(updated – see below)
Pro-Israel propagandist Jeffrey Goldberg made an inadvertent but profound admission the other day when he said: “[T]he U.S. have been waging a three-decade war for domination of the Middle East.”
This “three-decade war for domination of the Middle East” becomes apparent when we consider how many Muslim countries the peace-loving United States and her “stalwart ally” Israel have bombed:
During Bill Clinton’s presidency, the U.S. bombed Iraq, Afghanistan, and Sudan.
In the time of George Bush, the U.S. bombed Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, Pakistan, and Somalia.
Under Barack Obama, the U.S. is currently bombing Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya. According to some reports (see here and here), we can add Iran to this ever-expanding list. [Update: An Informed Comment reader named Shannon pointed out that in fact the United States bombed Iran in 1988 during Operating Praying Mantis, an act that "cannot be justified" according to the International Court of Justice.]
Thanks to American arms and funding, our “stalwart ally” Israel has bombed every single one of its neighbors, including Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. Israel has also bombed Tunisia and Iraq (how many times can Americans and Israelis bomb this country?).
The total number of Muslim countries that America and Israel have bombed comes to fourteen: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Iran, Sudan, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and Tunisia.
Meanwhile, the U.S. has military bases in several countries in the Greater Middle East, including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Turkey, Pakistan, UAE, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, Djibouti, Kyrgyzstan, Somalia, Ethiopia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Chad. The U.S. also used to have a base in Eritrea and demanded another one in 2010. [Update: There is a minor error here pointed out to me by Prof. Juan Cole: the U.S. troops stationed in Uzbekistan are using an Uzbek, not American, base. However, this makes little substantive difference: there is still a U.S. military presence in that country, which was my point.]
Here’s what that looks like on a map of the Greater Middle East:
(Note: Image quality improved thanks to a reader named Mohamed S.)
I wonder where those silly Muslims come up with the conspiratorial, absolutely irrational idea that the U.S. is waging war against the Muslim world?
If you haven’t already seen this video, I strongly suggest you watch it:
With seven active wars in seven different Muslim countries, it is quite an amazing thing that Americans can have the audacity to ask: “why are Muslims so violent and warlike?”
But, that’s just the tip of the iceberg. The New York Times reports that President Barack Obama “widened” the war, which is now being waged across “two continents” in “roughly a dozen countries — from the deserts of North Africa, to the mountains of Pakistan, to former Soviet republics,” using “robotic drones and commando teams” as well as “contractors” and “local operatives.”
Even more worrisome, the Washington Post reports that America’s “secret wars” are waged by “Special Operations forces” in “75 countries” (and “that number will likely reach 120″); in other words, the United States will have engaged in military acts in over 60% of the world’s nation-states. After all of this, Americans will turn around and ask: “why are Muslims so violent and warlike?”
Could it possibly be more obvious that the War on Terror is just a pretext for global domination?
* * * * *
Every four years, Americans get the illusion of choice: the choice between Democrat and Republican. In terms of foreign policy, the difference is like the difference between Coke and Pepsi. In the last election, John McCain sang a variation of the famous Beach Boys song “Barbara Ann,” changing the lyrics to “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran!”; meanwhile, Barack Obama hinted at expanding the war to Pakistan. The American voter was given the choice not between war and peace, but between war against Iran or war against Pakistan.
In the national discourse, there exists a bipartisan consensus on the need for perpetual war: both candidates agreed on the need to expand the War on of Terror and attack more Muslim countries. There was no confusion about whether or not to bomb, invade, and occupy–the question was only where to do this. If the Muslim world were imagined to be a turkey, the question was then only whether to begin munching on the leg first or to start with the breast.
President Barack Obama may have disagreed with his predecessor’s tactics, but he agreed with the Bush/Cheney world view. Obama may have thought we could move around troops here and there–let’s move some of these troops from Iraq to Afghanistan–but he did not disagree with the basic premise, overall methods, and goals of the Bush/Cheney War on of Terror.
Interestingly, Obama was considered to be “the peace candidate”; even more absurd of course was that he ended up winning the Noble Peace Prize. While it is true that the Democratic Obama has tended to use less hawkish language, in terms of actions Obama has a worse record than Bush: Obama has expanded the War on of Terror, both in terms of covert and overt wars.
Why did a “liberal” Democrat (Barack Obama) end up being more warlike than a “hawkish” Republican (George Bush)? There is of course the obvious explanation of war inertia. But aside from this, there must be something deeper, which is apparent if we look at the situation between what were historically the two large parties in Israel.
Western media (see Time Magazine, for example), portrays the Labor Party as “dovish” and Likud as “hawkish”. Certainly, in terms of rhetoric this is true. But, is it really true? According to experts in the field–such as Prof. Noam Chomsky and Dr. Norman Finkelstein–Labor has had a far worse track record toward Palestinians than the Likud. Labor and Likud play good cop, bad cop toward Palestinians–or rather bad cop, badder cop. But while the two parties disagree on rhetoric and tactics, they share similar overall goals.
The same is the case with Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats use softer rhetoric, whereas the Republicans continually push the national discourse (the “center”) rightward. But, because a Democratic president must counter the accusation that he is “weak” on matters of “defense” (Orwell: offense is defense), he must be Strong and Tough against Terrorism. Effectively this means that his war policy becomes virtually indistinguishable from that of the political right.
Furthermore, President Barack Obama has done something that no Republican could do: he has brought bipartisan consensus to the state of perpetual and global war. During the reign of George Bush, prominent liberal progressives criticized his warlike policies. In fact, this was one of the motivating factors behind electing Obama, who would bring “Change.” Yet, when Obama brought more of the same, most liberal progressives fell silent, a hypocrisy that did not go unnoticed by conservatives.
It took a “liberal” Democrat to expand the War on of Terror and give it bipartisan consensus, just as it took a conservative Republican (Richard Nixon) to make peace with Communist China.
Under the two-party system, it really does not matter which side wins. A Republican candidate might sound more warlike than a Democrat, but once in office, he softens his position somewhat due to Democratic opposition (even though most of the Democrats won’t vote against war resolutions). Meanwhile, a Democrat president must prove that he is Strong and Tough against Terrorism, so he hardens his position. In the end, Democratic and Republican presidents are moved to the political “center” (which keeps getting pushed ever more to the right), so that the two are virtually indistinguishable from each other. Perhaps Barack Obama was onto something when he said:
There’s not a liberal America or a conservative America; there’s the United States of America.
It is true: America’s politicians are united in their endorsement of perpetual and global war.
The United States has a long history of bipartisan consensus when it comes to waging wars of aggression. In 1846, the country was divided between the hawkish Democratic party led by President James K. Polk and the supposedly dovish Whig party. Polk’s administration saber-rattled against Mexico in order to justify invading and occupying their land. Meanwhile, “[t]he Whig party was presumably against the war,” but “they were not so powerfully against the military action that they would stop it by denying men and money for the operation” (p.153 of Prof. Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States). In fact, the “Whigs joined Democrats in voting overwhelmingly for the war resolution, 174 to 14.” They did so, because “[t]hey did not want to risk the accusation that they were putting American soldiers in peril by depriving them of the materials necessary to fight.” The only dissenters were “a small group of antislavery Whigs, or a ‘little knot of ultraists,’ as one Massachusetts Congressman who voted for the war measure put it.” Perhaps among them was Ron Paul’s great grandfather.
The measure passed the Congress (174 to 14) and the Senate (40 to 2), “Whigs joining Democrats.” The Whigs “could only harry the administration with a barrage of verbiage while voting for every appropriation which the military campaigns required.” In any case, “the United States would be giving the blessings of liberty and democracy” to the Mexicans. Any of this sound familiar?
Flash forward to today and we see the establishment left consistently supporting America’s wars of aggression. Even while these avowed liberals criticize right-wingers for warmongering against Iran, they themselves often saber-rattle against Pakistan and even Saudi Arabia. The right thinks we’re doing something great in Iraq and wants to expand the war to Iran (which we may already have done). Meanwhile, the left thinks we were right to bomb Afghanistan and that we should expand the war to Pakistan (which we’ve already done). Neither left or right opposes foreign wars altogether. The difference is only with regard to the names of the countries we bomb, which doesn’t really matter since the truth is that we are bombing all of them now.
This is because both left and right agree with the Supreme Islamophobic Myth: that Islam (or radical Islam) is the greatest threat to world peace. This inevitably leads to the central tenet of Islamophobia, which is to endorse the Supreme Islamophobic Crime: bombing, invading, and occupying Muslim lands.
Peace can only be attained when one is disabused of this mother of nationalistic myths. This can only be done by realizing that it is the United States that is the greatest threat to peace in the region (look at the map!). Consider that the U.S. has bombed at least a dozen Muslim countries in recent history, whereas zero Muslim countries have bombed the U.S. If “wars of aggression” constitute “the supreme international crime”–as decided during the Nuremberg Trials–then what does it say about the situation when America has initiated multiple wars of aggression against the Muslim world whereas no single Muslim country has done so against the United States?
No Muslim country has attacked us because the risks of doing so are far too great; it would mean almost certain destruction. This is why, even though the map of the Middle East in the image above looks like it does, no Muslim country has the audacity to retaliate. Meanwhile, the U.S.–as the world’s only superpower–can attack multiple smaller countries without fear of significant retaliation to the American heartland. Therefore, it only makes sense for people of conscience, especially Americans, to be highly critical of U.S. foreign policy.
* * * * *
Something else troubling I’ve noticed about the national discourse is how even those opposed to war (or at least one set of wars) will frame their opposition in financial terms. The primary argument to convince Americans against war seems not to be the fact that war is immoral, that bombing countries and killing so many countless civilians is morally repugnant, but rather that it’s just too costly to do so. It’s our wallets, not our soul, that is at stake.
Another argument that takes precedence over the moral argument includes the idea that too many of our troops are dying (victim inversion); alternatively, it is argued (rightfully) that such wars increase the likelihood of terrorism against us (another example of victim inversion).
During the Nuremberg Trials, it was decided that initiating a war of aggression constituted “the supreme international crime”:
To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.
Of what moral character would you consider a Nazi official if he argued against Hitler’s wars on the basis of “it will cost too much German tax payer money” or “it will kill too many German soldiers” or “it may result in retaliation against Germany?” (Refer to Glenn Greenwald’s article on Godwin’s law.)
Would it not be better to use as one’s central argument against America’s wars that it is morally repugnant to bomb and kill people?
Danios was the Brass Crescent Award Honorary Mention for Best Writer in 2010 and the Brass Crescent Award Winner for Best Writer in 2011.
Update I:
Prof. Juan Cole was kind enough to reproduce the image and link to our article. He had some minor issues with the map, to which I responded here.
December 13th, 2011 at 3:55 am
Well done Danios,great article ..
December 13th, 2011 at 4:34 am
@Danios:
1. You color in Jordan but don’t include it in your lists. Perhaps you believe that Jordan is Palestine?
2. You describe Labor and Likud as “the two large parties in Israel.” Labor is most charitably described as the third-biggest party now, though it came in fourth in the last elections and since splintered. I think you should add “historically” to the description.
December 13th, 2011 at 4:40 am
Uh, Danios, I think Saudi Arabia is incorrectly placed on this: Saudi Arabia has not had American bases since 2003. I should add that the Americans had a military presence on and off, and with the invitation of the Saudi government during the high-tide of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait for very sensible reasons I think. In anycase, the info you had linked to Saudi hasnt been updated since 2001 (which explains why the withdrawl hasnt been noted.) Just a heads up.
December 13th, 2011 at 4:49 am
I just want everyone to stop fighting
December 13th, 2011 at 5:03 am
@ Mohammed Al-Arabi:
Mohammed, in fact, hundreds of U.S. military personnel remain in Saudi Arabia in places like Eskan Village Air Base.
However, I’ll redirect the link here. Thanks.
As “for [the] very sensible reasons,” the majority of Saudis do not want any U.S. bases on their land. I could care less what the client regime thinks.
December 13th, 2011 at 5:16 am
@ Just Stopping By:
1. Sorry, forgot to include Jordan in the list. I added it now with the relevant hyperlink.
2. Change noted. Thanks.
December 13th, 2011 at 5:30 am
I still have my soft corner for Obama. He is playing hard to prevent Republican tards from using the card against him.
He bombs Pakistan, because he identifies all terrorism emanating from Pakistan. This was something he said even before he got elected.
The anti-Iran rhetoric could get out hand and all the popularity US gained by helping Libyan revolution, might end up getting diluted. But I say it obvious, any attack on Iran would be by the hands of Israel and their henchmen in US. By regime change/stooge implantation in Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas also ends up weakened. So Israel has lot to gain.
December 13th, 2011 at 5:36 am
@ Fox News:
“All terrorism comes from Pakistan.”
First, it was Afghanistan. Then, it was Iraq. Then, Iran. Then, Yemen. Then, Pakistan. Then, back to Iran. Then…
Terrorism comes from one source: the country that occupies others.
December 13th, 2011 at 6:05 am
What you refer is the core of the issue. But its difficult to point fingers at a particular arena. Afghan wasn’t bombed for nothing. They were harboring Al-Qaeda, with his supreme head OBL having the master plan strategy of actually inviting US to invade Afghan and defeat the US empire on Muslim soil. Hence 9/11. So US can point fingers at them.
But if we go back in history, US and Israel alliance attacked Muslims and thereby OBL can claim that what he did is only a strategy of retaliation in an already on going war. And such pointing fingers will continue adding up.
In the end its difficult to tell whether this finger pointing is genuine or merely a propoganda for a ideological war at the roots. The questions still remains: Who started the war of aggression? Who is the aggressor and who is the defender?
December 13th, 2011 at 6:30 am
@Danios > Well said.
Terrorism is as terrorists do.
The Oxford English Dictionary O.E.D. is the supreme arbiter with regard to the meaning of English words, not the opportunistically expedient Orwellian Newspeak from the M.I.C.
December 13th, 2011 at 6:49 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axHR8AOxxkc
Don’t forget preventing ‘genocide’ in East Timor
December 13th, 2011 at 7:07 am
@ Danios: You sound more and more like a HARD CORE Mohammadan-An enemy within America.
December 13th, 2011 at 9:19 am
Would it not be better to use as one’s central argument against America’s wars that it is morally repugnant to bomb and kill people?”
I think people are too afraid to say that because then they’ll be considered “unpatriotic” and then be simply ignored.(i.e. Ron Paul) I know it’s cowardly but atleast they speak out against wars by discussing the loss of funding and the loss of troops. Whatever the reason, I’m glad majority of Americans are protesting against the wars. Occupy movement is not progressing as much as I had hoped but atleast it gets the politicians and others thinking about ending the wars and hopefully ending the FED. You certainly can’t lecture them on morals. Remember, most are corrupt politicians. All they care about is reelection and their pocketbooks so you gotta talk their language.
December 13th, 2011 at 9:37 am
@Khushboo:Most of these wars were triggered after the Mohammadan JIHAD attacks over years against America and the West.Now the Mohammadans are paying the price for that and it is not over yet till it is over.Have some patience.2012 is going to be the worst for you all.
December 13th, 2011 at 11:22 am
Speaking of “why do they hate us” heres an interesting article from Salon:
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/13/did_america_help_stifle_the_arab_spring/
December 13th, 2011 at 11:44 am
@shitseeker
you sound like a hardcore neo-facist Nazi, the enemy of mankined
just go back to your basement, your fleas are missing you
December 13th, 2011 at 11:59 am
@ “Truth Seeker” – Perhaps you should change your pen name to “Truth Hider”. The truth of what Danios has written is so plain that it can’t be refuted; so the only resort you have is to name-calling: “@ Danios: You sound more and more like a HARD CORE Mohammadan-An enemy within America.”
It is always the case that when a “prophet” points out corruption and evil in a country (particularly in the leadership of that country), the accused whose deeds are evil refuse to “come to the light” which the “prophet” brings – and instead denounce them as “enemies of the people”.
Danios is certainly not a Prophet in the literal sense; but he does speak out – with a “prophetic voice” – against the evils in our government. Because you side with the corrupt in government, you don’t wish to have your evil exposed. But you can’t refute the accusations, so you resort to the “defense” of the defeated: name-calling. In fact, though, those with eyes to see will just roll their eyes at your foolishness and alliance with evil.
December 13th, 2011 at 12:01 pm
Damning article Danios. I’ll be sure to repost this plenty.
December 13th, 2011 at 12:02 pm
Terrorist attack in Belgium
A deadly attack has rocked the Belgian city of Liege. At least two people have been killed and up to 64 injured as several men threw hand grenades and opened fire in a crowded bus station. One attacker has reportedly died in the incident.
December 13th, 2011 at 12:13 pm
Great post, Danios. Keep posting the truth!
December 13th, 2011 at 12:20 pm
Khushboo
Good points. I also think that is the reason why many American Muslims are afraid to come out openly and say so. The Jews used to say the same, and still do, the fear of anti semitism means or accusations of being a fifth column. I’ve met many Jews who say they don’t want a Jewish President because then he would be go out of his way to prove he is not a fifth column and ‘loyal’ to America, even if it meant going against Jewish interests.
I fear this is why many American Muslims are not aggressively speaking out, not just against many American atrocities, but against Islamophobia.
December 13th, 2011 at 12:23 pm
Fox News,
Good points, though Danios made some great points too.
I too still like Obama, because I think he is genuine in wanting peace, it’s just that his hands are tied, and he also had to ‘prove’ to the Republicans that he can fight the enemies of the USA because they said he would be soft on that. He most certainly proved them wrong. Even they didn’t probably imagine he would get Bin Laden AND Awlaki.
Danios, though you make some excellent points, I have to say that it’s not really Obama’s fault that he inherited wars. He had to make the best of a bad situation. I believe that if the USA had already been in wars, he would not have started them.
December 13th, 2011 at 12:25 pm
[We are putting it up actually, either today or tomorrow] –Admin
December 13th, 2011 at 12:31 pm
I have been reading this website for some time, especially the comments section. I can’t say I agree with much of what has been printed, but the perspective is interesting.
Here is what I don’t understand: Do fans of this site believe or not believe that there is a militant islamic movement that exists? If so, do you accept that they seek to impose their religous demands on others, similar to Taliban like oppression?
I accept that muslims aren’t all evil terrorists waiting to take over the world, and I am pretty sure most people do. But I also think it’s obvious that there are several militant groups, and even large sections of some populations that would impose their interpretation of oppressive religious dogma on others, if given the opportunity.
Also, it seems people here take the position that Jihadi’s are misrepresenting the Quran and Islam etc. to further their goals. But by what arrogance does anyone here claim that THEY have the correct interpretation and no one else does? It seems to me to be the same arrogance that the Jihadi’s act on.
Also, in spite of all the United States flaws, The American hyper power is probably the greatest thing ever to happen to this planet, in terms of peace, and prosperity. the Americans police the world, and are essentially running a global empire. But by all comparison, are probably the most benevolent empire ever to rule, and while you may find the bombings and whatnot to be abhorrent, standing by and watching people suffer oppression is also abhorrent. the question that needs to be asked is, compared to what? who would you prefer be the global empire? One thing is for sure, it wouldn’t be nobody, any vacuum of power would be filled…. the Leviathan that is American power guarantees peace and prosperity for all under it’s dominion, in the same way that the police do.
The Ron Paul Video shown above is hopelessly naive. A more accurate description would be, imagine if neighbourhoods taken over by oppressive gangs refused to allow police stations and police to operate in their areas. If so called ‘Muslim’ countries (a term i find offensive, to base a country on it’s religion) where free and liberal democracies, than I could see the point. But the simple fact is, that the Americans are there to support democratic freedoms, even to their enemies…. it is just good business.
The Americans bombed, occupied, and patrolled France, Germany, Japan etc.all to the benefit of the peoples in those countries. Sure, bad things happened that no one would take lightly, but the overall freedom and prosperity the world has seen since is a feat never seen in human history, especially since the end of the cold war.
To sum up, while it is sad that if someone takes 100 hostages, and the police have to do some dirty things to free them, I would still rather them be freed, even if it may cost the lives of 1 or 2 people. I view the American project as much the same. Dictators are essentially hostage takers, there really is no difference. They are also ‘Occupiers’. Personally, I would rather have the Americans occupy my country than ANYBODY else. Like I said, far from perfect… but you must always ask yourself, compared to what?
Anyways, not here to be a hater, I just disagree with most of whats been said….. however I certainly enjoy the perspective on matters given here.
Thanks!
December 13th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
@ Jeremy
“Do fans of this site believe or not believe that there is a militant islamic movement that exists? If so, do you accept that they seek to impose their religous demands on others, similar to Taliban like oppression?”
yes we do acknowledge that there is militant Islamist and Muslim terrorist, but we also believe that not all muslims are terrorist and we are here to expose the hypocrisy of some of the supporters of Islamophobia when it comes to dealing with Muslims.
also we are not denying the fact that America has good people who want peace, but we disagree with the foreign policies
December 13th, 2011 at 12:52 pm
Danios and everyone else on Loonwatch. Might I direct your attention to another startling map. It shows all the U.S. military bases in Muslim countries and these bases are shown to encircle Iran. I got the info from Juan Cole. The link is below.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/12/iran-has-us-surrounded-all-right.html
December 13th, 2011 at 12:55 pm
U.S. lawmakers freeze $700 million to Pakistan, ties strained
ISLAMABAD (Reuters) – A U.S. Congressional panel has frozen $700 million in aid to Pakistan until it gives assurances it is helping fight the spread of homemade bombs in the region, a move one Pakistani senator called unwise and likely to strain ties further.
Pakistan is one of the largest recipients of U.S. foreign aid and the cutback announced is only a small proportion of the billions in civil and military assistance it gets each year.
But it could presage even greater cuts.
Calls are growing in the United States to penalize Islamabad for failing to act against militant groups and, at worst, helping them, after the secret U.S. raid on a Pakistan garrison town in which al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was killed in May.
Salim Saifullah, chairman of Pakistan’s Senate foreign relations committee, warned that relations, which are already at a low point, could worsen further following the decision by the U.S. House-Senate panel.
“I don’t think this is a wise move. It could hurt ties. There should instead be efforts to increase cooperation. I don’t see any good coming out of this,” Saifullah told Reuters.
Homemade bombs, or improvised explosive devices (IEDs), are among militants’ most effective weapons against U.S. and coalition troops in Afghanistan as they struggle to fight a resurgent Taliban insurgency.
Many are made using ammonium nitrate, a common fertilizer smuggled across the border from Pakistan. The freeze on U.S. aid was agreed as part of a defense bill that is expected to be passed this week.
The United States wants “assurances that Pakistan is countering improvised explosive devices in their country that are targeting our coalition forces,” Representative Howard McKeon, a House Republican, told reporters.
The United States has allocated some $20 billion in security and economic aid to Pakistan since 2001, much of it in the form of reimbursements for assistance in fighting militants
———————
Invade a country Ask country next door for help Insurgent Terrorist from the country you invade jump between the two borders blame helping country for war not going well and bad planing ask helping country to stop border jumping they do and it causes terrorist attacks on them public outcry for death of civilians in a war that is not there Invade there space air and bomb the border jumping terrorist also killing civilians helping country get mad once again and so does the helping country citizens Cut aid money
Did I miss anything
December 13th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
Jeremy
But by all comparison, are probably the most benevolent empire ever to rule, and while you may find the bombings and whatnot to be abhorrent, standing by and watching people suffer oppression is also abhorrent. the question that needs to be asked is, compared to what? who would you prefer be the global empire?
The USA is not the greates or benevolent empire the world has ever seen, that accolade has to come from others, not from Americans. The Caliphate has received that accolade from others so is a more worthy contender for that honour.
You are one of those Americans, (sadly there are too many hence your country’s downturn) that cannot see how the outside world sees them. You are also a victim of propoganda in that you talk of whether we believe militiant Muslims are a threat.
Let us forget what Muslims think of the USA.
The USA has been on the top threat list of nearly every Western country. Europe certianly see’s the USA a top threat. Russia does. South America does. China does. Countless other countries do. That is not what you call a benevolent empire.
Pray tell, why is the USA considered a threat to world peace by non Muslims and other western nations?
Nobody sees your military bases as benevolence except souls like yourself. Buy yourself a world ticket, go around the world, and your perspective will change.
Jeremy, if you believe your ‘benevolence’ means you can stick your bases where people don’t want them, don’t complain when China or South America stick their bases in the USA. Don’t think that is not a possibliity.
I hope you are as understanding of ‘benevelonce’ then, when South Americans or Chinese question you,
“Why aren’t you appreciating our benevelonce?”
December 13th, 2011 at 1:15 pm
@ Jeremy-
“…people here take the position that Jihadi’s are misrepresenting the Quran and Islam etc. to further their goals. But by what arrogance does anyone here claim that THEY have the correct interpretation and no one else does? It seems to me to be the same arrogance that the Jihadi’s act on.”
The Prophet(SAW) spoke about the Khwaraj, called them dogs of hell. Islaam is peace; those who bring mischief to the world will be among the loosers.
“The American hyper power is probably the greatest thing ever to happen to this planet, in terms of peace, and prosperity. the Americans police the world, and are essentially running a global empire. But by all comparison, are probably the most benevolent empire ever to rule, and while you may find the bombings and whatnot to be abhorrent, standing by and watching people suffer oppression is also abhorrent. the question that needs to be asked is, compared to what? who would you prefer be the global empire? One thing is for sure, it wouldn’t be nobody, any vacuum of power would be filled…. the Leviathan that is American power guarantees peace and prosperity for all under it’s dominion, in the same way that the police do.”
You sound like an apologist for the western hegemons and their games of geopolitics.
The United States, like the concept of pure Communism/Anarchy/Socialism/deluded Democracy all place themselves, the state, above the greater social good. We sacrifice for the good of the state because the state sacrifices for us -in theory-… In practice the average Joe gives and gives and gives to the state or representative power while the state takes advantage over the base desire for stability and peace.
The United States has grossly eroded the rights of it’s citizens over the past 30-odd years and built up a network of surveillance and punishment systems worthy of Foucault’s penopticon; over the past 60 years, the United States has, in the guise of cold war “securities” set up over 1,088 known military bases around the globe, again reminiscent of a penopticon in that it can surveil and enforce a military legal code as far as the planet is round-client nations as well as our own people submit in exchange for the “freedoms” that are afforded. Orwellian to say the least, “freedom is slavery”. The late Chalmers Johnson gave a good synopsis of these doings in his “Blowback Trilogy”
To make it brief, with all these “benevolent” machinations of Empire watching us, who’s watching the watchers? Who are they throwing under the bus in the creation and maintenance of their legions?
The rest of your prattle sounds like a “price tag” rationale, like those wacky settlers in Occupied Palestine…it’s not even worthy of a response.
December 13th, 2011 at 1:16 pm
Jeremy, ironically the very things you are lauding are the very things that led to the downfall.
Many Americans are now leaving the country for greener shores. America’s richest minority the Hindu Indians have left in droves for India where the economy is in a better shape. This was a few years ago, but others are now following suit.
September 7, 2011
From Hyperpower to Declining Power
http://www.pewglobal.org/2011/09/07/from-hyperpower-to-declining-power/
Changing Global Perceptions of the U.S. in the Post-Sept. 11 Era
By Richard Wike, Associate Director, Pew Global Attitudes Project
In the decade since the Sept. 11 attacks, America’s global image has followed a remarkable, if now familiar, trajectory. Initially, there was a global outpouring of sympathy for the United States, but it was short-lived. As the Bush Administration pivoted from Afghanistan to Iraq, and as American anti-terrorism efforts expanded, many around the world turned against the U.S. Widespread anti-Americanism remained a key feature of international public opinion throughout the Bush years, before fading significantly following the election of Barack Obama.
However, at the same time as ratings for the U.S. were waning and waxing, other changes in perceptions of America and its role in the world were also evident. In particular, views about American power have changed over the course of the decade, as economic issues have trumped security concerns. Early in the post-Sept. 11 era, the projection of American military strength led to pervasive fears of an unleashed, and unchecked, hyperpower. More recently, however, the global financial crisis has turned the spotlight to America’s declining economic prowess. Once the fearsome colossus, many now see the financially-strapped U.S. as a great power in decline.
December 13th, 2011 at 1:30 pm
@ Jeremy
“Do fans of this site believe or not believe that there is a militant islamic movement that exists? If so, do you accept that they seek to impose their religous demands on others, similar to Taliban like oppression?”
Sure(the Taliban was only recognized by 2 governments in the Muslim world), but do YOU acknowledge that there are far more western, particularly Anglo-American terrorists have been running amok in the Muslim world(and non-Muslim world for that matter) for centuries? Trying to impose your will on others through subterfuge, colonization, and genocide while stealing their resources?
Let me leave you with a quote from Samuel Huntington :
“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion, but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.”
December 13th, 2011 at 1:34 pm
@Jeremy, I’m glad you came with a respectful tone and are open to dialogue. I have to say I disagree with your gleeful appraisal of American hegemony and Empire. Your statement that we are the most “benevolent Empire,” the world has known sounds like what Bill Maher likes to repeat constantly.
I think this exposes your deep seated relationship to the myth of American Exceptionalism. Don’t get me wrong America has done some great things and benefited the world greatly, but it has done extraordinary evil as well.
There is something better than “Benevolent Empire” and that is the rule of law, international agreements, the Geneva Convention, the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
December 13th, 2011 at 1:43 pm
Inspired by Mohammed
First of all, I am no an American, I find it strange that you make assumptions about people you don’t know….. Interesting, I thought the point of this website was to combat prejudice? perhaps I am mistaken
while Empire in itself brings peace by the cessation of interstate conflict and civil war, American empire is the most benevolent because: 1) it grant autonomy, even to it’s greatest enemies 2) it spends it’s resources to promote liberal democracy (Germany, France, Japan just to name a few) 3) It Guarantees freedom from the imposition of other tyrannical systems (Communism, Fascism, National Socialism, Japanese imperialism etc.)
Most of the bases America has around the world are left over from strategic alliances made during the cold war, and it’s important to note that those alliances protected 100′s of millions of people from falling under the reign of soviet oppression. If the United States did not fight the cold war (their methods can be debated, but the victory speaks for itself) than it Would be the Soviets who dictate global policy and meddle in countries on a global scale. I have never heard of anyone who would prefer that, I suppose you are the first.
It easy to look at todays headlines, and cry at all the evil that is being done, but your emotions skew reality. Just like it’s easy after a police shooting to hate on the police, but the fact is, it’s better that they are there…… For me, the question is always… Compared to what? no system is ideal, but some are clearly better than others.
Threat lists you speak of, which I can honestly say I have never heard of, but that would all be part of the game of geo-politics. Nothing to get to worked up about.
as for South Americans or Chinese? I am not sure what that is about… If it wasn’t for the Americans, the China would be a japanese protectorate, and while the Americans certainly got themselves involved in some dirty tricks in Latin America during the cold war, In the end, It’s better the Americans won than lost. The same could be said of the French civilians they killed, the French towns they occupied, The French liberties they temporarily quashed during WW2…. and to be honest, the French still hate the Americans to this day, but that doesn’t by any means say that the French would prefer living under National Socialism or the Vichy government.
it’s easy to dismiss American bases now that all these true threats to global security have been dealt with, but the simple fact is, at the time, they were appreciated for the safety and liberation they provided, not all to be sure… but most.
Let us forget what Muslims think of the USA.”
I wasn’t aware the Muslims were a monolith, and that you somehow know exactly what they think. Probably one of the most arrogant statements i have read….
i thought that this site was supposed to champion the diversity of thought in Islamic circles and combat prejudice…. I hope you are not representative of the followers here.
December 13th, 2011 at 1:50 pm
STFU bitch, please send GPS coordinates so we can bomb your ass too, faggot.
December 13th, 2011 at 1:56 pm
DrM
“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion, but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.”
thats a great quote, and 100 percent true!
but so what? all the other tribes and civilizations etc all had warriors, raped and enslaved other peoples, exploited their resources… the westerners just did it better. I am glad they did, because the system of Liberal democracy is the best one yet… It’s possible it could have arisen otherwise, but who knows?
once again, Compared to what? would you rather have Zulu dominance across the globe or some such thing.
While you may all see me as an apologist for Americans, I am in the sense that they are better than all the rest. there has never existed a better option.
Also, as for the UN, human rights etc. It is the Americans that are guarantors of those things more than anyone else. there may be several countries that talk a big game, but the Americans are the ones of have had to enforce it.
it’s great to get all dreamy about world peace and living in harmony etc. but it’s just not reality…. but, we are closer now than ever before!
Someone mentioned the erosion of civil liberties etc. that is nothing new, and is a balance that has been going back and forward since the creation of the American state. but it is by any measure getting better, gradually, 2 steps forward and only 1 step back…. been like that for a long time…
feel free to ignore my ‘prattle’ glad you can have an intelligent discussion with people you disagree with, lol….
December 13th, 2011 at 2:32 pm
Dear Jeremy,
Are we suppose to be happy that we Americans are butting into other countries’ business and due to greed, not the goodness of heart, taking over the Middle East with a friendly smile at our expense?! Yes, there are Muslim dictators and muslim militants like Al Qaeda and Talibanis but let the countries deal with it without interference from the US. We’re already up to our necks with debt so we can’t even maintain our own country much less deal with others. There’s only one reason that we’re interfering: OIL, MONEY, POWER and that’s not a good thing.
Compare to what?! How about compare to good, honest protesters (Arab Spring) who want to do good and elect good, honest leaders without help from Americans who are bombing innocent civilians. NO THANK YOU! AMERICA SHOULD BUTT OUT!
December 13th, 2011 at 2:47 pm
The Hexagon Says:
December 13th, 2011 at 1:50 pm
STFU bitch, please send GPS coordinates so we can bomb your ass too, faggot.
How did this piece of brilliance make it through moderation?
lol.
December 13th, 2011 at 2:50 pm
@Hexagon….why don’t you say what you really think….
December 13th, 2011 at 3:29 pm
@Farlowe
ahhh what fun would that be? if he did that we would be staring at blank posts all day. With people like him its more instinctive than intellectual. They don’t think, they just react…
December 13th, 2011 at 3:49 pm
Wow! The post on this sight are wack. Everyone on here wants to bash Americans, and yes I am one, or speak of our elitist attitude, which we do have but so does every other nationality, and so on. We are arrogant, but so is everyone else. It is called nationalism, look it up. I see the same thing in each and everyone one of your posts. Every civilization on this planet has at one point or another committed atrocities, manipulated governments and taken others’ resources and still would, given the opportunity. Your anger is misguided. Look at your own governments and civilizations for what ails your people. At one point the world asked America to be the world police and we did. So now don’t get mad at what we have provided. If you could do it yourselves we wouldn’t have had 9/11. I would also like to see where America is on all these countries’ threat list. Where is this list? Islamic states have attempted to conquer to world before America even existed, so don’t hand out lies about how bad we are until you take a deep insightful look at your own civilizations. And muslims did not conquer Spain peacefully. We have done more to promote world peace than any civilization in history. Read your history and start looking at what your leaders are doing, this includes your religious leaders. And this all comes at a cost, so if we take your resources consider it payment for the assistance we provide. Stop being so uninformed.
BTW, every place I have ever been, the people loved Americans. Just because you don’t like us, don’t speak for everyone else.
I welcome all intelligent responses. No idiot religious responses please.
God bless America
December 13th, 2011 at 4:11 pm
Jeremy, I appreciate your tone and am happy to debate with someone like you. However, I must disagree.
It is interesting that you bring up US opposition to communism as ‘proof’ of US wants for liberating the world. May I ask you then what you think of the following US policies, many which were to oppose communism:
- the provision of arms and aid to dictatorial rulers in the Arab world, including but not limited to, Saddam (Iraq), Murbark (Egypt) and The Shah (Iran), on the condition that they opposed communism. These rulers were given free reign to oppress their own people right up to recent times (see the Arab Spring).
- the provision of ‘safe passage’ for many suspected nazi war criminals after WWII to South America on the condition that they helped oppress communism there. The so called ‘Draganović ratline’ allowed US intelligence agencies to smuggle nazis to South America. Other nazi scientists and suspected criminals were used in Operation Paperclip by NASA amongst other agencies. The Appolo Moon Landings were largely built on nazi work. See Wernher von Braun, a man who no doubt committed crimes against humanity by using slave labour to biuld his rockets for the nazis, amongst others.
- not prosecuting war crimes committed by the Japanese as some crimes committed by nazis were and actively covering up many crimes.
- the atomic bombing of two cities of a nation (Japan) that had effectively surrendered. The second bombing had no strategic purpose other than to test the effectiveness of a new atomic bomb design and show the USSR that the US possessed such a powerful weapon.
- the war in Vietnam which lead not only to millions of deaths but the collapse of surrounding nations to communism and the rise of groups like the Khmer Rouge. The war was fought on probable illegal pretenses and never got any proper approval from the US Senate or Congress.
I could go on but you get the picture. I agree that one can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs but what we are seeing here is not an omelet being made, it’s pure realpolitik. In other words, the US saw no reason why it should abandon its principles if and when it suited. This is a big reason for ‘hatred’ of the US, the hypocrisy. Another of course is stuff like the fact the US uses up most of the worlds resources for itself and is quite happy to grab them when needed. It is little wonder that huge numbers of persons in the third world look upon this hulking giant with suspicion and anger.
Do I deny that the US has brought huge benefits to the world? No doubt, and I’d rather the US in charge than say Stalin or Hitler. But would I give it the status of a beneficial empire builder? No, never, it’s wrongs have outweighed it’s rights, no matter how big the rights were.
[On another note, it is rather a myth that the USSR wanted to 'spread' communism. After Stalin took power he, realizing that his nation was in a terrible state, imposed 'Socialism in One Country'. As the title suggests, it was the thought that communism should be confined to the USSR and that communism itself would 'spread' naturally by a dissatisfied proletariat (a central theme to Marx's work). Thus, much of the US's opposition to communism was unfounded, thus the suspicions many have about it.]
Jack
December 13th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
@Jeremy
That (Hexagon-dude/thingy) would be a troll. The moderators like to keep them nearby, mainly for our amusement. Please make sure to not feed them, because their stomachs can’t handle much. The result wouldn’t be too pleasant for any of us, trust me. ;P
December 13th, 2011 at 4:17 pm
I think hexagons mom didn’t have the necessary funds to pay for his world of warcraft fee and blames muslims for it.
December 13th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
Inspired by Mohammed
How do you figure that the Caliphate was the greatest for of government since it only represented the Islamic community? Once again an example of taking only small parts of history to promote your own way of thinking. I have read several historical references to the Caliphate that weren’t so complimentary.
December 13th, 2011 at 4:37 pm
Khushboo
Are we suppose to be happy that we Americans are butting into other countries’ business and due to greed, not the goodness of heart, taking over the Middle East with a friendly smile at our expense?!
First off, yes, you are suppose to be happy, because the alternative could have been any number of others butting into your affairs… would you prefer Imperial Japan? Communist Russian? Communist China? you tell me which system you would prefer….
secondly, everybody does everything because of greed…. If you own more than 1 pair of pants, that’s greed in action… don’t try and demonize a word. It’s why the human race flourishes and has come as far as we have. It’s what got us past our violent tribal beginnings into peaceful supercities. It’s all relative. Greed is good, it’s what makes you want better for your children, it’s what makes you go to work and earn… all those things.
It is great to dream of Utopia, but it’s better to deal with reality.
Oil, Money and Power are all valid reasons…. they are all lifelines to a country, the idea that countries should act to their own detriment out of the ‘goodness of their heart’ doesn’t seem to make much sense. If the United States wasn’t securing those resources, someone else certainly would be….
Everybody acts in their own self interest, and so they should. but that doesn’t have to be a bad or good thing, it just is.
Dobeedodo
I have already received some prejudicial comments, hateful threats….. but a few reasonable replies… good luck! BTW I agree wholeheartedly with your point that every civilization has committed atrocities etc. some people forget what life was really like before American hegemony…. history books are an amazing thing!
December 13th, 2011 at 4:43 pm
The Hexagon;
3°8′51″N 101°41′36″E is my approximate location
Sadly, the US Second Fleet (Indian Ocean) was disbanded this September so this complicates things for you. Perhaps the US Fifth Fleet (Middle East) will be able to help? Anyway, I wrote this before the Second Fleet was disbanded for some of your other little friends with no balls who threatened to bomb me, you will have to adapt it.
Presuming an airborne carrier approach from the Indian Ocean, proceed on an approximate South-by-South-East heading. If you get lost, see if you can see any AirAsia or Air Malaysia passenger aircraft and ask for directions. Alternatively, consult your AWACS if they are not too busy being full of themselves. Be aware of monsoon weather this time of year, conditions can be very rough even for the best of pilots and aircraft.
You will have to gain air clearance from both Indonesia and Malaysia. I sadly cannot help with this but you should be aware that your approach will be detected by multiple stations and that there is a RMAF base very close to me. The RMAF flies a variety of aircraft including rather outdated Mig-29s which should not provide much of a challenge. However, they have some new Sukhoi Su-30′s that are quite formidable. That said, they are new to these aircraft and have already crashed one and lost the engines for another (I kid you not) thus if you are quick off the mark in bombing me you will have an advantage. There are also some F/A-18 Hornets around but there are only 8 and they tend to hang around elsewhere. Oh, and just to alert you one of the pilots is a hijab wearing muslima. Be very embarrassing if she shot you down!
I will assist by broadcasting a homing beacon from my radio antenna on a frequency of your choice. Please email me at jackcope@bandofstrangers.org so we can discuss frequencies. Please be aware that my radio is primarily for use in coordinating the Civil Defense Services in the event of a disaster as I am a member of the Amateur Emergency Radio Association. Thus if there has been say and earthquake or a flood I will be unable to help you and you will just have to wait until I’ve done my bit in helping save lives. I apologize for this inconvenience.
Consult your Int. Officer if you have any problems or drop me an email. Alternatively, grow some balls and get a life. You look as you’ll need all the help you can get.
Enjoy,
Jack
December 13th, 2011 at 4:44 pm
I think this map says more about the sorry state of the Caliphate than it does about so-called American violence.
You know, during the British Empire, the imperialists didn’t fly planes into office buildings and ritually sacrifice their children to Moloch. The French Empire never advocated child-marriage, suicide bombs, and Shari’ah. Even the Shari’ah-adherent Ottoman Empire was more focussed on the violent collection of jizya, than it was on the satanic teachings of Mohammed.
You Mohammedans ought to learn from your moral superiors about how to Imperialize. Because you’re doing a pretty sh!tty job right now. Your empire is constantly under attack. Your people are illiterate, poor, immoral and ugly. Your future is bleak.
Even this map is basically an admission that Mohammed is not a particularly powerful god and that your Empire needs to be much improved . . .
Just a helpful tip.
December 13th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
Dobeedodo;
“At one point the world asked America to be the world police and we did.”
Do you have this in contract form? Please don’t kid yourself. I take issue with your claim that the US has done more to promote world peace as well… starting two wars in the past decade while maintaining the worlds largest army doesn’t seem very peaceful to me.
Yes, on the whole we, the people of the world, don’t mind *Americans*. Sure, you may be loud, boisterous, have a bizarre taste in sports, insist on calling us ‘dude’ and import crap TV everywhere, but by and large we like you.
What we have an issue with is *American Foreign Policy* and we are smart enough to distinguish the citizens of America from its government. I listed some of the grievances in one of my other posts but largely we don’t like the fact that the US has been so hypocritical in its dealing with the world. You know, like claiming to be the beacon for democracy and then giving brand new shiny tanks to Murbark. That really pisses us off!
You also talk of how ‘our’ leaders have been bad. Yes, they have, but do you know something? American and her allies are partly responsible for that as well! Take a look at Saudi for example, would you care to guess how much ‘aid’ that nation gets in the form of military hardware? What about the dictatorships overthrown in the ‘arab spring’? Those M1-Abrahams squashing protesters and M-16s firing into crowds didn’t come off Ebay you know!
So yes, on the whole no deal with Americans, you’re a nice bunch overall. We just have a problem with many of the policies that have been acted out in your name. No one here, and there are actually a fair number of Americans on this site, is bashing American people. They are rather protesting the obvious.
Jack
December 13th, 2011 at 5:02 pm
@Dobeedodo,
If by world police you mean sponsering and maintaining dictators throughout the world, who violate and subvert human rights then yeah we are sure keeping the world safe. The most radical Muslim nation on earth i.e., Saudi Arabia is a U.S. ally and friend. 9/11 was caused by Saudis but we did not attack Saudi Arabia. We attacked Iraq a non-factor during 9/11 based on a false pretense (WMDS). I leave you with a lecture by Noam Chomsky that clarifies everything and answers the question: Is Islam the Enemy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw4mjTDx77w
And here he refutes Bernard Lewis and American hegemony with facts by answering the question. Why do Middle Eastern people hate us?
December 13th, 2011 at 5:23 pm
Mr Demographics
If I address your points will you reply to them? Or would it be a waste of time?
Jack
December 13th, 2011 at 5:28 pm
Actually Mr Demographics, cancel that, as I know that you can’t teach meat anything. In fact, I may try talking to my steak tonight for I am sure it will be time better spent than writing to you. The steak after all probably has an IQ.
And Mummy told me not to talk to evil, vile, rude and suchlike men.
Jack
December 13th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
Jack…
Things from the Zionist regime are prohibited in Malaysia. You might have to talk with the ISA about inviting the Zionist to bomb your house.
December 13th, 2011 at 6:58 pm
Ends don’t justify the means. “liberal democracy” maybe your “benovalent” religion. Imposing it on others through expansionist wars and deception only shows that there is no difference between what you espouse and what al Qaeda, at its most extreme hardcore ideology espouse. Your both extremists no matter how much you or al Qaeda imagine themselves as “freedom” fighters.
December 13th, 2011 at 7:48 pm
Nur,
I’m quite sure I can get an exemption for my special case. Anyway, it is the US Fifth Fleet who are ‘allies’, they sent their band on a tour of KL recently so no problems with them being allowed in.
Anyway I’m sure the RMAF are on my side. They have been sitting on these new planes, not being allowed to fly them after that embarrassing incident where one of them exploded accidentally and the other one lost several vital components that turned up somewhere in Europe. Said vital parts were it’s engines so understandably, they are in a bit of trouble over how they manged to go ‘walkies’. Like a kid with a new toy I’m sure they would like to play with them again
But as you can see, whenever there is a threat towards myself or my compatriots, I’m quite happy to bite the bullet and show these people for the cowards they are.
Jack
December 13th, 2011 at 7:52 pm
@Dobeedodo
Throughout history America has supported countless dictators and monarchs. One example, in the midst of the Cold War the US supported Saddam Hussein while he initiated the war with Iran and also when he gassed his citizens and dissidents. Not to mention the numerous CIA-backed coup detats in South America. Recently, US provided arms to repressive governments during the Arab Spring. And there are plenty more such examples.
The key difference that distinguishes America from other oppressors in the past is accountability in the modern international world. America might be the strongest and largest empire in the world to have ever existed, but who is going to check America’s power and make sure they do not get carried away? Nobody. The WWII glory for America is long over, its 2011 now, that glory diminished long ago. America has committed numerous violations of international law and the Geneva Convention (Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Bagram). Where is the accountability for those individuals that committed these heinous acts?
The answer is simple, American hypocrisy and double-standards. America is an arbiter of Human rights, democracy, capitalism, freedom of expression, religious freedom and yet it does all these contrary actions. In the end American interests override American values.
The only reason America is a global power is through military might, not science, math, education or anything else. On that notation, many Americans companies also sell weapons or at least their factories are used to manufacture tanks, airplanes, ships, and missiles. America’s main source of income is selling weapons of war and mass destruction, like it or not America is the world’s largest arms dealer.
US can’t even be a neutral negotiator in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and have long delayed finding a just solution for the problem for over 60 years.
The Islamic states that you speak of were the Ottoman Empire and Moors(North Africa). I believe the conquering was a retaliatory move after the infamous crusades. Also do not generalize all Islamic States in that argument of yours, Muslims are not only from the Middle East.
Domestic politics in the US always dictate foreign policy, especially during the election time. Powerful lobbying organizations like AIPAC dictates American foreign policy in the Middle East.
On the social side: A substantial number of Americans unjustly blame the 9/11 incident on Muslim Americans to this day. The Muslims Americans discrimination gets worse as Obama expands the war of terror to surrounding Muslims countries. I find this very appalling as a Japanese-American and someone who knows people sent to “interment camps” during WWII.
That’s a very arrogant view your perpetuating right there about America being so superior that it is always right. Currently, America’s opinion is at odds with the world (Palestinian statehood speech at the UN, UNESCO’s vote to enter Palestinians into the organization). An American presence or base in today’s world is a destabilizing force, we use military intervention to convert nations into “democracies.” How successful has that been? The invaded country is left in shambles. In terms of current events and geography, most Americans are uninformed. Ignorance is like asking for a dictatorship.
America is one of the youngest nations on Earth, yet it has engaged in more covet operations, military intervention, wars than any other developed country, especially the last 10 years after the Soviet Union’s collapse. Currently, America’s power is unchecked and they have the leisure to invade countries afar while not facing a retaliatory action at home in the United States. That is an unsettling reality for many non-Americans. “Today we have learned in the agony of war that great power involves great responsibility.” -Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Here’s a history lesson for you: History follows a trend, first it is “the winner is justice” meaning since America came out on top in WWII, they were considered the heroes during that time period and all the blame for WWII went to the “Axis of Evil” in this case the loser is seen as evil. Then a few years later we have another group of historians who criticize the “winners” of the conflict, thus placing the blame on them. Next, a couple of years later we have the revisionists historians that attribute the blame to both the “winner” and “loser.”
With all due respect you should read a textbook that isn’t so pro-US, that bias will only skewer information and glorify America’s role in it. That’s propaganda when they do it. The easiest way to manipulate a nation is through a child’s textbook in history class.
P.S. I am Japanese-American. And a Muslim.
P.S.S. Excellent Article, Danios. This is why I am a independent voter, I am sick and tired of Democrats and Republicans playing the Bad Cop/Good Cop game, alternating between who plays the villain. They are like parrots repeating the same rhetoric over and over, only slightly changing tone.
December 13th, 2011 at 8:38 pm
Salam Hiro, a quote you might enjoy:
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.”
It is by President Eisenhower. I quite like the man, his actions at Little Rock should be cause for support alone. If Republicans these days, or politicians in general, where a little more like him, then maybe people would vote for them…
And as a historian I must agree with your view on history, it is a powerful propaganda tool. But it is also the truth and, no matter how many times it is cut up into the dusters of propaganda or hidden under the sink of censorship, it finds its way out into the light eventually. People just don’t question enough.
Jack
December 13th, 2011 at 8:42 pm
@Dobeedodo
“”Your anger is misguided. Look at your own governments and civilizations for what ails your people. At one point the world asked America to be the world police and we did. So now don’t get mad at what we have provided. If you could do it yourselves we wouldn’t have had 9/11. I would also like to see where America is on all these countries’ threat list. Where is this list?”"
So going by your logic if I save your life, then I can have your unyielding loyalty even if it inconveniences me? I can have your land, house, bank accounts, and freedom?
There is difference between hating the American foreign policy and government to hating the American people, which is unfortunately what numerous Americans are doing to Muslim Americans due to 9/11. That’s unreasonable.
Sticking to “age-old glories of the past” will only decrease America’s international standing and credibility even more. Revisionist accounts of history illustrate that the Soviet Union did not have the capability to “spread” communism beyond their borders. Basically, it was war-mongering.
Numerous Americans consider the Cold War was about Good (United States) vs Evil (Soviet Union), whereas in Europe and other parts of the world it was considered an ideological war.
American’s have got to lose that “your either with us or against” mentality. That’s destroying the country and fueling all this tension in the world.
By the way, I forgot to mention what the American settlers did to the Native American population over the years. That’s another crime added to the list.
Ask people what they think about the American government and foreign policy in other countries.
December 13th, 2011 at 8:43 pm
So going by your logic if I save your life, then I can have your unyielding loyalty even if it inconveniences you? I can have your land, house, bank accounts, and freedom?
Slight correction in the argument.
December 13th, 2011 at 10:07 pm
Hey jack Cope
I was starting to wonder if there was anyone with a reasonable position here…..
I will try to respond to all your points as best I can. Here goes:
“It is interesting that you bring up US opposition to communism as ‘proof’ of US wants for liberating the world. May I ask you then what you think of the following US policies, many which were to oppose communism”
It’s not necessarily ‘proof’ that they want to Liberate the world. I don’t think I made any such assertion. i mean clearly the Americans fought the Soviets for their own selfish reasons. I assume immediately after WW2 (and during, even while they were supporting Stalin), the western powers realized the gravity of the threat they faced, in fact Churchill wanted to invade right away. ‘operation unthinkable’ as it was aptly named never took place. The western powers realized that WW2 hadn’t really ended.
- the provision of arms and aid to dictatorial rulers in the Arab world, including but not limited to, Saddam (Iraq), Murbark (Egypt) and The Shah (Iran), on the condition that they opposed communism. These rulers were given free reign to oppress their own people right up to recent times (see the Arab Spring).
Are you asking what I think of these policies? I suppose I am not privy to all the information about exactly why each of these were dealt with the way the were, but I will provide the general context as I understand it. I am assuming Oil, which is a valuable resource, is the basis of the American meddling in the middle east. It’s important to realize that if the Americans did not install a friendly leader in these countries, than the Soviets would have. Would you think that is better? I certainly don’t. But, at the end of the day, supporting those dictators, to provide access to strategic resources and to have military access so close to your enemy, is a no brainer. I view it as the same as the US supporting Stalin during WW2. He is far worse than any of those leaders, and in fact worse than Hitler himself in terms of body count, but it was the least worst of available choices at the time.
What would you do? allow the Soviets to install a government friendly to them? or install one friendly to you?
“- the provision of ‘safe passage’ for many suspected nazi war criminals after WWII to South America on the condition that they helped oppress communism there. The so called ‘Draganović ratline’ allowed US intelligence agencies to smuggle nazis to South America. Other nazi scientists and suspected criminals were used in Operation Paperclip by NASA amongst other agencies. The Appolo Moon Landings were largely built on nazi work. See Wernher von Braun, a man who no doubt committed crimes against humanity by using slave labour to biuld his rockets for the nazis, amongst others.’
I am not sure what this is suppose to mean really? It’s like the police working with murders and drug dealers to bring other murderers and drug dealers down. It’s a crappy choice to make…. The Soviets did the exact same thing with the Nazi’s they could get their hands on. German resources became extremely valuable after the war, and it was necessary to get as many as they could. I suppose they could have hung them all while the Soviets benefitted from their knowledge… but that would not have been smart… perhaps more Moral… but not smart.
“- not prosecuting war crimes committed by the Japanese as some crimes committed by nazis were and actively covering up many crimes.”
I agree, the Emperor should have been hung for his crimes. And I don’t have an answer to this one.
“- the atomic bombing of two cities of a nation (Japan) that had effectively surrendered. The second bombing had no strategic purpose other than to test the effectiveness of a new atomic bomb design and show the USSR that the US possessed such a powerful weapon.”
Actually, the Japanese had not surrendered, and didn’t surrender until the Soviets invaded Manchuria and declared war on Japan. I am not sure where you got your information that Japan had surrendered, but the Atomic bombs did not make Japan surrender, it was the Russians as well. That is all cold war propaganda from American textbooks…. The Americans beat the Germans (it was really the Russians) and the Americans beat the Japanese (once again, our friends the Russians) also, it is interesting to note that from the American perspective, the dropping of the Atomic bombs, actually saved hundreds of thousands of lives, both American and Japanese. The Japanese had trained their women to fight with sticks, and their children to jump in front of tanks with bombs strapped to their backs… it would have been bloody. After the bloody battle of Okinawa, it was estimated that 1/3 of the population would have been killed. Also, in anticipation of the invasion of Japan, the American military made so many purple hearts, that they are still giving them out today and have not made any since.
“- the war in Vietnam which lead not only to millions of deaths but the collapse of surrounding nations to communism and the rise of groups like the Khmer Rouge. The war was fought on probable illegal pretenses and never got any proper approval from the US Senate or Congress.”
well, I agree that Kissinger should be prosecuted for war crimes, but I think the Americans did the right thing by supporting the South Vietnamese government. When the south finally fell, 1 million south Vietnamese were killed, and the Domino theory was essentially proven correct. Do I agree with the American conduct of the war? no, absolutely not. But… they could have won it, and it would have been better if they had. Bui Tin admits so himself. Luckily he had the anti war movement on his side! Vietnam was a battle in the cold war, just like the battle for Foy.
“I could go on but you get the picture. I agree that one can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs but what we are seeing here is not an omelet being made, it’s pure realpolitik. In other words, the US saw no reason why it should abandon its principles if and when it suited.”
I don’t really accept this line of argument. I mean, you may say that it is wrong to kill someone as a matter of principle, but, that doesn’t mean that you can’t think of a time when it would be not only necessary, but the only moral choice to kill someone. For example, a man about to kill a child or some such thing. Do I abandon my principle by killing the man and saving the child? do I then lose all right to speak of morality and how it is wrong to kill?
” This is a big reason for ‘hatred’ of the US, the hypocrisy. Another of course is stuff like the fact the US uses up most of the worlds resources for itself and is quite happy to grab them when needed. It is little wonder that huge numbers of persons in the third world look upon this hulking giant with suspicion and anger.”
Sure, I don’t doubt that is true. But the capitalist system and guarantee of open shipping lanes have brought prosperity to the globe in a way that nothing ever has.
“Do I deny that the US has brought huge benefits to the world? No doubt, and I’d rather the US in charge than say Stalin or Hitler. But would I give it the status of a beneficial empire builder?”
I don’t see how you could say that? just look at the roster: Italian Fascism, National Socialism, Imperial Japanese Theocracy, Communism…. are just the big ones.. there have been plenty of smaller oppressive ideologies defeated. The numbers alone speak for themselves… The fall of the systems above have resulted in the liberation of hundreds of millions of people…
“No, never, it’s wrongs have outweighed it’s rights, no matter how big the rights were.”
How so?
‘[On another note, it is rather a myth that the USSR wanted to 'spread' communism. After Stalin took power he, realizing that his nation was in a terrible state, imposed 'Socialism in One Country'. As the title suggests, it was the thought that communism should be confined to the USSR and that communism itself would 'spread' naturally by a dissatisfied proletariat (a central theme to Marx's work). Thus, much of the US's opposition to communism was unfounded, thus the suspicions many have about it.]‘
It’s actually demonstrably not a myth… why do you think the USSR was trying to put ballistic missiles in Cuba? Gobbling up german resources, dropping the Iron Curtain across Europe? Even if Stalins goal wasn’t to expand ‘communism’ per se, he certainly intended to spread his influence, better his position etc. as all great powers do. Stalin and later Kruschev both realized that the two systems were at odds and would be competing for influence, and subsequently resources. The Stalin knew about the American Atomic bomb before Truman did…. and it wasn’t cause he just wanted everyone to leave him alone….
I appreciate the intelligent reply Jack, without the garbage personal attacks etc. i don’t agree that they US is worse…. and more importantly, who do you think would have been better? (of the realistic options)
December 13th, 2011 at 10:22 pm
Fox news Says:
December 13th, 2011 at 6:58 pm
Ends don’t justify the means. “liberal democracy” maybe your “benovalent” religion. Imposing it on others through expansionist wars and deception only shows that there is no difference between what you espouse and what al Qaeda, at its most extreme hardcore ideology espouse. Your both extremists no matter how much you or al Qaeda imagine themselves as “freedom” fighters.
If you think Liberal Democracy is something that is ‘Imposed’ on people, than you probably don’t get the concept.
Also, if you can’t see the difference between giving people the right to vote and determine their own future, and oppressive religious theocracy.. you should get some glasses!
Your statement is astounding….
December 13th, 2011 at 10:57 pm
Mohammedans Demographics
Typical rhetoric….as usual from Islamophobic disgraces and their adjacents.
I would refute your points, but I am starting to get tired.
Although I will say, while your childish attempts at dehumanization/Islamophobia are often quite entertaining, reading them nonetheless probably causes my I.Q. To drop almost as many points as reading about the rhetoric of other fools like Brigitte Gabriel and/or Pamela Geller.
Ta-Ta…
December 13th, 2011 at 10:59 pm
That first soldier is pretty cute…
December 14th, 2011 at 12:26 am
Just watched a very disappointing Ron Paul interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcKIsBcEA-8
Paul wouldn’t have a problem with Israel bombing Iran. In fact, he seems to say that the conditions warrant that.
He also doesn’t recognize the importance of Resolution 242, the 1967 borders, etc.
He also thinks Israel should be our best friend.
Fail.
December 14th, 2011 at 1:17 am
Danios
Yes, this was very depressing…
I really supported Ron Paul too…
The Question is now what?
Obviously, Gingrich is a no no. So is Romney. As for Perry and Bachmann, you already know the answer for them….
I think many Muslims including myself really wanted Paul to win…
After hearing this though I feel Muslims now don’t really have any good candidates, unless Paul if he were to reach office as President would take a stance against Zionism. If not Paul, then I guess it’s Obama again. And since Obama with regards to war of terror has not stopped, then I suppose the best option would be to not vote at all…
What do you think?
December 14th, 2011 at 1:25 am
Calls are growing in the United States to penalize Islamabad for failing to act against militant groups and, at worst, helping them, after the secret U.S. raid on a Pakistan garrison town in which al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was killed in May.
IF bin Laden was there, then it was the result of an American order to Pakistan to keep him there “in retirement” until it was strategically useful to publicly “retire” him.
December 14th, 2011 at 1:43 am
Jeremy Says:
December 13th, 2011 at 10:22 pm
“If you think Liberal Democracy is something that is ‘Imposed’ on people, than you probably don’t get the concept.
Also, if you can’t see the difference between giving people the right to vote and determine their own future, and oppressive religious theocracy.. you should get some glasses!
Your statement is astounding….”
You mean I don’t get the concept why Hamas winning the elections is not considered “legitimate” in the eyes of Western definition of “liberal democracy” ? Are the Palestinian votes not counted ?
You mean I don’t get the fallacy of attaching the word “oppressive” to a theocratic government ? I don’t support theocracy in its original sense, but what if the people of a nation “vote” and decide for a theocratic government for their future ? As per the first half of your statement you are supposed to support it, while the second half of your statement you are supposed to oppose it. So which one is it ? Will you conduct a operation “shock and awe” upon such a nation ?
What you don’t get is that western “liberal democracy” has its own Christian and other Western cultural baggage that shaped it. In your eyes any religious role for the government is impermissible. Good for you. But others don’t necessarily hold onto that view, nor do you have any right to impose your view upon others. This is the point. You would want to impose a American puppet in Iran even if the people of Iran support their government. The way you “impose” “liberal democracy” is by typical propaganda, sanctioning and bullying of other models of government intending its collapse after which, dressed up as great saviors, impose western style system onto people by regime change through military force or funding internal puppet groups.
Again, I have no real opposition to western democracy in itself nor do I think its opposed and cannot be reconciled with Islamic nations. But what I oppose is your notion that you can impose your model of government with its philosophical, ethical or cultural baggage along with it, upon other nations in the name of “freedom”. Its like defining my personal ideology and model of governance as “freedom” and then imposing it on your people. So I have given you “freedom”. After which I give you the right to elect a leader under the shadow of the “freedom” I give you. The “freedom” thereby remains planted on the top , while below it, the people are allowed to vote leaders who are always by necessity a slave under the “freedom” I give you. The future the people of the nation “vote” for, are always a slave and bounded by the “freedom” I give you.
December 14th, 2011 at 1:49 am
Paul seems to be trying to gain favor and squeeze out any more votes that he can by pandering to the GOP base on the issue of Israel. He may also have harbored these beliefs for a while now, he can justify it from both a libertarian as well as Christian point of view. His associate Mike Schurer, former CIA head of the “Bin Laden” dept. has made similar statements in the past.
December 14th, 2011 at 1:49 am
The Hexagon Says: STFU bitch, please send GPS coordinates so we can bomb your ass too, faggot.
Someone rather pointedly has a Fan Club! Let’s see …
… a hexagon, a regular six-sided figure, becomes what when the sides are extended until they meet another extended side?
Why, it’s a familiar six-pointed figure!
Go figure …
December 14th, 2011 at 2:30 am
Jeremy, half-right, continues his praise of history’s most successful, efficient, and comfortable slave state: While you may all see me as an apologist for Americans, I am in the sense that they are better than all the rest. There has never existed a better option.
Oh, but there has existed ~ and flourished ~ a better option, one that promotes, rather than obstructs, genuine liberty and genuine federalism.
America does not guarantee “freedom from the imposition of other tyrannical systems,” it is ~ as your phraseology “other tyrannical systems” posits, a tyrannical system, ruling by coercive force and surgically applied tyrannical violence ~ see the recent eviction of the OWS campers in New York, for example, which was a “necessary” tyrannically violent undertaking only for the sake of another agenda (radicalizing the movement).
What America attempts to prevent is the imposition, by overtly violent force, of an efficient tyranny by anyone else that is as subtle and sophisticated as America’s. America learned, from the Abbasids and the Ottoman Turks, the latest elements of social decomposition and atomization by which to reduce an otherwise cohesive society to peonage, anomie, and passive servitude. It’s a comprehensive algorithm, and will persist even as individuals succeed in escaping it into localized autonomous alternatives ~ which has been going on since the founding of the Republic and before.
And as you note, the American hand has been distinguishably (although not uniquely) light, by comparison. This is now being not-so-subtly altered domestically, as it has been for some time elsewhere.
The “changing of the guard” is taking place before everyone’s eyes ~ whether on television or more proximately, the sheep’s clothing is being teased, spun and braided into hangman’s ropes and hogties, all according to plan, for all to plainly see. “Meet the new boss ~ same as the old boss” is not what lies ahead ~ the new boss is not nearly as humane than the old, not even within its Darwinian inner sanctums. An “iron rod” has no heart or soul at all.
But you needn’t worry ~ people will still be free to reach the object of their pursuits, with “a little assistance from above,” as has been largely the case with American hegemony.
You might, however, want to consider just what it is you want to pursue …
December 14th, 2011 at 2:50 am
Kushboo writes: Yes, there are Muslim dictators and muslim militants like Al Qaeda and Talibanis but let the countries deal with it without interference from the US.
Religious tyranny is virtually impossible to dislodge from within, and the longer it persists the more impossible it becomes. Muslim tyranny has been established for over a thousand years ~ easily the longest tenure of any imperious power with continuous geographical dominion. Most of what you see in the eastern hemisphere is just like America’s “revolutionary” movements ~ controlled from the top.
Or were you unaware that Trotsky’s “Fourth International,” set up while Mr. Bronstein was moving back and forth from New York to Mexico City, has been run since its inception by a Central Committee comprised mostly of federal agents?
It’s really too simple for words ~ the king, knowing he will have enemies seeking the crown, sends his most loyal and trustworthy secret friend to rally them against the throne. America’s rulers have a very, very long pedigree.
December 14th, 2011 at 3:04 am
Sir Jack writes: No, never, [America]’s wrongs have outweighed its rights, no matter how big the rights were.
Since the change of phase at the turn of the Twentieth Century, that may be as it appears. I think that when the final score is posted, however, we will see another view. Let’s check back in a century or two and see what actually happened.
December 14th, 2011 at 3:17 am
Jack Cope discloses: 3°8′51″N 101°41′36″E is my approximate location.
Looks like a fun place to visit for some, but I prefer a bit less neon.
I really enjoyed this picture of towel-heads waiting for their camels.
December 14th, 2011 at 3:28 am
Hiro accuses: Throughout history America has supported countless dictators and monarchs. One example, in the midst of the Cold War the US supported Saddam Hussein while he initiated the war with Iran and also when he gassed his citizens and dissidents. Not to mention the numerous CIA-backed coup detats in South America. Recently, US provided arms to repressive governments during the Arab Spring. And there are plenty more such examples.
“History” did not begin when you learned to read, Hiro.
December 14th, 2011 at 3:49 am
Scott writes: I think many Muslims including myself really wanted Paul to win…
The average political IQ of America’s muslims will probably come out of the basement before that of the rest of the voters.
After hearing this though I feel Muslims now don’t really have any good candidates, unless Paul if he were to reach office as President would take a stance against Zionism.
Ron Paul doesn’t want to join John F. Kennedy any more than Obama does.
December 14th, 2011 at 4:20 am
Danios asks a rhetorical question: I wonder where those silly Muslims come up with the conspiratorial, absolutely irrational idea that the U.S. is waging war against the Muslim world?
There is actually an answer to that question, although it’s not the answer your excellent map would lead someone to expect. In short, the faithful have been expecting this for over three thousand years ~ precisely as it’s been playing out for the last century. Our people have been tracking events for at least that long ~ I have done little else for over forty years ~ and in that time, to our continuing dismay, have found not one event that even suggests that what we’re watching is anything other than those expected events.
The most recent turning points include July 29-30th, 70 a.d.; June 8th, 632; May 29th, 1453; January 2nd and August 3rd, 1492; September 13th, 1788; July 28th, 1914; November 2nd and October 25th (November 7th), 1917; September 1st, 1939; August 6th and 9th, 1945; November 22nd, 1963; November 3rd, 1992; and September 11, 2001. There are other “significant dates” marking “significant events,” but these fifteen are all connected along the top two lines of a timetable that’s been running for over three thousand years.
Sir Jack has it right: People just don’t question enough. Looking for answers and finding only lies and half-truths wears most people out. But the questions that people need to ask are a little too simple for our “educated” and “sophisticated” minds:
“Why don’t people want me to read that book?” “What’s the purpose of blocking that website?” “What difference would it make if I were to check out, for myself, what all the liars say are lies, that they won’t repeat so I might see that they are?”
Truth is where you find it ~ stop looking and you’ll never find it. All the events of those dates above were “old fairy tales” or “conspiracy theories” until the six o’clock news started reporting things that nobody would recognize.
December 14th, 2011 at 4:20 am
I haven’t read all the posts so I don’t know if someone has posted a better map but here is my humble attempt:
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o248/burning_phoneix/mideastusdomination.jpg
December 14th, 2011 at 5:13 am
Shaykh al-Hajj Dawud Ahmad, M.S.J.D. Says:
December 14th, 2011 at 2:30 am
“Jeremy, half-right, continues his praise of history’s most successful, efficient, and comfortable slave state: While you may all see me as an apologist for Americans, I am in the sense that they are better than all the rest. There has never existed a better option.
Oh, but there has existed ~ and flourished ~ a better option, one that promotes, rather than obstructs, genuine liberty and genuine federalism.”
Are you going to share what this other option was? or just assert it and leave it intentionally vague, and therefore free from Criticism?
and really, Slave state?
December 14th, 2011 at 5:23 am
Fox News
Are you seriously trying to suggest that Al Qaeda attaining power would not be oppressive? that the theocratic government, and their interpretation of Islam would make their constituents happy?
That is a bold claim. This is a group that is willing to murder people in the largest numbers they can, and you think it’s a fallacy to suggest that their theocracy would be oppressive.
The thing is, in a Democracy, the people could vote in a government like that if they wanted to, it just wouldn’t be forced upon them…. which is why pretty much none of what you wrote makes sense to me… perhaps I am missing something.
Democracy is just a system that tends to lead to better, not worse conditions. However, when the Germans voted the Nazi party into power, It became obvious that the system wasn’t infallible. Regardless of wether the Nazi vote was ‘Legitimate’ or not, it still required fighting against….
December 14th, 2011 at 5:25 am
@JD:Not even a DIME of American tax payers money should go to any Muslim country.Pakistan is showing its true colours by stopping supplies to American soldiers passing through Pak-Satan.With friends like Pak-Satan,who needs the enemies.No muslim country is a genuine friend of America and the Christian West.Period.
December 14th, 2011 at 7:47 am
Ron Paul is choosing his words very carefully so as not to tick off the conservatives. He still feels that Israel should be independent and self-reliant. In other words, we should not give them foreign aid. He said that it’s up to them to bomb Iran if they feel that it threatens their national security. In other words, we should butt out. “Israel should be like our best friend” meaning trade with them, be friendly, but don’t give your best friend money. He’s obviously pandering b/c he wants to win the primaries. Ron Paul knows how to play the game but you gotta read between the lines folks!
Ron Paul 2012
still stand by my ole man
December 14th, 2011 at 7:55 am
Porky, you dumba$$, Pakistan and US were never friends to begin with. They both used each other. Now that 24 Pakistani soldiers were killed by the US drone, they don’t give a sh!t about our money anymore. They’ll be happier without our interference.
December 14th, 2011 at 9:41 am
mmm so truth seeker you think that not a dime should go to none muslim countries . Let me guess which countries you think should be given aid
either
a )Hawaii
b )Disney land
c )Isreal
Let us know when you have made this difficult desision
December 14th, 2011 at 10:10 am
Jack Cope says: “If I address your points will you reply to them? Or would it be a waste of time?”
Oh, Jack, go ahead! I’ll take my chances in intellectual battle with a Mohammedan (or someone sympathetic to the Mohammedan)
What’ve you got?
December 14th, 2011 at 11:35 am
@Khushboo:You will soon see the begging bowls of Pakistan appearing.It can not survive without American Aid.America could also stop Imorts from Pakistan if it continues restriction on supplies to its army in Afghanistan.It was Khaled Sheikh Mohammad,a Pakistani who masterminded 9/11 attack on America.It was a crime which should neither be forgiven nor forgotten.
December 14th, 2011 at 12:58 pm
@demographics
yes grace us with your “intellect” or lack there of and see if you can outwit jack I’ll get the popcorn.
December 14th, 2011 at 12:58 pm
Jeremy,
Well I noticed that you were actually wanting to debate, unlike some people who I could care to mention.
I apologize for misreading you, I think I was reading so many comments that I got mixed up with what various people were saying. I think we largely agree on most of my points so I won’t go into them to much.
First you ask what I would have done with Murbark etc. Well, I would have, with my considerable influence over them (since I was giving them all this aid) have pressured them to make changes and be accountable but at the same time not imposing any sort of ‘system’ on them. By making sure that people weren’t dragged out of their homes at night and so on, I’d have made a much more stable nation, rather than one that was a vicious circle. The more a nation oppresses, the more people hate it, so the more it needs to oppress and so on. Again, I feel the US had great powers over these dictatorships yet did nothing worth mentioning so long as they kept ‘on side’.
For dealing with nazis… I agree that taking nazi technology, even if it was produced via human experimentation or slave labour, could have been worse and someone would have taken it anyway. My main issue is the transporting of ex-nazis for use by terrible dictatorships in South America. Such a thing, in letting criminals off the hook on the one hand and then letting them continue their crimes on the other, is wrong on all levels. Google stuff like ‘ex-nazi involvement in South America’ and tell me if you agree.
We agree on Japan in some way, in that we should have dealt with their crimes. However, I think the Emperor was just a puppet, it was the people pulling the strings who should hang. But as Eisenhower said on the atomic bombing:
“I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender, and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon.”
It is also true that the second bombing was of no value other than to test a new bomb. That is a war crime as bad as any human experimentation the nazis did in my opinion. Also, why was the bomb dropped on a city? Why not a military target? Or some unpopulated countryside with a note ‘Dear Mr Emperor, next time it’s your palace’? Unless of course they wanted to see the effects which I feel is the sole reason for it being done. As Eisenhower said, and as several Japanese sources support, the Japanese were going to surrender anyway and the Emperor would have issued such a deceleration within a short time. The fact that after the bomb was dropped nothing happened also supports this.
For Vietnam… well the domino theory was only proven because the US invaded the surrounding nations. They also supported a dictator, , who had no love for his people (he hatted Buddhists for one thing) and they had no love for him. That really was a key reason for the failure of the war, along with the fact that while communism wasn’t popular, it was the lesser of two evils for the people. And of course the fact that the allies had backed communist guerrillas during WWII so they felt they had a sort of ‘right’ to the nation. I think that the US would have been better to let whatever happen after the French left happen and then just carry out trade, education and other such delegations with Veitnam. Just as it does now in fact!
Anyway, enough of that, it’s not too important. As you say at times you must make terrible decisions, and at others you must chose the lesser of two evils. I think however the US failed in doing this far to many times and thus I cannot agree it was benevolent. I think there were far to many factors within the US, the strong military-industrial complex for one, that was pushing it the wrong way. Even during WWII there were many powerful figures, Henry Ford being one of them, who supported the nazis and used their influence or otherwise.
So that begs the question… was it ‘better’ than the others? Certainly, and as you say the numbers show it, it was. But it’s rather like saying ‘would you rather have HIV, smallpox or cancer?’. I’d rather have none of them! The US could have conducted itself so much better and so I really cannot call it a benevolent empire. Like I said, the rights were outweighed by the wrongs.
And yes, the capitalist system is one of these things. For example, we have all the benefits it brings, but try and explain that to the sweatshop workers of Asia or the huge numbers in poverty in the US. It could have been far better.
Finally, before I go and talk about the soviets, what would I chose… well out of the realistic options you listed the US, but again that’s HIV or cancer… both will kill me. Again, the US could have conducted itself far better but for various reasons it didn’t. I’d be more than happy to welcome a ‘sensible’ and truly ‘compassionate’ US, though I fear it is to late.
Before we end this interesting talk, I’ll do my bit about communism not wanting to spread itself like you say. As I said, communism’s key texts all point towards communism spreading ‘naturally’ by a dissatisfied proletariat, thus I expect most communists saw no need to actively do much. Your two examples are not really about spreading communism, though your argument it is about spreading influence has some truth
Cuba is interesting, Castro was actually not a communist until the US decided to back Batista rather than the liberal regime. Castro ousted Batista (who had been crippled by a US arms embargo) and installed a liberal lawyer as president as he thought the US would welcome the change. Of course, as history shows, they didn’t and even tried to get the Chicago mafia to assassinate Castro. Thus, with few other options, Castro embraced the USSR who loved the idea of putting missiles in Cuba. And why in Cuba? To counter US missiles in Turkey which were, in effect, in the same relative place to the USSR as Cuban missiles would be. Thus spreading communism wasn’t really a factor, it was a fairly lucky chance that they grabbed with both hands.
Same really for the Eastern Block, Stalin was paranoid that NATO would invade. As you know in both WWI and WWII Russia had faced huge casualties and damage when Russia was invaded from Europe. He wanted a ‘buffer’ of weak nations to stop this from happening. Again, reasons other than communism.
Really, the USSR and US had a lot in common as we can see from those examples. They both said they were doing one thing but were really doing it for other reasons. Like all the great powers as you said…
Anyway, it’s been interesting to have this talk but I fear we are dragging the comments section wayyyyy off course
You might like my new blog where I sometimes write about these things if you email me at the.strangers.blog@gmail.com , I’ll give you the address once I’ve finished biulding it. Or we can continue our conversation there to save loonwatch from the history lessons 
Jack
December 14th, 2011 at 1:10 pm
Jeremy asks: Are you going to share what this other option was?
This documentary shows one example of genuine liberty and genuine federalism. It lasted about as long as America has existed, not as a “perfect” example (which America hasn’t been), but enough of an example that America has implemented some of its principles and features.
and really, Slave state?
A “Land of the Free” does not need “equal opportunity” legislation.
December 14th, 2011 at 1:23 pm
Porky, I’m no fan of the Pakistani gov’t. but I know that they have allies who can help them. We(Americans) really shouldn’t mess with countries that have nuclear weapons. Our arrogance has gotten us in too much trouble already that will never be forgotten nor forgiven. Both the Left and Right are responsible for that!
December 14th, 2011 at 1:23 pm
“Shaykh al-Hajj Dawud Ahmad, M.S.J.D. Says:
Jack Cope discloses: 3°8′51″N 101°41′36″E is my approximate location.
Looks like a fun place to visit for some, but I prefer a bit less neon.
I really enjoyed this picture of towel-heads waiting for their camels.”
Indeed, an interesting city which I feel honored to live in, not least becuase I am nearly in the countryside away from all the neon. And yes, our camels are somewhat unique… so are our towels come to that.
Jack
December 14th, 2011 at 2:57 pm
Mr Demographics,
Upon second inspection of your what we shall generously call ‘writing’, I found nothing of substance for me to actually comment on.
If you wish to ‘debate’ with me I suggest you learn some manners first, for you have none. Your attitude is rather like me asking you ‘where is your Jew gold?’ and then expecting us to have a sensible conversation afterwards.
You do rather drag your faith through the dirt with your stupidity but, don’t worry, we all know plenty of nice persons of your following so we can safely laugh at you. And on a side note, if you think that your little kiddy rants are somehow annoying us please be aware that they make us feel sorry, not annoyed. Sorry for you that is.
Anyway, a few tidbits from your ‘writing’:
“during the British Empire, the imperialists didn’t fly planes into office buildings and ritually sacrifice their children to Moloch”
Well, it would have been rather difficult for them to fly aircraft wouldn’t it? However, the British where quite happy, like any good imperialist, to sacrifice thousands upon millions of lives for their causes. Just becuase they wore redcoats while doing it doesn’t make them any different. So yes, in reality it was rather a ritual sacrifice on the alter of the ruling monarch, Morloch if you will. How about World War I, where millions of young men were charged into battle, with the full knowledge that most would die, for the gain of a few miles of land?
“The French Empire never advocated child-marriage, suicide bombs, and Shari’ah.”
France still has a legal age of marriage around 14 years of age. And during imperial times it was not uncommon for there to be marriages when girls and boys were around 10, from the lowest to the highest classes. The UK for instance had laws allowing marriage at the age of 12 up until the end of the Victorian age. Sharia law was also advocated in their Muslim territories. For suicide bombs, I again turn your attention to military campaigns.
“Even the Shari’ah-adherent Ottoman Empire was more focussed on the violent collection of jizya, than it was on the satanic teachings of Mohammed. ”
Yearp, your point? That was after all their downfall.
“You Mohammedans ought to learn from your moral superiors about how to Imperialize. Because you’re doing a pretty sh!tty job right now. Your empire is constantly under attack.”
I was unaware that there was a Muslim empire, did I miss the memeo? I’m quite sure we are not imperialism anyone… unless of course you mean the rather laughable ‘theory’ of Muslim demographics your name suggests.
Which brings me to another point, maybe you should be learning from us! After all if we can magically take over Europe and the US without using an military force, clearly we are the superiors!
“Your people are illiterate, poor, immoral and ugly. Your future is bleak.”
Oh, I think that is rather calling the kettle black… and yes, I am certainly most ugly, but wasn’t a Muslim voted Miss USA? As for immorality, poverty and illiteracy… again pot/black/calling… sort them into some sort of sentence and you get my point.
As for the future, the future is not bleak at all, the future for mankind is very good. It is people like yourself that the future is bleak for, locked in your little circles of hate and stupidity.
“Even this map is basically an admission that Mohammed is not a particularly powerful god and that your Empire needs to be much improved . . . ”
I was also unaware that Mohammad was a god… another memo I must have missed!
“Just a helpful tip.”
Obliged, but I could have got better tips of the back of a cereal packet.
Again, as usual I expect no reply as you are incapable of providing one without screaming like a child. With peace.
Jack
December 14th, 2011 at 6:56 pm
@Truth Seeker December 14th, 2011 at 5:25 am:
Ooh how jealous can you get? Pakistan, Israel & the rest getting oodles of $$$, but the leftovers for the expedient opportunist India who suppoerted the Cold War enemy of the US for decades?
In 1976 India declared itself to be S-O-C-I-A-L-I-S-T!
(“The Constitution declares India to be a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic, assuring its citizens of justice, equality, and liberty, and endeavours to promote fraternity among them. The words “socialist” and “secular” were added to the definition in 1976 by constitutional amendment.[3]-Wikipedia”.)
December 14th, 2011 at 10:31 pm
Shaykh al-Hajj Dawud Ahmad, M.S.J.D. Says:
“This documentary shows one example of genuine liberty and genuine federalism. It lasted about as long as America has existed, not as a “perfect” example (which America hasn’t been), but enough of an example that America has implemented some of its principles and features.”
So, your problem with America is a lack of perfection? I can’t say I have watched the documentary, but it is about Islam in Spain correct? and since as, you say, it lasted as long as America, I assume it must have had all of the following:
no Slavery
unrestricted free speech
equality for women
equality for Gays and Lesbians
rights for children
a willingness to let people vote for their rights
etc. etc.
I suppose I could go on. Does your wonderful society (which btw, was never in any serious contention for global Empire) have all of these rights and freedoms?
I suppose Jews and Christians didn’t have to pay any different taxes and had the exact same rights as everyone else?
“A “Land of the Free” does not need “equal opportunity” legislation.”
The USA certainly doesn’t and never did need ‘equal opportunity’ legislation, which is racist by it’s very nature.
December 14th, 2011 at 11:13 pm
Jack Cope
“Well I noticed that you were actually wanting to debate, unlike some people who I could care to mention.”
LOL
“First you ask what I would have done with Murbark etc. Well, I would have, with my considerable influence over them (since I was giving them all this aid) have pressured them to make changes and be accountable but at the same time not imposing any sort of ‘system’ on them. By making sure that people weren’t dragged out of their homes at night and so on, I’d have made a much more stable nation, rather than one that was a vicious circle. The more a nation oppresses, the more people hate it, so the more it needs to oppress and so on. Again, I feel the US had great powers over these dictatorships yet did nothing worth mentioning so long as they kept ‘on side’.”
I certainly think it’s debatable how much influence the US had. the middle east was a notoriously unstable region (as evidenced by the fact that the US could ‘install’ regimes) I think what they were shooting for, was stability, and a guarantee on their investments. They only ever got involved with the overthrow of 1 democratic government. (Mosadegh) All they did was take one dictator, and replace him with one they could work with. The US didn’t invent the dictator, it was just the standard mode of government at the time. and the US guys were no better or worse than the rest.
“My main issue is the transporting of ex-nazis for use by terrible dictatorships in South America. Such a thing, in letting criminals off the hook on the one hand and then letting them continue their crimes on the other, is wrong on all levels. Google stuff like ‘ex-nazi involvement in South America’ and tell me if you agree.”
Are you suggesting that it was America’s policy to smuggle Nazi’s to South America to continue their crimes? well I am very aware of Nazi communities that grew in South America after the war, I was of the impression that they had to sneak their way there, to escape American and Russian dragnets. Do you have some informed links that say otherwise? I would be interested… but even if it were true, thats small potatoes compared to Liberating France, and Germany (against the Germans will I might add, cause they voted for the Nazi’s)
“We agree on Japan in some way, in that we should have dealt with their crimes. However, I think the Emperor was just a puppet, it was the people pulling the strings who should hang. But as Eisenhower said on the atomic bombing:
“I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender, and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon.”
It is also true that the second bombing was of no value other than to test a new bomb. That is a war crime as bad as any human experimentation the nazis did in my opinion. Also, why was the bomb dropped on a city? Why not a military target? Or some unpopulated countryside with a note ‘Dear Mr Emperor, next time it’s your palace’? Unless of course they wanted to see the effects which I feel is the sole reason for it being done. As Eisenhower said, and as several Japanese sources support, the Japanese were going to surrender anyway and the Emperor would have issued such a deceleration within a short time. The fact that after the bomb was dropped nothing happened also supports this.”
Actually, it seems that the Japanese weren’t ready to surrender. Remember, Eisenhower was running for office, thing things he said should be taken with a grain of salt. The Americans actually issued an ultimatum to Japan, which they could have very easily accept. they were warned exactly what would happen, their reply was ‘Mokusatsu’ which essentially means to kill with silence, to ignore. If the Japanese were going to surrender, than why didn’t they? In fact what they were doing was reaching out to the Russians. The simple fact is, the dropping of the Atomic bombs saved lives, both Japanese and Allied. Civillian populations were the workforces that supplied the armies, and considered legitimate targets. There were bomb and munition factories, although Nagasaki was chosen because the weather was clear over the city.
“For Vietnam… well the domino theory was only proven because the US invaded the surrounding nations. They also supported a dictator, , who had no love for his people (he hatted Buddhists for one thing) and they had no love for him. That really was a key reason for the failure of the war, along with the fact that while communism wasn’t popular, it was the lesser of two evils for the people.”
I am well aware communism wasn’t popular, but it wasn’t exactly ‘voted in’ Also, I don’t agree that the Domino effect was because of the US involvement, I think just the opposite, had the UN not shown its resolve, the effect would have likely been much worse…. however, I can agree to disagree.
“And of course the fact that the allies had backed communist guerrillas during WWII so they felt they had a sort of ‘right’ to the nation. I think that the US would have been better to let whatever happen after the French left happen and then just carry out trade, education and other such delegations with Veitnam. Just as it does now in fact!”
You may be right, but I actually believe that Vietnam was a key battle fought during the Cold war. even though the US ‘lost’ it was still a necessary fight, though a very poorly fought battle.
” Even during WWII there were many powerful figures, Henry Ford being one of them, who supported the nazis and used their influence or otherwise.”
i actually think this is one of the great and benevolent things about the US, people can be openly against government policy without recourse.
“And yes, the capitalist system is one of these things. For example, we have all the benefits it brings, but try and explain that to the sweatshop workers of Asia or the huge numbers in poverty in the US. It could have been far better.”
There were sweat shop workers in the US 100 years ago, and that is part of a growing economy. The thing is, these kids line up for these jobs on the whole, and they are saved from being thieves, abused or prostitutes. And I think the notion of poverty in the States is ridiculous. does that mean you only have 1 TV and it’s black and white?
“Finally, before I go and talk about the soviets, what would I chose… well out of the realistic options you listed the US, but again that’s HIV or cancer… both will kill me. Again, the US could have conducted itself far better but for various reasons it didn’t. I’d be more than happy to welcome a ‘sensible’ and truly ‘compassionate’ US, though I fear it is to late.”
I think a more accurate comparison would be dying of cancer or cutting off the cancer ridden leg. In fact, exactly what you are seeing now is a more ‘compassionate’ US. By all standards, the US is much more compassionate than the past, and any other empire that has ever existed.
“Cuba is interesting, Castro was actually not a communist until the US decided to back Batista rather than the liberal regime. Castro ousted Batista (who had been crippled by a US arms embargo) and installed a liberal lawyer as president as he thought the US would welcome the change. Of course, as history shows, they didn’t and even tried to get the Chicago mafia to assassinate Castro. Thus, with few other options, Castro embraced the USSR who loved the idea of putting missiles in Cuba. And why in Cuba? To counter US missiles in Turkey which were, in effect, in the same relative place to the USSR as Cuban missiles would be. Thus spreading communism wasn’t really a factor, it was a fairly lucky chance that they grabbed with both hands.”
Castro was a ruthless bastard and the best thing for Cuba would have been a bullet through his head 30 years ago. I don’t even believe what is called Communism nowadays, is really Communism, perhaps Stalinism would be a better word. I don’t believe Castro was just trying to Liberate the people, he was after power, and he got it. The Cubans have suffered ever since. And here is a guy the US DIDN’T support, lol.
‘Same really for the Eastern Block, Stalin was paranoid that NATO would invade. As you know in both WWI and WWII Russia had faced huge casualties and damage when Russia was invaded from Europe. He wanted a ‘buffer’ of weak nations to stop this from happening. Again, reasons other than communism.’
You could have stopped with ‘Stalin was paranoid’ but this is exactly the point, how big do you think he wanted that buffer state to be? If given the choice, it would have kept expanding.
“Really, the USSR and US had a lot in common as we can see from those examples. They both said they were doing one thing but were really doing it for other reasons. Like all the great powers as you said…”
Agreed, though the difference can clearly be seen in the countries America occupied and Liberated, and the countries the Russians lay waste to. It is a striking difference and probably the cornerstone of why I believe in US benevolence…. in spit of it’s lack of perfection.
“Anyway, it’s been interesting to have this talk but I fear we are dragging the comments section wayyyyy off course You might like my new blog where I sometimes write about these things if you email me at the.strangers.blog@gmail.com , I’ll give you the address once I’ve finished biulding it. Or we can continue our conversation there to save loonwatch from the history lessons”
While I don’t agree that the comments are being dragged off course, I think the issues speak to fundamental truths about the US and it’s history, I have sent you an email. Interesting chat indeed…. I think some here could use a history lesson or two…
Jeremy
December 15th, 2011 at 5:55 am
Jeremy insinuates: So, your problem with America is a lack of perfection?
I don’t have any problem with America.
I can’t say I have watched the documentary
Then you have nothing to say based on any actual knowledge, but only your assumptions about something you know nothing about. Is that about right?
I assume it must have had all of the following:
no Slavery
unrestricted free speech
equality for women
equality for Gays and Lesbians
rights for children
a willingness to let people vote for their rights
You should have watched the documentary before making assumptions based on your short-sighted concepts of “freedom” and your non-existent understanding of “liberty.”
I suppose I could go on.
I’m sure you could. Ignorance confronted with knowledge seems to produce that tendency.
Does your wonderful society (which btw, was never in any serious contention for global Empire) have all of these rights and freedoms?
Muslims, Christians, Jews, Sabians, and all others had ~ and have ~ whatever rights God gives them that their companions do not take away from them. This was true then, there, and it is true now, here in America. The difference is that the muslims did not deprive Jews, Christians, and others of rights that America does.
I suppose Jews and Christians didn’t have to pay any different taxes and had the exact same rights as everyone else?
Jews paid Jewish taxes to their Jewish authorities, Christians paid Christian taxes to their Christian authorities, and both had the option of providing military defense alongside the muslims rather than paying the expenses of necessary defense that muslims were obligated to provide. The right to avoid military service was a right that Jews and Christians (and others) had that the muslims did not have.
Otherwise than that, Jewish authorities restricted the rights of Jews ~ such as we see today in Jerusalem, where the Jewish religious authorities prohibit Jews from setting foot on the Temple Mount, although muslims do not prohibit anyone from visiting the sacred places of any religion ~ with the sole exception of Mecca and Medina in Arabia, which are “restricted” the same way the Holy of Holies of the Temple, and the inner sanctums of the Vatican, are “forbidden territory” to people outside of those religions. And in muslim Spain, Christians had lost only the “right” to slaughter Jews at will for no better reason than that they were “Christ-killers,” which is why the muslims were invited into Spain in the first place.
You really don’t know much more about Islam than how to spell it, it appears.
As for “empire,” there is no such thing as an “Islamic” empire. The Arab muslim empire, like the Mongol muslim empire, the Ottoman (muslim) empire, and all the other successors to the imperial dominion of the Abbasid Arabs, had nothing to do with Islam other than their false claim to the religious authority they invented for themselves. Muslim Spain was not an “empire,” it was a federation that included Jewish, Christian, muslim, and other independently sovereign kingdoms.
You should have watched the documentary.
A “Land of the Free” does not need “equal opportunity” legislation.
The USA certainly doesn’t and never did need ‘equal opportunity’ legislation, which is racist by it’s very nature.
The USA has never had “equal opportunity” except for white Anglo-Saxon property owners and other European immigrants who had to fight for it. It still doesn’t, despite the legislation intended to provide some opportunity for some racial and ethnic minorities ~ which has been pork-barreled to death and made marginally effective only where some individual or group has been able to find monetary sponsorship to fight the legal battles. “Tokenism” is still the rule of “opportunity” in America. Had you watched the documentary, you would have seen something quite different.
You’re outclassed here, Jeremy. My American ancestry goes back over seventeen thousand years in America, and my European ancestry goes back to the Mayflower in America. I was a beneficiary of America’s “white skin privilege” all the way through childhood education, military service during the Vietnam Era, college, “counterculture,” entrepreneurial success, and white collar crime, losing that privilege only by embracing Islam ~ after which I’ve been treated as a deserter, a renegade, a traitor, and of the “untouchable” caste in America.
In other words, I’m not looking at America as an “outsider” or as any kind of “alien” ~ America is my country, it’s always been my country, and it’s still my country. I’ve been “inside politics” in both major national political parties, held public office, owned property, been “inside” (but not “in”) the Greek letter societies, lived in Chagrin Falls and married (for a while) into Jewish money, participated (unknowingly) as an “agent of influence” in the FBI’s COunter-INTELligence PROgram, published social commentary as a regular columnist, nearly was a candidate for Jesuit priesthood, was listed in a “Who’s Who in American [privilege group redacted],” nominated for membership in a “Blue Key” society ~ the doorway to successful legal practice and political clout in a State where I attended college ~ my American “resume” (that I consider utterly worthless) is unstoppable.
With my background and a dime I used to be able to buy a cup of coffee. When I had a quarter I had to make the tough decision about whether to buy a gallon of gasoline or a pack of cigarettes. There’s no question, in the minds of the FBI, the courts, or anywhere in the American power elite in my country that I am a dyed-in-the-wool, born-and-bred, knife-in-the-teeth-bomb-in-the-belly American, through and through.
There is also no question in the centers of Islamic learning, or in the leadership strata of Muslim America, that I am a muslim ~ established, known, certain, sincere, and reliable.
Which is why I have no problem with America. None. I have dual citizenship, but not dual loyalty or conflicting allegiances. My loyalty to God and my loyalty to my country are one loyalty.
But some people in America ~ not for the sake of being American but for other reasons ~ have a problem with me. That’s their problem ~ they’ve never been able to make it “my” problem.
You’re not even an annoyance. You give me a soapbox and a megaphone. You support and advance my professional agenda to “Make Islam Known” to people in American idiomatic English. You can’t bring a lie or a mischaracterization about Islam that I can’t expose as inimical to truth, justice, the American Way, and humanity.
Of course you “can’t say I have watched the documentary.” You don’t dare to say you’ve seen a factual depiction of a society steeped in liberty, where Jews, Christians, muslims, and others shared power and influence over the course of their common history, with all of their respective warts, peccadilloes, human failings, jealousies, rivalries, ambitions, and other “fine human qualities” shown but unable to establish any lasting tyranny such as we have institutionalized and hidden in American society. Your peers and colleagues would eat you alive were you to make such an admission.
But here you are, in a Web discussion forum administered and dominated by American muslims with American values, and by Americans with muslim values, enjoying the freedom of speech you imagine Islam to abolish, running your mouth with pure crap, false light representations, insinuations, gutter gossip, and anything you can think of to divert discussions into irrelevant trivialities, and wasting the time of people trying to concentrate on opposing the very bigotry, prejudice, phobic paranoia, misanthropic pathology, and demonization propaganda that you promote.
“Divert, distort, denigrate, disrupt or destroy any discussion of anything adverse to any agenda of the enemies of humanity.”
Such company you keep. Have you ever considered getting a life?
December 15th, 2011 at 10:35 am
@Danios & Scott
December 14th, 2011 at 12:26 am
Just watched a very disappointing Ron Paul interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcKIsBcEA-8
Paul wouldn’t have a problem with Israel bombing Iran. In fact, he seems to say that the conditions warrant that.
He also doesn’t recognize the importance of Resolution 242, the 1967 borders, etc.
He also thinks Israel should be our best friend.
Fail.
Danios I think you are misunderstanding Ron Paul’s position he is a non-interventionist he says we should be friends with as many nation as possible and trade with them but not be the world police so if God forbid Iran and Israel go at we should not take side with either one let them deal with it. From his view we should be friends with nations not their masters it is not just Israel he would treat that but every nation including the Palestinians , he was highlighting Israel because they were trying to label him as anti-Israel and borderline antisemitic
December 15th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
Shaykh al-Hajj Dawud Ahmad, M.S.J.D.
I am sure you get all your information from documentaries, but I have no interest in watching your propaganda, all you would need do to make your point is say that “yes, this magical society I am talking about had all of the following:
no Slavery
unrestricted free speech
equality for women
equality for Gays and Lesbians
rights for children
a willingness to let people vote for their rights”
instead of all your assumptions and blather, you simply could have answered the question, instead suggesting I go around watching movies you recommend.
I didn’t make any assumptions about anything other than what you said…. you said that this was some sort of perfect society, or at least the best there could be, and I simply replied that a perfect society would have had all the things I listed…. for starters.
why is that such a hard thing for you to answer? Did this society, or did it not, have all those rights and freedoms? I truthfully don’t know and am asking?
Perhaps you watch documentaries because your reading comprehension isn’t so good. I never said anything derogatory about Islam in any way, and yet you rail on and defend against positions I never took? please copy pasta one of my replies where I said anything negative about Islam, or take back what you said.
***You’re outclassed here, Jeremy.***
Obviously, LOL.
** My American ancestry goes back over seventeen thousand years in America, and my European ancestry goes back to the Mayflower in America. I was a beneficiary of America’s “white skin privilege” all the way through childhood education, military service during the Vietnam Era, college, “counterculture,” entrepreneurial success, and white collar crime, losing that privilege only by embracing Islam ~ after which I’ve been treated as a deserter, a renegade, a traitor, and of the “untouchable” caste in America.**
So, I am outclassed because of your Ancestry? Are you a racist? Cause that sounds an awful lot like a racist statement.
**But here you are, in a Web discussion forum administered and dominated by American muslims with American values, and by Americans with muslim values, enjoying the freedom of speech you imagine Islam to abolish, running your mouth with pure crap, false light representations, insinuations, gutter gossip, and anything you can think of to divert discussions into irrelevant trivialities, and wasting the time of people trying to concentrate on opposing the very bigotry, prejudice, phobic paranoia, misanthropic pathology, and demonization propaganda that you promote.**
so, where in any of my posts did I suggest Islam abolishes free speech?
What have I said that is crap, false light representations, insinuations, gutter gossip etc?
in what way am I trying to divert discussions into irrelevant trivialities?
and which bigotry, prejudice, phobic paranoia, misanthropic pathology, and demonization of anyone, or anything have I promoted?
I defy you to p[rovide examples of any of these in my posts. It seems to be you who are the bigot, refusing to engage in sensible dialogue, and jumping to all sorts of conclusions about what I am here to ‘promote’
I can only assume you are being a troll and not a prejudiced bigot seeing as nothing in your reply has spoken to anything I have actually posted…… but I will play along, just this once….
December 15th, 2011 at 1:52 pm
Shaykh al-Hajj Dawud Ahmad, M.S.J.D.
Also, you posted that you have no problem with America, and yet in an earlier post you refer to it as a slave state? am i to take it that you support slavery then?
Just trying to understand your position, as statements like that seem very contradictory.
So, is America, or is it not a slave state?
Do you, or do you not have a problem with that?
December 15th, 2011 at 5:34 pm
Jeremy, attempting to take advantage of the short memory of readers, persists: you said that this was some sort of perfect society, or at least the best there could be, and I simply replied that a perfect society would have had all the things I listed …
Two days ago you wrote: While you may all see me as an apologist for Americans, I am in the sense that they are better than all the rest. there has never existed a better option.
Yesterday I responded: Oh, but there has existed ~ and flourished ~ a better option, one that promotes, rather than obstructs, genuine liberty and genuine federalism. Two hours later you challenged: Are you going to share what this other option was? or just assert it and leave it intentionally vague, and therefore free from Criticism? So I posted a link to this documentary ~ to which you replied: I can’t say I have watched the documentary, while changing the goal posts, now falsely asserting “you said that this was some sort of perfect society, or at least the best there could be,” neither of which I said.
I challenged your assertion that “there has never existed a better option,” and showed you an example of one, and you cannot answer the challenge so you label undisputed history presented by American scholars as “propaganda” and disingenuously allege that “you said that this was some sort of perfect society, or at least the best there could be.”
It is this kind of intellectual dishonesty that characterizes your posts. You cherry-pick what you assert as facts to support your provocative apologia, diverting the discussion from the visual map evidence of America’s final effort to eradicate Islam on behalf of the Zionist nation of Israel that masks itself as the Israel of Moses, David, Solomon, and Jesus. You move among the final heirs of Abraham, excusing our aggressions and trespasses as “better than all the rest,” all the while urging us to continue to oppose, attack and destroy our own heritage in Abraham that has, does, and will, indeed, put America at the head of humanity. You abuse the liberty that God has ordained and America has established, to corrupt and destroy it and render us unable to restore it and enable the rest of humanity to appreciate and enjoy it on their own account. You fly a false flag of the enemies of humanity and come here to impede the efforts of guardians of liberty with deceit masquerading as reasoned civil discourse among the cognoscenti.
And it’s all for nothing ~ the enemies of humanity have gained the dominion for which you sold your souls, and it will not be taken away, it will burn forever, until the only oppression is your oppression of yourselves and the hypocrites who share your ambitions, who you keep close to you lest their plotting against you go undetected. Or is it you who are kept close, being watched by those more knowledgeable lest you stray from their dominion over you? In any case, one nation in Denial of God’s Mercy, you are all of a piece no matter how you mask yourselves.
Fat Man and Little Boy prevented the Soviets from sharing Japan with America as Japan and Germany had been partitioned at Yalta. Staged in Manchuria, still dangling the carrot of “alliance in the East” for which Hirohito was given false hope, Stalin watched in anticipated dismay as Japan chose American dominion over Germany’s fate. What we don’t know yet is whether this was Roosevelt’s plan all along, after failing to bait Hitler with American attacks on German shipping in the Atlantic and succeeding in baiting Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor, and choosing the more distant Pacific theater vassals for the longer term. In any case, Truman announced the apocalyptic realignment among the houses of effective power with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, drawing a line in the sand as Zionist Israel prepared to declare its borderless state.
The hidden histories, no longer occluded, spell out a novus ordo seculorum the enemies of humanity did not expect. It seems that they are not the masters of deceptive promises they were allowed to believe they would be.
You may now return to your Jeremiad contention that “there has never existed a better option” than the America we have known. America has not been “the best that we can do,” which ~ known from the past ~ yet remains in a future drawing ever more near. “The south,” as the saying goes, “will rise again” ~ and the cold-hearted despair of the enemies of humanity is no longer as contagious as it once had been. Your future will be warm in any case.
December 15th, 2011 at 6:18 pm
So, is America, or is it not a slave state?
America is still a slave state. Lincoln freed the slave owners, not the slaves. America’s slaves are more comfortable than their predecessors were, but they’re still slaves.
Do you, or do you not have a problem with that?
Everyone has a right to self-determination. I have no problem with that.
People have the rulers they deserve. I have no problem with that, either.
I don’t particularly care for people who lie by saying things that are true, but I have no “problem” with that either, because people believe what they want to believe.
America’s slaves believe that they are free, or that they are more free than any previous slaves. They’re certainly free to believe that. But there is no “military conscription” in Islam.
December 15th, 2011 at 8:27 pm
America is still a slave state”
Agreed, we are slaves to the FED.
December 15th, 2011 at 11:22 pm
Sheik AlHajj Dawud Ahmad has 17 centuries of American heritage (indigenous?) and three centuries of European ancestry ….and he has a distinctly Arab sounding name. I have 70,000 years of Australian ancestry and two hundred years of European ancestry …. and no way am I changing my name to “Sheik”. LOL. Who is the slave there?
December 16th, 2011 at 2:40 am
Shaykh al-Hajj Dawud Ahmad, M.S.J.D. Says:
So, I am assuming you are a troll, as you refused to answer my questions and continue to make assumptions about my position, while providing a documentary to back up your ridiculous position. It would seem that you could use your big people words and just explain it yourself, but apparently that’s not possible. also, cause you come across as a lunatic….
good luck with that!
December 16th, 2011 at 2:42 am
Also, your ‘better option’ was never in contention for global empire, so you must have intentionally missed the whole point.
December 16th, 2011 at 8:25 am
“Farlowe Says:
December 15th, 2011 at 11:22 pm
Sheik AlHajj Dawud Ahmad has 17 centuries of American heritage (indigenous?) and three centuries of European ancestry ….and he has a distinctly Arab sounding name. I have 70,000 years of Australian ancestry and two hundred years of European ancestry …. and no way am I changing my name to “Sheik”. LOL. Who is the slave there?”
Sheikh (pronounced /ˈʃiːk/ sheek or /ˈʃeɪk/ shayk; Arabic: شيخ šayḫ, mostly pronounced [ʃeːx], plural شيوخ šuyūḫ) — also spelled Sheik or Shaikh, or transliterated as Shaykh — is an honorific in the Arabic language that literally means “elder” and carries the meaning “leader and/or governor”. It is commonly used to designate the front man of a tribe who got this title after his father, or an Islamic scholar who got this title after graduating from the basic Islamic school. Sheikha is the female equivalent, although these are uncommon in the Arabic world. A sheikh who is wise is called ḥakīm adjective (wise) حكيم, ḥākim noun (governor) حاكم, yaḥkum verb (govern) يحكم; and can govern. The scholar sheikh here can govern but can not lead directly because the leader is the imam which is based upon the Qur’an and authentic Sunnah; on the other hand the family sheikh can always lead but can not govern unless he is wise. Although the title generally refers to a male, a very small number of female sheikhs have also existed.[citation needed]
It also refers generally to a man over forty[1] or fifty[2] years of age. While even a new Muslim can be called a sheikh if he is diligent in seeking the knowledge of Islam based upon the Qur’an and authentic Sunnah, he can be referred to as such by those he teaches. Usually, a person is known as a sheikh when he has completed his undergraduate university studies in Islamic studies and is trained in giving lectures.[1] The word sheikh under this meaning is a synonym of Alim, pl. Ulama (a learned person in Islam, a scholar),[3] Mawlawi, Mawlānā, Muhaddith, Faqīh, Qadi, Mufti, Hadhrat or Hafiz.
do people like you even bother to look stuff up before posting? Or does your stupidity preclude you from thinking?
December 16th, 2011 at 3:04 pm
@Talal I know very well what “Sheikh” means. My point is that someone who claims to have American indigenous and European heritage has an Arabic name. Why? Why would an Amerindian/European take on an Arabic name? Did he just happen to like the sound of “Shaykh al-Hajj Dawud Ahmad”.
In my country some converts to Islam change their names to Arabic sounding names. It is ironic that someone who abandons their own culture for Arabic culture calls someone else a slave because they haven’t converted to Islam. It’s a feeble attempt at Arab religious imperialism.
December 16th, 2011 at 3:12 pm
Free Bradley Mannings! He let the truth about the illegal wars known!
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2011/12/2011121319812995584.html
December 17th, 2011 at 3:22 am
Farlowe and Talal, do not waste your time on the ‘Sheik’
He is an obvious troll. He is trying to suggest that a society that encourages slavery, run by an all powerful ruler, burned books and libraries, violently crushed rebellions and beheaded and burned surrendering rebels, used mercenary armies to suppress rebellions,had pogroms against jews and forced non muslims to pay the Jizya tax that was created through the violent suppression its enemies and in the end could not even sustain itself was somehow the better option for an ideal society.
among other lunacies and contradictions.
obvious troll is obvious…….
December 17th, 2011 at 5:02 am
the truth about terrorism and war
December 17th, 2011 at 11:49 am
I dont agree that Mr SAD Ahmad is a troll . none standard views certainly but I find them inturnally consistant.It doesnt mean I agree with him all the time
.
But it needs more than that to be a troll. A troll such as Halal dork (or whatever name he is using at the moment ) just spreads hate and trys to anger people .
Maybe other should look in the mirror more often at there own motivations for writing on this site .
December 17th, 2011 at 2:55 pm
Sir David writes: I don’t agree that Mr. SAD Ahmad is a troll. Non-standard views certainly, but I find them internally consistent. It doesn’t mean I agree with him all the time
.
But it needs more than that to be a troll. A troll such as Halal dork (or whatever name he is using at the moment) just spreads hate and tries to anger people.
Maybe others should look in the mirror more often at their own motivations for writing on this site.
Thank you, Sir David.
Commissioned to “Make Islam known” using American idiomatic English (i.e., to Americans, including ~ if not primarily ~ American muslims), after being trained and educated in that fard kifayah* profession over the course of 26 years as a practicing, fundamentalist, non-sectarian muslim, I took up this “lightning rod” post on the Web in 1997 and immediately became a target of the enemies of humanity ~ including, among other professionally-organized and institutionalized parties, those who dominate the terminally-collapsed millennial muslim world as “scholars” and “jurists” still seeking an exclusive global imperium with coercive powers. I, who am neither king nor prophet, but a flesh-and-blood man capable of error, do not wear the name “David” lightly.
The Web is most certainly the theater of a battle for the hearts and minds of the people ~ here in the ethereal realm we rightly call “the heavens,” we are at war. At root, it is a war of those who seek to perpetuate their subjugation of mankind by force against those who seek to liberate humanity by inspiration. In order to preserve their material dominions, the enemies of humanity must counter the force of inspiration ~ which they have done successfully for millennia, corrupting every religious faith as it became institutionalized, pitting one set of utopian idealisms against another, inducing fear and suspicion by dissimulation and false moralities, dividing and conquering by calculated allocation of material resources, playing on ignorance, superstition, insincerity, doubt, and insecurity to fragment any communion other than their own. The enemies deploy two main strategies:
“Divert, distort, denigrate, disrupt or destroy any discussion of anything adverse to any agenda of the enemies of humanity;” and
“Dismiss, discredit, denounce, demonize or deny any proponent or professor of humanly effective inspiration.”
Jeremy is pursuing both strategies in this discussion ~ diverting discussion of the “Eye-Opening Graphic: Map of Muslim Countries that the U.S. and Israel Have Bombed” and its implications on the one hand, into discussion of the Cold War and other modern conflicts, and dismissing my proof against his contention that “there has never existed a better option” (than American domination) by falsely demonizing muslim Spain to discredit me in the eyes of the ignorant, and denouncing me as a troll essentially on the basis of my challenge to his assertions ~ a challenge he cannot address, because undeniable history shows that muslim Spain was more libertarian than America, despite the intramural wars among the muslims that eventually destroyed it, and was moreover the immediate source of the restoration of Europe from the papal Dark Ages and the decivilization that followed Charlemagne.
Jeremy is the professional counterpoint to the trolls ~ a voice of reason, pretentiously “objective,” the matador with the twin swords of those strategies of the enemies of humanity.
So there is the map: “Most of today’s armed conflicts involve muslims” because most of today’s armed conflicts are wars waged against lands with muslim majorities.
“Oil” is not the reason. America’s real oil reserves are still in the ground, the wells capped or not yet brought into production. “Newly-discovered” oil deposits all over the globe were found precisely where geologists knew where to look as long as a century ago ~ the petroleum deposits of the Middle East were mapped before World War I. “Cheap oil” is not the reason ~ as the currently-used resources are drained, it becomes increasingly expensive to bring the product up from the subtrata. The plan, formulated long ago, has been to use up every other nation’s resources before using our own, establishing a monopoly on industrial energy resources. “Fear of a nuclear-armed Iran” is a pretext by which to prevent Iran from developing alternative energy and freeing itself from petroleum dependence ~ as was also the case with Iraq, decades ago. The world must be kept dependent on the West, others cannot be allowed to surpass our industrial and technological capacities, as Germany had started to do with freeways, fuel-efficient automobiles, television telephones, rubber from coal, and other “more recent technological developments” of the western “democracies.”
Subjugation is the end that justifies any means, liberation is the enemy. And “there has never existed a better option” than American domination.
Now repeat after me: “SAD Ahmad is a troll. SAD Ahmad is a troll.” Say it enough and you’ll be able to get back to that American Dreaming … of the glories of Athens and Rome or the distant paradise of Monaco or the French Riviera or whatever suits your fancy and rest assured that after this “best of all possible worlds” destroys this new “enemy of freedom,” the price of whiskey and whimsical witches will wither and we’ll all live happily ever after.
LoonWatch should be flattered by the fact that the enemies have sent in some professional talent. That means you’re having an effect.
** *** ***** ******* *********** ************* *****************
*A “fard kifayah” is a duty that is mandatory on the muslim community as a whole, distinguished from a “fard ‘ain” which is a duty incumbent on every individual muslim who has attained the age of reason. Someone in the community must be fulfilling a fard kifayah duty, or everyone in the community is in error. Some fard kifayah professions are passive ~ “understanding the law” for example, which may be called into service only on occasion ~ while others are active ~ “motherhood” for example, the nearest to the prophetic office that anyone can reach, and the most vital to the community ~ and all are at least minimally supported (i.e., enabled; these are not “paid professions”) by the entire community. (“Mothers,” for example, are provided with a man responsible for relieving the mother of any material or social concerns, so that she can devote the entirety of her concern to her children; whereas ‘Umar ibn Khattab, Commander of the Faithful after Abu Bakr, was provided with a sufficiency of olive oil and bread to eat, and a garment, after he had spent everything he owned on fulfilling that duty except the house that he lived in.) Agriculture, architecture, apparel, and administration account for most of the fard kifayah professions. “Making Islam known” is a function of siyasa, or “political administration.”
December 17th, 2011 at 9:15 pm
Sir David: Notice this subtle bait from Jeremy:
Also, your ‘better option’ was never in contention for global empire, so you must have intentionally missed the whole point.
The Arab muslim empire was the only global empire of its time ~ the last of the Biblical “gentile empires,” Rome and Persia, had collapsed, leaving Byzantium dominant over a Europe that had descended into barbarism. What Jeremy attempts to do with this glaring falsity is draw me into contending that “Islam” was that Arab muslim empire, and arguing that “Islam” created the greatest empire ever known before or since.
Most of today’s muslims would take the bait, since the muslims extended the Arab empire from the Atlantic to the Pacific in less than two centuries, dwarfing both the Roman empire and the Holy Roman Empire of the Catholic Church by several orders of magnitude, and making the Kingdom of David and even the empire of Solomon look like backwater villages.
But the truth of the matter is that the original muslim nation, which began with the defense of the Medina city-state, unified Arabia, and then drove the colonial empires of Rome/Byzantium and Persia out of The Promised Land (the “world” of the Bible) within the space of a generation, and then, thirty years after the death of the Messenger, degenerated into Arab tribalism, then into Arab nationalism, and then into the Arab empire. In other words, all of the imperial reign of the Arab muslims ~ and their successors the Mongols and various parties until the last, the Ottoman Empire ~ came after the fulfillment of the Biblical prophecies regarding the transformation of The Promised Land, and after the collapse of the dominion of Islam into the barbarism that surrounded it and persists today with American (and other) barbarism all over the world.
So it is true that Islam “was never in contention for global empire” ~ Islam is neither nationalistic nor imperialistic, has no “divine commission” to “rule the nations with a rod of iron,” and did not give rise to the “muslim empire” that lasted for a thousand years. Ambitious imperialists among the muslims have been “in contention for global empire,” following the footsteps of those who forged empire before them, and a fringe minority of ignorant extremists, led by corrupted “scholars” even today, give the enemies of humanity a wealth of brigandage and mayhem that they paint on all of the muslims as a consequence of this long degenerative history.
It’s this kind of subtlety that characterizes the enemies of humanity ~ and muslims ignorant of their own faith, but aware of the sordid history of the Arab and later muslims, assist the enemies with their demonization campaigns by “defending” what is utterly indefensible. Aggressive nationalism, and imperialism of any kind, is anathema to Islam and has no place in the faith whatsoever. God is The Sovereign, and He cloaks men with that attribute for His purposes, to establish justice which those men more often than not turn into tyranny, believing “sovereignty” to be theirs and inheritable from them. America is no different than Rome, Persia, or any other imperialistic “power” that rules by coercive force and intimidation, while deceiving the people who support such adventurism into thinking that they are sovereign by right of their intrinsic superiority over others, rather than possessed of dominion for the role they are to play in establishing God’s Mandate for universal liberty and pluralistic justice tempered with His Mercy.
The Arab muslims, like the Hebrew Israelites before them, and the Roman Christians who followed the pharisaic teachings of the “Mashiach” of Talmudic Temple Israel, lost God’s Favor when they turned from Him to the world at hand, to dominate it for themselves. Empire followed in each case ~ the Arab empire more extensive, more lasting, and more dazzling than any before it. Islam did not produce that empire ~ the ambitions of later muslims did.
And as Jeremy notes, the final effect of their ambitions was total collapse and passage of a corrupted torch of civilization to the European descendants of Japheth ~ who are today using it to set fire to the rest of the world, and most especially to the dead ashes of muslim tyranny.
But Islam, like original Judaism, will never collapse. The Abbasid genocide of the Umayyad dynasty was unable to reach muslim Spain, and it took the Romanized Christians of Europe eight hundred years of waiting for a return of their strength, at a time when muslim Spain was fragmented and vulnerable, to eliminate the human civilization that survived the collapse of the Arab muslim empire.
Which is why Jeremy disdains the documentary account of “The Rise and Fall of Islamic Spain” written by Western historians and scholars that he can’t refute except by lying about it using the truth of sectarian ambitions among the muslims and ignoring the Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Greek, and muslim origins of Europe’s Renaissance that came to Europe from muslim Spain.
The last thing the enemies of humanity want to see at LoonWatch is anything “making Islam known” to the guardians of liberty here. They much prefer those who are knowledgeable about the corruptions of empire than those who know ~ intimately ~ what preceded it.
January 8th, 2012 at 11:00 pm
that was hilarious, thank you…..
February 3rd, 2012 at 2:08 pm
How soon we choose to forget. Since Saddam’s coming to power in 1979, Iraq attacked every neighboring country save Syria (which fought among the allies against Iraq in the Gulf War). Ponder Saddam’s 1980-88 war with Iran, his brutal conquering of Kuwait in 1990, his subsequent attacks on Saudi Arabia and Israel, his defeat in the Gulf War of 1990-91, his wholesale murder of Iraqi Shias in 1991-92, his decade-long defiance of every international mandate, and finally, his pushing the envelope to the point that most of the world had quite enough of him by 2003.
Such defiance to our national interests stirred America to pass the “Iraqi Liberation Act” that called for his complete removal. It was good national policy when signed by President Clinton in 1998, and it was good policy when we enforced it in 2003. How quickly we forget.
Is this not protecting Muslims. Please Email me.
February 3rd, 2012 at 2:17 pm
@LoveThem Moonbats
Ah, yes…..how we choose to forget:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/14/opinion/a-tyrant-40-years-in-the-making.html