I happen to agree with you re: appologism, however surely you're not suggesting that Mr. Chomsky be denied his right to state his opinions on the Sunni/Shia struggle?

History used to be written by the victors, but in the present day if the victors are not 'World Powers' then they have little control over how the future will view them. History is now written on the web for all to see.

 

Martin Ingram Aka Ian Hurst represents British attitudes of the Irish.He is a mouthpiece for the Brish Ruling Class.

"In a calculated blow, Diana went on to suggest Charles was not fit to be king and that her son, Prince William, should carry on the succession after Queen Elizabeth II's death.
A Machiavelian struggle for political influence began, with sections of the ruling class and the media stoking up the conflict between the Windsors and the Spencers to strengthen their own political standing.
The erosion of all the institutions through which some form of popular control was exerted over the ruling elite, the narrow base of official politics, pose grave dangers to the democratic rights of the working class. The type of skullduggery exposed in the palace is the expression of a diseased social order. It should not be seen as the exception, but the rule. There is no reason to believe that the rest of Britain's ruling elite will prove any less willing than the Windsors and the Spencers to employ whatever means are deemed necessary in order to preserve their own privileged existence."

More news at http://www.jackgrantham.blogspot.com/

This is the correct link  http://ingramis.blogspot.com/

Martin Ingram aka Ian Hurst is a liar

The person who calls himself Martin ingram but is in fact ex Int Corps SSgt Ian Hurst (known as rocky) is a liar of the highest order. His book STEAKNIFE is almost complete fiction, as are his assertions that Martin McGUINNESS was an agent of the state. He is dementedly lying completely about his past service in FRU. He only ever served in sleepy backwaters of the Province and never came face to face with anyone except low level eyes and ears agents. He never ran STEAKNIFE or even met him. In short, his book is a complete fabrication based on god knows what. He endangers the lives of serving and former soldiers as well as civillians with his ridiculous fairy tales. Hopefull he will appear in court at some of the current inquiries and investigations so he can be shown to be the liar he really is.

This news comes from http://ingramis.blogspot.com/

And more news at http://jackgrantham.blogspot.com/

This is not off topic

O! Bring your beautiful shores and thy hope's beacon,
Shine light down on them equally, a white hotness!
You are thirsty; laden with the soul's strained lumber
And filled with dread and death soaked in the ache of living.

O! Cry out rain of fortune! Cry out from thy staggered torrent
And pitiable veil of bereavement! I am thy mourning cradle!
I am thy tongueless teacher pacing the cave of thy day
And wrestling thy fragile soul in your hours of darkness!

O! Bring thy beautiful shores and thy hope's guiding light
Douse them with the flame of thy shelled out yearning!
Be thy hungry? Feast upon the bomb-wrapped soul of thy enemy
Nurture thy pangs with the blood of fellow man in a gentle manner.

Soak your tears upon the moist cloth of mankind.
Wrap thy arms around her and carry her to your bed
Where thou can dream of perfection and stained expectation
Only to be shaken wide-eyed by thy dreams of slaughter
And finally see that, indeed, both cravings, both aspirations
Might so effortlessly stroke one another in madness.

Since, according to Pangaea, I'm victim of an "indoctrination system" that works so well that "Stalin and Hitler would have been impressed", I suppose I might be excused if I turn out to have been mistaken. But then, what should we say of Pangaea and other VOLUNTARY Chomsky-clones in this forum when it turns out that they believe sheer nonsense in the face of overwhelming information to the contrary, just because Guru Chomsky said it? As a matter of fact, the idea that the blowing up of Air India flight 182 was an act of American terrorism is so outlandish, so absurd, so utterly ridiculous, that only a member of a cult in need of professional deprogramming could believe it. Air India flight 182 that took off from Montreal on June 23 1985 was blown up by Sikh terrorists, who also attempted to plant a bomb on Air India flight 301 to Tokyo (which blew up in the airport at Tokyo, killing two Japanese baggage-handlers and injuring four others but sparing hundred of lives). An extensive trial in Vancouver, Canada, and numerous investigations by journalists, terror experts, and others, leave zero rational doubt that this was a plot by Canadian-based Sikh terrorists. While two Sikhs accused at the trial received a not-guilty verdict because of bungled evidence on the part of the Canadian authorities, another Sikh named Inderjit Singh Reyat pleaded guilty to making the bomb and received a ten year sentence in 2003. Tara Singh Hayer, a publisher and member of the Order of British Columbia, claimed to have overheard one of the accused admit while at a Sikh newspaper office to his part in the bombing; Hayer was subsequently assassinated, removing a key witness. The facts: On June 22 a Sikh man convinced an airport clerk, after a dispute, to direct-connect his bag with an Air India flighting leaving Toronto to India via Montreal and London-Heathrow. The perpetrators were members of Babbar Khalsa, a Sikh terrorist gang, and their motivation was Punjabi separatism. All 329 passengers and crew were killed, including 22 Americans, 160 Canadian nationals, and more than 100 Indian nationals. Not a shred of evidence in the trial, nor an iota of common sense, could possibly link this in any relevant way to the U.S. government. If Chomsky and Pangaea thinks this is an example of U.S. "state terrorism", indeed their BEST example, then Pangaea's conclusion that it's "pretty sad" that "indoctrination" is working so well is quite correct, but not for reasons that he thinks. Chomsky's claim is that some wacko American mercenary who had had "ties" (whatever that means) to U.S. intelligence had been involved in the plot. Even if this were true, and anyone familiar with Chomsky would be well advised not to accept it at face value, the notion that this could somehow be an example of U.S. "state terrorism" is just an example of anti-U.S. propaganda, exactly as I stated in my original posting. So thanks, Pangaea, for providing yet another example confirming my claim. Either the agent, if he was involved at all, was not working for U.S. intelligence at the time, or else he did not know he was being used by Sikh terrorists. This is all incredibly silly. Incidentally, Chomsky provides two sources for his claim. One is his own book! That's pretty typical of Chomsky. The other is an old article in the Atlantic Monthly (1987), written years before the trials and major investigations. Other claims that Chomsky makes in the piece Pangaea cites are equally spurious, which close readers of his books not indoctrinated into the Chomsky cult are by now familiar with. Despite the numerous refutations and exposures of Chomsky's claims, to my knowledge he has never once apologised or even admitted to have erred. I guess that's to protect cult-members like Pangaea disillusionment.

It's pretty sad when telling the truth is refered to as "anti-U.S. propaganda". Looks like the indoctrination system we currently live in works quite well. Stalin and Hitler would have been impressed. You asked for examples of US terrorism. It's easy to turn to Iraq (or many other countries), but I'll turn to examples Chomsky comments in lectures from time to time. "Turning to the 1980s, consider 1985, when media concern peaked. The major single terrorist act of the year was the blowing up of an Air India flight, killing 329 people. The terrorists had been trained in a paramilitary camp in Alabama run by Frank Camper, where mercenaries were trained for terrorist acts in Central America and elsewhere. According to ex-mercenaries, Camper had close ties to US intelligence and was personally involved in the Air India bombing, allegedly a "sting" operation that got out of control. On a visit of India, Attorney-General Edwin Meese conceded in a backhanded way that the terrorist operations originated in a US terrorist training camp. Any connection of a terrorist to Libya, however frail, suffices to demonstrate that Qaddafi is a "mad dog" who must be eliminated. In the Middle East, the main center of international terrorism according to the canon, the worst single terrorist act of 1985 was a car-bombing in Beirut on March 8 that killed 80 people and wounded 256. "About 250 girls and women in flowing black chadors, pouring out of Friday prayers at the Imam Rida Mosque, took the brunt of the blast," Nora Boustany reported three years later: "At least 40 of them were killed and many more were maimed." The bomb also "burned babies in their beds, killed a bride buying her trousseau," and "blew away three children as they walked home from the mosque" as it "devastated the main street of the densely populated" West Beirut suburb. The target was the Shi'ite leader Sheikh Fadlallah, accused of complicity in terrorism, but he escaped. The attack was arranged by the CIA and its Saudi clients with the assistance of Lebanese intelligence and a British specialist, and specifically authorized by CIA director William Casey, according to Bob Woodward's account in his book on Casey and the CIA" Source: http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199112--02.htm IIRC Chomsky mentioned this on his recent trip to Ireland as well. The Norwegian peace researcher Johan Galtung has drawn some guidelines: Military v Civilian => State-terrorism Military v Military => War Civilian v Civilian => Terrorism Civilian v Military => Resistance/Guerilla fighting

Terrorists deliberately target civilians. The U.S. army does not. Chomsky thinks he's very clever, saying he is "bending over backward" to call the U.S. war against Nicaragua "just" "extreme international terrorism", as oppsoed to the "much more serious crime" of aggression". This is rubbish piled upon rubbish.

Chomsky has gone much further into the issue of the Nicaragua war and has elaborated upon his stances on it in much greater detail in other places.  I suggest you gather all of the materials which pertain to these matters and read them over before you so quickly pass judgment on Chomsky's conclusions.  When you do so, you will find that you will have to seriously reconsider the second sentence of the passage I quote from you.

Terrorists deliberately target civilians. The U.S. army does not. Chomsky thinks he's very clever, saying he is "bending over backward" to call the U.S. war against Nicaragua "just" "extreme international terrorism", as oppsoed to the "much more serious crime" of aggression". This is rubbish piled upon rubbish. In the first place, "aggression" is not a "much more serious crime" than terrorism unless it is on a massive scale, i.e. the Nazi aggression and accompanying war crimes where tens of millions died. Comparing the American indirect (via proxy) aggression against Nicaragua's Sandinista government (that had taken power in a coup) to Nazi aggression is morally and intellectually ludicrous; unless you want to say that the aggression displayed in Syrian and Iranian support of Hezbollah, Iraqi Ba'ath support for Hamas and Islamic Jihad, both Pakistani and Iranian support of successive proxies in Afghanistan, is similar to "crimes for which Nazi war criminals were hanged at Nuremberg". The definition of terrorism is clear: deliberate attempts to injure, maim, or kill innocent civilians for political purposes. I challenge Chomsky to cite instances in recent history where the U.S. has committed acts of that sort.

Cyrano,

I thought people would realize I was being sarcastic.  The comment I made was inspired by reading Chomsky's thoughts on intellectual property, here.

I had failed to mention that I noted the US as being proponents of one-way trade liberalization with countries in Africa and the like.

Ah well. 

 

layla you dont like PLO very much, does the alternative look cuter ?

Cyrano, no not really. The UN has a proposed definition, which in my understanding isn't binding. 

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html 

Just an FYI....I am not providing disinformation.  I am who I am and who are you?

Because ZNET is renovating its site I was unable to post under my other name and could not discover how to recover the old password.  Nothing there darling.

The US didn't invade Lebanon.  Just FYI.  The US attacked Lebanon and had personnel here but they never "invaded" Lebanon.  They fired on muslim neighborhoods (from warships) at the behest of their Xtian backed Phalangist party and were held responsible for their actions (including their so-called promise to protect the PLO, as if those butchers required protection).  Nothing more and nothing less.  The origin of Hezbollah is the ISRAELI invasion and OCCUPATION.  Fust FYI.  When the Israelis first entered Lebanon they entered in a rain of rice, as if in a wedding but things soon went astray....as anyone could guess that they would.  No disinformation though..these are simply historical facts you can obtain in the most rudimentary of history books about the Middle East.

http://carmenisacat.blogspot.com/

I really don't see anything mysterious about such a thing at all.  The reason most people accept with fanatical fortitude such principles can be summed up in one phrase - psychological operations.  PsyOps can and is inflicted on people culturally from birth and/or later in in the form of scientifically applied methods designed to sway and change the behavior of entire societies.  When a human is battered daily with certain concepts which are either negatively or positively reinforced through their parents, schools, friends, government, and media for the whole of their lives, anything can become Truth.  It's not that people are taught not to think or make rational decisions, but that they are taught to do so ONLY within the confines of certain perceived truths, building upon what already has been placed as foundations. 

It's ok if you question and analyze various forms of democracy - just don't question democracy itself.  It's ok if you question certain interpretations of the US Constitution - just don't question the value of the Constitution itself.  It's ok if you question various takes on evolution - just don't question evolution itself.  It's ok if you criticize and question various forms of free market liberalization - just don't question the concept of free market liberalization itself.  You get the drift here.

Humans are social creatures.  We need the comfort and security of the herd.  So if one starts posing the wrong questions, one can find oneself in deep, deep dodo vary fast - even with friends and family and colleagues.   On the other hand, if ones praises such foundations even while questioning all things built upon those foundations, one is subject to very warm fuzzies from from everyone, and even encouraged to keep up the "radical and independent" thought. 

So we set the dogs loose to settle it between themselves as to who should take possession of the bone.  Bush's dog proceeds to take my dog apart, and after he is finished walks calmly away with the fruits of his labor.  Once again, market freedom has won - neither Bush nor I influenced our dogs in any manner.  Each dog had full freedom to go after the bone.  I could have pulled my gun and shot his bloody dog in the leg, but I didn't, though I deeply suspect that had my dog by some miracle gained an advantage over his, he would have shot mine dead before he could claim his reward.

I don't think this kind of analogy will work in a debate against a free-marketeer because they would argue that the situation you describe between the dogs isn't exemplary of market conditions since physical coercion is used by one of the dogs to subdue the other.  Where coercion comes into play in market politics is in how the "owner" of something gets to dictate to everyone else how that something is to be used regardless of whatever effects such a usage may have on others and is supported in making their sometimes excessively-bold pronouncements by the judicial system and the police.  It's really as simple as that; the idea doesn't really require much further elaboration, if any at all.  Capitalism is nothing more than a thoroughly euphemized form of dictatorship.  It's so easy to conceive of it as a dictatorship that I often wonder why so few people can seem to be able to see it as being so.  Then again, the unwavering devotion expressed by so many to other laughably nonsensical and harmful conventions such as Christianity and Court TV's consulting of the "expert" opinions of crackpot graphologists on cases they feature appears to hint at an answer.

I have to say that when people want to push market freedom, I am thoughtfully reminded of an analogy.  If my friend Bush and I are walking our dogs past a butcher's shop and we come across a discarded, but very juicy bone, we both know that only one of the dogs has a chance at this.  My dog is fox terrier, quirky, energetic, smart, and quite independent.  Bush's is a pit bull - well, need I say more?  My good friend Bush convinces me that market freedom is the way to settle this minor dispute, and as I owe his friends a considerable amount of money, I naturally agree to his terms. 

So we set the dogs loose to settle it between themselves as to who should take possession of the bone.  Bush's dog proceeds to take my dog apart, and after he is finished walks calmly away with the fruits of his labor.  Once again, market freedom has won - neither Bush nor I influenced our dogs in any manner.  Each dog had full freedom to go after the bone.  I could have pulled my gun and shot his bloody dog in the leg, but I didn't, though I deeply suspect that had my dog by some miracle gained an advantage over his, he would have shot mine dead before he could claim his reward.

 There is no market freedom when strength goes against weakness, when rich go against poor, when the Law of the Jungle prevails.  And that is precisely what Capitalism is all about - not the advancement of social order and enlightened civilisation, but instead the irrational and uncontrolled accumulation of capital in a world where the strong and the rich take all, and the rest of us are left to our ideals.

Victor raises an important point though. Economic Terrorism through measures by the IMF, WTO, World Bank and national institutions such as the US Treasury, are causing much more death and destruction than wars. Aggressive wars, such as the US' against Iraq, are horrible crimes, yet economic sanctions, "free trade", liberalisation etc are not crimes at all. They are in fact the policy of the West. Then there are for instance TRIPs, that cause great suffering in especially

I agree.  If I recall correctly, Milton Friedman claims that a free-market is the most libertarian of all of the modes of societal organization because there exists no mechanism for coercion within it.  However, Friedman builds his case on a very narrow definition of "coercion," namely that which limits our awareness of coercion to instances of physical force.   A wealthy man's ability to inflict privation upon a poor man gives the former leverage over the latter.   In light of that, it is indisputable that deprivation can act in a coercive capacity just as effectively as violence.   In fact, it is the prime modus operandi by which the market forces everyone to integrate themselves into itself.  Right-wing "libertarians," when presented with these observations, will usually scoff at how we understand coercion and will protest at our elucidating it in such a broad fashion (Ludwig von Mises would have probably claimed that we're just "jealous" of those most empowered :P).  In issuing a rejoinder to their complaints, one needs only to point to their past condemnations of the artificially-induced famines Stalin utilized to silence anti-Stalinist sentiment.

(This is the same message as that which appears above with the exception of a few corrected typos.  The "edit" function isn't working for me and I'm a little compulsive about mistakes I make when I write.  Please forgive me.) 

Victor raises an important point though. Economic Terrorism through measures by the IMF, WTO, World Bank and national institutions such as the US Treasury, are causing much more death and destruction than wars. Aggressive wars, such as the US' against Iraq, are horrible crimes, yet economic sanctions, "free trade", liberalisation etc are not crimes at all. They are in fact the policy of the West. Then there are for instance TRIPs, that cause great suffering in especially

I agree.  If I recall correctly, Milton Friedman claims that a free-market is the most libertarian of all of the modes of societal organization because there exists no mechanism for coercion within it.  However, Friedman builds his case on a very narrow definition of "coercion," namely that which limits our awareness of coercion to instances of physical force.   A wealthy man's ability to inflict privation upon a poor man gives the former leverage over that latter.   In light of that, it is indisputable that deprivation can act in a coercive capacity just as effectively as violence.   In fact, it is the prime modus operandi by which the market forces everyone to integrate themselves into it.  Right-wing "libertarians," when presented with these observations, will usually scoff at how we understand coercion and will protest at our elucidating it in such a broad fashion (Ludwig von Mises would have probably claimed that we're just "jealous" of those most empowered :P).  In issuing a rejoinder to their complaints, one needs only to point to their past condemnations of the artificially induced famines Stalin utilized to silence anti-Stalinist sentiment.

 

That one way to put it.. Does the UN have a definition of terrorism ?

You are of course correct. Guess I was a bit quick on the trigger. Victor raises an important point though. Economic Terrorism through measures by the IMF, WTO, World Bank and national institutions such as the US Treasury, are causing much more death and destruction than wars. Aggressive wars, such as the US' against Iraq, are horrible crimes, yet economic sanctions, "free trade", liberalisation etc are not crimes at all. They are in fact the policy of the West. Then there are for instance TRIPs, that cause great suffering in especially Africa. And then the G8 called the last round the "Development Round". This was supposed to be about the poor nations of the world. And they did nothing to easen their pain. From the UDHR: "everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family, including food…". This is a fundamental human right, and yet the West through its policies, corporations and global economic system, couldn't care less about this right. As this right is included in international law, and by extension US law, it counts as "Terrorism".

I would agree with Mr Chomsky's definition of terrorism with an added dimension to consider.  We usually think of terrorism in terms of violence and harm to human life.  But I believe that there exists also intense military, political, and economic acts designed to intimidate and influence a population or a government.

There are countries all over the world whose governments and peoples are shackled by economic forces driving them to hunger, poverty, disease, lack of education, privatisation of social services, privatisation of national assets, unfair trade restrictions, and crushing debt.  This is what terrorism is all about.  Forcing people into economic slavery through debt, forced market "liberalisation", and always a veiled threat of military/police action if behavior is not satisfactory.  This is true terrorism, the very worst kind of terrorism - the kind that robs people of their dignity and freedom of choice, takes away their homes and livelihoods, drives them into poverty and starvation, leaves them without adequate medical care, drains their countries of its wealth and natural resources, pollutes their skies and rivers, destroys their forests and wildlife, threatens their families with midnight raids by secret death squads trained, financed and equipped by the CIA and like organisations that kill, rape and torture. 

 This is true terrorism by anyone's account, leaving people to live in fear of the next day.

And who is responsible for all this misery?  Who are the REAL terrorists?  Look no further than the greedy G-8 and its premier leading light, the USA. 

Defining terrorism isn't easy. There is no doubt that the US is heavily involved in terrorist activity, but I think Noam's quoted definitions are too weak. I agree with (B), but (A) is too generic. Terrorism "involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life". This would make for instance drunk-driving a terrorist act as it clearly is a danger to others on the road, and often causes the loss of life.

Pangaea, note that the Boolean operator used in the definition Chomsky provides is not "or," but "and." This means that both criteria must be fulfilled, so each one’s scope is qualified by the other. Drunk driving may be consistent with criterion A, but since actions deemed to be terror are not simply all of those actions that meet criterion A, but instead a subset of A which also meets B, drunk driving cannot be classified as being a terrorist act.

SeventhCycle, that is the same retheoric used during the Napoleonic wars, the US is far away from trade liberalizations, the US is always forcing one way ticket trade enclosures. The US always tried to installed puppet governments from which a small eleite favorable to the US actually make monies, the rest of the population usually starves Trade liberalizations really could occurs only when the US does not interfer with the trades of another country..The US interference with the trade IRAN- CHINA is an example.. Have you ever asked yourself why China does not perceive Iran as a nuclear threat when the US say it feel threatened? I recently read a title in the news soon after an agreement was reached between Russia and Iran, Russia is to enrich uranium for Iran.. there , end of story, Iran is no longer a threat..The next thing I read on the YAHOO news is THis: IRAN HAS ANOTHER WMD, IT IS CALLED CRUDE OIL! WOW! see this SeventhCycle? This is the sort of BU**SH**! the US has been feeding us ? Was it that sort of "WMD" Bush looked for in Iraq ? let me tell you , he found plenty of "Crude Oil". its about trade and oil interest, if you were to allow a true liberalization of oil prices, you would have cheaper oil , this would reduce the profits for Bushes friends, Bristish and US banks , it could affect the profit of a lots of people. Tell me where DO you PROFIT from This ?, you dont profit at all, mainly it is costing you more sustaining wars to ensure a profit for the Bushes and the like. You dont make money from it, actually you COPE!

Look at history. What has the US done? Is it a violent aggressor, a terrorist state? Or is it a peace-loving nation? If things still are unclear look at what the US spends on the military. Look at what Bush requests for the military and Iraq. Does this look like actions of a peace-loving nation? Defining terrorism isn't easy. There is no doubt that the US is heavily involved in terrorist activity, but I think Noam's quoted definitions are too weak. I agree with (B), but (A) is too generic. Terrorism "involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life". This would make for instance drunk-driving a terrorist act as it clearly is a danger to others on the road, and often causes the loss of life. PS: Would be nice if the comments were the other way around; oldest first, newest last. We're used to reading downwards... It's a bit of a mess right now. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." - Mahatma Gandhi "When the government fears the people, you have liberty. When the people fear the government, you have tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson

layla-calico.. Hi and there you are attempting acts of disinformation again. Your apologitic comments about the US cannot stand again for the simple reason that in Iraq the US is an occupier and the population is resisting under fundamentalist islam. IF the occupied territories were not "occupied" you would not have Hamas or Fatah.. you would not have an "elected resistance" If israel did not invade Lebanon, you would not have Hezbollah If the US was not the main instigator of agression and terror in Iran, it would still be a democracy there since 1950. If the US wasnt threatening Iran right now, you wouldnt havea an elected" amandine the bad" over there remove the stressors and you don't have a problem in the middle-east. Clearly the problem in the Middle-East appears to be the US. Arabs and muslim knows that and where ever they are they vote against the US for the simple reason that the US is perceived has murdering their kids.

layla, try to stay on topic.. The real question is : Is the US guilty of terrorism by its own definition? The answer is infinetely guilty, just look at the past 50 years, you will see that the US is the LEADING WORLD INTERNATIONAL TERRORIST STATE.. It export more terror than it export cars, you know that, don't you ?

BIG LETTERS FOR OLD PEOPLE This is not a tirade or a lecture, it is simply a thing not to be liked much like tirades and/or lectures. It has a basis in everything I know that you don't know and some of what you know that I don't. First, I am very angry at having been sent to the bottom of the page in Reader's Digest, the one with big letters for Old People. Secondly, I am going to feed my dog and while I am feeding that dog I'm thinking of Israel, the Mogen David and a curious thing called Niggis. That's what you don't know. You also don't know about trocars in the same way I know about them having handed them over with innocent face and all. There are conspiracies and plans, most of all there are knowledges built around the fundamental axis of irregularity: Eye closures, car accidents, things that CHANGE US, like a piddly article in the READER'S DIGEST On some old bag's nightstand. Niggis, for what it's worth involves a surly noise at six a.m. in which I look out to find my favorite dog friend, BUSH, what a name to give a dog! Find him being tormented by a young muslim woman with two children, on her way back from the dumpster down the street: It's Alice's Restaurant you know. Her concern is to put enough sticks into the eye of the dog so the satanic force called his saliva won't ruin her pretty religious countenance. I ask her: “What in the HELL are you doing? Wa salaam wa' alaikum?” She looks up from under a head scarf belligerent and points to the kids half-a-block-away already, and the dog INSIDE the purely impenetrable fence. No wonder dogs hate us and no wonder muslims hate dogs but I don't and I'm on my way up now to feed my muslima Jewel: Translates to Johara in an Old Testament Way in our language, the language of Niggeritis I've counseled one or two people on recently. So, Guthrie points at me and asks: "What in TARNATION are you doing?" I answer: When you see the photo of the naked men flanked by German Shepherds inside Abu Gharaib, when you look at that remember Niggis. It's not really about the Draft or the Sixties, In fact it's probably so far out of your realm that you can almost JUSTIFY it. Kind of like the READER'S DIGEST justifies a lot of what it has to say about: eye closures and car accidents, the alarming irregularity of it all, the alarming heroics of defending things you fail to understand, or undermining them with belligerent mind boggling simplicity. Personally, I enjoy it and would subscribe if my heart was really into it.

And furthermore...this is blatant apologism. I've nothing against you Noam but really....a history lesson from you regarding the Sunni/Shia struggle is in order PRIOR to you being a reliable source of information regarding anything save your own self promotion of Noamism. Here: http://www.geocities.com/rwvong/future/chomsky.html#1 http://carmenisacat.blogspot.com/

Hmm. Taking things out of context and an exhaustive exploration of examples of modern resistance (Hezbollah for example) and ruling them either ethical or not, is ridiculous. I'm muslim and don't agree with Palestinian resistance that injures and kills civilians of any stripe however they are still involved in resistance. The Sunni of Iraq are not involved in resistance but in the maintenance of their own narrow-minded power structure based on a minority opinion but your definition of the US as a terrorist nation thusly places their so-called struggle, by definition, as a 'resistance'. Any war or conflict is a resistance by that definition i.e. the US is "in general" the bad guy. The gray areas and the ignorant patches of the opinion makers and seekers play a far more important role in all of this. Noam, your ability to be a real good propagandist working against the Shia in Iraq and elsewhere is, in my opinion, a possibility. Why should anyone trust what you say? Because you are Noam? Quite frankly, you've proven nothing here other than a strong handle on economics and semantics. Not enough in this case I'm afraid and unfortunately, a dangerous tool in the hands of the general population who lack a historical framework beyond September 11 in their attempt to understand the US presence in Iraq. Why...I just read a poet (historian by education) who wrote a last line linking Iran and the Twin Towers. Imagine my shock and disgust. By the same token, this blanket description of the US as usurper there doesn't really remedy anything but your own ego and conscience (supposedly). One wonders: Is Noam a democrat? http://carmenisacat.blogspot.com/

If one defines terrorism in a scope that justifies acts in the name of trade liberalization, our country might then qualify as not possessing terrorist qualities. A cynical view, I know, but probably one that would solve this dilemma for our political leaders.