Allahu Akbar (3113 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 0.95 on 129 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by itchy <Mritchytoyou.at.hotmail.com> (View user info) at 2004-05-12 11:45:30 EDT
God is good.
It might seem funny to you, funny, or blindingly uninteresting that my son's name was almost Tobias.
See, I am the product of the highly selective breeding practices of a bunch of poor Irish Catholics. My father was one of eight children. I am one of 50-something grandchildren. However, out of all my father's two brothers and five sisters, there was no one born to carry on our collective surname. Both of my uncles had only daughters, (but one of them had five, so it isn't like he didn't try for a boy) and naturally all of my aunts changed their surnames when they got married. My father was the only one of eight to produce a boy with our last name. Me.
So, since I've been quite young, it has been repeatedly reiterated to me that I have the responsibility of carrying on the name.
Fast forward several years to when my wife let me know she was pregnant. I was terrified. Not because of the last name thing, that was not even a blip on the radar. Fatherhood is a huge responsibility, and I was convinced that I was unprepared for it.
But I put on my game face and was as supportive and encouraging as I could be, for my wife. After several months we were scheduled for another ultra-sound. We were very excited because in all of the past ultra-sound the child had started to look more and more like a real baby. We had gone back and forth on whether or not we wanted to learn the sex of the baby. I felt that we should not because that was sort of like snooping for your Christmas presents before Christmas morning. Sure it is kind of fun, but it really ruins the surprise.
Well, my wife isn't a huge fan of surprises, so we decided we were going to find out the sex of the baby.
So the day of the appointment came and as the doctor and ultra-sound technician were looking the baby over - it was declared "perfect." Let me tell you there is no more beautiful word in the English language than when your wife's gynecologist tells you your baby is "perfect" and healthy.
Next was the Big Moment. It didn't really take too long. The doctor and the technician were staring intently at the gray blurs on the screen when the doctor turned and looked me directly in the eye. I could see joy in her face (which probably would have been there either way - what a great job). "It's a boy," she said.
Unbidden, the words "God is good" came to my mind as waves of the purest and most unadulterated happiness I have ever felt in my life flooded through my body. My wife and I hugged and she cried a little (and I might have too). It was one of the best days of my life.
So then when we got to work looking for a name for The Boy, those words, "God is good," came back to me. There are tons of web-sites you can use to find baby names, and some of them let you type in the meaning you want, and then give you a list of names that mean something similar.
Using these resources, I found the name Tobias. I think it is actually a Spanish form of a Hebrew name, not really Irish at all, but it meant "God is good," and so that is the name I lobbied for. Eventually I was overruled and we settled on "Collin" which I believe is Gaelic for "Emu taking a huge dump." Not the most meaningful name in the world, but hey, its arguably Celtic, so what are you going to do?
Perhaps though, I should have lobbied for the name "Allahu Akbar." After all, that means "God is good" too.
I'm glad today that my son's name is not Tobias. Because if it were, it would almost be as if the monsters in Iraq who cut off Nick Berg's head would have been saying a form of my son's name as they treated that man as something less than an animal.
I am dumbstruck that the same words that came to my mind when I found out that I had a son are the same words that came to the lips of Abu Musab Zarqawi (allegedly) as he cut off an innocent man's head.
Did he feel the same joy I felt? He used the same words.
If not joy, what then did he feel? What was it that caused him to have his god's name on his lips when he butchered a man who was not his enemy?
I am a Christian. I can think of no reason whatsoever that would provoke me to joyously kill another man (even though I often say that I would love to kill this person or that person). I can think of no reason whatsoever where my murderous act would be sanctioned by my God. (And if you are going to bring up Old Testament Law to try to argue this point - don't.)
I just cannot fathom, literally CAN NOT understand this action. According to the words spoken before the act, this was done in retaliation for the abuses committed by U.S. Troops upon Iraqi prisoners in Abu Graib Prison.
In the case of the Iraqi prisoners, depending on who you listen to, the victims are either a) random Iraqi citizens who were picked up for no reason whatsoever, or b) hardened criminal terrorists with American blood on their hands. In either case, the abuse seems to be part of a process of "softening up" the Iraqis in order to make them more compliant with questioning. Humiliation, theoretically knocking out some of there willingness to fight.
In the case of Nick Berg, the victim was a private citizen who went over to Iraq because he believed that his expertise in constructing wireless communications towers would be helpful to the citizens of Iraq in their attempts to create a democratic state. I have heard that this was his second trip to Iraq, and that he has previously helped develop wireless infrastructure in both Ghana and Kenya. In one of those cases he gave up $900 of his own money to provide a brick making oven to a village in order to help them construct buildings.
In the case of the Iraqi "detainees," they can go home. In the case of Nick Berg, he had to die because the Iraqis were "humiliated." Nick Berg's parent will not see their son again. Will not hold him again. And the last thing they have most likely seen of him was his head being held up for the camera.
So, like many Americans I have been sitting the fence on this issue. I was initially for the war, but I thought we were going to find WMDs. We haven't.
I never quite bought the notion that we were there to liberate the people of Iraq, and when I saw the pictures of what was being done to the detainees I doubted it even more.
I thought it had been rather conclusively shown that there was no connection between Iraq and Al Queda.
But here is what I see now:
I see the kind of people who want us dead.
I see the value they place on human life. All human life, not just that of American citizens.
I see that they attacked us first: At the U.S Embassies in Kenya and Somewhere else I can't remember, on the U.S.S. Cole, at the World Trade Center, in Bali, in Madrid and in other places across the world.
I see that they do not care and in fact, may prefer to kill innocent civilians, because to them, there are no "innocent civilians."
I see that, for whatever reasons, we ARE IN Iraq.
I see that if we do not push through to a complete victory in Iraq, men like this will take power again. Because those who lack the strength or ambition to TAKE power in that part of the world will have it taken from them. These men do not play by any set rules.
I see that if such men are allowed to regain power, or even to live in peace, they will not stop their attacks upon us. In stead they will attempt to amass more power and conduct more devastating attacks.
Call it melodramatic, but I see my son, 25 years from now, hands and feet tied, being made to say, "My name is Collin . . . . I have a father, "itchy," and a mother . . . . I am from . . .", or I see him idly reading a paper on the train just before a bomb is detonated.
I see that the only way to stop men like this from posing a danger to innocent people everywhere is to kill them.
I see that, for good or for ill, I want them dead. But I assure you, there is no joy in it.
There you have it. Take it or leave it. I could be wrong.
User Reviews
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2005-02-02 10:08:03 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Blah fucking blah. Bitch moan whine. We're still in their country and they're protecting it. Of course they want us dead, dipshit.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2005-02-02 09:59:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
What shandy said, 'cept I didn't weep.
Must be the whole 'not having a kid' thing.
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2004-05-22 05:39:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
btw, my boy's name ended up as Isaac. got it from a book - hebrew for laughter apparetly. it fits well with his family name, and oddly has become quite popular in austrlia at the moment.
oh, and funilly enough i wanted Mohammed for his middle name, but the wife wouldj't have it.
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2004-05-22 05:35:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
this is quite a post!
i was so entranced and happy and amused reading of your entrance to fatherhood - all the details of which i could relate to very much (except in my case i was dissappointed by the news that it was a son in her belly - being a hetero pedo i'd been hoping for a girl! Just kidding, but i had wanted a girl because i tend to find women easier to live with and do love little girls. in the end, of course, i wouldn't change a thing and am actually pleased i have a lovely little boy rather than a girl)
anway, your switch to iraq via the 'god is good' connection was very unexpected and very interesting. i like the sincere way you've struggled to find your view on these terrible goings on, but disagree with your conclusions.
i'm not a christian, but the 'turn the other cheek', and 'don't cast the first stone' stuff are concepts that i guess christians should be aspiring to, even if they may be unatainable. love and forgiveness are the messages of christ, it seems from my childish knowledge of it. love and forgivenss.
but as you say, if it was MY boy killed, especially if my boy was a good man who had gone to help people, maybe vengence would be in my mind. i don't know
i know that sadness would.
anyway, great post.
it has actaully made me weep.
Submitted by ZAfrikin (user info) at 2004-05-22 05:09:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
smokey,
Agree with you completely about Winnie Mandela. She should be in jail. But not for committing acts of terrorism, not while she was fighting the Apartheid government. She should be in jail for murdering Stompie (one of her bodyguards) and for fraud. I always contend that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If Winnie committed acts of terror it was because she herself was terrorized. Locked in solitary confinement for months at a time. Interrogated. Arrested and detained illegally. Being placed under house arrest for most of her life. She is no saint. But she is the mother of the struggle and she had the guts to stand up against a racist regime when most people fled the country or stood by and watched. I assure you, I am no fan of Winnie's. She has an ego the size of the US and believes she is above the law.
I cannot defend what you perceive as Mandela's racism. That is you opinion, you are entitled to it.
'I think Mandela's greatest fault has been how easy he has been on crime, and I think it has contributed greatly along with a late coming and inneffective initially health campaign, to the AIDs crisis there'... I agree. Except its not Mandela but our current president, Thabo Mbeki who does not believe that Aids & HIV are a real threat. Mandela is an AIDS activist. He invited international stars like Bono to Robben Island (where he was imprisoned for 27 years) to raise funds for AIDS awareness. He also is no longer president, hasn't been since 1999.
And I can tell you about crime in ZA... let me recount the horrors...
'The De Beers in particular make me ill'... Agree again.
'When will Africa judge itself?!?!?!?'... Erm, actually, we do. Allow me to state the not-so-obvious. There are many good things that happen in Africa. You just never hear about it. Its not sensationalist or news worthy. You don't want to hear about the progress being made in Africa. You like to see the starving millions in Ethiopia and the genocides in Rwanda and Angola. It gives you someone to pity and feel superior to. The difference between us and you is that we are not in denial about our short-comings, about corruption and all the millions of things that are wrong in Africa.
Let us go back a few years to colonialism. (Europeans). They landed, they raped, pillaged, stole the resources and then they fucked off, expecting the indigenous people who were still largely uneducated and unskilled to run the country. Nice one. That's like giving the candy store to the kids and expecting them to manage it and turn a profit.
The illegal immigrants are a major issue in the US, to the point that its an election point in California. In ZA we have opened our doors to all of Africa's refugees and political exiles.
Robert Mugabe is a twat. You seem to be the only American who even knows who he is and it is a great source of embarrassment that our President has NOT rejected this man. My question to you is this. Why is Robert Mugabe still there? Why doesn't America invade Zimbabwe and rid them of that dictator? Why is there no American intervention in Angola, Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone, where people are being massacred and what about Rwanda 10 years ago? What makes Saddam Hussein so different from Mugabe? Or is it because Zimbabwe has no oil (that we know of anyway)?
I am very well aware of Africa's problems. And do you know why aid is given to these countries? Because it suits the capitalist West to pacify their governments, because the more corruption and instability there is, the easier it is to bribe officials and get mining rights and to pillage other resources. We all know about blood diamonds, don't we?
'Africa can only dream of reaching a time when that is the worst of its problems.'...I don't think so. Africa's problems are essentially socio-economic and/or political. Africa has strong ethnic and cultural traditions. And a large proportion of their problem stem from not being able to reconcile these different traditions. America's problem is it has no soul. It is a culture of self. Self gratification. Self abuse and self humiliation. Africa is aware of its problems, hence the African renaissance. Americans don't know, have not got a clue of how self-obsessed they are. In Africa, 'ubuntu' ... spirit of brotherhood, still abounds.
'The Jerry Springer show in Africa would be something like, this'... LOL. That would be funny if it wasn't true. Once again. You reveal your ideological and cultural conceit and condescension. Im not saying those things don't exist and I'm not excusing them. You can't excuse them. As a mitigating factor, let me say this, most of Africa is rural. People are largely illiterate. People are uneducated. They don't have access to the internet. The largest mass media in Africa is still the radio. It's a culture of oral tradition. And yes, every government, including South Africa is corrupt. But then, so is yours. I can admit the short comings of my government. Can you?
You don't love the African people. You don't even understand them. How can you love them? You love to con yourself into thinking you're doing something good, while you sit in your cushy home and people are starving in Africa. It eases your conscience.
Don't tell me you love Africa. You're an American. You only love yourself. That is your NATIONAL culture. You wouldn't know what UBUNTU was if it bit your ass off. We are a lot of things, but we are not hypocrites.
Submitted by mystiamoon (user info) at 2004-05-22 04:27:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
WTF! I'M NOT READING ALL OF THIS THREAD UNTIL I HAVE A WEEK OFF OF WORK AND SOME METH TO KEEP ME AWAKE THE WHOLE 7 DAYS TO READ THIS FUCKER!
Submitted by ZAfrikin (user info) at 2004-05-22 04:18:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Hi Itchy :)
In ZA we have a national broadcaster, the SABC, modeled after the BBC (which kicks ass), a free privately owned tv station (20% by Time-Warner), a pay station (which airs the Springer show late at night) and satellite tv (which airs reruns of the Springer show).
Having studied media communication, I am au fait with the concept of ratings and advertising (surprise!) and watched the Springer show out of curiosity (now I merely catch glimpses while channel surfing). I did not and do not enjoy it and mailed the tv station to voice my objections. I admit that I found it fascinating in the same way car accidents can be fascinating... simultaneously repulsive and compelling. (I tend to drive by at car accidents).The show has been slammed by critics and I have yet to meet a person who admits to watching it.
'we actually ALLOW people to act so poorly' ... I detect some defensiveness and an attempt at illustrating free speech.
'The distribution of the Jerry Springer show has EVERYTHING to do with the character of the people who watch it and the companies who PAY for the rights to broadcast it. '...Disagree. That's like saying people who watch Shower Hour on Big Brother are perverts. Its too general and sweeping a statement to be given credence. People are voyeurs, hence the whole reality tv debate.
' I've attempted to distinguish between the motivations of George Bush as a man, and those of the country in getting involved in this war.' ... I believe that George Bush LIED to sanction declaring war. (Here we agree). What concerns me is that he lied, was found out, found a different reason (freedom, etc) to continue the occupation, but never apologized or was held accountable for the lies he told to declare war.
'the people responsible for those actions was sentensed today. '... I believe those people were simply following orders. http://www.interventionmag.com
'He and his program may be completely devoid of value, but silencing him would be to deny freedom'.... Ironic how the American people are allowed to see the Springer show but are denied access to the real news and information going on in the world. That's not freedom. You are being given an illusion of freedom.
http://www.ubersite.com/m/33218
'we had sanctions against South Africa for so long as Aparteid'... I beg to differ. I lived through Apartheid. America was our biggest trading partner. Britain was second. We drove American cars and drank Coca-Cola. America paid lip-service to sanctions. And certain companies like Pepsi withdrew. But it was only after pressure by political groups in the USA in the late 70s, early 80s and by 1990, all those sanctions were lifted with the release of Nelson Mandela and the abolition of most Apartheid laws. Ford has an assembly plant in ZA, and has had for many many years. Sanctions my ass. The only countries that had real sanctions against us was France, Sweden, India, Pakistan, New Zealand and most African and ME nations.
'I leave it to you to determine if the UN has any credibility'. Indeed. The UN weapons inspector Hans Blix said there were no WMD. Good enough for me. Especially considering that he had been right. And proven right. So you will forgive me if I give the UN more credibility than I do the US government.
'the United States DOES NOT make the claim that Christianity is superior to any other religion.' ... That is not what I said. That is what I said was implied. And it has been implied. Im trying to find the sources where I read that.
'To simply pull out because we didn't find WMD's would be conteptable in its irresponsibility. ' ... Again I disagree. http://rense.com/general53/bent.htm
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-05-21 11:03:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You're an utter tosscunt.
Submitted by smokymtcsw (user info) at 2004-05-21 11:01:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Z,
As far as Jerry Springer goes, while some poor person who has had sex with their cousin is awful, and while the multiple paternity tests for a whore are as well, those people are truly the lowest our country has to offer. Africa can only dream of reaching a time when that is the worst of its problems. The Jerry Springer show in Africa would be something like, this Muslim man set the father of this boy on fire after nailing him to a cross and enslaving his mother. Now his son is out for revenge. Or this man lost his left arm when it was hacked off by a machete by this rival tribe and now he is wanting to get revenge. Or meet this 6 year old girl who got AIDs when she was gang raped in South Africa by men who thought that would cure them. Or meet this Liberian 12 year old, he claims bullets cannot kill him because he has eaten 17 human hearts.
Submitted by smokymtcsw (user info) at 2004-05-21 10:55:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Itchy,
I could not tell if you were joking or not in your understanding of the First Amendment. The line "separation of church and state" was taken from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Assoc. in Conn. and he was referring to a statement by a famed Baptist precher named Roger Williams who used the concept to describe the garden around a church and how in order to protect it from the wilds of the state a small fence should be erected with a gate on it. In any case the founders understood the United States to be a Christian nation but the First Amendment does prohibit the establishment of a sectarian state church. That is all it does. It says that we will not be Quaker, or Baptist, or Presbyterian, or Catholic. Subsequent cases fleshed this out further, and the court did not start making up the law until the school prayer line of cases starting with Everson.
Z,
Mandelas ex wife should be executed because she is a murdering terrorist. Mandela himself has resorted to racism on occasion in his hyperbole but all in all is one of the best African leaders of the last century. What do you think about Mugabe? I say we let everyone in that country starve and deny them humanitarian aid until they have a coup and kill him. I am sick of watching people in Africa tear apart their country and ask us (the west) for help. It makes me ill. No one is stopping the genocide in Sudan. Liberia tore itself apart despite the fact that they did not have economic woes. Rwanda and Burundi illustrated that tribalism still rules despite the fake nation states that were imposed upon the continent. I am an attorney and one of my main areas of interest is international human rights. My extremely high level of frustration stems from my love for the people of Africa, and the fact that the money I have sent to relief organizations I see being pillaged by warlords. I also see the relief organizations giving men fish, but rarely teaching them to fish. The band aid solutions do not work. I think the reconciliation in S.A. has been remarkable and I am very pleased with its success. I think Mandela's greatest fault has been how easy he has been on crime, and I think it has contributed greatly along with a late coming and inneffective initially health campaign, to the AIDs crisis there. If someone rapes someone else they should be in prison for a very long time. I would not mind if they were executed if the proof of the rape is conclusive.
Africa has resisted a human rights regime. The U.N. has Sudan and has had Libya on the Human Rights commission. Now they have Togo a country that used French support to murder political opposition and silence dissent. I long for the day when Justice will be possible in Africa and the rule of law will prevail. However most of the continent is unwilling at that point to see that happen, and part of the reason why the west is happy with the way it is, is the greed of those who seek to continue colonialism through commercial exploitation. The De Beers in particular make me ill but there are many others like them including the European hypocrital bastards who preach human rights and then through their oil companies encourage Khartoum to implement programs of forced starvation and murder of Christians in the south and Muslims in Darfur. When will Africa judge itself?!?!?!? If 8000 people were murdered in Mexico at the governments behest the United States would not sit idly by. I hate that intervention took so long but we finally stopped the murderous regimes in the Balkans (though Europe was only prompted to action by the strong U.S. support). Many intellectuals in Africa claim that they should police themselves, but that is for the most part letting the foxes guard the henhouse (it is an english expression that means if the corrupt people are supposed to guard against corruption the system will be an utter failure).
Again I would not be so sharply critical if I did not care so much about the issue. You rail about U.S. policies, what is your response to the failures throughout your continent to curb human rights abuses, to establish rule of law and to help themselves. Africa to me seems to be a country full of proud leaders who rail about U.S. imperialism, but ask us for money every single time they royally screw their country. I am sick of it. Perhaps if we let people in Zimbawbwe starve, those who murdered the white and black farmers who formerly held the land but were not part of Mugabes gang will be brought to justice, and the people of Zimbawbwe will turn to a leader who is not insane, whose policies do not destroy his country.
Submitted by itchy (user info) at 2004-05-19 15:03:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
ZA - I am glad you came back. I love talking to people with different points of view, and considering that you are from a vastly underrepresented country on Uber, this is an opportunity not to be missed.
Okay. FOX is biased. CNN is biased. Those statements I agree with. It is a sad commentary on the state of "journalism" in this country. We are placed in the possition of having to read both sources, and since they tend to fall on opposite sides of the issues, we have to form our own opinions based on what they present. But I would argue that the BBC isn't a whole lot better.
As for the US "exporting" Jerry Springer "as if it were proud of the depraved citizens on it" thing . . several points come to mind.
First, the US does not export the Jerry Springer show. FOX does. I am afraid I really might have to make this clear, because at least in this respect, I am your typical "stupid American" and I do not know whether the programing in your country is privately made or nationally supplied. FOX is a private company that creates programs that they believe people will watch, and that as a result advertizers will want to buy commercial time on. It seems, that if it is being broadcast in your country, the same can be said about your citizenry. They want to watch it too. They enjoy the public spectacle just like we do. The point you need to understand is this: The distribution of a show like that has nothing to do with the character of the US as a nation, other than to say that, heaven forbid, we actually ALLOW people to act so poorly. The distribution of the Jerry Springer show has EVERYTHING to do with the character of the people who watch it and the companies who PAY for the rights to broadcast it.
If you believe that Bush is trying to portray the war in Iraq as a Christian Cruisade, I urge you to take a look at Loki's comments below. She, an American, has the same concern, and she is quite adamant that she is not in favor of such a thing. I've attempted to distinguish between the motivations of George Bush as a man, and those of the country in getting involved in this war. I'd actually prefer you take a look at my conversations with Loki than take up that banner again. Simply because I think it would be redundant to do so, unless and until you have something unique to add to the discussion.
I openly state that I do not believe that the war was conceived as a fight for justice or for the liberation of the Iraqi people. I think that was a hastily seized upon, secondary excuse that became a justification for STAYING once WMD's were not found.
I agree with you that the US has no superior claim to human dignity to any other nation on earth, and the treatment of detainees in Iraq seriously compromises any claims we may have to human rights superiority, but I think it is worth noting that the first of the people responsible for those actions was sentensed today. And again, I would argue that the very fact that we HAVE Jerry Springer speaks volumes for our concept of Liberty. He and his program may be completely devoid of value, but silencing him would be to deny freedom.
As for the participants on the Jerry Springer program violating every tenant of every holy book ever written . . . you may be correct, but in this country they can do that. It is called freedom. Sometimes it isn't pretty.
Just a question . . . Did you feel the same way about the US "fixing its own country before it tries to fix anyone else's" when we had sanctions against South Africa for so long as Aparteid was still in effect? http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/56.htm
Whether we want the job or not, isolationism is not a role the United States can play any longer. We learned that the hard way in WWII.
But just for clarity's sake, in terms of an "illegal invasion" what would you require for an invasion to be "legal?" UN resolutions stating that if certain criteria were not met, then steps would be taken? We had those. I leave it to you to determine if the UN has any credibility to stand on in terms of enforcing any future resolutions that august body may care to decree.
Let me be very clear on another point, the United States DOES NOT make the claim that Christianity is superior to any other religion. The United States has no official policy on religion, Christian or otherwise. It CAN'T.
I come close to making the assertion you claim in my post, but that is ME, an individual American who is saying it. I may speak for some people in this country, but I definitely do not speak for others.
No one in this country MUST be Christian. The people on the Jerry Springer show are exempt from such a requirement. They will not be stoned to death if they are less than pious. The same is true of President Bush (did you by any chance happen to notice the last guy who was in the Office?) But I would differ with you on your take on our current President. I never saw him as a man without vices. I see him as a man who has overcome the vices he had through Christianity. I respect that very much. Islam did the same for Malcolm X in this country.
Whether or not the "Iraqi freedom" cause was sincere or not in the beginning is a moot point. I agree that it was not the original impetus for the invasion. However, as I state in the post, the fact is, we are there NOW. To simply pull out because we didn't find WMD's would be conteptable in its irresponsibility.
And finally, regarding the OJ Simpson line of discussion . . . I see your point, but I do not believe that the phenomenon of trying to distract from the real issue is strictly an American one.
Submitted by ZAfrikin (user info) at 2004-05-19 14:01:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Itchy! At last! The source of my vexation! :)
Allow me to explain: I did not cite the O J Simpson trial or the JS Show as examples of news media. When I refer to the biased US media I was referring especially to 'Fox', and to a lesser degree, CNN. (Btw. CNN is now only available on cable in South Africa since the start of the war. It used to be on free national TV before on a daily basis.)
I used the Jerry Springer Show to illustrate the hypocrisy of the American nation. Bush routinely directly or by implication, tries to give the impression that his little war is some sort of Christian crusade. Either that, or its a fight for justice and freedom and human rights, etc etc.
(Once the myth of WMD etc etc had been debunked.) The irony for me, an Outsider is how a country who has spawned the sub-standard humanity that is on display on that show can claim any kind of moral superiority when it comes to freedom, human rights and ergo human dignity. I dont want to go into the Christianity angle of Bush's mind-numbing speeches because the people on that show break every commandment implicitly or explicitly stated in every Holy book of every religion in the world.
And no, I am not implying that EVERY American is like the people in that show. Im merely trying to imply that a nation that not only airs a show LIKE that, but exports it to other countries, implying that they are rather proud of their depraved citizens, should not be preaching all these 'virtues' that your president is preaching to other countries, especially countries who's culture he does not understand.
What im basically trying to say, and if im not clear enough, I apologise, is this: Fix your own country before you try to fix anyone else's. To try and legitimise an illegal invasion by talking about freeing the Iraqi people and claiming Christianity as being somehow superior to other religions is insulting to all religions, ESPECIALLY Christianity.
Christianity is about more than being a Christian and believing in the bible and Jesus Christ. Its about practicing what's in the bible and adhering to God's laws, isnt it? (No, I am not a Christian)
None of the people on the J.S. Show are remotely "Christian" Americans, not with the way they conduct their sordid lives. And neither is George Bush, not with his history of womanising and substance abuse. He lies to and manipulates his entire nation routinely. From my limited understanding of Christianity, I dont believe Bush's behaviour is in any way 'Christian', no matter how you define it. Nor do I believe his new motives for the war in Iraq, viz. freedom, etc, are sincere or motivated by concern for the welfare of the Iraqi people.
My reasons for citing the O J case were an attempt (failed, obviously) to illustrate the American tradition for distracting from the real issue at hand. I raised it when I responded to GhostFox claiming that Nelson Mandela was a racist, implying that Mr. Mandela's condemnation of the war was invalid because he was a racist.
I hope I have clarified myself ;)
ps : Note the +2 to make up for all the -2's I have been giving you thus far.
Submitted by itchy (user info) at 2004-05-18 14:52:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh Loki, Loki, Loki . . . you're kind of like a terrier. Tenacious. I like that.
Anywho, I wasn't saying that Bush IS a better Christian than Kerry, I was saying that is a common presumption, based on certain electoral hot buttons associated with Christians in the U.S.. I just want to keep that point clear. Judgment = God's job, not mine.
With that having been said, and before I get into the argument, I would like to note the discrepency between the headline from that "Progressive" news source and the actual quote attributed to the guy who said it. The headline says, "Bush war 'Unjustifiable'" the quote is that the war is 'without any justification according to the teachings of Christ'. How did that last part not make it into the headline? I'm sure soooo many people reading that source would give two shits about what the teaching of Christ are. That ommission sure seems to color the story a little differently than the quote.
But that's besides the point. First, I don't know didly about the Methodist Church. What I do know is that there are some Preachers or Ministers in that Church who think it is okay to go around marrying gays, and some who don't. The story doesn't clarify which branch the spokesperson is a part of. I think that might be relevant.
Nevertheless, even if Bush and this guy are part of the same branch of that church, isn't that quote using somewhat of 20/20 hindsight perspective. Keep in mind, (well, nevermind, I know you don't believe this but) WHEN WE WENT TO WAR, it was to find WMD's, which we thought they had based on the BEST EVIDENCE AVAILABLE. Now, keeping in mind that we had been attacked, and that we thought Saddam had WMD's and that we thought he might use them, I can see a self-defense arguement to be made.
What else do ya got?
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-05-18 14:21:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I realize that we've beaten this thing to death, but before you pull the trigger on Bush being a better "Christian" than Kerry because his beliefs are more in line with his chosen church I think you should acknowledge that Bush's war on Iraq is a violation of the Methodist Church's teachings.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1020-02.htm
Submitted by Ainkara (user info) at 2004-05-17 09:42:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
This is very well written, and it seemed very heartfelt to me.
Submitted by lojope (user info) at 2004-05-17 09:26:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Ok people, if you are going to continue arguing your point cool, but don't keep giving him -2s everytime, that's just beating his rating to the ground for no reason. Give him the -2 the first time and then do 0s after that.
+2 to offset them
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2004-05-17 09:18:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Woah.
this is going to take some reading.
Submitted by itchy (user info) at 2004-05-17 08:57:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Wow.
ZAfrikin and Ghostfox: nice work. I love it when people can argue their points in a relatively respectful and intelligent way. But you two have covered SO much ground it is hard to find a place to jump in. I would say though, that for someone who came in strong, ZA, you've petered out a bit. Don't get defensive, I am not trying to be insulting. What I mean is that you came in talking about how Americans tend to be blindly led by what we are told by our media. Yet, you then cite as your source for your insights into the American psyche such notables as the O.J. Simpson trial and the Jerry Springer show. Somehow the lowest forms of our entertainment is more probing than our journalism? That I don't get. Why not just bring up porn and use that?
Submitted by itchy (user info) at 2004-05-17 08:05:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Looks like there has been some action here since Friday. I haven't read the new stuff but has a couple of "counterpoint" articles that I think are worth reading.
http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=9547&TagID=2
http://www.palestinechronicle.com/story.php?sid=20040513114820386
Submitted by hinkle (user info) at 2004-05-16 21:46:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Your outlook offends me on so many levels.
Submitted by ZAfrikin (user info) at 2004-05-16 17:01:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
GhostFox:
Quick question:
What possible 'conventional use' could Saddam Hussein have had for biological weapons? I didnt know that there WAS a conventional use for bio weapons except to like ... duh ... kill lots of people quickly.
Also ... the Rosa Parks reference was not to villianise her but to hold her up as an example of racism, legislated racism, in America.
I hope someday you will be blessed with "ghidaya"... that's Arabic for 'seeing the light'. ;)
Peace
Salaam
Shalom
Submitted by ZAfrikin (user info) at 2004-05-16 16:39:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Ok GhostFox
You are entitled to your opinion of Mandela.
lol @ America not being dependent on oil in the next 20 years. For humanity's sake I hope you're right. For the planet's sake I hope you're right. You better tell your Vice-President that tho, so he can tell his old oil buddies.
And the planet IS running out of oil. And that is a good thing. For the planet anyway. In this century wars are not going to be fought over oil anymore, but water. If you had an ounce of vision you would know that.
'Every man whose soul is not a clod, hath vision.' --John Keats
But I think I understand Arabic a lot better than you do. No. I know I understand Arabic a lot better than you do. Moreover, I live in a democracy where people are no longer discriminated on based on race or creed. And I know ACTUAL, real, living, breathing muslim people. I also know actual, real, living, breathing jews. And Christians. And whites. And blacks. I have actual experience with these people.
Everyone here unanimously agrees that the Koran preaches tolerance. It preaches respect. Everyone here, regardless of race, colour, creed, ethnicity or religion agrees that the war on Iraq was a sham. You're entitled to believe your propoganda. Just one question: How is it possible that the rest of the world is wrong and ONLY America is right?
Even in Britain, your coallition partner, hundreds of thousands protested the war. Hell, in your own country people protested the war. Unless I am mistaken, I have never seen a protest FOR the war. And political rallies don't count.
Can you comprehend what it must have taken for France not to support the war? Do you not think that they knew that their were jeopardising a 50 year alliance? Do you think they took that decision lightly? THINK about it. Countries didnt not support the war in Iraq because they dont LIKE America. Can you imagine, just for a second, how IMMORAL your war must have seemed for a long-time ally like France not to support you.
But what did you do? Instead of examining WHY such a loyal ally will not support what they see as an illegal invasion, you turn against them like a spoilt child throwing a tantrum because his mother won't buy him a lollipop.
You developed an 'if you're not with us, you're against us' mentality. Really mature for the most powerful nation in the world.
I don't expect you to ever understand what im trying to tell you. Its easier for you to write me off as a biased, jew hating america-bashing conspiracy nut with an axe to grind. Its easier to label me 'anti-American' because then you don't have to face the responsibility you take for MAKING me feel that way about you in the first place.
Its called denial.
What you will do is slunk in a corner and start to hate South Africans. Hate the rest of the world. Its easier than admitting you were wrong to invade Iraq. Its easier than admitting that your government LIED to you and are STILL lying to you.
Isnt it strange how the motive for war went from WMD, to terrorism, to freeing the Iraqi people from dictatorship, and now that that theory has been debunked... what is the next 'reason' for invading Iraq?
You hate the Arabs because you hate yourself. You hate what you can't understand. You claim to fight for freedom and yet you oppress another nation (Iraq) by forcing YOUR ideologies on them. That's plutocracy, not democracy. And you stand idly by while another nation is oppressed into oblivion (Palestine). But it's OK to oppress these countries because they are 'different'. They oppress their women so its OK for us to oppress them. They have a backward religion, so its OK for us to invade them.
You know why you hate them? Because they are different. Because you don't understand them. You don't understand WHY people would blow themselves up for a cause because you lack that kind of conviction yourself. (And Im not condoning suiciding bombing).
Remember that great movie Braveheart. "They can take our lives but they will never take our freedom." Mel Gibson as William Wallace.
What you are doing is taking the freedom away from Iraqi's. And that freedom includes living their lives according to the mores and values and norms of THEIR society, not yours.
Israel is taking away the values of the Palestinians to live their lives in THEIR ancestral lands.
And they are fighting back the only way they know how. Their lives are meaningless without their freedoms (freedom as defined by them, not me or you). So why the hell NOT blow up yourself but tke a few of the 'enemy' with you. How dare you or I condescend to them about how they should define freedom? Maybe Arab women see covering their body as an expression of freedom. Have you even CONSIDERED that option? Maybe Arab women like being judged for other qualities rather than their physical appearance? No, I don't suppose you have.
And that, essentially is what you don't understand. Becaue they are TOO different from you for you to even comprehend that in THEIR society, their culture is the norm.
You say you as an American will fight... for your way of life (I assume). Power to you. I say if you have the right to fight for YOUR way of life, so does every other person on this planet. And if that makes me a biased, bigotted jew hating, America bashing, conspiracy nut, deluded bitch (Im a girl, btw)... power to me.
I'd rather be me than you, anyday.
Submitted by ZAfrikin (user info) at 2004-05-16 16:05:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
At the time the weapons were considered for conventional use and there was no rogue dictator.
LMAO. What possible 'conventional' uses can there possibly be for biological weapons? What, Saddam has a chemistry fetish? Somebody gave it to him and it wasn't the Russians. They had stopped there biological weapons program, even when the US didn't but claimed the did. (I saw that on the History Channel, and didnt get it from Al-Jazeerah).
You're extremely naive. And thats not a diss. I understand that you don't want to believe that America is partially responsible for the conflict in the Middle East. Its not easy to accept an awful responsibility like that. That doesn't make it any less true. Sometimes doing nothing at all is a bigger crime.
America is doing nothing to stop the murder of civilians in Palestine. The conflict is only going to get worse. And America backing Israel, and not opposing a recent decision by Sharon to assassinate Arafat is not going to make the situation better.
Go do some research on the UN resolutions that Sharon has ignored. All Palestine wants is the borders that were agreed on in 1976. How would you feel if somebody came to your house and annexed a part of your yard/house/front garden, because their great grandfather's uncle's brother lived there 200 years ago?
Didnt you also say that the Native Americans no longer held claim to America because that happened so long ago? By the same token, the jews (not all) left the Holy Land for whatever reason millenia ago. Not only did the Palestinians NOT object to their return, they actually welcomed them. It's only when they started getting greedy, that the Palestinians got pissed off. Wouldnt you be pissed off if Sitting Bull's great great great great great grandson showed up on your doorstep and kicked you out because his ancestors once occupied that land?
Dont be a hypocrite. You know you would be. All Im saying is this: Look at it from the other side too. And don't refuse to look at the Palestinian perspective simply because you don't understand their religion or their culture. Even the JEWS recognise the right to sovereignity of the Palestinian people. Why can't you?
There would be no conflict in the Middle East if the US and Britain had kept their word to all the people of that land, viz. the jews, muslims and christians, a promise they made in 1922... thats 80 years of being lied to.
Maybe that is why they hate America.
Submitted by GhostFox04 (user info) at 2004-05-16 15:42:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"you have to prove Mandela is a racist"
"He followed this up by announcing that "some people" were saying that the United States was flouting the United Nations' authority because Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, was a black man.
Last week Mandela went further still, no longer putting such allegations in the mouths of "some people," but openly charging that the Bush administration was acting out of racist and white supremacist motives in not "obeying" Kofi Annan. "No country, however powerful it may be, is entitled to act outside the UN. When UN secretaries-general were white we never had the question of any country ignoring the United Nations, but now that we have got black secretaries-general like Boutros Boutros-Ghali and Kofi Annan certain countries that believe in white supremacy are ignoring the UN for racist reasons."
Sounds like a quote from a racist to me. From my viewpoint I have proved he is a racist. And I assume even with pictures of him hanging white people I would assume you would still not believe he was.
"Jerry Springer Show: Umm ... that's not what Jerry Springer himself said in an interview when he was in South Africa, last year"
He lied. People wouldn't watch it as much if everyone knew it was fake. It started out as a real show and then he realized his raitings went way up if he paid people to act crazy and have crazy stories. It has been proven the situations are fabricated.
"Btw: You know that the world is running out of oil, don't you"
Incorrect. There is minor speculation that that may be a possibility someday, but no one has the slightest clue how big world oil reserves are.
". you know that Saudi only has about 20 years of oil production left, dont you"
Incorrect. But more to the point, the US will not be oil dependent in 20 years.
" How naive you are my darling. That money is seen as an investment. Do you know what war reparations are?"
I do. I don't think you do though. This is not Nazi germany. The people are being liberated, not conqured. How much did the US force Poland to pay after WW2?
"And how do you think Iraq, impoverished, war-ravished and decimated country that it is,is going to pay back the millions of dollars it cost the US to invade them? By having cake sales on every street corner? No, my dear. They are going to pay it with the only resource they have. Oil. Don't believe me? Ask any economist."
Iraq is only impoverished becuase of Saddam. And it is hundreds of billions of dollars, not millions. And yes, they will contribute oil at lower then market value prices to the US in repayment. And like I said. Possibly in 100 years the US may have gotten it's money back. However I doubt it because oil is 20-30 years away from being worthless.
"Bush is fighting for economics, pure and simple."
Bush, like most americans believe that people are born equal and have the right to be free. That is why we fight.
"Oh, I almost forgot. You quote lines from the Koran that are out of context."
Incorrect. They are in their full context the way they are. The Qu'ran has many, many references about violence against non-muslims. Just like the christian bible used to against non-christians. The differance? Christianity, while still bad, has evolved and civilized. Islam is still stuck 1,000 years ago when it was acceptable to kill all non-converters.
"And from my understanding of the Arabic language, it is too rich and too filled with subtle nuances for any single word, nevermind passage and phrase, to just have one single meaning"
Your understanding is lacking.
"But its a wonderful propoganda tool. Im beginning to think that you work for Fox"
Thank you for showing your bias once again. You only argument thus far is "Nu-uh!" and "it's all propaganda". I hate to break this to you, but there has been one person here steam shovleing the propaganda, and it is you.
Submitted by ZAfrikin (user info) at 2004-05-16 15:27:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Part II.
Alas, I hate to tell you... you have to prove Mandela is a racist. The articles you cite are merely the OPINIONS of people desperate to redeem the credibility of their President, a man the rest of the world believes is an inarticulate moron. ('duh', 'uh','err'<---Bushspeak) Now if you want to PROVE racism, show me the pictures of Mandela lynching white people. Show me the statements where he says white people are bad. All he did was ask a question. If the question was (to your mind) unwarranted, I apologise on behalf of my beloved Madiba. If it was a low-blow, tough. If there's no truth in it, why get so defensive?
Jerry Springer Show: Umm ... that's not what Jerry Springer himself said in an interview when he was in South Africa, last year. He hosted a show here. It was also a talk show. But it outclassed his American show a million times, by his own admission. And I dont watch Friends ;).
OJ trial: Yes, the prosecutor was white. But when the assistant prosecutor, (a white man) resigned, a black man replaced him and that was what the quote referred to. Or did you miss that part? And I will say it again. I did not bring up the O J trial to debate the merits of whether or not the jury was influenced by race... as you yourself said... he was acquitted because of lack of evidence, not because he was black and 9 members of the jury were black.(cough). Thats a whole nother debate. I attempted to highlight the tactic of distracting from the evidence which the whole Mark Fuhrmann incident and his alledged racism created during the trial. If you want me to expound on that, I will.
"Yes....once they had kicked all the Jews and christians out. "
-- According to the people who actually know the history of the territory, viz. the True Torah Jews (i.e. Orthodox jews), the jews were exiled because they broke the rules of the Torah. Moreover, as I have also stated before... Muslims,Arabs and jews lived together in harmony for millenia in that region.
www.jewsagainstzionism.com. (im so bored of pasting the same info.)
The Holy Land was given to the Jewish people on the condition that they observe the Torah and its commandments. When they failed to do this, their sovereignty over the land was taken from them, and they went into exile. From that time, we are prohibited by the Torah with a very grave prohibition to establish a Jewish independent sovereignty in the Holy Land or anywhere throughout the world. Rather, we are obligated to be loyal to the nations under whose protection we dwell.
--- They were exiled, not kicked out.
'By the way, all of you who keep going on about "wars for oil" etc etc etc.' -- can you say 'pipeline'? Tell you about that too someday. Let you get over some of these things first.
Btw: You know that the world is running out of oil, don't you. you know that Saudi only has about 20 years of oil production left, dont you? So even Iraq's paltry little oil wells are invaluable, especially to gas-guzzling nations like the United States. You do know that America uses up more than 25% of the World's national resources, don't you? You do know that they US contributes 30%+ to the world's pollution, don't u? (But I digress). My point is... you are the most industrialised country in the world. You are the most desperate for that oil.
' It could be 100 years if ever, for the US to recoup the costs of the war. I'm sick of people calling it a war for profit when the US is spending all the money. '
--- How naive you are my darling. That money is seen as an investment. Do you know what war reparations are? Do you know that Iraq is going to be held financially liable for the United States' cost of the war, because they were the losers. The losers always pay. And how do you think Iraq, impoverished, war-ravished and decimated country that it is,is going to pay back the millions of dollars it cost the US to invade them? By having cake sales on every street corner? No, my dear. They are going to pay it with the only resource they have. Oil. Don't believe me? Ask any economist. Why do you think war is profitable? Its only profitable for the winners of course, but then you don't attack a country where you might actually lose. (Except maybe Vietnam). Course not, you put a dictator in power, discredit him, attack him and then claim back his country's wealth as recompense.
Its called the economics of war.
If it was about ideology or politics or who was more well-armed, there would have been no Cold War.
Hitler wouldn't have declared war on France if he didnt think he could win. Nobody declares war if they don't believe they can win. The difference between Hitler in 1939 and Bush in 2003/4 is that Hitler fought for an ideology, Bush is fighting for economics, pure and simple.
Oh, I almost forgot. You quote lines from the Koran that are out of context. And from my understanding of the Arabic language, it is too rich and too filled with subtle nuances for any single word, nevermind passage and phrase, to just have one single meaning. Its meaningless if it's not in context. But its a wonderful propoganda tool. Im beginning to think that you work for Fox...
Submitted by GhostFox04 (user info) at 2004-05-16 15:01:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Zaf:
You obviously missed the point of what I was posting. I didn't post the articles becuase of the commentary, only becuase of the quote by Mandlea that are very racist.
Racist is as Racist does. Look at Nazis and the KKK. They are alwasy saying "Jews do this to me" or "Blacks do this to whites". It's never "I hate jews cause I am racist".
Mandela takes the stange and basically says all white men are racist and out to get the black man. That is typical of racists. Transferrence. They blame the other group for whatever so it is easy to hate them.
Don't think I take this lightly. Mandela was one of my heros. I respected the hell out of that man. I thought of him up with MLK and Ghandi. I still remember the sickining feeling in my stomach when I first heard what he was saying and realized the person he really was. It would be like if I found out MLK jr. used to string up whiteys on the weekends. Just horrible.
"Finally, it is rather rich coming from a nation with history of slavery"
Europeans instituted slavery here, and even though most of the US economy was dependent on it, it started being attack as soon as the US was formed. It is a miracle it only took them 50 years to get rid of it. Anywhere else and they would still be slaves. Try being realistic for once.
"with a history of Rodney Kings,Rosa Parks and the race violence that still occurs today, to accuse other people of racism."
Yes, Rodney King was a regretable incident. 100% of people are not good people. But to say an entire country supports racism because of a few bad cops is assinine. Seriously man, you have problems. Rosa Parks was long ago, and she is not looked at like a villian, but celevrated as a hero. There is less racially motivated violence in the US today then any other ethnically mixed country in the world. The US had the decked stacked against it from the start and overcame slavery and the racism accompanying it like no other country ever has. The US is the gold standered for civil rights movements for a reason. We got it right. Other countries have learned from the US and are getting it right as well. Being a free man in SA you should be thanking the US for it's civil rights, becuase if not for them you would not be free.
"About the 500 000 Iraqi children that died. Know why they died? Because of the US-led sanctions against the country after 1991... no medical supplies/aid was sent to Iraq. Know how I know? I saw it on CNN."
Incorrect. Everyone says the US should go through the UN. When the UN imposes sanctions, like in Iraq. Everyone blames the US. Which one is it? Pick one. Also, medical supplies were sent to Iraq. Saddam deliberately with held them from the populace to try to force the UN to remove sanctions that had nothing to do with medical supplies. He was holding his own people hostage and killing them to try to gain his goal. And you blame the US for this? Have you heard yourself and how utterly rediculous that is?
"And where do you think he got the biological weapons from in the 1980s to kill the Kurds? Not from the Russians. Why, of course, from his old pal, the U S of A."
Iraq was supported against Iran as the far lesser of two evils, which it was. The US never sold any weapons to be used against kurds. If I sell you a rifle to go hunting and 15 years later you go kill 100 people in a mall with it, suddenly I am at fault for killing them? Does all of your brain function or did you lose the logic part?
"But Im delusional. Im a conspiracy theorist"
Correct.
"No way America would supply biological weapons to a rogue dictator"
At the time the weapons were considered for conventional use and there was no rogue dictator.
Anything else?
Submitted by WiKi (user info) at 2004-05-16 14:47:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I thought I had commented on this post before.. but I guess not.
I liked it a lot.
And it has the LONGEST REPLIES ever. EVAR, even.
+2.
Submitted by ZAfrikin (user info) at 2004-05-16 14:33:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I couldnt open the 1st link. The 2nd link is the rantings of a mad man and too blatantly biased to be credible and too laughbly jingoinstic to be an accurate measure of the lucidity of the writer.. The third one, by Katherint McHenry is marginally less biased. She says:
"According to a story by Fox News" - mmmmmmm... Fox News. Isnt that owned by the neocon Rupert Murdoch who is best buddies with Cheney et al? (Dont have the space to tell you or show you how biased the US media is). But we'll go on the assumption that Madiba did actually say the things Fox News says he did.
"Mandela asked whether President George W. Bush and Tony Blair are ignoring the United Nations because its current secretary general, Kofi Annan, is black. " - Asking if someone else is racist does not necessarily make you racist. (Unless of course you're desperate to slander an icon of peace and democracy.) Btw. What was Bush and/or Blair's response to that question?
"If Bush were a racist, he wouldn't be in office today. To imply that the citizens of the United States --the world's leader in democracy and a melting pot of every culture under the sun -- would support a prejudiced leader is an insult to all Americans." - Agreed. Except Bush did NOT win the elections. If I remember correctly and I watched CNN (back when they were still credible) avidly during the last Presidential election. The majority of Americans did not vote for Bush. The majority of Americans voted for Gore. But because of some whacked voting system you guys have going in the USA, and with the help of corrupt judges in the Supreme Court, the man stole the election from Gore. In the process of the revote of the Florida elections an entire block of black and hispanic voters were excluded. I forget the details but I shall refresh my memory and get back to you.
" Rice and Powell would never support a racist president. " - Perhaps. But nobody's going to advertise if they are racist, are they? And working with black people doesnt necessarily make you non-racist. So that argument doesnt hold water.
"Mandela further slandered President Bush's character when he said his main reason for pushing for war against Iraq is its oil supply. Nevermind the fact that Bush has said repeatedly that Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction." - Duh. WMD? Where? What Mandela did was call Bush a liar about the WMD. And guess what? He was right. Mandela is an old man and a wise man and in Africa we still respect our elders. So if he (like the rest of the world) knew Bush et al were lying about the WMD, maybe he is right about accusing Bush of racism? Mebbe...
"Of course Mandela wouldn't understand why the United States feels so threatened by Iraq. It was New York City that was devastated by Sept. 11, not Johannesburg. " -- It was also never proven at the time that there was any link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. Duh. And didnt Bush recently discover that there STILL is no link between them. Bush lies again. Mandela scores again.
"If the United States was going to take Iraq's oil supply, it would have done so during Desert Storm a decade ago." -- thats because the smart Iraqi's burnt the oil fields and the US soldiers started getting strange plagues and illnesses which scared them into retreating.
"It's easy enough for Mandela to rant about how awful Bush and the United States are, but why doesn't he attack the real villain, Iraq? After all, the road to war is never one-sided." -- Duh. Iraq didnt declare war on the US. The US declared war on Iraq with unsubstantiated reasons.
Geez. You have no shame in advertising this article. Everything Bush was accused of before the war has been proven. The man LIED to get you to go to war. And all his lies have been proven. Or have you forgotten. Is it true that the American public have the memory of goldfish?
Unfortunately, I have to conclude that the writer of this article was trying to discredit Madiba. The man is a saint. And respected a gazillion times more in the world than George Bush.
I dont believe the comment you're obviously refering to makes Mandela a racist. But if you and others believe that,then I apologise on Mandela's behalf. I would stake my life on Mandela NOT being a racist. But you don't have to believe me.
Finally, it is rather rich coming from a nation with history of slavery (so what... lots of countries had slavery), but also with a history of Rodney Kings,Rosa Parks and the race violence that still occurs today, to accuse other people of racism.
ps. About the 500 000 Iraqi children that died. Know why they died? Because of the US-led sanctions against the country after 1991... no medical supplies/aid was sent to Iraq. Know how I know? I saw it on CNN.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is just one comment I would like to make about the second article by Leo Lacayo:
He says:
"Of course, the French, the Russians, and the Germans oppose us. They are in bed with Saddam Hussein, and their sorry little countries haven't the loyalty to back the one country that saved them in World War II." -- Up until 1990, Saddam Hussein was America's ally. America armed Iraq and funded the war between Iraq/Iran in the 1980s, while Russia armed Iran. When the cold war ended, Saddam and Iraq obviously lost their uselfulness.
What would you do if you knew that George Bush Sr. encouraged Saddam to invade Kuwait in 1990 so they could invade Iraq? Dont believe me? Saddam is America's patsy. Saddam is the new Lee Harvey Oswald. Thats not to say he is not guilty of the atrocities he commited against his own people... actually... he commited them against the Kurds mostly.
And where do you think he got the biological weapons from in the 1980s to kill the Kurds? Not from the Russians. Why, of course, from his old pal, the U S of A.
But Im delusional. Im a conspiracy theorist. Of course backward uncivilised Iraq had a nuclear and biological weapons programme as far back as the 70s. No way America would supply biological weapons to a rogue dictator. *slaps self on wrist*.
You know those weapons Iraq was fighting you with in 1990? Guess who sold/gave it to them? Not Russia, not China and not N Korea.
Im not done with you yet.
Submitted by GhostFox04 (user info) at 2004-05-16 12:53:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"Umm,no. I dont believe Nelson Mandela said that. If he did you misunderstood it and in what context did he say it. Nelson Mandela is the epitome of racial tolerance. I would like you to provide evidence or a reference to this statement that I may look into it. (Unlike you, I dont simply reject things out of hand. I am prepared to be proven wrong. Emphasis on PROVEN.)"
"He followed this up by announcing that "some people" were saying that the United States was flouting the United Nations' authority because Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, was a black man.
Last week Mandela went further still, no longer putting such allegations in the mouths of "some people," but openly charging that the Bush administration was acting out of racist and white supremacist motives in not "obeying" Kofi Annan. "No country, however powerful it may be, is entitled to act outside the UN. When UN secretaries-general were white we never had the question of any country ignoring the United Nations, but now that we have got black secretaries-general like Boutros Boutros-Ghali and Kofi Annan certain countries that believe in white supremacy are ignoring the UN for racist reasons."
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=4409
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=1441&catcode=13
http://www.thebatt.com/news/2003/02/14/Opinion/Mandelas.Comments.Regrettable-514694.shtml
Now that we have proven Mandela is a racist, lets move on.
"LOL. Its not fictional, is it? Its real Americans airing their sordid laundry on National TV."
Incorrect. They are paid actors playing roles. I hate to break it to you, but "Friends" isn't real either.
"Obviously you missed the point of the OJ trial. It wasn't about race...
A black man brought in to help prosecute another black man, in front of a largely black jury. Many saw it as heavily symbolic."
The OJ prosecutor was a white woman. The jusy had 9 blacks on it, becuase here you are entitled to trial by a jury of your peers. You may have seen it as heavily symbolic, but that is in your own head.
"I beg to differ. Mainstream Islam existed in the Middle East for millenia before the rise of Zionism"
Yes....once they had kicked all the Jews and christians out. The Qu'ran states
"Take not the Jews and Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who takes them for friends is one of them. Lo! Allah guids not these wrongdoing people." (Quran Surah 5:51) or
"slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and prepare to ambush them. But if they repent and establish [Islamic] worship...their way is free. Lo! Allah is forgiving and Merciful." (Quran; Surah 9:5) or
"Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them." (Quran; Surah 9:73) or
"beware of them lest they seduce you from some part of that which Allah has revealed to you. And if they turn away know that Allah's will is to sm te them." (Quran; Surah 5:49)
You do not have a concept of what mainstream Islam is. In the ME, mainstream islam promotes the killing of all jews and christians, regardless of where they live or if they are zionists or not. Because they are told to by their religious leaders who use outdated passages from a violent book (even more violent the the christian bible if you can believe it) as proof.
"By your definition, Israel is then definately a terrorist. Couldn't agree more."
Completely wrong. Isreal targets terrorists, and sometimes regrettably innocents are injured or killed. The only people to blame for this are the terrorists.
"Again, by your account, these soldiers who are found at "military installations" or function as employees of military installations, and died as a result of attacks on military installations, were killed by freedom fighters, viz. the Palestinians."
Again, you are showing your extreme bias and ignorance. I know you will deny it, but it is blatently obvious to everyone that you are an anti-semite. If, and that is a big if, the pals only attacked millitary personel, you could make a case for them being freedom fighters. However, 99% of their targets are civillians. Specifically women and children, because killing them causes the most terror in Israel. You cannot honestly believe people who convince 14 year olds to go blow up a woman and her 3 young children for being jewish are freedom fighters. They are the scum of the earth, nothing more.
"America was seen by oppressed people in South Africa as the land of freedom and equal opportunity."
It is.
"America has always claimed to be the bastion of democracy, freedom and fairness."
That claim would be correct.
"It is hugely disappointing to live in a world where America the Great has degenerated into the bully of the world, helping to trod on the down-trodden, inciting wars for profit and ignoring the plight of millions dying all over the planet under dictators who make Saddam Hussein look like a priest."
Incorrect. A more proper statement would be "It is truly heartining to live in a world where America the great has stepped forward as the worlds protector. Freeing the oppressed, spending hundreds of billions of dollars keeping all other nations safe, and finally reacting to the plight of millions dying all over the planet that the rest of the world conveniently ignores. Saddam was one of the worst dictators to ever live. 500,000. Yes. 500,000 CHILDREN died every year because of Saddam. Even hitler pales in comparison when you look at the long run of Saddams reign. Thank god for america, because we would all be screwed without it."
"I don't envy America. I pity her."
Keep telling yourself that.
By the way, all of you who keep going on about "wars for oil" etc etc etc.
Do you know who the second largest producer of oil is in the world, second to only Saudi Arabia? I'll give you a hint. Starts with U, ends with A and has a S in the middle.
And do you know how much of it's domestic oil comes from the ME?
75%?
50%?
35%
25%!!!!
Nope....all wrong. A miniscule 7%, and almost entirerly from SA. It could be 100 years if ever, for the US to recoup the costs of the war. I'm sick of people calling it a war for profit when the US is spending all the money.
Submitted by ZAfrikin (user info) at 2004-05-16 08:20:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Views from an American with both feet in the real world:
The War on Terror is self-inflicted either way you slice it: if the American power elite was behind the 9/11 attacks, well, it's obviously self-inflicted; if it's really true that foreign terrorists actually devised the 9/11 attacks, they did it in response to the American oppression of Third World countries, and in particular by supporting dreadful tyrannies in their respective homelands. Either way, the War on Terror is self-inflicted by Americans upon Americans, and uses agents of different nationalities to carry out certain supporting aspects of the terror.
John Kaminski is a writer who lives on the coast of Florida who surely is guilty of many things, not all of them good, but innocent of any charge that he doesn't care about his country very much.
He cares about his country, do you?
Submitted by ZAfrikin (user info) at 2004-05-16 08:09:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
History lesson boys and girls.
Lets take you back to WHY there is conflict in Palestine now,Lebanon in the 1980s, etc. to support my hypothesis of WHY the Arabs hate America. Let me state once more for the record... I do not hate jews. Some of my best friends are jews, who by the way opened MY eyes to the truth. I do not support terrorist activities. Murder is murder. All I ask is that you as American citizens and voters acknowledge the truth and try, if it is at all possible, to view both sides of the situation. You have only been allowed to see one side. Only you can change the world's perception of your country and that is by pressurising your government to do what is fair and just.
The wars in the Middle East have never been about religion or culture. It is about economics, pure and simple. And since none of the American people have directly benefitted from these wars..who's taxes are paying for them anyway, it would empower you to take a deeper look at the motives of the people behind your government supporting and lobbying for these wars, invasions and crimes against humanity.
'Britain and the United States are responsible for the losses that the Palestinians have sustained, and for Zionist Jews gaining territory, homes and property of the Palestinians who became refugees. Both countries pledged in the Balfour Declaration, and the Mandate proclaimed on September 11, 1922, "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which should prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christians and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and the holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected."
Britain and the United States carried out their pledge to the Jews, but failed to perform or honor their pledge to "Christians and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine." They are liable and have resulting obligations as have the named beneficiaries, "the Jewish people."
After the Second World War, members of the UN critical of a partition of Palestine and the admission of Israel as a member, were pressured by the American administration to change their vote to support it. Alfred Lillienthal, a German-American Jew who had worked in the State Department, documents this in his book What Price Israel? As a paperback, this could once be bought from bookstalls in New York for example, until pro-Israel pressures banned it.
Details of Palestinian rights to be included in final peace agreements were set down by a committee of 20 countries. The UN Secretary-General presented the Report, "On the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People," to the Council. The Report was considered in the course of eight meetings of the Security Council in June 1976. It would have passed, but there was one veto -- the USA. The Secretary-General was Kurt Walheim.
Israel's allies in the State Department got busy. Unsubstantiated charges were made against Waldheim (although former British servicemen testified that he had saved their lives), and he was put on the 'Watch List,' banned from entering the United States.
American presidents and most politicians represent special interests--not justice, in Middle East policy. President Bush frequently talks of "bringing terrorists to justice." With many vetoes in the Security Council, the United States has obstructed justice for the Palestinians. '
By Dr. Robert John
(another jew hating anti-semite terrorist like yours truly)
Submitted by ZAfrikin (user info) at 2004-05-16 05:54:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Anyone who thinks that all whites are out to get all blacks is clearly a racist.
Umm,no. I dont believe Nelson Mandela said that. If he did you misunderstood it and in what context did he say it. Nelson Mandela is the epitome of racial tolerance. I would like you to provide evidence or a reference to this statement that I may look into it. (Unlike you, I dont simply reject things out of hand. I am prepared to be proven wrong. Emphasis on PROVEN.)
So why don't you explain to me what your compulsion is with Jerry Springer?
LOL. Its not fictional, is it? Its real Americans airing their sordid laundry on National TV. WHY do they do that? Besides that they have no class or respect for themselves or each other? And the reason I keep using it as a reference is to illustrate the morals of a nation who claim to be fighting a just and 'moral' war against terrorism etc etc ...(you know, all that shit George Bush wants you to believe when its really the oil they're fighting for). Its obscene that a nation who routinely airs the incestuous, depraved actions of its citizens can claim any moral high ground in an unjust war where they usurp the sovereignity of another state. Yet, observing the people on the J.S. show, also gives me insight into the calibre of humanity the rest of the world is forced to deal with in America... and let's face it ... the intelligence and integrity of your president and his cadre does not do much to allay those short-comings either.(Lying about WMD, the link between Al Qaed and Iraq, 9/11...i'll stop now).
Obviously you missed the point of the OJ trial. It wasn't about race...
A black man brought in to help prosecute another black man, in front of a largely black jury. Many saw it as heavily symbolic.
To more than a few observers, it seemed that Darden would be the only attorney on the prosecution team who would be able to fight off any secret race messages that the defense team would signal to the jury.
Yeah, right. Sure it wasnt about race. Just ask Mark Fuhrman. That wasnt my point tho. My point was how the defence used race and other matters to detract the jury from the facts of the case. Motive. Opportunity. Lets not forget that long car chase.
Mainstream Islam cannot coexist with other religions.
I beg to differ. Mainstream Islam existed in the Middle East for millenia before the rise of Zionism. It may come as a shock to you, but most jews and moslems actually get along very well in the rest of the world, especially since the rest of the world does not have a pro-Zionist (which is by and large anti-semitic) spewing anti-Muslim propoganda down their citizen's throat. Most jews, most of the rest of the world know the difference between Zionism and Judaism. www.jewsagainstzionism.com.
This is what orthodox jews say about Jerusalem:
Any form of division and splitting up of Jerusalem will have the effect of underscoring the differences between races and religions, which contradicts the principles of harmony tolerance and brotherhood of the inhabitants; and will eventually imperil for the future peace of the city. Jerusalem must unify all its residents. It should be recognized that a citizen of Jerusalem stands above all narrow national interests. Even in the days of David and Solomon Jerusalem was not divided according to the tribal boundaries but belong to all.
Before Zionism, jews, muslims and christians lived harmoniously in Jerusalem. The jews dont want Jerusalem. The Zionists do. Big difference between Judaism and Zionism. Bet you're too lazy to find out what that difference is. You may just learn how deluded and misinformed you really are. But don't let me shake you out of your complacency.
A terrorist specifically targets civilians in an attempt to coerce the govt. through terrorization
'An Israeli helicopter early on Thursday fired two missiles that struck a crowd of Palestinians in Rafah refugee camp in southern Gaza strip, killing at least seven Palestinians, witnesses told Israeli newspaper Haaretz. '
By your definition, Israel is then definately a terrorist. Couldn't agree more.
A freedom fighter attacks legitimate military instillations in order to precipitate a military coup. They could not be more different.
'Six Israeli soldiers were killed by the Palestinian resistance fighters during the incursion on Tuesday, the highest Israeli casualty count in a single army operation in two years. '
Again, by your account, these soldiers who are found at "military installations" or function as employees of military installations, and died as a result of attacks on military installations, were killed by freedom fighters, viz. the Palestinians.
Thank you. You just proved my case. Palestinian civilians killed by Israel terrorists. Israeli soldiers killed by Palestinian freedom fighters.
You are obviously incredibly jealous of America, and therefore use hated to cover up your insecurities regarding it.
On the contrary, I am sad. Because its not only Americans who bought into the American dream. America was seen by oppressed people in South Africa as the land of freedom and equal opportunity. We saw black people in movies, getting the same treatment as white people (of course, it was before we knew about the Civil Rights Movement etc etc). My point is, America has always claimed to be the bastion of democracy, freedom and fairness.
It is hugely disappointing to live in a world where America the Great has degenerated into the bully of the world, helping to trod on the down-trodden, inciting wars for profit and ignoring the plight of millions dying all over the planet under dictators who make Saddam Hussein look like a priest.
I don't envy America. I pity her.
I have some friends from SA. I guess people there must have gotten stupider since they left.
Perhaps? But in South Africa we have press freedom. We have freedom of speech. We have a bill of rights. We have a true democracy. Yes we have lots of problems. But because we know what those problems are, we can face them and deal with them. We don't live in ivory towers and pretend that teh rest of the world is wrong and we, and only we, are right. We havent learned that arrogance yet.
Submitted by GhostFox04 (user info) at 2004-05-15 17:41:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"Nelson Mandela is not a racist"
I disagree. Anyone who thinks that all whites are out to get all blacks is clearly a racist.
"You must be one of those people whos life ambition is to attend the Jerry Springer show."
Why are you so obsessed with a fictional television program? You mention it in every post. I assume you are an avid watcher, or otherwise you wouldn't know so much about it. So why don't you explain to me what your compulsion is with Jerry Springer?
"What I am going to do is comment on how much you have learned from the OJ trial"
Obviously you missed the point of the OJ trial. It wasn't about race, it was that if you plant evidence once, people will assume it is always planted. I think OJ was guilty, but there was not nearly enough evidence to support that. That is the way legal systems work. Would you rather a confession was beat out of him?
"You make a baseless and stupid comment about Mandela to distract from the real message, viz. how America made themselves a target for 'terrorism'"
Incorrect. America is a target for terrorism regardless of any foreign policy. Mainstream Islam cannot coexist with other religions. All non-Muslims are infidels and need to die. America is a target only because it is a symbol of everything they wish they had.
"one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"
Asinine. A terrorist specifically targets civilians in an attempt to coerce the govt. through terrorization. A freedom fighter attacks legitimate military instillations in order to precipitate a military coup. They could not be more different.
"Convince me that America's foreign policy was not responsible for 9/11"
If you believe this then nothing anyone could say would convince you. You are obviously incredibly jealous of America, and therefore use hated to cover up your insecurities regarding it. Maybe you could invest in a good shrink to help you through this.
I have some friends from SA. I guess people there must have gotten stupider since they left.
Submitted by ZAfrikin (user info) at 2004-05-15 17:18:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Nelson Mandela is not a racist. Lol. The man spent 27 years in jail breaking limestone rocks, is freed and prevents a civil war. If he was racist or hated white people, trust me, he could have had every white person in South Africa killed. All he had to do was say one word... and you know what... nobody would have blamed him, really. But he didnt, did he? Because he's a good man. A strong man. A powerful man, who even today, when South Africa won the 2010 Soccer World Cup bid for Africa, told the nation to be humble in accepting victory. I am not going to debate Nelson Mandela ... the greatest leader of two centuries with you. You must be one of those people whos life ambition is to attend the Jerry Springer show.
What I am going to do is comment on how much you have learned from the OJ trial. Distract the jury from the evidence. Go off on a tangent about racist police officers and voila! OJ is freed.
You make a baseless and stupid comment about Mandela to distract from the real message, viz. how America made themselves a target for 'terrorism'... just bear in mind ... one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Nice try. Now if you really want to impress me, take apart my argument re "Newton's Third Law' and the law of cause and effect. Convince me that my argument is not valid. Convince me that America's foreign policy was not responsible for 9/11... assuming of course ... and its a MASSIVE assumption, that the US government didn't plan 9/11 themselves.
Now if you can do that I will be truly impressed. In the meantime you can read this... if you can handle the truth, that is...
Why 'The Good War'
Wasn't So Good
By John Kaminski
The first hurdle is getting Americans to understand about 9/11. The more intelligent among you know for certain something smells. Why else would there have been all these unexplained coverups in the name of national security, and all these unanswered questions about what really did happen?
But once you have mastered the basic questions, you can't help but see the Arab hijacker fable as a deceptive strategem to justify future wars and oppression against dark-skinned people from whom we want to steal precious things.
Only then, when you comprehend in your heart the level of cynicism and betrayal necessary to inflict such a grievous wound upon your own countrymen, can you begin to visualize what kind of animalistic society would cloak its policies of constant aggression and mass murder in the righteous euphemisms of fighting for freedom and democracy against dreaded evildoers.
The whole fable that has now come unraveled in the rapes and murders of imprisoned Iraqis now provides us a clear chance to see the true fabric of American behavior, so forgive me if I repeat myself from other essays and again try to make you realize that these recent, twisted exhibitions of heartless sadism are not exceptions to the rule of American behavior, but rather the norm. Wounded Knee. Dresden. My Lai. Fallujah.
It is only through this portal of realization and confession that we may make America into something that can be truly cherished, rather than what it is now, which is justifiably condemned by honest human beings everywhere.
In reviewing the history of America's involvement in foreign wars throughout the 20th century, I observed an uninterrupted series of false excuses - you know the list: Philippines, Cuba, all of Central America at one time or other, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iraq again - used to justify carnage, all of it passed off as defending freedom and democracy, but beneath the surface all of it constructed to maintain financial advantage over a certain commodity or a certain geographical segment of the world. A small percentage of Americans has always known that these involvements have been about protecting the profit-making potential of some corporation which has contributed heavily to the man who made the decision to go shoot up some defenseless, Third World hamlet.
John Kaminski is the author of "America's Autopsy Report," a collection of his Internet essays published by Dandelion Books and featured on hundreds of websites around the world. For more information on how to get this book or to financially support his work, go to http://www.johnkaminski.com/. Or, to read some more of his recent essays for free, go to http://www.rudemacedon.ca/kaminski/kam-index.html
Submitted by GhostFox04 (user info) at 2004-05-15 16:00:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
So you don't mind that he is a racist?
How is a black racist better then a white one?
Submitted by ZAfrikin (user info) at 2004-05-15 15:50:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
GhostFox: Here's hoping a government with a single working brain cell can someday take over in America.
Your entire government is not worth one hair on Nelson Mandela's black ass.
Submitted by GhostFox04 (user info) at 2004-05-15 15:36:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Nelson Mandela is a blatent racist.
Kind of ironic, don't you think?
I lost all respect for the man a few years ago when he started getting on his 'all the white people in the world hate me' horse.
Unfortunately for South Africa, they exchanged one group of racists for another.
Here's to hoping that someday a open minded and non racially charged govt. can take place in SA.
Good Luck.
Submitted by ZAfrikin (user info) at 2004-05-15 11:02:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Sweetie ... i AM African... moreover... I am SOUTH AFRICAN... better yet ... I am a BLACK South African... which I believe gives me the moral high ground over overfed, over-exposed to video-games and CNN. Who better than a person who has been oppressed to expose injustice. Having just celebrated 10 years of democracy, which we managed on our own, thank you very much, with the guidance of great African men like Nelson Mandela, F W De Klerk and Bishop Tutu, means we're still a young democracy. But dammit, even we can see how undemocratic and unconstitutional to basic human rights and justice the American invasion of Iraq is.
Our Madiba ... that's Nelson Mandela to you Americans without culture or honour or a sense of responsibility, who also won the Nobel Peace Prize... as well as Bishop Desmond Tutu who ALSO won the Nobel Peace prize ... condemned the American invasion of Iraq out of hand.
And as an African who lived through Apartheid, I can tell you that what you're doing in Iraq makes 40 years of racial oppression look like child's play.
"American and most of the civilized world would say being beheaded is worse than moderate sexual humilation. "
Have you ever considered that "moderate sexual humiliation" is only YOUR opinion. Have you no consideration that that kind of humiliation is tantamount to being beheaded in another culture? Or is your brain so addled by MTV and the kind of morality you see everyday on shows like Jerry Springer that you're incapable of forming a single coherent thought that has not been sugar-coated and tartrazined by your ratings-obsessed mass media? Or are you simply too arrogant to understand that there are other cultures that have different values and value systems (thank God!) to your own? Are you even aware that some societies and cultures place higher emphasis on honour and respect and integrity and humility, than most Americans? Do you understand that in some countries the sexual indiscretions of President Clinton would have been a blip on the media radar compared to the massacre of innocent women and children in Iraq? But in America Clinton gets impeached for getting a blow job and George Bush doesnt for LYING about WMD and embroiling his country in a war that even if he wins, he still loses. Dont you love America?
Btw: Dont insult the civilised world by including America as part of it. Do you know that Iraq is the cradle of civilisation, used to be known as Mesopotamia? Iraq was civilised when most Europeans (from whence Americans originally mutated) were amoeba on flies? Also its a fallacy to confuse being technologically superior with being civilised. Its also a fallacy to assume that the rest of the "civilised" world supports the war in Iraq, because they dont! Governments of certain countries may, but the people certainly do not. And if you stopped wasting a good internet connection you would know that. You would know that this war is condemned by ordinary rational people from Australia to Zimbabwe.
We didn't seek out civilians and shoot them
So declaring war on a country is not an act of aggression? But I agree with you. America did not seek out civilians and shoot them. They simply dropped bombs on them and wiped them all out en masse. Much more effective. Truly the American way. God bless America. She's going to need it.
Submitted by Judoka (user info) at 2004-05-15 09:47:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Iraqi men being humiliated ... and if you had any UNDERSTANDING and even marginal RESPECT for other cultures, you would understand that to many Arab, even African cultures, humiliation is worse than death..."
Take your cultural relativism and keep walking. American and most of the civilized world would say being beheaded is worse than moderate sexual humilation.
"Perhaps the executioners of Nick Berg were merely giving the same respect to American civilians which the US troops have thus far given to Iraqi civilians? Cause and Effect? Tit for tat, etc etc?
Think about it."
Ok thought about it and concluded that the difference is intent. We didn't seek out civilians and shoot them. So this comparison is worthless.
"America needs to learn about other cultures and societies before condemning them or judging them. America is the most racist and ethno-phobic and xenophobic nation in the world."
Anywhere that America goes the Europeans have been there first raping the women and exploiting the natural resoures. The moral high ground was conceded long ago. The only reason that you (the Europeans) are not doing it now is that you lack the ability to project your will.
"Wake up, America... your American dream is turning into a nightmare... and the whole world is watching."
Its good to know that ill informed Europeans are the moral abitrators of the Western world. Especially if you considered the mess you left in Africa and the Middle East. The wholesale slaughter of ethnic groups, which seems to happen frequently on your side of the pond. Lets not forget the religous wars y'all have had. I wonder how many people died so your version of the divine will would reign surpreme? Basically this was a nice try but ultimately ineffective.
Submitted by ZAfrikin (user info) at 2004-05-15 08:07:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Newton's Third Law: For every force or action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
The execution of Nick Berg:" According to the words spoken before the act, this was done in retaliation for the abuses committed by U.S. Troops upon Iraqi prisoners in Abu Graib Prison."
- A reaction to a particular action. I am not going to go enter into a discussion about the morals if any or justification for the reaction itself. I am merely attempting to demonstrate cause and effect, viz. American troops humiliated and abused Iraqis (it doesnt matter if they were civilians or soldiers). Cause and effect. Fundamental law of nature, ergo, if you're religiously inclined, fundamental law of God. (But my hypothesis and conclusion could be fallacious). So I speak under correction.
"In the case of Nick Berg, the victim was a private citizen..." - private citizen or soldier... do you suggest then that the execution of Nick Berg would have been more acceptable had he been a soldier? What of the thousands of innocent Iraqi's who have been killed in the war?
Perhaps the executioners of Nick Berg were merely giving the same respect to American civilians which the US troops have thus far given to Iraqi civilians? Cause and Effect? Tit for tat, etc etc?
Think about it.
"In the case of Nick Berg, he had to die because the Iraqis were "humiliated." " -
What of the thousands of Iraqis that have died because America made the fallacious assumption that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? If you're going to make comparisons between Iraqi men being humiliated ... and if you had any UNDERSTANDING and even marginal RESPECT for other cultures, you would understand that to many Arab, even African cultures, humiliation is worse than death... so if you're going to make comparisons, compare apples with apples. You CANNOT compare the execution of one American (as horrific as it was) with the butcher of thousands of Iraqi women and children. Unless you're going to compare SCALE of attrocities. And if you are going to undertake the latter, I hate to tell you: America is leading even Robert Mugabe in the atrocity stakes. (You know who Robert Mugabe is, dont u?)
FYI: I know lots of Americans dont understand why the rest of the world is not supporting them in this war. Its because the average American shows no interest in the rest of the world. Again. Cause and effect. Quid pro quo. Tit for tat. Most Americans don't even know where Iraq IS! And yet they presume to condemn and judge. And its because of your Ameri-centrinism and your obsession with self ... hence The Jerry Springer show ... are all Americans like the people on that show? And how is it possible for a nation that claims to be the poster child for freedom and democracy and all that ... give rise to an entire GENERATION as displayed for all the world to be grossed out by... like those individuals on that show? American dream, my ass.
Perhaps, when looking at America like that, SEEING the kind of people that live in that country, the rest of the world can see WHY Americans have no compassion or understanding of other cultures... its because they have none of their own.
America is a nation obsessed with self.
"I see the kind of people who want us dead." -Erm, excuse me ... who invaded who? If they want you dead its because you STARTED the fight... and the whole rest of the world could see it, except blind Americans. If they want you dead, it's because you STOLE their sovereignity. They are defending themselves. Did you expect them to lie back and say: Thank you America and George Bush for stealing our land, raping our women and murdering our children? What would you do if someone invaded America because they didnt like George Bush?
And if you're going to say the invasion of Iraq was a reaction to 9/11... you're just another product of media and Washington brain-washing. It is a well-known fact that there is NO connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. BTW: the world cried with America that day. Ask yourself what ACTION has made the world turn on America so badly? In other words, what ACTION caused the world's REACTION? Can it perhaps be the LIES and DECEIT and ARROGANCE of the American government?
"I see that they attacked us first: At the U.S Embassies in Kenya and Somewhere else I can't remember, on the U.S.S. Cole, at the World Trade Center, in Bali, in Madrid and in other places across the world. " - Agreed. Now ask yourself WHY? Why? Is it perhaps because of America's policy in the Middle East? Is it because America supports Israel's ethnic cleansing and genocide of the Palestinians? Cause and Effect. WHY? WHY? WHY? Why do they hate you? What have you done to make them hate you? Cause and Effect. Newtons Third Law: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
If you find the answers ...
"I see that, for good or for ill, I want them dead. But I assure you, there is no joy in it."
I see an American REACTING to a horror acted out (ACTION) on another American. You view is completely understandable. You are entitled to want them dead. Yet by the same token, you should allow them to want YOU dead. (Isnt there something in the bible about wanting for your neighbour what you want for yourself?)
You say "there is no joy in it." ... true, perhaps... no 'joy' ... just ignorance.
Allahu Akbar, btw, means... 'God is great'.
America needs to learn about other cultures and societies before condemning them or judging them. Ameri