The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: GoldCashew on May 30, 2020, 02:30:18 PM
-
Hi. I recently purchased a copy of Rowbotham's Earth not a Globe as interest in learning more about the development theories for a flat earth.
For those that have either read his book or have a deeper understanding of Rowbotham's FE theory, was curious to know if Rowbotham also used or leveraged conspiracy theories to help develop FE theory.
Much like FE believe that space travel is a conspiracy and that astronauts are lying, did Rowbotham (during his time in the 1800's) also subscribe to or mention any conspiracy theories in his day to help support his FE theory.
Or did Rowbotham only subscribe to experimentation and testing as the method of proof.
Thanks.
-
ENAG was written back in the mid-19th century. Conspiracy theories are more of a 20th century thing. Especially since the 1950s when the space race started to gather pace. Space travel is not exactly compatible with flat Earth beliefs so it is not surprising that flat Earth believers regard anything related to space travel as some sort of conspiracy against them. And that of course includes the many, many, many photos of the Earth taken from space and from a wide variety of sources which show that it is unquestionably very round.
Rowbothams book on the other hand is simply the product of someone who had a rather vivid imagination and very fixed ideas about the shape of the Earth. Flat Earthers like it because it falls in line with their beliefs. The descriptions of his 'experiments' are very detailed and suggest he was actually quite a competent observer. Unfortunately his figures don't add up because they were made using his false belief that the Earth is flat.
You might now interpret Rowbotham as a kind of conspiracy theorist of his time in that he probably wanted to try and make everyone else believe what he believed. I don't think the word conspiracy was at the forefront of his mind when he wrote the book though.
It had been established that the Earth is round long before Rowbothams time but there will always be a small faction of people who decide not to accept that view. Those people have their own reasons and motivations for taking that different view. Usually the motivation has a political, anti-authoritarian or religious origin and this is the basis of modern conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories are also born out of aspects of life where is it difficult to prove the truth one way or another. That was certainly true of flat Earth until the space age when images of the Earth from space became common. Any real evidence which becomes available and which directly shows that a conspiracy theory is wrong will be treated with a predictable level of scepticism by those who support the conspiracy theory. One thing which you will absolutely never experience is a conspiracy theorist openly admit they are wrong. It is actually pretty hard to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Earth is round simply from direct observation at ground level. And that of course is what keeps the flat Earth conspiracy going. The best evidence that shows the earth is round is not at ground level but rather up in the sky. Conspiracy theories such as flat Earth is actually a good thing I think because to make an effective counter argument you have to make sure you have absolutely got your facts right. And that can involve a little bit of research if your knowledge is not 100% up to date.
Usually you will find that flat Earth believers are also in denial about the Moon landings as well plus various other related conspiracies. Anything that seems too give the rest of us the impression that they know or think they know something that everyone else doesn't.
-
ENAG was written back in the mid-19th century. Conspiracy theories are more of a 20th century thing. Especially since the 1950s when the space race started to gather pace. Space travel is not exactly compatible with flat Earth beliefs so it is not surprising that flat Earth believers regard anything related to space travel as some sort of conspiracy against them. And that of course includes the many, many, many photos of the Earth taken from space and from a wide variety of sources which show that it is unquestionably very round.
Rowbothams book on the other hand is simply the product of someone who had a rather vivid imagination and very fixed ideas about the shape of the Earth. Flat Earthers like it because it falls in line with their beliefs. The descriptions of his 'experiments' are very detailed and suggest he was actually quite a competent observer. Unfortunately his figures don't add up because they were made using his false belief that the Earth is flat.
You might now interpret Rowbotham as a kind of conspiracy theorist of his time in that he probably wanted to try and make everyone else believe what he believed. I don't think the word conspiracy was at the forefront of his mind when he wrote the book though.
It had been established that the Earth is round long before Rowbothams time but there will always be a small faction of people who decide not to accept that view. Those people have their own reasons and motivations for taking that different view. Usually the motivation has a political, anti-authoritarian or religious origin and this is the basis of modern conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories are also born out of aspects of life where is it difficult to prove the truth one way or another. That was certainly true of flat Earth until the space age when images of the Earth from space became common. Any real evidence which becomes available and which directly shows that a conspiracy theory is wrong will be treated with a predictable level of scepticism by those who support the conspiracy theory. One thing which you will absolutely never experience is a conspiracy theorist openly admit they are wrong. It is actually pretty hard to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Earth is round simply from direct observation at ground level. And that of course is what keeps the flat Earth conspiracy going. The best evidence that shows the earth is round is not at ground level but rather up in the sky. Conspiracy theories such as flat Earth is actually a good thing I think because to make an effective counter argument you have to make sure you have absolutely got your facts right. And that can involve a little bit of research if your knowledge is not 100% up to date.
Usually you will find that flat Earth believers are also in denial about the Moon landings as well plus various other related conspiracies. Anything that seems too give the rest of us the impression that they know or think they know something that everyone else doesn't.
I think the reasons why some folks also fall into conspiracy theory rabbit holes, like Flat Earth theory, is that it offers them a kind of therapy. Therapy in that it maybe gives them purpose, meaning, and belonging. I believe that some of the FE's on this site deep down don't really believe the Earth is flat but feel purpose and meaning in being part of a unique group think. Perhaps they like being part of a small knit group community that is an underdog. Or perhaps they feel empowerment by the attention that comes with believing in something so non-mainstream. Mark Sargeant is someone whom I think falls into this category. Per Behind the Curve, you can almost tell he's just looking for conspiracy(s) to believe in. Perhaps Rowbotham fell into the same category.
There are also those whom have been impacted by significant life events. And so grabbing onto a conspiracy theory or a non-mainstream belief like Flat Earth serves as a kind of outlet or a way to deal with things.
Anyways, looking forwards to receiving the book and reading it.
-
What makes you think that it's a belief in conspiracies more so than a disbelief of government?
(https://i.imgur.com/eQKrmZr.png)
-
Whilst it's certainly true that governments lie, it's not true that everything they say is a lie and I don't think you believe it is.
You selectively choose to disbelieve NASA because it suits your wider world view.
It's not like NASA are claiming to have technologies that no-one else does. Quite a few countries have space programmes and now with SpaceX private enterprises are getting in on the act.
-
Whilst it's certainly true that governments lie, it's not true that everything they say is a lie and I don't think you believe it is.
You selectively choose to disbelieve NASA because it suits your wider world view.
I think that you and many other RE here would be the people in the second panel of the illustration I posted with their hands down.
So it is actually you, who selectively chooses to believe NASA, because your love for space fancy overrides its source. The blind belief in NASA appears to be more based on emotions and love of space and sci-fi than anything. Any other branch of the federal government or military is more readily distrusted in what they are doing or claiming to be capable of.
-
and now with SpaceX private enterprises are getting in on the act.
NASA subcontractors are just NASA with a new badge. There is nothing special about them, other than Elon Musk's obvious mental instability.
-
Whilst it's certainly true that governments lie, it's not true that everything they say is a lie and I don't think you believe it is.
You selectively choose to disbelieve NASA because it suits your wider world view.
I think that you and many other RE here would be the people in the second panel of the illustration I posted with their hands down.
A strange assertion given that I've just said that "it's not true that everything they say is a lie"
I don't believe you'd be in that panel either, unless you believe that everything the government says is a lie.
Which would be a strange stance given that you seem to endlessly defend Trump (despite the fact that he is one of the presidents with the worst record of lying - but even he doesn't always lie)
-
I think that you and many other RE here would be the people in the second panel of the illustration I posted with their hands down.
I don't give a monkey's which panel I'm in
So it is actually you, who selectively chooses to believe NASA, because your love for space fancy overrides its source. The blind belief in NASA appears to be more based on emotions and love of space and sci-fi than anything.
Aren't you selectively disbelieving them based on the fact that what they do is non-congruent with your world view?
If they weren't doing what they claim, then other entities like Roscosmos, ESA, Jaxa, and the other space agencies would have rumbled them by now. There's a host of non-space agencies who would also have rumbled them if they weren't doing what they claim - Jodrell Bank, The Space Geodesy Facility, The International Laser Ranging Service, and a host of others....
-
Lets compare Space Travel to Human Rights Violations in the ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan, which several countries are influencing. Lets say that the US, Russia, and France are involved for some reason.
The US claims to have only committed xx human rights violations. Only xx terrorists were tortured this quarter. Russia claims to have committed xx human rights violations. Only xx terrorists were tortured this quarter. France claims that xx terrorists were tortured. They are self-reporting, performing their own oversight with their own agencies of how they violate human rights, just how they self report for space travel claims.
Now, with this analogy in place, you are claiming that if the one country misstepped in some manner on human rights violations, that Russia or France would sound the alert. That there is no way that these groups, who are allied on some diplomatic level, would conspire together to overlook violations.
This would, of course, be absolutely absurd to claim. They would be distrusted by default to self report, let alone what they would do against each other. We see that when we extend the analogy beyond your imagined feel-good honest space travel world that those countries can't really be trusted to do anything honestly. Honesty is not the default.
Add in the fact that for space travel claims these countries often share the same international space contractors, we find that they aren't really doing anything truly independently, and are all tied together. Denmark's 'space agency' didn't develop space travel from scratch for their 'space program'. They have no rockets, launch pads, or space ships. They pay the international contractors for space services.
-
Lets compare Space Travel to Human Rights Violations in the ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan, which several countries are influencing. Lets say that the US, Russia, and France are involved for some reason.
The US claims to have only committed xx human rights violations. Only xx terrorists were tortured this quarter. Russia claims to have committed xx human rights violations. Only xx terrorists were tortured this quarter. France claims that xx terrorists were tortured. They are self-reporting, performing their own oversight with their own agencies of how they violate human rights, just how they self report for space travel claims.
Now, with this analogy in place, you are claiming that if the one country misstepped in some manner on human rights violations, that Russia or France would sound the alert. That there is no way that these groups, who are allied on some diplomatic level, would conspire together to violate human rights in Afghanistan, or overlook violations.
This would, of course, be absolutely absurd to claim. They would be distrusted by default to self report, let alone what they would do against each other. We see that when we extend the analogy beyond your imagined feel-good honest space travel world that those countries can't really be trusted to do anything honestly. Honesty is not the default.
Your analogy is flawed. Countries do indeed call each other out on human rights violations. In fact that is the norm, and I'm not sure I've ever seen Russia, the US and China all conspire to hide some violation they all participated in. I wouldn't say it never happens, but if it does, it's rare. For your analogy to be true, every space-based country and agency in the would will have had to have been part of this conspiracy for the entire time, without one ever calling the rest of the world out.
But you don't see Russia officially claiming the USA never landed on the moon, you don't see any of the dozens of space agencies that launch hundreds of satellites into space pointing out that some other launch was a fake.
It is also only your opinion that countries (and people I guess) default to lying. I would disagree. In my opinion honesty is the default, lying is the exception.
-
Add in the fact that for space travel claims these countries often share the same international space contractors, we find that they aren't really doing anything truly independently, and are all tied together. Denmark's 'space agency' didn't develop space travel from scratch for their 'space program'. They have no rockets, launch pads, or space ships. They pay the international contractors for space services.
Again, there's a host of non-space agencies (who are also non-contractors on the design, build and launch side) who would also have rumbled them if they weren't doing what they claim - Jodrell Bank, The Space Geodesy Facility, The International Laser Ranging Service, and a host of others....
-
Add in the fact that for space travel claims these countries often share the same international space contractors, we find that they aren't really doing anything truly independently, and are all tied together. Denmark's 'space agency' didn't develop space travel from scratch for their 'space program'. They have no rockets, launch pads, or space ships. They pay the international contractors for space services.
Japan, Russia, China, India and Europe all have independent space agencies with their own launch pads and rockets.
-
Countries do indeed call each other out on human rights violations. In fact that is the norm
Ah, yes, the norm. That's why so many countries have condemned the USA on its most recent human rights crisis. Thank you for providing this fantastic evidence for the absurdity of your claim!
-
Whilst it's certainly true that governments lie, it's not true that everything they say is a lie and I don't think you believe it is.
You selectively choose to disbelieve NASA because it suits your wider world view.
I think that you and many other RE here would be the people in the second panel of the illustration I posted with their hands down.
So it is actually you, who selectively chooses to believe NASA, because your love for space fancy overrides its source. The blind belief in NASA appears to be more based on emotions and love of space and sci-fi than anything. Any other branch of the federal government or military is more readily distrusted in what they are doing or claiming to be capable of.
Your distrust that extends to anything government related, like NASA, is predictable and a common reason why Flat Earthers fall into the rabbit hole of believing that NASA lies and that there is a space travel conspiracy. Flat Earthers will say that RE'ers have been indoctrinated to believe the earth as round; coincidentally, FE'ers are equally indoctrinated with the whole space travel conspiracy claim.
While FE theory prides itself on getting to a position of "knowing" from observation and experimentaion, the space travel conspiracy is a claim that is not predicated on any direct observation, testing, or proof to get to a position of knowing.
The beauty and elegance of a conspiracy theory is that one can make a set of ridiculous assertions and claims without ever having to make an effort to try and prove.
When independent firms like Elon Musks's SpaceX launch crew into space, one can sense a kind of jealousy or dispise from FE community, because so much excitement and news goes against what FE'ers wish would go away. Elon Musk is perhaps eccentric and confident in his assertions and opinions, but he is an innovator, a visionary, a game changer, and very successful at that.
-
Countries do indeed call each other out on human rights violations. In fact that is the norm
Ah, yes, the norm. That's why so many countries have condemned the USA on its most recent human rights crisis. Thank you for providing this fantastic evidence for the absurdity of your claim!
I didn't think I needed to post links as evidence, as it's been front page news all around the world. So here are just a few. Google News can pull up others if you need more examples.
Un News - US must address deep-seated grievances to move beyond history of racism and violence (https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/06/1065572)
George Floyd’s Death in U.S. Sparks Outcry Abroad (https://www.wsj.com/articles/george-floyds-death-in-u-s-sparks-outcry-abroad-11591123234)
EU 'shocked and appalled' by George Floyd's killing (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/06/george-floyd-america-pain-weekend-rallies-grip-live-200601132229392.html)
World leaders condemn George Floyd killing as violence spreads in U.S. (https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-06-03/World-leaders-condemn-George-Floyd-killing-as-violence-spreads-in-U-S--R1Q3fbg9Es/index.html)
Africa Reacts to George Floyd’s Death and U.S. Protests (https://www.csis.org/analysis/africa-reacts-george-floyds-death-and-us-protests)
Thousands across the UK, Germany, Italy, New Zealand, Canada, and more condemn racism and demand justice at global Black Lives Matter protests (https://www.insider.com/global-george-floyd-black-lives-matter-protests-photos-2020-5)
The World Is Watching U.S. Protests Over George Floyd. Demonstrations spread to Paris and other cities around the world. (https://www.usnews.com/news/world-report/articles/2020-06-03/the-world-is-watching-us-protests-over-george-floyd)
-
I didn't think I needed to post links as evidence, as it's been front page news all around the world. So here are just a few.
Have you read the articles you've posted? Most of them discuss citizens being upset with the situation.
I can't help but notice that the first thing you're doing after returning from your ban is to debate in poor faith. It's disappointing.
-
I didn't think I needed to post links as evidence, as it's been front page news all around the world. So here are just a few.
Have you read the articles you've posted? Most of them discuss citizens being upset with the situation.
I can't help but notice that the first thing you're doing after returning from your ban is to debate in poor faith. It's disappointing.
Two points here.
1. I don't want to get into a debate over if "countries" means "leaders" or "citizens" but you seem to think it means the former, and I think it means all people, and we can have our own opinions there.
2. I did read the articles. Several mention world leaders directly addressing them. Here is one article and some quotes.
World leaders condemn George Floyd killing as violence spreads in U.S. (https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-06-03/World-leaders-condemn-George-Floyd-killing-as-violence-spreads-in-U-S--R1Q3fbg9Es/index.html)
UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson condemned the killing
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the police killing shows the "true face" of the United States and its oppression of the peoples of the world, including its own.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau "We all watch in horror and consternation at what is going on in the United States,"
German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas called the anti-racism protests "understandable and more than legitimate."
-
1. I don't want to get into a debate over if "countries" means "leaders" or "citizens"
In a discussion about governments, you should probably be discussing governments, and not things which aren't governments. It's not so much a debate as a request that you stop trolling the forum.
-
I didn't think I needed to post links as evidence, as it's been front page news all around the world. So here are just a few.
Have you read the articles you've posted? Most of them discuss citizens being upset with the situation.
I can't help but notice that the first thing you're doing after returning from your ban is to debate in poor faith. It's disappointing.
Actually, it appears that you are the one who didn’t read them. Unless you think 2 out of 7 means “most.”
Most of the linked articles support the relevant (to this discussion) point JSS has been trying to make. And if most of the articles actually are about governments (not merely their citizens) condemning the US, will you concede that he's not arguing in poor faith?
I read the linked articles – well, 6 of them, since the WSJ one is behind a paywall and I don’t subscribe. If that one is also not “about” governments condemning what’s going on in the US, then I guess it’s 3 out of 7. Still not “most."
Here's an overview of each of them:
FIRST
Un News - US must address deep-seated grievances to move beyond history of racism and violence (https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/06/1065572)
The very first sentence is from a governmental agent:
“The voices calling for an end to the killings of unarmed African Americans need to be heard”, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet said in a statement. “The voices calling for an end to police violence need to be heard”.
There are 22 paragraphs in the article; by my count about 16 of them are direct quotes or interpretations of quotes by officials of the UN. Not the government of a sovereign country, but the UN is an IGO, so by definition is related to government (lots of them).
SECOND
EU 'shocked and appalled' by George Floyd's killing (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/06/george-floyd-america-pain-weekend-rallies-grip-live-200601132229392.html)
This is a frequently updated report that is quite long. But the currently most recent update has this quote:
“Peaceful demonstrations in the United States against the "shocking" killing of George Floyd during an arrest by police are "more than legitimate", Germany's foreign minister said.”
Followed by another quote of his.
And the second most recent update has this quote:
“China's foreign ministry spokesperson called out US racism as "a chronic disease of American society".
The fourth most recent update has this:
The European Union is "shocked and appalled" by the death of George Floyd in police custody, the bloc's top diplomat said, calling it "an abuse of power" and warning against further excessive use of force.
As well as this:
"Like the people of the United States, we are shocked and appalled by the death of George Floyd ... all societies must remain vigilant against the excessive use of force," Josep Borrell, the EU's foreign policy chief, told reporters.
The sixth most recent update has this:
“The Iranian foreign ministry has called on the United States to "stop violence" against its own people in the face of large protests sweeping the nation.”
Followed by more quotes from Iranian officials.
The seventh most recent update has this:
“Australia is investigating a US police attack on two Australian journalists outside the White House with a view to launching a formal complaint, the foreign minister [of Australia] said.”
Keep reading and there’s quotes from Ghana’s president too.
Quite a bit of this is devoted to what foreign leaders are saying, not their citizens.
THIRD
World leaders condemn George Floyd killing as violence spreads in U.S. (https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-06-03/World-leaders-condemn-George-Floyd-killing-as-violence-spreads-in-U-S--R1Q3fbg9Es/index.html)
Well, read the headline on this one. But just a few select quotes:
“UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson condemned the killing of the unarmed African-American man by police.”
“Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the police killing shows the "true face" of the United States and its oppression of the peoples of the world, including its own.”
“German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas called the anti-racism protests "understandable and more than legitimate."
FOURTH
Africa Reacts to George Floyd’s Death and U.S. Protests (https://www.csis.org/analysis/africa-reacts-george-floyds-death-and-us-protests)
This article was somewhat unique. It was technically “citizens” and not quotes or comments from government officials, but in the words of the introduction they are all “prominent African journalists, civil society activists, and thought leaders.”
So, let’s call out JSS on this and say this one should not be included (if we agree with Pete’s rhetorical jiu jitsu that within the "government" sub-topic of this thread that is about conspiracies more broadly, we absolutely cannot stray into non-government talk).
FIFTH
Thousands across the UK, Germany, Italy, New Zealand, Canada, and more condemn racism and demand justice at global Black Lives Matter protests (https://www.insider.com/global-george-floyd-black-lives-matter-protests-photos-2020-5)
This one is also really about the protests by citizens of several countries, and not their leaders. Shame on JSS!
Though, I will note that it includes the quote that “Labor Party politician Barry Gardiner, who had been social distancing since March, said he "broke it" on Wednesday for the sake of joining thousands of protesters in taking a knee outside parliament.”
SIXTH
The World Is Watching U.S. Protests Over George Floyd. Demonstrations spread to Paris and other cities around the world. (https://www.usnews.com/news/world-report/articles/2020-06-03/the-world-is-watching-us-protests-over-george-floyd)
The very second paragraph reads in its entirety:
“Several governments, including in the U.K., Germany and Canada have spoken out about the protests and condemned racism.”
There is only one or two paragraphs directly about the protests alone. The rest of the article is filled with direct quotes from government agents, including:
“The United Nations on Wednesday condemned reports of "unnecessary and disproportionate use of force by law enforcement officers."
“British Prime Minister Boris Johnson on Wednesday said that "racism and racist violence has no place in our society."
“On Tuesday, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took a lengthy pause before addressing a question about President Donald Trump's handling of the situation. ‘We all watch in horror and consternation what's going on in the United States,’ he said after the 20-second dramatic pause. ‘It is a time to pull people together, but it is a time to listen.’”
....
So, yes, I'd say the links JSS posted are mostly about governments around the world condemning the US for human rights issues.
And I think this supports JSS' prior claim that governments, as a rule, do call each other out for things like this.
If you read things like Foreign Policy ( https://foreignpolicy.com/ (https://foreignpolicy.com/)) which I do subscribe to, you'll find it's actually quite common, and is totally the norm. Which is why I bothered chiming in here. Great power politics is all about posturing which frequently includes calling other governments out for as many things as possible.
-
Not really. Notice that most of those source tip-toe around their words and only "condemn racism" and "condemn the killing by police" in very vague terms. I don't see any of them condemning the United States. Iran seems to be the only one trying to attack the US as a country in that, while everyone else is more reluctant.
Also, those sources are talking about and reacting to world news articles. This would be somewhat different than a country trying to expose the USA's human rights violations in a war zone. They rarely try to expose each other. At most you ever see them talking about news articles and current events.
-
Not really. Notice that most of those source tip-toe around their words and only "condemn racism" and "condemn the killing by police" in very vague terms. I don't see any of them condemning the United States. Iran seems to be the only one trying to attack the US as a country in that, while everyone else is more reluctant.
Also, those sources are talking about and reacting to world news articles. This would be somewhat different than a country trying to expose the USA's human rights violations in a war zone. They rarely try to expose each other. At most you ever see them talking about news articles and current events.
I think you have an unreasonably narrow interpretation of what it means for governments to "call out the US for human rights abuses." Is it only "calling the US out" if it's a formal censure at the UN or something? These are widely reported direct quotes from dozens of government officials from around the world saying that what is happening in the US that started the protests is bad and shouldn't happen.
I suspect you don't read much about actual international relations - countries call each other out all the time for things that happen in war zones, it's just not front page on NYT WashPost or the AP, etc.
Pop quiz - what has so far been the deadliest conflict (in terms of numbers dead) in the 21st century so far? It's not even close - the number one conflict has led to more deaths than all other conflicts in the 21st century combined. Hint: the US is not a part of this war.
And guess what? If you didn't even know about this conflict, my guess is that you also don't know what's been said about it by government officials around the world. A huge amount of human rights abuses occurred in it, and were of course condemned by reasonable governments around the world.
The problem is that there's too much news to read. If it doesn't concern our own countries, we hear about it far less, as a rule.
-
I suspect you don't read much about actual international relations - countries call each other out all the time for things that happen in war zones, it's just not front page on NYT WashPost or the AP, etc.
Can you post a source? I want to see two NATO allies exposing each other on a serious criminal military matter.
-
I suspect you don't read much about actual international relations - countries call each other out all the time for things that happen in war zones, it's just not front page on NYT WashPost or the AP, etc.
Can you post a source? I want to see two NATO allies exposing each other on a serious criminal military matter.
Why does it have to be Nato allies? I would not argue that they have no incentive to cover any atrocities up, being you know, allies.
For minor things I’ve already posted a number of them thanks to JSS.
And the answer to my pop quiz is the Second Congo Civil War in which something like 4 million people have died between 1998 and 2008. Lots of atrocities in both sides and lots of governments around the world condemned them.
But before I post anything, explain to me why it must be NATO allies? (i’m guessing I can find some even for that but it will definitely take more digging for sure).
EDIT: scratch that I’ll mention just one off the top of my head:
Many government officials from many European countries condemned certain targeted drone killings in the Middle East during the Obama administration. They framed it as due process and human rights violations.
I can link stuff about that if you would like, but it was pretty big news 12 or 10 years ago.
As I think of some more I’ll be happy to mention them.
But I still think you need to explain why it must be NATO allies because my argument does not hinge on that....
-
OK then what about this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#Criticism_and_condemnation
European leaders have also voiced their opposition to the internment center. On 13 January 2006, German Chancellor Angela Merkel criticized the U.S. detention of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay: "An institution like Guantánamo, in its present form, cannot and must not exist in the long term. We must find different ways of dealing with prisoners. As far as I'm concerned, there's no question about that," she declared in a 9 January interview to Der Spiegel. Meanwhile, in the UK, Peter Hain, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, stated during a live broadcast of Question Time (16 February 2006) that: "I would prefer that it wasn't there and I would prefer it was closed." His cabinet colleague and Former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Tony Blair, declared the following day that the center was "an anomaly and sooner or later it's got to be dealt with."
Germany and the UK are NATO allies, right?
-
OK then what about this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#Criticism_and_condemnation
European leaders have also voiced their opposition to the internment center. On 13 January 2006, German Chancellor Angela Merkel criticized the U.S. detention of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay: "An institution like Guantánamo, in its present form, cannot and must not exist in the long term. We must find different ways of dealing with prisoners. As far as I'm concerned, there's no question about that," she declared in a 9 January interview to Der Spiegel. Meanwhile, in the UK, Peter Hain, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, stated during a live broadcast of Question Time (16 February 2006) that: "I would prefer that it wasn't there and I would prefer it was closed." His cabinet colleague and Former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Tony Blair, declared the following day that the center was "an anomaly and sooner or later it's got to be dealt with."
Germany and the UK are NATO allies, right?
They absolutely are.
And here's some more:
Germany condemns a Nato attack in Pakistan which killed civilians:
https://www.thenewstribe.io/2011/11/28/germany-condemns-nato-attack-on-pakistan-sovereignty/#.TtUAnrIk6so
Denmark, a founding member of Nato, called for an investigation into that same attack:
https://archive.vn/20120717031927/http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/11074699-denmark-calls-on-pakistani-foreign-minister-for-condolences-on-the-nato-strike-on-pakistani-military-personnel
As did France, also part of Nato:
https://www.dawn.com/news/724665/un-wants-investigation-into-drone-attacks-in-pakistan
The designation that it must be NATO is highly arbitrary. Here's condemnation of US military actions by the UN:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/06/04/drone.attacks/
-
Out of curiosity, what is the ratio of incidents in which such a condemnation was issued to military/human rights crises in general? After all, the assertion was that this is "the norm".
Naturally, I'm not asking for you to actually compute the exact number. Think of it as a thought experiment.
-
Regarding the OP, since Rowbotham gave many public lectures I don't think he could have blamed a conspiracy against free speech, but I do wonder how many times he was asked how could he explain that in the previous centuries sailors and in general everyone with some interest was believing in a round earth.
-
Out of curiosity, what is the ratio of incidents in which such a condemnation was issued to military/human rights crises in general? After all, the assertion was that this is "the norm".
Naturally, I'm not asking for you to actually compute the exact number. Think of it as a thought experiment.
I think this is actually a great point.
I would say that it is not necessarily the “norm” that countries that consider each other allies call each other out on bad behavior (unless the leadership has constituents which cause them to do so). EDIT: I totally contradict myself below, as I've thought through these things in the past few days. ??? :-X
And so it’s natural that the instances in which you find government leaders calling out an allied country are hot button Political issues like targeted drone killings and torturing prisoners.
Edit:
On the other hand, it can be argued that there are very few human rights violations and war crimes committed by these allied democracies, and every single time One is committed allies call them out on it.
If so, then it would not only be the norm but it would occur at a close to 100% rate.
-
I think it's unfair to assume allies won't call each other out on stuff. There is turmoil in almost every small or large organization, country or whatever else. individual people trying to one up each other, various agendas that motivate people to 'grass' on others. It would be naive to think that just because two people are in Nato or the UN that they would always defend and cover up each others wrong doings.
-
On the other hand, it can be argued that there are very few human rights violations and war crimes committed by these allied democracies, and every single time One is committed allies call them out on it.
This is patently not the case on both fronts. Human rights violations are outrageously common among Western-style democracies, and these receive very little attention unless people take to the streets and start setting shit on fire over the issue.
Australia's treatment of surrounding nations and refugees comes to mind as an obvious one, and one that's regularly swept under the rug. How many governments have condemned Australia over its handling of Timor-Leste? Have you heard of the issue before I mentioned it just now?
I think it's unfair to assume allies won't call each other out on stuff.
Don't assume. Observe and conclude. Bring meaningful data to the table. "Thinking" about "assumptions" and what you do and don't personally find credulous is a useless waste of time.
-
On the other hand, it can be argued that there are very few human rights violations and war crimes committed by these allied democracies, and every single time One is committed allies call them out on it.
This is patently not the case on both fronts. Human rights violations are outrageously common among Western-style democracies, and these receive very little attention unless people take to the streets and start setting shit on fire over the issue.
Australia's treatment of surrounding nations and refugees comes to mind as an obvious one, and one that's regularly swept under the rug. How many governments have condemned Australia over its handling of Timor-Leste? Have you heard of the issue before I mentioned it just now?
Well, yes, I don't think I disagree with you so much. Let me break it down:
The discussion turned to a question from Tom about NATO allies calling each other out for rights violations in a war, specifically. And that's the context I was writing under (just look at my posts in the thread about cop brutality in the US - I've stated like four times that all such cops should be condemned and stand trial). And in that context of warcrimes, this was going to mostly be about unjust killings, which actually are fairly rare, and when they happen, those in charge ARE called out on it, generally speaking.
Now, you rightly say that human rights violations are outrageously common in Western democracies. Yes, sadly. And we know this due to many reasons - from social media, to lawyers who witness them in court cases (I subscribe to this podcast, which routinely has stories of government malpractice: https://ij.org/center-for-judicial-engagement/sc/weekly-podcast/
(https://ij.org/center-for-judicial-engagement/sc/weekly-podcast/), to organizations like Amnesty International, and others.
In countries of millions upon millions of people, of course there will be plenty of instances of criminals who also happen to be government agents, because there are, well, a ton of government agents. This doesn't excuse any of it. But it explains why it feels so commonplace. But that's sort of an artifact of the size of our samples and societies. If you're going to go down a road that Western democracies are worse, when it comes to human rights violations as non-democracies and authoritarian places like modern day China and Russia, or Kazakhstan or Saudi Arabia, etc. Good luck. It's just a banal way of saying that all human societies contain bad actors, including among their leaders and police.
Seeing this in the context of the whole population, this also leads to the obvious conclusion that the government agents and leaders who ARE honest and good cannot be expected to call out every single instance of human rights violations - no one can do that. Which is why we deal with data and databases for such things.
But when a particularly famous event is news around the world, you find other governments calling each other out routinely.
In this thread are links that cumulatively contain dozens and dozens of government officials from US allies condemning the police brutality, because this is big news. But some random violation of rights that happened in West Virginia, unknown to most except in the local area it happened? Why would you expect a European leader to even know about that?
And as far as warzones, I also posted several links to condemnation of US military actions that were deemed bad. This is the norm - if a military event is publicized, and it is shown that the US acted poorly, other countries will absolutely call the US out on it. I read widely about international relations, this is very much the norm.
-
Don't assume. Observe and conclude. Bring meaningful data to the table. "Thinking" about "assumptions" and what you do and don't personally find credulous is a useless waste of time.
It seems we're saying near enough the same thing? ??? It would be assuming to suggest that allies hide and cover up illegal activities for each other, because by definition you'd have to assume they were doing that.
-
It seems we're saying near enough the same thing? ???
We're saying the exact opposite of one another. I say, that based on data available to us, we can safely conclude that cover-ups are common.
You say, based on what you do and don't find likely, and in spite of data presented to you, that it would be naive to assume that cover-ups are taking place.
That's quite a far cry from "near enough the same thing".
It would be assuming to suggest that allies hide and cover up illegal activities for each other, because by definition you'd have to assume they were doing that.
Not at all - not all cover-ups are successful. There is nothing in the definition that forces you to assume.
Here's another example for you: the British government covering up for America during their completely illegal war in Iraq.
You're the one making assumptions with no data to back it up. I suggest that you stop doing that and instead of "thinking" very hard about whether or not cover-ups may have been taking place, you actually look for some data. You really don't have to look very far. Just, you know, a bit farther than going "uhm I think that's unlikely because that's what I think".
But when a particularly famous event is news around the world, you find other governments calling each other out routinely.
Yes, I'm inclined to agree that when an event goes public, then governments stop trying to cover it up. However, this strikes me as a tautology - if something goes sufficiently public, then any cover-up is guaranteed to fail. Of course it wouldn't be attempted then.
Regardless, I think we can agree that the original proposal I'm addressing here, that governments never cover up for each other (and that it would be ludicrous to even suggest such a possibility), is a complete non-starter.