In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On December 20 2017 00:48 xDaunt wrote: I wouldn't do it in front of the grand jury -- even assuming that I had notice of the grand jury. I'd wait for the charges to be filed and then try to torpedo the main case.
if you had a defense to make, that is exactly what you would do.
they didn’t, though. right? hmm.. instead opting to use public opinion instead. do you think there’s nothing to be read between the lines here? or is it common practice to play your hand publicly rather than attacking the evidence in court?
Of course they didn't do it. They haven't had the opportunity to do it yet.
so it is common practice then to play your hand publicly ahead of time?
i’m no expert, but i think this is a trick question. especially considering you yourself said you wouldn’t. are you saying then the campaign lawyers are less qualified than yourself? this would not be surprising. but your defense of them in this case is, or would be if you were anyone else.
I don't know what calculation that Trump's attorneys are making. I don't know all of the facts that they do, so it's not really my place to second guess them. To the extent that they are airing the defense now, I don't think that they are doing anything to compromise it given scope of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.
I'm not sure Trump's lawyers have earned the benefit of the doubt.
I like how you make this pronouncement as if you have any fucking idea what you are talking about.
You must be seeing different news stories than the rest of us. Trumps lawyers have been a parade of embarrasments. Sure, Kory Langhofer is technically the transition attorney, but he is certainly working with Dowd and Cobb.
On December 20 2017 00:48 xDaunt wrote: I wouldn't do it in front of the grand jury -- even assuming that I had notice of the grand jury. I'd wait for the charges to be filed and then try to torpedo the main case.
if you had a defense to make, that is exactly what you would do.
they didn’t, though. right? hmm.. instead opting to use public opinion instead. do you think there’s nothing to be read between the lines here? or is it common practice to play your hand publicly rather than attacking the evidence in court?
Of course they didn't do it. They haven't had the opportunity to do it yet.
so it is common practice then to play your hand publicly ahead of time?
i’m no expert, but i think this is a trick question. especially considering you yourself said you wouldn’t. are you saying then the campaign lawyers are less qualified than yourself? this would not be surprising. but your defense of them in this case is, or would be if you were anyone else.
I don't know what calculation that Trump's attorneys are making. I don't know all of the facts that they do, so it's not really my place to second guess them. To the extent that they are airing the defense now, I don't think that they are doing anything to compromise it given scope of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.
I'm not sure Trump's lawyers have earned the benefit of the doubt.
I like how you make this pronouncement as if you have any fucking idea what you are talking about.
‘we had to let Flynn go because he lied to the FBI’
Never under estimate the ability for a client to not listen to their attorney.
did i miss their statement recanting the claim that it was his attorney who wrote the tweet? the truth changes so fast these days i have a hard time keeping up
On December 20 2017 00:48 xDaunt wrote: I wouldn't do it in front of the grand jury -- even assuming that I had notice of the grand jury. I'd wait for the charges to be filed and then try to torpedo the main case.
if you had a defense to make, that is exactly what you would do.
they didn’t, though. right? hmm.. instead opting to use public opinion instead. do you think there’s nothing to be read between the lines here? or is it common practice to play your hand publicly rather than attacking the evidence in court?
Of course they didn't do it. They haven't had the opportunity to do it yet.
so it is common practice then to play your hand publicly ahead of time?
i’m no expert, but i think this is a trick question. especially considering you yourself said you wouldn’t. are you saying then the campaign lawyers are less qualified than yourself? this would not be surprising. but your defense of them in this case is, or would be if you were anyone else.
I don't know what calculation that Trump's attorneys are making. I don't know all of the facts that they do, so it's not really my place to second guess them. To the extent that they are airing the defense now, I don't think that they are doing anything to compromise it given scope of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.
I'm not sure Trump's lawyers have earned the benefit of the doubt.
I like how you make this pronouncement as if you have any fucking idea what you are talking about.
‘we had to let Flynn go because he lied to the FBI’
Never under estimate the ability for a client to not listen to their attorney.
did i miss their statement recanting the claim that it was his attorney who wrote the tweet?
I forgot about that. Though it was the White House that claimed that, not Trumps attorney himself. I bet that story changes a bit once people are under oath. I don't think Trumps attorney is going to fall on the sword and commit perjury if that tweet is found to be a waiver of client privilege.
On December 20 2017 01:07 brian wrote: [quote] if you had a defense to make, that is exactly what you would do.
they didn’t, though. right? hmm.. instead opting to use public opinion instead. do you think there’s nothing to be read between the lines here? or is it common practice to play your hand publicly rather than attacking the evidence in court?
Of course they didn't do it. They haven't had the opportunity to do it yet.
so it is common practice then to play your hand publicly ahead of time?
i’m no expert, but i think this is a trick question. especially considering you yourself said you wouldn’t. are you saying then the campaign lawyers are less qualified than yourself? this would not be surprising. but your defense of them in this case is, or would be if you were anyone else.
I don't know what calculation that Trump's attorneys are making. I don't know all of the facts that they do, so it's not really my place to second guess them. To the extent that they are airing the defense now, I don't think that they are doing anything to compromise it given scope of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.
I'm not sure Trump's lawyers have earned the benefit of the doubt.
I like how you make this pronouncement as if you have any fucking idea what you are talking about.
‘we had to let Flynn go because he lied to the FBI’
Never under estimate the ability for a client to not listen to their attorney.
did i miss their statement recanting the claim that it was his attorney who wrote the tweet?
I forgot about that. Though it was the White House that claimed that, not Trumps attorney himself. I bet that story changes a bit once people are under oath. I don't think Trumps attorney is going to fall on the sword and commit perjury if that tweet is found to be a waiver of client privilege.
So either he lied to the public or directed Trump to give an incriminating statement? Not inspiring options. Maybe we will learn more during his next strategy meeting with Cobb at a public restaurant.
On December 19 2017 17:50 mozoku wrote: Ehh, that's still not that close to what you said and the article is definitely trying to spin a narrative.
For example, it claims the PKI was openly working within the system and unarmed. And that Suharto "blamed" the coup on a PKI plot. In reality, the PKI was in power to begin with and lost power when a preemptive assassination of some alleged leaders of a suspected coup went badly wrong. That hardly rings of the "innocent victim portrayal in article. Not that that justifies anything on its own.
Here's a recent NYT article that covers the same cables, but with less innuendo.
The US involvement is limited to handing over some lists of known communists to be purged and aiding in media suppression. Not a shining star for the US, but not really an outlier by the standards of the time. I'm less sympathetic to some geopolitics-based justification for immorality in 2017, but the Cold War was a time when there were legitimate survival motives in play.
It's hardly comparable to, say, what the British Empire did--which is the impression you give when you accuse the US of supporting genocide, mass enslavement, and resource exploitation. For one, the US was primarily motivated by self-defense in the Cold War, rather than profit. Second, no enslavement actually happened. Third, Indonesia (voluntarily) welcomed US corporations because it felt the investment would simulate the economy--which it most certainly did. The US didn't show up with an army and enslave/massacre the locals for profit.
Moreover, it's much easier to say the US should have acted more in alignment with its stated principles on 2017 than it was in 1967. Given the uncertainty of the period, I can sympathize with US leaders at the time compromising on principles some to err on the side of keeping its citizens safe. I would expect Indonesians to do the same to Americans if the situation were reversed, and I wouldn't think any less of them for it.
So you're saying you would be ok with a million murdered Americans if it furthered Indonesian economic interests? Are you taking the piss?
There was no legitimate survival interest in this genocide, it was an economic coup, organized and supported by America and the UK, with the aim of stamping out an ideology that they didn't like and the secondary goal getting an infinite supply of cheap labour and cheap natural resources from a country that should be one of the richest in the world. A million people killed, with the full support of the US government. Minimize it all you want, its a disgrace.
On December 20 2017 01:11 xDaunt wrote: [quote] Of course they didn't do it. They haven't had the opportunity to do it yet.
so it is common practice then to play your hand publicly ahead of time?
i’m no expert, but i think this is a trick question. especially considering you yourself said you wouldn’t. are you saying then the campaign lawyers are less qualified than yourself? this would not be surprising. but your defense of them in this case is, or would be if you were anyone else.
I don't know what calculation that Trump's attorneys are making. I don't know all of the facts that they do, so it's not really my place to second guess them. To the extent that they are airing the defense now, I don't think that they are doing anything to compromise it given scope of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.
I'm not sure Trump's lawyers have earned the benefit of the doubt.
I like how you make this pronouncement as if you have any fucking idea what you are talking about.
‘we had to let Flynn go because he lied to the FBI’
Never under estimate the ability for a client to not listen to their attorney.
did i miss their statement recanting the claim that it was his attorney who wrote the tweet?
I forgot about that. Though it was the White House that claimed that, not Trumps attorney himself. I bet that story changes a bit once people are under oath. I don't think Trumps attorney is going to fall on the sword and commit perjury if that tweet is found to be a waiver of client privilege.
So either he lied to the public or directed Trump to give an incriminating statement? Not inspiring options. Maybe we will learn more during his next strategy meeting with Cobb at a public restaurant.
The likely scenario, in my opinion, is that the White House lied and claimed the attorney wrote it because they are under the impression that the attorney can’t be forced to testify. I’m sure we will find out down the line if they asked him this plan before hand or if he came up with it.
On December 19 2017 17:50 mozoku wrote: Ehh, that's still not that close to what you said and the article is definitely trying to spin a narrative.
For example, it claims the PKI was openly working within the system and unarmed. And that Suharto "blamed" the coup on a PKI plot. In reality, the PKI was in power to begin with and lost power when a preemptive assassination of some alleged leaders of a suspected coup went badly wrong. That hardly rings of the "innocent victim portrayal in article. Not that that justifies anything on its own.
Here's a recent NYT article that covers the same cables, but with less innuendo.
The US involvement is limited to handing over some lists of known communists to be purged and aiding in media suppression. Not a shining star for the US, but not really an outlier by the standards of the time. I'm less sympathetic to some geopolitics-based justification for immorality in 2017, but the Cold War was a time when there were legitimate survival motives in play.
It's hardly comparable to, say, what the British Empire did--which is the impression you give when you accuse the US of supporting genocide, mass enslavement, and resource exploitation. For one, the US was primarily motivated by self-defense in the Cold War, rather than profit. Second, no enslavement actually happened. Third, Indonesia (voluntarily) welcomed US corporations because it felt the investment would simulate the economy--which it most certainly did. The US didn't show up with an army and enslave/massacre the locals for profit.
Moreover, it's much easier to say the US should have acted more in alignment with its stated principles on 2017 than it was in 1967. Given the uncertainty of the period, I can sympathize with US leaders at the time compromising on principles some to err on the side of keeping its citizens safe. I would expect Indonesians to do the same to Americans if the situation were reversed, and I wouldn't think any less of them for it.
So you're saying you would be ok with a million murdered Americans if it furthered Indonesian economic interests? Are you taking the piss?
There was no legitimate survival interest in this genocide, it was an economic coup, organized and supported by America and the UK, with the aim of stamping out an ideology that they didn't like and the secondary goal getting an infinite supply of cheap labour and cheap natural resources from a country that should be one of the richest in the world. A million people killed, with the full support of the US government. Minimize it all you want, its a disgrace.
Aren't we doing something pretty similar right now with another degree of separation (more or less) through Israel in Myanmar?
On December 20 2017 02:01 Mohdoo wrote: Is there a good calculator for tax bill stuff? Or is it changing so much that nothing is accurate? Every single article I see talks about stuff like 30-70k vs million. What about the stuff in between!?!?
i'm not aware of a good calculator for it it's likely there won't be one until the bill is finalized and passed. especially seeing as lititle things get snuck in sometimes during reconciliation for shenanigans or to appease people. while the rate of change should be settling down, there's not much need for most people to be making plans until it's finalized, and somethin bein gadded/removed can be a big effect.
On December 19 2017 17:50 mozoku wrote: Ehh, that's still not that close to what you said and the article is definitely trying to spin a narrative.
For example, it claims the PKI was openly working within the system and unarmed. And that Suharto "blamed" the coup on a PKI plot. In reality, the PKI was in power to begin with and lost power when a preemptive assassination of some alleged leaders of a suspected coup went badly wrong. That hardly rings of the "innocent victim portrayal in article. Not that that justifies anything on its own.
Here's a recent NYT article that covers the same cables, but with less innuendo.
The US involvement is limited to handing over some lists of known communists to be purged and aiding in media suppression. Not a shining star for the US, but not really an outlier by the standards of the time. I'm less sympathetic to some geopolitics-based justification for immorality in 2017, but the Cold War was a time when there were legitimate survival motives in play.
It's hardly comparable to, say, what the British Empire did--which is the impression you give when you accuse the US of supporting genocide, mass enslavement, and resource exploitation. For one, the US was primarily motivated by self-defense in the Cold War, rather than profit. Second, no enslavement actually happened. Third, Indonesia (voluntarily) welcomed US corporations because it felt the investment would simulate the economy--which it most certainly did. The US didn't show up with an army and enslave/massacre the locals for profit.
Moreover, it's much easier to say the US should have acted more in alignment with its stated principles on 2017 than it was in 1967. Given the uncertainty of the period, I can sympathize with US leaders at the time compromising on principles some to err on the side of keeping its citizens safe. I would expect Indonesians to do the same to Americans if the situation were reversed, and I wouldn't think any less of them for it.
So you're saying you would be ok with a million murdered Americans if it furthered Indonesian economic interests? Are you taking the piss?
There was no legitimate survival interest in this genocide, it was an economic coup, organized and supported by America and the UK, with the aim of stamping out an ideology that they didn't like and the secondary goal getting an infinite supply of cheap labour and cheap natural resources from a country that should be one of the richest in the world. A million people killed, with the full support of the US government. Minimize it all you want, its a disgrace.
Aren't we doing something pretty similar right now with another degree of separation (more or less) through Israel in Myanmar?
On December 20 2017 00:48 xDaunt wrote: I wouldn't do it in front of the grand jury -- even assuming that I had notice of the grand jury. I'd wait for the charges to be filed and then try to torpedo the main case.
if you had a defense to make, that is exactly what you would do.
they didn’t, though. right? hmm.. instead opting to use public opinion instead. do you think there’s nothing to be read between the lines here? or is it common practice to play your hand publicly rather than attacking the evidence in court?
Of course they didn't do it. They haven't had the opportunity to do it yet.
Don’t you think they could seek an injunction or TRO of some sort?
On December 20 2017 00:48 xDaunt wrote: I wouldn't do it in front of the grand jury -- even assuming that I had notice of the grand jury. I'd wait for the charges to be filed and then try to torpedo the main case.
if you had a defense to make, that is exactly what you would do.
they didn’t, though. right? hmm.. instead opting to use public opinion instead. do you think there’s nothing to be read between the lines here? or is it common practice to play your hand publicly rather than attacking the evidence in court?
Of course they didn't do it. They haven't had the opportunity to do it yet.
Don’t you think they could seek an injunction or TRO of some sort?
You need standing for a TRO or injunction. The attorney making this complaint does represent anyone with standing to bring one.
On December 19 2017 17:50 mozoku wrote: Ehh, that's still not that close to what you said and the article is definitely trying to spin a narrative.
For example, it claims the PKI was openly working within the system and unarmed. And that Suharto "blamed" the coup on a PKI plot. In reality, the PKI was in power to begin with and lost power when a preemptive assassination of some alleged leaders of a suspected coup went badly wrong. That hardly rings of the "innocent victim portrayal in article. Not that that justifies anything on its own.
Here's a recent NYT article that covers the same cables, but with less innuendo.
The US involvement is limited to handing over some lists of known communists to be purged and aiding in media suppression. Not a shining star for the US, but not really an outlier by the standards of the time. I'm less sympathetic to some geopolitics-based justification for immorality in 2017, but the Cold War was a time when there were legitimate survival motives in play.
It's hardly comparable to, say, what the British Empire did--which is the impression you give when you accuse the US of supporting genocide, mass enslavement, and resource exploitation. For one, the US was primarily motivated by self-defense in the Cold War, rather than profit. Second, no enslavement actually happened. Third, Indonesia (voluntarily) welcomed US corporations because it felt the investment would simulate the economy--which it most certainly did. The US didn't show up with an army and enslave/massacre the locals for profit.
Moreover, it's much easier to say the US should have acted more in alignment with its stated principles on 2017 than it was in 1967. Given the uncertainty of the period, I can sympathize with US leaders at the time compromising on principles some to err on the side of keeping its citizens safe. I would expect Indonesians to do the same to Americans if the situation were reversed, and I wouldn't think any less of them for it.
So you're saying you would be ok with a million murdered Americans if it furthered Indonesian economic interests? Are you taking the piss?
There was no legitimate survival interest in this genocide, it was an economic coup, organized and supported by America and the UK, with the aim of stamping out an ideology that they didn't like and the secondary goal getting an infinite supply of cheap labour and cheap natural resources from a country that should be one of the richest in the world. A million people killed, with the full support of the US government. Minimize it all you want, its a disgrace.
Aren't we doing something pretty similar right now with another degree of separation (more or less) through Israel in Myanmar?
Or Saudi Arabia and Yemen?
Another good(?) example.
@Nevuk
lol that was something else. I imagine after Spencer mentioned the tweet his mentions got worse than usual, but that seems a little dramatic.
Coates and I come from a great tradition of the black freedom struggle. He represents the neoliberal wing that sounds militant about white supremacy but renders black fightback invisible. This wing reaps the benefits of the neoliberal establishment that rewards silences on issues such as Wall Street greed or Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands and people.
The disagreement between Coates and me is clear: any analysis or vision of our world that omits the centrality of Wall Street power, US military policies, and the complex dynamics of class, gender, and sexuality in black America is too narrow and dangerously misleading. So it is with Ta-Nehisi Coates’ worldview.
That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Then Spencer trolled in by "agreeing" with West, but just about the "fetishizing white supremacy" without the rest of the context. Then his mentions went to shit and he left twitter.
The Republican tax bill that the House and Senate are set to pass as soon as Tuesday night would give most Americans a tax cut next year, according to a new analysis. However, it would by far benefit the richest Americans the most. Meanwhile, many lower- and middle-class Americans would have higher taxes a decade from now ... unless a future Congress extends the cuts.
The average household would get a tax cut of $1,610 in 2018, a bump of about 2.2 percent in that average household's income, according to a report released Monday by the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan think tank that has been critical of the tax overhaul plan.
However, extremes make averages, and the benefits would be much larger for richer households. A household earning $1 million or more would get an average cut of $69,660, an income bump of 3.3 percent. Compare that to the average household earning $50,000 to $75,000, which would get a tax cut of $870, or 1.6 percent.
Source This is a great tax bill. I plan on being in that 1% come this time next year, so I am all for it. Sorry peasants. Eat cake. /s
We are making progress. We've gone from "this raises taxes on the middle class" to " the benefit is larger for the rich." As if $870 is nothing.
On December 20 2017 02:01 Mohdoo wrote: Is there a good calculator for tax bill stuff? Or is it changing so much that nothing is accurate? Every single article I see talks about stuff like 30-70k vs million. What about the stuff in between!?!?
Yeah, I saw that. It has to a huge bummer when a noted black political activist produces a critique that is quickly co-opted by a White Supremacist. Also, twitter is shit.
And that critique has been out there about Coates for a long time. But black women wrote it, so it didn't get a lot of attention. Apparently it took Cornel West to make it make it legit and fuel for good old boy Richard Spencer.
On December 19 2017 17:50 mozoku wrote: Ehh, that's still not that close to what you said and the article is definitely trying to spin a narrative.
For example, it claims the PKI was openly working within the system and unarmed. And that Suharto "blamed" the coup on a PKI plot. In reality, the PKI was in power to begin with and lost power when a preemptive assassination of some alleged leaders of a suspected coup went badly wrong. That hardly rings of the "innocent victim portrayal in article. Not that that justifies anything on its own.
Here's a recent NYT article that covers the same cables, but with less innuendo.
The US involvement is limited to handing over some lists of known communists to be purged and aiding in media suppression. Not a shining star for the US, but not really an outlier by the standards of the time. I'm less sympathetic to some geopolitics-based justification for immorality in 2017, but the Cold War was a time when there were legitimate survival motives in play.
It's hardly comparable to, say, what the British Empire did--which is the impression you give when you accuse the US of supporting genocide, mass enslavement, and resource exploitation. For one, the US was primarily motivated by self-defense in the Cold War, rather than profit. Second, no enslavement actually happened. Third, Indonesia (voluntarily) welcomed US corporations because it felt the investment would simulate the economy--which it most certainly did. The US didn't show up with an army and enslave/massacre the locals for profit.
Moreover, it's much easier to say the US should have acted more in alignment with its stated principles on 2017 than it was in 1967. Given the uncertainty of the period, I can sympathize with US leaders at the time compromising on principles some to err on the side of keeping its citizens safe. I would expect Indonesians to do the same to Americans if the situation were reversed, and I wouldn't think any less of them for it.
So you're saying you would be ok with a million murdered Americans if it furthered Indonesian economic interests? Are you taking the piss?
There was no legitimate survival interest in this genocide, it was an economic coup, organized and supported by America and the UK, with the aim of stamping out an ideology that they didn't like and the secondary goal getting an infinite supply of cheap labour and cheap natural resources from a country that should be one of the richest in the world. A million people killed, with the full support of the US government. Minimize it all you want, its a disgrace.
Aren't we doing something pretty similar right now with another degree of separation (more or less) through Israel in Myanmar?
Or Saudi Arabia and Yemen?
Another good(?) example.
@Nevuk
lol that was something else. I imagine after Spencer mentioned the tweet his mentions got worse than usual, but that seems a little dramatic.
I remember him saying that twitter is sort of a shit medium. It is sort of the only place where someone like Spencer can quickly co-opt a critique by Cornel West.
The Republican tax bill that the House and Senate are set to pass as soon as Tuesday night would give most Americans a tax cut next year, according to a new analysis. However, it would by far benefit the richest Americans the most. Meanwhile, many lower- and middle-class Americans would have higher taxes a decade from now ... unless a future Congress extends the cuts.
The average household would get a tax cut of $1,610 in 2018, a bump of about 2.2 percent in that average household's income, according to a report released Monday by the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan think tank that has been critical of the tax overhaul plan.
However, extremes make averages, and the benefits would be much larger for richer households. A household earning $1 million or more would get an average cut of $69,660, an income bump of 3.3 percent. Compare that to the average household earning $50,000 to $75,000, which would get a tax cut of $870, or 1.6 percent.
Source This is a great tax bill. I plan on being in that 1% come this time next year, so I am all for it. Sorry peasants. Eat cake. /s
We are making progress. We've gone from "this raises taxes on the middle class" to " the benefit is larger for the rich." As if $870 is nothing.
On December 20 2017 02:01 Mohdoo wrote: Is there a good calculator for tax bill stuff? Or is it changing so much that nothing is accurate? Every single article I see talks about stuff like 30-70k vs million. What about the stuff in between!?!?
On December 19 2017 17:50 mozoku wrote: Ehh, that's still not that close to what you said and the article is definitely trying to spin a narrative.
For example, it claims the PKI was openly working within the system and unarmed. And that Suharto "blamed" the coup on a PKI plot. In reality, the PKI was in power to begin with and lost power when a preemptive assassination of some alleged leaders of a suspected coup went badly wrong. That hardly rings of the "innocent victim portrayal in article. Not that that justifies anything on its own.
Here's a recent NYT article that covers the same cables, but with less innuendo.
The US involvement is limited to handing over some lists of known communists to be purged and aiding in media suppression. Not a shining star for the US, but not really an outlier by the standards of the time. I'm less sympathetic to some geopolitics-based justification for immorality in 2017, but the Cold War was a time when there were legitimate survival motives in play.
It's hardly comparable to, say, what the British Empire did--which is the impression you give when you accuse the US of supporting genocide, mass enslavement, and resource exploitation. For one, the US was primarily motivated by self-defense in the Cold War, rather than profit. Second, no enslavement actually happened. Third, Indonesia (voluntarily) welcomed US corporations because it felt the investment would simulate the economy--which it most certainly did. The US didn't show up with an army and enslave/massacre the locals for profit.
Moreover, it's much easier to say the US should have acted more in alignment with its stated principles on 2017 than it was in 1967. Given the uncertainty of the period, I can sympathize with US leaders at the time compromising on principles some to err on the side of keeping its citizens safe. I would expect Indonesians to do the same to Americans if the situation were reversed, and I wouldn't think any less of them for it.
So you're saying you would be ok with a million murdered Americans if it furthered Indonesian economic interests? Are you taking the piss?
There was no legitimate survival interest in this genocide, it was an economic coup, organized and supported by America and the UK, with the aim of stamping out an ideology that they didn't like and the secondary goal getting an infinite supply of cheap labour and cheap natural resources from a country that should be one of the richest in the world. A million people killed, with the full support of the US government. Minimize it all you want, its a disgrace.
Pretty standard US stuff, Jockmcplop. This kind of thing is always minimized by those in the thread who support the American Empire and strongly desire continued economic dominance of the US/West. Every excuse is given -- typically drawn from lines previously uttered by the US government and subsequently obediently widespread throughout the world by US media.
Every time this happens. It's happening right now in Yemen. US government supports the genocide/starvation/etc by selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, and then tells the media that they're selling weapons to Saudis so they can fight terrorism. Which isn't a blatantly pure lie, but it's definitely simplifying things in their favor. Meanwhile the media barely mentions the war crimes when talking about selling weapons, preferring to just repeat the US government statements [source].
Undoubtedly similar things happened with US A-bombs on Japan, bombs on North Korea, bombs on Cambodia (incidentally, the US is still demanding money for bombing them into oblivion). Bombs on Afghanistan, Syria, etc, etc, etc. It never ends.
On December 20 2017 02:36 farvacola wrote: West is right imo, Nazi cooption attempt notwithstanding.
Just think if that discussion about Coste's writing could happen without the taint of Nazi bullshit. Coste grew up in the world West's generation created, so the discussion could be insightful for everyone. But Nazis gunna ruin it.
EPT
