SKP statement

[Håkan Eriksson]

Anyone has a comment on this Statement made by the Communist Party of Sweden regarding the war?




----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Terror is always terror:
Statement by the Communist Party of Sweden (SKP)

The Communist Party of Sweden (SKP) condemns the attacks against the US civil society that occurred on September 11, 2001. We grieve for the victims of this act of terror, and for the great human suffering it caused, just as we express sympathy and anger in connection with terror and injustice elsewhere in the world.

Terrorism targets innocent civilians in order to achieve political goals. SKP rejects terrorism as an unacceptable form of political struggle. The changes that are needed in our world in order to eliminate violence and war and achieve democracy and a society with justice for all can never be achieved though terrorism, only through active political struggle by the working class.

But condemning the recent terror attacks is not enough. They must be seen in a global context. The US is the world's greatest economic, political and military power. Alone or with its allies in NATO, the US has intervened continuously throughout the world. If an individual nation declares a policy that the US considers acceptable, it is immediately exposed to economic and/or military pressure. Hundreds of thousands of people throughout the world die every year as a result of direct or indirect intervention by the US. It is a historical fact that for decades the US has implemented state terrorism against people in Latin America, Africa and Asia.

The attacks against the World Trade Center are acts of lunacy, but the same applies to the bombing of civilian targets in Baghdad and Belgrade. What is the difference between the deaths of Americans and the deaths of Serbs, Palestinians or Iraqis?

SKP sees a connection between the Palestinians who offer their lives in suicide-attacks in Israel and the attacks on New York and Washington. Such desperate actions are a direct result of the growing antagonisms in our world and the powerlessness that is felt by many people. Two-thirds of mankind are forced to live in poverty and misery, in conditions that are determined by a handful of imperialist powers under the leadership of the US, supported by the Swedish government, among others.

In many demonstrations such as those in recent times in Gothenburg, Genoa, Seattle, Prague and Nice, hundreds of thousands of people have peacefully protested against the worldwide injustice of imperialism. But their voices have been ignored. The US relies what it considers to be its own invulnerability, and continues to bomb Iraq, boycott Cuba and support Is-rael's violence against Palestinians. The Bush government simply ignores the rest of the world, as shown by its rejection of the Kyoto environmental protocol, its plans for a new missile defense that will lead to another nuclear arms race, its development of new biological-warfare weapons, and most recently its walkout from the international conference against racism in Durban.

In the present international balance of powers, no country would even dream of a serious economic, political or military attack on the US. This situation breeds the type of terrorism that we have recently seen.

In this connection it should be pointed out that the US has been the major supplier of money and weapons to the Talibans in Afghanistan. It is quite possible that the US is now sowing the harvest of the seeds of violence that it has planted.

There is an evident risk that in order to demonstrate its power the US will strike quickly, indiscriminately and violently against all whom it perceives to be obstacles to its hegemony. We therefore call on all progressive and democratic forces to work actively for peaceful political solutions for the conflicts throughout the world that are feeding the spiral of violence. The struggle against imperialism must continue.,

In this situation, the Swedish government must do everything it can to prevent a further escalation of violence. And it must also oppose unilateral violence by the US - with or without the approval of the EU. Sweden must act in the interest of long-term solutions under the leadership of the UN, which should include appointing an international UN commission to inves-tigate terrorism wherever it occurs.

 

[VoodooAce]

Nothing to argue here. In fact, it pretty much echoes completely my feelings on the whole issue.

Thanks for posting it, Hakan.

 

[Blackadder]

Statement by the Communist Party of Sweden (SKP)





Alone or with its allies in NATO, the US has intervened continuously throughout the world. If an individual nation declares a policy that the US considers acceptable, it is immediately exposed to economic and/or military pressure. Hundreds of thousands of people throughout the world die every year as a result of direct or indirect intervention by the US.

The Bush government simply ignores the rest of the world, as shown by its rejection of the Kyoto environmental protocol, its plans for a new missile defense that will lead to another nuclear arms race, its development of new biological-warfare weapons, and most recently its walkout from the international conference against racism in Durban.
[/B]

Odd how it can ignore the whole world and still be the most active country in the world. Wait, this isn't propaganda, is it?

 

[ComradeDavo]

I completely agreed with that statement, this opinion is being voiced all over the world yet it is most usually dissmissed out of hand as 'communist propaganda'.

 

[VoodooAce]

What you are refering to, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong), is where it says THE BUSH GOVERNMENT ignores the rest of the world, which was one of his admin's obvious policies until 9/11 when it occurred to them that maybe they were wrong.

The Bush administration was decidedly isolationist until then. His attitude was we're the biggest, baddest muthas on the block and the rest of the world needs us far more than we need them.

While this may have some truth to it, it doesn't mean their policy was the right one. As they admitted, I believe, when they felt the need to 'build a coalition' in the war against terrorism.

Both statements, that Bush ignored the rest of the world, and that the US has intervened continuously throught the world, are true.

 

[CornMaster]

Have to add my to that statement.

It's not just communists making statements like this.....it people from all over the world. The US included. It's time for change....and it has to begin sometime...might as well be sooner then later.

 

[knowltok3]

While there are some truths in the statement, there are also many ommisions and distortions.

Why blame the US and the other "imperialists" (Odd how the meaning of this word changes) for the fact that "Two-thirds of mankind are forced to live in poverty and misery"? This is a convenient number to toss around, but I wonder where it comes from? You can't put the populations of the westernized world in the 1/3 and not put both China and India into the other group. Are we to blame for conditions in China? What about the former Soviet Republics?

I would argue that much of the poverty and misery is caused by the corruption and powerlust of the local authorities. That or deep-rooted cultural hatreds that cause tribal or religious warfare. The statement condemns the bombing of civilian targets in Belgrade and Baghdad. First of all, I believe that there is a difference between the deliberate targeting of civilians, and the deliberate targeting of military targets where the bomb misses. The US is not engaged in a campaign of bombing civilian targets. It's pointless, angers people, and does less than nothing to help our goals. That is why the US uses the laser guided munitions that it does. The other alternative is that the US is purposely spending millions to kill a few hundred Iraqi civilians by dropping laser guided bombs on a house here a church there and a well in the next town. To me this is ridiculous. The bombs do miss, and sometimes there are civilians next to legitimate targets, but there is a difference.

As far as US and Nato intervention, here are a few cases:

Iraq: Iraq invades another country in a mugging writ large. the UN issues various resolutions and a coalition made up of the US, NATO, and many other nations demands that he leave, and then forces him to. Too bad the coalition didn't have the vision to finish the job, but hind sight is 20/20. In this case, more intervention should have been used.

Somalia: The UN saw a need to restore order and ensure that food was getting to the starving people. Various warlords were keeping this from happening. The warlords did not want to share any power to restore any order to the country, and when some of them continued disruption of the relief efforts the US tried to capture the leaders responsible. The warlords resisted, and when the cost became to high for public opinion, the US withdrew. The situation has not really improved. Somalia is still a dangerous place with rival tribal factions. It is evident that it is not going to solve its own problems, and the misery will continue, not because of some imperialist designs, but because the place cannot pull itself together enough to make it safe for business.

Rhawanda: Here is a prime example of where intervention should have been used. One tribe practicing genocide against another. Just about any nation could have stepped in and stopped this (even Sweeden) but no one did until it was too late.

Yugoslavia: More genocide and warfare. Not started by Imperialist designs, but rather by ancient cultural hatreds. Obviously this was getting in the way of selling Coca-Cola, so the US spent millions and sacrificed lives in another sinister Imperialistic plot to restore order so that the masses could be pilaged by Coca-Cola and Nike.

Afganistan: I notice that the statement doesn't condemn the bombing of innocent civilians in Afganistan. I'm sure this will happen in years to come as the images of the Taliban's cruelty fade and are replaced with images of a less than utopian Afganistan.

"its development of new biological-warfare weapons"

Proof would be nice. What would be the point of developing new bio weapons? I'm sure the current ones would be very very effective if used, which they won't be.

"its plans for a new missile defense that will lead to another nuclear arms race"

While the merits of this can be argued either way, I'd like an explanation as to how this is going to lead to a nuclear arms race worse than the one we are in now where rogue state are working as hard as they can to get nuclear weapons? A missle might not be the most likely threat today, but what is wrong with protecting against what you can? Technology keeps advancing, and eventually there will be more nations with ICBMs, or the capability to make them. A shield may actually keep a new arms race from happening on a large scale. Pakistan and India both have nukes, can you honestly think that in the next twenty years they won't try to find some way to marry them with reliable ICBMs? Why wouldn't they, unless they were obsolete?

"thousands of people have peacefully protested"

And not so peacefully, but I guess it wouldn't do to mention that.

"There is an evident risk that in order to demonstrate its power the US will strike quickly, indiscriminately and violently against all whom it perceives to be obstacles to its hegemony. "

If this was the case we would have gone after China a long time ago. Europe would also make sense in this context as a target. These two areas present more of a danger to US "Hegemony" than Afganistan, Iraq, Somalia, or any dozen nations like them.

"In this situation, the Swedish government must do everything it can to prevent a further escalation of violence. "

It would be a wonderful world if we could convince those with guns who hold onto power to just step asside and allow justice and freedom to move in, but so far there is very little indication that this is going to happen. Perhaps Sweeden should pick one poor, downtroden nation with an oppressive regime as a project and peacefully work to improve conditions there. If the world had a "Sweedish Success Story" to look at then perhaps new lessons could be drawn. (Not to pick on Sweeden or Swedes, but that is who wrote the statement).

 

[dannyevilcat]

The Bush government simply ignores the rest of the world, as shown by its rejection of the Kyoto environmental protocol, its plans for a new missile defense that will lead to another nuclear arms race, its development of new biological-warfare weapons, and most recently its walkout from the international conference against racism in Durban.

Odd how it can ignore the whole world and still be the most active country in the world. Wait, this isn't propaganda, is it?

I think what the statement was supposed to read was "...ignores the opinions and protests of the rest of the world..."

Other than that, I also agree with the statement written by the SKP. But I still think America should grind the terroroist ****ers into the ground.
Afterward, of course, I'd like for America to reflect on it's own behavior, but it probably won't.

 

[VoodooAce]

I agree with you Knowltok, that Rwanda is another spot where somebody should have intervened. Opposition to this by isolationists in the US infuriated me.

The point is, though, that if the US wants to 'run things' when the whim hits us, if we want to be 'world leaders', then we should act like it and not only get involved when it suits us, or when $$ is involved, which was THE motivation in Kuwait/Iraq. It was played off as though it were a humanitarian thing by the George I administration, but we ALL know it was about the oil.

If it was a humanitarian thing, then why did all the same people oppose intervening in places like Rwanda and Yugoslavia.

I know nothing about bio-weapons, so I won't go there.

While the Star Wars thing is ridiculous folly that most everyong that knows what they're talking about dismisses as unrealistic, I also don't buy into the fears that it will cause another arms race. I'm opposed to it solely because it's a bunch of cr*p that allows Bush to pay back his donors by throwing some business there way. We should use those billions and billions of dollars on something a little more...fruitful. I dunno, education? Improving health care ever so slightly? I would bet money that Republicans today rue the day Ike warned the US and the world about the dangers of the 'military-industrial complex'. Dubya would too if he could fully grasp the concept. (my daily duhbya dig)

You're right, there were those that didn't protest so peacefully.

And I think the final statement about the Swedish gov't doing everything it can to prevent further violence is rather admirable. There are those that will say, "Give me a break", but that doesn't make it any less worthy of our respect. I know it's not true, but you give the impression, Knowltok, with your last paragraph that while you may believe things need to change, it would be too hard so why bother.

 

[knowltok3]

Other than that, I also agree with the statement written by the SKP. But I still think America should grind the terroroist ****ers into the ground.

Afterward, of course, I'd like for America to reflect on it's own behavior, but it probably won't

I agree that the US needs to reevaluate its foriegn policy. Though we are still dealing with the baggage of the cold war. Of course, communists don't want to hear this as a justification for anything since in their mind all of these actions were intended to overthrow the glorious Russian communist state. The concept lesser of two evils is lost on them since they don't view the greater as evil at all.

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by Håkan Eriksson

Hundreds of thousands of people throughout the world die every year as a result of direct or indirect intervention by the US.[/B]

Pure garbage. It's more rampantly popular anti-Americanism in Europe.

The attacks against the World Trade Center are acts of lunacy, but the same applies to the bombing of civilian targets in Baghdad and Belgrade. What is the difference between the deaths of Americans and the deaths of Serbs, Palestinians or Iraqis?

We don't bomb "civilian" targets, unless the people live in the atomic weapons facilities.

SKP sees a connection between the Palestinians who offer their lives in suicide-attacks in Israel and the attacks on New York and Washington[.B]

Who "offer their lives?" What the hell kind of talk is this?

Two-thirds of mankind are forced to live in poverty and misery, in conditions that are determined by a handful of imperialist powers under the leadership of the US, supported by the Swedish government, among others.

Bull****! Nobody is "forced" to live under any circumstances, and the United States is not an Imperialist empire.

The Bush government simply ignores the rest of the world, as shown by its rejection of the Kyoto environmental protocol, its plans for a new missile defense that will lead to another nuclear arms race, its development of new biological-warfare weapons, and most recently its walkout from the international conference against racism in Durban.

The United States is acting in it's own interests. Socialist Sweden does the same thing...let's see...who was "neutral" during World War II? Right..I thought so.

It is quite possible that the US is now sowing the harvest of the seeds of violence that it has planted.

This pisses me off to an even greater extent...talk about garbage. Absolutely false.

 

[knowltok3]

but we ALL know it was about the oil.

I agree. What I can't understand is why that in and of itself wasn't enough. "We don't want one hostile person to control that much oil. Therefore we are going to kick his ass out of Kuwait. Oh by the way, it may help the Kuwaitis, but we're going because we feel our economic interests are threatened." I ask why we couldn't have just said that, and why that wouldn't have been okay. Certainly would have painted us as less of a hypocrite later on with places like Rhawanda.

billions of dollars on something a little more...fruitful. I dunno, education?

Now that I agree with completely. I think our education system is at a level that we need to take drastic measures to improve it, and we can worry about making the system perfect for everyone when most of our children have a real education.

My problem with the last statement is that it seems to indicate that violence is out of the question and won't solve anything. It is quite possible that violence (against Saddam) could solve quite a bit. I know I was being a bit cynical, but seriously, if the world doesn't want the US as policeman (Neither do I) then it needs to step up and take on those tasks that come along. Whether the next humanitarian crisis requires just aid, or military action, let the world handle it without the US, or with only minimal help from the US. This world's policeman model just breeds resentment. I would call for a world's neighborhood watch instead. The US can be part of it, and even a large part of it, but if the US happens to be vacationing with the kids in Florida, the rest of the world needs to be able to handle the situation on its own.

 

[CornMaster]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
We don't bomb "civilian" targets, unless the people live in the atomic weapons facilities.

How many reports did I hear of civilans getting bombed. Hummm......

Who "offer their lives?" What the hell kind of talk is this?

We already had a discussion about freedom fighting vs. terrorism. Depends on both your point of view, and available resources. So "offer their lives" is adaqute if you take the freedom fighting point of view.

Bull****! Nobody is "forced" to live under any circumstances, and the United States is not an Imperialist empire.

There are organizations in the US which are trying to prohibit anything but Europeans access to the US. I can't remember what the group is called. They had a billboard in Tampa that was taken down because it basically said that there would be no terrorism in the US if we only admitted Europeans....a pile of bull****, but that's where I heard it. Now...if these organizations were to succed where would these people go?? Since the US is the penical of freedom, we would be forcing them away. Thus the statement is true.

Now.....your going to say that is far fetched, but we can see the beginning of this already. Besides for internal "extreme" organizations the US is already imposing stricter immigration laws. Not to meantion the financial impossibilites of many people who want to escape their situation. The US doesn't offer flights for oppressed people. The don't fight their enemies to offer equality. The don't educate these people so that they can make their life better. WTH can they do???

That is how the US forces people to stay in their current situation.

The United States is acting in it's own interests. Socialist Sweden does the same thing...let's see...who was "neutral" during World War II? Right..I thought so.

The United States....as in WWI until they were attacked directly. Didn't offer to help the other nations of the world, until they were directly threatened.

This pisses me off to an even greater extent...talk about garbage. Absolutely false.

I could say the same about your comments......but saying that it pisses me off...and is garbage doesn't add to the dicussion or strength my point.

 

[andycapp]

Originally posted by Håkan Eriksson
Terror is always terror:
Statement by the Communist Party of Sweden (SKP)

The heading sounds promising, let's see how the rest of the statement measures up.

The Communist Party of Sweden (SKP) condemns the attacks against the US civil society that occurred on September 11, 2001. We grieve for the victims of this act of terror, and for the great human suffering it caused, just as we express sympathy and anger in connection with terror and injustice elsewhere in the world.

Nothing wrong with this paragraph.

Terrorism targets innocent civilians in order to achieve political goals. SKP rejects terrorism as an unacceptable form of political struggle. The changes that are needed in our world in order to eliminate violence and war and achieve democracy and a society with justice for all can never be achieved though terrorism, only through active political struggle by the working class.

All seems pretty obvious, but worth stating. The working class certainly do have an important role in changing society AND so do other groups within society.

But condemning the recent terror attacks is not enough. They must be seen in a global context. The US is the world's greatest economic, political and military power. Alone or with its allies in NATO, the US has intervened continuously throughout the world. If an individual nation declares a policy that the US considers acceptable, it is immediately exposed to economic and/or military pressure. Hundreds of thousands of people throughout the world die every year as a result of direct or indirect intervention by the US. It is a historical fact that for decades the US has implemented state terrorism against people in Latin America, Africa and Asia.

That word "but", I had a feeling it would appear somewhere in this statement. I agree that any terrorist attack should be examined in context although I don't think the SKP have done that in relation to Sept 11.

They look only at the (alleged) actions of the US and it's allies and not for example at the Arab and muslim worlds - there seems to be a selective use of "historical fact".

Unless, of course, this is about propaganda rather than a rational and honest examination of why Sept 11 occurred - maybe I'm just an old cynic.

Btw, I presume there is a typo where the SKP says "individual nation declares a policy that the US considers (un)acceptable" - then again maybe they've just become twisted in their own logic.

The attacks against the World Trade Center are acts of lunacy, but the same applies to the bombing of civilian targets in Baghdad and Belgrade. What is the difference between the deaths of Americans and the deaths of Serbs, Palestinians or Iraqis?

Yes, the attack on the World Trade Center was an act of lunacy (and hatred), as was the attack on the passenger jet over Pennslyvannia AND the attack on the Pentagon - perhaps SKP's ommission of this is an oversight?

Rather than examining why the "lunacy" of Sept 11 occurred, the SKP equates Sept 11 with US/Allied efforts to prevent ethnic cleansing in Kosovo (against the muslim Kosovars) and efforts to stop the aggression of that meglomaniac, Saddam Hussein, against a sovereign (Arab) nation, Kuwait.

The murder of innocent civilians of any group or nation is wrong. So precisely how do the deaths of people in Serbia, Palestine and Iraq tie in or justify what occurred on Sept 11?

To say this is distorted logic is an understatement.

SKP sees a connection between the Palestinians who offer their lives in suicide-attacks in Israel and the attacks on New York and Washington. Such desperate actions are a direct result of the growing antagonisms in our world and the powerlessness that is felt by many people. Two-thirds of mankind are forced to live in poverty and misery, in conditions that are determined by a handful of imperialist powers under the leadership of the US, supported by the Swedish government, among others.

So despite stating earlier that "terror is always terror" the SKP are now offering a justification for those that perpetrated the murder of Sept 11.

Apart from the fact it is simplistic and untrue to assert that the evils of this world are the responsibility of "a handfull of imperialist powers", how does this and the US support of Israel make the "connection" SKP draws with Sept 11.

And conveniently ignores Osama Bin Laden's own statements about the reason for his Jihad - hatred and determination to eliminate non-muslims according to his version of Islam.

In many demonstrations such as those in recent times in Gothenburg, Genoa, Seattle, Prague and Nice, hundreds of thousands of people have peacefully protested against the worldwide injustice of imperialism. But their voices have been ignored. The US relies what it considers to be its own invulnerability, and continues to bomb Iraq, boycott Cuba and support Is-rael's violence against Palestinians. The Bush government simply ignores the rest of the world, as shown by its rejection of the Kyoto environmental protocol, its plans for a new missile defense that will lead to another nuclear arms race, its development of new biological-warfare weapons, and most recently its walkout from the international conference against racism in Durban.

This is just ideological padding to bolster the SKP's earlier (hypocritical) justification for the actions of the terrorists - how, precisely, does this relate to Sept 11?

Oh, silly me, now I understand, the US has made people all around the world very angry and therefore the only way they could express that anger was to attack the WTC and Pentagon - simple!

In the present international balance of powers, no country would even dream of a serious economic, political or military attack on the US. This situation breeds the type of terrorism that we have recently seen.

So the SKP are saying it's alright to do it through third parties such as terrorists.

In this connection it should be pointed out that the US has been the major supplier of money and weapons to the Talibans in Afghanistan. It is quite possible that the US is now sowing the harvest of the seeds of violence that it has planted.

This is called blaming the victims and the SKP don't miss the opportunity.

There is an evident risk that in order to demonstrate its power the US will strike quickly, indiscriminately and violently against all whom it perceives to be obstacles to its hegemony. We therefore call on all progressive and democratic forces to work actively for peaceful political solutions for the conflicts throughout the world that are feeding the spiral of violence. The struggle against imperialism must continue.,

And so al Qaeda and Bin Laden should be allowed to continue their murderous ways? Or perhaps the "progressive and democratic forces" the SKP allude to, will convince Osama to change his ways. If, of course, we give him everything he wants.

In this situation, the Swedish government must do everything it can to prevent a further escalation of violence. And it must also oppose unilateral violence by the US - with or without the approval of the EU. Sweden must act in the interest of long-term solutions under the leadership of the UN, which should include appointing an international UN commission to inves-tigate terrorism wherever it occurs.

Perhaps Sweden, like all countries committed to democracy and freedom, should take the necessary steps to counter religious extremism which is the the real cause for Sept 11, instead of resorting to mealy mouthed platitudes which the SKP seems to think is a substitute for effective action.

The fundamental problem with the SKP statement is that by viewing the events of Sept 11 through the distorting prism of ideology, the truth suffers.

How else to explain the glaring failure of the SKP to mention ANY culpability on the part of the Islamic world for tolerating and fostering the hatred of non-muslims which gave rise to Osama and his motley crew.

 

[dannyevilcat]

Rather than examining why the "lunacy" of Sept 11 occurred, the SKP equates Sept 11 with US/Allied efforts to prevent ethnic cleansing in Kosovo (against the muslim Kosovars) and efforts to stop the aggression of that meglomaniac, Saddam Hussein, against a sovereign (Arab) nation, Kuwait.

The only problem is that neither of these actions were done for the motives stated. There simply was no ethnic cleansing of Kosovars. The Serbs were dealing with a terrorist organization within their own borders (the KLA is no different than the IRA). If this situation were occuring today, I don't believe for a second that NATO would have responded the same (though by no means would they have agreed with what was happening). NATO was simply seeking a new role for itself in a post-cold war world. It would simply be too touchy. And those airstrikes simply tore civilians as innocent as those victimized by Sept. 11th to sh*t. What military installations existed in, say, the hotels of Belgrade?
And the gulf war wasn't about stopping Iraqi aggression, but about protecting oil. Stopping aggression was certainly a result, so this is a case where morality and self-interests met. This is an oft-repeated claim, but it is true. It was also probably to prevent a regional "superpower" from rising which wanted Israel utterly annihilated.

About Milosevic, remember that he was hailed as a peacemaker at the end of the Bosnian civil war.

 

[andycapp]

Originally posted by dannyevilcat
The only problem is that neither of these actions were done for the motives stated.

This is not the problem you suggest, we can debate the motives of the US and it's Allies in both these conflicts, it doesn't alter the facts of what occurred.

Saddam did invade Kuwait and the US and it's Allies responded; the Serbs tried to drive Kosovars from their homes and the US and it's Allies responded.

The point is the US and it's Allies were responding to the aggression of brutal dictators, with UN approval if I remember correctly, and yet the SKP statement suggests these actions were the moral equivalent of the Sept 11 attacks - if you can't differentiate between the two this discussion becomes pointless.

There simply was no ethnic cleansing of Kosovars.

Are you sure you wouldn't like to reconsider this statement? If you stick to this line then intelligent discussion with you is simply not possible - you are denying reality.

The Serbs were dealing with a terrorist organization within their own borders (the KLA is no different than the IRA). If this situation were occuring today, I don't believe for a second that NATO would have responded the same (though by no means would they have agreed with what was happening). NATO was simply seeking a new role for itself in a post-cold war world. It would simply be too touchy. And those airstrikes simply tore civilians as innocent as those victimized by Sept. 11th to sh*t. What military installations existed in, say, the hotels of Belgrade?
And the gulf war wasn't about stopping Iraqi aggression, but about protecting oil. Stopping aggression was certainly a result, so this is a case where morality and self-interests met. This is an oft-repeated claim, but it is true. It was also probably to prevent a regional "superpower" from rising which wanted Israel utterly annihilated.

About Milosevic, remember that he was hailed as a peacemaker at the end of the Bosnian civil war.

As I said we can debate the motives of the US and it's Allies in both these conflicts and I will agree that self interest was a major (though not only) motive so what?

It's stating the obvious to say that nation states conduct their international relations based mainly on self interest, it doesn't change the point I was making.

 

[knowltok3]

>>There are organizations in the US which are trying to prohibit anything but Europeans access to the US. I can't remember what the group is called. They had a billboard in Tampa that was taken down because it basically said that there would be no terrorism in the US if we only admitted Europeans....a pile of bull****, but that's where I heard it. Now...if these organizations were to succed where would these people go?? Since the US is the penical of freedom, we would be forcing them away. Thus the statement is true.

Now.....your going to say that is far fetched, but we can see the beginning of this already. Besides for internal "extreme" organizations the US is already imposing stricter immigration laws. Not to meantion the financial impossibilites of many people who want to escape their situation. The US doesn't offer flights for oppressed people. The don't fight their enemies to offer equality. The don't educate these people so that they can make their life better. WTH can they do???

That is how the US forces people to stay in their current situation. <<

I must disagree with your logic. The statement about the US forcing people to live in poverty is not true because of your first paragraph. A radical organization that buys a billboard in Florida does not make for a national policy of brutal international repression. People are allowed to have whatever opinions they want, no matter how wrong they are. Your example does not constitute proof.

Stricter immigration laws also does not prove the statement. If you have reliable statistics on national immigration quotas being changed, then you may have the beginnings of a case, but stricter immigration laws also include tighter checks on foriegn students lookig to learn to pilot commercial jets. US immigration had holes you could drive a truck full of immigrants through. Making the process better controlled and more regulated does not in and of itself prove that the US is actively forcing people to live in poverty and misery.

The US doesn't offer flights for oppressed people. The don't fight their enemies to offer equality. The don't educate these people so that they can make their life better. WTH can they do???

That is how the US forces people to stay in their current situation.

Let me get this straight. Are you saying that it is the US's responsibility to offer free flights to anyone who wants to come to the US? Are you suggesting that the US take it upon itself to actively impose equality by fighting the enemies of the oppressed? (And the statement was against any escalation of violence) Are you saying that it is the responsibility of the US to educate the people of the world (More than we already do, take a look at the college campuses near you)?

I don't see how not doing any of these things forces people to stay in their current situation. You can make a case, and it involves MNC's, exloitation of labor, the IMF and WTO, but you can't make it by complaining that the US doesn't offer free flights, or go to the third world to provide basic education. Mind you, I don't buy into that case, but it can be made.

Since the US is the penical of freedom

Not according to many of those that post on this board and live outside the US. I wonder if they are offering free flights. They certainly don't seem to be willing to commit to military action to free the oppressed masses. I'm also not aware of any national efforts on these nation's parts to educate the rest of the world either. I'm sure indepentant organizations exist to do this in these countries, just like in the US, but we are talking about the nations themselves. Considering the disdain that the world has for the US education system (I share it) I am amazed that anyone would want the US educating the world.

What military installations existed in, say, the hotels of Belgrade?

I don't know the specific instance you are reffering to, but military commanders have often used hotels as their headquarters while on campaign. Hotels generally being tall offer excellent positions to place snipers, mortars, and even light artillery. If there is an underground parking facility at the hotel it can even doulble as a crude bunker, and the numerous rooms do make for a rather convenient barracks.

Having not been there when the Hotel in question was bombed I can't say that any of this was the case, but I would guess that neither can you assert that these hotels were purely civilian and directly targeted with full knowledge of that fact. Mistakes can be made, and bombs do miss their targets. Neither of these are acts of Lunacy as the SKP statement asserts.

 

[CornMaster]

Originally posted by knowltok3
I must disagree with your logic. The statement about the US forcing people to live in poverty is not true because of your first paragraph. A radical organization that buys a billboard in Florida does not make for a national policy of brutal international repression. People are allowed to have whatever opinions they want, no matter how wrong they are. Your example does not constitute proof.

Stricter immigration laws also does not prove the statement. If you have reliable statistics on national immigration quotas being changed, then you may have the beginnings of a case, but stricter immigration laws also include tighter checks on foriegn students lookig to learn to pilot commercial jets. US immigration had holes you could drive a truck full of immigrants through. Making the process better controlled and more regulated does not in and of itself prove that the US is actively forcing people to live in poverty and misery.

Let me get this straight. Are you saying that it is the US's responsibility to offer free flights to anyone who wants to come to the US? Are you suggesting that the US take it upon itself to actively impose equality by fighting the enemies of the oppressed? (And the statement was against any escalation of violence) Are you saying that it is the responsibility of the US to educate the people of the world (More than we already do, take a look at the college campuses near you)?

I don't see how not doing any of these things forces people to stay in their current situation. You can make a case, and it involves MNC's, exloitation of labor, the IMF and WTO, but you can't make it by complaining that the US doesn't offer free flights, or go to the third world to provide basic education. Mind you, I don't buy into that case, but it can be made.

Let me just say this then. If we don't help them get out of their situation, then we ALL are partially responsible for it continuing. And the worst thing is....is that most people really don't care what happens over there. I know I don't have trouble sleeping at night. But we should. Sad state of the human world.....it only matters when it hits home. However I didn't have trouble sleeping on 9/11/01 either.

Not according to many of those that post on this board and live outside the US. I wonder if they are offering free flights. They certainly don't seem to be willing to commit to military action to free the oppressed masses. I'm also not aware of any national efforts on these nation's parts to educate the rest of the world either. I'm sure indepentant organizations exist to do this in these countries, just like in the US, but we are talking about the nations themselves. Considering the disdain that the world has for the US education system (I share it) I am amazed that anyone would want the US educating the world.

The Penical of Freedom statement was sarcasm aimed at rmsharpe and people with his type of views. The US is the one, the only, the ultimate, etc...

As you pointed out......it's not acurate, or my view either.

I don't know the specific instance you are reffering to, but military commanders have often used hotels as their headquarters while on campaign. Hotels generally being tall offer excellent positions to place snipers, mortars, and even light artillery. If there is an underground parking facility at the hotel it can even doulble as a crude bunker, and the numerous rooms do make for a rather convenient barracks.

Having not been there when the Hotel in question was bombed I can't say that any of this was the case, but I would guess that neither can you assert that these hotels were purely civilian and directly targeted with full knowledge of that fact. Mistakes can be made, and bombs do miss their targets. Neither of these are acts of Lunacy as the SKP statement asserts.

And this must be directed as someone else..so I'll leave it be.

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by andycapp



Yes, the attack on the World Trade Center was an act of lunacy (and hatred), as was the attack on the passenger jet over Pennslyvannia AND the attack on the Pentagon - perhaps SKP's ommission of this is an oversight?

Rather than examining why the "lunacy" of Sept 11 occurred, the SKP equates Sept 11 with US/Allied efforts to prevent ethnic cleansing in Kosovo (against the muslim Kosovars) and efforts to stop the aggression of that meglomaniac, Saddam Hussein, against a sovereign (Arab) nation, Kuwait.

The murder of innocent civilians of any group or nation is wrong. So precisely how do the deaths of people in Serbia, Palestine and Iraq tie in or justify what occurred on Sept 11?

To say this is distorted logic is an understatement.



So despite stating earlier that "terror is always terror" the SKP are now offering a justification for those that perpetrated the murder of Sept 11.

Apart from the fact it is simplistic and untrue to assert that the evils of this world are the responsibility of "a handfull of imperialist powers", how does this and the US support of Israel make the "connection" SKP draws with Sept 11.

And conveniently ignores Osama Bin Laden's own statements about the reason for his Jihad - hatred and determination to eliminate non-muslims according to his version of Islam.



This is just ideological padding to bolster the SKP's earlier (hypocritical) justification for the actions of the terrorists - how, precisely, does this relate to Sept 11?

Oh, silly me, now I understand, the US has made people all around the world very angry and therefore the only way they could express that anger was to attack the WTC and Pentagon - simple!



So the SKP are saying it's alright to do it through third parties such as terrorists.



This is called blaming the victims and the SKP don't miss the opportunity.



And so al Qaeda and Bin Laden should be allowed to continue their murderous ways? Or perhaps the "progressive and democratic forces" the SKP allude to, will convince Osama to change his ways. If, of course, we give him everything he wants.



Perhaps Sweden, like all countries committed to democracy and freedom, should take the necessary steps to counter religious extremism which is the the real cause for Sept 11, instead of resorting to mealy mouthed platitudes which the SKP seems to think is a substitute for effective action.

The fundamental problem with the SKP statement is that by viewing the events of Sept 11 through the distorting prism of ideology, the truth suffers.

How else to explain the glaring failure of the SKP to mention ANY culpability on the part of the Islamic world for tolerating and fostering the hatred of non-muslims which gave rise to Osama and his motley crew.

Come, on, andy. Your nitpicking. I've heard the entire 9/11 tragedy referred to many, many, many times at "the attack on the WTC". I understand that you were probably just breaking this down in order to find stuff to disagree with, but nitpicking is nitpicking.

And, I'm sorry, but please, PLEASE point out to me where it says that Bin Lauden and Al Qaeda should be allowed to continue their murderous ways. I read it over and over and I keep missing that part. I think it' smore a matter of, as has been the case over and over again, whenever someone disagrees with certain individuals, they are therefore supporters of terrorism. I think the US was wrong to put the lives of innocent civilians in Afghanistan at risk, so therefore, I support Bin Laden. Bullsh!t, dude.

I don't think this statement ignores anything. It said RIGHT OFF THE BAT....i mean right away, man....that they condemn the act. It's obvious to me that they find it disgusting. I think too many people can't get past the fact that this is a communist organization. They say right there that they reject terrorism.

What more do you want? What they are saying is "yeah, this was a horrible act. But we should all look in the mirror as horrible acts are not just committed by Islamic terrorists."

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by andycapp

The point is the US and it's Allies were responding to the aggression of brutal dictators, with UN approval if I remember correctly, and yet the SKP statement suggests these actions were the moral equivalent of the Sept 11 attacks - if you can't differentiate between the two this discussion becomes pointless.

Again, you are being biased, I think, because the SKP is a commie org and you are inclined to find fault with what they say. Because, again, I've read this and they DO NOT say that the actions of the US are the moral equivalent of the 9/11 attacks. What they ARE saying is that the US has committed acts of questionable moral standing, and there ain't no way to deny that.

This statement is not meant to say the US got what they deserved. This statement says that the US should look in the mirror when talking about wrong doings of others.

Sure, I think getting involved in Iraq and Kosovo were the right thing to do. We should also have been in Rwanda. If we want to be the leaders of the free world, we need to act like it, though. We didn't get involved in Rwanda because so many US conservatives are very much isolationists and Rwanda did not threaten America's interests in any way, so fine, let the people be slaughtered.