• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

My letter to Prof. Chomsky

I'm curious, have you ever expressed outrage on this forum against the policies and behavior of a country not currently aligned/allied with the US? Have you ever lamented the lack of public anger and action against such a government?

I did express quite a few times the fact thtat I consider Iranians` lack of recognition of Israel as long with their treatment of homosexual people very immoral.
I even started a thread criticizing the issue of confort women when Japan was an enemy of the US
Same I think Hamas is very wrong not to accept an Israeli state
The reason why you can not find many post of me about this is when I write the above nobody reacts and contests me.
But when you touch the US all the pro-US choir of the forum (about 80% of the people here?) starts to attack you and criticize you in every way possible.

Hypocrisy
 
I did express quite a few times the fact thtat I consider Iranians` lack of recognition of Israel as long with their treatment of homosexual people very immoral.
I even started a thread criticizing the issue of confort women when Japan was an enemy of the US
Same I think Hamas is very wrong not to accept an Israeli state
The reason why you can not find many post of me about this is when I write the above nobody reacts and contests me.
But when you touch the US all the pro-US choir of the forum (about 80% of the people here?) starts to attack you and criticize you in every way possible.

Hypocrisy

What's your point?
 
For example, to help Iraqi civilians bombed by US planes?
How in detail did US people help those civilians?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=us+charities+in+iraq

Yes, but is there any evidence that he cared at all?
Where did those goal posts go:confused:?

And the consequences of having started an unnecessary war that led to 200000+ deaths should be a little bit more serious than a ow poll rating, I believe
I agree. But our discussion right now is on whether or not people are 'passive sheep'. Yes, Bush should probably have been brought before the Hague in a fair world, but as we know, that's not going to happen. Doesn't make the populace 'passive sheep'.

As I told you, that the majority of the US (and the French, and the Italian and the Japanese) population does not care much when their soldiers commit crimes on the other side of the world.
[Citation seriously ****** needed]
Not talking about natural disaster here.
It makes a huge difference as US perople like all people only get moved and get angry and support when some of their citizens or friends is killed by someone outside or a terrorist, but when it is one of theirs soldiers to kill one or many people of the other side, most people simply do nothing or even support
I already addressed this:
Of course we don't feel partuclarly angry or saddened when something happens far, far away (or a long time ago. Or both). Humans become desensitized to disasters and tragedy over time. We have to, otherwise we would just go around and be disgusted and grief-stricken and furious 24/7. Still, a great many of us have one or more causes we actively contribute to, be it by donations, volunteering or activism. Probably only a few percentages have pacifism as that ideal, but that doesn't make the rest "passive sheep". In fact, probably only very, very few people have no causes they believe in strongly.
​
I did express quite a few times the fact thtat I consider Iranians` lack of recognition of Israel as long with their treatment of homosexual people very immoral.
I even started a thread criticizing the issue of confort women when Japan was an enemy of the US
Same I think Hamas is very wrong not to accept an Israeli state
The reason why you can not find many post of me about this is when I write the above nobody reacts and contests me.
But when you touch the US all the pro-US choir of the forum (about 80% of the people here?) starts to attack you and criticize you in every way possible.

Hypocrisy
Not "hypocrisy". We "attack" you when we disagree with you, and refrain from doing so when we agree. To me this seems perfectly logical.
 
Falluja was not long ago, it was in 2004 or 2005 I believe
When does "not that long ago" become "too long to care"?

Do you have any evidence at all that, if 20% or 30% of the total population of an aggrressor country actively protests against a war, they would not be heard?
No, but then I'm not claiming they will. What i can tell you is that protesting at the level that it has historically been done does not seem to be effective in stopping or preventing wars.

The number of tgotal deaths seems to get lower
Deaths by war, you mean. Do you get upset when people die in traffic accidents? there's a hell of a lot more of those than war casualties.

As I told you, that the majority of the US (and the French, and the Italian and the Japanese) population does not care much when their soldiers commit crimes on the other side of the world.
Yes, because that's how "war" works. And "crime" is in the eye of the beholder. What is a war crime to one person is good strategy to another. Do you have ay objective evidence of any "crimes", or so you just have your outrage.

I thought it was obvious
There's no such thing as "obvious" in skepticism.

Not talking about natural disaster here.
It makes a huge difference as US perople like all people only get moved and get angry and support when some of their citizens or friends is killed by someone outside or a terrorist, but when it is one of theirs soldiers to kill one or many people of the other side, most people simply do nothing or even support.
That's how "war" and "countries" work. Good luck changing that.

If you discount even hypocrisy then no point to talk any further
The first person we lie to is ourselves. Google "Diogenes".
 
When does "not that long ago" become "too long to care"?

There were a lot of celebrations on 9/11/2011 for the ten years after 9/11
Only 8 years have passed from Falluja
Why the first is still remembered?
Why the second is not?

No, but then I'm not claiming they will. What i can tell you is that protesting at the level that it has historically been done does not seem to be effective in stopping or preventing wars.

But it is a problem of people not going out to rprotest, not a problem of protests not being effective

Deaths by war, you mean. Do you get upset when people die in traffic accidents? there's a hell of a lot more of those than war casualties.

Non sequitur

Yes, because that's how "war" works. And "crime" is in the eye of the beholder. What is a war crime to one person is good strategy to another. Do you have ay objective evidence of any "crimes", or so you just have your outrage.


There's no such thing as "obvious" in skepticism.


That's how "war" and "countries" work. Good luck changing that.


The first person we lie to is ourselves. Google "Diogenes".

If we accept the above, we become guilty as well
 

Did any of the activities listed had a role in stopping US bombings in Iraq?

I agree. But our discussion right now is on whether or not people are 'passive sheep'. Yes, Bush should probably have been brought before the Hague in a fair world, but as we know, that's not going to happen. Doesn't make the populace 'passive sheep'.

You are saying it yourself.
In a fair world Bush would have brought to the Hague.
But this is not happen as not enough people are saking for it
Therefore, the vast majority of the people are passive sheeps

[Citation seriously ****** needed]

Please show me one single example in human history when the majority of the population of any country asked for one of their leaders to be brought to tribunal unless the leader was badly defeated or unless forced by invaders
 
Please show me one single example in human history when the majority of the population of any country asked for one of their leaders to be brought to tribunal unless the leader was badly defeated or unless forced by invaders

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment
History of Federal Impeachment Proceedings in the United States

Congress regards impeachment as a power to be used only in extreme cases; the House has initiated impeachment proceedings only 64 times since 1789 (most recently against Judge Thomas Porteous of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana) with only the following 19 of these proceedings actually resulting in the House passing Articles of Impeachment:

Two presidents:
Andrew Johnson, Democrat/National Union, was impeached in 1868 after violating the then-newly created Tenure of Office Act. President Johnson was acquitted by the Senate, falling one vote short of the necessary 2/3 needed to remove him from office, voting 35-19 to remove him. The Tenure of Office Act would later be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in dicta.
Bill Clinton, Democrat, was impeached on December 19, 1998, by the House of Representatives on articles charging perjury (specifically, lying to a federal grand jury) by a 228–206 vote, and obstruction of justice by a 221–212 vote. The House rejected other articles: One was a count of perjury in a civil deposition in Paula Jones' sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton (by a 205–229 vote). The second article was one that accused Clinton of abuse of power by a 48–285 vote. President Clinton was acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999. The Senate vote fell short of the necessary 2/3 needed to remove him from office, voting 45-55 to remove him on obstruction of justice and 50-50 on perjury.
One cabinet officer, William W. Belknap (former Secretary of War), resigned before his trial, and was later acquitted. Allegedly most of those who voted to acquit him believed that his resignation had removed their jurisdiction.
One Senator, William Blount, in 1797. He was expelled by the Senate, which declined to try the impeachment.
One Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Samuel Chase in 1804. He was acquitted by the Senate.
Fourteen other federal judges. Seven of these have been convicted by the Senate and removed [10], including Alcee Hastings, who was impeached and convicted for taking over $150,000 in bribe money in exchange for sentencing leniency. The Senate did not bar Hastings from holding future office, and Hastings won election to the House of Representatives from Florida. Hastings' name was mentioned as a possible Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, but was passed over by House Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi, presumably because of his previous impeachment and removal. Source U.S. Senate

Richard Nixon, Republican, was never impeached. While the House Judiciary Committee did approve articles of impeachment against him and did report those articles to the House of Representatives, Nixon resigned before the House could consider the impeachment resolutions and was subsequently pardoned by President Ford.

You seriously need to stop assuming what your feelings tell you is correct and actually learn something.
 
There were a lot of celebrations on 9/11/2011 for the ten years after 9/11
Only 8 years have passed from Falluja
Why the first is still remembered?
Why the second is not?
I don't think "celebrations" is the right word.

And one was the largest attack on United States soil, the othter just business as usual in warfare.

But it is a problem of people not going out to rprotest, not a problem of protests not being effective
What is the point of going out and doing something that won't work?

Non sequitur
No it isn't. Your problem is preventable deaths, isn't it? If not, than what is your beef with the deaths in Fallujah?

If we accept the above, we become guilty as well
"Guilty" of what? Being human? Warfare is one of our basic behaviours; one even sees it in the animal kingdom. So where is the "crime"?
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment


You seriously need to stop assuming what your feelings tell you is correct and actually learn something.

??

What does it prove?

I don't think "celebrations" is the right word.

Commemorations?

And one was the largest attack on United States soil, the othter just business as usual in warfare.

??
So why an attack on US soil is or should be any different from a preventable attack on Afghanistan or Iraqi soil that caused a similar amout of victims?

The bombing list
Korea and China 1950-53 (Korean War)
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-1961
Guatemala 1960
Congo 1964
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Grenada 1983
Lebanon 1983, 1984 (both Lebanese and Syrian targets)
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1980s
Nicaragua 1980s
Iran 1987
Panama 1989
Iraq 1991 (Persian Gulf War)
Kuwait 1991
Somalia 1993
Bosnia 1994, 1995
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999
Yemen 2002
Iraq 1991-2003 (US/UK on regular basis)
Iraq 2003-present
Afghanistan 2001-present
Pakistan 2007-present
Somalia 2007-8, 2011
Yemen 2009, 2011
Libya 2011

http://williamblum.org/chapters/rogue-state/united-states-bombings-of-other-countries

What is the point of going out and doing something that won't work?

It will not work if not enough people like you and me do it.
So if we do not participate, the responsibility of the do not work rests on us as well

No it isn't. Your problem is preventable deaths, isn't it? If not, than what is your beef with the deaths in Fallujah?

Is there any evidence that the US Government tried all possible ways to avoid to attack Falluja as well as invade Iraq?

"Guilty" of what? Being human? Warfare is one of our basic behaviours; one even sees it in the animal kingdom. So where is the "crime"?

Raping a eight year old girl is alwso part of what people did from the very beginning so go whitewash that as well
 
Last edited:
Is there any evidence that the US Government tried all possible ways to avoid to attack Falluja as well as invade Iraq?

They didn't attack Fallujah. They attacked terrorists in Fallujah. Nobody gives a rats ass about terrorists.
 
Last edited:
Did Watanabe ever tell us how many anti-war demonstrations he attended?
 
I guess some people like outrage and indulge in it for its own sake. There's no point trying to reason with pure outrage.
 
As the the attacked terrorists, here are some pics of dangerous terrorists from Fallujah

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/01/2012126394859797.html

Since we do not give a rats ass about them, let` s enjoy not giving a rats ass about the below ones

Enjoy!

http://longisland.newsday.com/911-anniversary/victims/mosaic/

Hey watanabe do you give a rats ass about me? What about anyone else on this forum? I bet there are many tragic experiences amongst all the members here. You never even asked any of us about our problems and yet you are going on about your own. Accusing us of not caring about the issues important to you when you don't seem to care about us. What a hypocrite. You are what you hate.
 
Watanabe are you outraged about Francois Bozize and his war with rebels in the Central African Republic?

Why aren't you outraged about that? Why haven't you organized protests about that? When are you going to start being outraged?
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom