>> I have always felt that people who go to a IAC meeting need not discuss
the obvious(like the crimes committed by the enemy), but discuss lesser
known crimes (which may be larger in scale).
>I would appreciate some examples of these "lesser known crimes".
Any crime mainstream corporation news networks don’t choose to discuss.
> But, if an IAC meeting chooses to “deny or minimize” crimes committed by
the official enemy, it becomes more discrediting and members may start to
dilute themselves. They will come to believe in a picture of world which
doesn’t exist.
>However, by posting a vituperative attack that is just as deluded as you
claim IAC to be
Never claimed IAC was delude, just some of its members(don’t have first hand
experience of it though).
>While the IAC does, I agree, tend to paint an unrealistic picture of the
world, downplaying official enemy crimes, this is a rather trifling gripe in
the scheme of things.
Downplaying enemies crimes seems to be necessary in their current situation,
where most of the public ONLY knows those crimes. The focus must be on what
the “good guys” (who we fund) are responsible for.
>Apologizing for, minimizing, or even denying (in fact the IAC does not make
a big point of actually denying Serb or Iraqi atrocities-- most of the time
they tend instead to skirt the issue or refocus attention on the crimes of
US and NATO) the crimes of official enemies may well be a tactical mistake,
eliminating chances to reach a larger audience.
I agree.
>However, responding to an enumeration of horrifying crimes committed by US
and NATO planners by spouting on about how bad official enemies really are,
completely ignoring the evidence presented and attacking the group for
failing to yell loud enough about the latest "demon"'s crimes strikes me as
bad faith.
I never said such thing, or even implied it.
>Clearly, the important issues are the crimes in which we are involved, and
for which our silence or apologetics provide support. Surely there are
enough op-ed pieces decrying Milosevic or Saddam. What the world needs is
more US attention to the crimes in which it participates. I would certainly
welcome a more honest approach to Saddam's or Milosevic's crimes by the IAC.
But, fortunately, we have other ways to gather that information.
Yes, yes, I agree.
>Whether that information is morally significant is another question. It
may be important if we have a hand in the crimes. If we want to condemn
Saddam Hussein for making his people suffer just so that we can continue to
justify making them suffer even more, I would seriously question the moral
worth of pointing out his crimes. Historical accuracy is one thing.
However, accuracy and activism about the things for which we are responsible
and the things we can change for the better is vastly more important.
Otherwise, we continue to function as commissars, not dissidents.
Again, on the same page.
>> Many people already have this problem. Why should a “leftist” group
perpetuate this?
>The IAC should not. However, as I argue above, failure to become horrified
at Serbian atrocities can hardly compare with the failure to be horrified by
NATO or US crimes.
I’ve been told IAC is a front org for Worker’s World. WW record isn’t as clean.
I’ve always liked what I see at IAC website. I often quote right from them.
But leftists have pointed out that their members aren’t as good as their
website. They have been to some of IAC meetings and said some of the higher
positioned members see Saddam or Milosevic as “heroes”.
Point is, IAC's website is perfect, their meetings not.
Milutin
--
What we don't know keeps tha contracts alive and movin'
They don't gotta burn tha books, they just remove 'em
|