Это Руди Джулиани
May. 17th, 2007 08:49 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
birdwatcher"That's really an extraordinary statement," said Rudy Giuliani. "That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th."
Он слышит в первый раз!!! Ну, ничего. Все, что мы сейчас знаем, мы когда-то услышали в первый раз.
Он слышит в первый раз!!! Ну, ничего. Все, что мы сейчас знаем, мы когда-то услышали в первый раз.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-17 02:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-17 03:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-17 03:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-17 04:30 pm (UTC)no subject
no subject
Date: 2007-05-17 05:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-17 05:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-17 05:18 pm (UTC)no subject
no subject
Date: 2007-05-17 05:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-17 05:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-17 05:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-17 08:45 pm (UTC)Now, of course, Guiliani knows best. The Goverment is infallible and cannot do wrong and every person in the world who is pissed off with what it is doing is a fanatic hating freedom and the American Way of Life.
Of course, this does not excuse the islamists tactics, but it is hard to claim with a straight face that they got no casus belli.
(*) he also cites two other reasons: namely military presense in Saudi Arabia and military aid to Israel.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-18 01:23 am (UTC)I mean, hell, fighting in Iraq? Iraq was officially a secular socialist country. Troops in Saudi Arabia? They're there at the invitation of their government.
Sure, every two-bit lunatic can come up with pretexts to justify their actions, but a "casus belli" needs a much better grounding in reality.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-18 01:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-18 05:52 am (UTC)Yep. With Saddam coming in power with full support of the very same CIA (they thought back then that he'd be a nice alternative to communists) and receiving some nice things like nerve gas from US so he could gas Iranians (he used it on Kurds, too).
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/husseinindex.htm
Troops in Saudi Arabia? They're there at the invitation of their government.
...which a lot of Arabs hate. It is not like Sauds are a bunch of likeable kitties. Besides, what the heck the American troops are doing there other than pissing off islamists (and protecting Sauds asses from their own subjects)?
Sure, every two-bit lunatic can come up with pretexts to justify their actions, but a "casus belli" needs a much better grounding in reality.
Now, why exactly do they attack US? Why do they care about US so much? Could it be because US was meddling in their internal affairs for decades, usually by bombing, sanctions, and supplying arms and funds to various dictators?
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Sept_11_2001/WhyDoTheyHateUs.html
They're not lunatics, dismissing an enemy as lunatics is a sure way to get beaten badly. They have what they think a valid cause, and they do the best they can with their limited resources. The fact that they beat both Israel in Lebanon and keep beating US in Iraq shows pretty clearly that they are quite rational in the ways they achieve their objectives.
The interesting part is that US got into that mess for no good reason whatsoever. It's the same strand of "make the world safe for democracy" do-gooder interventionism which got us Versaile treaty and WWII.
Worse yet, because US goes everywhere loudly declaring the democracy as its primary goal, there is a pretty good reason for turbanheads to think that what the US government is doing is democratically sanctioned by American population. Which in their eyes makes the civilians to be their enemy's collaborators, and not some innocent bystanders, and justifies indiscriminate killing of civilians - after all the very same Western powers do that to their enemies in the times of war.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-19 04:35 am (UTC)I don't think that argument's working very well empirically. Iraq received what, about 100 times as much munitions from European countries (Germany, France) and USSR than the relatively very paltry amount he got from the US? You don't see Al Qaeda focusing 100 times as much on those countries.
I don't think there's any case for claiming US government sold Iraq nerve gas, either (Iraq appeared to have bought some chemicals for a front company in US).
And as for CIA bringing Saddam to power (again, mostly unsubstantiated claims), you can't have it both ways - either "they" are attacking US for fighting Saddam or for helping Saddam. Personally, I think it's neither.
...which a lot of Arabs hate. It is not like Sauds are a bunch of likeable kitties.
That doesn't make it into a casus belli. You can have plenty of people hating this or that, so what?
Saudia Arabia doesn't belong to those particular Arabs who are hating it. It's not "their" land to decide what goes on on it. Neither is Egypt or Israel for that matter.
Isolationism is a valid political platform, sure. Not my cup of tea but it's got some good arguments going for it. But justifying it by saying "well, if we meddle then we deserve it and they've got casus belli" is pretty much insane. No, "we" didn't, and no, they don't. "We" have done some bad stuff, as has pretty much everyone in the world. Doesn't make terrorist attacks on "our" citizens justificable.
Besides, what the heck the American troops are doing there other than pissing off islamists (and protecting Sauds asses from their own subjects)?
They're protecting American interests, at the invitation of the Saudis. What the hell is wrong with that?
Saudi Arabia's government is not what I'd call very nice, but the alternatives on hand there are clearly much worse yet.
Worse yet, because US goes everywhere loudly declaring the democracy as its primary goal, there is a pretty good reason for turbanheads to think that what the US government is doing is democratically sanctioned by American population. Which in their eyes makes the civilians to be their enemy's collaborators, and not some innocent bystanders, and justifies indiscriminate killing of civilians - after all the very same Western powers do that to their enemies in the times of war.
The mistake here is that you seriously think that if US declared something different it'd change their justifications of targeting civilians. The reason terrorists are targering US civilians is that in US, civilian life is worth something, and people actually give a shit about a bunch of their countrymen being blown up.
In Israel, for instance, the same scum are coming up with different justifications - using the fact that nearly everyone here serves in the army and are registered in the reserves, they can say that they're really kinda targetting soldiers when they blow up random people at a bus stop. If that wasn't the case in Israel, they'd have come up with your "democracy"-based justifications. If that didn't work, they'd come up with something else. None of that is surprising, what's surprising is your willingness to bend over and accept propaganda so obviously naked as sound and logical reasoning.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-19 04:41 am (UTC)Да, большое видится издалека.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-19 04:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-19 05:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-19 09:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-19 01:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-20 06:21 am (UTC)Where did you get that figure? 100 times? Besides, USSR supported (surprise) communists, not the Baath. People do not care or remember much of past dictators, but they tend to feel strongly about current ones.
I don't think there's any case for claiming US government sold Iraq nerve gas, either (Iraq appeared to have bought some chemicals for a front company in US).
Ahha. Considering that this stuff is very strongly controlled, buying anything of that kind is nearly impossible without covert support from some three-letter agency, It is not like these chemicals are available to anyone.
And as for CIA bringing Saddam to power (again, mostly unsubstantiated claims), you can't have it both ways - either "they" are attacking US for fighting Saddam or for helping Saddam. Personally, I think it's neither.
No. Their thinking goes like that: these meddling bastards helped this asshole into power back then. So he tortured and killed lots of people. And now the same bastard killed more people themselves and try to put some other murderous asshole in charge. Oh, and the fact that the sanctions were used by Saddam as a way to consolidate his power ever further doesn't help, either, - while the same sanctions caused widespread misery among ordinary people.
And, no, there is no controversy about CIA involvement in Baath ascendance to power. It is a well-documented fact.
Saudia Arabia doesn't belong to those particular Arabs who are hating it. It's not "their" land to decide what goes on on it. Neither is Egypt or Israel for that matter.
Oh? Al Qaeda is, basically, a Saudi Arabian organization. S.A. definitely is their country. Imagine for a second feelings of Israelis or Americans if some other contry built permanent military bases and propped unpopular government on their land. This would cause a lot of resentment, and from time to time will move some lunatics to commit acts of heroism... er, terrorism.
It is actually interesting to compare the behaviour of supposedly civilized Western people in the same kinds of situations... during WWII there definitely was no respect from any side to the lives of civilians. These freaking arabs are pussycats compared to the enlightened assholes who slaughtered millions for no reason whatsoever on the altar of Collectivism (be it fascist or communist variety of it). Oh, and don't think that the Allies were any better than Nazis - they simply got to write history. They were the same kind of cannibals (the story of Roosevelt's pen made from a femur of a dead Japanese soldier is quite telling).
Isolationism is a valid political platform, sure.
It is not just a "valid political platform", it is one of the principles of american Consitution. Meaning that any interventionism makes federal government totally illegitimate.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-20 06:22 am (UTC)No attacks on other country's citizens are justifiable. But it helps to understand why a lot of people are seriously pissed off at US (hint: because they were not the first to attack).
They're protecting American interests, at the invitation of the Saudis. What the hell is wrong with that?
Wrong? The very concept of "American interests" is wrong. Most American citizens are getting taxed (which involves a threat of grave bodily harm to those who disagree) to support some dictators in Middle East - how exactly is that in their interests?
Some americans definitely benefit from the troops being here. The leading political houses surely do, as do military contractors and oil companies. In fact, they do not even hide much - check, for example, dealings of the Carlyle Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlyle_Group), a neat fund which managed assets (and sometimes employed) varouos assholes including Bushes, Clintons, Kennedys, Sauds, Arafat, Mitterand, John Major, etc, etc - including bin Laden's family. Their area of expertise (surprise) is defense.
The whole story of American presense in Middle East is nothing more than a way to convert political power into personal fortunes of politicans on all sides of the conflict.
Saudi Arabia's government is not what I'd call very nice, but the alternatives on hand there are clearly much worse yet.
Worse to whom? US is certainly not threatened by any Middle-Eastern country. No matter which assholes rule there, they will keep selling oil to the highest bidders.
The mistake here is that you seriously think that if US declared something different it'd change their justifications of targeting civilians.
I do not think anything of that sort because US is democracy as a matter of fact. Unfortunately. Because it was a republic once. (And if the history teaches us anything is that democracy is an intermediate step from a republic to a tyrrany).
What I am doing is describing mindset of people who rationally, based on facts they see, choose US as the enemy.
Of course they are aware of the fact that blowing up US civilians is going to cause a stir - and they both know that their domestic audience will be happy to see some of the enemies blown, while US sheeple will get themselves scared and irrational and it will destabilize and polarize society in US. 9/11 was a brilliant piece of psych ops - it did little actual damage to US economy or population, but caused US to spend thousand times more on paranoid pseudo-security, got a lot of Americans killed and maimed in a totally unnecessary conflict, and got even more Arabs pissed off (thus increasing funding to Al Quaeda).
Of course, the terrorist scum deserves to get it good and hard - but what the whacking civilians at random with bombs does is actually plays into the terrorists' hands. By providing very plausible evidence to their target audience that there is a real enemy. These poor souls do not have a clue about the Ideals of Democracy in All World - they see falling bombs, they see the rule of local assholes being propped up, - what the heck are they supposed to believe? "We're here to help you?"
This trick is as old as the humanity (manufacture an enemy, and then call on the scared populace to make sacrifices). Both sides in the conflict use this trick extensively. So why a sane person would want to help the assholes on any side?
no subject
Date: 2007-05-20 10:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-20 11:44 pm (UTC)А бить себя ежедневно молотком по пальцу не обязательно, раз уж к нам все иммигрируют?
no subject
Date: 2007-05-20 11:49 pm (UTC)Нет, это я комментирую Ваше утверждение о том, как все плохо и какие вы несчастные.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-20 11:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-20 11:51 pm (UTC)- Разве невезение? По-моему, у вас неплохо в общем дела идут.
- Просто отлично! Воюем со всем миром, нас ненавидят все! Надо больше американски интересоваться разными странами.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-20 11:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-21 12:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-21 12:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-21 12:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-21 12:49 am (UTC)Так вот это совершенно универсальный аргумент, вы не находите? Если я скажу, что нам не стоит бить себя молотком по пальцу, вы скажете, что именно стоит: ведь нам так везет во всем остальном и многие люди даже стараются въехать в нашу страну.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-21 12:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-21 12:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-21 01:05 am (UTC)Какая связь, я не знаю. Наверное, косвенная.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-21 01:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-21 01:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-21 01:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-21 01:29 am (UTC)Наверное, если исходить из этой аксиомы, то так оно и выглядит, да. И причинно-следственная связь выглядит очень прочной.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-21 01:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-21 01:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-21 02:01 am (UTC)