Thursday, November 30, 2006

Defining the Factless Response

As usual your comments are bereft of any insight or intelligence. A substancial rebuttal usually implies doing more then [sic] quoting a couple of new york times columns.
Any legitimate rebuttal requires more than an ad hominem attack. The fact I was exposing in the history review post was the poor NYT reporter stationed in Afghanistan in 2001 covering a stone age country in chaos. A lonely beat until 9-11. To far leftists it was an idyllic state and then we ruined it. Uh uh.


Blogger riaz said...

First off let me start in typical Mark York ad hominem fashion. You're a complete idiot. What's obvious as day is that the commentator at Coopers was talking about our previous intervention in Afghanistan. The one in which we empowered, supported and armed the men who went on to become the Taliban and Al Quada, the folks Mujahadeen, folks who Reagan hailed as great freedom fighters. These people were trained, through CIA and Pakistani intelligenced, in guerilla warfare. How to target mass amount of people and inflict the same kind of terror the Contras were using in Nicaragua at the time. Not only that but funds were flooded into setting up reactionary madrases, buffing up the narrowest most reactionary forms of Islam, again with our support. The men who were reared on war and violence, who grew up in those madrasas then turned on their former funders, using the sajme techniques we encouraged they employ against the Soviets. A cruel irony indeed. Im noit surprised that this history escapes you, as youve never been ther sharpest fellow. And now I see that you dont even post full comments, choosing heavy editing instead. Oh well what does it really matter? This blog is read about as widely as "against a current" meaning youve probably got about three and fours readers.

ps this is Ahmed

1:27 AM  
Blogger Mark said...

Gee, would have never guessed from the atrocious spelling, lack of paragraph breaks, and the hostile tone. That is not what they were referring to at all. They meant the "idylic Taliban" who herd women like cattle, but they get a pass and somehow these byzantine cultural practices are Reagan's fault in your twisted world? I'm no fan of his, but only a fool with something to hide plays this master of the universe false cause fallacy and believes it.

The Mujahadeen became the Northern Alliance, not Al Qaeda and the Taliban you moronic witch. They were the ones helping us overthrow the latter two. What a dingbat.

8:24 AM  
Blogger riaz said...

To understand the question of who bears responsibility for the present situation, it will help to contrast two situations, that after the Second World War and that after the Cold War, and compare how the question of responsibility was understood and addressed in two different contexts.

In spite of Pearl Harbor, World War Two was fought in Europe and Asia, not in the US. It was not the US which faced physical and civic destruction at the end of the war. The question of responsibility for postwar reconstruction did not just arise as a moral question; it arose as a political question. In Europe, its urgency was underlined by the changing political situation in Yugoslavia, Albania, and particularly, Greece. This is the context in which the US accepted responsibility for restoring conditions for decent life in noncommunist Europe. That initiative was called the Marshall Plan.

The Cold War was not fought in Europe, but in Southeast Asia, in Southern Africa, and in Central America. Should we, ordinary humanity, hold official America responsible for its actions during the Cold War? Should official America be held responsible for napalm bombing and spraying Agent Orange in Vietnam? Should it be held responsible for cultivating terrorist movements in Southern Africa and Central America?

Perhaps no other society paid a higher price for the defeat of the Soviet Union than did Afghanistan. Out of a population of roughly 15 million, a million died, another million and a half were maimed, and another five million became refugees. Afghanistan was a brutalized society even before the present war began.

After the Cold War and right up to September 10 of this year, the US and Britain compelled African countries to reconcile with terrorist movements. The demand was that governments must share power with terrorist organizations in the name of reconciliation – as in Mozambique, in Sierra Leone, and in Angola.

If terrorism was an official American Cold War brew, it was turned into a local Sierra Leonean or Angolan or Mozambican or Afghani brew after the Cold War. Whose responsibility is it? Like Afghanistan, are these countries hosting terrorism, or are they also hostage to terrorism? I think both.

11:13 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

The Environmental Webring
The Environmental Webring
[ Join Now | Ring Hub | Random | << Prev | Next >> ]