The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Noam Chomsky, the prominant social commentator,linguistics professor and world-respected intellectual offers his opinion on the tragedy:
---------
The terrorist attacks were major atrocities. In scale they may not reach the level of many others, for example, Clinton's bombing of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical supplies and killing unknown numbers of people (no one knows, because the US blocked an inquiry at the UN and no one cares to pursue it). Not to speak of much worse cases, which easily come to mind. But that this was a horrendous crime is not in doubt. The primary victims, as usual, were working people: janitors, secretaries, firemen, etc. It is likely to prove to be a crushing blow to Palestinians and other poor and oppressed people. It is also likely to lead to harsh security controls, with many possible ramifications for undermining civil liberties and internal freedom.
The events reveal, dramatically, the foolishness of the project of "missile defense." As has been obvious all along, and pointed out repeatedly by strategic analysts, if anyone wants to cause immense damage in the US, including weapons of mass destruction, they are highly unlikely to launch a missile attack, thus guaranteeing their immediate destruction. There are innumerable easier ways that are basically unstoppable. But today's events will, very likely, be exploited to increase the pressure to develop these systems and put them into place. "Defense" is a thin cover for plans for militarization of space, and with good PR, even the flimsiest arguments will carry some weight among a frightened public.
In short, the crime is a gift to the hard jingoist right, those who hope to use force to control their domains. That is even putting aside the likely US actions, and what they will trigger -- possibly more attacks like this one, or worse. The prospects ahead are even more ominous than they appeared to be before the latest atrocities.
As to how to react, we have a choice. We can express justified horror; we can seek to understand what may have led to the crimes, which means making an effort to enter the minds of the likely perpetrators. If we choose the latter course, we can do no better, I think, than to listen to the words of Robert Fisk, whose direct knowledge and insight into affairs of the region is unmatched after many years of distinguished reporting. Describing "The wickedness and awesome cruelty of a crushed and humiliated people," he writes that "this is not the war of democracy versus terror that the world will be asked to believe in the coming days. It is also about American missiles smashing into Palestinian homes and US helicopters firing missiles into a Lebanese ambulance in 1996 and American shells crashing into a village called Qana and about a Lebanese militia paid and uniformed by America's Israeli ally hacking and raping and murdering their way through refugee camps." And much more. Again, we have a choice: we may try to understand, or refuse to do so, contributing to the likelihood that much worse lies ahead.
Noam Chomsky
---------
The terrorist attacks were major atrocities. In scale they may not reach the level of many others, for example, Clinton's bombing of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical supplies and killing unknown numbers of people (no one knows, because the US blocked an inquiry at the UN and no one cares to pursue it). Not to speak of much worse cases, which easily come to mind. But that this was a horrendous crime is not in doubt. The primary victims, as usual, were working people: janitors, secretaries, firemen, etc. It is likely to prove to be a crushing blow to Palestinians and other poor and oppressed people. It is also likely to lead to harsh security controls, with many possible ramifications for undermining civil liberties and internal freedom.
The events reveal, dramatically, the foolishness of the project of "missile defense." As has been obvious all along, and pointed out repeatedly by strategic analysts, if anyone wants to cause immense damage in the US, including weapons of mass destruction, they are highly unlikely to launch a missile attack, thus guaranteeing their immediate destruction. There are innumerable easier ways that are basically unstoppable. But today's events will, very likely, be exploited to increase the pressure to develop these systems and put them into place. "Defense" is a thin cover for plans for militarization of space, and with good PR, even the flimsiest arguments will carry some weight among a frightened public.
In short, the crime is a gift to the hard jingoist right, those who hope to use force to control their domains. That is even putting aside the likely US actions, and what they will trigger -- possibly more attacks like this one, or worse. The prospects ahead are even more ominous than they appeared to be before the latest atrocities.
As to how to react, we have a choice. We can express justified horror; we can seek to understand what may have led to the crimes, which means making an effort to enter the minds of the likely perpetrators. If we choose the latter course, we can do no better, I think, than to listen to the words of Robert Fisk, whose direct knowledge and insight into affairs of the region is unmatched after many years of distinguished reporting. Describing "The wickedness and awesome cruelty of a crushed and humiliated people," he writes that "this is not the war of democracy versus terror that the world will be asked to believe in the coming days. It is also about American missiles smashing into Palestinian homes and US helicopters firing missiles into a Lebanese ambulance in 1996 and American shells crashing into a village called Qana and about a Lebanese militia paid and uniformed by America's Israeli ally hacking and raping and murdering their way through refugee camps." And much more. Again, we have a choice: we may try to understand, or refuse to do so, contributing to the likelihood that much worse lies ahead.
Noam Chomsky
Absolute agreement from me with Chomsky, that's why I put it here.
The thing is, people will read it and label him a sympathiser. He is already derided as a liberal and borderline communist for daring to criticise the American Legislate and Senatorial actions carried out.
Whilst everyone agrees that this was an atrocious act, listening to the announcements from The White House last night and Dick Chaney, it's apparent that we are witnessing an new-era of secrecy, accountability to nobody and a rise in the military-industrial block power once more.
Strange then that Clinton, who entered into no wars whilst in Presidency was hounded and derided for sexual acts and left pretty much in disgrace, whilst Bush Jr carries out the actions initiated by his father.
George Bush Sr was on Reagan-like levels of obession with secrecy, internal control and wrestling the power away from a suppose "free press".
Before becoming President, Bush Sr was (and still is) a high ranking player within the CIA. The budget spending for Agencies tripled from that under the Reagan administration, and were cut back dramatically by Clinton.
Clinton also refused to allow the "Star Wars" programme to continue, seeing it as a waste of money as there are no significant threats to the USA.
However, since Bush Jr has been in power, the bombing of Iraq has continued to almost obscene levels, and it doesn't make the news anymore. It's actively discouraged by the White House and Federal Bureau as "not in the common good of the people" to continuall report on US activity in Iraq.
Bush Jr has already declared an "open cheque funding" for the defence sector now, and nobody will argue since this attack.
As Chomsky states, this awful, awful tragedy is a god-send for an administration that wishes to assert it's military might over the world, and to tighten up domestic access to information and data.
Everyone is trying to find out who did this and why, but nobody is asking what the US has done that might provoke extremists to such an action.
Nobody is saying this is anything other than horrific murder, I lost an Uncle in it, but I cannot personally condone the subsequent action to be taken.
They are already speaking of "acts of war" and have all but officialy named Osama Bin Laden as the culprit.
The US public are baying for blood, as is the world, and Bush Jr now has the full support to implement the actions intially started by his father but halted by Clinton.
Something bad is coming, be it a war or the return to the cold-war era of unaccountable government action, responsible to nobody at all.
Everyone condemns this attack, as is right.
But the ensuing action and change in Domestic Security Policy will be all but ignored in the lust for revenge.
The thing is, people will read it and label him a sympathiser. He is already derided as a liberal and borderline communist for daring to criticise the American Legislate and Senatorial actions carried out.
Whilst everyone agrees that this was an atrocious act, listening to the announcements from The White House last night and Dick Chaney, it's apparent that we are witnessing an new-era of secrecy, accountability to nobody and a rise in the military-industrial block power once more.
Strange then that Clinton, who entered into no wars whilst in Presidency was hounded and derided for sexual acts and left pretty much in disgrace, whilst Bush Jr carries out the actions initiated by his father.
George Bush Sr was on Reagan-like levels of obession with secrecy, internal control and wrestling the power away from a suppose "free press".
Before becoming President, Bush Sr was (and still is) a high ranking player within the CIA. The budget spending for Agencies tripled from that under the Reagan administration, and were cut back dramatically by Clinton.
Clinton also refused to allow the "Star Wars" programme to continue, seeing it as a waste of money as there are no significant threats to the USA.
However, since Bush Jr has been in power, the bombing of Iraq has continued to almost obscene levels, and it doesn't make the news anymore. It's actively discouraged by the White House and Federal Bureau as "not in the common good of the people" to continuall report on US activity in Iraq.
Bush Jr has already declared an "open cheque funding" for the defence sector now, and nobody will argue since this attack.
As Chomsky states, this awful, awful tragedy is a god-send for an administration that wishes to assert it's military might over the world, and to tighten up domestic access to information and data.
Everyone is trying to find out who did this and why, but nobody is asking what the US has done that might provoke extremists to such an action.
Nobody is saying this is anything other than horrific murder, I lost an Uncle in it, but I cannot personally condone the subsequent action to be taken.
They are already speaking of "acts of war" and have all but officialy named Osama Bin Laden as the culprit.
The US public are baying for blood, as is the world, and Bush Jr now has the full support to implement the actions intially started by his father but halted by Clinton.
Something bad is coming, be it a war or the return to the cold-war era of unaccountable government action, responsible to nobody at all.
Everyone condemns this attack, as is right.
But the ensuing action and change in Domestic Security Policy will be all but ignored in the lust for revenge.
Probably the most balanced, sensible thing I've heard about the whole thing so far. Sadly I don't think people will listen. They didn't listen during the Intifada in fact few have ever looked, listened or been critical about American foreign policy.
America and the Wests myopia about their role in the middle east has led to this. Oppressed desperate people will go to desperate measures. Not that this act is representative of the Muslim world at all.It will doubtlessly see a rise in anti islamic violence unseen so far.
People don't like complex political arguments. It requires complex moral decisions - which usually aren't made. It leaves most people in a quagmire of uncertainty.
The problem now is that everyone feels "slighted" that they all have a right to retribution. "Turning the other cheek" is very unlikey. People like the simplistic morality of "an eye for an eye". This sadly is where its all heading.
America and the Wests myopia about their role in the middle east has led to this. Oppressed desperate people will go to desperate measures. Not that this act is representative of the Muslim world at all.It will doubtlessly see a rise in anti islamic violence unseen so far.
People don't like complex political arguments. It requires complex moral decisions - which usually aren't made. It leaves most people in a quagmire of uncertainty.
The problem now is that everyone feels "slighted" that they all have a right to retribution. "Turning the other cheek" is very unlikey. People like the simplistic morality of "an eye for an eye". This sadly is where its all heading.
Noam Chomsky, the prominant social commentator,linguistics professor and world-respected intellectual offers his opinion on the tragedy:
---------
The terrorist attacks were major atrocities. In scale they may not reach the level of many others, for example, Clinton's bombing of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical supplies and killing unknown numbers of people (no one knows, because the US blocked an inquiry at the UN and no one cares to pursue it). Not to speak of much worse cases, which easily come to mind. But that this was a horrendous crime is not in doubt. The primary victims, as usual, were working people: janitors, secretaries, firemen, etc. It is likely to prove to be a crushing blow to Palestinians and other poor and oppressed people. It is also likely to lead to harsh security controls, with many possible ramifications for undermining civil liberties and internal freedom.
The events reveal, dramatically, the foolishness of the project of "missile defense." As has been obvious all along, and pointed out repeatedly by strategic analysts, if anyone wants to cause immense damage in the US, including weapons of mass destruction, they are highly unlikely to launch a missile attack, thus guaranteeing their immediate destruction. There are innumerable easier ways that are basically unstoppable. But today's events will, very likely, be exploited to increase the pressure to develop these systems and put them into place. "Defense" is a thin cover for plans for militarization of space, and with good PR, even the flimsiest arguments will carry some weight among a frightened public.
In short, the crime is a gift to the hard jingoist right, those who hope to use force to control their domains. That is even putting aside the likely US actions, and what they will trigger -- possibly more attacks like this one, or worse. The prospects ahead are even more ominous than they appeared to be before the latest atrocities.
As to how to react, we have a choice. We can express justified horror; we can seek to understand what may have led to the crimes, which means making an effort to enter the minds of the likely perpetrators. If we choose the latter course, we can do no better, I think, than to listen to the words of Robert Fisk, whose direct knowledge and insight into affairs of the region is unmatched after many years of distinguished reporting. Describing "The wickedness and awesome cruelty of a crushed and humiliated people," he writes that "this is not the war of democracy versus terror that the world will be asked to believe in the coming days. It is also about American missiles smashing into Palestinian homes and US helicopters firing missiles into a Lebanese ambulance in 1996 and American shells crashing into a village called Qana and about a Lebanese militia paid and uniformed by America's Israeli ally hacking and raping and murdering their way through refugee camps." And much more. Again, we have a choice: we may try to understand, or refuse to do so, contributing to the likelihood that much worse lies ahead.
Noam Chomsky
---------
The terrorist attacks were major atrocities. In scale they may not reach the level of many others, for example, Clinton's bombing of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical supplies and killing unknown numbers of people (no one knows, because the US blocked an inquiry at the UN and no one cares to pursue it). Not to speak of much worse cases, which easily come to mind. But that this was a horrendous crime is not in doubt. The primary victims, as usual, were working people: janitors, secretaries, firemen, etc. It is likely to prove to be a crushing blow to Palestinians and other poor and oppressed people. It is also likely to lead to harsh security controls, with many possible ramifications for undermining civil liberties and internal freedom.
The events reveal, dramatically, the foolishness of the project of "missile defense." As has been obvious all along, and pointed out repeatedly by strategic analysts, if anyone wants to cause immense damage in the US, including weapons of mass destruction, they are highly unlikely to launch a missile attack, thus guaranteeing their immediate destruction. There are innumerable easier ways that are basically unstoppable. But today's events will, very likely, be exploited to increase the pressure to develop these systems and put them into place. "Defense" is a thin cover for plans for militarization of space, and with good PR, even the flimsiest arguments will carry some weight among a frightened public.
In short, the crime is a gift to the hard jingoist right, those who hope to use force to control their domains. That is even putting aside the likely US actions, and what they will trigger -- possibly more attacks like this one, or worse. The prospects ahead are even more ominous than they appeared to be before the latest atrocities.
As to how to react, we have a choice. We can express justified horror; we can seek to understand what may have led to the crimes, which means making an effort to enter the minds of the likely perpetrators. If we choose the latter course, we can do no better, I think, than to listen to the words of Robert Fisk, whose direct knowledge and insight into affairs of the region is unmatched after many years of distinguished reporting. Describing "The wickedness and awesome cruelty of a crushed and humiliated people," he writes that "this is not the war of democracy versus terror that the world will be asked to believe in the coming days. It is also about American missiles smashing into Palestinian homes and US helicopters firing missiles into a Lebanese ambulance in 1996 and American shells crashing into a village called Qana and about a Lebanese militia paid and uniformed by America's Israeli ally hacking and raping and murdering their way through refugee camps." And much more. Again, we have a choice: we may try to understand, or refuse to do so, contributing to the likelihood that much worse lies ahead.
Noam Chomsky