from US domestic consciousness which perceives the US' bloated and brutal military as a saintly international charity organization.
No matter if his views are not true at all or if they do major damage towards finding real solutions for peace, that is what he makes his money on.
I have watched this video three times now, and all of Malalai's points hinge on the premise that the people in Afghanistan are fighting three groups, the Taliban/Islamic fundamentalists, the Warlords/Drug kings, and the US/Coalition forces. Her idea that if the US leaves, that the fight against the other two will be easier is not realistic at all. She singles out all of the major fighting groups in Afghanistan and says that the fight will be easier against them if we leave, but she doesn't have anybody to do the fighting.
What you fail to mention is how she points out that group three is supporting group two, to the extent that it supports Warlords as "politicians", and the actions of those two groups lead to people supporting group one who would otherwise be supportive of civil society, which indeed exists and for which Malalai Joya is a spokesperson. I hope you don't claim to have a better grasp on the situation than she has.
The propaganda on both sides dehumanizes those on the opposite side of the struggle and stunts real progress towards peace. Some outside actors like Iran also work to exacerbate and perpetuate the conflict for their own political advantage.
Again, moral equivalence, albeit, I humbly request you to bring forth any Israeli tv propaganda of the likes which the PA/Hamas/PFLP/etc. display on their tv broadcasts.
It is a never ending cycle of with many ardent reasons on both sides to keep it going forever.
This cycle allegation is a farce, always has been, always will be. Jewish extremist settlers, of which are indeed a minority, are arrested and their violence by and far involves that of rock throwing and vandalism, not on par with the Palestinian violence seen in the territories and inflicted on Israel and settlers in the WB. The prior is condemned by the Israeli government and the overwhelming majority of Israelis. The latter is praised, have streets, squares and summer camps named after them.
I think that the three major things that need to be addressed for real peace is for the loaded demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a "Jewish State" be amended to include the protection of rights for now Jewish Israelis as well. Second, there needs to be some reasonable safeguards set in place to address
You've stated this before. Israel is a democratic and Jewish state. I doubt you've read the 107 pages of this thread since this was addressed earlier. All the rights that you supposedly demand be amended already exist.
I just read all 107 pages of the General Israel/Palestine thread, and ultimately, Thunder had the best post for what should be done to bring peace (I would add that #4 should also apply to Palestinians visiting holy sites in Israel):
Missing the land swaps. And Parky is simply parroting what's the basis and has been the basis for all existing peace initiatives which has been stated in detail by many posters on this forum.
Again, are you going to make an effort on this forum or not?
EDIT: I would suggest you bring these issues up in the correct thread as well.
The terrorist apologist moto of "One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" is morally and philosophically empty. Freedom is a goal and terrorism is a means. The terms are not mutually exclusive, indeed they have little to do with each other. Somebody could be objectively both or one and not the other but such is the convoluted morality of the apologist who sympathizes with the goals of the terrorists and attempts to belittle their terrorist actions as moral relativism.
What you fail to mention is how she points out that group three is supporting group two, to the extent that it supports Warlords as "politicians", and the actions of those two groups lead to people supporting group one who would otherwise be supportive of civil society, which indeed exists and for which Malalai Joya is a spokesperson. I hope you don't claim to have a better grasp on the situation than she has.
Malalai has very good intentions, and I respect and admire her for her courage, but the plan she has set out is totally unrealistic. Especially given the decentralized nature of Afghanistan.
The idea that she can rally all of her like minded progressive intellectuals to fight every major fighting force and power in the Country and be successful if only the one force leaves, the force which is allowing her to be able to speak this way without being killed by the Islamic Fundamentalists, is suicidal. Malalai's goals are laudable, but her plan is not.
The most critical thing right now is to have women's rights groups in Afghanistan be part of the peace negotiations, and this is what the Left and Right in America should be pressing the US to comply with.
I think Malalai first needs to focus on ways to popularize support for the disassociation of the government with the violent Warlords and Taliban, while working with the US and Afghanistan Government to help develop a reconciliation plan Taliban and Warlords that are interested in peace. Once that happens, than she will have a fighting force that is large enough to warlords and Taliban who are not interested in reconciliation.
The key to that is to make sure that there is enough pressure put on the US to make sure that peace negotiations include women's rights groups. That way, instead of having a blanket anti-Western agenda like Chomsky's that does nothing to actually improve human rights, we could be supporting something that would really make a difference.
You've stated this before. Israel is a democratic and Jewish state. I doubt you've read the 107 pages of this thread since this was addressed earlier. All the rights that you supposedly demand be amended already exist.
Agreed, I was just answering BD's comment. After 108 pages, the thread was primarily focused on back and forth finger pointing, and I wanted to get more of BD's ideas on actually solving the problem.
I will put my response to BD, and the rest of my response to your post on that thread.
Agreed, I was just answering BD's comment. After 108 pages, the thread was primarily focused on back and forth finger pointing, and I wanted to get more of BD's ideas on actually solving the problem.
I will put my response to BD, and the rest of my response to your post on that thread.
The key to that is to make sure that there is enough pressure put on the US to make sure that peace negotiations include women's rights groups. That way, instead of having a blanket anti-Western agenda like Chomsky's that does nothing to actually improve human rights, we could be supporting something that would really make a difference.
Pfft. There you are with your comical labels again. I told you that with phrases like this, nobody, including the sane "right wingers", will take you and your "left wing politics" seriously here.
It's been ten years now - improvements for Women's rights: Zero. Zilch. Nada. What were you waiting for all those years? Those feigned concerns come a little late. Too busy supporting Warlords and bombing wedding parties. They want you out, you promised to leave, now go home and stop messing in other peoples affairs. Period. End of discussion.
As you are just interested in the facts, perhaps you could substantiate your claim that that countries like Iran and others throughout the Middle East kill thousands of innocent women, gays, and those accused of blasphemy every year.
Estimates by the UN put honor killings at least at 5000 a year, although one of the studies below noted 5,000 women killed every year just in India, and three women per day (or 1,095 per year) in Pakistan. Killings of gays and those accused of blasphemy is part of the legal system in a number of Countries where Sharia law is part of the Constitution.
These Countries are not afraid to have outright abuses to the UN declaration of Human Rights as a part of their legal system for everyone to see since so many on the "radical left" like Chomsky flat out ignore it as they engage in their pointless everything should be anti-Western tirades. These mass killings that are in direct contradiction to the UN Declaration of Human rights is also supported by the fact that you can't even bring this up in the UN Human Rights Council without being kicked out.
It is only in the US that the Democrats are considered left wing. Their policies are mostly right wing and Obama's are virtually indistinguishable from his predecessor's.
So wrong and short sighted on so many levels... It is the difference between the pointless radical left, and the meaningful left. One side works to make real policies while one side screams till their face is blue about how everything should be anti-Western with no real ideas to improve anything.
I would rather actually do something to make a difference instead of focusing on the meaningless drivel that improves nothing and only makes Chomsky rich.
Boring false equivelance. By your standards, George Washington would be a "terrorist."
There is a difference between standing up to those who purposefully blow up innocent women, men, and children for TV coverage in order to promote an impossible goal vs. the Chomsky plan of offering no alternatives except to allow those kinds of attacks to happen.
The Tea Party, in that respect, is no different than the two mainstream parties.
Dismantling the transnational Military/Industrial/Financial complex is the only realistic plan to stop the wars that it feeds off and promotes.
“The few own the many because they possess the means of livelihood of all ... The country is governed for the richest, for the corporations, the bankers, the land speculators, and for the exploiters of labor. The majority of mankind are working people. So long as their fair demands - the ownership and control of their livelihoods - are set at naught, we can have neither men’s rights nor women’s rights. The majority of mankind is ground down by industrial oppression in order that the small remnant may live in ease.” — Helen Keller, 1911.
Well you have A LOT to learn about US politics. The military/Industrial/Financial complex makes a great 'catch phrase,' and it fits well into the 'US is always wrong' blame based understanding system that you are so fond of, but it does not fit in well with reality.
The reality and solutions are a LOT more complex. There is a big difference between the tax plans of the Democrats that address our financial problems, and the GOP plans that make them worse off. There is a big difference between the Democratic health care plan that address the major flaws in our system, and the Paul Ryan plan that destroys Medicare and just gives us more costs in the future. There is also a big difference in lives and money in how Obama approached the Middle East and how the Republican candidates would approach the Middle East.
The reason we were in Afghanistan was to get Osama Bin Shotin, and we did that. That was a major sticking point in our peace negotiations with Mullah Omar, and now that he is dead, the negotiations have been a lot more fruitful.
Perhaps you could familiarize yourself with The Looming Tower before jumping to further, erroneous, knee-jerk conclusions based on single words (and screen names). Lawrence Wright is not what you'd call a "terrorist apologist".
"Brilliant resolve?!?" Why would he ever phrase it that way? Plus, you have never said that Al-Qaeda are terrorists anyways, so how could he apologize for them? According to you, someone that seeks to protect innocent people and kills innocent people in the process is worse than someone who does it purposefully for meaningless reasons.
I did not say that torture did not happen, it is just not a valid reason for Al-Qaeda to base the reasons for their attacks on. I know of Zawahiri's 'poor me now I have to kill thousands of innocent people' story in Egypt, and it is a very poor excuse.
While you have yet to show that Chomsky does actually support these "groups" rather than simply seeking to understand and acknowledge what motivates them (something you apparently are not interested in at all beyond the level of "Ooh, they're so evil!") and observing that they have some valid grievances, you have shown a remarkably persistent inability to distinguish between the words "excuse" and "explain". This suggests that you yourself are operating from a blame-based consciousness.
Blaming everything on the evil West, and and calling that "explaining" by giving groups that purposefully kill thousands of innocent people excuses for why they behave that way is supporting them.
Ongoing (it's got a long way to go...) gay and lesbian liberation in the West grew out of the liberation movements of the 1960s. There is no reason that the same cultural shift won't happen in the East if Arab youth and others are able to maintain the revolutionary momentum which gay and lesbian Arabs have welcomed and participated in.
Have you looked at what the Muslim Brotherhood says about gays? You can hope that a situation is opposite from the realities on the ground, but that doesn't mean that there is any chance of that actually happening.
I would like for the Arab Spring to bring about less oppression on gay people, but I am not naive enough to believe that people are going to do the exact opposite from what they say they are going to do just because I want them to.
If rights for gays in the Middle East and around the world are going to improve the first major step is to allow it to be discussed at the UN. Even when that discussion includes ways to balance the rights of gay people with the right to life, and the rights of people to have freedom of religion.
Well, Chomsky does seem to believe his counterproductive idiocy, but the fact that he makes a LOT of money of off peddling half-truths, outright lies, and his meaningless "US is always evil" blame-based-understanding systems creates a self perpetuating cycle that produces no actual solutions to our problems, but makes Chomsky a whole lot of money.
Pfft. There you are with your comical labels again. I told you that with phrases like this, nobody, including the sane "right wingers", will take you and your "left wing politics" seriously here.
It's been ten years now - improvements for Women's rights: Zero. Zilch. Nada. What were you waiting for all those years? Those feigned concerns come a little late. Too busy supporting Warlords and bombing wedding parties. They want you out, you promised to leave, now go home and stop messing in other peoples affairs. Period. End of discussion.
I mean yes we are going to leave and I would have liked for us to have left a long time ago, but it is not factually accurate to say that there has been no improvement on women's rights, or that things are going to dramatically improve once we leave.
I think you would really find this discussion about human rights in Afghanistan interesting, and I encourage you to look at it.
Who are "they", Crusader? Them evil muslims? No, that's unfair, even you know it's a little bit more complicated than that, right?
Because you know about the great Afghan Miracle™.
It happened back in the mid to late nineties, right after the Evil Empire was defeated. A group of arab fanatics, armed to the teeth by and invited to conferences in Washington, righteous freedom fighters, good guys called the Mujahedin, suddenly disappeared after they helped bringing local fanatics called the Taliban to power. Nobody knows where they went, maybe God raptured them or something. And, in a true miracle, another group of arab fanatics immediately appeared, mean bad guys called "Al Qaeda", who had absolutely nothing to do with the first group. And they started "it" because they hate your freedoms. Right? Riiiight.
The terrorist apologist moto of "One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" is morally and philosophically empty. Freedom is a goal and terrorism is a means. The terms are not mutually exclusive, indeed they have little to do with each other. Somebody could be objectively both or one and not the other but such is the convoluted morality of the apologist who sympathizes with the goals of the terrorists and attempts to belittle their terrorist actions as moral relativism.
You are partly right about what I am saying, but not completely. I am saying that the word "terrorism" is used as a synonym for "evil", and is an attempt at hand-waving away all legitimate concerns that your opponents have by saying they don't matter, they don't get to be part of the debate or have a slice of the cake, because they are terrorists. I am not so much attempting to "belittle their terrorist actions" as suggest that when looking at the bigger picture, it is possible that those terrorist actions are legitimately seen by some as being the only solution to a greater evil. I propose Nelson Mandela as an example, where the standard definition of "terrorism" played a part in bringing about the end of apartheid.
Who are "they", Crusader? Them evil muslims? No, that's unfair, even you know it's a little bit more complicated than that, right?
Because you know about the great Afghan Miracle™.
It happened back in the mid to late nineties, right after the Evil Empire was defeated. A group of arab fanatics, armed to the teeth by and invited to conferences in Washington, righteous freedom fighters, good guys called the Mujahedin, suddenly disappeared after they helped bringing local fanatics called the Taliban to power. Nobody knows where they went, maybe God raptured them or something. And, in a true miracle, another group of arab fanatics immediately appeared, mean bad guys called "Al Qaeda", who had absolutely nothing to do with the first group. And they started "it" because they hate your freedoms. Right? Riiiight.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
