Europe you may get hurt.
- Thread starter DRB
- Start date
Wait........so even if you bend over backwards to accomodate all of radical Islam's demands, they still want to kill all infidels? .....The horror.....
No, I think he means since the US is so out of control, that we might do this to the region:
And hurt Europe (and Africa) as an unfortunate side effect.
Of course that's what he means......No, I think he means since the US is so out of control, that we might do this to the region:
And hurt Europe (and Africa) as an unfortunate side effect.
Don't worry Europe. The USA will rescue you AGAIN...
It's only fair, Bush's reckless foreign policy has made the world a far more dangerous place so it stands to reason you should help to clean up the mess.
Of course.......don't you know every problem we face in this world is caused by George Bush? Muslims were never filled with rage before he was elected........
On a related note, let's try a reading assignment. This article is by Denis MacShane from the UK Telegraph and explains how Europe is awakening to their failure to confront radical Islam as aggressively as the U.S. has.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Our failure to confront radical Islam is there for all to see
By Denis MacShane
(Filed: 17/10/2006)
At long last, the debate on Islamism as politics, not Islam as religion, is out in the open. Two weeks ago, Jack Straw might have felt he was taking a risk when publishing his now notorious article on the Muslim veil. However, he was pushing at an open door. From across the political spectrum there is now common consent that the old multicultural emperor, before whom generation of politicians have made obeisance, is now a pitiful, naked sight.
The 10,000 Muslims in my constituency of Rotherham can only benefit from removing the dead hand of ideological Islamism allowing their faith to be respected and their children to flourish in a Britain that finally wakes up to what must be done. Despite the efforts of extremists to prevent any sort of rational debate about the place of Islam in Britain, it is at last happening.
A fight-back is beginning to reclaim Britain from the grip of those who refuse to acknowledge the centrality of British values of tolerance, fair play and parliamentary democratic freedoms notably those of free speech and respect for all religions, but supremacy for none. Voltaire noted this attribute of the English three centuries ago, when he wrote: "If there was just one religion in Britain there would be despotism. If two, there would be civil war. But as there are 30, they all live at peace with each other."
It is worth returning to Voltaire on this issue. The struggle is not between religion and secularism, nor between the West and Islam, and still less between Bush-Blair and the Taliban or Iraqi insurgents. It is the ideologisation an ugly word for an ugly thing of religion that needs confronting. Return to Voltaire who noted, "Neither Montaigne, Locke, Boyle, Spinoza, Hobbes, or Lord Shaftesbury lighted up the firebrand of discord in their countries; this has generally been the work of divines, who, being at first puffed up with the ambition of becoming chiefs of a sect, soon grew very desirous of being at the head of a party."
The row ignited by Jack Straw has, so to speak, ripped away the veil over the failure of British policy-makers since the 1980s to come to grips with growing ideological Islamism in our midst.
In David Blunkett's diaries, he refers to the arrest of the Finsbury Park radical Islamist imam, Abu Hamza, in January 2003. Mr Blunkett records: "We had been to-ing and fro-ing on this for months." For months! For years, every other politician in Europe had been complaining about the failure of Britain to act against Hamza and the other ideologues of hate who were turning young Muslim minds long before 9/11 or the Iraq conflict into cauldrons of hate against democracy, and some, tragically, into self-immolating killers of innocent men, women and children.
Where Blunkett and previous ministers failed to act, it has taken a young, devoutly religious Christian politician, in the form of Ruth Kelly, who knows the difference between private faith and public politics, to come forward and to speak en clair to organisations and ideologues who believed that their world view would and should overcome British values and traditions.
An all-party commission on anti-Semitism that I chaired reported recently. Our most worrying discovery was the complacency on many university campuses about harassment of Jewish students. Jew-baiting behaviour that would have had the Left outraged in the 1930s is now actively encouraged by an unholy alliance of the hard Left and Islamist fundamentalists, and the odious anti-Semites who have infiltrated some lecturers' unions. Ruth Kelly, whose fealty to her faith matches that of any deeply religious British Muslim, is right to make clear there are now limits which must not be overstepped.
As a Foreign Office minister, I tried to get Whitehall to take the issue seriously. I argued that diplomats who spoke relevant languages should go and talk, discuss and report back to ministers.
Chinese walls in Whitehall prevented effective inter-departmental co-operation. The Home Office, in addition to allowing Hamza to poison the minds of a generation, refused to return to France Rashid Ramda, who was wanted for questioning in connection with the 1995 Paris Metro bombings a foretaste of our own 7/7. I hated having to go on French television and waffle defensively at a policy of not extraditing this evil man. But the prevailing culture was to deal with religious leaders, not elected politicians. Whitehall sought the advice of friendly theologians from Cairo, or Muslim ideologues such as Tariq Ramadan. This denied political space to British citizens of Muslim faith, women as well as men.
Late in 2003, I made a routine speech to my constituency. It followed the murder of British and Turkish men and women at our consulate in Istanbul by Islamist terrorists. At the same time, a young South Yorkshire Muslim had gone to Israel and killed himself in a suicide bombing attack.
The two events led me to make a speech in which I said: "It is time for the elected and community leaders of British Muslims to make a choice: it is the democratic, rule of law, if you like the British or Turkish or American or European way based on political dialogue and non-violent protests or it is the way of the terrorists against which the whole democratic world is now uniting." I thought my remarks were banal. After 7/7, everyone used them.
But, three years ago, the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, Trevor Phillips wrote a whole page in the Observer denouncing me. The Foreign Office and Downing Street would not allow me to defend my position. It was an ugly, uncomfortable time, as no one in Whitehall or the media showed any support for efforts to get a debate going on issues that today rightly predominate. Red boxes are here today and gone tomorrow. But if a minister is to be dismissed for telling the truth, even if the telling of the truth is not perfectly timed, then this or any government is in trouble.
Islamist politics is now one of the most important issues for the future of democracy. Getting the right answers will define the world's future. All main parties, other than the odious BNP, rightly shun Islamophobia. British Muslims will be welcome at Eid parties in the Commons to celebrate the end of Ramadan. But we have to find answers to calls for censorship, to celebrations of jihadist terror, or a religiously ordained world view that denies equal rights for women or gays here and in Afghanistan.
Some difficult politics lies ahead. It is bizarre that neither David Cameron nor Sir Menzies Campbell have spoken. At some stage, the metro-populism of Notting Hill will have to engage with the worries of British citizens who understand a problem long before Whitehall gets it.
There is a new generation of British Muslims who want to engage in politics and reclaim the issues that concern their communities from religious-based outfits or those who see their task as importing foreign conflicts into domestic British politics.
They must be encouraged before it is too late. From Margaret Thatcher, until very recently Tony Blair, political leaders have been in denial. It is time to wake up.
Denis MacShane is Labour MP for Rotherham and worked at the Foreign Office as PPS and minister, 1997-2005
On a related note, let's try a reading assignment. This article is by Denis MacShane from the UK Telegraph and explains how Europe is awakening to their failure to confront radical Islam as aggressively as the U.S. has.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Our failure to confront radical Islam is there for all to see
By Denis MacShane
(Filed: 17/10/2006)
At long last, the debate on Islamism as politics, not Islam as religion, is out in the open. Two weeks ago, Jack Straw might have felt he was taking a risk when publishing his now notorious article on the Muslim veil. However, he was pushing at an open door. From across the political spectrum there is now common consent that the old multicultural emperor, before whom generation of politicians have made obeisance, is now a pitiful, naked sight.
The 10,000 Muslims in my constituency of Rotherham can only benefit from removing the dead hand of ideological Islamism allowing their faith to be respected and their children to flourish in a Britain that finally wakes up to what must be done. Despite the efforts of extremists to prevent any sort of rational debate about the place of Islam in Britain, it is at last happening.
A fight-back is beginning to reclaim Britain from the grip of those who refuse to acknowledge the centrality of British values of tolerance, fair play and parliamentary democratic freedoms notably those of free speech and respect for all religions, but supremacy for none. Voltaire noted this attribute of the English three centuries ago, when he wrote: "If there was just one religion in Britain there would be despotism. If two, there would be civil war. But as there are 30, they all live at peace with each other."
It is worth returning to Voltaire on this issue. The struggle is not between religion and secularism, nor between the West and Islam, and still less between Bush-Blair and the Taliban or Iraqi insurgents. It is the ideologisation an ugly word for an ugly thing of religion that needs confronting. Return to Voltaire who noted, "Neither Montaigne, Locke, Boyle, Spinoza, Hobbes, or Lord Shaftesbury lighted up the firebrand of discord in their countries; this has generally been the work of divines, who, being at first puffed up with the ambition of becoming chiefs of a sect, soon grew very desirous of being at the head of a party."
The row ignited by Jack Straw has, so to speak, ripped away the veil over the failure of British policy-makers since the 1980s to come to grips with growing ideological Islamism in our midst.
In David Blunkett's diaries, he refers to the arrest of the Finsbury Park radical Islamist imam, Abu Hamza, in January 2003. Mr Blunkett records: "We had been to-ing and fro-ing on this for months." For months! For years, every other politician in Europe had been complaining about the failure of Britain to act against Hamza and the other ideologues of hate who were turning young Muslim minds long before 9/11 or the Iraq conflict into cauldrons of hate against democracy, and some, tragically, into self-immolating killers of innocent men, women and children.
Where Blunkett and previous ministers failed to act, it has taken a young, devoutly religious Christian politician, in the form of Ruth Kelly, who knows the difference between private faith and public politics, to come forward and to speak en clair to organisations and ideologues who believed that their world view would and should overcome British values and traditions.
An all-party commission on anti-Semitism that I chaired reported recently. Our most worrying discovery was the complacency on many university campuses about harassment of Jewish students. Jew-baiting behaviour that would have had the Left outraged in the 1930s is now actively encouraged by an unholy alliance of the hard Left and Islamist fundamentalists, and the odious anti-Semites who have infiltrated some lecturers' unions. Ruth Kelly, whose fealty to her faith matches that of any deeply religious British Muslim, is right to make clear there are now limits which must not be overstepped.
As a Foreign Office minister, I tried to get Whitehall to take the issue seriously. I argued that diplomats who spoke relevant languages should go and talk, discuss and report back to ministers.
Chinese walls in Whitehall prevented effective inter-departmental co-operation. The Home Office, in addition to allowing Hamza to poison the minds of a generation, refused to return to France Rashid Ramda, who was wanted for questioning in connection with the 1995 Paris Metro bombings a foretaste of our own 7/7. I hated having to go on French television and waffle defensively at a policy of not extraditing this evil man. But the prevailing culture was to deal with religious leaders, not elected politicians. Whitehall sought the advice of friendly theologians from Cairo, or Muslim ideologues such as Tariq Ramadan. This denied political space to British citizens of Muslim faith, women as well as men.
Late in 2003, I made a routine speech to my constituency. It followed the murder of British and Turkish men and women at our consulate in Istanbul by Islamist terrorists. At the same time, a young South Yorkshire Muslim had gone to Israel and killed himself in a suicide bombing attack.
The two events led me to make a speech in which I said: "It is time for the elected and community leaders of British Muslims to make a choice: it is the democratic, rule of law, if you like the British or Turkish or American or European way based on political dialogue and non-violent protests or it is the way of the terrorists against which the whole democratic world is now uniting." I thought my remarks were banal. After 7/7, everyone used them.
But, three years ago, the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, Trevor Phillips wrote a whole page in the Observer denouncing me. The Foreign Office and Downing Street would not allow me to defend my position. It was an ugly, uncomfortable time, as no one in Whitehall or the media showed any support for efforts to get a debate going on issues that today rightly predominate. Red boxes are here today and gone tomorrow. But if a minister is to be dismissed for telling the truth, even if the telling of the truth is not perfectly timed, then this or any government is in trouble.
Islamist politics is now one of the most important issues for the future of democracy. Getting the right answers will define the world's future. All main parties, other than the odious BNP, rightly shun Islamophobia. British Muslims will be welcome at Eid parties in the Commons to celebrate the end of Ramadan. But we have to find answers to calls for censorship, to celebrations of jihadist terror, or a religiously ordained world view that denies equal rights for women or gays here and in Afghanistan.
Some difficult politics lies ahead. It is bizarre that neither David Cameron nor Sir Menzies Campbell have spoken. At some stage, the metro-populism of Notting Hill will have to engage with the worries of British citizens who understand a problem long before Whitehall gets it.
There is a new generation of British Muslims who want to engage in politics and reclaim the issues that concern their communities from religious-based outfits or those who see their task as importing foreign conflicts into domestic British politics.
They must be encouraged before it is too late. From Margaret Thatcher, until very recently Tony Blair, political leaders have been in denial. It is time to wake up.
Denis MacShane is Labour MP for Rotherham and worked at the Foreign Office as PPS and minister, 1997-2005
PASS!
I agree with that. The UN is an organization whos system belongs to the 19th century, when not everybody had a vote, and of those that did, some (big wealth owners) were worth more than others (small wealth owners). The big money makers equivalent of today in the UN are of course the big bomb makers.
Same rules should apply for everybody and the UN should be restructured democraticly.
He's right about this y'know. I'm not sure he doesn't mean it in the same way like I though, but the number of Jews that were killed during IIWW has been counted to ~3 million by the holocaust museum in Jerusalem.
http://www.yadvashem.org/
Why is this leader of a illegitimatly nuke possessing country alowed to speak like this without a comment by MSNBC when the article is about this subject?
Directly from your link (the home page of Yad Vashem, emphasis added):
"Yad Vashem, Jerusalem, is the Jewish people’s memorial to the murdered Six Million and symbolizes the ongoing confrontation with the rupture engendered by the Holocaust. Containing the world’s largest repository of information on the Holocaust, Yad Vashem is a leader in Shoah education, commemoration, research and documentation."
They go on to state "rockwool is a huge jackass."
How, they can't even rescue themselves?
Is that supposed to be a question Mr. Journalism?
Because invading small nations to "confront radical islam" has worked so well.
I wouldn't make it up. Don't remember where I read it but it said that the holocaust museum of Jerusalem had adjusted the number from 6 million down to 3 million.
3 million, 6 million...does it honestly really matter?
It's a huge amount of people, completely abhorrent and is Genocide either way.
It's a huge amount of people, completely abhorrent and is Genocide either way.
Defenately genocide, but I find it important to mention as this is constantly used in zionist propaganda. Even if it wasn't propaganda, right should be right and the differance is pretty big.
Found somthing:
http://www1.yadvashem.org/remembrance/names/site/names.html
What I had read a while back said something in the way of "the museum of holocaust could only upbring about 3 million names".
I'm telling your mom you called me a jackass and you're gonna be sorry.
Probably..... That would be why he used the word "How"Is that supposed to be a question Mr. Journalism?
It's not the right place to post this... but heck, any place is good for a Bush bash!
http://www.clamormagazine.org/issues/14/feature3.php
Do you even understand what you're posting? The above is a statement that we are able to identify BY NAME 3 million of the Jews who were murdered. Considering the Germans did everything they could to destroy their own records as they approached defeat, that alone is PROOF of the number who died. For example, my paternal grandfather's name does not appear on any of the Aushwitz registries that survived destruction, yet his tatoo identifies him as one of the few that survived Auschwitz from 1942 until liberation in 1945. If he had been killed there would be no record of him or his 8 siblings (who were all murdered). Their names would not exist and they would not be counted in the above 3 million.
3 million is a massive number. Do you really think it would serve any kind of agenda to double it falsely? You ignorant ****.
he gets his quotes from slanderous places. like the ones that mentioned the "resolutions condeming zionism as racist" and all that stuff he has posted before.
btw, whats up with the eurohate of t3h j00?
Yes.
It says it here. That's why I corrected my self after reading it, a few posts back.
3 million counted and many names forgotten means that there is probably a lot more.
Whether I can think of an if and why some body does a sertain thing, or not, doesn't mean that they aren't doing it. In this case they haven't doubled the dead falsely. But ask Noam Chomsky if zionists do have an agenda, if they use false propaganda and if they hide the truth about some stuff, and you will get a positive answer. That is from somebody whos knowledge is recognized as the worlds no1 in that field.
Chomsky will tell you that they will try and shut you up if you speak up aginst them, by calling you anti semite. If you're a Jew, they will try and devalue your word by calling you a self hating Jew. Chomsky will tell you that Jews have a general view of them selves as victimes, that they think that nobody likes them and that that is used as propaganda. He will tell you that in the early 70's the zionists started using the holocast in their propaganda, and that the holocaust was previously almost only an issue among leftist Jews. He will tell you that writing holocaust with a capital H is an example of that propaganda.
Maybe you could also ask Chomsky a question to clarify somthing for Alexis? Ask him which english speaking mainstram media he considers to be credible sources and if they ever report something that is slanted.
Just like the Bush administrations propaganda has been proven to be BS several times, so has the zionists. Can you blame me for questioning a proven liar? Well, I questioned it and I learned somthing by searching for an answer direct from the source. It's a good thing that that number got known. Maybe you know about it already, I didn't. But we still don't know the full truth so continued questioning should be a healthy thing, shouldn't it?
As you your self have previously admitted, a UN resolution DID condemn zionism as racism. Would it be possible for the nazis to get the German people to commit such atrocities to Jews (and others) if they hadn't dehumanized them? How Israelis conduct them selves in Palestine clearly show that same dehumanization in their actions, but it also some times slips out in words.
linguistics you mean?
doesnt mean a flying ****. they took it back many years later. basically admitting they pull it out of their asses.
the relevant point here being you didnt know that, so you pretty much quoted incomplete information for the sake of your argument.
either you read it from a controversial source (and likely, you get your information in the wrong places), or you just flat out thought nobody was going to notice. i think it was the first.
Chomsky is your reliable source? Please he has such an agenda that he'll say anything to make it true. He is the same as Bush in regards to credibility. Either that or he is a naive idiot. I'm guessing a little of both. Probably mostly he tries to know everything about everything. But you swallow it all hook, line and sinker because it matches wtih what you THINK to be true.
Chomsky has an issue with genocide or at least calling it that. Ask his buddy Pol Pot about it. Wait a minute maybe I can enlist him in getting Darfu classified as a block party.
It's true that he is a linguist but no, I meant as a philosopher interpreting our present time.
True because resolution or not Israeli actions speak for them selves, and treating a whole nation of people like that for the stupid high amount of 40 years leaves no doubt about it.
Yeah, I quoted incomplete information. But that wasn't to my knowledge as it didn't mention the revoking of that resolution a few years after that. Not that it matters as we've all seen it, no need to type it. My argument was already proven, no need to deliberately post slanted stuff.
Same thing happened here, I read something, passed it on, stood corrected (this time I proved my self wrong).
A non controversial place being the mainstream media. But with them all being owned to probably 100% by 5 media conglomerates (with a big zionist ownership influence) they should be looked upon as controversial, but of some mysterious reason aren't.
Information that isn't in the interest of the owners of those "right places" will seldomly be found there, one has to look else where. To get the full picture, the view of the defendant must also be heard. the view of the prosecutor is being bombarded to the masses through numerous mediums and can't be missed.
So, is the "right side" free from misstakes and dissinformation? Does their articles always deepen enough in the subject so that all facts are always presented?
Wow, you equal Bush's proven lies to Chomsky who backs everythiing with references?
References is the sientific way to go. Are you joining the medevil catholic church in the hunt on scientists?
EDIT: I want to comment about Darfur. Not about your comment on it in particular, but in general. It seems like your media is hammering you about Darfur as it is such a tremendous issue for you. It is mentioned over here too, but not in brain wash proportions, as it obviously hasn't touched people enough for them to mention it, and definately not talk about it all the time. It could be because Sweden isn't on an official or unofficial crusade for oil.
Just an observation.
I don't think Chomsky's an asshat, but citing him in an argument as a credible source is just asking for it.
Amazing that he can be so controversial in what he says even though he backs up his words with references that many times are from declassified information found in the library of congress.
His controversiality could be because he (according to him self) isn't, or only harldy, alowed to view his stance in the US mass media.
Apparently some people (looking toward Scandanavia here) assume that the number matters because the larger the number of deaths in the holocaust, the more the Israelis will use that to guilt the rest of the world into shutting up about their treatment of Palestinians. Am I correct in reading it that way? Personally I'd argue that 3 or 6 million is an horrifying number either way, but that neither of them means you get a blank check for the rest of the future. Of course, this also assumes we equate Jews and Zionists, which is useful for both sides of the argument, depending on the circumstances...
Having said that, look at the tizzy that happens when the Lancet does a study in Iraq. Everyone's falling over themselves to make it clear that without a death certificate, a body, and a notarized letter from George Bush acknowledging the death, it obviously didn't happen.
Well he does back everything with references. But it just so happens that in regards to his early writings on Cambodia the vast majority of his sources were from the Khmer Rouge themselves. And even the stuff that wasn't turned out to be taken out of context, twisted to support his stance, or taken to conclusions that even retards wouldn't. Sounds like Bush to me.Chomsky said:
What's interesting is that when presented with direct evidence at the time that something was going on this is what he said...
Again because it didn't fall into what he thought to be true. Truth really didn't matter. What mattered was that the evidenced "supported" his view points and stance. Its very similar to what you do. Of course that it turned out that it was 100% accurate and he was 100% wrong really meant nothing.
What really scares me about Chomsky is that practically every tale of genocide or mass killings in the last 40 years he seems to fall on the side that they didn't happen, or were overblown or were the fault of the victims themselves. Hell of a role model you got there. Which leads me to your assine comments about Darfur......
Do you even know where Darfur is? Do you even know what is happening there? Brain wash what? I guess its like the holocaust.... simply not happening. Its doubtful anyone will every be able to identify even a tiny percentage of the folks that have been slaughtered. So that will help minimize it.
But I'll save you the trouble of looking what Chomsky says is happening for you to figure out what your opinion is. He blames it all on the bombing of the "pharmacutical" at Al-Shifa which was perpetrated by the US imperialist pigs. Of course that was 8 years ago but that 3 month interruption is still killing people today. Of there are tons of references, including Oxfam, Doctors with Borders and People's Aid (all well known agents of the CIA) that say there was no blip in the death rates during the 3 month interruption nor afterwards. Well that was until the government started slaughtering people.
What's really funny about Darfur is how the Muslim government and "rebels" is doing exactly what you accuse the Zionist Israelis of doing. Dehumanizing their enemy to justify their slaughter.
I guess in the end that since you can't attack Bush about Darfur there is no reason to give a **** about it.
You're correct that the number is being used as "the biggest crime to humanity against one single people and nothing else comes close" kinda thing, but that wasn't what I first thought. I read that forgotten article as that the number had been adjusted down to some 3 million, and felt it was important out of a factual reason.
It's not like you make a batch of pancakes and use 4 eggs instead of 2, we can live with that. In retrospect I find it important as it would also kill some of the zionist propaganda, as it sadly is being used. I'm with you that it's pointless in measuring or competing in a thing like who's the biggest genocide victime.
It is dangerous to equate Jews and zionists because it is equating a devine religion with a worldly ideology. It is rewriting the whole meaning of it. Common people not knowing the difference are led to belive that it is the same thing, and that critisism aginst zionism is critisism agaist Jews, and therefore racism. That is one of the ways zionists shut you up.
Devowed Jews critisize Israeli policy for violating the Torah.
From my side of the argument, it would not only be false, it could never benefit what I'm trying to show.
That Lancet study, is that the one that has been on the news this past week? I see what you mean, one should walk with caution about numbers when it comes to deaths in conflicts as they so easily can be denied and disapear forever, even though they are happening right this minute.
the point completely flew by you.
I've seen Manufacturing Consent from 1992 that uses the news coverage in Kambodia as an example of how western media works. It was a few years back and all I remember is that he gave a good explanation to the "official" story of what happened and that he said Henry Kissinger had a direct finger innit while being located in Laos (if I remember correctly) doing the pedofile thingie (that was mentioned in another documentary).
Truth is everything. But who writes history (or truth if you want)? Traditionally it has been the winner, right? Today it is the one with the biggest vocal chords, win or loose, mission accomplished or not. If you're the only one being heard nobody will ever reflect that the other side probably didn't view it "hte official way".
A few days ago they talked about that ~10% of the Swedes were listening to nazi broadcasts from Germany (in Swedish). They played the news reportage from the day when the UK declared war on Germany (after them crossing into Poland), who expressed that the Britts were the agressors and not that they acted in defence of Poland.
I had never imagined that the nazis would turn their expansionist wars into them being the victims of a Brittish agression. I had always only heard the "official" view on that and therefore nothing else existed. With the US it's the same thing, what ever they choose to cast their eyes on gets to be common knowledge and conflicts that don't get covered just doesn't happen.
In cases both get heard, the one shouting the loudest is the one that is belived. It is all about psychology and this is how the human mind works. That is why Chomsky has said that "there is a war on information" going on, and he is the worlds no1 interpretor on how media works.
What I some times have is a different view of what has "officially" happened in this world. These views have come from deepening my knowledge in some cases but I have also got it from mom and dad, as we belong to the losing side of a conflict in Greece. That has enabled me to see that it isn't always like it's commonly known, and that have sertainly led me to question more.
If you are an average american, and you seem to be, you have grown up on the victorers side always being told how bad the enemies of your country is and how righteous, patient, just and freedom loving God blessed countrie you are. All that has affected you subconsiously, wheather you wanted it or not (we're humans, can't help it). Questioning the official view don't come as natural to you.
That is clearly shown in your posts as you get soo damn irritated at me viewing what you've probably heard way to little of. The truth you've always known gets flaws. If you also are a patriot this critisism will probably also be a bit of a personal insult. At the same time the thing that by far shakes your foundations is what comes out about your government at present time. That is so obvious and that is what hits the hardest. Every thing you stood on gets torn more fore every day.
That is a very hard thing to deal with but the sooner you end it, by start questioning if not everything you've ever been told could be a partial lie, the sooner you will be free. Truly. That is a freedom dubya actually will give you.
Just like the real truth has become illuminated in the Iraq conflict, the same will happen with many conflicts as you deepen your knowledge in them by ALSO getting information from alternative, non mainstream, sources.
I don't know what genocides/mass killings you are refering to that Chomsky has denied and what. In Manufacturing Consent he doesn't deny the genocide in Cambodia and he uses the genocide in East Timor (don't remember exactly) as a comparison where ~300.000 got killed but it was hardly mentioned by the media. He uses actual written newspaper column meters to messure the differance in written meters by the two.
There he shows that the reason why Cambodia had so much written about it was because it was in the interest of the US to spread what was going on there, but in East Timor it wasn't as Indonisia being an ally. Which leads us to Darfur.....
Brain wash proportions. The continous repeating of the same (news) which has the same effect of the "loud voiced kid" example of above.
Brain wash seldomly involves scotch brite and soap. The US has "interests" in Darfur, that is why your media is continously hammering you with news from there, preparing you for what is to come; a US intervention to secure the oil, sorry people.
Are you saying that Al-Shifa didn't have anything to do with it? Why was the bombing NOT an act of swinish US imperialism? You hit a medical factory that was helping the same people you now care so much about. Pathetic isn't it? You bomed it because it was competing with US interests. The oil, military and pharmaceutical industries are the 3 major "US interests". All three costing people of this world a genocide every year. No Swedes or Greeks though.
You wan't an organization named that has documentedly been used as cover by the CIA look at Humans Rights Watch.
I don't find that funny. Was the humor in that you thought that the zionists had an exclusive right on that?
Just did it.
Here's another one doing it too:
http://buffaloreport.com/2006/060925.welch.sudan.html
You've got to stop personifying your self with the USA (even though I played that aginst you a little). You are not part of Team America and shouldn't therefore see it as personal critism. The US is the current empire and as such it commits a lot of horrible things, just like any empire before it. I don't belive that you think the US is doing what it does with the good intention it says it has.
You aren't blind but have, as everybody else has, a slight problem with taking critisism and don't want to admit "your" bad sides.
Later D
Let's compare propaganda...
According to the CDC
Bush has gotten a lot of milage out of that propaganda. So far the death toll in Iraq is 50,000 to 650,000 depending on who you believe. That's not counting the 2791 US deaths, 199 UK deaths, and 119 "other" country deaths and 44,799 us Casualties.
So all things being equal it looks like isreal could kill somewhere between 116,000,000 to 1,436,000,000 people and end up on equal moral footing with the Bush administration.
Of course that's a silly comparison, but it does show the value of propaganda. Israel hasn't gotten anywhere near the propaganda value out of being the target of a multi-year genocide that Bush has gotten from a single terrorist attack. Frankly, I'd expect them to be a lot militant than they are. Imagine if someone killed three out of four people in town/state/country. Wouldn't you do everything possible to make sure it didn't happen again?
At the same time, the situation in Palestine is unforgivable, both Israel and palestinian leaders have a lot of responsibility for the situation. They are both acting like a couple of four year olds. And that doesn't excuse the U.N. that allowed the current situation to develop and festor for the last sixty years.
What reality are you living in? The US media has completely ignored Sudan. I don't know what it's like on Europe, but over here it's as if the situation in Darfur doesn't exist. The ONLY arena I hear it mentioned is from Church and Synogogue groups desperately trying and failing to bring it to the forefront of mainstream news.
For your comparison to have a value it will mean that life has its value as long as you're breathing, and only loses its value when you stop breathing. That is true for vegetables, for us humans there are a lot of things we need to make life somting worth living.
For one thing the palestinians have a blockade against them by the EU, US and Israel which means that they don't get enough food. A simple thing in life, yes, but good food man, that is somthing to live for some times isn't it?
You want to grow up in a place without opression and harrasement. You wan't to be able to walk to the hospital lying in the next village without having to wait in an arbitrary road block for 6-8h. You dream of becoming a doctor but can't go to university as it is 70km away.
Schools are closed, curfuews imposed for quite a big part of the year. That means your kids are going to grow up as partialy ignorant as they didn't get their basic general knowledge from going to school. They didn'tget to have all that fun you got on your school yard playing a land-hockey turnament every break you had.
Your in love with a girl in another enclave but you're not alowed to go there to marry her becase of that you don't get a visa to cross Israel. YOu protest, and they lock you in jail claiming you're a terrist and you still haven't got a trial. Six years have past... still nothing. When Amnesty speaks up no media runs your story, when they contact the Israeli government they get an answer after a long set of letters saying that Israel is a democracy and that Palestine is a terrist country not capable of handeling their people.
3/4, do you mean the holocaust? Yes, of course I would. I would do everything I could to spread my knowledge about it to. Specialy on my home ground, so that people of a sertain folk group, political colour or prefered sexuality don't get treated unhumanly again. As it has happen to me I wouldn't want it to happen to Palestinians.
I would never put them in ghettos. I would never view them as lesser people, that would be like calling my self one of the master race. I woudl know that would only make them hate me and want to retaliate. Them retaliation would steal my peace, and I'm an old man. I would like to die and pass on a peaceful better place to live in.
The Bush administration has far from ignored Sudan. Condi is at it like a rodent. For the US press to completely ignor it is a physical impossibility, your state-media relations are only second to Israels. Your government has never failed to get their word out. That is the way how your system works, they prepare the people of what is going to happen by hammering them into a frenzy. Just like 1984. That much I would tell you from not even have seen some of that coverage. But I've seen some.
The sickest type of hammering I've ever experianced was when the Kursk "went down" in 2001. Those days it took for Russia to agree to the wests cry to help those poor Russian sailors (in the most sophisticated sub ever) were jsut about the most massive media brain wash they ever could throw at us.
News anchors were openly desperate as they read they talked about them non feeling Russians that didn't want to loose face by accepting help from the UK. I can only imagine what went on behind the scenes, Russia was in a baaad financial state as they couldn't pay salaries, and had a lot of pressure on them about Chechnya. It got better for them.
Actually I was only speaking to the "propaganda value" of loss of life. European Jews were persecuted for many years before being sent to concentration camps and watching their friends and families die during WWII. They should feel empathy for the palestinians, and in fact many do. Just remember the people and the state sometimes disagree widely.
Unfortunately the state of Israel's empathy for other people being treated badly has been overwhelmed by fear. They don't want to ever be in a the position they were in in WWII. Their fear of militants and sixty years of being circled by hostile neighbors has conditioned them to respond with force. Most of their neighbors refuse to acknowledge their existance and call them "the illegal zionist regieme" instead of a country. The president of Iran is calling for wiping them off the map, and also developing nuclear power and possibly the atomic bomb. They see themselves as under siege, and respond based on their perceptions.
Whats happening in the palestine isn't right. Keeping fishermen from fishing isn't right. The way the palestinian people have been treated in general isn't right.
As for the Sudan, I'm appalled. There is very little disagreement on how bad the situation is. I'm appalled by the lack of action. If there was ever a clear reason for the use of military force to protect human life, this is it.