|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 8:36 am Post subject: Chalmers Johnson on 'blowback' |
 |
|
A scene from the excellent documentary "Why We Fight":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtVbbyZnC60
Is it really such an unreasonable concept? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 12:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Let's see, Mossadeq tried to nationalize Iran's oil industry in 1953. I don't see this as a good thing.
The Shah's repression is not a necessary consequence of Eisenhower's backing of the British coup. Neither is the constant harassment of US interests by Revolutionary Iran a natural consequence of the overthrow of the Shah (whose overthrow was probably for the best itself, just like its a good thing Hussein is gone).
The emergence of OBL is not a necessary consequence of the US's defense of Saudi Arabia and the liberation of Kuwait.
Anyone who really believes in blowback would embrace the blowback against OBL after 9-11; in all its forms, not just the invasion of Afghanistan but the invasion of Iraq. After all, blowback is said to be a natural consequence of foreign interference. Blowing up the twin towers was definitely foreign interference.
Chalmers Johnson does not support the violence after 9-11. Therefore, he is not a true proponant of the idea of blowback. Neither am I. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It makes perfect sense. You may want to dispute the validity of some of the smaller details but the larger story is absolutely true. Had the United States not involved herself in the destabilising and stabilizing of the region, mostly covertly, the violence would not have reached her shores. They didn't not attack China or Estonia that day purely out of luck.
| Quote: |
Anyone who really believes in blowback would embrace the blowback against OBL after 9-11; in all its forms, not just the invasion of Afghanistan but the invasion of Iraq. After all, blowback is said to be a natural consequence of foreign interference. Blowing up the twin towers was definitely foreign interference.
Chalmers Johnson does not support the violence after 9-11. Therefore, he is not a true proponant of the idea of blowback. |
Asserting that "X" is likely to happen doesn't mean that one thinks that it is the most appropriate action. For example:
1) I believe that 9/11 was blowback from years and years of American sponsored nonsense in the muslim world AND that 9/11 was fully disgusting and a crime against humanity
2) I believe that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq were blowback (though the term generally refers to covert actions that the people are unable to put into a proper context) from the 9/11 attacks AND that Iraq especially is an illegal, criminal occupation and a crime against humanity.
That is, I both accept the idea of blowback but reject the moral validity of blowback. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ernie
Joined: 05 Aug 2006
Location: asdfghjk
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
you don't believe in blowback? so i can punch you repeatedly in the face and you'll never retaliate?
asserting the existence of something does not entail moral justification for it... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ernie wrote: |
you don't believe in blowback? so i can punch you repeatedly in the face and you'll never retaliate?
asserting the existence of something does not entail moral justification for it... |
Exactly. It is a most micro understanding of human nature extended to a macro environment. Of course they will fight back. I would. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Had the United States not involved herself... |
It strikes me people are choosing a rather arbitrary date for the kick-off of blowback.
Had the British and French not made such a muddle of carving up the Ottoman Empire after World War I...
Had the Ottomans modernized in the 19th Century instead of...
etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thepeel wrote: |
1) I believe that 9/11 was blowback from years and years of American sponsored nonsense in the muslim world AND that 9/11 was fully disgusting and a crime against humanity
2) I believe that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq were blowback (though the term generally refers to covert actions that the people are unable to put into a proper context) from the 9/11 attacks AND that Iraq especially is an illegal, criminal occupation and a crime against humanity.
That is, I both accept the idea of blowback but reject the moral validity of blowback. |
It doesn't help the case that Chalmers Johnson overreaches and distorts.
No, defending Saudi Arabia by placing US troops on its soil was not provocative. Not least to rich Saudi exiles.
The blowback scenario is unsophisticated especially in terms of the above and the Iran-Iraq War. American support of Iraq in the 1980s was blowback to the taking of American hostages by Iran. Backing Saddam then and letting the two grind themselves down was the smart thing to do.
Yeah, small details, thepeel.
Look, if you're trying to say that for every action there's a reaction, you don't need to appeal to fools like Chalmers to do so. But you came in here and presented a shit documentary. What can I say? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Very true. But we were talking about one event in specific, 9/11. If you want to talk about the organized violence against French people in algiers Nord (Marseille) and how it relates to the French colonization of Algeria, that is a whole other topic but generally follows the same principles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thepeel wrote: |
| Very true. But we were talking about one event in specific, 9/11. If you want to talk about the organized violence against French people in algiers Nord (Marseille) and how it relates to the French colonization of Algeria, that is a whole other topic but generally follows the same principles. |
What is your argument? You don't seem to buy the whole Chalmers line. So what is your read on the situation? I'd rather argue with you than deal with Chalmers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| No, defending Saudi Arabia by placing US troops on its soil was not provocative. |
Uh, that was the dominant cause of 9/11. OBL wanted to "push the infidel from the land of mecca". If you say it was a justified "defense" (and you weren't defending Saudi Arabia but the government of Saudi Arabia cause they sell you lots of oil) then you have to accept 9/11 as simply a reaction to a just defense.
| Quote: |
American support of Iraq in the 1980s was blowback to the taking of American hostages by Iran. Backing Saddam then and letting the two grind themselves down was the smart thing to do. |
This kind of thinking is exactly why there is so much more terrorism to come. The "smart thing to do" was to fund a war that killed more than a million people in a grand divide and conquer strategy. Regardless of it if it was smart, the moral thing to do would have been to help broker a peace. Instead, the USA sold Iraq WMD's that Iraq used in Iran (and then on her own people). Blowback.
| Quote: |
| Yeah, small details, thepeel. |
I don't think you really grasp the theory.
| Quote: |
Look, if you're trying to say that for every action there's a reaction, you don't need to appeal to fools like Chalmers to do so. |
Maybe I do. It seems you reject the premise of blowback. Nor do I think Chalmers is a fool. He seems actually concerned about the state of the world and offers some insightful positions.
| Quote: |
| But you came in here and presented a *beep* documentary. What can I say? |
You should watch the documentary. All the torrents have it. It might help you understand why America is constantly at war and why this will continue until the vast majority of Americans say 'enough'.
Last edited by thepeel on Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:50 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| thepeel wrote: |
| Very true. But we were talking about one event in specific, 9/11. If you want to talk about the organized violence against French people in algiers Nord (Marseille) and how it relates to the French colonization of Algeria, that is a whole other topic but generally follows the same principles. |
What is your argument? You don't seem to buy the whole Chalmers line. So what is your read on the situation? I'd rather argue with you than deal with Chalmers. |
I agree with the principle of blowback as articulated by him. I think yata is right in that you can't limit it only to the USA/muslims. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thepeel wrote: |
| Quote: |
| No, defending Saudi Arabia by placing US troops on its soil was not provocative. |
Uh, that was the sold cause of 9/11. OBL wanted to "push the infidel from the land of mecca". If you say it was a justified "defense" (and you weren't defending Saudi Arabia but the government of Saudi Arabia cause they sell you lots of oil) then you have to accept 9/11 as simply a reaction to a just defense. |
The cause of 9/11 was Clinton failing to kill OBL. The cause of 9/11 was the airline security's negligence in screening the hijackers. The cause of 9/11 was NJ's policy of allowing drivers licenses to omit photo IDs. The cause of 9/11 was, etc...
In tort law, there's a doctrine called proximate causation. Its the idea that the tortious (wrongful) conduct must cause the damage in a natural and consequential sequence.
Lets put the US on trial. Was it foreseeable that AS A RESULT of the US' actions of putting troops on Saudi Arabian soil in the early 1990s, that ten years later a group of Arab terrorists would destroy the economic center of the US and hit the Pentagon?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
American support of Iraq in the 1980s was blowback to the taking of American hostages by Iran. Backing Saddam then and letting the two grind themselves down was the smart thing to do. |
This kind of thinking is exactly why there is so much more terrorism to come. The "smart thing to do" was to fund a war that killed more than a million people in a grand divide and conquer strategy. Regardless of it if it was smart, the moral thing to do would have been to help broker a peace. Instead, the USA sold Iraq WMD's that Iraq used in Iran (and then on her own people). Blowback. |
Moral thing to do? This is the Middle East we're talking about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The cause of 9/11 was Clinton failing to kill OBL. The cause of 9/11 was the airline security's negligence in screening the hijackers. The cause of 9/11 was NJ's policy of allowing drivers licenses to omit photo IDs. The cause of 9/11 was, etc... |
No. That is absurd. A bunch of bearded douchbag muslims pissed off at GI Joe defending what they understand to be an apostate government presiding over the two most important sites in their silly little religion decided to start blowing up American stuff in an attempt to get you to leave.
The failure to stop them isn't a cause. Just like my failing to blow out a candle isn't the cause of it being lit. Camon.
| Quote: |
In tort law, there's a doctrine called proximate causation. Its the idea that the tortious (wrongful) conduct must cause the damage in a natural and consequential sequence.
Lets put the US on trial. Was it foreseeable that AS A RESULT of the US' actions of putting troops on Saudi Arabian soil in the early 1990s, that ten years later a group of Arab terrorists would destroy the economic center of the US and hit the Pentagon? |
It isn't an "because A, therefore B" thing. You know that. The idea of blowback doesn't mean the USA deserved 9/11, but that some policies of the American government created the right conditions for 9/11.
| Quote: |
| Moral thing to do? This is the Middle East we're talking about. |
As much as I despise islam, and I despise it quite a lot, I am not willing to say that just because it is the middle east or whatever that standard rules of civility and morality don't apply. If your government treats the people of that region as dispensable pawns in a wider geopolitical game, to be "removed" for whatever reason, then 9/11 is just the start of a very long war. Also, if the muslims continue to blow stuff up, they have to be prepared for thousands more body bags filled with muslims. Somebody has got to give. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| thepeel wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The cause of 9/11 was Clinton failing to kill OBL. The cause of 9/11 was the airline security's negligence in screening the hijackers. The cause of 9/11 was NJ's policy of allowing drivers licenses to omit photo IDs. The cause of 9/11 was, etc... |
No. That is absurd. A bunch of bearded douchbag muslims pissed off at GI Joe defending what they understand to be an apostate government presiding over the two most important sites in their silly little religion decided to start blowing up American stuff in an attempt to get you to leave.
The failure to stop them isn't a cause. Just like my failing to blow out a candle isn't the cause of it being lit. Camon. |
I had a feeling you might say that. Its not the failure to stop them that is a cause, its the negligence in the line of duty to screen them. The history of 9-11 litigation agrees with me on this point.
| Quote: |
| Hellerstein said that while the attacks against the particular locations of the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and Shanksville may not have been foreseen, "the duty to screen passengers and items brought on board existed to prevent harms not only to passengers and crew, but also to ground victims resulting from the crashes of hijacked planes, including the four planes hijacked on September 11. |
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
In tort law, there's a doctrine called proximate causation. Its the idea that the tortious (wrongful) conduct must cause the damage in a natural and consequential sequence.
Lets put the US on trial. Was it foreseeable that AS A RESULT of the US' actions of putting troops on Saudi Arabian soil in the early 1990s, that ten years later a group of Arab terrorists would destroy the economic center of the US and hit the Pentagon? |
It isn't an "because A, therefore B" thing. You know that. The idea of blowback doesn't mean the USA deserved 9/11, but that some policies of the American government created the right conditions for 9/11. |
Okay, but thats not the broad argument I got from Chalmers. I saw a video clip with Osama, and him saying we instigated him to attack by defending Saudi Arabia. From an intuitive as well as legal analysis: that's horseshit.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Moral thing to do? This is the Middle East we're talking about. |
As much as I despise islam, and I despise it quite a lot, I am not willing to say that just because it is the middle east or whatever that standard rules of civility and morality don't apply. If your government treats the people of that region as dispensable pawns in a wider geopolitical game, to be "removed" for whatever reason, then 9/11 is just the start of a very long war. Also, if the muslims continue to blow stuff up, they have to be prepared for thousands more body bags filled with muslims. Somebody has got to give. |
|
I don't think we should treat the people in the region as chess pieces. But we do need to be cognizant that dictators cannot reform at our whim. We also need to see that liberalization of the ME cannot happen at our instigation, either. We need to take the threats as we find them. Setting off our two biggest rivals against each other in Iran-Iraq was the best outcome of an otherwise bad situation.
I've got to get to bed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You are all wasting your time.
9-11 was not carried out by OBL.
9-11 was an inside job.
9-11 was not blow back.
How many hours are wasted?????????? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
