> It would have been interesting to see the reaction to continuing
> negotiations with someone whose minions were simultaneously and visibly
> shooting whole families and stuffing them down wells. Even more
> interestingly East Timorese leader Ramos-Horta supported NATO action on the
> much more practical reasoning that it was indeed about time the West started
> taking robust action in favor of oppressed people, and that this was a
> welcome precedent.
This is interesting. I knew about Ramos-Horta's position regarding Iraq, but not these earlier comments. I don't know if "robust action" is Ramos-Horta's or Ian William's words, but I really find it kind of disgusting. Bombs should not be described as "robust action", even if one supports their use.
But more to the point, can you, or Williams, or Ramos-Horta, point to a single example of anybody in the history of anti-Suharto or East Timor solidarity calling for bombing as part of the "robust action" for those causes? I don't think so. Ramos-Horta wrote in 2003 that "we begged a foreign power to free us from oppression, by force if necessary". What foreign power? What kind of force?
And in true sectarian and crank fashion, I refer to an earlier posting of mine regading this, http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/2003/2003-February/005820.html quoting some East Timor groups making this obvious point, with regard to Iraq. I do not know if the same was true for this earlier "robust action in favor of oppressed people", but I would not be surprised.
btw, I actually do kind of appreciate reading your postings, but if it's available somewhere, like this Williams piece surely is, why not just link to it? It's long. And if you can dig up the Chomsky piece regarding the Joan Baez petition, from In These Times I think, I would be interested in seeing that, since I don't think that's ever circulated on the web.
> (Fraid Not this late maybe if its not alte, on return or call John Miller of
> the ET support group)
???