babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
Here we go again. On one hand you insist that ALL wars fought in other countries are by definition 'wars of aggression' and therefore war crimes, then you say the Allies NOT going after Hitler immediately after he invaded Poland is a sign they supported him. Well *which* is it? Again. Never mind, youre trying to bring Stalin into it -again- as if that has anything to do with my argument. Talk about deja vu. Give it up.
What kind of bullshit non-response responses are these?
Show me some specifics.
What ever you come up with, I'll respond to head on.
And you can take that to the bank.
Yeah?
Where?
Show me.
And your opinion has about as much significance to me as either communist party has to the 99% of Canadian workers who never vote for either.
Wrong:
Hitler supported Finland after Barbarossa June 21/22, 1941.
The U.K. government discussed support for Finland in 1940 but Finland sued for an armitice with the U.S.S.R. first and thus resolved the issue.
DUH -WW2 for one. Remember, that was what the first several times through were mostly about? But never mind, I'm familiar with the pattern of constant time-wasting diversion tactics in liue of rational debate. Why I first dropped out of Babble.ca a couple years ago.
I've addressed this issue before.
I am judging Britain and France according to their standards.
They declared war on Germany over (the invasion of) Poland.
Yet they did absolutely nothing.
Why?
According to you they were unprepared.
If they were unprepared, why did they declare war?
If they were unprepared for war, then obviously (to them) they had no intention of going to war with Germany over Poland - even though they declared war against Germany. Right?
Which underscores my argument that war is not fought for generous or humanitarian reasons. Right?
When Germany was invading Poland, France had as many tanks as Germany. France's tanks were technologically on par with the German Wermacht's. France had a multitude of artillery. France had as many aircraft as the German Luftwaffe. France's planes were technologically on par with the German Luftwaffe's. In 1939 and early 1940, France had twin and four engined modern bombers that were capable of dealing devasting blows to Germany. (Britain's) Royal Navy could have sent Germany's Kriegsmarine to the bottom of the ocean and shelled German forces during the Battle of Poland. Britain could have sent RAF twin engined bombers to bomb port facilities and industry in Germany and Wermacht forces in Poland. During the 1939-40 "sitzkrieg" Britain had dipatched the British Expeditionary Force to France.
So your claim that Britain and France were (physically) unprepared in 1939-40 to wage a War of Aggression against another Aggressor is fallacy.
Concerning Stalin and the U.S.S.R., I again address an issue you raised:
You clamed that Stalin "moved" into Poland first (I assumed it was to create a protective buffer between Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany) and later concluded the Nazi-Soviet Non Aggression Pact as a means to prevent Hitler from invading the U.S.S.R.
Again, you make the same claim for the U.S.S.R. as you do for the U.K. and France. That the U.S.S.R. was unprepared.
Again, I show this as fallacy:
If the U.S.S.R. could wage Wars of Aggression against Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria - then the U.S.S.R. was quite (physically) prepared to wage a War of Aggression to stop another Aggressor in 1940 when that Aggressor (Germany) was waging Wars of Aggression against Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, Luxemburg, France and Britain. Right?
If the purpose of the Nazi-Soviet Non Aggression Pact was peace, then why did the U.S.S.R. invade Poland? (the Nazi-Soviet Non Aggression Pact had protocols where it was agreed that the U.S.S.R. would invade eastern Poland.)
Again, this underscores my argument that war is not fought for generous or humanitarian reasons.
Let me stress again, that I am judging the actions of France, the U.K. and the U.S.S.R. by their own standards, not mine.
If you follow my analysis, France, the U.K. and the U.S.S.R. were not motivated to commit noble, generous or humanitarian actions. I judge them by their own standards and they fail miserably. Their actions were motivated by greed and cynicism.
My standards are that if France, the U.K. and other Western democracies honestly wanted to prevent another Great (European) War, they should have and certainly could have, by peaceful means taken steps starting on November 11, 1918 and moving forward that would have prevented Hitler and the nazis gaining strength and coming to power in Germany. As it turned out, by 1930 with the Great Depression and the Nazis looking like they could be a useful bulwark against the spread of Soviet Communism, the Western Democracies and capitalists assisted and enabled the nazis right up until late 1941.
You still believe that?
The last of the "WW2 Just War" diehards.
WW2 wasn't a just war.
It was just a war.
Like any other unjust war of choice that comes to mind.
The greater the destruction, the greater the atrocities and the greater the loss of life,
the more "just" we need to make the war in order to justify it and excuse why we didn't prevent it.
Twisting and turning, blah blah blah. They were UNable to do anything right away, as I wrote before. Proof being how easily the Germans overran France in the west, when it really counted most. Another common error I notice among the radical left is to always insist that everything happens by plan or purpose, accidents and errors are supposedly unknown among the powerful. I think I now know why, it's an ideological imperative to some, but I have neither the time nor patience to try and pry *that* pearl out either. You can believe whatever the f** you want; I will believe what I do until I see something that can convince me otherwise. I'm not bound to any all encompassing scheme; not when it comes to history or the humans who make it and interpret it.
Yes yes, I never SAid it was a JUST WAR. I said it HAd to be fought. There's a difference. As I already wrote several times. If we Didn't get involved THEN, the Germans would have wrought even MORE destruction to Europe. Hitler was hardly a Hussein or Qaddafi. I thought only the far right insist they're comparable threat. I know very few people who survived the Nazi depradations who would disagree, but hey, why consider what the actual victims of actual aggression say when YOu have a dogma to push.
German victory (like the previous German victories) was the result of human psychology and military tactics: Superior on the German side; inferior on the French side.
Had France and the U.K. waged a War of Aggression against Germany when Germany was waging a War of Aggression against Poland, the psychological effect this would have had on Germany in 1939 would have been the same as the psychological effect Germany had on France in 1940.
Had the U.S.S.R. waged a War of Aggression against Germany when Germany was waging Wars of Aggression against Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, Luxemburg and France, the psychological effect this would have had on Germany in 1940 would have been the same as the psychological effect Germany had on Poland in 1939 and Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, Luxemburg and France in 1940 and the psychological effect the U.S.S.R. had on Poland in 1939 and Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria in 1940.
It is good to read the history of this early period of WW2.
I am an antiwar/anti-interventionist libertarian and "paleoconservative."
You will find that my views differ from most other babblers.
Youre a 'paleo-conservative'? I stand corrected on that, then. Youre an isolationist like Henry Ford was. I now understand.
Re 'the early history', I've been reading about it since I was a kid myself and some facts remain pretty much undesputed. Re any 'psychological' advantages, it might have applied before Hitler rebuilt their war machine, but by the invasion of Poland it was probably too late. Relative military direction and weaponry counted for far more by then. The French had a fine armed force themselves but it was bound by the (incomplete) Maginot line and the mentality that went with it. THe BEF was totally outmatched.
Whatever. My point still stands. You cannot keep evoking a supposed moral absolute on one hand, then shift gears to supposed allied motives on the other to prove another secondary point that's supposed to support it. Not if you want to be believed.
The Nazis and those who supported their rise were responsible for much if not most of it, no matter how much America has misused their expanded domain since.
You contradict yourself (above) here (below):
The fact that the U.K., its Commonwealth, Dominions and Colonies that participated in the European Theater of WW2 and the U.S. governments withheld forensic and first person eyewitness acounts of nazi atrocities against Jews and innocent civilians and the death camps when they had such evidence as early as 1939 (Poland) until the last weeks of war and after, tells one that no nation or government fought WW2 for the noble or humanitarian reason of saving the Jews.
In my opinion, although there are no moral or "qualitative" differences in wars,
there are "quantitative" or differences in (physical) degree.
Because WW2 was more destructive, resulted in more loss of life and more (in terms of number) atrocities committed,
WW2 is "quantitatively" greater or more destructive than the Libyan war.
Indeed Gadhafi is no Hitler and in fact, I have never made such a comparison.
When it comes to the "Just or (necessary) War" warriors,
WW2 was Just (or necessary)
Libya, by comparison, is either not as "just" or is not "just" or necessary at all.
Oh, and it very well COULd have happened. If he was sane enough and smart enough that is, to keep to his Soviet pact long enough to finish off the BRitish, and invaded them directly instead of merely trying to bomb them into submission, when he had the chance. If other allied countries hadn't intervened at all, even indirectly, as many US isolationists back then resisted.
Whether he would have fought Stalin later for the rest would have been cold comfort to other Europeans.
Thats not a contradiction. Most survivers of the NAzi occupation were grateful to see them defeated. It doesn't make war 'noble' but original intents and concrete final results aren't always the same either.
I was referirng to all surviving Europeans whose countries he invaded, but regardless, to impugn the Allies real motives towards the Jews is also irrelevant to the point too. It wasn't sold as a war to save the Jews, but all of them caught in their territories would have died if they weren't eventually defeated. By foreign armies. I know of very few, outside the invaders and their Vichy collaboraters, who weren't grateful we intervened. Therefore sometimes foreign wars ARE just-ifiable, as a sheer necessity, even if not JUST as in noble, as the acts of warfare never are. Libya is neither such case. Gawd I hope this thread is shut down soon.
No.
We've been there before.
Henry Ford's isolationism enabled Hitler and the nazis.
I'm antiwar and anti-foreign (war) interventionist.
The words of Thomas Jefferson are my creed:
"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."
I think the actions of Jane Addams were exemplary.
I believe in the spirit of the Washington Naval Treaties, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, the 1936 Neutrality Act, etc.
I believe in preventing war through "honest friendship", mutual agreement and peaceful means.
You don't seem to be able to understand what empathy or the ability to see things or argue from another perspective is:
The U.K. and France "drew a line" and said to Hitler, "You have invaded Poland. You have 48 hours to halt and reverse your invasion. If German forces are not back behind German borders, consider France and the U.K. to be at war with Germany."
Your argument that WW2 was a "necessary" war is a fallacy.
At that moment, the U.K. and France chose to go to war against Germany. Something they chose to do, not what I would have done or argue for.
They threatened to wage a War of Aggression against Germany.
They declared war on Germany nominally to defend Poland which is a crock.
If Britain and France could choose to wage a War of Aggression against Germany by invading Norway and Belgium and with the BEF in France, then why couldn't/didn't they choose to wage a War of Aggression against Germany by invading Germany when Germany chose to wage a War of Aggression against Poland?
The only time France fought a (necessary) war of self-defense was the Battle of France in 1940. The only time the U.K. fought a (necessary) war of self-defense was the Battle of Britain in 1940.
If the U.S.S.R. wanted peace why did it sign the Nazi-Soviet Non Aggression Pact?
If the U.S.S.R. could choose to wage a War of Aggression by invading or attacking Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria, then why couldn't/didn't it choose to wage a War of Aggression against Germany by invading Germany when Germany chose to wage a War of Aggression against Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, Luxemburg, France and Britain?
The U.S.S.R. fought a (necessary) war of self-defense from June 21, 1941 to 1944 when it still fought within its borders (that would exclude Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.)
"Those who supported their [the nazi] rise were responsible for much if not most of it,..."
Which would include France, the U.K., its Commonwealth and Dominions (including Canada), the U.S., etc., all the isolationists, fans, anti-communists, enablers, etc.
Agreed.
Oh spare me that cheap rhetorical twists. Just because certain Paleo-Con sympathizers like Henry Ford and grampa Bush supplied the Germans with the resources to build his war machine, then fought even modest efforts by FDR to support the UK during the battle of Britain and the Atlantic, through isolationist rhetoric, doesn't mean the eventual all-out campaign wasn't necessary on 'our' part. You obviously have a serious problem blaming anyone but the evil 'West' for anything, even the Nazis we fought. Or understanding how onetime partners can become mortal enemies. Or how final results aren't necessarily an inevitable funtion of original intentions --if we can ever say exactly what they really were. Congratulations, you have just joined NDPP on my not-to-be taken seriously list. It's late now and I want to dream about my own new love, instead of arguing over old wars.
Hitler would never have allowed "dividing the continent between himself and Stalin."
C'mon,
You've read Mein Kampf haven't you?
Hitler saw France as a traditional enemy and an inconvenience he had to get out of the way.
He thought Britain would be satisfied being a dominant power with its overseas empire and Germany being the dominant power on the continent.
Hitler was surprised and dismayed Britian declared war over Poland.
Like I said, the Nazi-Soviet Non Aggression Pact was to buy an alliance with the Soviet Union so that the Soviet Union wouldn't invade Germany while Germany invaded and occupied Britain and France.
Hitler viewed with alarm the Soviet Union's Wars of Aggression against Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria. It was because of Soviet involvement in the coup that Hitler invaded Yugoslavia in the spring of 1941.
For Hitler, WW2 was all about conquering the Soviet Union and its, vast land, mineral, raw material, industrial and human (labor) resources.
(Again) refer back to Mein Kampf.
Also view the documentary series Why We Fight Prelude To War and War Comes To America.
Pay paricular attention to the theory that Italy wanted to conquer the Mediterranean area and Germany and Japan wanted to conquer the world and how they intended to do it. - Personally I think Japan would have failed in China and Germay in Russia without foreign intervention.
Canada, the U.S. and other countries intervened in WW2 to save the U.K and the U.S.S.R?
Canada chose to enter the War of Aggression against Germany shortly after Britain.
Germany did not attack Canada. Germany had not even attacked Britain at this time.
As for the Soviet Union?
The Soviet Union wasn't attacked until late June 1941.
The U.S chose to wage a War of Aggression against Germany by baiting Japan by suddenly "popping up" U.S. Navy vessels in waters where Imperial Japan Navy vessels were travelling, by placing an embargo on Japan in 1940 and baiting Japan to attack the U.S. Pacific Fleet by stationing it at the exposed and vulnerable Pearl Harbor base.
The U.S. went to war ostensibly because it was "attacked."
Not because it chose to defend the U.K. or the U.S.S.R.
Those are post de facto rationalizations to justify the destruction, loss of human life and atrocities of war.
They are also used to justify future wars.
The same post de facto rationalization bullshit is going on concerning the Libyan war.
In WW2, it was the Jews.
In Libya, it's black Africans.
I mean, look around you.
The only (significant) difference between WW2 and Libya is the (physical) degree of the destruction, loss of life and atrocities.
There is no such thing as being a "little pregnant."
When it comes to war,
you either support it
or oppose it.
Those aren't paleocons.
Paleocons are a recent phenomena. They first came into being in the early 1950s. They are opposed to the American Empire. They want America to become a republic and to be the way the Founders wanted it to be.
"Isolationist" is a term coined by the Franklin and "Eleanore For War" prowar Interventionist Rooseveltians crowd to lump the anti-interventionists with the Henry Ford, Joe Kennedy, Charles Lindberg, etc., Hitler fan club enablers to discredit them.
Do not confuse (today's) neocons and bleeding heart 'humanitarian war' liberals with paleocon libertarians.
No.
Remember my argument where I stated:
"All the powers of WW2 (Italy, Germany, France, the U.K., the U.S.S.R. (1939-40), the U.S.A. etc.,) entered WW2 as a matter of choice and were equally guilty of waging Wars of Aggression."
Mass grave containing 1,270 victims found in TripoliSunday, September 25 2011
The Associated Press
TRIPOLI, LIBYA - A bone wrapped with rope and skull fragments scattered over a cactus-covered desert field are grim testament to a massacre of more than 1,200 inmates killed by Moammar Gadhafi's regime in a 1996 prison massacre.
Libyan officials announced Sunday they have found the site of a mass grave believed to hold the remains of the victims after capturing former security guards who revealed its location as well as receiving witness accounts.
Excavation has not begun in the field outside the white walls of the notorious Abu Salim prison, although several bone fragments and pieces of clothing already have been found in the top soil. Soldiers and relatives sifted through the sand during a visit Sunday, displaying a pair of pants and other remains for reporters brought to the site.
A military spokesman and members of a committee tasked with finding mass graves said they were confident the field holds the remains of the prison massacre victims based on information from former regime officials who have been captured in the fight against the authoritarian leader.
"We have discovered the truth about what the Libyan people have been waiting for many years, and it is the bodies and remains of the Abu Salim massacre," a military spokesman for Tripoli, Khalid al-Sherif, said at a news conference.
The find has enormous symbolic importance for Libyans who are seeking justice for more than four decades of repression and alleged crimes at the hands of the regime.
It was a demonstration in the eastern city of Benghazi demanding the release of a prominent lawyer representing the families of slain inmates that sparked the revolution in mid-February. Inspired by the wave of uprisings sweeping the Arab world, unrest spread and Gadhafi was forced into hiding after revolutionary forces swept into Tripoli in late August.
The June 26, 1996, killings became a focal point for opposition to Gadhafi who waged fierce crackdowns against any sign of dissent. Most of the inmates were political prisoners, including Islamic clerics and students who had dared to speak against Gadhafi
Ibrahim Abu Shim, a member of the committee looking for mass graves, said investigators believe 1,270 people were buried in the field but the Libyans needed help from the international community to find and identify the remains because they lacked sophisticated equipment needed for DNA testing.
Sami al-Saadi, who said he lost two brothers in the massacre, said it was important to bring closure for relatives after years of not knowing where their loved ones were buried.
He said he had rejoiced when revolutionary forces succeeded in ousting Gadhafi, but the memory of his brothers Mohammed and Adel cast a shadow over the celebrations.
"The people who are responsible of this massacre should be brought before a judge and we can give now sure evidence to all the world about Moammar Ghadafi and how this dictator led this country and its people," he said as he stood in the field with the barbed wire lined walls towering behind him.
He said he was out of the country in 1996 but later spent several years imprisoned himself.
Abu Salim - where for decades Gadhafi had locked up and tortured opponents, or made them disappear - sits empty now after the prisoners were freed as an invading rebel force was sweeping Gadhafi's regime from the capital.
Al-Saadi and other former inmates said they faced torture and inhumane living conditions. Al-Saadi said he was refused medical treatment for a heart condition during his detention.
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1059391--mass-grave-containing-1-270-victims-found-in-tripoli?bn=1
Mass grave found in Libyan town, Al Jazeera English:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRgzYVQ_168&feature=player_embedded
Evidence of mass execution in Libya, Al Jazeera English:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD_IU17aEs4&feature=player_embedded
Is it just me, or is it a little suspicious that although this alleged Gadhafi massacre took place back in 1996, we heard ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about it until now? No disidents from Libya talked about it at the time, no Western FCM reports of such allegations or suspicions.
Is it just me, or is the timing of the "discovery" of this alleged Gadhafi massacre also a little suspicious?
These alleged former prison guards/former Gadhafi loyalists must have some pretty good rebel creds because from what I've been reading, those who were pushed out or fled northern cities and who return to their homes tend to be suspected of being Gadhafi loyalists and face hostility, arrest, assault or worse from their former neighbors and rebel occupying forces.
@ OnTheLeft
Yes, one of the links I posted on another thread included some background on the massacre from a judge
http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=1&id=26617
And here's a site that gives a brief outline of the timeline:
http://www.hrw.org/legacy/english/docs/2006/06/28/libya13636.htm
It's just you.
This is not the first time that the Abu Salim prison casualties have been used as propaganda by western based media, to distract from the warcrimes and ethnic cleansing being committed by NATO and their NTC 'rebels'. Photos of those killed in 1996 at Abu Salim were used by Reuters on Feb. 23, 2011, and described as 'photos of protesters who were killed during the last few days'..
http://www.flashinvader.com/war_on_terrorism/libya_false_flag_part_1_reu...
As for the incident itself, reportedly involving a riot and escape attempt byBenghazi-based LIFG members and the harsh response by prison authorities, was dealt with in an AI relaase in 2010:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/libya-urged-thoroughly...
"Col Mu'ammar al-Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, described the incident as a 'tragedy' in 2004 to an Amnesty International delegation visiting the country.."
*Grabs tinfoil, tunes into Alex Jones*
So who is Muhammad Bashir al-Khaddar?
(Bolding not in original.)
If al-Khaddar was summoned to produce findings that were supposed to whitewash the Gadhafi regime on the alleged Abu Salim "massacre" but instead "issued an official report that not even the Libyan opposition abroad would dared to have written" and presented it to Moammar's son Saif al-Islam Gadhafi. This is after Saif al-Islam had threatened al-Khaddar by saying "If you cannot do your job [investigating the Abu Salim massacre] then you should resign."
The interview from which the quote was taken was entirely about the Abu Salim massacre and Libyan officials who "crossed a red line" by angering or displeasing Gadhafi or who brought up uncomfortable "truths" about the Gadhafi regime who were allegedly murdered by Gadhafi.
This begs a number of questions:
1. Since clearly al-Khaddar was aware of the Libyan opposition abroad, and since it appears that he met the criteria for crossing the "red line" with Gadhafi and since he seems motivated by humanitarian considerations, then why didn't he flee Libya and make his report known internationally?
2. Why did he present his report to the Gadhafi government - to Moammar's son Saif al-Islam, when clearly his life was (very likely) in jeopardy?
3. Why didn't (Moammar) Gadhafi have him killed?
Sorry, I'm not buying it.
Smells too much "like a rat" to me.
Notice the chronological inconsistencies.
No, sorry, his story suddenly "surfacing" at this particular moment is all a little too convenient.
In other words, just another American Empire satrap who's willing to lick the boots of any master if doing so will gain him position and power.
(Bolding not in original)
No, it's you:
http://www.news24.com/Africa/News/Fear-and-loathing-in-Libyas-Misrata-20...
Libya: NTC Concocts Mass Grave Story in Brazen Propaganda Ploy
http://empirestrikesblack.com/2011/09/libya-bbc-concocts-mass-grave-stor...
"Categorically, absolutely, unequivocally, this is an out-and-out lie; 1,200 bodies have not been found. Not a single body has been found. In fact, no excavation has been performed.
..Members of the media were shown bones at the site, but medics with CNN staffers on the scene said the bones did not appear to be human.."
Babble Consulting Ltd.: expert forensics at low low cost
-- and without all the trouble of waiting for specialists to visit the site ... !