Russian Rhetoric

Fact or Fiction? Discuss here.
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Russian Rhetoric

Post by koan »

Who do you think is giving the rhetoric and who do you think is telling the truth?

I put this under "conspiracies" because I'm starting to believe most of these stories belong in that category.



State Agency Denies Russia Is Leading Arms Supplier to Developing Countries

The United States’ claims that Russia has become the world’s leading exporter of weapons to developing countries, leaving the U.S. and France behind, are not true, the Federal Military-Technical Cooperation Service is quoted by Interfax news agency as saying.

“I don’t know what calculation methods are used in the United States, but there are other sources which paint a slightly different picture. According to all reliable sources, the U.S. is far ahead of Russia, France, the United Kingdom and other countries,” Russian delegation leader and Federal Military Technical Cooperation Service deputy head Alexander Denisov said at a news conference at the aviation and space show in China in answer to a question from Interfax.

“Perhaps some groups in the U.S. make use of such methods whenever they resort to anti-Russia rhetoric,” he said. “We seek to become the leader, there is no denying it. If we ever leave the U.S. behind — excellent! But this is not now the case, unfortunately,” he said.
User avatar
zinkyusa
Posts: 3298
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 6:34 am

Russian Rhetoric

Post by zinkyusa »

koan;446706 wrote: Who do you think is giving the rhetoric and who do you think is telling the truth?

I put this under "conspiracies" because I'm starting to believe most of these stories belong in that category.


He is probably right as it is the Russian Mafia with a wink and a nod from the government that sells many of the arms..
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
User avatar
Bill Sikes
Posts: 5515
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am

Russian Rhetoric

Post by Bill Sikes »

koan;446706 wrote: Who do you think is giving the rhetoric and who do you think is telling the truth?

I put this under "conspiracies" because I'm starting to believe most of these stories belong in that category.


"It's not true but we'd like it to be". What conspiracy?
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Russian Rhetoric

Post by koan »

Bill Sikes;446731 wrote: "It's not true but we'd like it to be". What conspiracy?


I thought that a rather clever joke on the part of the Russian
User avatar
Bill Sikes
Posts: 5515
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am

Russian Rhetoric

Post by Bill Sikes »

koan;446738 wrote: I thought that a rather clever joke on the part of the Russian


Ah! I see! ;)
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Russian Rhetoric

Post by gmc »

Well you can check what the US is up to yourselves.

http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/worldfms.html

It's the sales to pakistan you should worry about. Given the likelihood that it will become the next fundamentalist state and already has nuclear power. Forget Iran and Korea Pakistan is a lot more worryimg than either of them.

http://www.cdi.org/program/issue/index. ... issueID=86

It's a bit hypocritical to condemn Russia for irresponsible selling of arms when the west does it as well.
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Russian Rhetoric

Post by koan »

gmc;446808 wrote:

It's a bit hypocritical to condemn Russia for irresponsible selling of arms when the west does it as well.


bingo :)

Didn't they just get told off for doing that kind of thing recently. I believe it was the Chinese yelling across the table "You just shut up!"
User avatar
zinkyusa
Posts: 3298
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 6:34 am

Russian Rhetoric

Post by zinkyusa »

I'm more concerned with the selling weapons to terrorists and states that sponsor it. Russia sells arms to anyone with the money to pay for it no questions asked. Of course so do the French and Germans. Gross profits from arms sales are a meaninless statistic because jet fighters sold to Canada and Israel cost more than RPG's sold to terrorists (who then turn around and use them on the Russians).
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Russian Rhetoric

Post by koan »

zinkyusa;446845 wrote: I'm more concerned with the selling weapons to terrorists and states that sponsor it. Russia sells arms to anyone with the money to pay for it no questions asked. Of course so do the French and Germans. Gross profits from arms sales are a meaninless statistic because jet fighters sold to Canada and Israel cost more than RPG's sold to terrorists (who then turn around and use them on the Russians).


Shall we start going over the history here? Are you really saying that all US arms sales are morally sound?
User avatar
zinkyusa
Posts: 3298
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 6:34 am

Russian Rhetoric

Post by zinkyusa »

koan;446857 wrote: Shall we start going over the history here? Are you really saying that all US arms sales are morally sound?


Some are some are not..They are more morally sound than any of the other major suppliers..
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Russian Rhetoric

Post by koan »

zinkyusa;446861 wrote: Some are some are not..They are more morally sound than any of the other major suppliers..


:yh_rotfl ... :yh_silent
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 16113
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Russian Rhetoric

Post by Bryn Mawr »

zinkyusa;446861 wrote: Some are some are not..They are more morally sound than any of the other major suppliers..


Could you tell me under what conditions it is "moral" to sell wepons of mass distruction?
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Russian Rhetoric

Post by koan »

Or explain East Timor ...
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 16113
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Russian Rhetoric

Post by Bryn Mawr »

koan;447017 wrote: Or explain East Timor ...


I considered asking but thought better of it - too easy to brush it off as "one of the rare mistakes".

If only it was rare then we'd have nothing to worry about.
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Russian Rhetoric

Post by koan »

Then there's the matter of Iraq...
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Russian Rhetoric

Post by koan »

... and Nicaragua (see Contras) ...
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 16113
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Russian Rhetoric

Post by Bryn Mawr »

koan;447067 wrote: ... and Nicaragua (see Contras) ...


The case that springs to mind is Turkey. At the time they were the single largest recipient of US millitary aid to allow them to bomb and kill those same Kurds that the US are now trying Sadam Hussain for killing.

Funny old world eh?
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Russian Rhetoric

Post by koan »

Arms For Oil



The sheikhdom of Saudi Arabia, ruled by King Fahd bin Abd al-Aziz al-Saud, operates without any elected representatives or constitution and has been America's best arms customer during the 1990s.
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Russian Rhetoric

Post by koan »

In With The Allies - And Out Of Debt

To ensure unlimited U.S. access to the Suez Canal, overflights of Egyptian airspace, access to the region's oil resources, and maintain Egypt's "moderating influence in the region," the U.S. gives Egypt about $1.3 billion a year in military aid. And that's just the start: The U.S. forgave $7.1 billion in military debt in "return for Egypt's support of Operation Desert Shield," according to the Federation of American Scientists' Arm Sales Monitoring Project.
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

Russian Rhetoric

Post by anastrophe »

zinkyusa;446861 wrote: Some are some are not..They are more morally sound than any of the other major suppliers..




bear in mind, some of the posters in this thread fervently believe that israel is a terrorist state, so that may taint the results a bit.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Russian Rhetoric

Post by koan »

anastrophe;447085 wrote: bear in mind, some of the posters in this thread fervently believe that israel is a terrorist state, so that may taint the results a bit.


I specifically did not bring up Israel.



btw, for someone who seemed to object to the use of "some posters" when being refered to, you've done it to me twice now in one night.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 16113
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Russian Rhetoric

Post by Bryn Mawr »

anastrophe;447085 wrote: bear in mind, some of the posters in this thread fervently believe that israel is a terrorist state, so that may taint the results a bit.


In what way does a poster's lack of support for Israel affect the truth of comments made about the morality of US sales of arms to questionable governments?

Is this a total red herring I ask myself?
User avatar
Bill Sikes
Posts: 5515
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am

Russian Rhetoric

Post by Bill Sikes »

anastrophe;447085 wrote: israel


Oh no - not this again.
User avatar
Bill Sikes
Posts: 5515
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am

Russian Rhetoric

Post by Bill Sikes »

anastrophe;447085 wrote: some of the posters in this thread fervently believe that israel is a terrorist state


Which posters?

Anastrophe

Bill Sikes

Bryn Mawr

Gmc

Koan

Zinkyusa

Let's have you. Come on.
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

Russian Rhetoric

Post by anastrophe »

Bill Sikes;447118 wrote: Which posters?



Anastrophe

Bill Sikes

Bryn Mawr

Gmc

Koan

Zinkyusa



Let's have you. Come on.


wait, you just said "on no - not this again".



seems you like to stir the pot!
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
User avatar
zinkyusa
Posts: 3298
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 6:34 am

Russian Rhetoric

Post by zinkyusa »

koan;447080 wrote: In With The Allies - And Out Of Debt

To ensure unlimited U.S. access to the Suez Canal, overflights of Egyptian airspace, access to the region's oil resources, and maintain Egypt's "moderating influence in the region," the U.S. gives Egypt about $1.3 billion a year in military aid. And that's just the start: The U.S. forgave $7.1 billion in military debt in "return for Egypt's support of Operation Desert Shield," according to the Federation of American Scientists' Arm Sales Monitoring Project.


and this is immoral why?
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

Russian Rhetoric

Post by anastrophe »

zinkyusa;447155 wrote: and this is immoral why?


well that's a no-brainer: egypt is at peace with israel, and recognizes their sovereignty. therefore, they're traitors to the palestinians, and thus "bad guys".
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 16113
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Russian Rhetoric

Post by Bryn Mawr »

zinkyusa;447155 wrote: and this is immoral why?


You truely do not find supplying arms to both sides of a conflict in a notoriously unstable area immoral?

If you need to ask then I cannot tell you.
User avatar
zinkyusa
Posts: 3298
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 6:34 am

Russian Rhetoric

Post by zinkyusa »

Bryn Mawr;447162 wrote: You truely do not find supplying arms to both sides of a conflict in a notoriously unstable area immoral?

If you need to ask then I cannot tell you.


huh, they signed a peace treaty, and Egypt sent troops to Desert Storm..
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 16113
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Russian Rhetoric

Post by Bryn Mawr »

zinkyusa;447167 wrote: huh, they signed a peace treaty, and Egypt sent troops to Desert Storm..


Major supplier of arms to Israel.

Major supplier of arms to Turkey.

Major supplier of arms to Iraq

Major suppier of arms to Egypt

Actively caused a regeime change in Iran

Actively supported rebellion in Afghanistan

Do you see a trend developing here?

Whatever the current affiliations there is a small thing called history.

There is also a consideration for the political stability of a region before you flood that region with enough weapons to cause mayhem.

This is more than short term financial gain - either that or it is blindness in the extreme.
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Russian Rhetoric

Post by koan »

zinkyusa;447155 wrote: and this is immoral why?


Unfortunately, while continue boosting Egypt's military, our influence on Egypt's democracy and human rights is at a low ebb. Since the 1981 assassination of President Anwar Sadat, Egypt has been governed by an Emergency Law which strips away fundamental liberties and nullifies much of the constitution. Judged necessary to fight internal "enemies" like fundamentalist militants, the law permits detaining citizens without charge; obtaining arrest warrants from the Interior Ministry rather than a judge; allowing civilian cases to be handled by military or Emergency State Security courts rather than regular courts; and allowing the government to wiretap, open mail, and search without warrants.

oh, yeah...that's normal where you're from :lips:
User avatar
zinkyusa
Posts: 3298
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 6:34 am

Russian Rhetoric

Post by zinkyusa »

koan;447193 wrote: Unfortunately, while continue boosting Egypt's military, our influence on Egypt's democracy and human rights is at a low ebb. Since the 1981 assassination of President Anwar Sadat, Egypt has been governed by an Emergency Law which strips away fundamental liberties and nullifies much of the constitution. Judged necessary to fight internal "enemies" like fundamentalist militants, the law permits detaining citizens without charge; obtaining arrest warrants from the Interior Ministry rather than a judge; allowing civilian cases to be handled by military or Emergency State Security courts rather than regular courts; and allowing the government to wiretap, open mail, and search without warrants.

oh, yeah...that's normal where you're from :lips:


cuts down on court costs;)
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Russian Rhetoric

Post by koan »

more from the egypt article

Egypt's religious and press freedoms are also taking a beating. The government censors (and, in many cases, runs) the media with a heavy hand, resulting in the arrests of several journalists. In addition, there is no separation of church and state; even though 10 percent of the population belongs to the Coptic Orthodox Church, Islam is Egypt's sole official religion. Last year more than "100 leading Egyptians acknowledged discrimination against the Christians," according to the State Department. Further, more than 1,200 Christians were sought by police for questioning in the past few months, and many were tortured. One Coptic bishop faces the death penalty for speaking out against anti-Christian human-rights violations by police and Egyptian Muslims. The EOHR states "this is a dramatic case of random arrest, torture, and degradation of hundreds of people."

that was written when Clinton was in office. i wonder how the bishop is doing now.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 16113
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Russian Rhetoric

Post by Bryn Mawr »

zinkyusa;447205 wrote: cuts down on court costs;)


and your serious answer is?
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Russian Rhetoric

Post by koan »

With morality as the issue, I think this Noam Chomsky piece makes some good points that apply to our discussion.

Moral Truisms

What I've called truisms I think are moral truisms: for example, that we should apply to ourselves the same standards we apply to others (in fact, more stringent ones). Suppose I run into someone who doesn't agree: say, someone who thinks it's outrageous for someone to cause severe harm to us, but just fine for us to cause far more severe harm to them? Then discussion is pretty much at an end. However, I think this situation is very rare. The usual situation is denial that we are causing severe harm to them; rather, we are doing our best to help them, but sometimes failing because of our naivete, innocence, tendency to sacrifice ourselves too much for others, etc. That's the essence of what in honest days used to be called "propaganda," and is now called "news," or "information," or "sober commentary by public intellectuals," or "scholarship," etc. I think that is overwhelmingly true. One rarely comes across someone who says "I'm a Nazi and proud of it." But if so, that reveals that there is something of a common moral ground, and a basis for constructive interchange -- which may, and sometimes does, sharpen moral intuitions as well. We all know that very well in fact. It's not that long ago, after all, that it was considered not just tolerable but in fact deeply moral to have slaves, beat one's wife if she is disobedient, lash children, torture a poor person who robbed a crumb of bread, etc.
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

Russian Rhetoric

Post by anastrophe »

not that it matters, but chomsky is a fraud. i'm not surprised so many people are sucked in by his prevarications, because he's masterful at manipulating the language to his needs.



http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2004 ... ctual.html
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 16113
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Russian Rhetoric

Post by Bryn Mawr »

anastrophe;447252 wrote: not that it matters, but chomsky is a fraud. i'm not surprised so many people are sucked in by his prevarications, because he's masterful at manipulating the language to his needs.



http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2004 ... ctual.html


Would you care to explain what :-

"Don't you think that he's a particularly outrageous example of a more general inflation (and hence debasement) of the currency of moral condemnation (e.g. the Israelis are as bad as the Nazis, etc etc)? This often goes hand in hand with a deflationary line about other groups - militants instead of terrorists, and so forth. In fact the pattern of inflation and deflation can be very revealing about deep and often unacknowledged political sympathies."

actually means?

Especially given that it is described thus :-

"these assessments capture with economy and exactness the character of Chomsky’s political output"

If that is economy and exactness then give me waffle any day!
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Russian Rhetoric

Post by koan »

Even if he was "a fraud", that wouldn't mean that his statement was incorrect. You're batting two logical fallacies for 2 arguments here, anastrophe.

anastrophe wrote: not that it matters, but...
Try posting something that does matter. Just a suggestion.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Russian Rhetoric

Post by gmc »

zinkyusa;446861 wrote: Some are some are not..They are more morally sound than any of the other major suppliers..


So tell me. Do you think it was morally sound of the US to supply and train the Taliban in Afghanistan to the extent they were able to overthrow a secular government and replace it with a theocracy?

Is it morally sound to preach about democracy and supply countries like saudi Arabia with weapons yet their oppression of their own people and use of religon as a sop is one of the root causes of the present round of terrorism in the middle east. Just in case you have forgotten the terrorists on 911 were saudi arabian NOT Iraqui.



Quote:

Originally Posted by anastrophe View Post

some of the posters in this thread fervently believe that israel is a terrorist state

Which posters?

Anastrophe

Bill Sikes

Bryn Mawr

Gmc

Koan

Zinkyusa

Let's have you. Come on.


Please don't make assumptions about what you think my opinions are. I have never characterised Israel as a terrorist state. I object to the term as it is a finger pointing debating device used by politicians to obscure the issues and prevent discussions of the issues. Its intent is to inculcate a me good you bad approach to affairs so that anyone pointing out the wriongs of both sides can be safely dismissed as biased. George Orwell coined a word for it Newspeak.

Why is it good reporting to report Hezbollah is killing innocent people but bad and biased reporting to report that Israel does the same?

It means anyone that points out the obvious flaws in Israel's approach to palestine and its effect on the middle east can be safely ignored as biased from the get go. Never mind the factual content of what is said lest reality gets in the way of a firmly held opinion.

Are there states that sponsor terrorism in pursuit of their own selfish interests?

Undoubtedly.

Are there states that deliberately destabilise countries in pursuit of their own narrow interests-or more accurately the interests of a small but powerful economic group?

Undoubtedly. Industry and empire have always gone hand in hand.

Sadly America in recent times has been one of the worst culprits. Although perfidious albion and others happily go along as well. China and Russia both stir their own pots. What it makes it worse is that you have convinced yourselves that anyone objecting is unpatriotic and somehow misguided, doesn't really understand the key issues, and what you do is in support of democracy even if it involves bringing down an elected govt just because it happens to be left wing and starts out by threatening to take control of their own resources like oil instead of letting multinational companies control it. The excesses of saddam Hussein on his people only became an issue to poiticians when they decided he wasn't any use to them any more. Up until then he was the bees knees courted by the likes of Cheney as a valuable ally in the middle east. He didn't change from what he was in the eighties it was only later he became the bogey man of the middle east.

Looking for morality in international politics is a bit like looking for fairies at the bottom of your garden. Except you are more likely to find the fairies.

Nothing much has changed in the affairs of man except what is done now in your name at the other side of the planet is likely to come home to roost, it's no longer irrelevant. People are shits to each other the world over and they are also kind and considerate as well.

The world is getting too small to let politicians continue playing with it as if it doesn't matter. imo. Most of them have their heads so far up their own backsides to see clearly. Debating morality is a bit like standing on shifting stand, you have to keep moving your position to suit how things are going and there is no certainty that the one wanting you to go his way actually has your interests at heart.

People who are impressed by a poltician need to get out more.

As to Noam Chomsky I had never heard of him until fairly recently. I feel the same way about intellectuals as I do about politicians. If you are impressed by them you need to read more yourself. Go away and read David Hume yourself rather than accept someone elses interpretation of what he was saying.
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Russian Rhetoric

Post by koan »

Whilst two of your comments had me applauding, gmc, I have a bit of a problem with the last part. I don't think it is wise to restrict reading to classical literature. In their time they were merely intellectuals in the same capacity as people like Chomsky. It takes others reading them and finding the value to turn them into a classic in the future.

It is about the same as someone suggesting that folks should stop reading anything published after the bible.
User avatar
zinkyusa
Posts: 3298
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 6:34 am

Russian Rhetoric

Post by zinkyusa »

by GMC

So tell me. Do you think it was morally sound of the US to supply and train the Taliban in Afghanistan to the extent they were able to overthrow a secular government and replace it with a theocracy?

Is it morally sound to preach about democracy and supply countries like saudi Arabia with weapons yet their oppression of their own people and use of religon as a sop is one of the root causes of the present round of terrorism in the middle east. Just in case you have forgotten the terrorists on 911 were saudi arabian NOT Iraqui.


A common ploy of people with no argument is to list points out of context as if they were somehow related..Congratualtions you have done an excellent job of it.

The US armed the Mujahadeen to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Although some of them formed what later became the Taliban there were also other groups involved. This is quite a bit different than saying the US armed the Taliban. Are you so ignorant of history to not understand that alliances shift and people and countries change..Yesterday's enemy is today's friend..

The 911 terrorists were not part of the Saudi government and they were terroists who happen to be from Saudi Arabia..I agree the SA government has a long way to go in their human rights record but IMO they are a better choice to support than Iraq under Sadam was or Syria and Iran are now..
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
User avatar
Bill Sikes
Posts: 5515
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am

Russian Rhetoric

Post by Bill Sikes »

anastrophe wrote:

some of the posters in this thread fervently believe that israel is a terrorist state

[Quote=Bill Sikes]

Which posters?

Anastrophe

Bill Sikes

Bryn Mawr

Gmc

Koan

Zinkyusa

Let's have you. Come on.



[QUOTE=anastrophe;447151]wait, you just said "on no - not this again".



seems you like to stir the pot!




I am not the one who said "some of the posters in this thread fervently believe

that israel is a terrorist state". You are. Which posters do you mean?
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

Russian Rhetoric

Post by anastrophe »

Bill Sikes;448237 wrote: I am not the one who said "some of the posters in this thread fervently believe

that israel is a terrorist state". You are. Which posters do you mean?


several of them!
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Russian Rhetoric

Post by gmc »

koan;447509 wrote: Whilst two of your comments had me applauding, gmc, I have a bit of a problem with the last part. I don't think it is wise to restrict reading to classical literature. In their time they were merely intellectuals in the same capacity as people like Chomsky. It takes others reading them and finding the value to turn them into a classic in the future.

It is about the same as someone suggesting that folks should stop reading anything published after the bible.


What I meant was, and put rather badly, you should go and look at who he is quoting for yourself and not just assume it is accurate or that it is the correct context. Especially if it has been in dialectical form as pick the wrong bit and what is actually said and the concluscion gets lost along the way. A lot of writers nowadays seem to just read precis of other writers rather than read the thing for themselves. next time somebody quotes adam smith, david hume or karl marx or anyone else try asking if they have actually read what they wrote fo themslves.

posted by zinkyusa

A common ploy of people with no argument is to list points out of context as if they were somehow related..Congratualtions you have done an excellent job of it.

The US armed the Mujahadeen to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Although some of them formed what later became the Taliban there were also other groups involved. This is quite a bit different than saying the US armed the Taliban. Are you so ignorant of history to not understand that alliances shift and people and countries change..Yesterday's enemy is today's friend..

The 911 terrorists were not part of the Saudi government and they were terroists who happen to be from Saudi Arabia..I agree the SA government has a long way to go in their human rights record but IMO they are a better choice to support than Iraq under Sadam was or Syria and Iran are now..


A common ploy of people with no argument is to list points out of context as if they were somehow related..Congratualtions you have done an excellent job of it.


Different aspects of the same practice.

The US armed the Mujahadeen to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Although some of them formed what later became the Taliban there were also other groups involved. This is quite a bit different than saying the US armed the Taliban. Are you so ignorant of history to not understand that alliances shift and people and countries change..Yesterday's enemy is today's friend..




They were supporting terorists trying to bring down a secular govt and impose their own. Yes they were disparate groups that went on to form the Taliban and the Northern alliance. They were getting nowhere until the west started supplying and training them, in particular supplying stinger missles to take out russian helicopters. Without that aid the mujahadeen may never have got anywhere.

Maybe a bit of forethought might have been in order. Supporting terrorists just because they are seen as anti communist is not necessarily a smart move. Sometimes the alternative is a lot worse. In any case it should have been left to the afghans to sort out thwir own problems.

Interestingly Osama seemed to have his own sources of finance. i notice the 911 commission report was very keen to make that point. The irony of being attacked by a group funded and trained by the US would have no doubt been too much to bear

The 911 terrorists were not part of the Saudi government and they were terroists who happen to be from Saudi Arabia..I agree the SA government has a long way to go in their human rights record but IMO they are a better choice to support than Iraq under Sadam was or Syria and Iran are now..


You can't have it both ways, they were saudi nationals funded by suadi money led by a saudi and the reason for the attack had everything to do with the internal situation in saudi and the US support of that govt. If a terrorist state is one that finances and supports terrorism then fingers have to point at saudi arabia and in particular saudi banks who have been financing fundamentalist groups for years, including Al Queda. One way to stop terrorists is to stop the cash flow.

As to your last statement, it would be fine except guess who the US number one ally in the middle east until fairy recently-that's right saddam an Iraq. They even went to war against iran cheered on by the west and helped by US intelligence and indifference to what he was doing to his own people. At that point he was a superstar so far as the US was concerned.

Syria and Iran may fund their own groups but so far none that have directly attacked the US, the ones that have attacked the US were funded by Saudi Arabia, led by a saudi

Are you so ignorant of history to not understand that alliances shift and people and countries change..Yesterday's enemy is today's friend..


Far from it. But many especially amongst politicians seem unable to learn from past mistakes and persist in realpolitiking with little thought for the long term consequences.

You seem to have a predeliction for convincing yourself that past foreign policy and interference has helped cause much of what is happening today in the middle east although it's far from being that simple.

Both the french and British used to interfere wholesale in the middle east but at least no one pretended it was motivated by anything but selfish interest and who cared about the fuzzy wuzzies anyway. The US has taken over as the major player but there doesn't seem to be a lot if differnce in practice despite the rhetoric.
User avatar
zinkyusa
Posts: 3298
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 6:34 am

Russian Rhetoric

Post by zinkyusa »

by GMC

Maybe a bit of forethought might have been in order. Supporting terrorists just because they are seen as anti communist is not necessarily a smart move. Sometimes the alternative is a lot worse. In any case it should have been left to the afghans to sort out thwir own problems.


uh, should'nt you be directing that comment to Soviets?

You can't have it both ways, they were saudi nationals funded by suadi money


what Saudis money are you referringto?

As to your last statement, it would be fine except guess who the US number one ally in the middle east until fairy recently-that's right saddam an Iraq. They even went to war against iran cheered on by the west and helped by US intelligence and indifference to what he was doing to his own people. At that point he was a superstar so far as the US was concerned.


just proves my point about the shifting nature of alliances and why it is important to state things in their proper context (Which you seem to have great difficulty doing). Are saying after 1992 Iraq was our allie?:confused: If not then what is recent history to you?

Far from it. But many especially amongst politicians seem unable to learn from past mistakes and persist in realpolitiking with little thought for the long term consequences


Well here we do agree.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Russian Rhetoric

Post by gmc »

posted by zinkyusa

uh, should'nt you be directing that comment to Soviets?


yes and I would as well. None of the major players come out with any credit in this do they?

what Saudis money are you referringto?


http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

page 74 on.

In August 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait. Bin Ladin, whose efforts in Afghanistan had earned him celebrity and respect, proposed to the Saudi monarchy that he summon mujahideen for a jihad to retake Kuwait. He was rebuffed, and the Saudis joined the U.S.-led coalition. After the Saudis agreed to allow U.S. armed forces to be based in the Kingdom, Bin Ladin and a number of Islamic clerics began to publicly denounce the arrangement.The Saudi government exiled the clerics and undertook to silence Bin Ladin by, among other things, taking away his passport. With help from a dissident member of the royal family, he managed to get out of the country under the pretext of attending an Islamic gathering in Pakistan in April 1991,33 By 1994, the Saudi government would freeze his financial assets and revoke his citizenship.34 He no longer had a country he could call his own.

Bin Ladin moved to Sudan in 1991 and set up a large and complex set of intertwined business and terrorist enterprises. In time, the former would encompass numerous companies and a global network of bank accounts and nongovernmental institutions. Fulfilling his bargain with Turabi, Bin Ladin used his construction company to build a new highway from Khartoum to Port Sudan on the Red Sea coast. Meanwhile, al Qaeda finance officers and top operatives used their positions in Bin Ladin's businesses to acquire weapons, explosives, and technical equipment for terrorist purposes. One founding member, Abu Hajer al Iraqi, used his position as head of a Bin Ladin investment company to carry out procurement trips from western Europe to the Far East. Two others,Wadi al Hage and Mubarak Douri, who had become acquainted inTuc-




I find it very hard to credit that no one was wondering where all his money was coming from or never suspected his family businesses might be involved.

just proves my point about the shifting nature of alliances and why it is important to state things in their proper context (Which you seem to have great difficulty doing). Are saying after 1992 Iraq was our allie? If not then what is recent history to you?


Up until 1990 he was one of the good guys on the side of the west-bit of a character though.
User avatar
zinkyusa
Posts: 3298
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 6:34 am

Russian Rhetoric

Post by zinkyusa »

by GMC

I find it very hard to credit that no one was wondering where all his money was coming from or never suspected his family businesses might be involved.


I agree with you. The SA government may have looked the other way on this. I suppose they should not be judged to harshly as they were walking a tight rope of cooperating with the US and trying to placate the Wasabis religious schools. Still overall SA has been a good allie to the US most of the time IMO..

I would still make no objection to selling arms to them which was my point.



Syria and Iran may fund their own groups but so far none that have directly attacked the US,


Hezbollah attacked the US Marine barracks and the US Embassy in Beirut in 1983.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

Russian Rhetoric

Post by anastrophe »

zinkyusa;448979 wrote:

Hezbollah attacked the US Marine barracks and the US Embassy in Beirut in 1983.


let's not forget the iranian hostage crisis of 1979, either...
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Russian Rhetoric

Post by gmc »

zinkyusa;448979 wrote: by GMC



I agree with you. The SA government may have looked the other way on this. I suppose they should not be judged to harshly as they were walking a tight rope of cooperating with the US and trying to placate the Wasabis religious schools. Still overall SA has been a good allie to the US most of the time IMO..

I would still make no objection to selling arms to them which was my point.





Hezbollah attacked the US Marine barracks and the US Embassy in Beirut in 1983.


Why not? arguably their turning a blind eye helped 911 take place. The hypocrisy of ignoring the connection and then invading a country that had nothing to do with it reads like a bad novel.

Hezbollah attacked the US Marine barracks and the US Embassy in Beirut in 1983.




I hadn't forgotten those attacks or the one in kenya either, I meant they hadn't instigated an attack on america at home so far.

The whole thing is a nightmare and very far from being a simple good vs bad. Maybe it's time the west just pulled out and left the middle east to sort out their own problems. Religious govts are the worst of any to live under, sooner or later people get fed up and start demanding change.

posted by zinkyusa

The 911 terrorists were not part of the Saudi government and they were terroists who happen to be from Saudi Arabia..I agree the SA government has a long way to go in their human rights record but IMO they are a better choice to support than Iraq under Sadam was or Syria and Iran are now..


Why not apply the same logic to syria and Iran? hezbollah are not part of the iranian or syrian government and the terrorists are not even iranian. So how come Saudi is not culpable but Iran is? The saudis could have cut off al quedas funding and they have been encouraging fundamentalist islamic schools and teachings.

Bit like the religious right in america getting control over the education system-pretty soon you would have a bunch of deranged religious nutters wanting to take over the planet.:sneaky: (kidding of course, just in case you don't realise I am)
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 16113
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Russian Rhetoric

Post by Bryn Mawr »

anastrophe;448269 wrote: several of them!


As non answers go that ranks amongst the worst of them.

For what reason are you refusing to answer a reasonable question (reasonable in that you were casting nasturshums on the wind to make a point that wasn't there to make - if you have any finger to point then be honest and open about it).
Post Reply

Return to “Conspiracy Theories”