Thomas Friedman wants a Blacklist for "Excuse Makers"
Josh Dougherty
Those who think Iraq War sparks terror are "despicable," says Friedman
http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/0728-03.htm
NEW YORK - July 27 - New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has
urged the U.S. government to create blacklists of condemned political
speech--not only by those who advocate violence, but also by those who
believe that U.S. government actions may encourage violent reprisals. The
latter group, which Friedman called "just one notch less despicable than the
terrorists," includes a majority of Americans, according to recent polls.
Friedman's July 22 column proposed that the State Department, in order
to "shine a spotlight on hate speech wherever it appears," create a
quarterly "War of Ideas Report, which would focus on those religious leaders
and writers who are inciting violence against others." But Friedman said the
governmental speech monitoring should go beyond those who actually advocate
violence, and also include what former State Department spokesperson Jamie
Rubin calls "excuse makers." Friedman wrote:
"After every major terrorist incident, the excuse makers come out to
tell us why imperialism, Zionism, colonialism or Iraq explains why the
terrorists acted. These excuse makers are just one notch less despicable
than the terrorists and also deserve to be exposed. When you live in an open
society like London, where anyone with a grievance can publish an article,
run for office or start a political movement, the notion that blowing up a
busload of innocent civilians in response to Iraq is somehow
'understandable' is outrageous. 'It erases the distinction between
legitimate dissent and terrorism,' Mr. Rubin said, 'and an open society
needs to maintain a clear wall between them.'"
The "despicable" idea that there may be a connection between acts of
terrorism and particular policies by Western countries is one that is widely
held by the citizens of those countries. Asked by the CNN/Gallup poll on
July 7, "Do you think the terrorists attacked London today mostly because
Great Britain supports the United States in the war in Iraq?" 56 percent of
Americans agreed. In a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll (7/7-10/05), 54 percent
said "the war with Iraq has made the U.S....less safe from terrorism." Since
they see a connection between Iraq and terrorism, a majority of Americans
are what Friedman calls "excuse makers" who "deserve to be exposed."
Friedman's column urged the government to create quarterly lists of
"hatemongers" and "excuse makers"--as well as "truth tellers," Muslims who
agree with Friedman's critique of Islam. Friedman's proposed list of "excuse
makers" would have to include his New York Times colleague Bob Herbert, who
wrote in his July 25 column, "There is still no indication that the Bush
administration recognizes the utter folly of its war in Iraq, which has been
like a constant spray of gasoline on the fire of global terrorism."
Leading members of the U.S. intelligence community might also find
themselves on such a blacklist, based on a report summarized earlier this
year in the Washington Post (1/14/05):
"Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next
generation of 'professionalized' terrorists, according to a report released
yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director's think
tank.... According to the NIC report, Iraq has joined the list of
conflicts--including the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate, and independence
movements in Chechnya, Kashmir, Mindanao in the Philippines, and southern
Thailand--that have deepened solidarity among Muslims and helped spread
radical Islamic ideology."
Though Friedman calls on the State Department to compile the "Top 10
hatemongers" list in a "nondiscriminatory way," it's doubtful that such a
list would, in fact, even-handedly include all advocates of violence. It
would not be likely, for example, to include someone like Thomas Friedman,
who during the Kosovo War (4/6/99) called on the Clinton administration to
"give war a chance," writing, "Let's see what 12 weeks of less than surgical
bombing does." In a follow-up column (4/23/99) he declared that "Like it or
not, we are at war with the Serbian nation," and insisted that "every power
grid, water pipe, bridge, road and war-related factory has to be targeted."
Despite the fact that by calling for attacks on civilian targets he was
advocating war crimes, Friedman should have no fear that he'll find himself
on a State Department list of "hatemongers."
Friedman's suggestion that those who seek to understand or explain
political violence are not part of "legitimate dissent" comes at a time when
calls for censorship are becoming more and more blatant. Bill O'Reilly
(Radio Factor, 6/20/05, cited by Media Matters, 6/22/05) made a chilling
call for the criminalization war opponents:
"You must know the difference between dissent from the Iraq War and
the war on terror and undermining it. And any American that undermines that
war, with our soldiers in the field, or undermines the war on terror, with
3,000 dead on 9/11, is a traitor. Everybody got it? Dissent, fine;
undermining, you're a traitor. Got it? So, all those clowns over at the
liberal radio network, we could incarcerate them immediately. Will you have
that done, please? Send over the FBI and just put them in chains, because
they, you know, they're undermining everything and they don't care, couldn't
care less."
The call for the arrests of Air America Radio hosts was said as though
it were a joke, though O'Reilly is deadly serious when he says that the
commentators on that network are "undermining" the war--and that such
"undermining" is treason.
O'Reilly more recently (7/25/05) went after Herbert's column that
argued that the Iraq War fueled terrorism: "Bob Herbert is most likely
helping the terrorists, but his hatred of Mr. Bush blinds him to that. He's
not alone, but this kind of stuff has got to stop. We're now fighting for
our lives. And those helping the enemy will be brought to your attention."
"Attention," rather than arrests, is all that Friedman has threatened
"excuse makers" like Herbert with. But it's a small step, as O'Reilly's
rhetoric demonstrates, between marginalizing critics of U.S. foreign policy
as "just one notch less despicable than the terrorists"--and criminalizing
criticism itself.
ACTION:
Please let Thomas Friedman know that opponents of the Iraq War do not
deserve to be on a government blacklist--even if they oppose the war because
they believe it encourages terrorism.
Thomas Friedman
c/o New York Times Editorial Page
edit...@nytimes.com
As always, please remember that your comments have more impact if you
maintain a polite tone.
Read Friedman's column here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/22/opinion/22friedman.html
Josh Dougherty
Giving the Hatemongers No Place to Hide
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: July 22, 2005
I wasn't surprised to read that British police officers in white protective
suits and blue gloves were combing through the Iqra Learning Center
bookstore in Leeds for clues to the 7/7 London bombings. Some of the 7/7
bombers hung out at the bookstore. And I won't be surprised if today's
bombers also sampled the literature there.
Iqra not only sold hatemongering Islamist literature, but, according to The
Wall Street Journal, was "the sole distributor of Islamgames, a U.S.-based
company that makes video games. The video games feature apocalyptic battles
between defenders of Islam and opponents. One game, Ummah Defense I, has the
world 'finally united under the Banner of Islam' in 2114, until a revolt by
disbelievers. The player's goal is to seek out and destroy the
disbelievers."
Guess what: words matter. Bookstores matter. Video games matter. But here is
our challenge: If the primary terrorism problem we face today can
effectively be addressed only by a war of ideas within Islam - a war between
life-affirming Muslims against those who want to turn one of the world's
great religions into a death cult - what can the rest of us do?
More than just put up walls. We need to shine a spotlight on hate speech
wherever it appears. The State Department produces an annual human rights
report. Henceforth, it should also produce a quarterly War of Ideas Report,
which would focus on those religious leaders and writers who are inciting
violence against others.
I would compile it in a nondiscriminatory way. I want the names of the
Jewish settler extremists who wrote "Muhammad Is a Pig" on buildings in Gaza
right up there with Sheik Abd Al-Rahman Al-Sudayyis, a Saudi who is imam of
Islam's holy mosque in Mecca. According to the Memri translation service,
the imam was barred from Canada following "a report about his sermons by
Memri that included Al-Sudayyis calling Jews 'the scum of the earth' and
'monkeys and pigs' who should be 'annihilated.' Other enemies of Islam were
referred to by Sheik Al-Sudayyis as 'worshipers of the cross' and
'idol-worshiping Hindus' who must be fought."
Sunlight is more important than you think. Those who spread hate do not like
to be exposed, noted Yigal Carmon, the founder of Memri, which monitors the
Arab-Muslim media. The hate spreaders assume that they are talking only to
their own, in their own language, and can get away with murder. When their
words are spotlighted, they often feel pressure to retract, defend or
explain them.
"Whenever they are exposed, they react the next day," Mr. Carmon said. "No
one wants to be exposed in the West as a preacher of hate."
We also need to spotlight the "excuse makers," the former State Department
spokesman James Rubin said. After every major terrorist incident, the excuse
makers come out to tell us why imperialism, Zionism, colonialism or Iraq
explains why the terrorists acted. These excuse makers are just one notch
less despicable than the terrorists and also deserve to be exposed. When you
live in an open society like London, where anyone with a grievance can
publish an article, run for office or start a political movement, the notion
that blowing up a busload of innocent civilians in response to Iraq is
somehow "understandable" is outrageous. "It erases the distinction between
legitimate dissent and terrorism," Mr. Rubin said, "and an open society
needs to maintain a clear wall between them."
There is no political justification for 9/11, 7/7 or 7/21. As the Middle
East expert Stephen P. Cohen put it: "These terrorists are what they do."
And what they do is murder.
Finally, we also need to shine a bright light on the "truth tellers." Every
week some courageous Arab or Muslim intellectual, cleric or columnist
publishes an essay in his or her media calling on fellow Muslims to deal
with the cancer in their midst. The truth tellers' words also need to be
disseminated globally. "The rulers in these countries have no interest in
amplifying the voices of moderates because the moderates often disagree with
the rulers as much as they disagree with the extremists," said Husain
Haqqani, author of the new book "Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military."
"You have to deal us moderates into the game by helping to amplify our
voices and exposing the extremists and their amen corner."
Every quarter, the State Department should identify the Top 10 hatemongers,
excuse makers and truth tellers in the world. It wouldn't be a cure-all. But
it would be a message to the extremists: you are free to say what you want,
but we are free to listen, to let the whole world know what you are saying
and to protect every free society from hate spreaders like you. Words
matter.
Roger
"Josh Dougherty" <jdoc1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:64ydnWj1tpQ...@comcast.com...
Randy Cox
."
>
> We also need to spotlight the "excuse makers," the former State Department
> spokesman James Rubin said. After every major terrorist incident, the
> excuse
> makers come out to tell us why imperialism, Zionism, colonialism or Iraq
> explains why the terrorists acted. These excuse makers are just one notch
> less despicable than the terrorists and also deserve to be exposed. When
> you
> live in an open society like London, where anyone with a grievance can
> publish an article, run for office or start a political movement, the
> notion
> that blowing up a busload of innocent civilians in response to Iraq is
> somehow "understandable" is outrageous. "It erases the distinction between
> legitimate dissent and terrorism," Mr. Rubin said, "and an open society
> needs to maintain a clear wall between them."
>
That is the most dangerous suggestion I have heard since the "War on Terror"
started. I already see patterns of behavior like this, only the black list
is written in ether rather than on paper. People have lost their jobs as
comics, singers, newspaper writers and editors. Once an idea like this
becomes accepted there is no mechanism to reverse it. Once the collective
mindset becomes the norm, then anyone recognizing the problems it creates
would be stamped out by those which were still part of the collective.
So no one could point out any negative result of Iraq. If one American is
killed in Iraq, the group mind would say this was a good thing which
prevents hate. If a thousand innocent Iraqis were killed, the group mind
would have to say this was a good thing which prevents hate. Everything
would have a foregone conclusion and not be open to readjustment. Once
error seeped into the collective mind.....there would exist no way to
correct it.
James Rubin is flirting with complete insanity. As a free man with free
flow of ideas and a sense of worth as an individual, I reject this as a
total absurdity.
Randy R. Cox
Toby
Toby
"Josh Dougherty" <jdoc1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:iI6dnRpEq6Z...@comcast.com...
Roger
news:42eb5fb5$0$84125$bb4e...@newscene.com...
> Welcome to McCarthyism II.
Certainly what it would be.
And it's not like Congress is lacking in willing heirs to McCarthy.
gaffo
'and an open society
> needs to maintain a clear wall between them.'"
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm- ya, whatever.
Feidman is a fruit. I wonder if he is a Zionist, he sure as shit has
sounded like one since 911.
He ans Sharon butt buddies?
--
It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the
other hand,presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still
both objects are within your power of decision.....you have a right to
take it upon yourselves to judge of both,and to determine the law as
well as the fact in controversy.
Chief Justice John Jay, Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794
Political Pagan
> More than just put up walls. We need to shine a spotlight on hate
> speech wherever it appears. The State Department produces an annual
> human rights report. Henceforth, it should also produce a quarterly
> War of Ideas Report, which would focus on those religious leaders and
> writers who are inciting violence against others.
Ever hear of the 1st amendment?
--
"It's interesting. I see all these political ads and all these
commentators say it's our job as Americans to vote. Let me tell
you something, with Bush in charge of the economy, this might
be the only job you have all year." -Jay Leno
Poor Man
IPro...@yahoo.com
Josh Dougherty wrote:
> Here's the Friedman article itself:
>
> Giving the Hatemongers No Place to Hide
>
> By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
> Published: July 22, 2005
>
>
> We need to shine a spotlight on hate speech
> wherever it appears. The State Department produces an annual human rights
> report. Henceforth, it should also produce a quarterly War of Ideas Report,
> which would focus on those religious leaders and writers who are inciting
> violence against others.
WOW. Imagine... it's 2003. Among the top 10 inciters of "violence
against others" Rice, Rumsfeld, Bush, Wolfowitz, Perlman, would all be
there! - I can't believe a person as smart as Friedman is so blinded by
our own propaganda that he can't see the great irony in his word!
>
> I would compile it in a nondiscriminatory way.
The State Department turning in members of the Administration of which
it is part? I don't see it. As for Mr Friedman, he's already shown his
inablility in this regard.
> I want the names of the
> Jewish settler extremists who wrote "Muhammad Is a Pig" on buildings in Gaza
> right up there with Sheik Abd Al-Rahman Al-Sudayyis, a Saudi who is imam of
> Islam's holy mosque in Mecca. According to the Memri translation service,
> the imam was barred from Canada following "a report about his sermons by
> Memri that included Al-Sudayyis calling Jews 'the scum of the earth' and
> 'monkeys and pigs' who should be 'annihilated.' Other enemies of Islam were
> referred to by Sheik Al-Sudayyis as 'worshipers of the cross' and
> 'idol-worshiping Hindus' who must be fought."
How about the fundamentalists among the American Christians? You could
probably find quotes from the "Justice Sunday" campaign back in April
that referred to liberals in ways at least as bad as 'idol-worshiping
Hindus' who must be fought." Would Friedman include such comments,
along with those against abortionists and gays as well?
>
> Those who spread hate do not like
> to be exposed.
Hate is a walk in the park compared to war.
> The hate spreaders assume that they are talking only to
> their own, in their own language, and can get away with murder. When their
> words are spotlighted, they often feel pressure to retract, defend or
> explain them.
Well as far as pre-war propaganda, the media didn't do a very good job
in exposing things. Still we had eventual Bush administration
retractions (or at least slimy, incompetent backpeddling) on
"yellow-cake" and "unmanned ariel vehicles" and "mobile weapons labs"
and "mushroom clouds". These propaganda spreaders, they have their own
means by which, to quote Mr Friedman, they feel they "can get away with
murder."
> ...the notion
> that blowing up a busload of innocent civilians in response to Iraq is
> somehow "understandable" is outrageous.
We've done the same, in Iraq. And yes, there's no excuse. Still though,
others have tried to present contexts in which such, in Iraq, is
"understandable". To quote the Friedman piece, "These excuse makers are
just one notch
less despicable than the terrorists and also deserve to be exposed."
> "It erases the distinction between
> legitimate dissent and terrorism," Mr. Rubin said, "and an open society
> needs to maintain a clear wall between them."
There are those who want us to believe that there is a sharp
distinction between terrorism and war. But reality blurs that
distinction. War itself does that, by its nature. To invade another
country is to bring terror to that country. To do so without clear
justification is to put yourself on the same moral footing of
terrorists.
To point up that our president is a terrorist, and then condemn that
man, rather than being an "excuse maker" for his immoral murdering of
innocents, I guess Mr. Friedman and Mr Ruben would applaud any man for
doing that. I guess they would see that man has contributing to solving
the problem of terrorism in the world today rather than being an
inabler.
> There is no political justification for 9/11, 7/7 or 7/21.
And more and more Americans are becoming aware there was no
justification for March 19, 2003.
> Finally, we also need to shine a bright light on the "truth tellers."
Well, of course I'm just posting this in one corner of Usenet but...
(aw shucks... me, quietly beaming with the expectation that Tommy
Friedman will sing my praises in an upcoming NYT column.)
> Every quarter, the State Department should identify the Top 10 hatemongers,
> excuse makers and truth tellers in the world.
And there ought to be a provision that the State Department can only
appear on the "excuse makers" list twice a year.
Golitly, Just keepin' it real.
abracadabra
> Those who think Iraq War sparks terror are "despicable," says
> Friedman
> http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/0728-03.htm
>
> NEW YORK - July 27 - New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has
> urged the U.S. government to create blacklists of condemned political
> speech--not only by those who advocate violence, but also by those who
> believe that U.S. government actions may encourage violent reprisals.
If there is to be a blacklist, it ought to be for all the fools who
supported the war and have been proven wrong - and Friedman ought to be on
the top of that list.
LOL
Friedman is a fool.
G*rd*n
>>> By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
>>> Published: July 22, 2005
"Toby" <zdft...@gool.com> wrote in message
> > Welcome to McCarthyism II.
"Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com>:
> Certainly what it would be.
>
> And it's not like Congress is lacking in willing heirs to McCarthy.
While I agree that Congress (and most of the American public)
would like to get rid of the Bill of Rights, certainly including
the First Amendment, Friedman's article did not suggest the
suppression of free speech; he simply (in more than one
sense) wanted the U.S. to publish a list of people in order
to abuse and vilify them and their ideas. Of course, the
U.S. and its subservient media already do this every day, so
the suggestion is superfluous. The article is just one more
item in the already overfull armories of Friedman's critics
and deriders.
Friedman's idea is not a serious strategy; it is rather a sign
of desperation, like the suggestions that Mecca be destroyed
with a nuclear weapon. The fact is, the Middle East is slipping
out of the Western sphere of influence, and apparently there
is not much the Western ruling classes can do about it. To
some extent this is a failure of domestic control. The culture,
media and academic system of the U.S. work in such a way as
to promote ignorance and voluntary stupidity among the people,
so it was possible to get them to support a short, cheap
imperial war on the theory that they were thereby somehow
repressing terrorism, but now good old reality has intervened,
as it often does, and the folk are beginning to ask questions
which their rulers can't answer without getting in a lot of
trouble. In other areas of the West, the publics were never
mobilized and propagandized properly in the first place, and
it is almost certainly too late now to convert them. In short,
the Western leadership lacks the political tools necessary to
pay the costs of a major war to completely occupy and control
the Middle East and thus reverse the decay.
Meanwhile, Bush's war (the most recent one) apparently has
actually speeded up the deterioration of Western power in the
Gulf region. We recently read of warmth and concrete agreements
between the elected Shiite government of Iraq and the government
of Iran. It seems there is going to be Hell to pay, and the
bills are in the mail. No wonder rightist mediasters are
flapping around crying doom and calling for apocalyptic
gestures.
------------------------------------------------------------
The Friedman article:
Allen L. Barker
> "Josh Dougherty" <jdoc1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:iI6dnRpEq6Z...@comcast.com...
> ."
>
>>We also need to spotlight the "excuse makers," the former State Department
>>spokesman James Rubin said. After every major terrorist incident, the
>>excuse
>>makers come out to tell us why imperialism, Zionism, colonialism or Iraq
>>explains why the terrorists acted. These excuse makers are just one notch
>>less despicable than the terrorists and also deserve to be exposed.
MI5 analysts admit link between Iraq war and bombings
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1711093,00.html
By Michael Evans, Defence Editor
July 28, 2005
--
Mind Control: TT&P ==> http://www.datafilter.com/mc
Music ==> http://www.soundclick.com/kingflowermusic.htm
Allen Barker | Home page ==> http://www.datafilter.com/alb
Roger
news:dcg4lf$7i$1...@panix1.panix.com...
>>>> Giving the Hatemongers No Place to Hide
>>>> By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
>>>> Published: July 22, 2005
>>>> ...
>
> "Toby" <zdft...@gool.com> wrote in message
>> > Welcome to McCarthyism II.
>
> "Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com>:
>> Certainly what it would be.
>>
>> And it's not like Congress is lacking in willing heirs to McCarthy.
>
>
> While I agree that Congress (and most of the American public)
> would like to get rid of the Bill of Rights, certainly including
> the First Amendment, Friedman's article did not suggest the
> suppression of free speech; he simply (in more than one
> sense) wanted the U.S. to publish a list of people in order
> to abuse and vilify them and their ideas. Of course, the
> U.S. and its subservient media already do this every day, so
> the suggestion is superfluous. The article is just one more
> item in the already overfull armories of Friedman's critics
> and deriders.
Why publish a list if it's not used for anything?
Never heard of the term "chilling effect"?
gaffo
truth!
--
Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction...if
exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear
conviction that the charge of the court is wrong.
Alexander Hamilton, 1804
Michael Gray
>
>Josh Dougherty wrote:
>> Here's the Friedman article itself:
>>
>> Giving the Hatemongers No Place to Hide
>>
>> By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
>> Published: July 22, 2005
>>
>...
>>
>> We need to shine a spotlight on hate speech
>> wherever it appears. The State Department produces an annual human rights
>> report. Henceforth, it should also produce a quarterly War of Ideas Report,
>> which would focus on those religious leaders and writers who are inciting
>> violence against others.
>
>WOW. Imagine... it's 2003. Among the top 10 inciters of "violence
>against others" Rice, Rumsfeld, Bush, Wolfowitz, Perlman, would all be
>there! - I can't believe a person as smart as Friedman is so blinded by
>our own propaganda that he can't see the great irony in his word!
:
It takes years of training to enable one to hold two totally
contradictory concepts at the same time.
A skill acquired early on in life by particularly religious folk.
Implicit in the definition of "inciters of violence", is that it does
not apply to people "like us", and so the issue of the terrorists that
have voted themselves in to Washington, doesn't even arise in one's
mind.
Give the man his due; at least he is very skilled in one area:
Duplicity.
Michael Gray
wrote:
Washington seems to have a glut of them at the moment.
Perhaps the U.S.A. could find an export market for fools?
(In addition to Iraq)
James A. Donald
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 04:51:57 -0400, "Josh Dougherty"
> Please let Thomas Friedman know that opponents of the
> Iraq War do not deserve to be on a government
> blacklist--even if they oppose the war because they
> believe it encourages terrorism.
But Thomas Friedman called for a blacklist of "the
excuse makers" - of those who oppose the war because,
supposedly, we deserve to be terrorized.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
TPh2hLP97dRz7MSvL8QRMpUyARLQ3TkvEZ2jZ2p1
4Aj+YFm81lSi6gFJFO3n0ovQv6KpZDAxTQJ4fT8jD
G*rd*n
> > Please let Thomas Friedman know that opponents of the
> > Iraq War do not deserve to be on a government
> > blacklist--even if they oppose the war because they
> > believe it encourages terrorism.
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com>:
> But Thomas Friedman called for a blacklist of "the
> excuse makers" - of those who oppose the war because,
> supposedly, we deserve to be terrorized.
As I read his article, that means whoever he wants it to
mean. In general, we're not supposed to discuss the role of
20th-century imperialism in laying the groundwork for terrorist
attacks because this "excuses" terrorism. In other words,
the way to deal with one of the major elephants in the room
is to denounce anyone who mentions it. It's pretty silly,
but Friedman is already an object of derision in many quarters
so I suppose it's nothing new.
I take the hair-pulling and rending of garments to be a sign
that all is not well among the ruling class, that they are
not at all happy these days with their nifty little war. In
general, though, the whole Wilsonian thing has been a major
disaster for those who practiced it, and of course for those
whom they could tax or summon to do their fighting for them.
I wonder how long it'll go on?
Mike V.
> A New Blacklist for "Excuse Makers"
> Those who think Iraq War sparks terror are "despicable," says Friedman
> http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/0728-03.htm
He ought to have a great place for himself in the Bush administration.
He's the perfect little fascist!
Still waiting to hear from the Neo-con asslickers who hate the US and
the Constitution.
Why do they hate freedom so much?
Toby
ago.
http://www.constitution.org/wod/wod_por.htm
Toby
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dcg4lf$7i$1...@panix1.panix.com...
Marcus Welch
> In general, we're not supposed to discuss the role of
> 20th-century imperialism in laying the groundwork for terrorist
> attacks because this "excuses" terrorism. In other words,
> the way to deal with one of the major elephants in the room
> is to denounce anyone who mentions it.
And your next argument will be that Algeria's imperialist subjugation
of Iraq is the "root cause" of the recent murder of two Algerian
diplomats.
If imperialism were the root cause of terrorist attacks, Paris would be
the target of greater bloodshed.
constan...@gmail.com
James A. Donald wrote:
> --
> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 04:51:57 -0400, "Josh Dougherty"
> > Please let Thomas Friedman know that opponents of the
> > Iraq War do not deserve to be on a government
> > blacklist--even if they oppose the war because they
> > believe it encourages terrorism.
>
> But Thomas Friedman called for a blacklist of "the
> excuse makers" - of those who oppose the war because,
> supposedly, we deserve to be terrorized.
Still, Friedman's idea of getting the government to write up a
blacklist of intellectuals is both stupid and malicious. I'd have not
the slightest objection to Friedman writing up and publicizing his own
blacklist. Maybe he can make it into a book and call it "100 people who
are ruining America", if the title hasn't already been taken.
Chris Hayes
Josh Dougherty wrote:
> A New Blacklist for "Excuse Makers"
> Those who think Iraq War sparks terror are "despicable," says Friedman
> http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/0728-03.htm
>
> NEW YORK - July 27 - New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has
> urged the U.S. government to create blacklists of condemned political
> speech--not only by those who advocate violence, but also by those who
> believe that U.S. government actions may encourage violent reprisals. The
> latter group, which Friedman called "just one notch less despicable than the
> terrorists," includes a majority of Americans, according to recent polls.
>
> Friedman's July 22 column proposed that the State Department, in order
> to "shine a spotlight on hate speech wherever it appears," create a
> quarterly "War of Ideas Report, which would focus on those religious leaders
> and writers who are inciting violence against others." But Friedman said the
> governmental speech monitoring should go beyond those who actually advocate
> violence, and also include what former State Department spokesperson Jamie
> Rubin calls "excuse makers." Friedman wrote:
>
If Friedman is for blacklisting people who advocate violence, he'd be
on the list no doubt. In _The Lexus and the Olive Tree_, he considered
the US military to be the "legitimate" enforcers to shove neoliberal
economics (i.e. "globalization") on third world nations who resist
because it's "the only way they'll get themselves out of poverty."
Friedman is as much an advocate for death and destruction as any Al
Qaeda propagandist, as this article points out IRT his columns
advocating war crimes in Serbia.
> "After every major terrorist incident, the excuse makers come out to
> tell us why imperialism, Zionism, colonialism or Iraq explains why the
> terrorists acted. These excuse makers are just one notch less despicable
> than the terrorists and also deserve to be exposed. When you live in an open
> society like London, where anyone with a grievance can publish an article,
> run for office or start a political movement, the notion that blowing up a
> busload of innocent civilians in response to Iraq is somehow
> 'understandable' is outrageous. 'It erases the distinction between
> legitimate dissent and terrorism,' Mr. Rubin said, 'and an open society
> needs to maintain a clear wall between them.'"
>
Friedman, of course, is silent about Iraqi civilians killed by US
weapons which are considered "collateral damage."
I get it that Bill O'Reilly is a tough talking chickenhawk who never
served in the military during Vietnam (as well is a proven liar).
Who's that sissy to call others "traitor"?
> So, all those clowns over at the
> liberal radio network, we could incarcerate them immediately. Will you have
> that done, please? Send over the FBI and just put them in chains, because
> they, you know, they're undermining everything and they don't care, couldn't
> care less."
>
> The call for the arrests of Air America Radio hosts was said as though
> it were a joke, though O'Reilly is deadly serious when he says that the
> commentators on that network are "undermining" the war--and that such
> "undermining" is treason.
>
> O'Reilly more recently (7/25/05) went after Herbert's column that
> argued that the Iraq War fueled terrorism: "Bob Herbert is most likely
> helping the terrorists, but his hatred of Mr. Bush blinds him to that. He's
> not alone, but this kind of stuff has got to stop. We're now fighting for
> our lives. And those helping the enemy will be brought to your attention."
>
Chicken Little nonsense, from Bullshit Bluster Boy Bill O'Reilly, who
falsely claims to be an "independant."
> "Attention," rather than arrests, is all that Friedman has threatened
> "excuse makers" like Herbert with. But it's a small step, as O'Reilly's
> rhetoric demonstrates, between marginalizing critics of U.S. foreign policy
> as "just one notch less despicable than the terrorists"--and criminalizing
> criticism itself.
>
> ACTION:
> Please let Thomas Friedman know that opponents of the Iraq War do not
> deserve to be on a government blacklist--even if they oppose the war because
> they believe it encourages terrorism.
>
> Thomas Friedman
> c/o New York Times Editorial Page
> edit...@nytimes.com
>
> As always, please remember that your comments have more impact if you
> maintain a polite tone.
>
It won't have much of an impact on Friedman, who is a stone deaf
ignoramus. He considers the likes of Nobel Prize winning economist
Joseph Stiglitz to be "fools" because he finds serious problems with
the "globalization" bullshit story he tried to sell in _Lexus and the
Olive Tree_ (which, BTW, has no serious arguments at all). His stuff
from earlier times wasn't half bad, but the last 10 years or so, he's
pretty much become a hack who believes he knows everything and doesn't
let little things like facts confuse him.
Chris Hayes
Josh Dougherty wrote:
> Here's the Friedman article itself:
>
> Giving the Hatemongers No Place to Hide
>
> By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
> Published: July 22, 2005
>
> I wasn't surprised to read that British police officers in white protective
> suits and blue gloves were combing through the Iqra Learning Center
> bookstore in Leeds for clues to the 7/7 London bombings. Some of the 7/7
> bombers hung out at the bookstore. And I won't be surprised if today's
> bombers also sampled the literature there.
>
> Iqra not only sold hatemongering Islamist literature, but, according to The
> Wall Street Journal, was "the sole distributor of Islamgames, a U.S.-based
> company that makes video games. The video games feature apocalyptic battles
> between defenders of Islam and opponents. One game, Ummah Defense I, has the
> world 'finally united under the Banner of Islam' in 2114, until a revolt by
> disbelievers. The player's goal is to seek out and destroy the
> disbelievers."
>
And? Maybe if Friedman took his head out of his posterior, he'd see
the market is saturated with US military type games glorrifying war and
destruction of "rogue states" and "terrorists." Oh, but wait, Friedman
picks and chooses which type of organized mass murder is "acceptable"
while saying others are wrong. If he was consistent, he'd oppose it
all on principle. But then, he wouldn't have a job at the _New York
Times_.
> Guess what: words matter. Bookstores matter. Video games matter. But here is
> our challenge: If the primary terrorism problem we face today can
> effectively be addressed only by a war of ideas within Islam - a war between
> life-affirming Muslims against those who want to turn one of the world's
> great religions into a death cult - what can the rest of us do?
>
Figure out why they hate us instead of assuming they're space aliens
who do "evil for it's own sake" and "hate us for our freedom" (what a
joke that is).
> More than just put up walls. We need to shine a spotlight on hate speech
> wherever it appears. The State Department produces an annual human rights
> report. Henceforth, it should also produce a quarterly War of Ideas Report,
> which would focus on those religious leaders and writers who are inciting
> violence against others.
>
Which would include Friedman himself.
> I would compile it in a nondiscriminatory way.
Yeah right. The call for the list is discriminatory in and of itself.
Chris Hayes
> > Finally, we also need to shine a bright light on the "truth tellers."
>
> Well, of course I'm just posting this in one corner of Usenet but...
> (aw shucks... me, quietly beaming with the expectation that Tommy
> Friedman will sing my praises in an upcoming NYT column.)
>
The funny thing about this is that Friedman, of course, considers
himself to be a "truth teller." To somehow say this will not be a
discrimanatory list based on subjective value judgements is just
downright stupid.
Chris Hayes
G*rd*n wrote:
> >>> Giving the Hatemongers No Place to Hide
> >>> By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
> >>> Published: July 22, 2005
> >>> ...
>
> "Toby" <zdft...@gool.com> wrote in message
> > > Welcome to McCarthyism II.
>
> "Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com>:
> > Certainly what it would be.
> >
> > And it's not like Congress is lacking in willing heirs to McCarthy.
>
>
> While I agree that Congress (and most of the American public)
> would like to get rid of the Bill of Rights, certainly including
> the First Amendment, Friedman's article did not suggest the
> suppression of free speech; he simply (in more than one
> sense) wanted the U.S. to publish a list of people in order
> to abuse and vilify them and their ideas. Of course, the
> U.S. and its subservient media already do this every day, so
> the suggestion is superfluous. The article is just one more
> item in the already overfull armories of Friedman's critics
> and deriders.
>
> Friedman's idea is not a serious strategy; it is rather a sign
> of desperation,
That's the way I see it. The likes of Friedman know they were
seriously wrong about Iraq. Many people who initially supported have
come around, but some of the hardcore don't want to admit that it's not
going good and they are getting very desperate.
Chris Hayes
Marcus Welch wrote:
> G*rd*n wrote:
> > In general, we're not supposed to discuss the role of
> > 20th-century imperialism in laying the groundwork for terrorist
> > attacks because this "excuses" terrorism. In other words,
> > the way to deal with one of the major elephants in the room
> > is to denounce anyone who mentions it.
>
> And your next argument will be that Algeria's imperialist subjugation
> of Iraq is the "root cause" of the recent murder of two Algerian
> diplomats.
>
You're obviously not capable of paying attention. The murder of the
diplomats is being done to *isolate* Iraq from other nations. It
wouldn't have happened if the US invaded.
> If imperialism were the root cause of terrorist attacks, Paris would be
> the target of greater bloodshed.
It USED to have Algerian terrorists until the French backed off.
Dan Clore
> "Josh Dougherty"
>>>Please let Thomas Friedman know that opponents of the
>>>Iraq War do not deserve to be on a government
>>>blacklist--even if they oppose the war because they
>>>believe it encourages terrorism.
>
> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com>:
>
>>But Thomas Friedman called for a blacklist of "the
>>excuse makers" - of those who oppose the war because,
>>supposedly, we deserve to be terrorized.
>
> As I read his article, that means whoever he wants it to
> mean. In general, we're not supposed to discuss the role of
> 20th-century imperialism in laying the groundwork for terrorist
> attacks because this "excuses" terrorism. In other words,
> the way to deal with one of the major elephants in the room
> is to denounce anyone who mentions it. It's pretty silly,
> but Friedman is already an object of derision in many quarters
> so I suppose it's nothing new.
The closest thing to something of genuine interest in
Friedman's piece is the typical attempt to conflate
understanding the motive for an attack with justifying and
excusing the attack. Fact: individuals outraged over
unjustifiable acts sometimes commit unjustifiable acts in
supposed reprisal.
If we want to end the cycle of violence, we have to
understand how it works.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1587154838/thedanclorenecro/
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
constan...@gmail.com
Let's blame the bad weather we're having on American policy. No, too
easy (global warming). Let's blame obesity on American policy. No,
again, too easy (agricultural subsidies). Damn, what's difficult to
blame on American policy? Let's blame communist atrocities on American
policy. Sorry, been done. Damn, is there anything that cannot be easily
blamed on American policy? I know, let's blame the fact that I didn't
win the lottery on American policy. But the lottery itself has been
decried as a tool of oppression etc. etc. - i.e., it's been done. Is
there anything on this planet that can't be fairly easily blamed on
American policy in a way that will convince those who wish to be
convinced?
Probably not very much. If you invited a girl out and she turned you
down, then you can probably find a way to blame American government for
that, or, if you like, American society, or capitalism, or maybe even
Jews (e.g., Jews own the media, the media presents an ideal which looks
different from you, the girl was influenced by this Jewish-created
ideal, and consequently turned you down).
The game is easy to play. Doesn't make it true, and doesn't make the
writers who choose to play this game remotely convincing to the
not-yet-convinced. The blame-America-first theory of Muslim terrorism
is a popular theory among the anti-war crowd. But it is not
particularly convincing. One problem with it is that it comes in
various often mutually contradictory flavors. For example in one flavor
the terrorism is our fault because we supported the terrorists, and in
another flavor the terrorism is our fault because we opposed the
terrorists.
Toby
>> the target of greater bloodshed.
>
> It USED to have Algerian terrorists until the French backed off.
Who has all the bases all over the place? Here's a hint--it ain't France...
Toby
Toby
Just because there are lots of negatives that cannot be blamed on US policy
doesn't change the fact that there are lots that can be.
Toby
>
Chris Hayes
Yup. I can see why many people around the world are pissed at having
foreign (i.e. American) troops in their country. Americans don't
tolerate American military vehicles going down their city streets (like
the US Army does in South Korea). Imagine the outrage in America if
huge bases of foreign troops, who drove down our city streets in
military vehicles, did so for years.
Many Americans simply don't have a clue.
Chris Hayes
That's not true. Not everything can be blamed on US policy, like say,
North Korea's oppression of its people, which the US government can't
really change militarily without millions dying (which is similiarly a
worthless act of moral indignation to focus entirely on while ignoring
naughty acts by a government Americans can influence, like their own).
But many things *can* be blamed on the US, like the US's heavy-handed
tactics over Iraq (even pre-9/11) and turning a blind eye to Israel's
atrocities. If you actually listen to the fatwas the likes of Bin
Laden produce, their criticisms are SPECIFIC foreign policy issues:
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm
[QUOTE]
No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone; we
will list them, in order to remind everyone:
First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the
lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula,
plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people,
terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into
a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.
If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the
occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it.
The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against
the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all
its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but
they are helpless.
Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by
the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those
killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans
are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though
they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the
ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.
So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to
humiliate their Muslim neighbors.
Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and
economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert
attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there.
The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the
strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all
the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan
into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to
guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade
occupation of the Peninsula.
[/QUOTE]
Now, you can dismiss this as terrorist propaganda, and it is. But
these issues have significant impact on people in the Middle East, and
when coupled with poverty and brutal autocratic regimes, it's small
wonder that some people go down that route. The American invasion of
Iraq confirmed their beliefs that the US is an imperialist nation at
war with Islam. Some in the Bush Administration truly have this
mindset.
They're not space aliens. They don't do their acts in a vaccuum.
G*rd*n
"Toby" <kymar...@ybb.ne.jpp>:
> Just because there are lots of negatives that cannot be blamed on US policy
> doesn't change the fact that there are lots that can be.
If the idea that American imperialism is connected to
terrorism were as silly as Constantinople suggests, then
Thomas Friedman wouldn't be eager to have the government
try to suppress it.
In fact, one of the first things emitted by the leaders of
the government and media after 9/11 was a prohibition against
making such a connection. Any suggestion of one was "excusing
terrorism", "spitting on the graves of the dead", and other
similar nonsense. They were quite nervous about it then, and
evidently they're nervous about it now. Catch-phrases like
"blame America first" are regularly flogged by dutiful
supporters of the state and its doings.
One can understand the unease of the leadership. It took
twenty years for the bad taste of Vietnam to wear off, and
during this time the U.S. leadership had to pass up several
juicy little wars, for example the intervention in Angloa
Henry Kissinger wanted, and the invasion of Nicaragua that
had to be shelved in favor of an unsatisfactory guerrilla
war. Now Iraq II is not turning out well, and there are
terrorist attacks and threats of attacks on the homeland
as well. There is grumbling among the folk, and the asking
of questions. These unpleasant noises could grow.
One can see why the leaders want certain thoughts to be
unthinkable; but it seems the cat is out of the bag anyway.
And so Thomas Friedman's petulance.
Tom Betz
@corp.supernews.com:
> James Rubin is flirting with complete insanity.
... and Friedman is just tired of having it pointed out ot him how
often he has gotten evertyhing wrong... almost as often as Bush has.
--
George Bush's War of Choice on Iraq is a totally unnecessary war.
Every life lost, every limb lost, every disfigurement, every
disability caused there is more blood on George W. Bush's hands,
and on the hands of everyone who voted for George W. Bush.
Baldin Pramer
> Dan Clore wrote:
>>If we want to end the cycle of violence, we have to
>>understand how it works.
>
>
> Let's blame the bad weather we're having on American policy.
> The game is easy to play. Doesn't make it true, and doesn't make the
> writers who choose to play this game remotely convincing to the
> not-yet-convinced.
It can be done with Clinton too.
--
Sir Baldin Pramer, RPA
Marcus Welch
> The murder of the
> diplomats is being done to *isolate* Iraq from other nations. It
> wouldn't have happened if the US invaded.
There are no Algerian troops in the Coalition of the Willing. If
isolating the US were the goal of terrorist attacks, they would stick
to murdering Brits, Koreans, and Italians. Since their goal is,
instead, to have you kissing Allah's ass, they are more ambitious
about their targeting.
Marcus Welch:
> > If imperialism were the root cause of terrorist attacks, Paris
> > would be the target of greater bloodshed.
Chris Hayes:
> It USED to have Algerian terrorists until the French backed off.
So where are the terrorists from Rwanda and the Ivory Coast?
Marcus Welch
> Who has all the bases all over the place? Here's a hint--it ain't
> France...
Great. Since the Netherlands has no bases in North Africa,
Islamic whackjobs won't be murdering any dissident film-makers in
broad daylight on the streets of Amsterdam any time soon. If bases
provoke the natives, the terrorists would be coming from the
toiling masses of Berlin, Tokyo, and Seoul. Instead, they produce
tourists.
Since when did France become a post-imperialist power?
James A. Donald
constan...@gmail.com wrote:
> > If you invited a girl out and she turned you down,
> > then you can probably find a way to blame American
> > government for that, or, if you like, American
> > society, or capitalism, or maybe even Jews (e.g.,
> > Jews own the media, the media presents an ideal
> > which looks different from you, the girl was
> > influenced by this Jewish-created ideal, and
> > consequently turned you down).
"Chris Hayes"
> That's not true. Not everything can be blamed on US
> policy, like say, North Korea's oppression of its
> people
Does not stop people in this newsgroup from blaming that
on US policy.
> But many things *can* be blamed on the US, like the
> US's heavy-handed tactics over Iraq (even pre-9/11)
> and turning a blind eye to Israel's atrocities. If
> you actually listen to the fatwas the likes of Bin
> Laden produce, their criticisms are SPECIFIC foreign
> policy issues:
>
> http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm
bin Laden has produced a lot of fatwas, most of which
cannot be so easily addressed - he lists issues in "
Palestine, Iraq, southern Sudan, Somalia, Kashmir and
the Philippines"
The issue in the philippines is that he thinks the
Muslim minority should rule over the non Muslim
majority. Do you want to address that one?
The issue in Sudan is that he thinks the Muslims are
entitled to expell the non Muslims. Do you want to
address that one?
Bin Laden tells us: "The crusader Australian forces were
on Indonesian shores, and in fact they landed to
separate East Timor, which is part of the Islamic world"
Do you want to address that one?
Bin Laden talks of "the tragedy of Andelusia" - the fact
that Spain is no longer ruled by muslims. Do you want
to address that one?
Bin Laden objects to the existence of Israel. Do you
want to address that one?
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
9kN1UuiYaNCPLin8v1PLH5h4JMwwwQ+hIJvcG/US
4YCaQTCsHjcrZKLDSt82HgostL+91LYSmTlzeretw
James A. Donald
constantinople:
> Let's blame the bad weather we're having on American
> policy. No, too easy (global warming). Let's blame
> obesity on American policy. No, again, too easy
> (agricultural subsidies). Damn, what's difficult to
> blame on American policy? Let's blame communist
> atrocities on American policy. Sorry, been done. Damn,
> is there anything that cannot be easily blamed on
> American policy? I know, let's blame the fact that I
> didn't win the lottery on American policy. But the
> lottery itself has been decried as a tool of
> oppression etc. etc. - i.e., it's been done. Is there
> anything on this planet that can't be fairly easily
> blamed on American policy in a way that will convince
> those who wish to be convinced?
>
> Probably not very much. If you invited a girl out and
> she turned you down, then you can probably find a way
> to blame American government for that, or, if you
> like, American society, or capitalism, or maybe even
> Jews (e.g., Jews own the media, the media presents an
> ideal which looks different from you, the girl was
> influenced by this Jewish-created ideal, and
> consequently turned you down).
I have actually seen this argument on the objectivism
mailing list - not sure if the evildoers responsible for
people seeing the poster as ugly were Jews, capitalists,
or Americans. It was a woman poster, and it seems that
due to the vast evil conspiracy, people erroneously see
her as fat. This led to a long and passionate argument
in which the poster claimed, citing superficially
respectable sounding academic sources, that Britney
Spears has the same figure as Calista Flockhart. In the
ensuing discussion I discovered that there is an entire
area of academia, which publishes journals and all that,
explaining that the reader is not ugly, rather it is a
conspiracy. It is not clearly explained who is behind
the vast conspiracy, but it sure sounds to me like those
damned Jews, who also caused the tsunami. But it is
capitalists that cause global warming. :-)
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
Ok/ooiqfMncMsi2C4A0SimXBmZFeIXmXdwnjTgeJ
4U3xgjd61oqA11IVKgdDlK3PhpiWtnDHv+qWZ7Gou
James A. Donald
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 12:35:47 +0000 (UTC), g...@panix.com
(G*rd*n) wrote:
> If the idea that American imperialism is connected to
> terrorism were as silly as Constantinople suggests,
> then Thomas Friedman wouldn't be eager to have the
> government try to suppress it.
Bin Laden has published a long, long, long, list of his
grievances. US imperialism is just some pebbles on his
mountain.
One of the big grievances was the independence of East
Timor. Was that US imperialism?
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
CX/TUm1KwtX93yRSWE3ftprnxKm3NYSx6083oIH2
4M8ZZjZlyN9l64pqgvkEX2rAjY7wbNBcoc8rYxkpf
Toby
>> Who has all the bases all over the place? Here's a hint--it ain't
>> France...
>>
>
> Yup. I can see why many people around the world are pissed at having
> foreign (i.e. American) troops in their country. Americans don't
> tolerate American military vehicles going down their city streets (like
> the US Army does in South Korea). Imagine the outrage in America if
> huge bases of foreign troops, who drove down our city streets in
> military vehicles, did so for years.
>
> Many Americans simply don't have a clue.
Okinawa is one big American base--more than 20% is in the hands of the US
military, most of it prime land. To make matters worse the local residents
constantly have to endure the roar of US military planes doing practices.
There is absolutely nothing they can do about it--the Okinawan authorities
have no control over the bases.
Some years ago when the "Kitty Hawk" was in Yokosuka I got a taste of what
the Okinawans suffer regularly. Night landing touch'n'gos--fighter jets
roaring over the house at full throttle just a couple of thousand feet up
for four straight hours until 11 pm--like clockwork, one every two minutes
or so--so loud the windows rattled and you thought you were going to lose
your mind. The flight path led over densely packed suburbs of Tokyo. We
called the city authorities to complain, as did thousands of others, and
were told they had no jurisdiction. Every day they would call the US
military and report the number of complaints and every day the military
would thank them and hang up.
I can imagine the reaction if this was going on in LA with Japanese SDF
airplanes...
It's also instructive to go to the US embassy in Tokyo. By contrast you can
just walk in the Canadian embassy. On the approach to the US embassy you
walk by policemen stationed every 20 meters or so. There is a security check
at the gate, and another just as soon as you pass the inch thick glass of
the entrance door. Cell phones have to be checked. Fortress America lives.
Toby
Toby
> grievances. US imperialism is just some pebbles on his
> mountain.
>
> One of the big grievances was the independence of East
> Timor. Was that US imperialism?
One pebble on the mountain.
Toby
constan...@gmail.com
G*rd*n wrote:
> If the idea that American imperialism is connected to
> terrorism were as silly as Constantinople suggests, then
> Thomas Friedman wouldn't be eager to have the government
> try to suppress it.
What Thomas Friedman believes and what he wants doesn't prove much of
anything. Thomas Friedman is a NYTimes-based liberal hawk that
conservative and libertarian hawks would hate if they didn't have so
much contempt for him.
G*rd*n
> > grievances. US imperialism is just some pebbles on his
> > mountain.
> >
> > One of the big grievances was the independence of East
> > Timor. Was that US imperialism?
"Toby" <kymar...@ybb.ne.jpp>:
> One pebble on the mountain.
I was thinking of my interpretation of the world, rather than
bin Laden's. In my interpretation of the world, humans are
territorial trooping primates who are strongly motivated to
resist encroachments or invasions of the troop's territory.
If an imperialist venture is seen as an incursion (sometimes
they are not) it is sure to provoke resistance. Thus, the
various imperial excursions of the Western nations could be
expected to get them in some kind of trouble. A hundred
years ago, it was difficult for the natives to travel to
the home country of an imperium which was bothering them,
so the trouble used to be entirely on the natives' terrain.
But that isn't so any more.
I don't pretend to understand bin Laden's and the other
legendary terrorists' mindsets except insofar as they fall
into the pattern I have described.
constan...@gmail.com
G*rd*n wrote:
> > > Bin Laden has published a long, long, long, list of his
> > > grievances. US imperialism is just some pebbles on his
> > > mountain.
> > >
> > > One of the big grievances was the independence of East
> > > Timor. Was that US imperialism?
>
> "Toby" <kymar...@ybb.ne.jpp>:
> > One pebble on the mountain.
>
>
> I was thinking of my interpretation of the world, rather than
> bin Laden's.
But Bin Laden's interpretation of the world is what matters in
determining what causes him to act the way he does.
> In my interpretation of the world, humans are
> territorial trooping primates who are strongly motivated to
> resist encroachments or invasions of the troop's territory.
> If an imperialist venture is seen as an incursion (sometimes
> they are not) it is sure to provoke resistance. Thus, the
> various imperial excursions of the Western nations could be
> expected to get them in some kind of trouble. A hundred
> years ago, it was difficult for the natives to travel to
> the home country of an imperium which was bothering them,
> so the trouble used to be entirely on the natives' terrain.
> But that isn't so any more.
>
> I don't pretend to understand bin Laden's and the other
> legendary terrorists' mindsets except insofar as they fall
> into the pattern I have described.
If you are telling us why Bin Laden attacked the US, and you are, then
you are pretending to understand Bin Laden's mindset.
David James Polewka
>[...] In my interpretation of the world, humans are
>territorial trooping primates who are strongly motivated to
>resist encroachments or invasions of the troop's territory.
>If an imperialist venture is seen as an incursion (sometimes
>they are not) it is sure to provoke resistance. Thus, the
>various imperial excursions of the Western nations could be
>expected to get them in some kind of trouble.
The path to peace is the Golden Rule!
> A hundred
>years ago, it was difficult for the natives to travel to
>the home country of an imperium which was bothering them,
>so the trouble used to be entirely on the natives' terrain.
>But that isn't so any more.
>
>I don't pretend to understand bin Laden's and the other
>legendary terrorists' mindsets except insofar as they fall
>into the pattern I have described.
>
=========================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=========================
G*rd*n
> > > > grievances. US imperialism is just some pebbles on his
> > > > mountain.
> > > >
> > > > One of the big grievances was the independence of East
> > > > Timor. Was that US imperialism?
"Toby" <kymar...@ybb.ne.jpp>:
> > > One pebble on the mountain.
G*rd*n:
> > I was thinking of my interpretation of the world, rather than
> > bin Laden's.
> But Bin Laden's interpretation of the world is what matters in
> determining what causes him to act the way he does.
Bin Laden's interpretation of the world might be a better
predictor of his behavior, but unfortunately (or maybe
fortunately) it is not accessible to me. For instance, I
believe bin Laden is on about the loss of Andalusia. A
similar event in the history of my ancestors would be the
Battle of the Boyne, or Culloden. But while I might harbor
some resentment of the English for administering these
defeats to my ancestors, I'm certainly not going to travel to
London and blow myself up because of them. In fact, I would
not even speak rudely to an English person, even Tony Blair
(although if I had the opportunity, I would politely advise
him to repent).
> > In my interpretation of the world, humans are
> > territorial trooping primates who are strongly motivated to
> > resist encroachments or invasions of the troop's territory.
> > If an imperialist venture is seen as an incursion (sometimes
> > they are not) it is sure to provoke resistance. Thus, the
> > various imperial excursions of the Western nations could be
> > expected to get them in some kind of trouble. A hundred
> > years ago, it was difficult for the natives to travel to
> > the home country of an imperium which was bothering them,
> > so the trouble used to be entirely on the natives' terrain.
> > But that isn't so any more.
> >
> > I don't pretend to understand bin Laden's and the other
> > legendary terrorists' mindsets except insofar as they fall
> > into the pattern I have described.
>
> If you are telling us why Bin Laden attacked the US, and you are, then
> you are pretending to understand Bin Laden's mindset.
No, I am not trying to get inside bin Laden's mind. I'm
doing very elementary, very low-res primate psychology and
sociology. Also, I am not concerned with one person but
many persons, because the present fashion for terrorism
among Muslims does not emanate from one single person.
G*rd*n
> >[...] In my interpretation of the world, humans are
> >territorial trooping primates who are strongly motivated to
> >resist encroachments or invasions of the troop's territory.
> >If an imperialist venture is seen as an incursion (sometimes
> >they are not) it is sure to provoke resistance. Thus, the
> >various imperial excursions of the Western nations could be
> >expected to get them in some kind of trouble.
josey...@outlaw.nospam (David James Polewka):
> The path to peace is the Golden Rule!
"Do not do unto others as you would have them do unto you;
their tastes probably differ from yours."
-- G.B. Shaw or Oscar Wilde or another one o' the
wise guys
Chris Hayes
Marcus Welch wrote:
> Chris Hayes:
> > The murder of the
> > diplomats is being done to *isolate* Iraq from other nations. It
> > wouldn't have happened if the US invaded.
>
> There are no Algerian troops in the Coalition of the Willing. If
> isolating the US were the goal of terrorist attacks, they would stick
> to murdering Brits, Koreans, and Italians. Since their goal is,
> instead, to have you kissing Allah's ass, they are more ambitious
> about their targeting.
>
Wrong. They are attempting to drive diplomats from other countries
(and UN workers) out of the country to spread chaos. If they can get
America to be isolated from the rest of the planet, they hope America
will be forced to leave by political pressure.
> Marcus Welch:
> > > If imperialism were the root cause of terrorist attacks, Paris
> > > would be the target of greater bloodshed.
>
> Chris Hayes:
> > It USED to have Algerian terrorists until the French backed off.
>
> So where are the terrorists from Rwanda and the Ivory Coast?
Is France controlling them? Bombing their people? Nope.
Chris Hayes
It's not my position, but the likes of Bin Laden. Bin Laden has tried
to drag up every issue in the Islamic world, trying to get national
based terrorists into his network. It usually doesn't work.
These people aren't space aliens.
constan...@gmail.com
G*rd*n wrote:
> > > > > Bin Laden has published a long, long, long, list of his
> > > > > grievances. US imperialism is just some pebbles on his
> > > > > mountain.
> > > > >
> > > > > One of the big grievances was the independence of East
> > > > > Timor. Was that US imperialism?
>
> "Toby" <kymar...@ybb.ne.jpp>:
> > > > One pebble on the mountain.
>
> G*rd*n:
> > > I was thinking of my interpretation of the world, rather than
> > > bin Laden's.
>
> constan...@gmail.com:
> > But Bin Laden's interpretation of the world is what matters in
> > determining what causes him to act the way he does.
>
>
> Bin Laden's interpretation of the world might be a better
> predictor of his behavior, but unfortunately (or maybe
> fortunately) it is not accessible to me.
His statements are. Your own navel-gazing is of course more accessible
to you than the empirical evidence, but as a guide to future action it
leaves something to be desired.
Marcus Welch
> Okinawa is one big American base
And yet, oddly, we do not see Japanese Shinto zealots flying comercial
airliners into tall Manhattan buildings.
Marcus Welch
> > There are no Algerian troops in the Coalition of the Willing. If
> > isolating the US were the goal of terrorist attacks, they would stick
> > to murdering Brits, Koreans, and Italians. Since their goal is,
> > instead, to have you kissing Allah's ass, they are more ambitious
> > about their targeting.
Chris Hayes:
> Wrong. They are attempting to drive diplomats from other countries
> (and UN workers) out of the country to spread chaos. If they can get
> America to be isolated from the rest of the planet, they hope America
> will be forced to leave by political pressure
You are mistaking your own America-hating with the America-hating
of the Bin Laden-ites. Two different things.
Relations between Washington and Algiers are chilly at best. America
is already "isloated" from Algeria. The Algerian diplomats were not
murdered in cold blood because they were "Crusaders and Zionists".
They were murdered in cold blood because the Salafist jihadis deemed
them to be insufficiently Islamic, much like yourself.
Marcus Welch:
> > > > If imperialism were the root cause of terrorist attacks, Paris
> > > > would be the target of greater bloodshed.
Chris Hayes:
> > > It USED to have Algerian terrorists until the French backed off.
Marcus Welch:
> > So where are the terrorists from Rwanda and the Ivory Coast?
Chris Hayes:
> Is France controlling them? Bombing their people? Nope.
You should consider reading a newspaper now and then.
Chris Hayes
Marcus Welch wrote:
> Marcus Welch:
> > > There are no Algerian troops in the Coalition of the Willing. If
> > > isolating the US were the goal of terrorist attacks, they would stick
> > > to murdering Brits, Koreans, and Italians. Since their goal is,
> > > instead, to have you kissing Allah's ass, they are more ambitious
> > > about their targeting.
>
> Chris Hayes:
> > Wrong. They are attempting to drive diplomats from other countries
> > (and UN workers) out of the country to spread chaos. If they can get
> > America to be isolated from the rest of the planet, they hope America
> > will be forced to leave by political pressure
>
> You are mistaking your own America-hating with
I figured it wouldn't take long for a totalitarian mouth breather like
yourself to call those you don't agree with "America haters." America
is an abstract concept, and you're an idiot.
Marcus Welch
> > You are mistaking your own America-hating with the America-hating
> > of the Bin Laden-ites.
Chris Hayes:
> I figured it wouldn't take long for a totalitarian mouth breather
> like yourself to call those you don't agree with "America haters."
I am simply diagnosing the "root cause" of your errors.
Chris Hayes:
> America is an abstract concept, and you're an idiot.
Smythe Kilburn
Toby, you're an asshole, admit it and your miserable life will be
easier on you.
Chris Hayes
Marcus Welch wrote:
> Marcus Welch:
> > > You are mistaking your own America-hating with the America-hating
> > > of the Bin Laden-ites.
>
> Chris Hayes:
> > I figured it wouldn't take long for a totalitarian mouth breather
> > like yourself to call those you don't agree with "America haters."
>
> I am simply diagnosing the "root cause" of your errors.
>
Bullshit.
> Chris Hayes:
> > America is an abstract concept, and you're an idiot.
>
> This from someone who wrote:
>
You obviously don't understand what abstract means.
Marcus Welch
> > > America is an abstract concept, and you're an idiot.
Marcus Welch:
> > This from someone who wrote:
> >
> > "If they can get >America< to be isolated from the rest of the planet,
> > they hope >America< will be forced to leave by political pressure"
Chris Hayes:
> You obviously don't understand what abstract means.
Evidently and abstract concept means something that can be "isolated
from the rest of the planet," as well as something that can be "forced
to leave by political pressure."
Chris Hayes
Thanks for comfirming you don't know.
Marcus Welch
> > One of the big grievances was the independence of East
> > Timor. Was that US imperialism?
Toby:
> One pebble on the mountain.
So the Indonesian invasion of East Timor was >not< US imperialism?
Marcus Welch
> > > > > America is an abstract concept, and you're an idiot.
Marcus Welch:
> > > > This from someone who wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "If they can get >America< to be isolated from the rest of the planet,
> > > > they hope >America< will be forced to leave by political pressure"
Chris Hayes:
> > > You obviously don't understand what abstract means.
Marcus Welch:
> > Evidently an abstract concept means something that can be "isolated
> > from the rest of the planet," as well as something that can be "forced to
> > leave by political pressure."
Chris Hayes:
> Thanks for comfirming you don't know.
This is a revealing response to someone who is simply quoting to you
your
own words.
Chris Hayes
Do you have an actual point?
Marcus Welch
> Do you have an actual point?
The point is you are mistaking your own America-hating with the
America-hating of the Bin Laden-ites. Easy mistake to make, but
they are not the same things.
Chris Hayes
I figured you didn't have a point.
G*rd*n
> > > > > > grievances. US imperialism is just some pebbles on his
> > > > > > mountain.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One of the big grievances was the independence of East
> > > > > > Timor. Was that US imperialism?
"Toby" <kymar...@ybb.ne.jpp>:
> > > > > One pebble on the mountain.
G*rd*n:
> > > > I was thinking of my interpretation of the world, rather than
> > > > bin Laden's.
constan...@gmail.com:
> > > But Bin Laden's interpretation of the world is what matters in
> > > determining what causes him to act the way he does.
G*rd*n:
> > Bin Laden's interpretation of the world might be a better
> > predictor of his behavior, but unfortunately (or maybe
> > fortunately) it is not accessible to me.
constan...@gmail.com:
> His statements are. ...
Many of his statements do not make any sense to me. I gather
from what I read that bin Laden is being used as a sort of
tar-baby devil, to whom all evil can be conjoined, because
people need individual villains in order to visualize an enemy
and thus deal with their fear and anger. And so his words
are construed as if he were some sort of authoritarian commander
and philosopher. But this interpretation does not correspond
to the facts, for example the widespread guerrilla and terrorist
resistance to imperial intervention, invasion and occupation
by diverse parties who do not appear to be under any single
command. On the other hand, resistance does correspond to
the elementary primate behavior I have described. We have a
choice, then, between legend and science. You choose legend,
and you have a lot of company; I choose science.
Functionally, though, the difference is trivial, because
neither one of us will have any immediate influence on events.
So you might as well tell yourself whatever stories you
like, and I will do the same.
James A. Donald
"Chris Hayes"
> > > If you actually listen to the fatwas the likes of
> > > Bin Laden produce, their criticisms are SPECIFIC
> > > foreign policy issues:
> > >
> > > http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatw
> > > a.htm
James A. Donald:
> > The issue in the philippines is that he thinks the
> > Muslim minority should rule over the non Muslim
> > majority. Do you want to address that one?
"Chris Hayes"
> It's not my position, but the likes of Bin Laden. Bin
> Laden has tried to drag up every issue in the Islamic
> world, trying to get national based terrorists into
> his network. It usually doesn't work.
So when bin Laden complains about US bases in Saudi
Arabia, you conclude that is his real complaint, but
when he complains about everything else that has gone
wrong for Islam in the last thousand years, you conclude
he is being insincere, and what really bugs him is US
imperialism.
Odd then, that when the US removed its forces from Saudi
Arabia, we somehow failed to hear loud hosannas and
cries of "all is forgiven" coming from bin Laden's camp.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
xd+bw6li8rCoLnAQeIFyEWwNaqp4sXc2v3ki1Wg2
4o1zsQVbdBKy2WdvoR2XORdTMJbGtWZ4gPcN36fzU
James A. Donald
Constantinople:
> > Let's blame the bad weather we're having on American
> > policy.
> >
> > The game is easy to play. Doesn't make it true, and
> > doesn't make the writers who choose to play this
> > game remotely convincing to the not-yet-convinced.
Baldin Pramer
> It can be done with Clinton too.
I have yet to hear people blaming Clinton for the fact
that they cannot get a date, but yes, I really have
heard people blame the vast evil conspiracy (not clear
whether it was capitalist or Jewish) for the fact they
cannot get date.
(To be precise, they blamed the conspiracy for the fact
they fell short of the conspiracy's false ideas of
beauty)
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
2XaBg6MLFaEx4ssfx0JQn1OgYxylB+kocBhSj8FQ
4tmxkhWY0RDOTMKI4fi3q11Vjcgv3gZIjhGvrqIR2
Norma
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:6tvse1pam21466ejf...@4ax.com...
> --
> "Chris Hayes"
>> > > If you actually listen to the fatwas the likes of
>> > > Bin Laden produce, their criticisms are SPECIFIC
>> > > foreign policy issues:
>> > >
>> > > http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatw
>> > > a.htm
>
> James A. Donald:
>> > The issue in the philippines is that he thinks the
>> > Muslim minority should rule over the non Muslim
>> > majority. Do you want to address that one?
>
> "Chris Hayes"
>> It's not my position, but the likes of Bin Laden. Bin
>> Laden has tried to drag up every issue in the Islamic
>> world, trying to get national based terrorists into
>> his network. It usually doesn't work.
>
> So when bin Laden complains about US bases in Saudi
> Arabia, you conclude that is his real complaint, but
> when he complains about everything else that has gone
> wrong for Islam in the last thousand years, you conclude
> he is being insincere, and what really bugs him is US
> imperialism.
Have you read the book, "Imperial Hubris"? I knew of his hatred for America
before, but that book make it as clear as could be. I was also interested
in the autho's take on his mission and how he views himself in this
struggle.
Norma
James A. Donald
James A. Donald:
> > > One of the big grievances was the independence of
> > > East Timor. Was that US imperialism?
"Marcus Welch"
> So the Indonesian invasion of East Timor was >not< US
> imperialism?
No, Javanese imperialism. What bin Laden objects to is
US *opposition* to the Indonesian invasion of East
Timor.
Bin Laden does not consider that East Timor was ever
invaded. His objection is that it became independent.
Timor has a christian majority, which has from time to
time been ruled by Muslims.
http://www.parapundit.com/archives/000446.html
"This criminal, Kofi Annan, was speaking
publicly and putting pressure on the Indonesian
government, telling it: You have 24 hours to
divide and separate East Timor from Indonesia.
Otherwise, we will be forced to send in military
forces to separate it by force. The crusader
Australian forces were on Indonesian shores, and
in fact they landed to separate East Timor,
which is part of the Islamic world."
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
HxyhF/gN92CkZ+qSzWO5ZolvI1/KXjX69z/XxHra
4fqyi/ucZnsBxYFdr7TC9Z0Wh6XpW6mt2O5VZBGm3
Marcus Welch
> > So the Indonesian invasion of East Timor was >not< US
> > imperialism?
James Donald:
> No, Javanese imperialism. What bin Laden objects to is
> US *opposition* to the Indonesian invasion of East
> Timor.
The case of East Timor demonstrates the dangerous mendacity
of progressive diagnostics. Mendacious because today's party line
(UN/Australian liberation bad) does not comport with yesterday's
party line (post-colonial Indonesian occupation bad). Dangerous
because this left-wing pet rock resembles but does not match
bin Laden's pet rock. Dangerous because it is likely to lead to
false predictions that enable the murder of more of the sort of
people we care about.
Chris Hayes
James A. Donald wrote:
> --
> "Chris Hayes"
> > > > If you actually listen to the fatwas the likes of
> > > > Bin Laden produce, their criticisms are SPECIFIC
> > > > foreign policy issues:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatw
> > > > a.htm
>
> James A. Donald:
> > > The issue in the philippines is that he thinks the
> > > Muslim minority should rule over the non Muslim
> > > majority. Do you want to address that one?
>
> "Chris Hayes"
> > It's not my position, but the likes of Bin Laden. Bin
> > Laden has tried to drag up every issue in the Islamic
> > world, trying to get national based terrorists into
> > his network. It usually doesn't work.
>
> So when bin Laden complains about US bases in Saudi
> Arabia, you conclude that is his real complaint, but
> when he complains about everything else that has gone
> wrong for Islam in the last thousand years, you conclude
> he is being insincere, and what really bugs him is US
> imperialism.
>
I can't read his mind, but he obviously has complaints SOME people in
the Middle East agree with.
> Odd then, that when the US removed its forces from Saudi
> Arabia, we somehow failed to hear loud hosannas and
> cries of "all is forgiven" coming from bin Laden's camp.
>
One teeny-weeny thing: there was an invasion of Iraq.
Chris Hayes
Marcus Welch wrote:
> "Marcus Welch"
>
> > > So the Indonesian invasion of East Timor was >not< US
> > > imperialism?
>
> James Donald:
> > No, Javanese imperialism. What bin Laden objects to is
> > US *opposition* to the Indonesian invasion of East
> > Timor.
>
> The case of East Timor demonstrates the dangerous mendacity
> of progressive diagnostics.
Actually, it doesn't. There was a genocide going on in East Timor and
the Suharto regime which did it was backed primarily by the United
States. When Australia intervened, the US cut off all aid.
It's also important to point out that the Aussies didn't blow up the
infrastructure and destroy East Timor. Suprise, suprise: you air bomb
people, they may not like you.
Marcus Welch
Chris Hayes wrote:
> It's also important to point out that the Aussies didn't blow up
> the infrastructure and destroy East Timor.
And yet, oddly, Islamic fanatics >did< blow up Aussies.
As I was saying, the case of East Timor demonstrates the dangerous
mendacity of progressive diagnostics.
Marcus Welch
> > Odd then, that when the US removed its forces from Saudi
> > Arabia, we somehow failed to hear loud hosannas and
> > cries of "all is forgiven" coming from bin Laden's camp.
Chris Hayes:
> One teeny-weeny thing: there was an invasion of Iraq.
When the US removed its soldiers from Saudi Arabia, the jihadis
stepped up their attacks on targets in the Kingdom. The level of
terrorist attacks in the Kingdom have been inversely related to
the level of Empire.
Toby
>
> And yet, oddly, we do not see Japanese Shinto zealots flying comercial
> airliners into tall Manhattan buildings.
Yet.
Toby
David James Polewka
>josey...@outlaw.nospam (David James Polewka):
>> The path to peace is the Golden Rule!
>
>"Do not do unto others as you would have them do unto you;
>their tastes probably differ from yours."
>
> -- G.B. Shaw or Oscar Wilde or another one o' the
> wise guys
If you want a voice in your nation's affairs, and want to
have peace, you have to allow all others a voice, too.
=========================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=========================
Chris Hayes
Marcus Welch wrote:
> Chris Hayes wrote:
> > It's also important to point out that the Aussies didn't blow up
> > the infrastructure and destroy East Timor.
>
> And yet, oddly, Islamic fanatics >did< blow up Aussies.
>
And?
> As I was saying, the case of East Timor demonstrates the dangerous
> mendacity of progressive diagnostics.
You did no such thing. Bin Laden isn't gaining many recruits among
local Indonesian fighters to go after the United States over East
Timor. OTOH, many Islamic fighters have gone to Iraq to expel the
"infedel", much like they did with Afghanistan IRT Soviets.
Chris Hayes
You're kidding, right? The US goes and takes direct control of another
Arab country (instead of the indirect control it often uses), attacks
go up, and you say it's inverse?
Marcus Welch
> > And yet, oddly, we do not see Japanese Shinto zealots flying comercial
> > airliners into tall Manhattan buildings.
Toby
> Yet.
In other words, a small number of American soldiers stationed in Saudi
Arabia for a decade provoke terrorist attacks while a huge number of
American soldiers stationed in Japan for over a half a century after
bombing and nuking the country to cinders, don't.
We don't see any Germans Gaia worshipers flying airliners into tall
Manhattan buildings either. And the Red Brigades are now defunct.
Marcus Welch
> > > It's also important to point out that the Aussies didn't blow up
> > > the infrastructure and destroy East Timor.
Marcus Welch wrote:
> > And yet, oddly, Islamic fanatics >did< blow up Aussies.
Chris Hayes:
> And?
America nukes Japan and no American gets murdered by Japanese
terrorists.
Australia does >not< bomb East Timor and Australian party goers get
stomped.
By your reasoning, Islamic fanatics murdered Australian party goers
and a veritable United Nations of other nationalities because
Australians soldiers were so considerate when they reversed the "US
supported Indonesian occupation of East Timor".
Observe that there were no terrorist attacks on Americans when "US
supported militias" were committing "genocide" against East Timorese.
The attacks were provoked by the end of the genocide.
GW Chimpzilla
> Marcus Welch:
>> > And yet, oddly, we do not see Japanese Shinto zealots flying comercial
>> > airliners into tall Manhattan buildings.
>
> Toby
>> Yet.
>
> In other words, a small number of American soldiers stationed in Saudi
> Arabia for a decade provoke terrorist attacks while a huge number of
> American soldiers stationed in Japan for over a half a century after
> bombing and nuking the country to cinders, don't.
Station some Israeli soldiers in the Vatican and see what happens...
Marcus Welch
> > When the US removed its soldiers from Saudi Arabia, the jihadis
> > stepped up their attacks on targets in the Kingdom. The level of
> > terrorist attacks in the Kingdom have been inversely related to
> > the level of Empire.
Chris Hayes:
> You're kidding, right? The US goes and takes direct control of another
> Arab country (instead of the indirect control it often uses), attacks
> go up, and you say it's inverse?
US removes troops from the Kingdom. Attacks go up in the Kingdom.
Inverse relation.
Middle Eastern Muslims murdering each other in the Middle East may not
be such a bad idea. But you should be aware of the likely consequences
that total withdrawal will bring. And it's not the result that you
would expect if you think that US imperialism is the root cause of
terrorism.
And, yes, the number of terrorist attacks and terrorist attempts on
targets in America is down. And the severity of attacks on Western
targets is declining.
G*rd*n
> > > And yet, oddly, we do not see Japanese Shinto zealots flying comercial
> > > airliners into tall Manhattan buildings.
Toby:
> > Yet.
"Marcus Welch" <mwe...@europe.com>:
> In other words, a small number of American soldiers stationed in Saudi
> Arabia for a decade provoke terrorist attacks while a huge number of
> American soldiers stationed in Japan for over a half a century after
> bombing and nuking the country to cinders, don't.
>
> We don't see any Germans Gaia worshipers flying airliners into tall
> Manhattan buildings either. And the Red Brigades are now defunct.
We observe violent resistance by territorial trooping
primates to incursion in most cases -- in fact, a good many
human wars are based on this behavior, at least on one side.
So there is no doubt that this phenomenon is common and
predictable. However, it is evidently not inevitable. Nor
is terrorism always the mode of violence chosen. Even in
Iraq, a good deal of the resistance has been in the form of
guerrilla strikes agains military, police and administrative
targets.
Marcus Welch
> > In other words, a small number of American soldiers stationed in Saudi
> > Arabia for a decade provoke terrorist attacks while a huge number of
> > American soldiers stationed in Japan for over a half a century after
> > bombing and nuking the country to cinders, don't.
GW Chimpzilla:
> Station some Israeli soldiers in the Vatican and see what happens...
The Vatican City is already Occupied Territory.
Swiss imperialism. :)
Chris Hayes
Marcus Welch wrote:
> Chris Hayes:
> > > > It's also important to point out that the Aussies didn't blow up
> > > > the infrastructure and destroy East Timor.
>
>
> Marcus Welch wrote:
> > > And yet, oddly, Islamic fanatics >did< blow up Aussies.
>
> Chris Hayes:
> > And?
>
> America nukes Japan and no American gets murdered by Japanese
> terrorists.
>
> Australia does >not< bomb East Timor and Australian party goers get
> stomped.
>
By Al Qaeda, not East Timorese.
> By your reasoning, Islamic fanatics murdered Australian party goers
> and a veritable United Nations of other nationalities because
> Australians soldiers were so considerate when they reversed the "US
> supported Indonesian occupation of East Timor".
>
Could you possibly be more incoherent?
Chris Hayes
Marcus Welch wrote:
> Marcus Welch:
> > > When the US removed its soldiers from Saudi Arabia, the jihadis
> > > stepped up their attacks on targets in the Kingdom. The level of
> > > terrorist attacks in the Kingdom have been inversely related to
> > > the level of Empire.
>
> Chris Hayes:
> > You're kidding, right? The US goes and takes direct control of another
> > Arab country (instead of the indirect control it often uses), attacks
> > go up, and you say it's inverse?
>
> US removes troops from the Kingdom. Attacks go up in the Kingdom.
> Inverse relation.
>
Only if you ignore the invasion of Iraq. I'm not worried about
national terrorist in OTHER countries. The Saudi terrorists who blow
up stuff in Saudi Arabia do so because they oppose their government.
Like it or not, those groups blame the West for propping up draconian
regimes.
> Middle Eastern Muslims murdering each other in the Middle East may not
> be such a bad idea. But you should be aware of the likely consequences
> that total withdrawal will bring. And it's not the result that you
> would expect if you think that US imperialism is the root cause of
> terrorism.
>
> And, yes, the number of terrorist attacks and terrorist attempts on
> targets in America is down. And the severity of attacks on Western
> targets is declining.
Only if you ignore the fact that most of those attacks are going on in
Iraq.
Marcus Welch
> Could you possibly be more incoherent?
I will use small words.
US imperialism did not cause the Bali bombings.
Marcus Welch
> > US removes troops from the Kingdom. Attacks go up in the
> > Kingdom. Inverse relation.
Chris Hayes:
> Only if you ignore the invasion of Iraq. I'm not worried about
> national terrorist in OTHER countries.
Good. If you are not worried about national terrorism in other
countries, then we can expect you to hold your tongue when the
body count climbs sky high in Iraq after US troop withdrawal.
Given your track record over the body count that resulted after
the withdrawal of US troops after Gulf War Part One, I won't
hold my breath.
Chris Hayes:
> The Saudi terrorists who blow
> up stuff in Saudi Arabia do so because they oppose their
> government. Like it or not, those groups blame the West for
> propping up draconian regimes.
Saudi terrorists also blame the West for failing to french kiss
Allah's ass, just as those murdered Algerian diplomats failed to
french kiss Allah's ass with sufficient devotion.
Roger
news:1123028147....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
What did?
Marcus Welch
> > US imperialism did not cause the Bali bombings.
Roger:
> What did?
Islamic whack-jobs caused the Bali bombings.
Evidently an evil deed that is not ultimately traceable to inner
precincts of Washington power is simply beyond the realm of the
thinkable.
James A. Donald
On 2 Aug 2005 10:53:20 -0700, "Chris Hayes"
<hay...@fadmail.com> wrote:
> Bin Laden isn't gaining many recruits among local
> Indonesian fighters to go after the United States over
> East Timor.
Bin Laden called for attacks on Australians, and got
them.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
OMReXGXZ7Fz1pstVvTtBc85nBfa6VtzubKNK9Uhn
4tRhwiuDLRhjuS3JWUo81l22HiRkiy/wW1mamggEU
James A. Donald
"Chris Hayes"
> I can't read [bin Laden's] mind, but he obviously has
> complaints SOME people in the Middle East agree with.
The core complaint being that infidels should have
second class status to Muslims, a complaint illustrated
by the Bali bombing.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
c3KQkGdTPoLoJxrguMR9amypyJbzttFiUWlAglKV
4A6XSni66BBkydgZdMYMd0mBVBko7L33cu7jKuiEz
Roger
> Marcus Welch:
>> > US imperialism did not cause the Bali bombings.
>
> Roger:
>> What did?
>
> Islamic whack-jobs caused the Bali bombings.
Caused them or did them?
Why did they do them?
>
> Evidently an evil deed that is not ultimately traceable to inner
> precincts of Washington power is simply beyond the realm of the
> thinkable.
Sounds like a problem you need to get worked out.
James A. Donald
Marcus Welch:
> > > > US imperialism did not cause the Bali bombings.
Roger:
> > > What did?
"Marcus Welch"
> > Islamic whack-jobs caused the Bali bombings.
Roger:
> Caused them or did them?
>
> Why did they do them?
They did them because East Timor became independent.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
rSVox/IGf8v0YY7KRxiYgkcipicG0Fp5HJZeKXRl
45pmX+F9SmZ+JUX8iyYSNka9iLAPoxKMzSKlr7t35