I have no reason to believe the source is compromised. Suspect, perhaps. However, Chumpsky flat out ignores the entire source. I see no reasoning behind that. Thus, I wish to see him give a credible account as to why.
And remember that debriefing a defector, even a dishonest one, must be a pretty refined art by now at CIA and defense intelligence. If the defector were being deliberately misleading, our intelligence officers would pick up on it pretty quickly.
Really?
It doesn’t list the Berlin airlift as an unprovoked attack. Rather, it is a list of all U.S. military interventions, of which the Berlin airlift is one. Among the numerous U.S. military interventions in the last 25 years, I counted 14 that are clearly unprovoked U.S. attacks. There were others that are less clear.
I realize, now, that we live in an ahistorical society where the highly impoverished history we do get comes only from establishmentarians and liars like Stephen Ambrose. But, keep in mind that the USSR more than once offered to withdraw from East Germany on the condition that Germany would be an un-aligned country. The West rejected these offers with contempt, and the airlift was just one effort to keep the parts of Germany that were western controlled under western control. There was some good that came of it, no doubt, but it was pursued for the most cynical reasons, as always.
Furthermore, there is no more perfect example of an unprovoked attack than the U.S. bombing of Libya, which took about 100 lives. The pretext that was offered–namely, the bombing of a German discotheque–didn’t have the slightest amount of credibility. Indeed, German officials stated that there was no evidence of any Libyan connection. But, you know, Libya was a useful punching bag in the 1980’s when the cowboy in the White House was cowering under his desk in the oval office, surrounded by tanks to protect himself from Libyan hit-men prowling the streets of D.C. to try to take him out. What a joke.
Really? Most credible books I’ve read cite Libyan involvement in international terrorism. Maybe you can enlighten me otherwise.
I have not commented on the veracity of Iraqi defectors. To make a comment on that, I would have to know about which defector said what, what his or her background was, what his or her record was regarding the truth, what his or her vested interests were, etc.
What I question is the credibility of the U.S. government. When the U.S. government says “Iraqi defectors said such and such…” are we to trust them? Absolutely not! Especially when they present no evidence, but merely say “trust us.” The great American journalist I.F. Stone used to say, “The first rule of journalism is that governments lie. All governments lie.” As citizens of a democratic society (to whatever extent it is democratic) we should be skeptical of what our leaders tell us. They are not to be trusted without evidence.
Is it really necessary to go through the long list of lies that have spewed forth from the U.S. government? I mean, such a list would fill several volumes. A partial list would include lies about the blowing up the Battleship Maine to justify the ludicrously titled Spanish-American War, to lies about “Hun atrocities” to enter the capitalist war in Europe, to lies about U.S. interests in East Asia to justify the internment of Japanese-Americans, to lies about attacks in the Gulf of Tonkin to escalate the attack on South Vietnam, to lies about Libyan complicity in the bombing of a German discotheque to justify bombing Libya, to lies about Yugoslavia to justify the relentless attack on Yugoslavia, to lies about Iraq to justify the murder of close to two million Iraqis.
The list of lies about Iraq alone could fill several pages. They have lied continuously about Iraq’s weapons capabilities. They have lied about Iraq’s ties with international terrorist organizations. They have lied about Iraq’s compliance with weapons inspectors. And on and on.
To trust this vicious gang of murders, a gang that has shown is willingness to lie time and time again in order to further its goals, is crazy.
That is true, however it is beside the point. The U.S. bombed Libya on the pretext that it was a response to the bombing of a German discotheque in which two American military personnel were killed. They stated that they had proof of Libyan involvement, justifying the bombing. Even granting the absurd premise that this gives a country to bomb another country, in contravention of international law, the claim was a lie. They offered no evidence, and they had no evidence. They were lying.
Slow down there. Lies about blowing up the USS Maine? That wasn’t the government, Chumpsky, but Hearst’s yellow journalism more than anything. Lies to enter WWI? Ever heard of the fucking Zimmerman Note? And what lies were used as justification for internment of Japanese-Americans? It was certainly paranoia, but what lies? And what lies were made of Yugoslavia? And the murder of 2 million Iraqis? Most reliable estimates put the dead civilians of the Gulf War at a maximum of 35,000. Even those who believe the sanctions are the US’ fault (nevermind Saddam’s, or the UN’s for that matter) put the number at 500,000. Methinks you’re pulling arbitrary numbers out of your ass here.
So, rather than attack the gov’t on past ‘lies,’ how about you provide compelling evidence as to what the lie is, okay?
Uh-huh. Then why did Gaddafi admit the bombing?
“Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has admitted that Libya was behind the 1986 bombing of a Berlin disco in which three people were killed, the daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reported Tuesday.”
http://www.arabia.com/news/article/english/0,11827,46817,00.html
How come members of the Libyan secret services are currently wanted by Germany for prosecution?
And then how about the messages the NSA discovered?
“On March 25, the NSA intercepted a message from Tripoli to several European Libyan embassies reading: “Prepare to carry out the plan.” One of the embassies was in East Berlin. Another message from the Libyan embassy in East Berlin to Tripoli reading “We have something planned that will make you happy” was intercepted just before the bombing as was a message reading “an event occurred. You will be pleased with the result” after the bombing.”
The evidence is rather damning, Chumpsky.
Lordy, lordy.
Two points:
(1) Gaddafi admitted no such thing. From the Guardian report:
“A lawyer for the survivors of an earlier terrorist bombing -at a Berlin disco in 1986 - told a Berlin court yesterday that he had evidence that the Libyan leader had accepted his country’s responsibility for that attack at a meeting in Tripoli with the chancellor’s aide, Michael Steiner.”
Where is the text of this supposed admission?
(2) When the U.S. bombed Libya, no evidence was ever produced to link Libya to the bombing of the dischoteque. Again, from the Guardian article: “It was the disco bombing that sparked off the air strikes of the same year against Tripoli and the port of Benghazi, ordered by the then US president, Ronald Reagan. American intelligence said that radio transmissions from the Libyan embassy in former East Berlin had shown Libya was involved.”
That is, they said, “Trust us, we have the evidence.” Of course, they were simply lying, since they never produced one scintilla of evidence. The evidence consisted of this:
“On March 25, the NSA intercepted a message from Tripoli to several European Libyan embassies reading: “Prepare to carry out the plan.” One of the embassies was in East Berlin. Another message from the Libyan embassy in East Berlin to Tripoli reading “We have something planned that will make you happy” was intercepted just before the bombing as was a message reading “an event occurred. You will be pleased with the result” after the bombing.”
It is difficult for me to imagine what kind of ideological blinders you have to have on in order to accept this as “damning evidence.” Evidence for what? That Libya had a plan and carried it out? A plan for what? What evidence is there that this cable had anything to do with the discotheque? You know, these are the kinds of questions that would be raised in a court of law. If the U.S. had the slightest respect for law, it would present some answers to these obvious questions. Of course, it didn’t, and just went ahead with its own brand of terrorism: terrorism from the air.
At any rate, even if Libya was behind the bombing, that does not give the U.S. the right to bomb Libya without first getting Security Council authorization. The bombing of Libya had nothing to do with the bombing of the discotheque. This was just the pretext used to persuade gullible people that it was justified.
I think it’s pretty clear at this point that Chumpsky is simply wasting our time here. If he doesn’t read cites that we provide (e.g., Daoleth’s second link) and refuses to provide cites of his own, all the while calling his opponents “liars”–how is it possible to “debate” such a person?
I don’t know. I made him his own little thread, though.
What they hell are you talking about? I freakin quoted from Daoloth’s cited website! And you can’t be serious about that “refuses to provide cites of his own” stuff. I have repeatedly offered cites and references to back up points of contention. True, I don’t provide cites to every single point, only when there is a question regarding a fact. At any rate, I doubt that the hysteria that has been caused by what I have written here has anything to do with my alleged lack of cites.
Anyway, carry on.
I’m still waiting for an answer from Chumpsky on this one.
You wish.
In your original post you refer to something being posted before. I think your referring to my “15 reasons to stop this war”. I can repost it if you like.
How would that make me a hypocrite? A hypocrite is generally considered to be somebody who advocates that others do things that he would not himself do. I am not saying that we should all go over to Baghdad. I think it is a very brave and noble thing people do, if they chose to do it, but I would not presume to tell others that they should put themselves in harm’s way.
That said, yes. Yes, I would. If I thought that it would make a difference, sure I would. I mean, you have to make a calculation here. There is no sense in just going over and committing suicide to make a point. But, if you can get enough people together to go and stand in solidarity with the people of Iraq, it could make a difference. Yes, I would do it.
On the other hand, those who advocate a war are advocating that the U.S. freakin’ kill tens of thousands of people, most of whom will be civilians, in fact, Saddam’s victims. If you are not willing to die yourself for the cause then it is the most rank hypocrisy to consign others to death for it.
Ah, Chumpsky admits he would commit a war crime- human shielding.
And then, dear C, what makes you think that tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians would die? Contrary to your imagination, the US doesn’t go in with the goal of accomplishing a high civilian body count. Expertise in precision bomb development has told us otherwise.
[Tommy Flanagan]Um, yeah. Yeah! Sure I would! Thaaat’s the ticket.[/Tommy Flanagan]
And if I were not too old for it, yes, I would be willing to train as a soldier or otherwise contribute to the war effort if my country required it. I would be willing to take the risks that go along with that as well.
But of course, you’re dwelling on the people in Iraq. Well, if I were an honorable soldier in Iraq fighting for what I believed to be right, then my answer would be the same as above. And if I were a civilian living under a tyrannical regime like Saddam’s, I would be willing to take the risk of becoming a casualty in order to see my country freed from the dictator.
So, what’s your problem with that?
Really?
Every scenario I have seen involves heavy bombardment of Baghdad, a city of 5 million. Although every government loves to lie about how precise their bombs are, bombs are not precise at all.
There is also the historical record.
First, there is the problem not of targets being missed, but of deliberate targetting of civilians and civilian infrastructure. In the first Gulf War, the U.S. targetted the civilian infrastructure, in the most intense bombing in history. This destroyed water treatment facilities, electrical power plants and other vital infrastructure that lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Now, there is no other point to bombing a water treatment facility other than to cause mass civilian deaths. So, this was just mass murder.
Apart from targetting the infrastructure, the U.S. also deliberately bombed civilians. Check out this article about the bombing of an air raid shelter that took 408 lives:
A place of tears
Given that many of the exact same people who committed these acts of mass murder in Gulf War I are going to run Gulf War II, it is extremely unlikely that they are going to be more precise. In fact, it is a virtual impossibility. I mean, if you know of a way to conquer Baghdad without heavy civilian casualties, I’d like to hear it.
And if he says no, he’s a hypocrite? C’mon.