Debate
Free World: The book
Latest
Commentary
Suggested Websites
Timothy Garton Ash
Do American and European values differ?
| Nearly four out of five Europeans asked in one poll said they thought Americans and Europeans have different values. Almost as many Americans agreed. But the Inglehart Values Map (see p.257 of Free World) shows a much more complex picture. Do you think we have different values? If so, what’s the biggest difference? |  |
Debate - Page 11/13
Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Juanma Fernandez wrote: "And I have the maturity to
differ one country's people from their government."
|
In a democracy, the government is representative of a majority of the
People. In my experience, when people (especially non-Americans) claim
that they "have the maturity to differ one country's people from
their government", what they are actually doing is trying to drive
a wedge between Americans and their elected government. This allows the
non-Americans to piously claim that they "love the American people"
but "hate the actions of the American government". It's the
same stuff that was being spread by non-Americans (and a few Americans,
too) back before the November 2004 elections, back when leftists were
claiming that George W. Bush was a "selected, not elected" President.
|
Juanma Fernandez wrote: "I do not criticise your country, which I
respect as I do with Iraq, France and China, I do criticise your president,
you and the others supporting him."
|
You are criticizing the man who was the choice for President of the majority
of voters in my country. I support my country's President, and apparently
so do a majority of the people in my country, because we re-elected him.
If you have a problem with that, too bad.
|
Juanma Fernandez wrote: "And I do because you are: LIAR- Where are
the mass destruction weapons? Maybe in the Oval Office?"
|
The weapons of mass destruction? They were tucked safely away in the minds
of Iraqi scientists, waiting patiently for the day when they'd be reconstituted
in physical form, waiting ever-so-patiently for the day when sanctions
against Iraq would be lifted, because that's precisely when Saddam was
going to go right back to trying to build The Bomb. Now, they won't ever
be reconstituted in Iraq again, and I for one am thankful for that.
|
Juanma Fernandez wrote: "HYPOCRIT- As you have shown, you don∫t
mind Iraqis."
|
I not only don't "mind" Iraqis, I like them very much. That's
why I'm proud that they will be able to live in a free and democratic
country where they are free to choose their own leaders and chart their
own destiny.
|
Juanma Fernandez wrote: "You.. I ignore∑ Mr Rumsfeld∑
visiting the monster. What for? Who knows∑ certainly not to
serve him a poisoned apple...".
|
Obviously English is not Mr. Fernandez's native language, so he can be
forgiven for being rather baffling in his use of the language. Ah yes,
Mr. Rumsfeld visits Baghdad, back before Saddam became a threat to our
interests, so "auto-magically" he "must" be there
to supposedly "show support for the Monster". What idiocy. Rumsfeld
visited dozens of countries as part of his official duties in the 1980s.
But because he gets photographed in "one" photo visiting the
Iraqi thug excuse me "leader", and because he acts like a foreign
dignitary is supposed to act and actually greets his host, he's supposedly
"supporting" Saddam. What a bunch of BS.
|
Juanma Fernandez wrote: "ASSASIN- You are responsible for thousands
of killings, call them accidental, collateral or whatever you like. You
knew there would be and you didn∫t mind, you don∫t mind now
either.
Great nations make mistakes."
|
We are 'responsible' for nothing, except for bringing Freedom to a nation
long oppressed under a murderous Tyrant. Overthrowing a Dictator and his
fanatic supporters always carries a cost, and tragically that cost is
one that must be paid in blood, but ultimately it is a cost that will
be worth it, and ultimately the Iraqi people will agree, regardless of
whether you do or not. We didn't make a 'mistake'. We did the right thing
in Liberating Iraq.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Juanma Fernandez wrote: "**** Phil Karasick wrote:
≥Iraq will become a Democracy...≈**** As Afghanistan will,
won∫t them? I hope you are right, I do not enjoy people∫s
deaths. But by the time being, both are quite far from being a democracy.
I only see blood and chaos."
|
Afghanistan is a democracy now, the Afghans elected their President Hamid
Karzai in a traditional Afghan loya jirga. As for your seeing only blood
and chaos, perhaps that is because that is what you wish to see. Perhaps
you managed to miss the 8 million or so Iraqis who defied terrorist threats
and voted to elect their first democratic government in Iraq in decades.
|
Juanma Fernandez wrote: "I suggest you come to Spain on holiday,
that way you may know a bit more what you speak about."
|
No, thank you. If I were to go to Spain and casually mention that I support
Pres. George W. Bush, I'd have to defend myself against your Spanish thugs.
I wouldn't mind doing so one-on-one, but of course thugs are always braver
in a bunch. And Spaniards, like lots of other Europeans, have a lot of
practice being thugs (soccer games are a great training ground for being
a thug, aren't they?). And, of course, Spanish law doesn't permit people
to defend themselves with firearms. I think I'll keep my tourism dollars
circulating in my own country and helping my own fellow American citizens,
thanks. You're not going to get my money.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Juanma Fernandez wrote: "Certainly we are in trouble,
it has always been like that in history, but here we are, embarked in
a pioneer project like the EU which, you like it or not, you will acknowledge
it being a singular venture in human history".
|
Nope. I don't acknowledge it as being a "singular venture in human
history". It's not. It's been done before, or been tried before.
It's an attempt to combine nation-states into a larger entity and blot
out and submerge the distinctions between the nation-states within the
larger group. In some places, it's worked, like when Italian city-states
eventually became a larger nation. In this instance (the EU), I don't
think it will work.
|
Juanma Fernandez wrote: "For instance, is Guantanamo a good example
of terrorism-fighting. Don∫t think so, man.".
|
That's where you're mistaken. Git'mo and the information that has been
gained there has been a major reason why the Al-Qaeda organization of
09/11/2001 has been decimated. We have dealt huge blows to the Al-Qaeda
organization. And Git'mo has been a major reason for that.
|
Juanma Fernandez wrote: "Human rights and guarantees are not trivial
pieces of ornament. You cannot just ignore them when you think you must
and keep thinking you are on the right side. It doesn∫t work that
way. If you break the rules you allow the rest to do the same. You lose
moral authority".
|
"Human rights"? What about the human rights of the 3,000 innocent
people who were immolated and incinerated on 9/11? What about the massive
violations of THEIR human rights? The 9/11 terrorists deliberately, knowingly,
intentionally slaughtered civilians. They murdered babies, children, fellow
Muslims. They weren't the least bit concerned about "moral authority"
or "holding the moral high ground". They didn't need to be.
They knew that their fellow fanatics in the Muslim world would laud them
as "martyrs" and "heroes". And they were right. That's
exactly what happened.
|
"Human rights" are a wonderfully naive Western concept, and
one that's completely foreign to the non-Western majority of the world.
The perfect proof of this took place during World War II, when the Imperial
Japanese regarded the ideas of "the Geneva Convention" and "rules
of warfare" with contempt and derision. So, they savagely tortured
captured Allied servicemen. They starved and beat POWs. They beheaded
POWs. They bayoneted to death POWs who were too weak to work in forced-labor
projects. And, by and large, they got away with it.
|
We, of course, believed in "playing by the rules", in "maintaining
moral authority". The Japanese cared nothing for "maintaining
moral authority". They understood full well that they were at war,
a war to the death, a war in which no quarter would be asked for or given.
And they intended to win. So, we got to be "morally correct",
and the Japanese came close to driving us entirely out of Asia. And when
we finally won the war, it was through the use of weapons (the A-Bomb)
that naive "arm-chair generals" born decades after the end of
the war denounce as supposedly "immoral" and "contrary
to the Rules". But they likely wouldn't be making such absurd charges
if we hadn't dropped The Bomb, because they likely wouldn't be alive in
the first place, because their fathers and hundreds of thousands of others
would likely have been killed invading Japan. Those hundreds of thousands
survived because we decided, correctly, that being "morally correct"
would be meaningless unless we won the war, by any means necessary. Today,
the "arm-chair general" idiots have the freedom to pontificate
and presume to "pass judgement on" and "render guilty verdicts
against" the USA for our actions. But they wouldn't be doing so,
had we lost the war.
|
The prisoners at Git'mo are the ideological brethren of the 9/11 hijackers.
Many of them have openly declared their intention to return to Terrorism
and Jihad if they ever leave Git'mo. I, for one, have no intention of
allowing these rabid animals to be released to kill U.S. servicemen and/or
civilians. They can damn well stay at Git'mo until the US Government determines
that they no longer pose a threat to our safety and security. And, given
that many of the Terrorists have pledged to gloriously die fighting and
killing Westerners (particularly Americans), the threat these Terrorists
pose can only be eliminated when the Terrorists die behind bars at Git'mo.
Hopefully, they will die quietly, peacefully and alone -- of old age,
decades from now, without having ever seen the outside world again.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Juanma Fernandez wrote: "Fight terrorism by legal
means is not tolerance. It is what you have to do to keep moral authority."
|
"Moral authority" is utterly irrelevent to fanatics who glady
leap laughing into Death, who refuse to recognize any laws or any government,
and whose only "moral authority" is an Islamic G-d whom they
think will reward them with 72 Virgins in Paradise if they die slaughtering
Jews, Christians or other "infidels".
|
Fighting Terrorism by 'legal' means is Tolerance of Terrorism. We should
have learned that lesson after the FIRST bombing of the World Trade center.
Remember that one? No, not on 9/11..... the First bombing was in 1993,
when Islamic terrorists truck-bombed the WTC, killed several, injured
over 1,000, and caused millions of dollars in damage. So, what did we
do about it? We treated it as a 'crime'. We gathered evidence. We issued
indictments. We made arrests. We provided the arrestees with lawyers and
legal aid. We held a trial. We found them guilty. We sentenced them to
prison terms. The convicted can now look forward to being given free lodging,
free meals, free medical care, for the rest of their natural lives. They
can get exercise. They can take college courses and get a university education.
|
Were they "impressed" by our "good conduct", or "maintaining
moral authority"? Hardly. They're LAUGHING AT US, at what idiotic
Suckers we are to 'benevolently and moralistically' keep them Alive and
receiving a civilized standard of living, when they would surely have
tortured and beheaded us if their positions were reversed with ours. One
of them made a sharpened weapon from something and stabbed an elderly
guard through the eye; the guard has permanent blindness in the eye, brain
damage and willnever work again; his life as he knew it is basically over.
|
And their fellow ideological brethren in Al-Qaeda took what they learned
from the 1993 bombing, improved on it, and BLEW UP THE SAME FREAKIN' BUILDING
AGAIN. And this time they murdered almost 3,000 people.
|
It was wrong of us to treat the 1993 WTC bombing as a 'criminal act".
The 1993 WTC bombing was an Act of War. It should have been treated as
such. We should have mobilized the U.S. military and attacked terrorists
wherever they lived, around the world.
|
It was Wrong of us to allow the convicted 1993 Terrorists to remain alive.
It's Wrong to give them food, to give them medical care, to give them
educational opportunities. Those are things that should have been given
instead to law-abiding citizens, not Mass Murderers. It's Immoral. It's
completely, totally, utterly Immoral and Wrong. It's an outrage, an insult
to the memory of the innocent people they Murdered. It's WRONG. Those
policies are WRONG AND IMMORAL. They NEED to BE SCRAPPED AND COMPLETELY
DISMANTLED.
|
We should have obtained whatever intelligence information we could from
the 1993 WTC terrorists, by any means necessary. And then we should have
strapped them to a gurney, stuck a needle in their arm, sent them involuntarily
to "Paradise", buried them with a Pig as a Deterrent, and saved
the U.S. Taxpayers the millions of dollars it's going to cost to keep
those murdering lunatics alive for the next 40 or so years.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Juanma Fernandez wrote: " You shouldn∫t be so
arrogant to say we manage nor tolerate terrorism."
|
Why not? That's exactly what you are doing. You treat it as a "crime",
wrongly, instead of as an Act of War, which is what terrorism is. Your
judges release Madrid bombing suspects on bail -- over 70 of them in all.
How many of those will still be in the country a few days after they are
released on bail? Virtually none, I would bet. They will Disappear, smuggled
out of Spain by their fellow Al-Qaeda terrorists, and you will have nothing.
You calmly allow the Terrorists and their supporters to continue to live
in Spain unmolested while they wait to go to trial. You don't hold them
in protective custody, so they are free to sneak out of the country, recruit
more Jihadists, and/or plan more terror attacks, while all the while you
smugly pat yourselves on the back and tell yourselves and each other how
'wonderfully, nobly enlightened and civilized' you are.
|
Juanma Fernandez wrote: "You shouldn∫t underestimate the suffering
of people living 24 hours a day between bodyguards, and I∫m not
talking about presidents or ministers, I∫m talking of little town-hall
councillors, journalists, professionals, entrepreneurs, teachers at university,
normal people like you and me. Living menace for years is not a pleasurable
matter. I tell you."
|
What "suffering"? Lots and lots of politicians in the U.S. have
protective security details and 24-hour-a-day police and bodyguard protection.
There's nothing unusual about it. It's normal. And they don't Whine about
it. They don't go around pissing and moaning and whining about how "horrible"
their lives have become. They take it for granted. It's completely acceptable.
If they didn't like it, they could always quit and do something else for
a living where they won't have to worry about being accosted or attacked
by some Looney-Toon with a grudge against politicians.
|
You whine about "the suffering of people living 24 hours a day between
bodyguards, normal people like you and me". Perhaps you and the normal
people there in Spain should try living on the West Bank, like the Israelis
do. They live every day knowing that each day might be their last, that
they could be Murdered at any time of the day or night by Arab terrorists.
They know full well that if their security measures are ever penetrated,
they and their children could be machine-gunned to death in their beds.
(It has happened). They know they can be gunned down by any Terrorists
that successfully get past a security fence. They know that they could
be ambushed in their car on their way to the market. They know that they
could be blown apart into bloody fragments by a bomb on a bus, in a market,
at a pizza parlour. All of these things have happened.
|
And yet, unlike you, the Israelis don't Piss and Moan and Whine. They
don't even have 24-hour bodyguards. They take Personal Responsibility,
you see... for themselves, for their friends, for their neighbors, for
their relatives. They arm themselves. And they defend themselves, and
their children, and their friends and relatives, and their Country.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Juanma Fernandez wrote: "Please, stop talking about
democracy, justice, freedom in capital letters.
|
Nope. Not going to happen.
|
Juanma Fernandez wrote: "Democracy subject to strategic or national
interests is not democracy, is rubbish."
|
Wrong. Our national interests were safeguarded by getting rid of Saddam
once and for all. And by overthrowing Saddam, and helping the Iraqi people
create their own government based along democratic principles, we will
bring Democracy to the Muslim Middle East. And a successful,peaceful,
democratic Iraq will be a shining example to the rest of a Muslim Middle
East still mired in dictatorship.
|
Juanma Fernandez wrote: "Furthermore, don∫t call it interests,
call it oil, call it money, call it shit."
|
Wrong again. National interests are more than mere commodities like oil
or money. The safety and security of our allies in the Middle East --
Qatar, Bahrain, Israel -- isintegral to our national interests as well.
|
Juanma Fernandez wrote: "If I were a father, which I∫m not
yet, I wouldn∫t understand my young boy being killed by national
or strategic interests."
|
No? Tell mesomething... The fighters who fought for the Republic in the
Spanish Civil War -- what did they fight for? For what reason? For what
purpose did they die? Didn't they think Freedom was a National Interest?
Didn't they think it was worth fighting for? Even dying for? Didn't they
have parents, too? Did their parents understand?
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Michel Bastian wrote: "Previous to 9/11, the US didn´t
lose half as many people to terrorism as Europe. Granted, 9/11 was a tragedy,
but it was a single attack, not a string of attacks throughout several
decades."
|
Oh? We "didn'tlose half as many people to terrorism"? Let's
try a body count and see:
|
1983: 241 U.S. Marines blown to bits by a Hezbollah terrorist attack on
their barracks in Beirut, Lebanon
|
1983: 63 people killed and 120 injured in the suicide truck-bomb attack
on the U.S. Embassy in Beirut.
|
1984: CIA station chief in Beirut, tortured to death in ways that would
make even a German puke.
|
1984: 18 U.S. servicemen killed and 83 people injured in a bomb attack
on a restaurant near a U.S. Air Force Base in Torrejon, Spain
|
1985: U.S. Navy diver Robert Stetham, tortured and murdered on a TWA flight
that was hijacked to Beirut, his badly beaten body thrown onto the tarmac
to rot in the sun.
|
1985: Leon Klinghoffer, an elderly American Jew, is murdered in his wheelchair
by a Palestinian terrorist on the hijacked cruise liner S.S. Achille Lauro.
|
1986: Four U.S. citizens killed by a bomb planted by a Palestinian terror
group on TWA flight 840 as it approached Athens Airport.
|
1986: Two U.S. soldiers killed and 79 American servicemen injured in a
Libyan bomb attack on a nightclub in West Berlin, West Germany.
|
1987: Sixteen U.S. servicemen riding in a Greek Air Force bus near Athens
injured in an apparent bombing attack, carried out by the revolutionary
organization known as November 17.
|
1987: Catalan separatists bombed a Barcelona bar frequented by U.S. servicemen,
resulting in the death of one U.S. citizen.
|
1988: U.S. Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel W. Higgins was kidnapped and
murdered by the Iranian-backed Hizballah group while serving with the
United Nations Truce Supervisory Organization (UNTSO) in southern Lebanon.
|
1988: The Organization of Jihad Brigades exploded a car-bomb outside a
USO Club in Naples, Italy, killing one U.S. sailor.
|
1988: The Defense Attaché of the U.S. Embassy in Greece was killed
when a car-bomb was detonated outside his home in Athens.
|
1988: Pan American Airlines Flight 103 was blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland,
by a bomb believed to have been placed on the aircraft by Libyan terrorists
in Frankfurt, West Germany. All 259 people on board were killed.
|
1989: The New People‚s Army (NPA) assassinated Colonel James Rowe
in Manila. The NPA also assassinated two U.S. government defense contractors
in September.
|
1990: The New People‚s Army (NPA) killed two U.S. Air Force personnel
near Clark Air Force Base in the Philippines.
|
1993: The World Trade Center in New York City was badly damaged when a
car bomb planted by Islamic terrorists exploded in an underground garage.
The bomb left 6 people dead and 1,000 injured.
|
1995: Two unidentified gunmen killed two U.S. diplomats and wounded a
third in Karachi, Pakistan.
|
1995: HAMAS claimed responsibility for the detonation of a bomb that killed
6 and injured over 100 persons, including several U.S. citizens.
|
1995: The Islamic Movement of Change planted a bomb in a Riyadh military
compound that killed one U.S. citizen, several foreign national employees
of the U.S. government, and over 40 others.
|
1996: In Jerusalem, a suicide bomber blew up a bus, killing 26 persons,
including three U.S. citizens, and injuring some 80 persons, including
three other US citizens.
|
1996: HAMAS and the Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ) both claimed responsibility
for a bombing outside of Tel Aviv's largest shopping mall that killed
20 persons and injured 75 others, including 2 U.S. citizens.
|
1996: Arab gunmen opened fire on a bus and a group of Yeshiva students
near the Bet El settlement, killing a dual U.S./Israeli citizen and wounding
three Israelis. No one claimed responsibility for the attack, but HAMAS
was suspected.
|
1996: Unidentified gunmen opened fire on a car near Zekharya, killing
a dual U.S./Israeli citizen and an Israeli. The Popular Front for the
Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) was suspected.
|
1996: A fuel truck carrying a bomb exploded outside the US military's
Khobar Towers housing facility in Dhahran, killing 19 U.S. military personnel
and wounding 515 persons, including 240 U.S. personnel. Several groups
claimed responsibility for the attack.
|
1997: A Palestinian gunman opened fire on tourists at an observation deck
atop the Empire State Building in New York City, killing a Danish national
and wounding visitors from the United States, Argentina, Switzerland,
and France before turning the gun on himself. A handwritten note carried
by the gunman claimed this was a punishment attack against the "enemies
of Palestine."
|
1997: Three suicide bombers of HAMAS detonated bombs in the Ben Yehuda
shopping mall in Jerusalem, killing eight persons, including the bombers,
and wounding nearly 200 others. A dual U.S./Israeli citizen was among
the dead, and 7 U.S. citizens were wounded.
|
1997: Two unidentified gunmen shot to death four U.S. auditors from Union
Texas Petroleum Corporation and their Pakistani driver after they drove
away from the Sheraton Hotel in Karachi. The Islami Inqilabi Council,
or Islamic Revolutionary Council, claimed responsibility in a call to
the U.S. Consulate in Karachi.
|
1998: A bomb exploded at the rear entrance of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi,
Kenya, killing 12 U.S. citizens, 32 Foreign Service Nationals (FSNs),
and 247 Kenyan citizens. Approximately 5,000 Kenyans, 6 U.S. citizens,
and 13 FSNs were injured. The U.S. Embassy building sustained extensive
structural damage. Almost simultaneously, a bomb detonated outside the
U.S. Embassy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing 7 FSNs and 3 Tanzanian
citizens, and injuring 1 U.S. citizen and 76 Tanzanians. The explosion
caused major structural damage to the U.S. Embassy facility. The U.S.
Government held Usama Bin Laden responsible.
|
2000: In Aden, Yemen, a small dingy carrying explosives rammed the destroyer
U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39 others. Supporters of
Usama Bin Laden were suspected.
|
2001: Two hijacked airliners crashed into the twin towers of the World
Trade Center. Soon thereafter, the Pentagon was struck by a third hijacked
plane. A fourth hijacked plane, suspected to be bound for a high-profile
target in Washington, crashed into a field in southern Pennsylvania. The
attacks killed 3,025 U.S. citizens and other nationals.
|
2002: Armed militants kidnapped Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl
in Karachi, Pakistan. Pakistani authorities received a videotape on February
20 depicting Pearl‚s murder. His grave was found near Karachi on
May 16.
|
2002: A suicide bombing in an outdoor food court in Karmei Shomron killed
4 persons and wounded 27. Two of the dead and two of the wounded were
U.S. citizens. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)
claimed responsibility.
|
2002: A suicide bombing in a supermarket in the settlement of Ariel wounded
10 persons, one of whom was a U.S. citizen. The PFLP claimed responsibility.
|
2002: A suicide bombing in a Jerusalem restaurant killed 11 persons and
wounded 52, one of whom was a U.S. citizen. The al-Aqsa Martyrs‚
Brigades claimed responsibility.
|
2002: A suicide bombing in a Jerusalem restaurant killed 11 persons and
wounded 52, one of whom was a U.S. citizen. The al-Aqsa Martyrs‚
Brigades claimed responsibility.
|
2002: A suicide bombing in a noted restaurant in Netanya, Israel, killed
22 persons and wounded 140. One of the dead was a U.S. citizen. The Islamic
Resistance Movement (HAMAS) claimed responsibility.
|
2002: A suicide bombing near an ambulance station in Efrat wounded four
persons, including a U.S. citizen. The al-Aqsa Martyrs‚ Brigades
claimed responsibility.
|
2002: A car bomb exploded near the U.S. Consulate and the Marriott Hotel
in Karachi, Pakistan. Eleven persons were killed and 51 were sounded,
including one U.S. and one Japanese citizen. Al Qaida and al-Qanin were
suspected.
|
2002: A suicide bombing at a bus stop in Jerusalem killed 6 persons and
wounded 43, including 2 U.S. citizens. The al-Aqsa Martyrs‚ Brigades
claimed responsibility.
|
2002: A bomb hidden in a bag in the Frank Sinatra International Student
Center of Jerusalem‚s Hebrew University killed 9 persons and wounded
87. The dead included 5 U.S. citizens and 4 Israelis. The wounded included
4 U.S. citizens, 2 Japanese, and 3 South Koreans. The Islamic Resistance
Movement (HAMAS) claimed responsibility.
|
2003: A suicide bombing aboard a bus in Haifa, Israel, killed 15 persons
and wounded at least 40. One of the dead claimed U.S. as well as Israeli
citizenship.
|
2003: Suicide bombers attacked three residential compounds for foreign
workers in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The 34 dead included 9 attackers, 7 other
Saudis, 9 U.S. citizens, and one citizen each from the United Kingdom,
Ireland, and the Philippines. Another American died on June 1. It was
the first major attack on U.S. targets in Saudi Arabia since the end of
the war in Iraq.
|
2003: A suicide bombing aboard a bus in Jerusalem killed 20 persons and
injured at least 100, one of whom died later. Five of the dead were American
citizens.
|
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Michel Bastian wrote: "I might not be a trained american
constitutional lawyer, Phil, but when somebody tries to tell me congress
can veto supreme court rulings, I´m pretty sure he doesn´t
know the first thing about the constitution."
|
Oh? Please explain the following, then:
|
WASHINGTON -- For the fourth time in six years, the House endorsed a constitutional
amendment to protect the American flag from desecration.
|
The House voted 298-125 for the one-sentence article stating that "The
Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the
flag of the United States."
|
If it also wins a two-thirds majority in the Senate and is approved by
three-fourths of state legislatures, the amendment would OVERTURN SUPREME
COURT RULINGS in 1989 and 1990 that flag-burning and other acts of desecration
were protected under First Amendment free speech rights.
|
http://www.detnews.com/2001/politics/0107/18/a05-248964.htm
|
|
- Bill Clinton has consistently supported legislation to OVERTURN SUPREME
COURT DECISIONS which limit the rights of women, cosponsoring the Equal
Remedies Act to provide women greater opportunity to gain compensation
for employment discrimination.
|
- Senator Gore has cosponsored legislation that OVERTURNED SUPREME COURT
DECISIONS which limited the rights of minorities and women. Laws he cosponsored
include the Fair Housing Amendments Act, the Civil Rights Restoration
Act, and the Civil Rights Acts of 1990 and 1991.
|
http://www.mith2.umd.edu/WomensStudies/GovernmentPolitics/WhiteHouse/PositionPapers/womens-issues
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Juanma Fernandez wrote: "Some questions for Mr Karasick:
*** Are the US free from racism? *** How long have you Americans been
tolerating/managing racial abuses? *** The existance of racial abuses
in the US does mean that American people tolerate it, doesnt it?"
|
As much as you would like to try to shift the spotlight off of the habit
of Europe (in general) and Spain (in particular) of managing and tolerating
Terrorism, it ain't going to happen.
|
To compare 'racism' with Terrorism is a rather ludicrous apples-to-oranges
comparison, and one that is clearly and rather clumsily intended to distract
attention from Spain's tolerance of Terrorism. Terrorism is a violent
Action that often results in physical damage, deaths and/or physical injuries
to human beings. Racism, on the other hand, is an Attitude. One is clearly
not equivalent to the other.
|
Racism, while deplorable, is not illegal. Acts of Terrorism, on the other
hand, not only are illegal, but are also violations of the rules of war
which stipulate that civilians are not to be deliberately and intentionally
targeted.
|
Incidentally..... the U.S. does not "tolerate" or "manage"
racism. The U.S. generally ACTS AGAINST RACISM whenever and wherever it
occurs.
|
While racist "attitudes" are not illegal, schools routinely
require students to attend courses in recognizing and valuing diversity
of all kinds -- racial, religious, all kinds.
|
Racist "actions", on the other hand, are very definitely illegal
and are treated as such. Expressions of racism in schools are likely to
get a student suspended or expelled. Expressions of racism in the workplace
are very likely to get an employee suspended or fired outright. Individuals
or Organizations that are found to be engaging in racism in how they hire,
fire, promote, demote or pay employees or treat members of the public
can be sued and forced to pay stiff damage awards. Hefty civil and criminal
penalties can also be imposed. Discrimination of all kinds is illegal
and prohibited by a wide variety of laws at the local, state and federal
levels. Overtly racist organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan which sanctioned
violently racist acts by their members against minorities have been hit
with lawsuits, forced to pay huge damage awards and basically sued out
of existence and their assets seized and turned over to the plaintiffs.
Individuals who are convicted of having committed violent acts motivated
by racism can find themselves receiving extra-stiff sentences for having
committed "hate-crimes", in addition to the sentence imposed
for the violent crime itself.
|
So, you see, Juanma Fernandez, NO, we DON'T 'manage' or 'tolerate' racism
in the U.S. We actually DO something about it. We Act.
|
Also incidentally, Mr, Juanma Fernandez, I suggest that Spain clean up
its own soiled nest before presuming to accuse other societies of being
racist.
|
|
RACIST FANS SHAME SPANISH SOCCER
|
Soccer's ruling body FIFA will investigate the racial abuse of England's
black players during Wednesday's friendly against Spain in Madrid after
British ministers condemned the "disgraceful" scenes and called
for action.
|
Spain coach Luis Aragones was at the centre of controversy in Britain
last month when he made a racist remark about France striker Thierry Henry
in an attempt to motivate his Arsenal team mate Jose Antonio Reyes.
|
"England lost a football match last night but Spain shamefully lost
something more important -- Spain lost their right to be considered a
civilised football nation," the Daily Telegraph said.
|
"Sanctions should include stopping all Spanish participation in European
football until Spain comes up with an action plan," Piara Power,
director of "Let's Kick Racism out of Football", told Reuters.
|
http://theage.com.au/news/Soccer/Racist-fans-shame-Spanish-soccer/2004/11/19/1100748175049.html?from=storylhs&oneclick=true
|
|
SPANISH MYTH OF TOLERANCE SHATTERED BY SOCCER RACISM
|
Spaniards used to say they lived in one of Europe's most racially tolerant
countries. Soccer has shattered that myth.
|
In Madrid's Santiago Bernabeu stadium -- the Yankee Stadium of soccer
-- Spanish fans bellowed out monkey noises last week each time a black
English player touched the ball in a match between England and Spain.
|
A month earlier, Spanish national coach Luis Aragones was caught by a
TV crew using racist language about France's star striker Thierry Henry.
He kept his job with little protest at home.
|
Spain isn't the only European country where racism leaves its stain on
soccer:
|
Four days after the abuse in Madrid, black striker Dwight Yorke said he
was subjected to racist gestures and noises in Birmingham City's game
at Blackburn. Police opened an investigation.
|
French club Paris St. Germain has an area where only white fans are welcome;
another section is open to Paris' many Arab and black immigrants.
|
Fans of the Czech team Sparta Prague still shout 'Slavia Jude' (Slavia
Jew) against local rivals Slavia Prague. The chant dates from the pre-World
War II era, when Slavia fans included many Jewish businessmen.
|
Fans of Greek club Panathinaikos are under investigation for racial taunts
last month against black players from English club Arsenal.
|
Two black players for the French club Bastia were roughed up and insulted
by 30 fans after a match earlier this month.
|
http://www.realmadrid.dk/news/article/default.asp?newsid=5610
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Michel Bastian wrote: "Well, your experience with
terrorism still doesn´t give you the right to insult the Basque
people."
|
I believe that my experience with Terrorism does give me the Right to
criticize people who "presume" to lecture me and the USA on
how to "resolve" Terrorism, when in my opinion their own method
of "dealing with Terrorism" essentially amounts to caving in
to the Terrorists' demands and more or less giving them what they want.
|
It's very easy to "get along with" and "manage" Terrorism
if you basically Capitulate to all the Terrorists' demands.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Michel Bastian wrote: "Look at how global politics
evolved since then: the US changed their whole security system, passed
the patriot act, are now involved in an enormous quagmire in Iraq which
also divided the american people internally, and the partnership between
the US and Europe has almost completely disintegrated. Osama must be laughing
his socks off.
|
Yes, we in the US changed our whole security system and beefed it up.
That's why there haven't been any further 9/11-style attacks within the
U.S.'s borders. Iraq did indeed divide the American people, but it's too
early to label our involvement there a "quagmire". The democratic,
elected Iraqi government is getting a little stronger every day and is
taking the offensive against the Terrorists. The partnership between the
US and Europe is in reasonably good shape when it comes to fighting Terrorism,
although Europe's restrictive laws make it difficult to gather intelligence
information on Terrorists in Europe and not a single Terrorist has been
convicted in Europe for the 9/11 atrocities.
|
As for Osama Bin-Laden allegedly "laughing his socks off", I
suspect that he's a bit too busy hiding from American and Pakistani counter-terrorism
troops and U.S. Predator Remotely-Piloted Vehicles armed with Hellfire
missiles in case Osama Bin-Laden is unlucky enough to stick his head out
of his hole in daylight.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
To Ross Gurung in France: Manger le merde, cochon :-)
Ben-T, United States
shalt not kill". The views of people there can sometimes
seem conflicting.
*U.S. foreign policy is perhaps an entire chapter to itself, but I will
not get on and on about it...at least not too much. I believe the time
following 9/11 set the U.S., and European countries, further apart. Initially,
there was an outpour from us in the Old World, but then your president
seemed to be coercing or even threatening other nations to follow his
own causes. "You are either with us, or with the terrorists".
It didn't leave much room for differing opinions, now did it? It was like
a stab in our hearts. Yes, I've heard the same from across the Pond. I
understand the emotions, but it was not brutal abandonment on our part.
Iraq was a hot potato, on both sides of the Pond, but on this side most
countries decided not to act on the catastrophically erroneous (un)intelligence
presented.
The majority of European nations in fact did choose to follow the United
States into Iraq.
What exactly was catastrophically erroneous about the fact that Saddam
Hussein had USED WMDs in the past willingly not just against his own people
but against citizens of Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain? That
no less than SEVENTEEN UNSC resolutions had been made concerning Iraqi
WMDs from the end of Desert Storm to the beginning of Iraqi Freedom? That
he refused to give Hans Blix and the UN weapons inspectors unfettered
access to his nation? That he refused to comply with UNSC resolution 1441?
That on the eve of the invasion of Iraq he sent large scale Iraqi military
convoys carrying unidentified substances into Ba'ath party controlled
Syria? That Iraqi Intelligence had been keeping Al Qaeda warlord Abu Musab
Al Zarqawi on it's payroll since the spring/summer of 2001?
If he had nothing to hide, why was he willing to risk everything in order
to hide it?
I think the majority of Americans understand that if the United States
of America is going to win the War on Terror it has to remake the Middle
East. It has to forge a Middle East no longer economically desperate and
societally disconnected, no longer ruled by anti-western dictatorships
hellbent on oppressing their people and keeping out the connecting forces
of globalization. In short open-heart surgery is going to have to be performed
on the Arab world. Can you truly imagine that kind of change going on
with Saddam Hussein sitting in the heart of Baghdad? The United States
of America did in 2003 what it should have done in 1991: We finished what
we started.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Mike in London wrote: "Phil Karasick wanted proof
of the Christian ethic of the Nazis. Here's the first link I came to when
I Googled......."
|
Well, unlike you, Mike, I didn't just stop at the first link I came to.
I did a little more actual and detailed research. And here's what I found:
|
http://www.cryingvoice.com/Christian_martyrs/NaPers.html
|
Note the words:
|
THE PERSECUTION OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCHES BY THE NAZIS
|
It is well-known that Hitler, his advisors as well as other Nazi leaders
were immersed in the occult. In simple terms, they were magicians, adepts
of Satan, and they were probably demon-possessed. Hitler‚s mesmerizing
speeches, the pagan symbols used by the Nazis (the swastika is a symbol
of the revolving sun, fire, infinity and magic), their obsession with
death and killing testify to this. Hitler is said to have been a member
of the secret satanic Thule Society. He read books dealing with occultism
and mysticism, practiced black magic and believed himself to be the Antichrist.
The Nazi leadership was forced to participate in initiation rites and
Satanic ceremonies. Moreover, Hitler demanded oaths of loyalty and worship
from the multitudes.
|
Hitler‚s involvement in the occult has been the subject of a number
of books, mostly English, published in the last few years. We do not wish
to elaborate on this subject. The fact that uncompromising real Christians
and Christian Churches were persecuted as a consequence of the Nazis‚
hatred of God and His children, is less known and less publicized. But
a report of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), America‚s first
central intelligence agency, prepared in 1945 for the Nuremberg War Crimes
prosecutors, documents the persecution of the Christian Churches by the
Nazis and it is posted now on the Internet site of the Rutgers Journal
of Law & Religion. See The Nazi Master Plan, Annex 4: The Persecution
of the Christian Churches (108 pages, Adobe Acrobat format).
|
The report „describes, with illustrative factual evidence, Nazi
purposes, policies and methods of persecuting the Christian Churches in
Germany and occupied Europe.‰
|
OVERVIEW OF THE OSS REPORT ENTITLED „THE PERSECUTION OF THE CHRISTIAN
CHURCHES‰
|
National Socialism by its very nature was hostile to Christianity and
the Christian Churches. Indications of this fact can be found in the speeches
and writings of Nazi leaders, especially in Alfred Rosenberg‚s book,
entitled Myth of the Twentieth Century, the most important book of Nazi
ideology after Hitler‚s Mein Kampf.
|
Christianity was incompatible with National Socialism, since it „could
not be reconciled with the principle of racism, with a foreign policy
of unlimited aggressive warfare, or with a domestic policy involving the
complete subservience of Church to State. Since these were fundamental
elements of the National Socialist program, conflict was inevitable.‰
The result was the Nazis‚ systematic persecution of the Christian
Churches in Germany and in the occupied areas throughout the period of
the National Socialist rule.
|
The goal of the Nazis was to minimize the influence of the Christian Churches
without declaring an open war on them and without adopting a radical anti-Christian
policy officially. (This could be due to the fact that the Nazis came
to power in a basically Christian country and continent, and an open war
against Christianity would have meant the fall of the Nazis.)
|
POLICIES ADOPTED BY THE NAZIS IN THE PERSECUTION OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCHES.
|
Germany
|
In Germany they adopted the policy of „gradual encroachment‰,
which meant that they pretended to be good friends of the Churches at
first, then gradually deprived them of all opportunity to affect public
life; persecuted those Christians and priests who criticized the Nazi
regime and sent many of them to prisons or concentration camps. This plan
had been established even before the Nazis came to power.
|
The Catholic Church
|
Before the Nazis came to power, the relationship between them and the
German Catholic Church was bitter. In their speeches, the Nazi leaders
attacked the Catholic Church. Catholic bishops in turn considered the
Nazi movement anti-Christian and forbade the clergy to participate in
ceremonies where the Nazis were officially represented. Catholic priests
spoke out against National Socialism and denied Nazis the sacraments and
church burials. Catholic journalists criticized National Socialism in
Catholic newspapers.
|
After the Nazis came to power in 1933, they wanted to liquidate the political
opposition, especially the Communists, and they sought an ally in the
Church for this. To gain the support of Catholics, the Nazi government
forbade anti-religious and anti-Church propaganda and closed secular schools.
In return they requested Catholics to refrain from political activity.
The Catholic hierarchy then lifted all restrictions imposed on members
of the Church adhering to the Nazi movement, and as a result many Catholics
joined the Nazi Party.
|
On July 8, 1933, a Concordat was signed in Rome between the Holy See and
the German Reich. Under this treaty, the freedom and the rights of the
German Catholic Church, its organizations and its schools were guaranteed.
In exchange they had to promise loyalty to the Reich government and had
to withdraw from the political scene. The negotiations were conducted
in secret over the heads of German Catholics and bishops. The Center Party,
a political organization of the Catholic Church, was forced to „voluntarily‰
dissolve itself.
|
After the consolidation of the regime, the relations between the Nazi
state and the Catholic Church worsened. The Nazis resumed their campaign
against Christianity and stripped the Church of all its more important
rights. The opposition of the Catholic Church to the Nazi movement grew.
Nazism was branded as an enemy of Christendom. The Nazis sent many priests
and Christians to prisons and concentration camps and persecuted the Church
in other ways, too. In March 1937, Pope Pius XI issued an encyclical entitled
„Mit Brennender Sorge‰ (With Deep Anxiety) and in it denounced
the violations of the Concordat by the Nazi state and described the actions
of the Nazi government against the Church as „intrigues which from
the beginning had no other aim than a war of extermination‰.
|
The Evangelical Church
|
To gain control over the German Evangelical Church, which had a democratic
constitution, the Nazis imposed a centralized organ of administration
on it, headed by a Reich Bishop, whose election was controlled by the
Nazis. In this way the Nazis succeeded to plant their own man into the
bishop‚s seat. As a consequence, the freedom of the pastors became
limited and religious associations were dissolved. But the attempt to
control the Evangelical Church by these means failed, because some bishops
refused to yield to pressure. They were placed under house arrest. Opposition
in the Church succeeded in uniting a large part of Evangelicals in protest
against the Reich Bishop, who did not resign, but faded from the scene.
He was gradually superseded by other agencies of Nazi control.
|
In 1935, Evangelical churches were deprived of their right to sue before
the regular courts, thus of protection in civil courts. A new administrative
court was set up for church matters except questions of faith and worship,
whose president was a Nazi appointee. Moreover, Hitler created a Reich
Ministry for Ecclesiastical Affairs, which was empowered to issue ordinances.
This meant Nazi control over the entire Church administration. Church
leaders addressed a memorandum to Hitler denouncing the anti-Christian
acts of the government. The majority of the ministers who attacked Hitler
and the Nazis in their speeches and writings were silenced by being put
into concentration camps or by being prohibited to speak or write.
|
The Christian Sects
|
„Certain of the smaller Christian sects, especially the Jehovah‚s
Witnesses (Ernste Bibelforscher) and the Pentecostal Association (Freie
Christengemeinde) were particularly objectionable from the Nazi standpoint
because of their advanced pacifist views. Since they were without important
influence at home or abroad, it was possible to proceed against them more
drastically than against the larger Christian Churches. Both groups were
therefore declared illegal and there were times when almost no adherent
of either group was outside a concentration camp.‰
|
SQUIRM YOUR WAY OUT OF THAT, MIKE IN LONDON.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Mike in London wrote: "To Phil Karasick: I've just
finished re-reading George Orwell's masterpiece '1984', and I would heartily
recommend it to you, not just because it is a fantastic book, but because
I was often involuntarily reminded of you as I read it. In it, the populace
are enslaved to state defined ideology of which the main components are
defined as:
revisionism / willful forgetfulness of history...... willfully ignoring
any information contradictory to the dominant ideology.... "
|
Those are interesting comments, since I have observed exactly the same
tendencies in you.
|
For example, your comments in regard to the Holocaust are a near-textbook
example of historical revisionism. You falsely claimed that the Holocaust
was "a result- not an objective of the Nazis", when, in fact,
anti-semitism and exhortations for the near-total annihilation of all
Jews in Europe were central tenets of "Mein Kampf" and were
quite clear, open and deliberate objectives of the Nazis virtually from
the moment they came to power.
|
Also for example, your postings concerning Christianity suggest to me
that you're a religionist bigot with a deep-seated irrational hatred of
religion in general and Christianity in particular, and that you've made
it your personal mission, or "Jihad", to try to "indict"
Christianity as supposedly being "responsible" for atrocities
such as the Holocaust.
|
Your "dominant ideology" is thus one of unrelenting hostility
to Christianity, and it expresses itself as a stream of postings whose
crude, basic message is "CHRISTIANITY = NAZISM". It's obvious
to me, and probably to the rest of the posters here, that you willfully
ignore any information that contradicts that "CHRISTIANITY = NAZISM"
personal dominant ideology. Hence, your ignorance of Hitler's persecution
of Christians, and your lack of familiarity with the Nazis' efforts to
co-opt and replace Christianity with Hitler's "cult of personality".
|
I suggest that you get some therapy, Mike in London. The unremitting hostility
toward religion which you display, your continual irrational need to "find
Christianity guilty", are quite disturbing.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Charlie Gordon in California wrote: "Phil Karasick,
don't you have anything better to do???"
|
Well, actually, I have quite a lot of other interesting things going on,
thanks. But I'd be happy to make it my personal mission in life to keep
"sharing the love" here.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
I had previously written in reference to Antti Vainio in
Finland: It's interesting and highly enlightening that you choose to condemn
our noble and valiant soldiers who are bringing democracy to a nation
long enslaved under a dictatorship, but you don't seem to offer any condemnation
for the jihadis who (unlike U.S.troops) deliberately target and go out
of their way to murder civilians. Says a lot about you, it does.
|
Mr. Antti Vainio responded: "I have no clue where you get your idea
that I like jihadists because I've never written so. I think they are
exactly as sick as your kind of hatemongers."
|
I get my idea that you like jihadists from the fact that you incessantly
choose to condemn our noble and valiant soldiers who are bringing democracy
to a nation long enslaved under a dictatorship, but you don't seem to
offer any condemnation for the jihadis who (unlike U.S.troops) deliberately
target and go out of their way to murder civilians. That's where I get
my idea from, and that is the reason why I got that idea.
|
You might not have explicitly have said that you "like" jihadists,
but you absolutely never condemned their actions. That suggests to me
that you see a "moral equivalency" between the jihadists and
U.S. forces, even though the jihadist lunatics are deliberately targeting
and murdering Iraqi civilians, while U.S. troops are doing virtually everything
possible to Avoid harming civilians.
|
That is a difference that is pretty crucial to most people in the U.S.,
because (unlike you) we seem to have no trouble understanding the difference
between Accidental Death and Murder.
|
RE: your other comment ("I think they are exactly as sick as your
kind of hatemongers") -- "my" kind of hate-mongers? And
just who or what precisely is "my" kind?
|
It's not "me" or "my" kind of "hate-mongers",
as you put it, who are deliberately ramming cars loaded with explosives
into Iraqi police stations, mosques or markets. Perhaps you hadn't noticed
that, but we here in America do notice it. We think it's kind of an important
distinction.
Michel Bastian, France
> Juanma Fernandez wrote: "I won't give you a figure,
>I'll give you a name: José Couso. Rings a bell? He was >not
Iraqi. He was a coward Spanish cameraman murdered at >the Hotel Palestine
while filming. Did you know Hotel >Palestine was full a journalists.
Your army didn't, and >shot him dead."
|
>Yes, I know who he was. And he wasn't "murdered", >either.
It was a tragic accident, and it was >unfortunate, but OH WELL. Sad
things happen in wartime. |
>And incidentally, yes, the U.S. military knew that the >Hotel Palestine
had journalists -- on the LOWER floors. >Did YOU know that terrorist
insurgents were occupying >some of the UPPER floors? Did you know that
they were >FIRING ON American forces from the UPPER floors?
Ah, yet a new version. First US High Command said they had been attacked
by Iraqi troops in the hotel. Then, when they were proven wrong (because
the hotel had been an HQ for journalists for quite some time before the
attack) they said that their troops didn´t know that, although it
had been known at command level (which of course, raises the question
of why the troops weren´t informed of it). Now you come along saying
that there were still Iraqi troops in the building (where did you get
that information anyway?).
Apparently US troops are the most dangerous in the world, not only for
their opponents but also for their allies.
>Has it ever occurred to you that from the ground, from >inside
a vehicle that's being attacked, a two-man team >looking down on U.S.
forces from a balcony looks an >awful lot like an enemy spotter-team
directing gunfire >upon U.S. troops?
Hmm, from what I heard the soldiers said the camera looked like an anti-tank
weapon. Whatever. Still, if you know there aren´t any enemy troops
in that building, shouldn´t you first check to make sure you´re
firing at an enemy?
>Did YOU know that a separate investigation by the >Committee to
Protect Journalists, a watchdog group, had >concluded that the attack,
while "avoidable", was "not <deliberate"? I didn't
think so.
Of course it wasn´t deliberate. It was stupid and negligent, but
it wasn´t deliberate. It never is and the US boys regularly get
off scot free without even as much as a reprimand. Same thing happened
in the Sgrena case, same thing happened in all the friendly fire incidents.
And as always, the families of the killed allies get nothing, not even
a "sorry" note.
Michel Bastian, France
First of all nobody has died at Guantanomo.
No? What about Baghram Airbase then, or Abu Ghuraib? What about Manadel
Al Jamadi, for example?
> There is very weak evidence of torture or abuse there.
Depends on what you call "weak" and what you call "torture".
Of course, if you don´t consider "stress inducing methods"
torture, you´re probably right. Have a look at this link: http://www.teamdelta.net/GuantanamoGuidebook.htm
>The only truly proven torture scandal, Abu Ghraib, led to harsh court
martials, some already carried out, some still pending.
Ridiculous: harsh sentences? For torturing people and killing a prisoner
you call a dishonorable discharge and ten years in the brigg a "harsh"
sentence (and that was just what the ringleader, Charles Graner, got;
some participants in the abuses got one year or even just six months in
prison)? Just a question: what would the sentence have been if it had
been an Iraqi insurgent doing the same thing to captive US Marines? None,
probably, they´d just have shot the guy without a trial.
> As for US efforts to bring democracy to parts of the >globe.
>9/11 resulted in the deaths of 3,000 American civilians. >It caused
an outpouring of sympathy and nationalism from >the American people,
and it also caused an outpouring of >rage. The Japanese once called
America "The Sleeping >Giant." Bin Laden awoke it.
And is successfully taunting it until this day. Some giant.
>The Bush Doctrine recognizes the problem we face does >not just
come from a confederation of Muhajideen >veterans who have turned their
eyes away from the Soviet >Union and towards the United States, but
in the broader >Middle East as a whole. What I dub The Jihad Factory.
Ah, so every person in the middle-east, man, woman and child is a potential
terrorist, right? You do now what the word "racism" means, don´t
you?
> This system of political repression, economic >desperation, and
societal disconnectedness leads to an >outporing of warriors by the
battalion who have learned >that American and Israel are the cause
of all their >problems, and the way to make their lives better is >through
the destruction of America and Israel.
>The Bush Doctrine says that the best way to combat this Jihad Factory
is through strategic democratization of the region.
Ah, so it´s "strategic democratization" now. Funny, I
seem to recall there were tanks and bombs involved. They call it "war"
where I come from.
> On September 11th, 2001, there were three national >governments
all the way from Morocco to Pakistan that >were openly hostile to the
United States. Afghanistan, >Iraq, and Iran. Two have been toppled,
one is surrounded >on all sides by US military forces.
Do you honestly believe that? Before Iraq there was already a very sceptical
view of the US in most arab states. Now, after Iraq, it´s become
worse, much worse. Most muslims, regardless of whether they´re Iraqis,
Moroccans, Algerians, Lybians, Tunisians, Egyptians, Jemenites, Jordanians,
Lebanese, Syrians, Saudis or Iranians are now fundamentally anti-american.
The very few who actually tried to understand the US have been alienated
by Iraq as well. "Strategic democratization" indeed. "Strategic
failure" is more like it.
>Make no mistake, the United States has lost it's >patience with
the Middle East status quo. We look at the >situation and realize the
only way we are going to win >this war we are fighting is through the
destruction of >the situation that has persisted in the Middle East
for >decades. The system that gave birth to Gabdel Nasser
Gamal Abdel Nasser, actually, and what does he have to do with anything?
He was a pan-arabic socialist, not a muslim, remember?
> to Ayatollah Khomeini, to Osama Bin Laden.
>We cannot defeat the Jihadists without defeating the >Jihad factory.
Yes, well, you´re not making huge amounts of headway there with
these methods of yours.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Mike in London wrote: "I feel patriotic duty is to
constructively criticise what is wrong with your country, not to do no
more then to simply agree with it."
|
When I feel that something in my country is wrong and needs to be improved
upon, I'll be happy to engage in constructive criticism
|
Mike in London wrote: "That is the difference between patriotism
and nationalism; a stable attitude and a dangerous one."
|
My being patriotic only requires me to be "willing" to entertain
constructive criticism of my country. It does not "require"
me to criticize my country or my elected government or leader(s) if I
don't personally believe or agree that such criticism is deserved or warranted.
|
Mike in London wrote: "The state and the individual are separate
in a democracy. You are not America- it is the place where you live."
|
False. America is not merely a physical location. America is not merely
the place where I live. America is a series of ideals, concepts and principles.
America is the embodiment of hope and Freedom in the world. America is
the Triumph of the Individual over the State. In an increasingly Socialized
world in which the Individual is marginalized and Dictatorships that silence
Individuals are lauded for "feeding the People", America is
the insistent rejoinder that The Good Of The One outweighs the so-called
"Good Of The Many". When "The Rest Of The World" claims
that "The Masses" "must" be "protected"
from the consequences of Failure and Economic Dislocation, America responds
that the Individual should be allowed to Succeed or Fail on their own
individual merits, without interference from the State. At a time when
"The Rest Of The World" subtly regards the Individual as being
"stupid" and "in need of" a "Wise And Loving
Big Mommy Government" to "gently Guide" the Individual
to make the "Right" Choices, America replies that the Individual
is innately smarter, wiser and more competent than any Government bureaucrat,
needing only to be Left Alone to achieve his or her full potential. While
"The Rest Of The World" wrings its hands over economic competition
from India and China and frets about challenges to "its treasured
Way Of Life", America calmly accepts the loss of millions of jobs
and the downfall of outdated and uncompetitive industries (steel, textiles)
in order to herald the birth of new jobs and new industries (personal
computers, software, biotechnology). While France demands "protection"
from an imaginary "invasion" of "Polish plumbers",
America continues to welcome hundreds of thousands of immigrants, promising
them nothing except long hours, hard work, low pay, few medical benefits,
personal and religious Freedom, the chance to chart their own destinies
and build their own Fortunes, and opportunities that are only limited
by their own ambition and their willingness to work and Succeed.
|
These are the Ideals that have served America well for two centuries.
I proudly and wholeheartedly believe in those Ideals. Therefore, in that
sense, regardless of my personal politics, I AM America, and America's
Ideals live within me.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
I previously wrote, in response to Juanma Fernandez: Did
YOU know that a separate investigation by the Committee to Protect Journalists,
a watchdog group, had concluded that the attack, while "avoidable",
was "not deliberate"? I didn't think so.
|
Michel Bastian commented: "Of course it wasn´t deliberate.
It was stupid and negligent, but it wasn´t deliberate."
|
And that is what makes all the difference between "Murder" and
"an Accident". And that's an extremely important distinction.
That's why we don't treat Unfortunate Accidents in the same way that we
treat Deliberate Murder. Nor should we. They're not at all the same.
|
Michel Bastian wrote: "It never is and the US boys regularly get
off scot free without even as much as a reprimand."
|
False. When a U.S. Air Force pilot supporting US/UN troops against Taliban/Al-Qaeda
terrorists in Afghanistan accidentally bombed and killed 4 Canadian soldiers,
he was found guilty of dereliction of duty and was ordered to forfeit
more than $5,000 in pay. Further, he received a scathing letter of reprimand
which effectively ended his military career. Prior to the incident, he
was a decorated combat pilot who flew for the U.S. Navy and earned the
Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal twice, the Navy Achievement Medal
twice and the Air Medal three times, and taught at the elite Naval Fighter
Weapons School, more famously known as "Top Gun" school. Following
the incident, he was prohibited from ever flying Air Force aircraft again,
and was only allowed to serve in the Illinois Air National Guard in Springfield.
His wingman was also reprimanded and forced to retire.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Michel Bastian wrote: "Same thing happened in the
Sgrena case...."
|
That is exactly what should have happened. That was the correct result.
Anything else would have been a gross injustice and a "legal"
lynching of the US servicemen who were on duty at the military checkpoint
in Iraq.
|
The incident which killed Italian intelligence agent Nicola Calipari and
wounded Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena was unfortunate and tragic.
But Calipari apparently brought the tragedy on himself. Please direct
your attention to the following:
|
|
REPORT CLEARS U.S. IN FRIENDLY FIRE INCIDENT
|
Italian negotiator failed to coordinate rescue with U.S. military
|
BAGHDAD - The friendly fire shooting at a U.S. military checkpoint last
month in Baghdad wounded Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena and killed
intelligence agent Nicola Calipari.
|
Now, NBC News has learned that a preliminary report from a joint U.S.-Italian
investigation has cleared the American soldiers of any wrongdoing and
provides new details into the shooting.
|
In Italy, agent Calipari was given a state funeral, but the investigation
found he himself may have committed a fatal error. He reportedly chose
not to coordinate his movements with the U.S. military for fear it would
jeopardize his efforts to free the Italian hostage.
|
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7491280/
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Michel Bastian wrote: "Ridiculous: harsh sentences?
For torturing people and killing a prisoner you call a dishonorable discharge
and ten years in the brig a "harsh" sentence (and that was just
what the ringleader, Charles Graner, got; some participants in the abuses
got one year or even just six months in prison)?"
|
The sentences were entirely in keeping with 'civilized' European sentencing
guidelines and standards, so I fail to see what you are complaining about.
|
For some examples of those 'civilized' European sentencing guidelines:
|
(1) In 1996 a French court in Paris sentenced the former head of the Church
of Scientology in France to a mere 18 months in prison after convicting
him of second-degree murder for his role in the suicide of a member of
the church. What is even more bizarre is, the 18-month prison sentence
EXCEEDED WHAT HAD BEEN SOUGHT BY PROSECUTORS, who had demanded a three-year
SUSPENDED SENTENCE and a 500,000 francs ($100,000) fine.
Source: http://www.lermanet.com/cos/frenchc.html
|
(2) On 8th October 1997 the six-month trial of Maurice Papon for wartime
crimes against humanity began in Bordeaux. His alleged crime was not of
pulling the trigger, but of signing the death warrant of 1,560 French
Jews, including 223 children. Papon was found guilty of complicity in
crimes against humanity and received a 10-YEAR prison sentence.
Source: http://www.sunderland.ac.uk/~os0tmc/occupied/final.htm |
|
Michel Bastian wrote: "Apparently US troops are the most dangerous
in the world, not only for their opponents but also for their allies."
|
Well, I wouldn't necessarily consider you, France or Germany to be an
'ally' of US troops, so I guess you have nothing to be concerned about.
Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
