Andrew Card confirms coverup

Interesting link. First I've heard of that. Worthy of concern and further investigation, certainly. Even the article of the link does not claim that it is entirely conclusive, however.


I still think there is a difference, even if that linked article later proves to be completely true: Israel does not send out suicide bombers every two weeks to take innocent lives. The terrorist organizations do just that. Israel does act outside the bounds of international law in self-defense--and they HAVE to, they've been under nearly unrelenting attack for decades. If the terrorists actually would STOP attacking, I don't think Israel would feel forced to continue. Let's remember who the aggressors are in this scenario. Further, let's have the U.N., rather than censoring Israel, call for Jordan to return the land they stole from the Palestinian state. If their Arab neighbors would return their stolen land and Israel would let the Palestinians actually own most of the settlement areas, they'd have a homeland, wouldn't they?

"Can't you see the difference between preferring to avoid collateral damage, and deliberately trying to inflict it???"


Yes, I can. Where did what I said imply that I didn't?


"The difference between terrorists and revolutionaries IS NOT merely a choice of terms."


No doubt. But my point is that it IS for the people who are making the decisions. People's lives were made worse because, for example, John Foster Dulles decided that Arbenz (in Guatemala in 1954) was a terrorist. He was not. Dulles chose to deliberately lie to the American people. People's live were made worse because, for example, Henry Kissinger decided that Allende was a terrorist. He was not. Kissinger chose to deliberately lie to the American people. People's lives were made worse because, for example, Ronald Reagan decided that the Contras were not terrorists. They were. Reagan chose to deliberately lie to the American people.


The communists and the terrorists don't have a monopoly on faulty reasoning, inadequate knowledge, and lying. There are plenty of examples of our country crusading for "freedom" and "democracy" when only an Orwellian definition of those words fit the actual situation. So policy was justified because of the choice of terms.


As I think you know, I support the current war effort 100% because we were attacked by terrorists.

If that is true than we are closer to fascism than I have previously imagined.


KJS

Andy,


The reason I assumed that is because: your post said little or nothing in the way of agreeing with my differentiation between freedom fighters and terrorists; instead you made and elaborated on the point that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. It was easy to assume that this was the essence of your argument and the essence of your response to my differentiation between terrorists and freedom fighters--if you had given any hint otherwise, I would probably not have misunderstood your view.


You were making a related point rather than first responding directly to the point I made. That's fine. However, since the first sentence in your post could easily be taken as an argument against my point, that's how and why I took your post to represent a contradictory argument, especially since nothing else in your post more fully addressed the point I had made.


I think this is the second time (to our knowledge) that we seem to have had slight misunderstandings due to lack of precise communication or interpretation on either of our parts. Whatever the case may be, I do know that you support the fight against those who attacked us.


I agree that the communists and terrorists don't havve a monopoly on deceit or on fitting terms to their desired purposes. However I do think that the communists and terrorists tend to do it more often, and that their purposes are more nefarious, generally speaking.


I also don't quite see why so many on this forum seem to bring up our own faults so quickly when we are discusdsing issues of SURVIVAL, or the survival of others, in the face of true tyrrany or authoritarianism. Granted we aren't perfect, and we have sometimes allied with demons when fighting Devils. But I get the sense that some of those who are quick to point out our own faults don't have a clear picture of just how truly horrible Terrorism, Red Communism, or Nazism are/were. In other words "bad" ain't nearly as bad as "horrible."

"since the first sentence in your post could easily be taken as an argument against my point, that's how and why I took your post to represent a contradictory argument, especially since nothing else in your post more fully addressed the point I had made."


Fair enough.


"I also don't quite see why so many on this forum seem to bring up our own faults so quickly"


I can't speak for others, but for me, it's a question of balance, fairness and control. Balance because our leaders tell us, always, that we are good and have only people's best interests at heart and the other side is bad and has only nefarious aims at heart. This is not always true, as the examples I brought up in my previous post attest. Fairness because our leaders, like all government officials, lie about what they're doing and why they're doing it. It's generally known what bastards the Soviet were, or Bin Laden is. The bastardy things we have done are not as well known. Control because I am much more disappointed when my own country acts badly than when another one does and we can control these things more easily than we can other governments.


Those who call critics the "blame American first" crowd miss the point completely. No one (or vitually no one, I would think) denies that the world is a dangerous place and that some battles are worth fighting. This is why Bush has such a high approval rating. But when I see us pursuing injustice, I say so.

I'm glad you changed the thread title here. I think name calling, especially with an emotion laden word like fascist, is immature and counterproductive. We have differing viewpoints on some things, but I enjoy 2+2 because those differing viewpoints, be they about raising with a flush draw, or fighting a war, are discussed and criticized on their merits. Name calling diminished the discussion, IMO.

I agree with these points you make, Andy.


What I take exception to are attempts by others to portray the US as equivalently evil to the world's worst examples of tyrrany and brutality. In other words the argument "Well we are bad too" doesn't wash, if others are indeed much worse. I believe Ray Springfield and Chris Alger have both used this tactic on occasion. It irritates me when people use this tactic because it is an attempt to misdirect attention and efforts, and because it presents a false assessment of what is really going on. As an example, yes of course the US had some bad allies and did some bad things in the Cold War. It's just that the Soviets actually did much worse, even in their own country to their own citizens, and it would have probably been an unparalled human tragedy if they had succeeded in their designs to take over the world. So I'm agreeing with your points, but I can't stand it when people obfuscate the issues or claim that we were as bad as the Soviets, or that what we did recently in Afghanistan is as bad as what the terrorists did on 9/11. It's just pure bullshit and it infuriates me that people will spread falsehoods like this, or attempt to use fallacious reasoning to bolster unfounded positions on these matters.

do you agree/disagree that there exist/existed torture squads in cental/south amercia?


do you agree that US intelligence agencies helped train them?


brad

nice argument - israel kills woman and children because they have to (self defense) - bravo!

i think sharon is being indicted by the world court in belgium for this.


http://www.dawn.com/2002/01/28/int10.htm