Mugabe is at it again - Page 2

Carver · March 25, 2003, 01:07

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither

Troll.

.01/10

Not a troll, it's the truth.

The US record on human rights is horrible, especially under Reagan. The US was the prinicipal driving force behind the Afghan war, the Nicaraguan war, the Angolan war and others. Reagan supported aparthied. It was the US that kept Mobutu ( a horrible leader) in power, because he let us have free access to Zairean territory so that we could do things like destabilize Angola.

Reagan is responsible for over a million deaths throughout the world. He should go to a war crimes tribunal before Saddam does. Many of the rebel groups Reagan supported were little more than terrorists.

It just reconfirms that the definition of terrorism is highly malleable.

Imran Siddiqui · March 25, 2003, 01:13

Quote:

Reagan supported aparthied.

Can you come up with any real proof on this and not parrot out the propaganda that he refused sanctions on S. Africa, while not stating why he did so (btw, the reason was that he believed in constructive engagement with S. Africa, you know the same thing we are doing with China).

Quote:

Many of the rebel groups he supported were little more than terrorists.

It just reconfirms that the definition of terrorism highly malleable.

Yes, you've almost streached it to its breaking point.

molly bloom · March 25, 2003, 01:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen

That's ad hominem in addition to being unrelated to the topic at hand, so try a better argument.

I certainly hope that this resurgence receives some official condemnation from everyone (I'd be even happier to see someone really kick Mugabe's ass).

No it isn't; I am pointing out that dictators and tyrants of much worse hue than Mugabe have been feted, lionised, fawned upon and doted over by the U.S. . Not any particular president, although the Gipper's grasp of reality was tenuous at best...

As for you n.y.e., sweetheart, old chum, your grasp of english seems limited. That dictators can grace the White House with their presence, does not mean that the incumbents of the White House are dictators. Given that I referenced the party favours shown to Doe, Mobutu, ul-Haq and others of their unsavoury kind, I would have though the meaning clear.

Must dash, the weekly America hate is calling. That's where we burn copies of Leif Garrett's records, American tan tights, throw Velveeta at the consulate and urinate on videos of 'My Mother, the Car'.

Imran Siddiqui · March 25, 2003, 01:22

When you get a Canadian pissed at American bashing, then you really must have gone too far

.

Kirnwaffen · March 25, 2003, 01:26

Quote:

No it isn't; I am pointing out that dictators and tyrants of much worse hue than Mugabe have been feted, lionised, fawned upon and doted over by the U.S. . Not any particular president, although the Gipper's grasp of reality was tenuous at best...

Ad Hominem extends to 'practice what you preach' arguments, which is exactly what you just presented. The foreign policy of the United States has no bearing on what leaders Chirac chooses to host, therefore making it irrelevant to that particular conversation.

Spiffor · March 25, 2003, 01:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
When you get a Canadian pissed at American bashing, then you really must have gone too far

.

NYE is an albertan, and as such is a defneder of America extraordinaire

notyoueither · March 25, 2003, 01:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Carver
Not a troll, it's the truth.

The US record on human rights is horrible, especially under Reagan. The US was the prinicipal driving force behind the Afghan war, the Nicaraguan war, the Angolan war and others. Reagan supported aparthied. It was the US that kept Mobutu ( a horrible leader) in power, because he let us have free access to Zairean territory so that we could do things like destabilize Angola.

Reagan is responsible for over a million deaths throughout the world. He should go to a war crimes tribunal before Saddam does. Many of the rebel groups Reagan supported were little more than terrorists.

It just reconfirms that the definition of terrorism is highly malleable.

The US record is horrible, until compared with all the other global powers. Not to mention that most of that record was racked up combatting a far more vile form of regime with a far worse record on human rights. What was it that Churchill said...?

Backing Muslims to fight the Red Army in Afghanistan was bad how?

Reagan was not the only part of the American government, although some would like to pretend otherwise. During his term sanctions were brought against SA, although he did not approve of them. Geez, what a dictator!

re War Crimes charges. Sure. Line up Gorbachev, Thatcher, Deng, etc. It would be a good show, if it were consistent.

re terrorism. Pfft. How many airliners blown up by American backed forces? How many school buses? None, or near none. Please don't cloud the real issue about terrorism by equating Muslims who fire stingers at Russian attack helicopters with Chechyns who hold theatres full of civilians hostage.

chequita guevara · March 25, 2003, 01:34

Ad hominem is an attack the messenger argument. Get your terms straight.

chequita guevara · March 25, 2003, 01:39

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
re terrorism. Pfft. How many airliners blown up by American backed forces? How many school buses? None, or near none.

At least two airliners, including one directly shot-down by the US. The other was a Cuban airliner which was blown up by Cuban-American terrorists. The man behind the bombing lives safely in South Florida today. The US bombed several buses in the Kosovo war and just bombed a bus full of civilians in Iraq (heading towards Syria) yesterday. Granted, this really doesn't come close to what Islamic terrorists have done.

On the other hand, our allies have slaughtered entire villages, depopulated whole regions. When it comes to evil in the world, Mugabe is very low down on the list, and we are very high on it. That fact that we aren't alone hardly mitigates that fact. We're supposed to be the good guys, not just another group of bad guys.

molly bloom · March 25, 2003, 01:39

The thread begins with an American pointing out Mugabe's and Zimbabwe's abysmal human rights record. Another American (rhetorically, I imagine) asks if Chirac didn't just recently host Mugabe.

The inference being that Chirac is somehow morally or intellectually, or just 'a la mode francaise' deficient at not recognising what an ogre has sat down to lime tea and madeleines with him.

I then wonder if the same doesn't apply to all the residents of the White House who failed to notice the bad smells given off by the likes Jimenez, or Doe, or Diem, or Shah Reza Pahlavi....

It seems invidious to single out M. Chirac, as I pointed out, when so many more extraordinary defenders of human rights have had tours of the Lincoln bedroom.

'NYE is an albertan, and as such is a defneder of America extraordinaire. '

A squarehead. That figures.

Imran Siddiqui · March 25, 2003, 01:41

che:

Quote:

Ad hominem

\Ad hom"i*nem\ [L., to the man.] A phrase applied to an appeal or argument addressed to the principles, interests, or passions of a man.

molly bloom · March 25, 2003, 01:50

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither

re terrorism. Pfft. How many airliners blown up by American backed forces? How many school buses? None, or near none. Please don't cloud the real issue about terrorism by equating Muslims who fire stingers at Russian attack helicopters with Chechyns who hold theatres full of civilians hostage.

'Tell me about the results of that car bomb going off, the unsuccessful assassination attempt that ended up killing 80 people. What was the result?

The CIA was training counterterrorist people to retaliate against our enemies over there. One of the people that was identified as a desirable target was Sheik [Mohammed Hussein] Fadlallah, who was the spiritual leader of Hezbollah and who had been alleged, rightly or wrongly, to have blessed one of the suicide bombers who operated against us.

The CIA has taken the position that the bombing in west Beirut that was directed against Fadlallah was carried [out] by ... people who weren't actually operating on our orders. However, it's very clear that we made it apparent to the people that we were working with that Fadlallah was a meddlesome priest, that we should get rid of him, that that would be looked up favorably.

The bombing took place in a public square when the mosque let out, and when it was thought that Fadlallah would be coming through. In effect, you had hundreds of people who were leaving the Muslim equivalent of church. More than 80 people were killed. The remark at the time was that everyone was certain it was a CIA operation, because everybody got killed except the target.'

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ws/hougan.html

Nearly not 80 innocent people killed. Only, not nearly enough.

Kirnwaffen · March 25, 2003, 01:52

Quote:

Ad hominem is an attack the messenger argument. Get your terms straight

Ad hominem (tu quoque) - The argument is invalid because the person making it does not 'practice what they preach'.

Quote:

It seems invidious to single out M. Chirac, as I pointed out, when so many more extraordinary defenders of human rights have had tours of the Lincoln bedroom.

Indeed it does, but the way in which you're argument was made appeared to justify Chirac's behavior and state that he is above criticism by Americans simply because past administrations have actively sponsored worse dictators.

1) If your intention is to justify Chirac's behavior in regards to Mugabe, do it without relying on fallacious reasoning.

2) If that isn't you're intention, clarify you're argument.

3) The policies and arguments of the United States, or any nation for that matter, have nothing to do with Chirac unless cited as an example. Thus far, you have only cited them as reasons that Americans should not criticize France.

chequita guevara · March 25, 2003, 01:54

The railway bombing in Bologna which killed around 80 people was done by a group funded by the CIA and the Italian military. The details of Operation Gladio that have come out in the past decade illuminate quite well the length to which the US and it's toadies will go.

notyoueither · March 25, 2003, 01:55

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

At least two airliners, including one directly shot-down by the US. The other was a Cuban airliner which was blown up by Cuban-American terrorists. The man behind the bombing lives safely in South Florida today. The US bombed several buses in the Kosovo war and just bombed a bus full of civilians in Iraq (heading towards Syria) yesterday. Granted, this really doesn't come close to what Islamic terrorists have done.

On the other hand, our allies have slaughtered entire villages, depopulated whole regions. When it comes to evil in the world, Mugabe is very low down on the list, and we are very high on it. That fact that we aren't alone hardly mitigates that fact. We're supposed to be the good guys, not just another group of bad guys.

Shot down by the USAF? KAL is coming to mind, but I doubt it was the USAF. Cuban-American paid by the US government to do the deed? Anyways, show me the civies targetting other civies. That is terrorism. I will condemn that.

The British did some pretty nasty stuff with weapons in the last win or die conflict they were in. Is the British government today 'evil'? How about the state of Great Britain? That was then, this is now.

And once more, please show us the post Cold War examples of how bad the USof A is.

molly bloom · March 25, 2003, 01:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen

Indeed it does, but the way in which you're argument was made appeared to justify Chirac's behavior and state that he is above criticism by Americans simply because past administrations have actively sponsored worse dictators.

I do not seek to justify Chirac's behaviour, nor does my argument support that. However the phrase 'people in glass houses' springs to mind. As does the phrase, 'if you lie with dogs, you rise with fleas'.

Kirnwaffen · March 25, 2003, 02:02

Quote:

However the phrase 'people in glass houses' springs to mind.

So the extent of you're argument is 'you should shut up because you're government did the same thing'?

If so, you're argument still qualifies as ad hominem.

chequita guevara · March 25, 2003, 02:08

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Shot down by the USAF? KAL is coming to mind, but I doubt it was the USAF.

The Iranian airliner shot down by an American ship was the one I'm think of.

Quote:

Cuban-American paid by the US government to do the deed? Anyways, show me the civies targetting other civies. That is terrorism. I will condemn that.

The man was a paid agent of the CIA. He planted a bomb aboard a Cuban airliner leaving Venezuela in the 1970s. It killed all 87 people on board. He was jailed for a time in Costa Rica, but the US leaned on them big time to let him go, and today he's retired in Miami somewhere.

Post cold-war? How about the School of the Americas, that continues to train torturers and murderers. The US supported the genocidal occupation of East Timor up to the very end. It continues to support the genocidal occupation of West Papua by Indonesia. Today the US supports the murderous government of Columbia, giving them two billion dollars in the last couple of years to continue slaughtering their own people. That's just a few examples.

We haven't changed. We just don't have a nuclear armed adversay to stop us anymore.

Carver · March 25, 2003, 02:11

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither

re terrorism. Pfft. How many airliners blown up by American backed forces? How many school buses? None, or near none. Please don't cloud the real issue about terrorism by equating Muslims who fire stingers at Russian attack helicopters with Chechyns who hold theatres full of civilians hostage.

Plenty. Those are exactly the kinds of attacks conducted by the US backed Contras in Nicaragua and the US and South African backed UNITA in Angola. These "freedom fighters" routinely laid landmines indiscriminantly where they would kill civilians. UNITA repeatedly attacked passenger rail cars and buses, kidnapping and/or killing the occupants.

And Reagan's friends in South Africa joyfully bombed church offices and other anti-apartheid officies. F.W. deKlerk finally admitted a few days ago that he knew the bombing of Khotso House (the South African Council of Churches) had been authorized before it happened - and apparently made no effort to intervene. Additionally, the South Africans liked terrorizing neighboring states by blowing up clinics and schools in Mozambique and elsewhere.

Carver · March 25, 2003, 02:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Reagan supported aparthied.

Can you come up with any real proof on this and not parrot out the propaganda that he refused sanctions on S. Africa, while not stating why he did so (btw, the reason was that he believed in constructive engagement with S. Africa, you know the same thing we are doing with China).

Constructive Engagement = give those good ole white boys a pat on the back

The US supplied South Africa with its first nuke reactor and weapons grade uranium for almost ten years. The US allowed South Africa's many chemical and biological weapons staff to freely enter the US and attend conferences and gather research.

The US didn't stop (as it obviously could) Israel from helping: build South Africa's jet fighter, the Atlas Cheetah (a direct derivative of the IAI Kfir); the South African nuclear weapons program; the South African ballistic missle program. Much Israeli tech is US derived, thus US tech was transfered to South Africa via Israel.

Reagan assisted the South African incursions into Angola and Mozambique with intelligence, satellite photos etc.

Imran Siddiqui · March 25, 2003, 02:29

Quote:

Constructive Engagement = give those good ole white boys a pat on the back

So with China we are giving the 'Asian boys' a pat on the back? Please. We can stop this 'Kill Whitey' argument now.

Quote:

The US supplied South Africa with its first nuke reactor and weapons grade uranium for almost ten years. The US allowed South Africa's many chemical and biological weapons staff to freely enter the US and attend conferences and gather research.

The US didn't stop (as it obviously could) Israel from helping: build South Africa's jet fighter, the Atlas Cheetah (a direct derivative of the IAI Krif); the South African nuclear weapons program; the South African ballistic missle program. Much Israeli tech is US derived, thus US tech was transfered to South Africa via Israel.

Reagan assisted the South African incursions into Angola and Mozambique with intelligence, satellite photos etc.

I fail to see how any of this deals with supporting apartheid. I see him supporting a government that was an ally against Communism. I fail to see how that leads to one think he condoned all that was going on inside of the country. Unless you think that if you support a country for ONE reason, then you directly support them for every reason. Attributing the specific to the whole, a common logical fallacy.

Carver · March 25, 2003, 02:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Constructive Engagement = give those good ole white boys a pat on the back

So with China we are giving the 'Asian boys' a pat on the back? Please. We can stop this 'Kill Whitey' argument now.

Who said kill Whitey? China has not dehumanized an entire race of people, consigning them to a life of political/economic inferiority from birth.

Quote:

I fail to see how any of this deals with supporting apartheid. I see him supporting a government that was an ally against Communism. I fail to see how that leads to one think he condoned all that was going on inside of the country. Unless you think that if you support a country for ONE reason, then you directly support them for every reason. Attributing the specific to the whole, a common logical fallacy.

Whether he "condoned" apartheid or not he supported it by supporting the government and the military that kept it in place. Saying they are anti-cummunist is not a valid defense for helping to enslave millions of people.

notyoueither · March 25, 2003, 02:51

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Shot down by the USAF? KAL is coming to mind, but I doubt it was the USAF.

The Iranian airliner shot down by an American ship was the one I'm think of.

Right. Now relate that to the original statement re terrorism. I recall the incident. It was in the Persian Gulf. A Navy ship mistook an airliner for a threat and shot it down. Where are the terrorists in civies intentionally targetting civies?

Quote:

Cuban-American paid by the US government to do the deed? Anyways, show me the civies targetting other civies. That is terrorism. I will condemn that.

The man was a paid agent of the CIA. He planted a bomb aboard a Cuban airliner leaving Venezuela in the 1970s. It killed all 87 people on board. He was jailed for a time in Costa Rica, but the US leaned on them big time to let him go, and today he's retired in Miami somewhere.

How effective do you think arguments would be if they relied on citations of Russian intelligence paying the perpetrators today, without confirmation somehow?

At any rate, I will not quibble more on the point. Terrorism is despicable, no matter who uses it and I am certain that some of the fellow travellers of the US in the past have used it. I don't think it needs more debate, unless it is unclear that what the US, and Canada for that matter, would have done during the Cold War is not something to judge current actions by.

Quote:

Post cold-war? How about the School of the Americas, that continues to train torturers and murderers. The US supported the genocidal occupation of East Timor up to the very end. It continues to support the genocidal occupation of West Papua by Indonesia. Today the US supports the murderous government of Columbia, giving them two billion dollars in the last couple of years to continue slaughtering their own people. That's just a few examples.

We haven't changed. We just don't have a nuclear armed adversay to stop us anymore.

How are you blaming Indonesia on post Cold War America? Does any form of contact indict? In that case, what about everyone else who has ever had diplomatic contact with their government?

I thought the US was giving aid to Columbia to aid in drug interdiction. Do you think the people the Columbian government is combattiing are nice guys? It's all Americas fault? Murderous? I think the cartels could redefine the term.

You don't need to look to Washington to find bad people, Che.

DinoDoc · March 25, 2003, 03:43

Quote:

Originally posted by molly bloom
The inference being that Chirac is somehow morally or intellectually, or just 'a la mode francaise' deficient at not recognising what an ogre has sat down to lime tea and madeleines with him.

The "horrible unilateralism" he employed to get him to the summit in the face of EU sanctions is more worthy of condemnation.

TheStinger · March 25, 2003, 04:59

Chirac is the villain in this, he who goes on about the EU acting as one, dropped sanctions against Mugabe for a week to enable him to come to France. This was soley to embarras the UK government. He gave support to a brutal dictator( not as bad as some but still a bastard) because Tony Blair quite rightly treats him like the arsehole he his.