Originally Posted by NoahJ
Here is your post.The State Department was probably ordered by, or more likely, reminded by Israel to avoid the term explicitly reserved for Muslims and Arabs. ie. Do NOT wander off message.
Try not to wander off your own message. It was fairly clear, unless you are saying that you misspoke and really intended to say something else.
If you read my post, I did say... "more likely, reminded by...". Then perhaps I might have been even more specific, adding "more likely reminded by Israeli interests within the US government", as opposed to "Israel" itself. There is a huge difference between the state and people of Israel, and those who speak and act for it... (as there is with any nation)
Based on your first statement I wanted to clear up how this would work exactly. Israel does enjoy a protected status from the US. However, I don't believe that every policy regarding terrorism or security that is implemented revolves around them.
Well, thats arguable. Every US policy regarding terrorism doesn't as much "revolve around Israel", but most definitely *does*, as we have seen on multiple occasions in recent years, revolve around the religion of Islam, those who practice it, and Arabs. But since the Islamic faith, its adherents and Arabs are Israel's common enemy, then by extension one could say that the US government's policies on terrorism most certainly revolve around Israel. And since statistics indicate that Islamic terrorism, although a tangible threat, represents but a small proportion (<6%) of all terrorism cases, that further tells us that the 'war on terrorism', as pursued by successive US administrations from both (major) parties, is bogus: it *appears* on all counts to be more an agenda, with the mainstream media is full compliance to frame Islam and Arabs as a boogeyman, and an excuse to go to war against entire nations, than a genuine effort at preventing terrorism.
As an example which illustrates the absurdity of the situation with the so-called 'war on terrorism": The US went to war in Afghanistan, in the words of President George W. Bush, to "get Osama bin Laden". One man. The final words rom the White House, before the bombs started raining down, was: "We gave the Taliban a chance to hand him over and they refused". That, however, was an outright lie: the reality of this episode was that the Taliban was given an ultimatum to arrest bin Laden on account of the 9/11 attacks.. the they responded.. "give us your evidence that he was involved, and we'll get him". No response was forthcoming from the White House... as if it ever would. The Afghanistan war was already a done deal... but here we were sold the story that the US and an international coalition force attacked a sovereign nation to "get Osama bin Laden for 9/11", despite the fact that the FBI didn't want him for 9/11, and the Justice Department never indicted him for 9/11. So it looks as if the Taliban were essentially correct.... don't get me wrong... the Taliban IMHO are a bunch of fvckheads of the worst order.
And now we have one of the most vicious terrorist attacks in the last decade, targeting of all people, mostly defenseless kids who were sitting targets in the water desperately trying to swim to safety.. and the State Department carefully downgrades the atrocity to a "crime committed by a gunman". There's thousands of "crimes committed by gunmen" in the US every month, and presumably because this particularly heinous attack was carried out by a non-Muslim, or even more to the point, someone who hates Islam, to classify him as a "terrorist" is regarded as so far off message that a certain amount of damage control happened at State. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when they were deciding on the 'language' of the response.