|
|||||||||
Posted September 3, 2001
Glass Houses
Something's been eating at me lately. One of the recurrent themes in Justin Raimondo's and Nebojsa Malic's columns is their condemnation of NATO and the Western media for recycling the claims of the KLA/NLA/what-have-you as if they were gospel truth. Fair enough criticism, as far as I'm concerned. But then I find that a quick look at Antiwar.com's main page on just about any given day will reveal such headers as "US Warplanes Kill 3 Iraqi Civilians," and then when you click on it, the story says, "US warplanes killed three civilians, according to Iraqi news sources."
Or, Antiwar.com: "Israeli Tank Blows Up Some Kid Playing In His Yard," and news story: "Palestinian sources report that a child playing in his yard was killed by..." you get the idea.
So what's that they say about people living in glass houses?
The "Backtalk" editor replies:
We
do try to indicate the source when a statement is controversial.
Here are a few examples from the past few days: "Sri Lanka Says Ready
for Ceasefire with Tamil Tigers," rather than "Sri Lanka Ready
for Ceasefire with Tamil Tigers"; "Report: Ceasefire Deal in
Beit Jala," rather than "Ceasefire Deal in Beit Jala";
"Cover-Up Charged in Death of British Soldier," rather than
"Circumstances of Soldier's Death Covered-Up"; "Israel
Says US OK with Use of Weapons Against Palestinians," rather than
"US OK with...."
Parties
[Regarding the "Backtalk" editor's reply to M.A.'s letter of August 22, "FlowerPower.com":]
I used to be a member of the Libertarian Party out here in California until I realized the party is:
(A) Going nowhere fast because of an inability to concentrate on local races instead of national exposure and
(B) That
the L.P. is a hangout for anti-globalists
and pot-heads. Weirdo's like that can always unite under the threat of
a common enemy, i.e. "big this or that."
The Latino population out here now runs the show because they focused
on races they could win in their own districts, and now they have their
sights on higher profile national offices, which they will surely attain
in large numbers during the next decade. This is a recipe for success,
not Harry
Browne prancing around at gun shows and [going on] talk radio telling
us all how he "has a chance" at the White House. I also hate
the Libertarian
[Party's] foreign policy which consists of – no foreign policy. Libertarianism
would have allowed the Third Reich to realize its goals, at least from
a foreign policy standpoint. No thanks.
Fiscally, Constitutionally, I dig the LP – beyond that, forget it. The
LP would have been a good alternative to Federalism in an era before intercontinental
ballistic missiles and cyber-terrorism, etc. A nice quaint, 19th century
political philosophy, but misplaced in our time.
While the GOP and the Democrats become joined at the hip, I look to a
conservative party that values the Constitution, but meets national objectives
of security, commercial dominance, and a clearly defined moral prerogative.
Libertarianism meets one-and a-half of those three requirements (for me).
However, I do vote LP in local races when there is a candidate running.
~ 2nd Lt. M.A., 1st div, 3rd Amrd Batl'n
The
"Backtalk" editor replies:
When I wrote that Antiwar.com was "founded by libertarians" I linked the phrase to our "editorial and political credo," which explains that the site's founders left the Libertarian Party in the early 1980s. Antiwar.com is a ward of the Center for Libertarian Studies, and is not affiliated with the Libertarian Party.
As for your foreign policy analysis, all major libertarian philosophies endorse self-defense, so whether libertarian governments would have allowed the Third Reich to realize its international goals is debatable. So-called isolationists, noninterventionists, and anti-imperialists believe what we do for a variety of reasons, moral and practical. Many of us would argue that international bullying and meddling destabilizes international relations, making missile and cyber-terrorist attacks more likely. No one is likely to be convinced by a two-paragraph reply to an e-mail, but you might find Niall Ferguson's The Pity of War enlightening – it's an analysis of British interventionism's role in the European disaster.
Propaganda
[Regarding Justin Raimondo's column of August 31, "Shadows and Mist":]
I
have plenty of comments about this particular article, but I will mention
only one: If Mr.Raimondo supposes that Western media are biased on reporting
from Macedonia, how does he expect us to believe that Dnevnik,
a Macedonian newspaper which he quotes so often, is unbiased?
It is really disturbing to see such a noble idea as Anti-War, being used
for such a transparent propaganda.
~ Mr. R. Nesimi
Justin Raimondo replies:
You missed
the whole point of my column. I never wrote that Dnevik has a monopoly
on the truth about what is happening in Macedonia; but, then again, the
Western media, which is blatantly pro-Albanian (and pro-NATO), is a source
of misinformation. So I'm going there, myself. I'll let you know what
I find out....
What About Israel?
All
your headlines are about Macedonia. What about all the weaponry we are
giving Israel and how they are using it to systematically remove and destroy
the indigenous people of the region?
~ Ms. J. Samiee
The "Backtalk" editor replies:
Three of today's (August 31) headlines were about Israel, five of yesterday's, and seven of Wednesday's. Antiwar.com has published many editorials advocating cutting military aid to Israel.