>> 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".

> 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.
 I agree that this is problematic.  Delusion is to be avoided, and hopefully
one should attempt describe the world as accurately as possible.  However,
by posting a vituperative attack that is just as deluded as you claim IAC to
be, I feel that focussing in on the crucial issues involved in dissidence
and resistance.  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.  Far more important is to speak out
about the things that matter, the things that one is responsible for or
things that one can conceivably change through protest, education, action,
and organizing.  Dissident groups that organize large rallies, put together
impressive evidence to reveal the crimes that their own state perpetrates,
speak out about the things that matter most, are participating in meaningful
dissent.  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.  Honesty and
integrity are also qualities that people and organizations should pursue for
their worth in and of themselves.  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.  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.   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.

> 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.


Soren