reading aljazeera: stuff for thought

[silverlance]

Reading a yahoo article on the russian vs chechen battle in Nirkuk (sp?) today, I came across a website called Kavkaz-Center website (you can yahoo it yourself to find the site). aljazeera posts there, and since I pride myself on being a critical thinker, being objective, and taking the high road, I decide to read what they had to say.

*warning: i am a loyal american, willing to go if i'm drafted, etc...i do not condone any terrorist activity of any sort, and personally haven't yet come to any sort of stance on the war in iraq. other than i want my friends to come home from the sandbox.

what do you guys think about the writer's argument? does he have a valid point in arguing that the US has sponsored directly or indirectly oppresive foreign policy? is he correct in that the US is taking on the mantle of tyranny? has america, in essence, lost its way?

,,,

Perpetual war benefits the small minority who sit atop the food chain. The poor and working class suffer and die while society's elite, wealthy leaders grow richer and more powerful.

While Arabs share in the responsibility for the conflict in the Middle East, much of the responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the state terrorists who have operated from their command centers at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the Pentagon. The so-called Arab "terrorism" is a reaction to years of victimization at the hands of the U.S. government and its proxies in the Middle East.

The way to bring this phenomenon to an end is for the American people to engage in a non-violent revolution to replace the abhorrence in Washington which masquerades as a democracy, to withdraw from Iraq, to close U.S. military bases in the Middle East and around the world, to stop supporting Israel's ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, and to redirect this nation toward humanitarian objectives rather than military ones. 5% of the world's population does not need to account for 50% of the world's military expenditures.

America simply needs to reduce its military to a force large enough to defend itself and scrap its imperial ambitions.

A true victory for President Bush’s “war on terror” would involve eradicating the U.S. terrorist state and criminally prosecuting those who have perpetrated the associated war crimes. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and many others in that foul administration belong in Guantanamo Bay with those they have deemed to be “terrorists”. The most dangerous terrorists on Earth move about freely, wield great power, enjoy immense wealth, and reside openly in Washington. They represent a fraction of the U.S. population yet they harbor almost all of the power and wealth in the world's only remaining superpower nation.

Arrests and prosecutions through U.S. and international courts, tax revolts, protests, nation-wide strikes/walkouts by union and non-union employees alike, massive consumer boycotts, increased education of the American public, increased unity amongst the proponents of social justice, and the emergence of a powerful spiritual leader whose true goal is to achieve social justice are needed to excise the cancer in Washington which plagues the world.

Bush II edges the U.S. closer and closer to tyranny as he imposes the elites' Social Darwinism upon the poor and working class by butchering social welfare program budgets, weakening unions, lowering taxes on the wealthy, working to dismantle Social Security, protecting and empowering corporations, and deregulating businesses.

During the New Orleans debacle, the U.S. government's response revealed glimpses of a U.S. military machine prepared to employ state terrorism domestically. Katrina was a wake-up call for the people. Also Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers, his former personal attorney who has no experience as a judge, to fill the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy continues an unprecedented pattern of incredibly corrupt cronyism. Miers' virtually assured approval by a Republican-controlled Senate will complete the trifecta necessary for Bush II to control each branch of the U.S. government.

Justice and peace can still prevail, but the elitists hold a significant advantage in the struggle, and are strengthening their hand.

Aljazeera

2005-10-06 15:17:51
http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2005/10/06/4128.shtml​

 

[gunsmith]

looks like typical left wing garbage

fyi
I lost a friend over in Iraq, Sam Barbetta of the US Airborne.

there are folks suffering from "years of victimization" in the middle east
..those folks are women, Jews and gays. to be a gay a woman or a Jew in ANY Islamic country means you can be killed at allmost any time or imprisoned.

this writer just has an axe to grind against America.
I would like him to explain Islamic fundamentalist terrorism in the Phillipines and Kashmir? they ( Islamic fundamentalist ) kill lots of folks over there too.

I have a friend from Yemen, a real cool young guy and a gun nut like me, but
he insist there is proof of our gov't involvement in 911 ...you know what that proof is? a folded up 20 dollar bill!

I wish todays lefties would come out and say that they support the oppression of women,gays & Jews by Islamic fundamentalist at least they would then be honest.

 

[shootinstudent]

The way to bring this phenomenon to an end is for the American people to engage in a non-violent revolution to replace the abhorrence in Washington which masquerades as a democracy, to withdraw from Iraq, to close U.S. military bases in the Middle East and around the world, to stop supporting Israel's ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, and to redirect this nation toward humanitarian objectives rather than military ones

The problem with this argument is that the people who are poised to take over the middle east by violence, should the US withdraw, have absolutely zero respect for human rights or humanitarian projects. Looks like the standard "blame everyone else and ignore what's happening at the hands of islamist terrorists" line that comes from the small gang of supporters of that particular movement.

I do agree that supporting dictatorships and oppressive regimes (or, at least, ignoring them) has contributed to the problem, though. Look what US and British support for Ibn Sa'ud's raiders has earned us...an officially radical state in Saudi Arabia. Abandoning any interest in Afghanistan after the Russians left wasn't too smart.

And of course the US isn't the only culprit. Look at what the Russians have earned themselves through decades of brutal oppression and undemocratic rule....Chechnya and the rest of Central Asia daily revolting against all things Russian.

gunsmith,

Just like in the christian world, the causes for violence are different whereever you go. South America has problems for different reasons than Romania, for example. I sure hope we can bring terrorists of all creeds and colors to justice eventually.

And it sure looks to me like gun owners are much more committed to that goal than anti-gunners.

 

[Joejojoba111]

I think that foreign policy was clear and honest before WW1. After WWII it became necessary to act as one does during a cold-war. However it was easier to simply lie to the public and pretend nothing had changed. It was a time of dirty deeds, and they were done done right.

However, we never really got around to recognizing the great gap between actions and words... It's a problem. There are 2 solutions, re-introduce the public to realpolitik, or alter foreign policy and the natur of involvment in the world in a dramatic fashion. The public is completely capable of accepting #!, they wouldn't really care to be honest. And they'd care even less about #2. ...Buuutt during all the deceit and trechary, what with overthrowing governments and setting up puppet regimes, and general economic sneakiness, it came to be that powerful people inside the USA started to think 'what if we tried to do what we do out there, in here?'.

And that's the point we're at today.

 

[earonthief]

It's a typical "The world was a better place until the U.S. came along and screwed it up" leftist propaganda whine. The writer has probably never been outside CONUS and only "knows" what their contollers tell him.

 

[Jeff Timm]

Let's Face Facts Folks,

Moslems are murdering devil worshipers. They MUST kill every non-moslem in the world. If they can't find any non-believers to kill, they kill each other and their own children. Cross reference Koran translation.

The Bush Admin in a fit of optimism is trying to build "safe" moslem countries in Iraq and Afganistan. It is very expensive, including the price in US lives.

The alternative is infinitly MORE expensive, but it may be necessary. We have delt with tribal based cultures with violent societies before. We wiped many out and forced them onto reservations. That was also an expensive process, but effective.

Geoff
Who notes the difficulty in choosing from Bad or Worse.

 

[auschip]

Let's Face Facts Folks,

Moslems are murdering devil worshipers. They MUST kill every non-moslem in the world. If they can't find any non-believers to kill, they kill each other and their own children. Cross reference Koran translation.

The Bush Admin in a fit of optimism is trying to build "safe" moslem countries in Iraq and Afganistan. It is very expensive, including the price in US lives.

The alternative is infinitly MORE expensive, but it may be necessary. We have delt with tribal based cultures with violent societies before. We wiped many out and forced them onto reservations. That was also an expensive process, but effective.

Geoff
Who notes the difficulty in choosing from Bad or Worse.

Did I miss a sarcasm tag? What orifice was this pulled from?

 

[GT]

Jeff T +1


G

 

[geekWithA.45]

what do you guys think about the writer's argument? does he have a valid point in arguing that the US has sponsored directly or indirectly oppresive foreign policy? is he correct in that the US is taking on the mantle of tyranny? has america, in essence, lost its way?

These are all excellent questions, which I will address directly.

-The writer's argument is opportunistic crap, for all the reasons already cited. It preys on our own FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt), leverages pre-existing memes emanating from our own domestic leftists, and has the extra added bonus of allowing the middle east to entirely avoid confronting their own contribution to the mess. It is a shell game, designed to distract the distractable.

You'll also note that the islamofascists were up to their deadly games long before W took office and decided to do something about it, and the implication that all we have to do to obtain peace in the mideast and safety from Al-Q is get rid of Bush is the same old terrorist/mugger's confidence game: just do what I want you to do, and you won't get hurt.

It's pure BS.

-Has the US sponsored, directly, or indirectly, oppressive foriegn policy?

Interesting question. In this case, "oppressive foriegn policy" is an Al-Q codeword for "supporting Israel". Israel's hands are not lilly white clean, and that's a whole discussion in it's own right, which I compress to, "In the balance, supporting the state of Israel's continued existence is a GOOD thing."

-Is the US taking on the mantle of tyranny, has it lost its way?

This is a distinct and disturbing possibility, that is entirely a separate question from operation "Drain the mid east swamp", and whose ultimate conclusion is entirely up to us, a domestic matter.

 

[shootinstudent]

Moslems are murdering devil worshipers. They MUST kill every non-moslem in the world. If they can't find any non-believers to kill, they kill each other and their own children. Cross reference Koran translation.

Not only have we not read the Book, we're blaming a billion people for the actions of a few.

I fail to see any way in which hating Muslims will help end terrorism. The only thing I can imagine it will do in the long run is create a country that proves the author above correct.

 

[geekWithA.45]

I suggest sticking to the topic. I'm betting 2 or 3 more posts of the "all muslims are evil" variety will be enough to get it closed.

 

[R.H. Lee]

I'm philosophically opposed to any U.S. government interference with any other sovereign nation, except for direct humanitarian aid. That said™, we reserve the right to make all out war when and if our national security interests are at stake. Short of that, no meddling.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Interesting question. In this case, "oppressive foriegn policy" is an Al-Q codeword for "supporting Israel". Israel's hands are not lilly white clean, and that's a whole discussion in it's own right, which I compress to, "In the balance, supporting the state of Israel's continued existence is a GOOD thing."

I think instead of looking for "codewords," we could better address the argument by asking outselves a simple question:

Has the US sponsored brutal dictators in the region, and are any tynants more powerful because of our aid?

I think the answer is clearly yes, even when you take Israel out of the equation. A lot of middle-eastern Muslims seem unhappy about how Saidi Arabia is run, but they can't overthrow the government because of our aid and support. Look at past support for Hussein and the Shah and that guy in Egypt a while back as well -- it could reasonably be argued by one who lives in the region that the United States cares more about oil and influence in the middle east than it does about middle-eastern freedom or people -- that we've happily supported brutal dictators and kept them in power longer than they would have been able to naturally maintain it, because we put our own well-being before that of those who were being killed, driven into bankruptcy, raped, forcibly amputated, and the rest.

Before the local "And Why Shouldn't We!" contingent pops up, let me just say that it seems this argument can be backed with enough facts to make it believable, and it might really resonate among people who need somewhere to place their blame and anger.

I think we don't really want the middle east to use us as a scape goat, but it looks like we're playing into that role.

 

[geekWithA.45]

I think you have a point, and the significant departure of this administration from the policies of the past has been the implicit recognition that we can't sustain that sort of thing.

Hence, the general plan of draining the swamp, and supporting the erection of a stable, moderate arab/muslim democracy smack dab in the middle east.

If we look at the historical alternatives to those unsavory regimes we support(ed), there weren't exactly a whole lot of moderate freedom seeking folks lining up to do the overthrowing. (I'm willing to listen to illustrations of such that had the strength and means) Those who had the strength and inclination to be doing any overthrowing were problematic folks: strongman thugs like Sadaam, extremist, Al-Q ish mullahs like Khomeni, or soviet influenced puppets.

We absolutely could NOT afford the iron curtain being wrapped around our energy supply.

That would have been the end of the cold war, with us on the losing side.

 

[shootinstudent]

I think the answer is clearly yes, even when you take Israel out of the equation. A lot of middle-eastern Muslims seem unhappy about how Saidi Arabia is run, but they can't overthrow the government because of our aid and support.

I think this is a huge factor. Some select members of the house of saud have been paying for extremism and terrorism for a long time, yet we keep handing them billions in oil dollars because we a)didn't care in the past, when we might have moved against radicalism without endangering the whole world's oil supply and b)because we don't really care now, which I think is due to a fundamental failure to take account of different factions and trends in the Muslim world.

With such a long track record of support for extremists, even a policy shift now is dangerous, because the popular folks in a lot of countries are going to be the ones who harness the anger against a long US history of supporting their oppressors.

Israel doesn't help, either. Seizing Jerusalem in 1967 and turning it into the capital was pretty clearly land theft, and I'm amazed that more people don't recognize its illegitimacy. That said, I think it is the only democratic state in the middle east that provides a modicum of religious and civil liberties. I agree with Sheikh Palazzi in this interview, that it's almost more unjust to abandon the Palestinian people to the thugs who've managed to gain significant positions of authority in Palestine: http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19444

 

[The Grand Inquisitor]

Although I don;t have the time at the moment to fully write what I think, I do not think there is any real doubt that the United States has supported and engaged in terroristic activities over the last 50 years.

Looking outside the Muslim world, the United States devastated Nicaragua in the secret war there, and the United States role in supporting dictatorial regimes across the globe is well documented, with the rise of Augusto Pinochet in Chile as the most obvious example.

We are currently fighting a war in Afganistan, against many of the same men whom we supported and supplied during their war with the Soviets. Actually, not only did the United States support the Afgan mujahedin during the Afghan/Soviet war, but we sent money to the Taliban controlled Afghan regime for them to cut opium production (which they did - the Taliban may have been oppressive, but they all but destroyed the now burgeoning opium trade).

 

[Kurush]

It is definitely true that US foreign policy has contributed to the problem, it's very unlikely for example that Khomeini would have come to power if the CIA and MI6 hadn't overthrown Iran's democratic government (see Mossadeq on wikipedia) and replaced it with a dictatorship. The radicals in Iran came to power, not because people wanted an islamic state, but because the poor were nearly starving and the islamists were pretty much the only opposition that hadn't completely been wiped out by death squads. The Sunni islamic radicals took a lot of inspiration from the Islamic Revolution and might not have become a major faction without it.

BUT, that said, the Islamic radicals are not going to stop just because we apologise (which WJC did). Al-Qaeda is now claiming legitimacy from events as far back as the Crusades and the defeat of the Cordoba Caliphate in Spain. Osama has actually called for the invasion of Spain or "Al-Andalus" as it was called 500 years ago. The editorial above looks like just an effort to drive a wedge between groups in the US.

 

[shermacman]

The Middle East has been the center of violence based on religious, ethnic, cultural, political, linguistic, geographic hatred for millennia.

And it is the fault of the United States? You have got to think this one through. It doesn't matter who runs Saudi Arabia, there will be Muslims driven to violence over it. That is the history of the Middle East. The support of the United States of one dictator as opposed to another has absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

[shootinstudent]

The Middle East has been the center of violence based on religious, ethnic, cultural, political, linguistic, geographic hatred for millennia.

That is quite simply false. No other way to sum it up. During the middle ages, Europe's people lived lives that were likely much lower in quality than the average haitian citizen endures today. At the same time, the Muslim states were centers of religious freedom, scientific exploration, and economic development.

IMO, first step to answering terrorism is recognizing that it doesn't have to exist. If you believe the hype about the "history" of the Muslim world predetermining it to violence, then you might as well give up now because you're imagining an enemy that's impossible to defeat.

I, on the other hand, think there's plenty we can do to marginalize and expose people like aljazeera for what they are.

 

[geekWithA.45]

it's very unlikely for example that Khomeini would have come to power if the CIA and MI6 hadn't overthrown Iran's democratic government (see Mossadeq on wikipedia) and replaced it with a dictatorship.

Ummm...if you read the wikipedia article, I think you'll see that "overthrow a democracy and replace it with a dictator" is a the sort of simplification that abstracts a lot of salient point from the discussion, like, oh, say, the fact that Moussaddiq was propped up by the twin pillars of communists and radical islam, rigged elections, failed to leave office when dismissed, and was beaten down in his own coup attempt, in defiance of the existing legal system of the time.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not say our own history is lilly white clean and virtuous, but what I am saying is that reducing our views to simple jingoes such as "replaced a democracy with a dictatorship" runs a serious risk of losing perspective on the who/what/where/when and why.

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

"You westerners and Israelis aren't justified in doing anything we don't like, no matter how reprehensible we are towards you. Oh, and Bush is BAAAAD." --Aljazeera

Sounds a lot like the lib wackos here in our own country.

 

[gunsmith]

it seems though

that when there is a peoples uprising (like Iran in the late 70's)
you get an Ismamic fundamentalist instead of moderates like what
Turkey has.
I agree the house of Saud has to go but not if we get Taliban instead.

 

[davec]

Perpetual war benefits the small minority who sit atop the food chain. The poor and working class suffer and die while society's elite, wealthy leaders grow richer and more powerful.

Somebody has been reading the essays of a two time Medal of Honor recipient, and United States Marine Corps Major General.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...bs_b_2_1/104-1257290-2072741?v=glance&s=books

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler

here's the full text, it's short: http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Some random shots:

Most Americans view this state of war starting 9-11-2001; many
in the Arab world see this starting about the time of the Crusades.

Aljazeera cannot see the obvious ethnic cleansing of the Jews by
the Arabs, or does not see it as wrong.

Palestineans fail to see they have more in common with the Jews:
the other Arabs dislike them both.

Everyone involved seems to have tunnel vision or are wearing blinders.

 

[silverlance]

smedley butler

my god, this guy is amazing. and TWO TIME medal of honor recipient, no less, neither posthumous..whoa. either he was a superman, or those were really corrupt times.

this is a 1935 qoute from him, from wikipedia:

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested."
...

it seems to me (and by the way thank you all for not turning this into "moslems are devil hating children eaters" thread) that this is this is a resonanting conviction here:

1. the united states HAS contributed greatly to unsavory characters and regimes. komedi, pol pot, pinchet, etc.

2. these contributions were often necessary given the alternative: iron curtain over resources, sphere of influence, etc.

3. most of the actions were taken during the era of the cold war.

4. the jihadi movement worldwide is responsible for many undeniably heinous acts.

my personal view:

the writer of this article mixed fact (past american involvement in supporting said unsavory characters) and what most generally understand as true (perpetual war benefits only the rich) with a call to americans to essentially revolt against an "Bush II"'s war criminal cabinet.

the final question is this:

Can the United States escape the fermenting results of its bloody actions of the Cold War? Can the United States move on to actually one day co-exist with the Islamic states in peace? And above all, how can the United States one day regain the respect of those on whom we've had to, or chosen to, trod on in order to assert ourselves today as the sole remaining world superpower?

Or will China inherit the Earth?


While I am ethnically Chinese, I am an American and I fear that a future led by China will be a giant leap backwards from Liberty.