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 12/13

Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Mike, London

To Ben, United States of America, who wrote:
"We cannot defeat the Jihadists without defeating the Jihad factory" and some other stuff about being at war with the Middle East and needing to 'democratise' (i.e. invade) the whole area.
That didn't really work for the Russians in Chechnya did it? In fact, they ended up in a situation which is somewhat like the situation in Iraq now.
And the US is not at war with the Middle East: it is at war with comparatively small collection of extremists.
What are advocating is this:
Because a group of people of Middle-Eastern extraction committed a terrorist act against America, you should invade the entire region, and oppress many millions of people. Because that's what you actually mean when you talk of 'democratising' countries, just as the British Empire used to talk of 'civilising' countries. There is a basic lack of empathy here: really try hard to imagine that you live in a country such as Iran- exactly how would you feel when the bombs start falling in your city and tanks are rolling down your street, killing people you know. Would you just accept the situation, or would you be angry about it? Would you support efforts to resist or would you collaborate? What the invaders are asking the population for is obedient acceptance- and that is not freedom or democracy.
The only way invading other states can stop terrorism is through mass genocide and the most brutal of repression. You have to kill or imprison everyone opposed to you. Otherwise you are just making a lot more angry people willing to become terrorists, and the situation will spiral.
I hope the voting majority of Americans will appreciate this before Darth Bush manages to finish his Death Star.

Juanma Fernandez, Bilbao, Basque C.

Mr. Karasick, I am sure you will find the way to excuse me for my English. As you say it is not my native language nor have I the chance to practise this way very often. I certainly acknowledge your patience to deal with it. On the other hand, if you want us to try it in Spanish I am sure we will find the way to do it.
Mr. Karasick, you keep being quite insulting. Is that only because you are speaking with a coward Spanish? Or is it just your everyday attitude? I do not moan or piss or whine. I am trying to speak with you.
Phil Karasick wrote: <<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".>>
I do not have to remind you the millions of fellow Americans who voted for Mr Kerry. Your country is clearly divided. Nearly 50%-50%, right? I am quite sure not all Americans are so self-satisfied as you apparently are. I am certainly aware that US society is not so monolithic. On the contrary, and I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong, I am afraid that we would be very able to find opinions diametrically opposed to those of yours. And they keep being American opinions. I do not piously claim anything, do not be ironic, I just do not want to play that axe-of-evil-game you like so much. Things are not so easy.
Phil Karasick wrote: << Obviously English is not Mr. Fernandez's native language, so he can be forgiven for being rather baffling in his use of the language.>>
Touché. I will try to make me more understandable this time, ok? Do you think I will get the Cambridge Certificate in Advanced English? I did the tests a few days ago. I will tell you by August.
Phil Karasick wrote: << But because he (Rumsfeld) 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.>>
I am sorry Phil, I must have heard some liars saying the US sold Iraq some weapons in the 80s. Maybe it was a liar Kurdish who told me. You know, Kurdistan, those which you have freed two decades after they suffered their genocide. „Nunca es tarde si la dicha es buena‰, we say is Coward-Spanish (You are never late if your aim is good).
Phil Karasick wrote: << 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..>>
Afghanistan is not a democracy yet. I hope some day it will, but it isn‚t now. Your standards for deciding what is and what is not a democracy are quite low. That way I am not surprised with the easiness with which you speak about getting democracy for the countries. You are insulting again. Why should I wish to see Afghan people suffer and die? To show the US are wrong?? Never on Earth. You are not so important. I don not need to show you. I am quite sure.
Phil Karasick wrote: << No, thank you (To Mr Fernandez kind invitation to come to Spain). 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. >>
Thugs?? Insulting again?? Did I call you fascist bastard?? No, did I? Relax, keep calm. As you surely know, Spain is one of the most visited places on Earth (more than 40 million tourists every year). Ask these people why they come. As far as I am concerned you can keep your tourism dollars in your own country, I am not interested in your money. But let me tell you that sometimes is quite refreshing to get out of your country and see with your own eyes what is going on abroad. You would find that here there are many people that shares very much your points of view. And it may help you get rid of that boring American ˆ non-American division of the world.
Phil Karasick wrote: << 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.>>
Are you comparing the EU with Italy? I will not bother to explain the differences in population, culture, language, economy, ∑ You can think whatever you wish, but it is indeed working. I has worked for decades and it will keep on doing it. Of course, you are not aware of it, but, as you will understand, we do not need your awareness to keep working. And let me tell you that here we have the impression that many Americans, yourself included, are willing to see the EU failure. Keep waiting.
Phil Karasick wrote: << "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?
"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..>>
You obviously do not understand the meaning of law. The greatness of Human Rights is that they are applied to everyone, including those who do not respect them. If you discriminate who to apply them, then they are not Human Rights, they are your friend‚s

Mike, London

To Phil Karasick:
RE- Christianity and Nazi Germany
You wrote:
"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."
You seem to be confused as to what 'actual and detailed research' means. Whereas I provided pictures and quotes ('primary evidence') to back up my statement, you seem to have trawled the net, disregarded the majority of what you found because it does not support your view, and settled on some wild-eyed fundamentalist Christian website which declares the Nazis were Satanists without bothering with evidence (it also has some other hilarious stuff about evolutionary theory and the age of the Earth- my personal favourite section is entitled "Dinosaurs Lived Together With Men and They Aren't All Extinct"). But still- at least you gave me a laugh.
Here's some more primary historical evidence (that's what we in the real world call the stuff we make history books out of):
|
http://www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm

Mike, London

Phil- You wrote of me:
"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"."
|
Where did you get that from?
Go back and look at what I actually wrote. Here's a summary of this argument so far:
1) You said morality comes from religion;
2) I disagreed and mentioned, purely by way of example, that the Nazi army considered itself Christian- it was an effort to demonstrate that morality and religion are not in fact intertwined;
3) You didn't like that at all, did not accept my example and demanded evidence for it;
4) I provided evidence;
5) You didn't like that at all.
|
So: exactly at what point did I say Christianity was responsible for the holocaust? I merely pointed to the fact that Christianity was the dominant religion of the Nazis. Christianity has been the dominant religion of plenty of very good people too: the point being whether you are a Christian or not has no bearing on your moral worth.
|
You suggested I get therapy- maybe you're right, I'm starting to waste far too much time arguing with you. Maybe instead I'll just bang my head on a brick wall.

Michel Bastian, France

To Phil Karasick:
> Oh? Please explain the following, then:
>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
Ah, but now you´re talking constitutional amendment, not "overturning". That´s another matter entirely. Perhaps you misunderstood: what I mean is that congress can´t overturn a particular ruling with an effect on the case over which the supreme court already ruled. The ruling will continue to stand. Thus, in your example, you couldn´t try the 1989 flag burner again, even if the amendement was passed.
What congress can do is change the law so that a particular kind of supreme court ruling cannot happen again in the future. That´s what the proposed constitutional amendment in the flag burning cases does (incidentally, even that is not done by congress alone, but you also need a three quarter majority of state legislatures). Since the Supreme Court has to take into account such an amendment, and since such an amendment would explicitely except flag burning from freedom of speech, then the Supreme Court would have to rule flag burning is not constitutional in future cases. Same goes for the proposals by Clinton and Gore.
I told you that before: of course congress can pass laws to influence future court rulings, especially if those laws are constitutional amendments. What congress can´t do is say "Oh, we don´t like Roe v. Wade, so we´ll just vote a motion that says Roe v. Wade never happened."

Michel Bastian, France

To Phil Karasick:
>It's very easy to "get along with" and "manage" Terrorism if you basically Capitulate to all the Terrorists' demands.
Well, I admit it´s not so easy to "manage" terrorism if you go around rattling sabres to everybody (including your own allies) and invade a few countries. It might be easier if we do it a little quieter and without all the fuss (and loss of life). And that means instead of pumping millions into an enormous military apparatus that´s not been built for this kind of thing, you might want to look at your options: information gathering (that´s what you have the CIA for; start using it, better than now; incidentally, this is one domain where the europeans might actually be able to help), nationbuilding in potential hotspots, you name it. Terrorism is not going to go away because you invade a country.

Michel Bastian, France

To Phil Karasick:
>Poll shows slump in trust between French, Americans
>http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050617/ts_nm/france_usa_opinion_dc_3
So what else is new. Though I didn´t know the distrust was that widespread in France.
Incidentally, about that "freedom fries" thing mentioned in the article: guys, I need to explain something here about fries: they´re NOT a french invention. Americans called them "french" fries because they´re actually belgian and to an american, that´s probably the same as being french (at least, that´s my theory). In french they´re not called french fries and we don´t tend to eat them very often, so if you rename them, most of us don´t understand what the fuss is all about anyway. So save yourself the trouble :-).
And speaking of freedom fries: have a look at this one: http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/2509767p

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastian wrote: "Ah, so every person in the Middle-east, man, woman and child is a potential terrorist, right?"
|
Yup, they are. (Except for the Christians and Jews, of course. Their religions don't glorify the act of walking up to innocent unarmed people in a food market and blowing them and yourself to smithereens. Nor do they promise "72 virgins in Paradise").
|
Yes, lots and lots people in the Middle East -- men, women, and yes, children -- are potential terrorists. It's borne out by the Facts. And it's about time you faced the Facts and admitted it.
|
Michel Bastian wrote: "You do know what the word 'racism' means, don´t you?"
|
You 'do' know what the word 'REALITY' means, don't you?
|
Suicide bombers (Man):
"Four Israelis were killed and at least 65 others injured in the late Friday night suicide bombing by a 22-year-old student from the northern West Bank."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/26/telaviv.explosion/
|
|
Suicide bombers (Woman):
"Israel: Suicide bomber caught with explosives in her underwear
June 23, 2005
A WOMAN on a suicide bombing mission was caught at an Israeli checkpoint with 20lbs of high explosives hidden in her underwear.
Security officials working at the Erez crossing, the main transit point between Israel and the Gaza Strip, said they became suspicious of al-Biss because her gait was strange.
Fearing she might be a suicide bomber, they isolated her and ordered her to strip. The images taken from a security camera showed her removing her black head scarf and gown. As she continued, the explosives were shown sewn into her underwear. It is possible she tried to detonate the device as she stripped, only for the bomb to malfunction.
During her television interview, which lasted more than an hour, al-Biss appeared confident and defiant but became shaky.
"My dream was to be a martyr. I believe in death," she began.
|
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/2005/06/006763print.html
|
|
Suicide bombers (Child):
Palestinian television has aired a number of music videos and announcements that promote eternal reward for children who seek "shahada" [2], which Palestinian Media Watch has claimed is "Islamic motivation of suicide terrorists".[3] The Chicago Tribune has documented the concern of Palestinian parents that their children are encouraged to take part in suicide operations.[4] Israeli sources have also alleged that Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah operate "Paradise Camps," training children as young as 11 to become suicide bombers[5][6].
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_bomber

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

DESCENT FROM PATIENT TO SUICIDE BOMBER

BEERSHEBA, Israel - Wafa al-Biri, a 21-year-old Palestinian woman with a lovely face and a quiet voice, seems an unlikely candidate for a suicide mission.
|
Yet her greatest wish, she told reporters, was to kill 30 to 50 Jews, including children.
|
The motives of suicide bombers are many, mysterious and murky. And rarely are they as stated by the bombers on camera.
|
Wafa's case sheds some light on what is to many an incomprehensible phenomenon. Why do people become suicide bombers? More specifically, if male martyrs reputedly get 72 virgins in paradise, what do women suicide bombers get?
|
STARTING WITH A THANK-YOU NOTE
|
Wafa, who is from a Gaza refugee camp, claimed she always wanted to be a martyr. She says the Israelis kill and maim her people and she wants to do the same to them.
|
Yet, only two months earlier, Wafa's family wrote a thank-you note on her behalf to Soroka hospital in the southern Israeli town of Beersheba.
|
They thanked doctors and nurses, especially Igor Resnik and nurse Mazal, for their "great efforts and wonderful, warm attitude" in helping Wafa survive burns over 45 percent of her body. A gas cooker had blown up while she was making dinner, burning her everywhere except her face.
|
Dr. Yuval Krieger, the Israeli doctor who treated Wafa, said she arrived from the Palestinian hospital of Shifa with infected burn wounds. The treatment she had was not good and her burns were dressed incorrectly.
|
"Did you save her life?" Krieger was asked.
|
"I believe so, yes," he replied.
|
But Wafa didn't arrive for Monday's 8 a.m. appointment. "I didn't think much about it. I just marked her as one of the people who didn't show up," Krieger said.
|
Wafa had begun the journey to her appointment with Krieger, arriving at the Erez border crossing from Gaza into Israel around 5:30 a.m., armed with a letter detailing her appointment and her official permission to cross into Israel for humanitarian reasons.
|
But that wasn't all the young woman was armed with. She carried a 20-pound bomb inside her underwear. Her target was the outpatient clinic of Soroka hospital and, inevitably, the doctor who saved her life.
|
But how did the grateful young burn victim become a suicide bomber?
|
One thing is for sure: It wasn't the religious and nationalist reasons she stated to reporters after soldiers stopped her at the border crossing, made her undress and discard the bomb, which a robot then detonated harmlessly.
|
It also wasn't her burning desire since childhood to be a martyr, as she claimed. It also wasn't because of the Israeli occupation, which was the motivation of her handlers from the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, the militant group that she said gave her the bomb, drove her to the crossing and gave her instructions.
|
We know these things because of another young woman, Latifah, whose son shared a ward with Wafa in the Soroka burns unit. Latifah met Wafa in the hospital and they became friends. At her son's bedside, her hands folded, Latifah recounted to NBC News what Wafa told her in the month they spent together, chatting daily.
|
"Before she was burned her mom told me that Wafa was a very funny girl, very active, laughing a lot," Latifah said. "But after the burning she became very tired and depressed. And often Wafa said to me, ŒI can't live like this, I am so ugly, I want to commit suicide.‚ She had a fiance. But after the accident he left her. Then she kept crying, ŒNobody will want me, I am too ugly, my body is scarred everywhere‚."
|
When Wafa was released from Soroka, she didn't want to leave, Latifah said. "She was screaming, shouting, ŒPlease don't let me go. I am better here. I'm going to die.‚ But they made her leave, on a stretcher, and they took her home to Gaza."
|
Later Latifah visited her new friend in the small home the family occupies in the Jabalya refugee camp. They're nice people, poor people, simple people, Latifah said.
|
But with her ugly wounds, Wafa lost her friends. She was lonely.
|
Then, Latifah continued, "Suddenly she said, ŒI want to commit suicide. If there is anyone who will give me a bomb to blow myself up I will do it.‚ Her mom shouted, ŒShut up ˜ don't say that. We don't need more problems‚."
|
Wafa's mother told Latifah that her daughter was sick, unhappy, and might need a psychiatrist. "But her brothers said, ŒNo, people will talk about us, they'll think she's crazy. We should take her for a walk. Maybe she will change her mind‚."
|
Krieger pointed out to us that patients with severe burns usually become depressed and proper psychological counseling is critical, even in the best of cases.
|
In the Jabalya refugee camp, jilted by her fiance, surrounded by shamed brothers, scared parents and poverty, Wafa al-Biri was the worst of cases.
|
She was easy pickings for someone with a bomb and a cause. According to Wafa, the al-Aqsa militants came knocking. Here was a vulnerable young woman, willing to die, and moreover with the golden ticket ˜ a pass for humanitarian reasons to a hospital in Israel.
|
After all, who would check the underwear of a sick young woman on her way to the hospital?
|
A hundred patients mill around the outpatient ward in the morning. Wafa could die a hero and a martyr with Jewish blood on her hands, and not just in her veins, after the dozen blood transfusions she received in the Israeli hospital.
|
And she would have, if the Israeli secret services hadn't received a tip that a female suicide bomber was on the way and alerted all Gaza border crossings.
|
As for Krieger, he's alive too and so are all the nurses and patients that would have died if Wafa had succeeded in her plan.
|
Asked if he would think twice the next time a patient arrives from Gaza, he said no, the hospital treats Palestinians from Gaza every day.
|
But then Krieger paused and the pause stretched. "Let's say that we treat everyone with no questions, and we always will, wherever they are from," he said finally. "But I never imagined that a patient would try to hurt me. We will have to look more carefully at our security."
|
For the medical staff of Soroka hospital, a sick person is a patient. But for the Palestinian militants of al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, someone sick like Wafa is just a vulnerable person waiting to be manipulated, a potential suicide bomber.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Ben in the USA had previously commented, "The Bush Doctrine says that the best way to combat this Jihad Factory is through strategic democratization of the region."
|
Michel Bastian replied: "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."
|
Where 'you' come from, they call it 'young love' when a 44-year old male movie director (Roman Polanski) plys a 13-year old girl (Samantha Geimer) with champagne and quaaludes and then takes advantage of her intoxicated state to orally and vaginally copulate and sodomize her. Small wonder that after he took a plea bargain and admitted to having unlawful sex with a minor, Roman Polanski fled to France -- which, true to form, refuses to extradite him. (Perhaps French society regards "DON'T TELL YOUR MOM!" as a normal and acceptable post-coital term of endearment).
|
Funny, I seem to recall there were laws against having sex with underage minors. They call it 'rape of a minor', 'rape by use of a drug', 'committing a lewd act upon a person less than 14 years of age', 'furnishing drugs to a minor', 'illegal oral copulation' and 'sodomy' where I come from.
|
Where "strategic democratization of the Middle East" is concerned, you need to change your terms and definitions. We don't need to change ours. Funny, I seem to recall there were tanks and bombs involved when we "strategically democratized" France in 1944 by kicking out the forces of another dictator of the time. I also don't seem to recall the French objecting too strenuously to our methods to free their country from the forces of a Dictator at the time.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastian wrote: "Most Muslims, regardless of whether they´re Iraqis, Moroccans, Algerians, Libyans, Tunisians, Egyptians, Yemenites, Jordanians, Lebanese, Syrians, Saudis or Iranians are now fundamentally anti-American".
|
As opposed to... what? Being slightly less-fundamentally anti-American before we liberated Iraq from Saddam? They're not fundamentally anti-American "because of" anything we did or did not do. They're fundamentally anti-American because we exist.
|
Ben in USA had commented: "We cannot defeat the Jihadists without defeating the Jihad factory."
|
To which Michel Bastian replied: "Yes, well, you´re not making huge amounts of headway there with these methods of yours.....'Strategic democratization', indeed. 'Strategic failure' is more like it."
|
Feel free to put your money -- and your own troops'lives -- where your mouth is. By all means, step up to the plate and try your hand at it if you think you can do a better job of it.
|
Oh wait, that's right -- you didn't intend to actually "do" anything at all about it.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Yes, American and European values differ. Here is an example of those differences:
|
|
POLL: U.S. PATRIOTISM CONTINUES TO SOAR
|
YEARS AFTER 9/11, FERVOR STAYS HIGH ACROSS RACIAL, RELIGIOUS, POLITICAL LINES.
|
Whether or not „patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel,‰ as the British writer Samuel Johnson observed more than 200 years ago, it may be the first refuge of a broad cross-section of modern-day Americans, regardless of their ethnicity, religion or political affiliation.
|
On this all-American holiday, the nationalistic impulse among Americans remains strong almost four years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, according to a recent poll.
|
The poll, conducted by the Roper Reports unit of NOP World, is based on personal and telephone interviews over several years. It found that 81 percent of Americans believed patriotism is „in,‰ meaning it is an important factor in their individual identities, compared with 14 percent of Americans who believed patriotism is „out.‰
|
The Roper/NOP poll found the gap was the widest since 1991, after the first Persian Gulf War, and far wider than during the mid- to late 1990s.
|
„That [patriotism] appears so long after the period of frenzied flag-waving following 9/11 suggests that it is settling in as a fixture of American perceptions,‰ according to Roper Reports.
|
The poll was released in April, but even accounting for recent reverses in the Iraq war and the relative imprecision of such terms as „in‰ and „out,‰ the findings hold, said Cary Silvers, NOP World vice president of consumer trends. „As far as relevance, the story remains the same,‰ he said.
|
The events of Sept. 11 were apparently the catalyst.
|
„We tracked patriotism, spirituality and religion, and giving to charities and volunteerism right after 9/11,‰ Silvers said. „All three popped up. Within about nine months, volunteering was down and so was religion, but what has stayed with us is patriotism, and it's obviously fueled by a couple of things. The shift point was 9/11.‰
|
The survey found that „eight in 10 Americans of all ages and income groups, from all regions of the country, say patriotism is in.‰
|
The poll also found that, African Americans and Hispanics are among those most inclined to have patriotic feelings. The survey found „virtually no difference between blacks‚ views and those of the nation as a whole.‰
|
Eighty percent of black Americans and 78 percent of Hispanics strongly identify themselves as patriotic, as well as 81 percent of white Americans, the poll found.
|
Some 87 percent of baby boomers ˜ the bloc of Americans demographers generally consider born between 1946 and 1964 ˜ said patriotism is a central identifying fact of their lives. Seventy-eight percent of Generation Xers, born between 1965 and 1980, felt the same way.
|
For Silvers, the overall findings point to a stronger, almost obstinate sense of the collective American identity. „Now you‚ve got a new world order where America is the bad guy, and if anything fuels patriotism, that‚s it,‰ he said.
|
„It goes to the adage that 'we' can say something about our family, but outsiders can‚t,‰ he said.
|
The pattern of support remains consistent, even allowing for distinctions along the great divide of politics. The survey found that „only 2 points separate the shares of Democrats from Republicans and liberals from conservatives.‰
|
„What's interesting is how unifying the concept of patriotism is today,‰ Silvers said. „All groups in red states or blue states lay claim to it. We‚re a country that agrees to disagree, but the overriding theme all groups can claim is that they're doing it out of patriotism.‰

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Mike in London wrote: "There is a basic lack of empathy here: really try hard to imagine that you live in a country such as Iran- exactly how would you feel when the bombs start falling in your city and tanks are rolling down your street, killing people you know. Would you just accept the situation, or would you be angry about it? Would you support efforts to resist or would you collaborate? What the invaders are asking the population for is obedient acceptance- and that is not freedom or democracy".
|
|
Well,Mike in London, here's one view of how people in Iran might well react, as provided by a fellow who actually visited Iran and talked with Iranians one-on-one:
|
September 22, 2003
IRANIANS YEARN FOR AMERICAN INTERVENTION
|
I found the people to be social in Iran, in a way that we are not social in the West. Strangers would actually have meaningful conversations with each other and it gave me a lot of insight into to attitudes of the population. This happened several times when I was traveling with Mr. Azarian in cabs in Tehran.
|
The first time it happened was most memorable. We were in the back of a cab and Mr. Azarian and the driver were engaged in some light political conversation. The passenger in the front quickly and vehemently interjected, flashed an ID card, and went into a tirade, which made me think he was some sort of government official who did not like what he had heard. He went on for quite some time, and he was very irate.
|
I was not sure what to do, and since I couldn't understand him I wasn't sure if I was reading the situation correctly. I thought maybe I should just ignore him, not give him the satisfaction of an audience. I also thought maybe I should stare him in the eye to let him know he could rant on but I wasn't intimidated by his status. It was actually a little unsettling because of the uncertainty of the situation.
|
In the end I just tried to absorb the situation and try to read as much as I could about it. I found out later, when he left the car, that he was a government official working in intelligence for the national broadcasting company. But he was not complaining about the conversation in the car, he was the one complaining about the government. His frustration was to the point where he was almost losing control, he needed to vent or he would burst.
|
Many of the people in the cabs in Tehran had the similar thoughts. "TELL GEORGE BUSH TO COME AND GET RID OF THE MULLAHS FOR US." I was shocked by the openness of that statement. With one fellow I tried to discuss it with him in more detail to see if he really meant it or was just talking. I told him that if George Bush came and got rid of the Mullahs, it would not be to help the people of Iran; he would be coming for the oil. The fellow replied, "He can have the oil, its not doing us any good anyway and at least then we would be free."

Ross Gurung, France

Et ta mère! Avorton!! R'

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

"Erik" in Norway wrote: "First, to Miss Susan, the liberal Democrat from Philadelphia: Jewish symbols and Jews were not banned on the Kristallnacht commemorations (sp?). The truth is that a handful (10-12, out of the more than 1,500 Jews in the country) of Jewish extremists wanted to make hateful speeches against Palestinians, and thus they were banned. This is the TRUE story."
|
No, that's the false story. Following is the story of what actually happened. THIS is the TRUE story:
|
"November 18, 2004
|
Anti-Semites commemorate Kristallnacht
|
There is a trend in Europe, and elsewhere to de-Judaize the Jewish experience. Øyvind Strømmen posts about one such case on Bjørn Stærk's blog. I haven't read all 255 comments (as of this posting ˆ I would like to imagine that I have a life), but I have read enough to be convinced, regardless of the facts in dispute, of the true nature of the event.
|
Evidently, there was a commemoration of Kristallnacht (often considered to be the beginning of the Holocaust, more here) in Oslo which "both anti-racists and pro-Israelis" used for there own agendas. The end result was that both Israeli and Palestinian flags were banned to keep the peace.
|
Well, this may have been the best we could get, but I would like to say clearly that the supposed anti-racists and pro-Israelis were not in any way comparable with each other, particularly in this context. Kristallnacht was a Jewish tragedy, whatever universal applicability it has (and of course, it does). For racists posing as anti-racists to use the occasion to call Israel racist is disgusting. On the other hand, almost no Jews commemorating Kristallnacht would object to pro-Israelis, and the vast majority would see it as completely appropriate, and would be glad of their presence, especially considering that most of Holocaust refugees ˆ those relatively few that Europeans didn't have time to murder ˆ took refuge there after the war. Normally I have great respect for Bjørn, but I think that while striving to get the facts out, he owes it to his readers to make this clear.
|
Do you know what this reminds me of? The story about the old Soviet Empire and the UN's definition of racism. In 1965 the UN promulgated the Convention against Racial Discrimination, in which they made a long list of the various forms of racism. Astoundingly, the list didn't include anti-Semitism. How did that happen? Answer: The USSR proposed to put Zionism on the list as a form of racism. As a compromise, the US agreed to remove anti-Semitism from the list if the USSR would remove Zionism. No matter, a decade later, in 1975, the UN made a separate declaration that Zionism is a form of racism. (For those of you who are wondering about the truth: Zionism is a form of Nationalism.)
|
So let us be clear: the attempt to de-Judaize Kristallnacht is a form of racism. Evidently it is common in Norway."
|
http://www.rishon-rishon.com/archives/055305.php
|
|
Here is further documentation of what actually happened:
|
NORWAY
|
The Wiesenthal Center blasted Norwegian police for barring Jews from participating in last week´s Kristallnacht commemoration in Oslo after Norway´s TV2 reported that authorities forbade any Jewish symbols, including the Star of David and the Israeli flag, from being displayed at the commemoration. Even more disturbing was the evening news showing a group of Norwegian Jews who wanted to take part in the commemoration being told by a Norwegian policeman to "leave the area." Kristallnacht (Night of Broken Glass) was the organized anti- Jewish riots in Germany and Austria on November 9 and 10, 1938 which in many ways marked the beginning of the end of European Jewry under Nazi rule.
|
The protest by the Center´s Rabbi Cooper stated, "The Simon Wiesenthal Center protests in the strongest terms possible this outrageous, hypocritical and ominous development. Can one even imagine a commemoration of a solemn anniversary of the Shoah that itself is Judenrein (Jew free)?" Center officials noted the trend in many quarters in Europe to expropriate Holocaust memorial, symbols, and language to cast Israel as Nazi-like in its struggle with the Palestinians.
|
http://www.unitedjerusalem.org/index2.asp?id=519510

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Erik" in Norway wrote: "BTW, I think that if people in the U.S. are to (falsely) call a continent of 800 million people and 50 countries anti-semitic, then I think people in Europe can call people in the U.S. anti-Muslim."
|
Anti-semitism has a history in Europe dating back well over 1,000 years. Its existence is a matter of historical record. Therefore, it is factual. It can be and has been extensively documented. It waxes and wanes, but it has always been there, and it's still there today. Sometimes it lies about its true nature and masquerades as "anti-Zionism, but most anyone with an IQ greater than their show size recognizes it for what it really is.
|
"Erik" in Norway wrote: "Why? Well, it's due to the proposed stigmatising of Muslims in the country, by saying that all Muslims should have a special ID designed only for them, just like the Jews got the Magen David as a special ID under Nazi Germany."
|
Precisely where and how did you ever get the wildly mistaken and incorrect notion that there is now, ever has been or ever will be any "special ID" designed "just for Muslims"? Please provide documentation of your claim.

Antti Vainio, Finland

Phil wrote: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.
What happened in London showed that they don't buy your "war of civililaziones" - crap, they reacted admirably. The Brits showed that they are noble and enlightened, your kind are just cheap KKK

Antti Vainio, Finland

Maybe our differencies depend on that we don't speak anymore the same English? I don't like Phil because for his kind peace = war, patriotic = hateful USA = the world terrorist = everybody who's got a raghead passport. Jump a volt, go and shoot some nigger dummies with you nazi NRA friends, have a ball. Your so pitiful

Antti Vainio, Finland

Happy now Phil Karasick?
You American bigots launched a "war between civilizations" and we Europeans try once again clean up the mess. I just don't know how to express how much I despise you lot. Without Iraq those fucking idiots would have been angry in Leeds or wherever but would not have bombed themselves to the place your kind belong, instead given just a scouser kiss to somebody who supports another team.I don't like it but it's better. Go to hell, without 20 virgins but company of religious and patriotic islam morons who seriously make your ass sore. You are the problem

Antti Vainio, Finland

The Middle East and oil and rest of that used to be Russian, English and American game: Now it's not anymore. Everybody's suffering everywhere and You, Phil, have made it my problem as well. Happy?

Antti Vainio, Finland

Yes, one more when I'm Angry, Phil. Your idiot presitend evidently represents whole nation, but he should have listened his pet poodle. The British knew the Afghans. They could have given advises like "don't give dollars to al qaida", or "don't give dollars to taleban because they are naughty". Your problem, Phil, is because you are Americans, you are too stupid to understand these kind of things, even when the friends say them. Probably the name of the next president is Bush as well, because you are hateful and ignorant people

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Juanma Fernandez in Bilbao, Spain wrote: "Mr. Karasick, you keep being quite insulting. Is that only because you are speaking with a coward Spanish? Or is it just your everyday attitude? I do not moan or piss or whine. I am trying to speak with you."
|
I appreciate your willingness to speak with me and your attempts to do so. However, I am deeply disturbed by what I (and al-Qaeda) see as Spain's surrender to al-Qaeda's demands to pull Spanish troops out of Iraq. Al-Qaeda clearly believes they are winning, because of your government's actions. As far as they are concerned, they sacrificed a few people and toppled a Western-oriented Spanish government. They are calling that a WIN for al-Qaeda. And people like you in Spain made it happen.
|
Small wonder that Al-Qaeda just carried out a similar attack against unarmed civilians in England. Having toppled Aznar already, they have now set their sights on toppling Blair, too. And why shouldn't they? It worked in Spain, didn't it? The actions of voters in Spain in dumping Aznar because of the bombing, have convinced al-Qaeda that committing terror attacks against European civilians is a great way for Al-Qaeda to get what it wants and to bend European governments to Al-Qaeda's will. To Al-Qaeda, slaughtering European civilians in terror attacks is a winning move, and one that got them what they wanted in Spain. Therefore, it is logical to expect that they're going to keep right on doing it, because it works.
|
Over in England, some Brits are already doing what al-Qaeda wants them to do. They are already turning on Blair and trying to link the terror bombing to Iraq, which of course is a crock of garbage.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Juanma Fernandez in Bilbao, Spain wrote: "I do not have to remind you the millions of fellow Americans who voted for Mr Kerry. Your country is clearly divided. Nearly 50%-50%, right? I am quite sure not all Americans are so self-satisfied as you apparently are. I am certainly aware that US society is not so monolithic. On the contrary, and I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong, I am afraid that we would be very able to find opinions diametrically opposed to those of yours. And they keep being American opinions."
|
And I do not have to remind you of the millions of my fellow Americans who voted for George W. Bush, in spite of (or maybe because of) European pleadings and demands for us to deny George W. Bush a second term. And those millions are the majority view in America.
|
Yes, America is still politically divided. Yes, you might be able to find opinions in America that are diametrically opposed to my own views. Although, it might depend on where you look for those opinions. I think might have a hard time finding the opinions you want, throughout much of the American South, Southwest, Southeast and Midwest. Most of the American nation, in fact.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Juanma Fernandez in Bilbao, Spain wrote: "I am sorry Phil, I must have heard some liars saying the US sold Iraq some weapons in the 80s. Maybe it was a liar Kurdish who told me. You know, Kurdistan, those which you have freed two decades after they suffered their genocide."
|
Yes, Juanma Fernandez, that is exactly right. Someone did lie to you, in order to try to make the U.S. look bad.
|
You see, Juanma Fernandez, it's like this:
|
(1) The ACTUAL truth of what really happened is that we never sold weapons to Iraq that could be used in an offensive manner. We only sold them DEFENSIVE weapons. No tanks, no airplanes, no missiles. We never sold Iraq weapons that could be used to invade another country, for the obvious reason that we DIDN'T WANT Saddam to turn around and suddenly decide to invade some other smaller, defenseless country. We didn't want Iraq to "win" their war against Iran (which Saddam Hussein started). We only wanted to keep Iraq from "LOSING", which is a completely, totally different thing entirely. We knew that if we only sold or gave them weapons that would keep Iraq from "LOSING", both Iraq and Iran would eventually tire themselves out, and the conflict would end in a stalemate. And that is precisely what happened.
|
And (2) what happened to the Kurds was an outrage, but it certainly was not our doing. We only "sold" Saddam weapons. He USED them. Therefore, what he did to the Kurds was completely his doing, and therefore his responsibility alone. You see, Mr. Fernandez, I know this is a difficult idea for many Europeans to understand, but weapons do not "decide" on their own to go off and attack people. Weapons do not wake up in a bad mood, they do not feel moody or cranky, they have no ambition to conquer other peoples, they do not suddenly fire themselves. Weapons were not responsible for what happened to the Kurds. And people who sold or gave weapons to Iraq, were not responsible for what happened to the Kurds. Saddam Hussein was responsible.
|
You see, we believe in something known as Taking Personal Responsibility For Ones' Own Actions. If I sell a gun to a friend of mine, and I tell him to always use it safely and obey the law, but he turns around and uses that gun to murder 7 children, then he has committed Mass Murder in using that gun to murder people. But "I" have done nothing whatsoever "wrong" in selling the gun to him, because I did not "know" he would use it for Evil purposes and did not tell him to do what he did. He will be arrested, charged, tried, convicted, sentenced, and probably executed. But I, on the other hand, will not be arrested for anything; I will not spend so much as an hour in Jail. I am not "responsible", in any Way, Shape or Form, for anyone else's Actions other than my own, and I have done nothing at all "wrong".
|
That is why, here in America, we don't blame the weapon, we blame the person who uses the weapon for evil purposes. And that is why we in America were not ever "responsible" for Saddam Hussein's Evil choices and actions. He alone was responsible for his Evil actions.

Michel Bastian, France

To Phil Karasick:
> Michel Bastian wrote: "Ah, so every person in the Middle-east, man, woman and child is a potential terrorist, right?"
|
>Yup, they are. (Except for the Christians and Jews, of course. Their religions don't glorify the act of walking up to innocent unarmed people in a food market and blowing them and yourself to smithereens. Nor do they promise "72 virgins in Paradise").
So just because you´re from the middle east and (possibly) from a muslim background, you´re a potential terrorist? I don´t know, Phil, that does sound a lot like racism to me. It sounds a lot like the nazi argument that every jew is an enemy of the state just because he´s jewish or the argument of the white supremacists that every negro is genetically inferior to a white caucasian. And that bit about glorifying suicide bombings: christianism and judaism have had the same problem of people commiting crimes and atrocities in their name. What about Rabin´s assassination? What about the crusades? What about Northern Ireland? What about the 30 years´ war in Germany? What about the holy inquisition? What about witchhunts in Europe and Northern America? And I could go on and on with these examples. >Yes, lots and lots people in the Middle East -- men, women, and yes, children -- are potential terrorists. It's borne out by the Facts. And it's about time you faced the Facts and admitted it.
I´ll admit that some terrorists are from the middle east, which isn´t quite the same as saying every middle-eastern muslim is a potential terrorist.
>Michel Bastian wrote: "You do know what the word 'racism' means, don´t you?"
|
> You 'do' know what the word 'REALITY' means, don't you?
Yup, and it most definitely doesn´t imply racism.

Michel Bastian, France

To Phil Karasick:
> As opposed to... what? Being slightly less-fundamentally anti-American before we liberated Iraq from Saddam? They're not fundamentally anti-American "because of" anything we did or did not do. They're fundamentally anti-American because we exist.
No, that´s quite wrong. Many of the arab/middle eastern citizens weren´t necessarily anti-american before Iraq. Now you can bet your bottom dollar they are.
> Ben in USA had commented: "We cannot defeat the Jihadists without defeating the Jihad factory."
|
> To which Michel Bastian replied: "Yes, well, you´re not making huge amounts of headway there with these methods of yours.....'Strategic democratization', indeed. 'Strategic failure' is more like it."
|
> Feel free to put your money -- and your own troops'lives -- where your mouth is. By all means, step up to the plate and try your hand at it if you think you can do a better job of it.
Not in Iraq, since the situation´s already fubar over there thanks to George W. Bush´s enlightened visions and accordingly european public opinion´s not exactly keen on cleaning up Dubbyah´s mess. All european nations are putting their troops on the line in other conflicts, though, including, but not limited to, Afghanistan. Kindly respect them as we respect the american servicemen and -women.
> Oh wait, that's right -- you didn't intend to actually "do" anything at all about it.
Well, you yourself posted an article to the contrary on the "Iraq" thread.

Michel Bastian, France

To Phil Karasick:
> Where 'you' come from, they call it 'young love' when a 44-year old male movie director (Roman Polanski) plys a 13-year old girl (Samantha Geimer) with champagne and quaaludes and then takes advantage of her intoxicated state to orally and vaginally copulate and sodomize her. Small wonder that after he took a plea bargain and admitted to having unlawful sex with a minor, Roman Polanski fled to France -- which, true to form, refuses to extradite him. (Perhaps French society regards "DON'T TELL YOUR MOM!" as a normal and acceptable post-coital term of endearment).
It´s interesting how you go on "wild goosechase" mode whenever you´re loosing an argument. What the blue blazes does Roman Polanski have to do with the war in Iraq or values in french or european society?
> Where "strategic democratization of the Middle East" is concerned, you need to change your terms and definitions. We don't need to change ours. Funny, I seem to recall there were tanks and bombs involved when we "strategically democratized" France in 1944 by kicking out the forces of another dictator of the time.
God, Phil, don´t rehash the same stale arguments all the time. BTW, we did call the liberation of France "war", and not "strategic democratization".

Michel Bastian, France

To Phil Karasick:> IRANIANS YEARN FOR AMERICAN INTERVENTION
> etc. etc.
So now it´s Iran, eh? And before anybody even seriously considers an invasion there, some americans already start deluding themselves. I can hear Rumsfeld now: "they want freedom and democracy, they´re going to welcome us with open arms..." and so forth. Don´t these people ever learn? Didn´t Iraq teach them anything at all? No, the Iranians are not going to welcome an american invasion. They´re much more likely to spit the americans in the eye (if they don´t shoot at them with RPGs). And Iran is about four times bigger than Iraq. It´ll be fun invading them, real fun, believe me. Oh, and btw, if Dubbyah seriously considers it, all you yanks might as well get used to the idea of being drafted into the army (because I´m pretty sure even Tony Blair isn´t going to go along with that one, so you can just forget about any european country sending troops).
Fortunately, the Bush administration seems to realize that at the moment, so it´s more likely Bush´ll just order an airstrike or two on iranian installations than an outright invasion.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Antti Vainion in Finland wrote: "What happened in London showed that they don't buy your 'war of civililaziones' - crap, they reacted admirably. The Brits showed that they are noble and enlightened, your kind are just cheap KKK".
|
Any Britons that didn't understand that they (and we) are indeed engaged in a Clash of Civilizations, between the values of the West and the values of an insane and murderous worldwide brand of fanatical Islam, probably understands it now.
|
And as far as I am concerned, anyone who seriously thinks it is "noble" and "enlightened" to allow Terrorists and Terrorist Supporters to openly operate and organize, to "hide in plain sight" in the heart of a liberal secular Democracy which the Terrorists despise and pledge to destroy, is an utter Idiot and Lunatic. And the Terrorist attacks in London, on July 7 and again today (July 21) merely prove my point.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Antti Vainio in Finland wrote: "Maybe our differencies depend on that we don't speak anymore the same English? I don't like Phil because for his kind peace = war, patriotic = hateful USA = the world terrorist = everybody who's got a raghead passport."
|
Where was Antti Vainio's "concern for humanity", I wonder, when Terrorists bombed the World Trade Center the FIRST time around in 1993, killed half a dozen people and inujured 1,000? Where was his "concern" when Al-Qaeda Terrorists bombed US Embassies in Kenya and Zambia, killing hundreds and wounding thousands?
|
All those attacks occurred while Moron Clinton was President. I didn't see thousands of people marching around chanting and protesting while Americans and friends of Americans died in terror attacks all through the 1990s while Moron Clinton was the President. I only see them marching around protesting when we in America respond with Force to Terrorism while George W. Bush is President. Tell me, Antti, why is that?
|
The Terrorists consider themselves to be At War with America and with the ideals of the secular West. And to the Terrorists, Terrorism is a useful tool toward achieving their goals. And to the Terrorists, Terrorism is a completely legitimate and valid tool even if they deliberately slaughter thousands of innocents, because they consider themselves to be At War with the West and because it's normal and understandable for civilians to be killed in Wartime. Therefore Terrorism is an ACT OF WAR. And we responded, quite rightly, with the recognition that yes, we are At War. And we responded, correctly, in the way that we rightfully should -- with military force. That's how Terrorism should be fought -- with tanks and planes and guns and bombs. Not with policemen, not with courts. Terrorism is not a "crime", it's an Act Of War.
|
But Moron Clinton and his Friends-of-Bill Brigades in Europe wrongly believed that Terrorism is a "crime". So what did Moron Clinton "do" about Terrorism? Nothing. That's why Europeans love Clinton. He did Nothing. They wanted Nothing done about Terrorism, and that's what he did - Nothing.
|
I don't like Antti Vainio because for his kind, WAR and people being murdered in Terror attacks = "peace", patriotic = "You must question and denounce your government", USA = " 'Required' to do what 'the world' wants", Terrorist = "misunderstood people with 'legitimate grievances' ".

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Antti Vainio in Finland: "The Brits showed that they are noble and enlightened".
|
Terrorists love "noble and enlightened" Brits. "Noble and enlightened" Brits are so much easier to Murder.
|
The Terrorists must be thinking, "Such a lovely little game we play here in England. We bomb subway stations, we slaughter these dumb uncomprehending Infidels. The Infidel police arrest a few of us. Then, the dumb Infidels grant us bail, they let us go. They don't allow torture, so therefore they get no information at all from us. They don't restrict our movements, they let us wander freely, so we can conveniently hatch more bomb plots and covertly conduct surveillance of more targets. Then, after the Infidel morons let our Jihadis out of jail, we launch more bombing attacks and kill more of these dumb Infidels, and the whole circle starts all over. Again, and Again, and Again. Of course, this could never happen in any Islamic country. In any Islamic country, we would be tortured into giving up all our secrets and then executed, never to Murder again. But of Course these dumb uncomprehending Infidels in England believe in "protecting our rights", so we will use this against them until we win."

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

I can just imagine the Terrorists' calm, contemplative discussions after the July 7 bombings in London:
|
"Brothers in Jihad: We will keep launching attacks on these British Infidels.... The unrelenting attacks will drive a wedge between the Infidels and their government. When the Infidels see that their government is Powerless to protect them, Powerless to stop us, they will not 'blame' us. They will blame their Infidel leader Blair. We will claim we are 'only responding to Western imperialism against Muslim lands and oil', and the sympathetic Use"fool" Idiot Infidels will helpfully rush to blame themselves, their country, their government and their own actions instead of blaming us."
"After a few more devastating attacks, we will make our next strategic move. As a gesture of 'goodwill', we will offer to cease attacks on Britain, if only the Infidel British pull their troops from Iraq. When the Infidel Blair refuses, we will seem 'reasonable' and 'moderate', while Blair will seem 'inflexible', 'dogmatic' and 'a poodle obeying his American Masters'. Thus, We Shall divide the Infidels from their leader. This is already happening, Oh Brothers. Already, two-thirds of the Infidels blame Blair for OUR attacks. Even the Infidel Mayor of London is offering 'reasons' for our attacks, and saying that 'Western policies' led to the subway bombings. Truly, Momentum is on Our side, Brothers."
|
"The British are weak and spineless Infidels, corrupted by alcohol and promoscuity. They have no stomach for fighting on their home ground. They will blame their Infidel leader for bringing our Holy Wrath of Allah down upon them. We have only to push a little harder, launch a few more attacks, kill more Infidels, and the British people will turn on Blair, unseat his Infidel government, and replace it with one more to our liking. Of course, they will say they are doing it 'for their own reasons', but the Results Shall Be The Same. This Infidel government will fall like a piece of rotten fruit. Thus, We Shall Win, just as we did in Madrid."

Mike, London

Phil:
If all Europe is anti-semitic because of historical instances in the past 1000 years, then all America is anti-black (slavery, segregation, Ku Klux Klan). See what I'm saying?

Lorenzo Lafontaine, Europe

Dear sir,
We are amazed to read how you keep making basic
analytical mistakes in the debate about transatlantic
relations.
The European press has reacted to your claim that
Europeans show a lot of "Schadenfreude" towards the
Americans nowadays (in the wake of Katrina). They
reacted by saying that you are not capable of making
basic distinctions between such Shadenfreude and well
founded critiques. Your reputation has now suffered a
serious blow, and you are no longer being regarded as
an intellectual - a quick overview of the media leaves
no doubt about that.
Europeans' critiques of the Bush administration and of
the American way of approaching international issues
are legitimate, serious, and well founded. There is no
Schadenfreude here. You keep defending the Bush
administration - even though there were no WMD, there
was no link between al-Qaeda, there was a serious
breach of international law, and even though there
were serious problems with the U.S. approach to the
Katrina disaster.
When our politicians point out these mistakes and
problems, in order to arrive at better strategies and
policy decisions, you act like a loyal
neo-conservative and call the critique
"Schadenfreude". This shows an extremely weak
intellectual fervor of your part.
We hope that you understand that brushing away the
world's critiques as "anti-Americanism" or
"Schadenfreude", adds to the problems the U.S. is
facing. What you write about Europeans does not
reflect Europeans' thoughts and attitudes (you might
want to check the new Transatlantic Trends which were
recently published), so we leave this entirely to your
judgement.
But we did expect a bit more nuance and intellectual
honesty from your part.
Anyway, your reputation has been tarnished, and that's
sad. We don't think this is a laughing matter...

Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Debate - Page 12/13