<strong>Wow, my last post here completley disapeared. Thank yous to ScottH for showing us how easily racism can be hidden under so called "balenced arguments". </strong><hr></blockquote>
You're calling me a racist? Why? Because they are "different" and I am critical? Am I not allowed to criticize people of another race with out you using it as a tool to shut me up? But that's the truth of it isn't it? You read something you don't like and use the race card to shut the person up.
We're just ignorant of the rest of the world - we just don't care about the rest of the world, never think about it, don't even know it exists unless they bomb us or we bomb them.
We're pretty geographically isolated compared to Europe - some states are near Canada or Mexico, but for the most part our nearest neighbor is another state of the US, not another country. And while our big businesses have economic ties with lots of other countries, the average American's day-to-day life isn't much effected by what's going on outside the US.
We are defensive about criticism, though. I think it's because we don't care about other countries, and so we're surprised and shocked when someone criticizes us.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hummm? Lets see. Since 9-11 books on Islam, Middle-east, terrorist, bin laden and all that have skyrocketed in this country.
Now, let see, hummm... has the sale of books on the Christianity, the West, the US
skyrocketed in the middle east? I doubt it.
Of course after 9-11 criticism of our own country came from within our country. We are maybe the most self critical country in the world. And it was all published in the free press and read by many on the internet. Same thing happen in the middle east? No.
I will agree with The Toolboi about the racism underlying the article about the 'backward' countries. However we did not bomb Afghanistan on a whim. . . . it was the only measure available: our country was attacked and war was openly declared against us, there are times when measures that are "not nice" are needed, the murder of our civilians and the outright stated threat of continued murder is one of those times. America is a powerful country, but power is meaningless if we do nothing when we are killed in our own land.
[quote] when, on whim, the US decides to drop thousands of bombs on back water little country like Afghanistan because their leaders "endorsed the Al-Queda" (note: So did the US way back when).<hr></blockquote>
THey did not simply "endorse" Al Queda, the line between the two is very very blurry, and, clearly the Taliban were trying to play Al Queda's game and postpone what they thought we didn't have the courage to do: bomb them and mean it!
Also, your notions of the US support for the Taliban are wrong, We supported the Mujahadeen before the Taliban came into power in their fight against the Soviets . . . and even if it somhow were true, this is in no way would be relevant to what we should or should not do as measures of defense when war is declared upon us.
If we were being "nice" and carefull to the point of not risking the very regretable killing of civilians then this situation would be worse . . . worse in the long run and in the short: Al Queda would have won and the Muslim world would step further and further in line behind the idiotic radical ideas: and attacks would have been seen as worthwhile: resulting in more death, perhaps many many more --with nukes in the wrong hands.
Please prove to me that the culture and government of Saudi Arabia is not backward and corrupt.
Scott, let me point something out to you as you either seem to be missing it, or ignoring it with talk about Saudi Arabia (which, yes, is ****ed up).
[quote]Because their culture is backward and corrupt.
Why the Muslims Misjudged Us
They hate us because their culture is backward and corrupt<hr></blockquote>
This is not saying "Saudi Arabians", its saying Muslims.
You're calling me a racist? Why? Because they are "different" and I am critical? Am I not allowed to criticize people of another race with out you using it as a tool to shut me up? But that's the truth of it isn't it? You read something you don't like and use the race card to shut the person up
You talk about liberal knee jearking eh?
I said that what you posted was racist. I also was attempting to point out that the hatred building towards the middle east right now is similar to that of Europe before WW2 towards the jews. Granted we dont have a Hitler yet to take it to an extreme, but who knows, theres always Rugh Limbauge
As for this thing you posted, it is both racist and sickeningly patriotic, almost to the point of self obsession (beyond the simple "hail to the king baby!" ways of normal US culture).
Hummm? Lets see. Since 9-11 books on Islam, Middle-east, terrorist, bin laden and all that have skyrocketed in this country.
Now, let see, hummm... has the sale of books on the Christianity, the West, the US
skyrocketed in the middle east? I doubt it.
Thats beside the point. Americans always have been a rather inner-focused country, which is apparent in everything from their foreign policy to their daily lives.
Granted, not nearly as badly as some other countries, but for a nation that prides its self as the greatest country in the world...
However we did not bomb Afghanistan on a whim. . . . it was the only measure available: our country was attacked and war was openly declared against us, there are times when measures that are "not nice" are needed, the murder of our civilians and the outright stated threat of continued murder is one of those times.
I know what your saying, but I dis agree with one point: "it was the only measure available". For one, it wasnt a country that declared war on us, it was a terrorist group, and also many civilians that were killed were part of a country that never openly was AT war with the US. Remember, we are there to "not to fight the people but the terrorists".
and even if it somhow were true, this is in no way would be relevant to what we should or should not do as measures of defense when war is declared upon us.
Ok, time for deeper research. Any how, my point was that we supported them way back, and the now were attacking Afghanistan for supporting them (ok, maybe a little more than supporting them ). I do seem to remember reading though that it was the anti-communist support of the US that that swept in a new government for Afghanistan and in so doing brought in the Muslim fundementalists such as the AQ.
any how, we're WAY off the purpose of my post, which was to say that rather than hate Muslims perhaps we should look at why they hate us (and no, its not simply that they are a "corrupt and backwards society").
If we were being "nice" and carefull to the point of not risking the very regretable killing of civilians then this situation would be worse . . . worse in the long run and in the short: Al Queda would have won and the Muslim world would step further and further in line behind the idiotic radical ideas: and attacks would have been seen as worthwhile: resulting in more death, perhaps many many more --with nukes in the wrong hands.
Uhh... it might be this head cold not allowing me to read properly, but did you just say that avoiding the killing of civilians would equate the AQ winning? And where did nukes come in? Granted I havent been watching the news lately (nor any other TV), did they get their hands on some? Or is this hearsay?
Also, are you saying that in this case peaceful means would not work, and that the only way to do this would be with bombs?
Personally Id like to see the army go in and take the bases out, but I fear what kind of situations that would arise (black hawk down anyone?).
I find it funny that of all the casualties the US Army has had so far only one has NOT been from friendly fire
To quote Weird Al "Well Im trigger happy, trigger happy all of the time"
Oh, and sapi
the majority here is from the USA.
I hope this doesn't reflect their society.
Ive been saying this about AI for a while now
Also, its not that other countries hate the US, thats not so, but rather they hate the blatent US patriotism that convinces them that they are the best country in the world. Other people dont like to be told that they are second rate, and it seems to be a key part of american patriotism.
Other than that, I know that theres a lot of hatred towards the American government, though no more than towards the Canadian government. One example of this is over NAFTA, you know that due to this UPS was able to sue the Canadian government because the national Canadian postal service? Seems that being national (you know, government run) gave them and unfair advantage over UPS in Canada. But thats a little off topic, fun but off topic
[ 03-04-2002: Message edited by: The Toolboi ]</p>
and to go further on this; I'm shocked in how you guys generalize by saying muslims hate us, muslim culture is backward and corrupt, muslims etc.. you guys, and you too Scott, do seem to think muslims are all the same in their way of dealing with islam and what they think of the USA.
with your eductation (especially you Scott) you should be more open minded and more looking at facts with your head instead of your hart (but maybe you're too scared, which I can also understand BTW)
pfflam: Good post, I agree with most of what your saying. AND: I do have a lot of love for the US. I love NYC, the MAC, hiphop, jazz & funk... You know that!
I do wonder why the US keeps on making alliences and backing undemocratic regims all over the world ( right now: Saudi Arabia and a LOT of former Soviet republics... We all know last weeks good allies).
Scott: Internet is available in the middle-east, INTER NET - get it?
I do wonder why the US keeps on making alliences and backing undemocratic regims all over the world ( right now: Saudi Arabia and a LOT of former Soviet republics... We all know last weeks good allies).
Same reason why other countries do the EXACT same thing... it suits them at that time and that place.
[quote]...but rather they hate the blatent US patriotism that convinces them that they are the best country in the world.<hr></blockquote>
And patriotism is so wrong? That is, plainly stated, a pretty stupid thing to say. Everyone is entitled to be patriotic.
Anyway, I still have one question: what should we have done after 9-11? All we do is wrong. Seems to be the general pattern of morality is this: People kill Americans: "You had it coming!" American kill the people who are trying to kill us: "Murderers! Warmongers! Aroogant SOBs!" The next move in this little game of checkers (this isn't chess by any stretch) is: Americans are killed, and "you had it coming!"
Bunch of hypocrites defending murderers and chastising the US for protecting its people. (and I don't mean Muslims, but I think that point has been lost -- people read what they weant to read, not what's written)
I havebeen in contact with someone who is working with foreign exchange students here in the states: it seems that they are all absolutely blown away at what they see as an absurd amount of completely un-ironic flag waving patriotism. Something which they equate with only ultra-nationalism and border-line fascism back home in their countries.
I tend to think that it is less such an extreme situation, considering the recent tragedy, however if it continues to go on un-reflectively in the flag waving direction I too will have to agree that it might start to portend a really ugly political attitude. A little sense of togetherness, an acknowledgement of a shared history and dilemma at least, is OK, but, I could imagine that if it gets too symbolic and unreflective for too long it will start to create an environment hostile to America itself and other countries and people as well . . . .
and now this:
[quote] but did you just say that avoiding the killing of civilians would equate the AQ winning? <hr></blockquote>
yes, I daid too much caution, meaning not going in to stop the AQ because of fear that we may hurt civilians would have resulted in two forms of their winning:
1. they would have succeeded in the largest PR stunt in history, making the US appear weak and thereby allowing the allure of their brand of fanaticism to shine without contest. They would grow, and, even other Islamic states would see the merit in their hate, but more imporantly, they would have much more time and the development or acquisition of deadlier weapons would just be a natural progression
2. They would still exist and no measure of diplomacy would have made them go away.
[quote] Also, are you saying that in this case peaceful means would not work, and that the only way to do this would be with bombs?<hr></blockquote>
If by this you are asking if I am talking about the US using nukes then I am emphatically NOT saying that!!
but,
If you are asking: do I think that if we used peacefull means of shutting down the Al Queda and not bombers, would we have failed? then yes, I am saying that: we needed to bomb otherwise Al Queda would still exist and in the long run it would be worse for everybody on the entire globe.
As for over-patriotism: I think that many non Americans might be surprised that us Americans can have a healthy sceptisism in relation to that phenomena: and that many of us are also aware of how arrogant the US can seem to be.
And patriotism is so wrong? That is, plainly stated, a pretty stupid thing to say. Everyone is entitled to be patriotic.
Ok, let me rephrase this, its not the over the top stuff, eg. most of that paper that Scott posted. Quite frankly if you see your self as the symbol of democracy and freedom you are being egotistical. This is the image that the US portrays to the rest of the world.
Now granted I know a lot of Americans (I am American my self) who dont think that this is true, but its still the image that American media and press makes, and it is a fact that it is that very same press that has spread its roots (or in this case cable lines) all over the world.
Pfflam, you and your friend are touching on exactly what Im talking about.
they would have succeeded in the largest PR stunt in history, making the US appear weak and thereby allowing the allure of their brand of fanaticism to shine without contest
Eh? Is this one of those superiority complex over insecurity things? No one sees the states as weaker because of what happened.
As for the bombs, to each their own. If you beleive in creating peave by killing people, I wont argue with you.
[quote] Eh? Is this one of those superiority complex over insecurity things? No one sees the states as weaker because of what happened.<hr></blockquote>
No.. what OBL wanted to have happen was that we would react but would hesitate because of fears of world and public reactions. But we would have responded but feebly, thus it would appear that OBL and the Al Queda need not fear that they were doing something with real consequences to themselves and to their ideals. It would be seen as semi-legitimizing what they believe by not emphatically reacting with all available force. Besides the fact that it would stop further action and recruitment for further actions.
One thing I feel it is necessary to point out, I am usually very pacifistic in my perspectives --I usally believe in non-violence, this is a situation that demanded immediate and swift action and postponing it by arguing endlessly with Omar's spokesman would have merely allowed things to get worse in all the manners that I have touched on already.
Most Arabs see Israel quite fairly as no better than terrorists. Many hate America for their support. If America came out and said Israel as much to blame in this as anybody else progress might get made. Unfortunately people see America as unfairly supporting Israel and they are correct America does.
Nothing to do with any jealousy just the fact it is hard to like a country that knowingly targets innocents in retaliation to strikes by extremists.
[quote]Originally posted by Outsider:
<strong>Also, they don't like how foreign people are constantly in their muslim and holy territory. They just want to be isolated. I don't know why this is so much to ask for. But primarily, it is because of Israel.
Uh, land isn't holy. Maybe if you pray to the boogey man 5 times a day he should be able to protect you from the evil west instead of starving their own people because of their own GREED. They want to be isolated? They're xenophobic? So they DON'T want any of our sweet sweet money huh? I don't buy that one bit. They're USERS. They use us to get rich. But only very few get rich. The rest live in putrid poverty that should make us all ashamed. Do they help their own people? Nope and they get mad at US when we try! </strong><hr></blockquote>
Ironically your post illustrates well one of the reasons Amercia is so hated, hypocrisy.
No such thing as holy land? Ever tried to arrange development on Indian lands? In Australia, where I am originally from, a huge amount of effort goes into discussions for development if it will effect Aboriginal holy lands. Every country virtually has sacred and holy areas.
Before we get into poverty do you even know the number of people in the US below the poverty line? Are you even aware of how many people control the majority of the wealth in America?
Ironically it is America that has money and capitalism at it's very heart. America is the one who has placed the dollar at its very heart.
So they want to be isolationalist, that is their right. Who are you to say they shouldn't be permitted to?
[quote]Originally posted by Outsider:
<strong>That's middle east graditude! I'm sick of these children. They're irrational, petty zealots. If these idiots are so infused with peace why can't they find a peaceful solution?? Because they are all full of bologna! End of story. That's all she wrote.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This cracked me up it really did. More civilian lives have been lost in Afghanistan from American bombings than all the lives lost in the World Trade Center collapse.
You insult Arabs for not talking about peace yet it is America that is leading the war. As the King of Jordan stated, perhaps America should look at their what in their foreign policy is causing this hatred before they go to war.
Well, the "Blame America Crowd" (tm) is in full swing here. "If only the US would do this and not do that then there would be no problem or things would be much better"
No such thing as holy land? Ever tried to arrange development on Indian lands? In Australia, where I am originally from, a huge amount of effort goes into discussions for development if it will effect Aboriginal holy lands. Every country virtually has sacred and holy areas.
Doesn't change my view that land is property and fighting over how holy it is is absurd. These things are best left in the middle ages.
Before we get into poverty do you even know the number of people in the US below the poverty line? Are you even aware of how many people control the majority of the wealth in America?
Are YOU aware or were you not even willing to pull some numbers out of your *** ? I'll give you some numbers. According to this little known group <a href="http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty00/table5.html"; target="_blank">US Cencus Burough</a> the percent of people in the US below the poverty level is between 10 and 18% depending on if you include certain taxes taken after wages. Here's a <a href="http://www.ibge.gov.br/poverty/santiago.htm"; target="_blank">site</a> that shows we are about average with other industrial capitalist nations. <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_906000/906238.stm"; target="_blank">This</a> is interesting too.
And can you tell me the breakdown of people that control the majoraty of the wealth in the US? I doubt it's anything like Saudi Arabia, or Iran, or even pray tell , Iraq.
Ironically it is America that has money and capitalism at it's very heart. America is the one who has placed the dollar at its very heart.
Yeah? Cry me a river. It's the whole idea behind capitalism; work hard and you get more money. People are going to love money even if they live somewhere where they cannot acheive it. Then they either move here to the US, Europe or Japan or pout and bitch at the US and the money hungry Americans. Thats a reason why communism can't work in practice. People are always going to want more. But that's human nature, to aquire all that you can so you feel secure.
So they want to be isolationalist, that is their right. Who are you to say they shouldn't be permitted to?
I never said it's not their right. But if they were truly isolationalist they wouldn't be emmigrating to other countries to blow stuff up.
first Communism doesn't work because it is founded on an idea of what Human Nature is
Capitalism seems to work better than other systems because it has no fixed notion of what human nature is: it allows for the open re-expression of humanity --when practiced within balanced proportions whose goals are to maintain that openness.
also, I think that you revealed, unknowingly, something that shows what is truly awfull in the too doctinaire embrace of Capitalism, namely that it reduces all objects and values to commodity exchange values, when you said:
"Doesn't change my view that land is property"
If everything is only commodity value then your notion that human nature is also this kind of fixed quotient is just as bad as Communism's intrinsicly Totalitarian ideology --only its a Totalitarianism of the Commodity value.
first Communism doesn't work because it is founded on an idea of what Human Nature is</strong><hr></blockquote>
Huh? If so, the idea is wrong. I mean, I could have the idea that you have two heads and speak fluent Gaelic but if I based too many decisions on that idea I probably wouldn't be very successful. Maybe that's the problem with Communism! Anything in Das Kapital about Gaelic?
I knew I'd get flack for that comment but let me explain and hopefully it won't come off as back peddling. In nature, as we all know, animals mark their territories by what ever means; spraying, clawing, etc.. As higher animals we humans tend to be posessive of not only other humans but also of inanimate objects, such as forks, PDA's, cars, property, etc. I know land belongs to 'mother earth' or what ever and we as humans are arrogant to think we can posess something as all encompassing as land, but... tell that to all the countries out there! In this world land is owned by someone until someone bigger comes along and clubs the other over the head and takes it away. Or until Captain Pickard comes from the future and makes a utopian society.
Comments
<strong>Wow, my last post here completley disapeared. Thank yous to ScottH for showing us how easily racism can be hidden under so called "balenced arguments". </strong><hr></blockquote>
You're calling me a racist? Why? Because they are "different" and I am critical? Am I not allowed to criticize people of another race with out you using it as a tool to shut me up? But that's the truth of it isn't it? You read something you don't like and use the race card to shut the person up.
<strong>We don't. Well, maybe some do (ahem).
We're just ignorant of the rest of the world - we just don't care about the rest of the world, never think about it, don't even know it exists unless they bomb us or we bomb them.
We're pretty geographically isolated compared to Europe - some states are near Canada or Mexico, but for the most part our nearest neighbor is another state of the US, not another country. And while our big businesses have economic ties with lots of other countries, the average American's day-to-day life isn't much effected by what's going on outside the US.
We are defensive about criticism, though. I think it's because we don't care about other countries, and so we're surprised and shocked when someone criticizes us.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hummm? Lets see. Since 9-11 books on Islam, Middle-east, terrorist, bin laden and all that have skyrocketed in this country.
Now, let see, hummm... has the sale of books on the Christianity, the West, the US
skyrocketed in the middle east? I doubt it.
Of course after 9-11 criticism of our own country came from within our country. We are maybe the most self critical country in the world. And it was all published in the free press and read by many on the internet. Same thing happen in the middle east? No.
[ 03-03-2002: Message edited by: Scott H. ]</p>
[quote] when, on whim, the US decides to drop thousands of bombs on back water little country like Afghanistan because their leaders "endorsed the Al-Queda" (note: So did the US way back when).<hr></blockquote>
THey did not simply "endorse" Al Queda, the line between the two is very very blurry, and, clearly the Taliban were trying to play Al Queda's game and postpone what they thought we didn't have the courage to do: bomb them and mean it!
Also, your notions of the US support for the Taliban are wrong, We supported the Mujahadeen before the Taliban came into power in their fight against the Soviets . . . and even if it somhow were true, this is in no way would be relevant to what we should or should not do as measures of defense when war is declared upon us.
If we were being "nice" and carefull to the point of not risking the very regretable killing of civilians then this situation would be worse . . . worse in the long run and in the short: Al Queda would have won and the Muslim world would step further and further in line behind the idiotic radical ideas: and attacks would have been seen as worthwhile: resulting in more death, perhaps many many more --with nukes in the wrong hands.
<strong>
They hate us because their culture is backward and corrupt
Seriously folks. This is the same type of blatent racism that was practiced by the Nazis in WW2.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Please prove to me that the culture and government of Saudi Arabia is not backward and corrupt.
Scott, let me point something out to you as you either seem to be missing it, or ignoring it with talk about Saudi Arabia (which, yes, is ****ed up).
[quote]Because their culture is backward and corrupt.
Why the Muslims Misjudged Us
They hate us because their culture is backward and corrupt<hr></blockquote>
This is not saying "Saudi Arabians", its saying Muslims.
You're calling me a racist? Why? Because they are "different" and I am critical? Am I not allowed to criticize people of another race with out you using it as a tool to shut me up? But that's the truth of it isn't it? You read something you don't like and use the race card to shut the person up
You talk about liberal knee jearking eh?
I said that what you posted was racist. I also was attempting to point out that the hatred building towards the middle east right now is similar to that of Europe before WW2 towards the jews. Granted we dont have a Hitler yet to take it to an extreme, but who knows, theres always Rugh Limbauge
As for this thing you posted, it is both racist and sickeningly patriotic, almost to the point of self obsession (beyond the simple "hail to the king baby!" ways of normal US culture).
Hummm? Lets see. Since 9-11 books on Islam, Middle-east, terrorist, bin laden and all that have skyrocketed in this country.
Now, let see, hummm... has the sale of books on the Christianity, the West, the US
skyrocketed in the middle east? I doubt it.
Thats beside the point. Americans always have been a rather inner-focused country, which is apparent in everything from their foreign policy to their daily lives.
Granted, not nearly as badly as some other countries, but for a nation that prides its self as the greatest country in the world...
However we did not bomb Afghanistan on a whim. . . . it was the only measure available: our country was attacked and war was openly declared against us, there are times when measures that are "not nice" are needed, the murder of our civilians and the outright stated threat of continued murder is one of those times.
I know what your saying, but I dis agree with one point: "it was the only measure available". For one, it wasnt a country that declared war on us, it was a terrorist group, and also many civilians that were killed were part of a country that never openly was AT war with the US. Remember, we are there to "not to fight the people but the terrorists".
and even if it somhow were true, this is in no way would be relevant to what we should or should not do as measures of defense when war is declared upon us.
Ok, time for deeper research. Any how, my point was that we supported them way back, and the now were attacking Afghanistan for supporting them (ok, maybe a little more than supporting them
any how, we're WAY off the purpose of my post, which was to say that rather than hate Muslims perhaps we should look at why they hate us (and no, its not simply that they are a "corrupt and backwards society").
If we were being "nice" and carefull to the point of not risking the very regretable killing of civilians then this situation would be worse . . . worse in the long run and in the short: Al Queda would have won and the Muslim world would step further and further in line behind the idiotic radical ideas: and attacks would have been seen as worthwhile: resulting in more death, perhaps many many more --with nukes in the wrong hands.
Uhh... it might be this head cold not allowing me to read properly, but did you just say that avoiding the killing of civilians would equate the AQ winning? And where did nukes come in? Granted I havent been watching the news lately (nor any other TV), did they get their hands on some? Or is this hearsay?
Also, are you saying that in this case peaceful means would not work, and that the only way to do this would be with bombs?
Personally Id like to see the army go in and take the bases out, but I fear what kind of situations that would arise (black hawk down anyone?).
I find it funny that of all the casualties the US Army has had so far only one has NOT been from friendly fire
To quote Weird Al "Well Im trigger happy, trigger happy all of the time"
Oh, and sapi
the majority here is from the USA.
I hope this doesn't reflect their society.
Ive been saying this about AI for a while now
Also, its not that other countries hate the US, thats not so, but rather they hate the blatent US patriotism that convinces them that they are the best country in the world. Other people dont like to be told that they are second rate, and it seems to be a key part of american patriotism.
Other than that, I know that theres a lot of hatred towards the American government, though no more than towards the Canadian government. One example of this is over NAFTA, you know that due to this UPS was able to sue the Canadian government because the national Canadian postal service? Seems that being national (you know, government run) gave them and unfair advantage over UPS in Canada. But thats a little off topic, fun but off topic
[ 03-04-2002: Message edited by: The Toolboi ]</p>
with your eductation (especially you Scott) you should be more open minded and more looking at facts with your head instead of your hart (but maybe you're too scared, which I can also understand BTW)
[ 03-04-2002: Message edited by: sapi ]</p>
I do wonder why the US keeps on making alliences and backing undemocratic regims all over the world ( right now: Saudi Arabia and a LOT of former Soviet republics... We all know last weeks good allies).
Scott: Internet is available in the middle-east, INTER NET - get it?
Same reason why other countries do the EXACT same thing... it suits them at that time and that place.
I thought that that was the POINT of my post
Man, I really need to learn t ostay on my specific argument instead of branching off
And patriotism is so wrong? That is, plainly stated, a pretty stupid thing to say. Everyone is entitled to be patriotic.
Anyway, I still have one question: what should we have done after 9-11? All we do is wrong. Seems to be the general pattern of morality is this: People kill Americans: "You had it coming!" American kill the people who are trying to kill us: "Murderers! Warmongers! Aroogant SOBs!" The next move in this little game of checkers (this isn't chess by any stretch) is: Americans are killed, and "you had it coming!"
Bunch of hypocrites defending murderers and chastising the US for protecting its people. (and I don't mean Muslims, but I think that point has been lost -- people read what they weant to read, not what's written)
I tend to think that it is less such an extreme situation, considering the recent tragedy, however if it continues to go on un-reflectively in the flag waving direction I too will have to agree that it might start to portend a really ugly political attitude. A little sense of togetherness, an acknowledgement of a shared history and dilemma at least, is OK, but, I could imagine that if it gets too symbolic and unreflective for too long it will start to create an environment hostile to America itself and other countries and people as well . . . .
and now this:
[quote] but did you just say that avoiding the killing of civilians would equate the AQ winning? <hr></blockquote>
yes, I daid too much caution, meaning not going in to stop the AQ because of fear that we may hurt civilians would have resulted in two forms of their winning:
1. they would have succeeded in the largest PR stunt in history, making the US appear weak and thereby allowing the allure of their brand of fanaticism to shine without contest. They would grow, and, even other Islamic states would see the merit in their hate, but more imporantly, they would have much more time and the development or acquisition of deadlier weapons would just be a natural progression
2. They would still exist and no measure of diplomacy would have made them go away.
[quote] Also, are you saying that in this case peaceful means would not work, and that the only way to do this would be with bombs?<hr></blockquote>
If by this you are asking if I am talking about the US using nukes then I am emphatically NOT saying that!!
but,
If you are asking: do I think that if we used peacefull means of shutting down the Al Queda and not bombers, would we have failed? then yes, I am saying that: we needed to bomb otherwise Al Queda would still exist and in the long run it would be worse for everybody on the entire globe.
As for over-patriotism: I think that many non Americans might be surprised that us Americans can have a healthy sceptisism in relation to that phenomena: and that many of us are also aware of how arrogant the US can seem to be.
AND
at the same time still love our country
. . . I also love other countries too...
[ 03-05-2002: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
Ok, let me rephrase this, its not the over the top stuff, eg. most of that paper that Scott posted. Quite frankly if you see your self as the symbol of democracy and freedom you are being egotistical. This is the image that the US portrays to the rest of the world.
Now granted I know a lot of Americans (I am American my self) who dont think that this is true, but its still the image that American media and press makes, and it is a fact that it is that very same press that has spread its roots (or in this case cable lines) all over the world.
Pfflam, you and your friend are touching on exactly what Im talking about.
they would have succeeded in the largest PR stunt in history, making the US appear weak and thereby allowing the allure of their brand of fanaticism to shine without contest
Eh? Is this one of those superiority complex over insecurity things? No one sees the states as weaker because of what happened.
As for the bombs, to each their own. If you beleive in creating peave by killing people, I wont argue with you.
No.. what OBL wanted to have happen was that we would react but would hesitate because of fears of world and public reactions. But we would have responded but feebly, thus it would appear that OBL and the Al Queda need not fear that they were doing something with real consequences to themselves and to their ideals. It would be seen as semi-legitimizing what they believe by not emphatically reacting with all available force. Besides the fact that it would stop further action and recruitment for further actions.
One thing I feel it is necessary to point out, I am usually very pacifistic in my perspectives --I usally believe in non-violence, this is a situation that demanded immediate and swift action and postponing it by arguing endlessly with Omar's spokesman would have merely allowed things to get worse in all the manners that I have touched on already.
Nothing to do with any jealousy just the fact it is hard to like a country that knowingly targets innocents in retaliation to strikes by extremists.
[quote]Originally posted by Outsider:
<strong>Also, they don't like how foreign people are constantly in their muslim and holy territory. They just want to be isolated. I don't know why this is so much to ask for. But primarily, it is because of Israel.
Uh, land isn't holy. Maybe if you pray to the boogey man 5 times a day he should be able to protect you from the evil west instead of starving their own people because of their own GREED. They want to be isolated? They're xenophobic? So they DON'T want any of our sweet sweet money huh? I don't buy that one bit. They're USERS. They use us to get rich. But only very few get rich. The rest live in putrid poverty that should make us all ashamed. Do they help their own people? Nope and they get mad at US when we try! </strong><hr></blockquote>
Ironically your post illustrates well one of the reasons Amercia is so hated, hypocrisy.
No such thing as holy land? Ever tried to arrange development on Indian lands? In Australia, where I am originally from, a huge amount of effort goes into discussions for development if it will effect Aboriginal holy lands. Every country virtually has sacred and holy areas.
Before we get into poverty do you even know the number of people in the US below the poverty line? Are you even aware of how many people control the majority of the wealth in America?
Ironically it is America that has money and capitalism at it's very heart. America is the one who has placed the dollar at its very heart.
So they want to be isolationalist, that is their right. Who are you to say they shouldn't be permitted to?
[quote]Originally posted by Outsider:
<strong>That's middle east graditude! I'm sick of these children. They're irrational, petty zealots. If these idiots are so infused with peace why can't they find a peaceful solution?? Because they are all full of bologna! End of story. That's all she wrote.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This cracked me up it really did. More civilian lives have been lost in Afghanistan from American bombings than all the lives lost in the World Trade Center collapse.
You insult Arabs for not talking about peace yet it is America that is leading the war. As the King of Jordan stated, perhaps America should look at their what in their foreign policy is causing this hatred before they go to war.
Too many Americans are hypocrites
[ 03-07-2002: Message edited by: Telomar ]</p>
Crap. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
Let's do everything we can to deflect blame from where it belongs.
Doesn't change my view that land is property and fighting over how holy it is is absurd. These things are best left in the middle ages.
Before we get into poverty do you even know the number of people in the US below the poverty line? Are you even aware of how many people control the majority of the wealth in America?
Are YOU aware or were you not even willing to pull some numbers out of your *** ? I'll give you some numbers. According to this little known group <a href="http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty00/table5.html"; target="_blank">US Cencus Burough</a> the percent of people in the US below the poverty level is between 10 and 18% depending on if you include certain taxes taken after wages. Here's a <a href="http://www.ibge.gov.br/poverty/santiago.htm"; target="_blank">site</a> that shows we are about average with other industrial capitalist nations. <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_906000/906238.stm"; target="_blank">This</a> is interesting too.
And can you tell me the breakdown of people that control the majoraty of the wealth in the US? I doubt it's anything like Saudi Arabia, or Iran, or even pray tell , Iraq.
Ironically it is America that has money and capitalism at it's very heart. America is the one who has placed the dollar at its very heart.
Yeah? Cry me a river. It's the whole idea behind capitalism; work hard and you get more money. People are going to love money even if they live somewhere where they cannot acheive it. Then they either move here to the US, Europe or Japan or pout and bitch at the US and the money hungry Americans. Thats a reason why communism can't work in practice. People are always going to want more. But that's human nature, to aquire all that you can so you feel secure.
So they want to be isolationalist, that is their right. Who are you to say they shouldn't be permitted to?
I never said it's not their right. But if they were truly isolationalist they wouldn't be emmigrating to other countries to blow stuff up.
first Communism doesn't work because it is founded on an idea of what Human Nature is
Capitalism seems to work better than other systems because it has no fixed notion of what human nature is: it allows for the open re-expression of humanity --when practiced within balanced proportions whose goals are to maintain that openness.
also, I think that you revealed, unknowingly, something that shows what is truly awfull in the too doctinaire embrace of Capitalism, namely that it reduces all objects and values to commodity exchange values, when you said:
"Doesn't change my view that land is property"
If everything is only commodity value then your notion that human nature is also this kind of fixed quotient is just as bad as Communism's intrinsicly Totalitarian ideology --only its a Totalitarianism of the Commodity value.
<strong>
first Communism doesn't work because it is founded on an idea of what Human Nature is</strong><hr></blockquote>
Huh? If so, the idea is wrong. I mean, I could have the idea that you have two heads and speak fluent Gaelic but if I based too many decisions on that idea I probably wouldn't be very successful. Maybe that's the problem with Communism! Anything in Das Kapital about Gaelic?
I knew I'd get flack for that comment but let me explain and hopefully it won't come off as back peddling. In nature, as we all know, animals mark their territories by what ever means; spraying, clawing, etc.. As higher animals we humans tend to be posessive of not only other humans but also of inanimate objects, such as forks, PDA's, cars, property, etc. I know land belongs to 'mother earth' or what ever and we as humans are arrogant to think we can posess something as all encompassing as land, but... tell that to all the countries out there! In this world land is owned by someone until someone bigger comes along and clubs the other over the head and takes it away. Or until Captain Pickard comes from the future and makes a utopian society.