Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Valor of the Columnists
Lew Rockwell ^ | 10/30/01 | Lew Rockwell

Posted on 10/30/2001 2:04:59 AM PST by Ada Coddington

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 last
To: an amused spectator
Obtuse is a perfect definition of someone who doesn't know who Massoud is

Not obtuse; ignorant perhaps. I must contact Jim Robinson about his site because I appear to be missing the post in which someone declares his ignorance of the assassination of Ahmed Shah Massoud.

41 posted on 10/31/2001 9:13:31 AM PST by SaveUsFromOurselvesBill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Where is the justification here? Who is being proved blameless? The driver, or the youths? Are you suggesting the youths were justified in "roughing" him up because he decided to take a short cut and ran out of gas? That's where your analogy fails. Your defense of your analogy (in italics) relies upon your own definition of "justification."

Oh good grief! Okay, let's try and finally put this one to bed. I'll explain the analogy.

Here goes...
Since 9-11, a number of people have pointed out the link between US foreign policy and the 9-11 attacks. Invariably they have been accused of saying that the attacks were justified because of US foreign policy. In fact, they were saying no such thing (apart from a few weirdos - try google-searching for "birdman wtc zog").

In my analogy, there is no justification for the attack on my wife and me, but that does not mean there isn't one or more explanation.

42 posted on 10/31/2001 9:28:06 AM PST by SaveUsFromOurselvesBill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: SaveUsFromOurselvesBill
How on earth did we get to talking about the left's immoral and destructive class warfare ideology? It has nothing to do with bombing nations whose GDP is less than Winn Dixie's quarterly revenues.

Ummm, YOU brought it up, when you differentiated between bombing the poor and boming the not-poor. Get it?

43 posted on 10/31/2001 10:14:57 AM PST by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
Ummm, YOU brought it up, when you differentiated between bombing the poor and boming the not-poor. Get it?

I have already explained to you that I mentioned the poverty of Afghanistan because it has made them less able to withstand a military attack, not because of some half-baked international socialist belief in the moral superiority of workers or somesuch.
I really don't know what else I can say to clarify my position.
Maybe you should try this.

44 posted on 10/31/2001 10:38:43 AM PST by SaveUsFromOurselvesBill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: SaveUsFromOurselvesBill
We're not really sure who was behind it, and we haven't yet harmed a hair on the heads of those we think were behind it.

We are sure who was behind it. And we are harming (i.e. killing) many of them. Not as many as I might like, but we're getting there.

You Rockwell types disgust me. More to follow.

45 posted on 10/31/2001 11:15:53 AM PST by borkrules
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: borkrules
We are sure who was behind it.

Really? What is the evidence? All I have seen so far is conjecture.

And we are harming (i.e. killing) many of them. Not as many as I might like, but we're getting there.

Oh, I thought "we" were sure al-Quaida were behind it. Killed many of them, have "we"?

46 posted on 10/31/2001 11:28:18 AM PST by SaveUsFromOurselvesBill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: SaveUsFromOurselvesBill
I have already explained to you that I mentioned the poverty of Afghanistan because it has made them less able to withstand a military attack, not because of some half-baked international socialist belief in the moral superiority of workers or somesuch.

LOL! You are the classic liberal hypocrite! I figured your name was meant sarcastically. Save yourself from yourself, first, and try that that page for yourself, big guy. Listen carefully, and try to comprehend... I'll use small words:

When... you... feel... that... something... non-economic... is... worse... for... poor... people... than... for... non-poor... people... then... you... are... using... Socialist... class... envy. The details are irrelevant.

Even if we were bombing France, the Bahamas, or Monaco, the individual citizens are JUST AS HELPLESS!!! The ONLY way to "withstand a military attack" is duck-and-cover.... rich or poor. The governments and their military might be better equipped to respond due to the national treasure... but... the... people... are... S-O-L... just... the... same. Having an eight-digit bank account won't help you when the explosions are ripping up the foundation of your mansion. Nobody will care if you have a credit card with a high limit when they are waiting for the Red Cross to come in with medicine and doctors. Nobody will let you cut in the bread line when the rationing begins because you have a more expensive pair of shoes on.

Understand?

Or are you pathetic enough to think that Afghanistan's poverty exempts them from warfare, and that the United States should only take military action against those with a GDP above 'acceptable' limits, set by the UN perhaps? Exactly how Socialist are you without even realizing it?

I'll try one last time, then I'm done with you: "Wealth level should NEVER determine how to behave in a certain situation." If that is a determinant for you, then you don't understand FReedom, liberty, equality under the law, fairness, morality, or the Constitution. Your comment, that Afghanistan should be given a pass simply because it is poor, was poorly thought-out, improper, anti-American and would be counter-productive if ever utilized at the national level.

/rant>

47 posted on 10/31/2001 11:44:16 AM PST by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: SaveUsFromOurselvesBill
I have already explained to you that I mentioned the poverty of Afghanistan because it has made them less able to withstand a military attack, not because of some half-baked international socialist belief in the moral superiority of workers or somesuch.

LOL! You are the classic liberal hypocrite! I figured your name was meant sarcastically. Save yourself from yourself, first, and try that that page for yourself, big guy. Listen carefully, and try to comprehend... I'll use small words:

When... you... feel... that... something... non-economic... is... worse... for... poor... people... than... for... non-poor... people... then... you... are... using... Socialist... class... envy. The details are irrelevant.

Even if we were bombing France, the Bahamas, or Monaco, the individual citizens are JUST AS HELPLESS!!! The ONLY way to "withstand a military attack" is duck-and-cover.... rich or poor. The governments and their military might be better equipped to respond due to the national treasure... but... the... people... are... S-O-L... just... the... same. Having an eight-digit bank account won't help you when the explosions are ripping up the foundation of your mansion. Nobody will care if you have a credit card with a high limit when they are waiting for the Red Cross to come in with medicine and doctors. Nobody will let you cut in the bread line when the rationing begins because you have a more expensive pair of shoes on.

Understand?

Or are you pathetic enough to think that Afghanistan's poverty exempts them from warfare, and that the United States should only take military action against those with a GDP above 'acceptable' limits, set by the UN perhaps? Exactly how Socialist are you without even realizing it?

I'll try one last time, then I'm done with you: "Wealth level should NEVER determine how to behave in a certain situation." If that is a determinant for you, then you don't understand FReedom, liberty, equality under the law, fairness, morality, or the Constitution. Your comment, that Afghanistan should be given a pass simply because it is poor, was poorly thought-out, improper, anti-American and would be counter-productive if ever utilized at the national level.

/rant>

48 posted on 10/31/2001 11:46:25 AM PST by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: SaveUsFromOurselvesBill
"Let's try a simple analogy. I take my wife on a drive to the other side of town. I take a short cut and run out of gas right in the middle of the most dangerous part of the city. We are quickly surrounded by youths who, despite looking like millionaire rappers, extract us from our vehicle, rough us up and steal all of our possessions. When the ordeal is over, my wife turns to me and refers to the mess into which I have got us. I correct her by pointing out, freeper-style, that it was in fact the local youths who got us into this mess. She looks at me as though I have completely lost my mind."

And your wife would be right, judging by your simple analogy, you have completely lost your mind.

A more accurate and relevant analogy would be that the youthful gang members have chosen a busy work day to visit YOUR very place of work. They proceed to kill the parking lot attendant, break in and steal YOUR car from the parking lot, and without so much as a "How do you do?", they crash it at full speed square into YOUR office... killing you, your secretary, and 90% of your employees. Now... do you spend your time in the afterlife worrying whether it was your "business practices" that provoked this unseemly turn of events, or could it be that, just maybe, those youthful gang members were really just evil, malignant, antisocial monsters who would kill you as soon as look at you?

And, oh, by the way... Bill will only bother save himself, if he can. He cares not what happens to you. His release of Puerto Rican terrorists for shallow and transparent political gain should be enough proof of that.

49 posted on 10/31/2001 12:18:34 PM PST by Richard Axtell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SaveUsFromOurselvesBill
Killed many of them, have "we"?

Been following current events, genius? Point your browser towards any news outlet and read up. Again, not enough for this "warmonger" but it's a start.

And I guess "we" can count you out, huh?

50 posted on 10/31/2001 12:24:51 PM PST by borkrules
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: SaveUsFromOurselvesBill
because I appear to be missing the post in which someone declares his ignorance of the assassination of Ahmed Shah Massoud.

Oh, goody! Why don't you explain to the readers, then, why the assassination of Ahmed Shah Massoud fingers bin Laden and the Taliban, specifically, in the September 11 murder raids?

Or don't you want to go there? ;-)

51 posted on 10/31/2001 12:32:13 PM PST by an amused spectator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: SaveUsFromOurselvesBill
In my analogy, there is no justification for the attack on my wife and me, but that does not mean there isn't one or more explanation.

American foreign policy is NOT an explanation of the September 11 murder raids. Those who seize on it as an explanation are "yes-butters".

The murder raids were raids by psycho religious murderers who have a chip on their shoulders about everything and everybody who stands in the way of their dream of a world ruled by Islam and sharia law.

They, and their "yes-but" pals are going to get the can of whup-ass that they deserve.

52 posted on 10/31/2001 12:44:36 PM PST by an amused spectator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
LOL! You are the classic liberal hypocrite! I figured your name was meant sarcastically.

You figured correctly. My screen name was inspired by Bill's wonderful speech in Buffalo NY a few years ago. I can't remember his exact words but it was something like: "we'd let you keep your money if only you'd spend it right". Whattaguy. Anyway, that would make me a classical liberal hypocrite, not a classic liberal hypocrite.

When... you... feel... that... something... non-economic... is... worse... for... poor... people... than... for... non-poor... people... then... you... are... using... Socialist... class... envy. The details are irrelevant.

That is a nonsensical and thoroughly innaccurate description of Marxist doctrine. One doesn't have to be a fully paid-up commie to realize that the possession of wealth helps one ride through crises intact. By your rationale there would be no point in putting aside reserves to safeguard against recessions and the possiblity of unemployment. I can't believe I have actually needed to explain this.

Having an eight-digit bank account won't help you when the explosions are ripping up the foundation of your mansion.

Quite true. But it will definitely be quite useful when a neighbor's mansion goes up in smoke and you decide it's time to get the heck out of dodge. Walking for miles in freezing desert with no food is something not many of us in the West would have to do. I very much doubt that Afghan charities (hah!) have quite matched the $500M+ raised by the Red Cross etc either.

Or are you pathetic enough to think that Afghanistan's poverty exempts them from warfare, and that the United States should only take military action against those with a GDP above 'acceptable' limits, set by the UN perhaps? Exactly how Socialist are you without even realizing it?

I was merely pointing out one of the many reasons why the effects of the war are particularly harsh. I oppose all non-defensive warfare, regardless of the GDP of the nation being attacked. However, wars that are likely to kill millions of civilians as opposed to hundreds are more of a concern.
Regarding being a socialist, I am not sure that is possible to be one of those at the same time as being a radical capitalist. I am the latter. My heroes are Mises and Rothbard, not Marx and Engels. Anyway, you have yet again demonstrated your utter misunderstanding of commie doctrine. A socialist foreign policy (if there is such a thing) would call for billions of dollars in aid for poor countries.

I'll try one last time, then I'm done with you: "Wealth level should NEVER determine how to behave in a certain situation."

You are arguing with a straw man. I never said it should determine behavior. If a judge mentions the mowed-down pregnant woman when summing up a drunk-driving conviction, should this be interpreted as an endorsement of getting boozed-up and mowing down men and childless women?

53 posted on 10/31/2001 12:55:34 PM PST by SaveUsFromOurselvesBill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: borkrules
Been following current events, genius? Point your browser towards any news outlet and read up. Again, not enough for this "warmonger" but it's a start.

Hey, Einstein! Please let me know where I can read about the raid on al-Quaida. All I can find is the story about carpet-bombing Taliban troops and I'm sure that's not what you meant.

54 posted on 10/31/2001 1:05:57 PM PST by SaveUsFromOurselvesBill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: SaveUsFromOurselvesBill
By your rationale there would be no point in putting aside reserves to safeguard against recessions and the possiblity of unemployment. I can't believe I have actually needed to explain this.

I can't believe it either... please re-read the part where I wrote very... slowly... using... small... words (post 48, so you can find it). I wrote that using economic strata in "non-economic" decisions was utilizing Socialist class envy. You come back with two ECONOMIC reasons for making ECONOMIC decisions, and then you act incredulous? C'mon, you can do better than that.

I never said it should determine behavior.

Wrong again. Are you reduced to lying now, or can't you even read your own posts?

Post #31: "However, the poverty of the Afghans is absolutely relevant because it means that attacks on them are all the more devastating."
You explicitly state that their poverty is relevant to the decision-making process regarding our bombing the poor nation of Afghanistan. That would fall into the category "determining behavior."

55 posted on 10/31/2001 4:19:09 PM PST by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: an amused spectator; Ada Coddington
Right. The murder of Massoud two days before September 11 was just a BIG OL' COINCIDENCE

Speaking of coincidences, isn't it just amazing that the US got the Taleban to get rid of those bad old poppy crops just at the right time? Now, there's no cash crop, no food crop, and the Northern Alliance is still growing poppies. Let's see, those are our new "allies" right?

And another coincidence: the US told Afghanistan via Pakistan that they would be attacked no later than mid-October -- months before 911.

And speaking of truly amazing, how about this (you didn't see it in the New York Times).

Musharraf: From CIA With Love?

Musharraf: From CIA With Love?
This article speculates on the possible behind-the-scenes role of CIA Director George Tenet in fixing the Vajpayee-Musharraf talks. Pakistani hardliners too are reported to be angry with the General's decision to visit New Delhi.

Some circles in the US see a linkage between the recent high-profile visit of Mr.Richard Armitage, US Deputy Secretary of State, to New Delhi, the unpublicised visit of Mr.George Tenet, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), to Islamabad where he had an unusually long meeting with Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the self-styled Chief Executive of Pakistan, and the surprise decision of the Government of India to invite the General to New Delhi for talks without any longer insisting on the stoppage of Pakistani support to cross-border terrorism as a pre-condition for a resumption of the bilateral dialogue at the political level.

Mr.Armitage, who had spent some years of his career in the CIA/DIA and holds the highest Pakistani civil decoration that could be awarded to a foreigner for his role during the Afghan war of the 1980s, has a large circle of friends in the Pakistani military and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Directorate.

Mr.Tenet had worked for some years as an aide to one of the Congressional Intelligence Oversight Committees before he was nominated by Mr. Bill Clinton as the Director of the CIA. Significantly, he was one of the very few ( the Director of the FBI was another) important appointees of the Clinton Administration to have been asked by President Bush to continue in his post despite the criticism of the functioning of the CIA and its failure to detect the preparations for India's Pokhran II nuclear tests of 1998 by Mr.Bush and his advisers during the Presidential election campaign last year.

These circles attribute this decision not to disturb Mr.Tenet from his post to an important behind-the-scene role, which he has reportedly been playing since last year in working for a rapprochement between the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and Israel in West Asia and between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. Mr. Bush and his senior aides, who do not want the President to personally play an active mediatory role in West Asia or elsewhere similar to the high-profile roles played by Mr.Clinton, reportedly felt that US interests could be better served by continuing to use the deniable, stealth services of the CIA chief.

56 posted on 10/31/2001 4:57:48 PM PST by SelfGov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson