Anti-Americanism

Tony Parsons - UK Daily Mirror September 11, 2002

No matter what your views on President Bush's statement of upcoming war, this is from an English journalist, is very interesting.
Just a word of background, for those of you who aren't familiar with the UK's Daily Mirror. This is a notoriously left-wing daily that is normally not supportive of the Colonials across the Atlantic.

ONE year ago, the world witnessed a unique kind of broadcasting -- the mass murder of thousands, live on television. As a lesson in the pitiless cruelty of the human race, September 11 was up there with Pol Pot's mountain of skulls in Cambodia, or the skeletal bodies stacked like garbage in the Nazi concentration camps.
An unspeakable act so cruel, so calculated and so utterly merciless that surely the world could agree on one thing - nobody deserves this fate. Surely there could be consensus: the victims were truly innocent, the perpetrators truly evil.

But to the world's eternal shame, 9/11 is increasingly seen as America's comeuppance. Incredibly, anti-Americanism has increased over the last year. There has always been a simmering resentment to the USA in this country - too loud, too rich, too full of themselves and so much happier than Europeans - but it has become an epidemic. And it seems incredible to me. More than that, it turns my stomach.

America is this country's greatest friend and our staunchest ally. We are bonded to the US by culture, language and blood. A little over half a century ago, around half a million Americans died for our freedoms, as well as their own. Have we forgotten so soon? And exactly a year ago, thousands of ordinary men, women and children - not just Americans, but from dozens of countries - were butchered by a small group of religious fanatics. Are we so quick to betray them?

What touched the heart about those who died in the twin towers and on the planes was that we recognised them. Young fathers and mothers, somebody's son and somebody's daughter, husbands and wives, and children, some unborn.

And these people brought it on themselves? And their nation is to blame for their meticulously planned slaughter?

These days you don't have to be some dust-encrusted nut job in Kabul or Karachi or Finsbury Park to see America as the Great Satan. The anti- American alliance is made up of self-loathing liberals who blame the Americans for every ill in the Third World, and conservatives suffering from power-envy, bitter that the world's only superpower can do what it likes without having to ask permission.

The truth is that America has behaved with enormous restraint since September 11.

Remember, remember.

Remember the gut-wrenching tapes of weeping men phoning their wives to say, "I love you," before they were burned alive.

Remember those people leaping to their deaths from the top of burning skyscrapers.

Remember the hundreds of firemen buried alive.

Remember the smiling face of that beautiful little girl who was on one of the planes with her mum.

Remember, remember - and realise that America has never retaliated for 9/11 in anything like the way it could have.

So a few al-Qaeda tourists got locked without a trial in Camp X-ray? Pass the Kleenex.

So some Afghan wedding receptions were shot up after they merrily fired their semi-automatics in a sky full of American planes? A shame, but maybe next time they should stick to confetti.

AMERICA could have turned a large chunk of the world into a parking lot. That it didn't is a sign of strength. American voices are already being raised against attacking Iraq - that's what a democracy is for. How many in the Islamic world will have a minute's silence for the slaughtered innocents of 9/11? How many Islamic leaders will have the guts to say that the mass murder of 9/11 was an abomination?

When the news of 9/11 broke on the West Bank, those freedom-loving Palestinians were dancing in the street. America watched all of that - and didn't push the button. We should thank the stars that America is the most powerful nation in the world. I still find it incredible that 9/11 did not provoke all-out war. Not a "war on terrorism." A real war.

The fundamentalist dudes are talking about "opening the gates of hell," if America attacks Iraq. Well, America could have opened the gates of hell like you wouldn't believe.

The US is the most militarily powerful nation that ever strode the face of the earth. The campaign in Afghanistan may have been less than perfect and the planned war on Iraq may be misconceived.

But don't blame America for not bringing peace and light to these wretched countries. How many democracies are there in the Middle East, or in the Muslim world? You can count them on the fingers of one hand - assuming you haven't had any chopped off for minor shoplifting.

I love America, yet America is hated. I guess that makes me Bush's poodle. But I would rather be a dog in New York City than a Prince in Riyadh. Above all, America is hated because it is what every country wants to be - rich, free, strong, open, optimistic. Not ground down by the past, or religion, or some caste system. America is the best friend this country ever had and we should start remembering that.

Or do you really think the USA is the root of all evil? Tell it to the loved ones of the men and women who leaped to their death from the burning towers. Tell it to the nursing mothers whose husbands died on one of the hijacked planes, or were ripped apart in a collapsing skyscraper. And tell it to the hundreds of young widows whose husbands worked for the New York Fire Department.

To our shame, George Bush gets a worse press than Saddam Hussein. Once we were told that Saddam gassed the Kurds, tortured his own people and set up rape-camps in Kuwait. Now we are told he likes Quality Street. Save me the orange centre, oh mighty one!

Remember, remember, September 11.

One of the greatest atrocities in human history was committed against America.

No, do more than remember. Never forget.

The above is a repost from Aikido Journal, it really got me thinking about why there is so much opposition to the war. I suspect that it has more to do with political agendas rather than the war itself. Think about it, every day that attention is given to terrorism and Iraq, other political causes don't get as much publicity. This might not be the only reason but I am sure it plays a big part.

I find the current wave of Anti-Americanism callous, politically motivated, and generated from hate-filled envy.

'Think about it, every day that attention is given to terrorism and Iraq, other political causes don't get as much publicity'

Agreed. And who exactly is calling attention to that whilst getting away with mass slaughter of innocents, violating oslo accords, violating human rights, skirting problems in its economy, and etc.

Does Iraq want to be in the mess they are in? Are they trying to wag the dog? More likely your president is the one who needs this war more then anyone else in this world.

'the mass murder of thousands, live on television. As a lesson in the pitiless cruelty of the human race, September 11 was up there with Pol Pot's mountain of skulls in Cambodia, or the skeletal bodies stacked like garbage in the Nazi concentration camps.

An unspeakable act so cruel, so calculated and so utterly merciless that surely the world could agree on one thing - nobody deserves this fate. Surely there could be consensus: the victims were truly innocent, the perpetrators truly evil. '

Putting it up there among the nazi camps is really pushing it. How many died there in the towers exactly? 4,5 thousand? I'm not saying those lives don't mean anything... but put it into context here ok. How many ppl died in the nazi camps? hundreds of thousands... do the maths. And oh yeah, how many died in afghanistan? in Iraq since having economic sanctions for the past 10 years? in Sudan? in iraq alone, 500 thousand children died as a direct result of american actions.

When exactly did anti americanism arise? Before this, no one in the world despised the US aside from the communists governed countries i suppose. after the cold war, i guess US had to create more enemies in order to justify its billion/trillion dollar defense spending.

Actually, the figure for the death camps is 6 million Jews plus I don't now how many non-Jews. The gypsies as a people were virtually wiped out. Vast numbers of homosexuals were interred, as were many poles and other slavs. There were also people who got to the camps for political reasons.

I've never understood why the sanctions are blamed on the U.S. instead of on Iraq, personally.

again, where is this "mass slaughter of innocents"?

Putting it up there among the nazi camps is really pushing it. How many died there in the towers exactly? 4,5 thousand? I'm not saying those lives don't mean anything... but put it into context here ok. How many ppl died in the nazi camps? hundreds of thousands... do the maths. And oh yeah, how many died in afghanistan? in Iraq since having economic sanctions for the past 10 years? in Sudan? in iraq alone, 500 thousand children died as a direct result of american actions.

That is 4 or 5 thousand (civilians not combatants)in one day. People are not dying due to American actions, they dying due to the actions of ruthless and cruel dictators and madmen.

George Bush did not create September 11th, there is no way that you can claim that he is wagging the dog when his intentions have been clear about Iraq for well over a year. If he were all of a sudden caught in some kind of scandal then he, out of nowhere, decided to attack Iraq then you would have a point, but this is not the case.

There has been a noticeable tendency for the administration to push the Iraq agenda more fiercely when other, difficult items where making them uncomfortable. They also seemed to time some of their announcements vis a vis Iraq in a way that was sensitive to the timing of the elections. I'm not sure if this is considering legitimate use of timing or 'wagging the dog.'

There are always difficult items that make an administration unconfortable on a daily basis, this is not reallly comparable to - lets say the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Regarding the elections, sure, I think raising the issue of Iraq during an election is a prefectly legitimate, if he went to war a few days before the election then I would see your point. I sure saw the other party leadership try to make an issue out of it then back down when the polls did not favor their point of view. Is it ok for one to make an issue out of it and not another?

As I said before, Bush made it clear since his last State of the Union address that Iraq was going to be one of his top priorities. As we all know, we will be going to war shortly, what is the big suprise about Iraq being the main subject at the White House?

Anyway, how are you Opher? It has been a while.

'again, where is this "mass slaughter of innocents"?'

I thought I've been posting it... I don't know how you keep missing it.

How many people died in Afghanistan. Of those tens of thousands... were they all terrorists? Most of them were soldiers of Afghanistan. A lot of them were civilians. Definitely a lot more then the civilians who died in 9/11.

That's the recent example. Like it or not, US either directly or indirectly by means of the after effects of war (loss of employment, loss of family, infrastructure, etc), economic sanctions and etc are contributing to the loss of lives and degradation of human living in those countries attacked by it. (Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq and etc).

God man... US is a bloody big country. 80% of each state's residents don't even explore beyond their state much less the world. Why is it that US is fighting and putting their bases on all corners of the world? Is it trying to conquer the world? Are you running out of resources? Fresh water? Clean air? Petroleum? Gold?

I don't consider the soldiers of the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden, "innocents." They are combatants. For you to compare the people working in the World Trade Center to the ruthless thugs of the Taliban and Osama's organization is absurd. The "soldiers of Afghanistan" were fighting with the terrorists and protecting them so I consider them to be one in the same.

On a side note, how many innocent afghanis were killed over the years by these "soldiers of Afghanistan?" I bet a whole lot.

We are putting bases throughout the world because people are trying to kill us, it is pretty simple really.

Afghanistan did not attack USA. Their soldiers died defending their country against an invasion by USA. In this respect i believe they are innocents being wronged by the invaders. Afghanistan offered amnesty to Osama, yes. Any country offering amnesty, and has guts, will keep the faith. Even though they know full well of US's arms capabilities.

They also offered to hand over Osama if US provided convincing proof that he was guilty of the attacks. Only spurious allegations were made and very doubtful circumstantial evidence that would probably fail a close examination. So why would they actually hand over Osama whom they feel is innocent until proven guilty.

Secondly, you are missing the other point where civilians died in your attacks. Or do you think that the entire nation of Afghanistan is made of soldiers one way or the other.

After the attack on Afghanistan, US continued its media bombardment in revealing more and more so called proof. More like trying to justify its ruthless actions.

"On a side note, how many innocent afghanis were killed over the years by these "soldiers of Afghanistan?" I bet a whole lot."

And what numbers do you have or is this just pure conjecture. And if its true, that makes their deaths by US actions incidental, since they're going to die anyway?

Oh, so its now have bases everywhere in the world, because people are trying to kill americans. You've convinced me already.

All hail the conquering heroes. If not, there's always the nukes.

Afghanistan offered amnesty to Osama, yes. Any country offering amnesty, and has guts, will keep the faith.

Spoken like a true terrorist sympathizer. That is a very creepy statement.

Afghanistan did attack the US, if a country protects someone who is launching attacks against another nation it is just as guilty.

They also offered to hand over Osama if US provided convincing proof that he was guilty of the attacks. Only spurious allegations were made and very doubtful circumstantial evidence that would probably fail a close examination. So why would they actually hand over Osama whom they feel is innocent until proven guilty.

Osama took credit for the attack, is that not enough proof that he did it? The idiots that flew the planes into the building trained in Osama's camps and all had connections to Osama's organization. What is it that you really need to convinve you that it was him? Everyone else in the world knows it was him.

I have a question for you, do you really think your friends can win this war? I say this becuase I think your words have revealed your motivations.

You know what's great about this country? I can be opposed to war if I want to. I can stand on a street corner with flyers and protest if I want to. I can disagree publically with our leaders, and not be afraid of censorship. Hell, I can paint "NO WAR" on my car in huge letters with flashing lights and streamers if I want to. Why? Because this is a FREE country. You are forgetting, or are unaware, that with freedom comes acceptance. Acceptance of ideas that you may be totally against. THAT'S what America is. That's what democracy is.

No, freedom means that I have the right to say what I want as well. Freedom is not "acceptance."

I don't see anyone physically restraining him from voicing his opinions, am I supposed to forfeit my rights to speech in order not to offend him or you? Where is this censorship you speak of?

I would like to add the Mr. Abas goes much further than opposing the war, he is praising the Taliban for shielding Bin Laden. This is why I call him a terrorist sympathizer.

And another note...

He is from Malaysia, not the US. So no he can't stand on his street corner and shout whatever he wants.

I'm simply arguing against the labeling of "Anti-Americanism" simply becuase one does not support the actions of the current president. I didn't mean you have to accept the ideas of others, but rather accept the fact that we all have the right to think what we want.

Michael, Michael, Michael (*sadly shaking head*)...

I participate in a kangeiko for a week, and you start labelling ppl "terrorist sympathizers," while I'm gone. You've got to be careful of labels; they have a tendency to bite you back, as they did in the Iraq thread.

While I do not share Abasan's view that the Taliban is noble for shielding OBL, I also note that you totally sidestepped his point about the Taliban offering to hand over OBL, if the US could come up with some proof of their allegations.

And, sorry: OBL saying he was culpable for 9/11 is not the same as proof. Ask any policeman (where's Brian Heanue, when you need him?): if a person admits to a crime, that makes him a suspect, but no legal system worth its salt will convict a man purely upon an admission of guilt.

Now, before you sling the "terrorist sympathizer" label at me: my OWN belief is that OBL was, at the very least, guilty of complicity of 9/11.

You, and other "patriots" who seem to think that US unilateral, pre-emptive invasions are a good thing, always ignore the important "side questions," like:

- Who trained OBL and gave Al Qaeda enough money to further his global agendas?

- What country is the primary agent of the UN Sanctions: Sanctions since proven to be ineffective in ousting Hussein, yet continue to be enacted, in spite of their genocidal effects?

- What country is the deal-maker for 60% of the weapons-deals in the world?

- If the US is not guilty of any "slaughter of innocents," what about the damage done from the US bombings, infrastructure, etc?

Sure, the US can't be blamed for ALL of Afghanistan's woes, but isn't the US responsible for some of the damage from the last bombing? If so, why haven't we come up with any suitable aid packages?

See http://postconflict.unep.ch/high1.htm for the latest UNEP report on Afghanistan.

- If Iraq is part of the axis of evil, why aren't the US, and the American corporations who helped Saddam in his time of need, part of the axis of evil for helping him out?

(BTW: if you have trouble answering this one, you're not alone: Ari Fleischer couldn't be bothered to answer it, either:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0127-10.htm ).

- And, what does this thread's name, "Anti-Americanism," mean, exactly? Who are the "Anti-Americans?" The rest of the world sees the US as losing its values, its way.

Almost every time I chat with a foreign visitor (or, when I go to visit myself, as when I travelled to Mexico, last month). I ask the same question:

"What is the sentiment toward the US, in your country?" Almost universally, the answer is "not good." I question them further, and they explain that most ppl from their perspective do not feel animosity toward Americans per se, rather it is the US government who receives most of their rancor.

They feel that the US has lost its way.

Considering the callous disregard the US takes toward human life and suffering, of late, I can only agree.

Why, if you disagree (and I suspect you do), does W not ever discuss the cost to human life, this war in Iraq will demand, of Iraqi's and Americans? What is the big hurry for invasion, when Hussein wouldn't DARE an offensive military action now, unless W's REAL concern is how he'll look, come election-time?

Neil, great to have you back. I was wondering why you had not responded to this thread yet. I was expecting you to be the first to jump in.

Yes, Ahmad Abas in my view is a terrorist sympathizer for the reason I explained above. I can't see where I am out of line for this, he admitted being a sympathizer to the Taliban for shielding Bin Laden. In fact, I think you are out of line for trying to be an apologist for him and letting him off the hook like that.

I think you are so preoccupied with defeating Bush, because of your ideological differences, that you are willing to overlook anything that may distract from your anti-Bush campaign.

To me, this is anti-American because in my view you are putting your selfish political wants before the safety of the people of this country.

- Who trained OBL and gave Al Qaeda enough money to further his global agendas?

Yes we trained lots of people to fight to soviet army,we did not train them and encourage them to become terrorists and fly planes into buildings full of innocent civilians. We also funded much of Iraq's military to fight the Iranians, so what. We did not give them resources so that they could invade Kuwait, build NBC weapons, or fund terrorists.

- What country is the primary agent of the UN Sanctions: Sanctions since proven to be ineffective in ousting Hussein, yet continue to be enacted, in spite of their genocidal effects?

Exactly, a great reason to get this war over with as soon as possible.

- What country is the deal-maker for 60% of the weapons-deals in the world?

That does not mean anything Neil, there are alot of friendly countries in the world. If you can bring some evidence that we selling nuclear weapons to Iraq or Bin Laden then maybe you would have a point there.

- If the US is not guilty of any "slaughter of innocents," what about the damage done from the US bombings, infrastructure, etc?

"slaughtering" implies a purposeful murder of innocents which I have seen no evidence of whatsover, have some innocens died in this war so far, yes, but I place sole blame on the Taliban and Osama for this. However those who you are rushing to the defense of like the Taliban, Bin Laden, and Iraq have a long clear record of slaughtering innocents.

The people dancing in the streets after Kabul was liberated and the money and resources that have poured into the country from the US and from around the world have made the country a much better place than it was before, even with the occasional destruction of infrastructure.

See http://postconflict.unep.ch/high1.htm for the latest UNEP report on Afghanistan.

Why do I care what some environmental organization thinks of the war in Afghanistan?

- And, what does this thread's name, "Anti-Americanism," mean, exactly? Who are the "Anti-Americans?" The rest of the world sees the US as losing its values, its way.

I would refer back to the original article regarding this because it says it better than I can.

- If Iraq is part of the axis of evil, why aren't the US, and the American corporations who helped Saddam in his time of need, part of the axis of evil for helping him out?

You will have to be more specific here, what aid and when? If this is the war against Iran then I aready covered this.

Why, if you disagree (and I suspect you do), does W not ever discuss the cost to human life, this war in Iraq will demand, of Iraqi's and Americans? What is the big hurry for invasion, when Hussein wouldn't DARE an offensive military action now, unless W's REAL concern is how he'll look, come election-time?

So when would be a good time Neil? There are no elections going on so should we wait till the next one so you could then pop up and say that it is for political gain? Should we wait till Saddam puts a nuke in the hands of some whacko Bin Laden fanatic?

Or maybe it is you and your crowd that is politically motivated here. Hmmmm?

BTW: Please try and focus on a few points rather than throwing out tons of little tidbits hoping one will stick. There is no way that am going to continue and try and make a counter argument to every point you try and make, and then if I miss a few, allow myself to be accused of dodging issues. If you want me to address something in particular then stick with a few short points. Otherwise I will argue what I think is most important in the mix.

Glad you are back Neil, it would not be the same without you.

Judd Mercer (Judd) wrote: I'm simply arguing against the labeling of "Anti-Americanism" simply becuase one does not support the actions of the current president. I didn't mean you have to accept the ideas of others, but rather accept the fact that we all have the right to think what we want.

Where did I say that you or anyone else did not have the right to think what you want? Do you think that me being critical of what someone else says amounts to censorship or stopping someone's right to free speech? Remember, you have a right to speak all you want but others also have the right to knock down, disregard, criticize, or dispute what you are saying.

I don't need anyone to apologise for me or let me 'off the hook'. Although I do appreciate Neil's effort of actually reading through ALL of my above post. The fact that you straight away labled me as terrorist symphathizer because of our disagreement is understandable given your prejudices.

Compounded with your ridiculous notion that I'm not free to voice my concerns out loud in Malaysia gives me a brief idea on your close mindedness and inability to learn beyond what the mass media has force fed you. Malaysia is a free country and a very peaceful one actually. Unlike some countries I know.

You have totally missed the point of what I was trying to bring into discussion. I'm for fairness and justice. Not, X is wrong or Y is right. If Osama was founded guilty in a fair court of justice and all evidence is indisputable then let him pay for his wrong doings. I have not seen proof beyond doubt that he is guilty, and the way you seek to bring that justice is totally wrong. You do not destroy a country to get at one man.

Unfortunately, US thinks that it is beyond the law and decorum. Not in this just one respect but many many times over. Pure arrogance I would say so myself.

Doubtless were I to continue explaining away my reasonings in the hopes of finding an intelligent discourse, I would not get it from you as I suspect you have already made up your mind no matter what.

To keep it civil, lets put the name calling behind us and carry on like the intelligent adults we are. Unless you want to nuke us too for daring to voice our dissent?

And since you want to make my point succinct, let me ask again... didn't you realise that Afghanistan was willing to hand over Osama if they were given proof of his wrong doing? They even agreed to have him extridited to a neutral country to be tried. US refused and wanted him on their own terms. And that of course led to the attack. I sincerely doubt that the attack on Afghanistan would have been avoided even if Afghanistan did acquise to US terms. It probably would have led to an unfair incarceration of Osama just like the thousands of Arabs you are imprisoning now reminiscent of the "Nazi's Jewish Camps' that you like to drivel about;and a full scale assault on his remnant followers.

The fact that you straight away labled me as terrorist symphathizer because of our disagreement is understandable given your prejudices.

No, I called you a terrorist sympathizer becuase you praised the Taliban, not beceause of our "disagreement." Lets not try and rewrite history here.

Compounded with your ridiculous notion that I'm not free to voice my concerns out loud in Malaysia gives me a brief idea on your close mindedness and inability to learn beyond what the mass media has force fed you. Malaysia is a free country and a very peaceful one actually. Unlike some countries I know

Really?

http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Recent/ASA280312001!Open

http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/asia/malaysia.html

If Osama was founded guilty in a fair court of justice and all evidence is indisputable then let him pay for his wrong doings. I have not seen proof beyond doubt that he is guilty, and the way you seek to bring that justice is totally wrong. You do not destroy a country to get at one man. Unfortunately, US thinks that it is beyond the law and decorum. Not in this just one respect but many many times over. Pure arrogance I would say so myself.

Just how do you propose getting him to a "fair court of Justice?" The Taliban did not hand him over and depite your humorous claims that they would have if we had just given them more evidence, they would not have under any circumstances. Why would they hand over the very person who was responsible for the Taliban being in power? In addition, the Taliban did not have the means to bring Osama Bin Laden in even if they wanted to, they would have had to fight his army first. And since the Taliban and Al Queda are essentially the same it makes this whole point irrelevant anyway.

"beyond the law and decorum", what law and decorum would this be? The US has the right to wage war to defend itself under international law, plain and simple. The people who are "beyond law and decorum" are those who attacked us.

To keep it civil, lets put the name calling behind us and carry on like the intelligent adults we are. Unless you want to nuke us too for daring to voice our dissent?

There is no name calling going on here, I am just describing what think you all about. It goes to the root of my argument. I think you are a terrorist sympathizer plain and simple.

It probably would have led to an unfair incarceration of Osama just like the thousands of Arabs you are imprisoning now reminiscent of the "Nazi's Jewish Camps' that you like to drivel about;and a full scale assault on his remnant followers.

Wow, so you are an anti-semite as well, I should have figured, you are a terrorist sympathizer. So you think that the 6 million Jews murdered by Germany is all just claptrap? And you want to compare the Al Queda prisoners of war who are receiving food, medical attention etc. to what happened during the holocaust?

How can I take you seriously?

So the Taliban are now terrorists because they defend the right of someone accused of being a terrorist.

As I said before, he wasn't proven guilty, he claims his innocence, therefore at the point in time when Afghanistan provided him the amnesty, they did nothing wrong. There is nothing to praise or fault.

The fact that they did not hand him over was because US never took them up on the offer. Instead they wanted Osama on their own terms. Don't color the issue, US was bent on attacking afghanistan anyway. Why would I not surrender Osama to a neutral place for judgement if it would avert the threat of war? No reason at all. But for US, it was imperative that they got the attack ongoing because Bush had to sate your bloodthirsty desire for revenge. It doesn't matter on whom, as long as they resemble an arab its fine.

As I mentioned before... on the Malaysian issue. "gives me a brief idea on your close mindedness and inability to learn beyond what the mass media has force fed you."

Yes go on, believe everything on the net. You like to read one side of the story and print them out here anyway. Why not read other prints as well. For that matter, why don't you read The Independant and the Daily Telegraph in answer to the Iraq war issues that you posted in the beginning. Apparently, there are some other Brits out there who do not agree with your Tony Parsons. Incidently, the Daily Mirror is more like a tabloid then a full blown newspaper like the two I mentioned earlier.

Right... so you want to defend the US. That's fair. Afghanistan wants to defend its country... oh no, they're bloody terrorists.

Iraq wants to defend their country.. .oh no, they're bloody terrorists. Its you who are the terrorist sympathiser. You want the US to prey on weaker countries. You want to kill innocent people. You want to grab all the oil you can get your hands on.

And how is it that I ended up being anti semite? Btw, Palestinians, Arabs are semites too. Or are you too rascist to see that?

And you call your imprisonment without trial, without visits, stuck into a sweat suit, without light, shackled, without any sort of accusation or crime even to be fair? to be just? where's the so called human rights you like to shout about.

Call me what you like, I know that I'm for peace and justice. You can call yourself whatever you like, you are the one to vote for war, for plunder and for hypocrisy.

Here's a telling:

QUIZ ON THE MIDDLE EAST: ANSWERS MAY SURPRISE YOU (By

Charley Reese, of the

Sentinel Staff, The Orlando Sentinel, Florida, USA).

Question: Which country alone in the Middle East has

nuclear weapons?

Answer: Israel

Q: Which country in the Middle East refuses to sign

the nuclear

non-proliferation treaty and bars international

inspections?

A: Israel.

Q: Which country in the Middle East seized the

sovereign territory of

other

nations by military force and continues to occupy it

in defiance

of United Nations Security Council resolutions?

A: Israel.

Q: Which country in the Middle East routinely

violates the international

borders of another sovereign state with warplanes and

artillery and naval

gunfire?

A: Israel.

Q: What American ally in the Middle East has for

years sent assassins into

other countries to kill its political enemies (a

practice sometimes called

exporting terrorism)?

A: Israel

Q: In which country in the Middle East have

high-ranking military officers

admitted publicly that unarmed prisoners of war were

executed?

A: Israel

Q: What country in the Middle East refuses to

prosecute its soldiers who

have acknowledged executing prisoners of war?

A: Israel

Q: What country in the Middle East created 762,000

refugees and refuses to

allow them to return to their homes, farms and

businesses?

A: Israel

Q: What country in the Middle East refuses to pay

compensation to people

whose land, bank accounts and businesses it

confiscated?

A: Israel

Q: In what country in the Middle East was a

high-ranking United Nations

diplomat assassinated?

A: Israel.

Q: In what country in the Middle East did the man who

ordered the

assassination of a high-ranking UN diplomat become

prime minister?

A: Israel.

Q: What country in the Middle East blew up an

American diplomatic facility

in Egypt and attacked a U.S. ship in international

waters, killing 33 and

wounding 177 American sailors?

A: Israel.

Q: What country in the Middle East employed a spy,

Jonathan Pollard, to

steal classified documents and then gave some of them

to the Soviet Union?

A: Israel

Q: What country at first denied any official

connection to Pollard, then

voted to make him a citizen and has continuously

demanded that the American

president grant Pollard a full pardon?

A: Israel.

Q: What country on Planet Earth has the second most

powerful lobby in the

United States, according to a recent Fortune magazine

survey of Washington

insiders?

A: Israel

Q: Which country in the Middle East is in defiance of

69 United Nations

Security Council resolutions and has been protected

from 29 more by U.S.

Vetoes?

A: Israel.

Q: What country is the United States bombing for

years because "UN

Security

Council resolutions must be obeyed?"

A: Iraq.

Its you who are the terrorist sympathiser. You want the US to prey on weaker countries. You want to kill innocent people. You want to grab all the oil you can get your hands on.

Hahahahahaha!

You should be a comedian...

Hello everyone, sorry I have not been able to keep up with the posts. Even now, I only have time to dash off a quick note before I go teach class.

Michael, you've got to watch slinging those names around. Calling ppl names and suggesting that they're terrorist sympathizers is no way to make your points, in a debate. Mud-slinging only alienates the listener, as low voter turnouts prove, when the candidates resort to sleazy tactics.

Attack the opinion (or the post), not the person is my motto.

I'm currently engaged in a similar debate over at aikidojournal.com. I'm pasting a post I wrote that broached a similar subject, regarding mudslinging.

Enjoy!

"You got to watch those quotes, Mah: you made me sound as if I were arguing with myself, in the last post.

Good to hear from you again, Brian. At last, a voice from the conservative side who knows a thing or two about etiquette.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Editor:

Ladies and Gentlemen:

May I ask you to refrain from personal attacks and display what aiki skills you may have learned in a verbal context?

Thank you,

Stanley Pranin

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When Mr. Pranin posted this notice, I interpreted this request to mean that we display the qualities of etiquette found in an Aikido dojo. You say: "Gomenesai," when you feel that you've injured someone (even if there was no injury); and you respect their style of training, even if it is not yours (unless, of course, it is injurious, or a power struggle).

You certainly do not try to marginalize their perspective, or fire a salvo of labels at them. At the closing circle, do you seal off those "not worthy?" No, the circle is opened to include all.

Would I expect the same attempts to marginalize my perspective from James and Mah, were I to visit their dojo? Would they be so rude as to tell me that my technique was "whacked out," or representative of an "extremist fringe?"

When I took issue with James's poor taste in lampooning the mentally disabled, did he apologize? Did he show any remorse, at all?

If I learned one thing about Aikido, it is that an apology is, in itself, a form of blending. You get to show your grace and respect for the other person. When I apologize, I certainly do not feel as if I am capitulating.

And, the other person feels that I am considering them as an equal and not engaging in some ego-battle.

James and Mah, you really should take a page from Brian's book. He and I conversed in great depth on Iraq in the aikiweb forum:

http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showth...&pagenumber=13

Even though we hardly agree on the issue, we tended to avoid labels and negative slurs.

Mud-slinging only denigrates the force of your argument, IMO. I find it a general indicator of the moral poverty of the Right, in the Iraqi issue: they (and the White House) can't seem to be bothered with evidence or facts, and so they use emotionally charged language, and innuendo.

It hardly buttresses the case for your argument, to slur your opponent. It only alienates the audience (which is why voter turnout goes way down, when candidates resort to sleazy tactics).

P.S. Good gods, Brian: who'd have figured we'd ever come to each other's defence?"

So the Taliban are now terrorists because they defend the right of someone accused of being a terrorist. As I said before, he wasn't proven guilty, he claims his innocence, therefore at the point in time when Afghanistan provided him the amnesty, they did nothing wrong. There is nothing to praise or fault. The fact that they did not hand him over was because US never took them up on the offer. Instead they wanted Osama on their own terms. Don't color the issue, US was bent on attacking afghanistan anyway. Why would I not surrender Osama to a neutral place for judgement if it would avert the threat of war? No reason at all. But for US, it was imperative that they got the attack ongoing because Bush had to sate your bloodthirsty desire for revenge. It doesn't matter on whom, as long as they resemble an arab its fine.

No, the Taliban are terrorists because they give them safe harbor, a place to train, and they fight right along side of them. I am glad the Taliban are mostly dead or scattered, it is a better world because of it.

Michael, you've got to watch slinging those names around. Calling ppl names and suggesting that they're terrorist sympathizers is no way to make your points, in a debate. Mud-slinging only alienates the listener, as low voter turnouts prove, when the candidates resort to sleazy tactics. Attack the opinion (or the post), not the person is my motto. I'm currently engaged in a similar debate over at aikidojournal.com. I'm pasting a post I wrote that broached a similar subject, regarding mudslinging.

Neil, you are so full of it!

You sit around and engage in all kinds of name calling and labeling (even within the statement you made above criticising it) yet you flip out when anyone says anything to describe your motivations or those that you sympathise with.

The tactic you are using here and on Aikido Journal is in fact mudslinging in itself.

I call him a terrorist sypathiser because that is what I think he is, there is no mudslinging in that. It is a perfectly legitimate opinion and well founded based on his own words.