Posts by Danyl Mclauchlan
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
what the fuck are the Democrats doing to prove theiy're competent to be a loyal opposition, let alone take over the executive?
It's true that if the Dems make it into the Whiteouse they might not do such a great job - but then again, they might. Craigs argument that the Republican Party should be left running the show on the off-chance that the Dems drop the ball is a little like arguing that the Fire Brigade should just let your house keep burning because the water from their hoses might damage your carpet.
-
With the aim of shaking Tehran’s commitment to its nuclear program, Bush also approved last fall secret operations to target Iranian influence in southern Lebanon, in western Afghanistan, in the Palestinian territories and inside Iran.
Washington Post
February 10, 2007 -
Because I'd like "A government that would do something about parenting behaviour which adversely affects the development of children."
If it becomes about positive steps like helping families have enough money to provide breakfast, and helping educate families about positive parenting and giving parents who are struggling support and skills, then it's not a bad thing.
If you ask me, legislating parenting is a mighty slippery slope. After all, your definition of 'behaviour which adversely affects the development of children' (ensuring they are not exposed to violence and enjoy proper nutrition) might be awfully different to some future governments definition (parents must ensure their children attend one hour of religious education each day to ensure proper moral upbringing).
Parenting legislation is classic 'Road to Serfdom' stuff - it sounds great in principle, but how are you going to monitor it? Should parents inform on each other? Should teachers inform on parents?
-
Shame on you for polluting Wikipedia! Don't you know it's an encyclodia, and only for really important stuff?
-
It strikes me that Nationals new found concern for our 'growing underclass' - another classic dogwhistle - and their suggestion that it's growth be curtailed is strikingly similar to Labours 'Closing the Gaps' policies from their first term, something National damned as 'social engineering' and fought tooth and nail when the Government tried to implement them.
I also note that 'Closing the Gaps' is a significantly more inclusive less adversarial term than demonising some 'underclass'. It sounds as if Key is still taking advice from the same gaggle of losers than wrote Dr Brash's speeches.
-
But most bloggers - and we're talking 95 per cent - are fly by night, gutless wonders who prefer to spit venom under inarticulate pseudonyms …
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this editorial anonymous . . ?
-
and btw, it is hardly likely that bin Laden would front up to a British journalist and say, "Yes, we knew there was money and weapons coming from the Americans."
it might dent his street cred.
As Simon points out, this is what exactly what Zawahiri said - but he said it in 1980, and I doubt he had even heard of Osama bin Laden back then.
Since, as I've said earlier, bin Laden was in Pakistan because he was unhappy with US involvement in Afghanistan (infidels on Islamic soil and all that), and his main goal was to provide alternative muslim aid to the Mujihadeen, isn't it more likely that he denied recieving US money because he didn't actually get any US money, because he had loads of money flooding in from Islamic (mostly Saudi) sources and taking money from the US would have defeated the entire purpose of his enterprise?
Stop me if I'm going too fast for you.
Stephen - this is not unlike arguing with a religious person - you seem to be very adept at ignoring or explaining away evidence you don't like, but somehow never get around to producing evidence of your own. bin Laden, US intelligence and the various journalists who have written about this issue all deny that the US provided assistance to bin Laden - what exactly is your proof that they did?
radical Islam is mainly a product of western interference (Russian, European, American) in the Islamic world, and particulary the Middle East, stretching back to the First World War.
This was a pretty neat trick, since the current strains of radical Islam date back several centuries. Try looking up subjects like the Mahdi army or Salafism. Al Qaeda read books by Sayyid Qutb and Abu Al-Ghazali, not T E Lawrence. The Koran itself has many, many references to Jihad in which it instructs muslims to slay 'idolators' and to 'fight unbelievers until they are in a state of submission'. This strikes me as pretty radical. (It always astounds me when people claim that Islam is 'a religion of peace' which rather ignores the life of the prophet, much of the Koran and subsequent muslim theology and the last 1300 years of Islamic history.)
I recommend Stephen finds his way to Shinjuku and picks up a copy of Lawrence Wrights book 'The Looming Tower' from Kinokuniya. You'll find that the history of Al Qaeda and modern radical Islam is much stranger and more interesting than is dreamt of in your Daily Kos diaries.
-
Simon:
You seem to be shifting the goalposts in this debate. Manukuras original claim was that:
bin Laden and his cohorts received most of their funding, weapons and training for many years from the CIA
This seems a very far cry from your latest position that bin Laden was merely 'aware of the CIA's presence'.
As for the CIA being unaware of bin Laden, it seems impossible to us because we know that 20 years later he goes on to destroy the WTC. But to a CIA section chief who deals mostly with Pakistani intelligence and groups of indigenous Afghan groups bin Laden simply wouldn't have been very important. No matter what Al Qaeda thinks, they didn't play a very significant role in the fighting in Afghanistan.
Stephen - the US is allied with some of the dictatorships in the US - but so what? The US has befriended dictatorships in Africa, Asia, Europe and South and Central America, most of which are now stable democracies (countries like Indonesia and Chile come to mind). Do you really think the US would object to the end of military dictatorship in Egypt? On the contrary, life for the State Department would be considerably easier if their closest allies weren't despotic regimes.
I'm intrigued by your notion that the war on terror is 'fake'. The bombings in places like Morocco, Bali, Madrid, London, Istanbul, Baghdad and so on seemed pretty real.
-
Simon:
You seem to be shifting the goalposts in this debate. Manukuras original claim was that:
<i>bin Laden and his cohorts received most of their funding, weapons and training for many years from the CIA</i>
This seems a very far cry from your latest position that bin Laden was merely 'aware of the CIA's presence'.
As for the CIA being unaware of bin Laden, it seems impossible to us because we know that 20 years later he goes on to destroy the WTC. But to a CIA section chief who deals mostly with Pakistani intelligence and groups of indigenous Afghan groups bin Laden simply wouldn't have been very important. No matter what Al Qaeda thinks, they didn't play a very significant role in the fighting in Afghanistan.
Stephen - the US is allied with some of the dictatorships in the US - but so what? The US has befriended dictatorships in Africa, Asia, Europe and South and Central America, most of which are now stable democracies (countries like Indonesia and Chile come to mind). Do you really think the US would object to the end of military dictatorship in Egypt? On the contrary, life for the State Department would be considerably easier if their closest allies weren't despotic regimes.
I'm intrigued by your notion that the war on terror is 'fake'. The bombings in places like Morocco, Bali, Madrid, London, Istanbul, Baghdad and so on seemed pretty real.
-
From this statement, I see that you fall into the "wilfully ignorant" category. At this stage in the game, to deny that Bin Laden received many years of CIA and ISI backing is somewhat disingenuous. To put it mildly.
Feel free to find some evidence from a reliable source (socialistworker.org is not such a source) and prove me wrong. At least three journalists who have written about bin Laden extensively - Lawrence Wright, Robert Fisk and Peter Bergen - have all dismissed the suggestion that bin Laden was a creature of the CIA as nonsense. Here's an interview with Bergen you might find educational.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/08/15/bergen.answers/index.html
Apart from Iran, which was a US-backed dictatorship under the Shah, and Iraq, a US-backed distatorship under Saddam until 1990, Syria and Lybia, virtually all Arab states are US clients. Care to explain?
If you can't figure out why the US likes to stay on the good side of the Saudi Royal family then you really are in trouble.