Here's your "American"...

D

DÛke

Guest
...

This is an article by an "American" (since it matters after all) journalist. It was taken from a Los Angeles newspaper:

First, I'm not gonna leave. I'm gonna stay here. I'm gonna voice my opinion. I'm gonna bring in the news from all over the world that I hear. You either sit down and accuse me of stirring up trouble, or you can actually open your mind and read about different point of views. DON'T agree, just open your mind...and read.

*******************
“The Wickedness and Awesome Cruelty of a Crushed and Humiliated People” -- By Robert Fisk - 12 September 2001

So it has come to this. The entire modern history of the Middle East the collapse of the Ottoman empire, the Balfour declaration, Lawrence of Arabia's lies, the Arab revolt, the foundation of the state of Israel, four Arab-Israeli wars and the 34 years of Israel's brutal occupation of Arab land all erased within hours as those who claim to represent a crushed, humiliated population struck back with the wickedness and awesome cruelty of a doomed people. Is it fair is it moral to write this so soon, without proof, when the last act of barbarism, in Oklahoma, turned out to be the work of home-grown Americans? I fear it is. America is at war and, unless I am mistaken, many thousands more are now scheduled to die in the Middle East, perhaps in America too. Some of us warned of "the explosion to come''. But we never dreamt this nightmare.

And yes, Osama bin Laden comes to mind, his money, his theology, his frightening dedication to destroy American power. I have sat in front of bin Laden as he described how his men helped to destroy the Russian army in Afghanistan and thus the Soviet Union. Their boundless confidence allowed them to declare war on America. But this is not the war of democracy versus terror that the world will be asked to believe in the coming days. It is also about American missiles smashing into Palestinian homes and US helicopters firing missiles into a Lebanese ambulance in 1996 and American shells crashing into a village called Qana and about a Lebanese militia paid and uniformed by America's Israeli ally hacking and raping and murdering their way through refugee camps.

No, there is no doubting the utter, indescribable evil of what has happened in the United States. That Palestinians could celebrate the massacre of 20,000, perhaps 35,000 innocent people is not only a symbol of their despair but of their political immaturity, of their failure to grasp what they had always been accusing their Israeli enemies of doing: acting disproportionately. All the years of rhetoric, all the promises to strike at the heart of America, to cut off the head of "the American snake'' we took for empty threats. How could a backward, conservative, undemocratic and corrupt group of regimes and small, violent organizations fulfill such preposterous promises? Now we know.

And in the hours that followed yesterday's annihilation, I began to remember those other extraordinary assaults upon the US and its allies, miniature now by comparison with yesterday's
casualties. Did not the suicide bombers who killed 241 American servicemen and 100 French paratroops in Beirut on 23 October 1983, time their attacks with unthinkable precision?

There were just seven seconds between the Marine bombing and the destruction of the French three miles away. Then there were the attacks on US bases in Saudi Arabia, and last year's attempt almost successful it now turns out to sink the USS Cole in Aden. And then how easy was our failure to recognize the new weapon of the Middle East, which neither Americans nor any
other Westerners could equal: the despair-driven, desperate suicide bomber.

And there will be, inevitably, and quite immorally, an attempt to obscure the historical wrongs and the injustices that lie behind yesterday's firestorms. We will be told about "mindless terrorism'', the "mindless" bit being essential if we are not to realise how hated America has become in the land of the birth of three great religions.

Ask an Arab how he responds to 20,000 or 30,000 innocent deaths and he or she will respond, as decent people should, that it is an unspeakable crime. But they will ask why we did not use such words about the sanctions that have destroyed the lives of perhaps half a million children in Iraq, why we did not rage about the 17,500 civilians killed in Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon. And those basic reasons why the Middle East caught fire last September the Israeli occupation of Arab land, the dispossession of Palestinians, the bombardments and state-sponsored executions ... all these must be obscured lest they provide the smallest fractional reason for yesterday's
mass savagery.

No, Israel was not to blame though we can be sure that Saddam Hussein and the other grotesque dictators will claim so but the malign influence of history and our share in its burden must surely stand in the dark with the suicide bombers. Our broken promises perhaps even our destruction of the Ottoman Empire, led inevitably to this tragedy. America has bankrolled
Israel's wars for so many years that it believed this would be cost-free. No longer so. But, of course, the US will want to strike back against "world terror'', and last night's bombardment of Kabul may have been the opening salvo. Indeed, who could ever point the finger at Americans now for using that pejorative and sometimes racist word "terrorism''?

Eight years ago, I helped to make a television series that tried to explain why so many Muslims had come to hate the West. Last night, I remembered some of those Muslims in that film, their families burnt by American-made bombs and weapons. They talked about how no one would help them but God. Theology versus technology, the suicide bomber against the nuclear
power. Now we have learnt what this means.

*******************

”Is the world's favorite hate figure to blame? Osama bin Laden”
-- By Robert Fisk - 12 September 2001

I can imagine how Osama bin Laden received the news of the atrocities in the United States. In all, I must have spent five hours listening to him in Sudan and then in the Afghan mountains, as he described the inevitable collapse of the US, just as he and his comrades in the Afghan war helped to destroy the Red Army.

He will have watched satellite television; he will have sat in the corner of his room, brushing his teeth as he always did, with a mishwak stick, and thinking for up to a minute before speaking. He once told me with pride how his men had attacked the Americans in Somalia. He acknowledged that he personally knew two of the Saudis executed for bombing an American military base in Riyadh. Could he be behind the slaughter in America?

If Mr bin Laden was really guilty of all the things for which he has been blamed, he would need an army of 10,000. And there is something deeply disturbing about the world's habit of turning to the latest hate figure whenever blood is shed. But when events of this momentous scale take place, there is a new legitimacy in casting one's eyes at those who have constantly threatened America.

Mr bin Laden had a kind of religious experience during the Afghan war. A Russian shell had fallen at his feet and, in the seconds as he waited for it to explode, he said he had a sudden feeling of calmness. The shell never exploded.

The US must leave the Gulf, he would say every 10 minutes. America must stop all sanctions against the Iraqi people. America must stop using Israel to oppress Palestinians. He was not fighting an anti-colonial war, but a religious one. His supporters would gather round him with the awe of men listening to a messiah. And the words they listened to were fearful in their implications. American civilians would no more be spared than military targets. Yet I also remember one night when Mr bin Laden saw a pile of newspapers in my bag and seized them. By a sputtering oil lamp, he read them, clearly unaware of the world around him. Was this really a man who could damage America?

If the shadow of the Middle East falls over yesterday's destruction, then who else could produce such meticulously timed assaults? The rag-tag Palestinian groups that used to favour hijacking are unlikely to be able to produce a single suicide bomber. Hamas and Islamic Jihad have neither the capability nor the money that this assault needed. Perhaps the groups that moved close to the Lebanese Hizbollah in the 1980s, before the organization became solely a resistance movement. The bombing of the US Marines in 1983 needed precision, timing and infinite planning. But Iran, which supported these groups, is more involved in its internal struggles. Iraq lies broken, its agents more intent on torturing their own people than striking at the the US.

So the mountains of Afghanistan will be photographed from satellite and high-altitude aircraft in the coming days, Mr bin Laden's old training camps highlighted on the overhead projectors in the Pentagon. But to what end? For if this is a war it cannot be fought like other wars. Indeed, can it be fought at all without some costly military adventure overseas? Or is that what Mr bin Laden seeks above all else?

*******************

Hey, look TomB...he's an American. Is he stirring up trouble...like me and Gizmo?
 

TomB

Administrator
Staff member
And neither is Duel, or Zadok, who are also defending the bin Ladens of the world, and condemning all of us who feel anger over this tragic happening.

But I think Gizmo has been. And I think, to a lesser extent, you have too, whether you realize it or not. Look, I know English isn't your first language, DÛke, and I recognize there are going to be times you say things that will come out sounding worse than you intend them to. I'm trying real hard to read what you're saying without making snap judgements based on linguistics.

Then you post something like this, and add a smart-ass comment onto the end. What am I supposed to think DÛke? I mean, are you trying to use this particular article to point out that the USA sucks? Or that there are Americans who think it sucks? Are you saying that you love our country but hate it's policies? Or are you saying that even though there are Americans who disagree with our government's policies you'd rather be here, where you can complain about it, than back in Iraq where you'd get shot for complaining.

I mean, which way do you think? Is this a country you can be proud of? Or are we all to be condemned to burn in hell? Do you wish to be a part of this country? Or do you think that maybe Saddam Hussein isn't all that bad a guy?

Please make up your mind already! :confused:
 
D

Daggertooth

Guest
Wait?!? Where did that guy Bash America?

*Quickly reads through it again*

I'm not sure what your trying to prove duke. Sure I see the sarcasm and the anger, (Usualy that stuff just flies over my head) But I'm not sure what your trying to prove.

He's right, we have had a very crappy foregn policy over there that has caused the death of many. But don't all americans know that?

Daggertooth
 
D

DÛke

Guest
...

TomB, if you have bothered to read my words before, you would know that I've made up my mind years and years ago. Not now. Not because of the recent tragedy.

HERE'S EXACTLY WHAT I THINK:

>>I have, and always will, value the innocent human life as the most precious thing in the world. No human should die because of criminal acts.

>>I'm living the United States. I probably forever will. I love it. I love it better than I loved Iraq. No country is perfect. Iraq isn't perfect. The United States isn't perfect. All countries have their problems. The U.S. isn't any different.

>>My whole point of view summed up: defend the rights of the citizens of the U.S. by standing against such crimes, but DO NOT go on and blow up more people to prove your point. It will not work. It never has. It will only bring negative feedbacks and side-effects.

>>Am I racist? No.
>>Am I Anti-American. No.
>>Do I have a heart? Yes.
>>Did I care about the tragedy? Yes.
>>Do I ask myself why you guys didn't care when similar acts happened in other parts of the world because of the U.S.? Yes, I do ask myself that.
>>Did I get an answer for my previous question? No.
>>Do I wish for an answer? Yes.

There ya go, TomB. Believe it or not...agree or not. It's only the echo of my opinion. Again. I don't see anything wrong in what I said. If you agree with what I said now, than you have agreed with everything I've said before about this issue, for this is the summery of it.

Daggertooth, no, not everyone knows that. Mr. TomB accused me of stirring up trouble, when I was not saying anything wrong at all. Look, this is NOT supposed to put down the U.S. in anyway, it's supposed to show you that it's not ALL about the U.S. It's universal. That's something not everyone understands.

Actually, this whole thread is for TomB...because I swear, I don't see how he can accuse me of being a trouble maker.
 
L

Lotus Mox

Guest
No DÛke, he's not...
And neither is Duel, or Zadok, who are also defending the bin Ladens of the world, and condemning all of us who feel anger over this tragic happening.
what exactly is this blurb supposed to do? to bring trouble around here, by any chance?

If any other opinion than yours means trouble well then of course there are many trouble-makers here.
 

TomB

Administrator
Staff member
Originally posted by TomB
<Large Snip> Please make up your mind already! :confused:
I answered your question in the subject of the above post, DÛke. :rolleyes:

Sorry DÛke, but I never have been able to figure out where you stand on issues involving this country, or some of the obvious contradictions inherent in many of the things you have said in the past.

I'm so glad you cleared all that up :rolleyes:

Lotus Mox: I'm sorry. I thought that was what was happening here. Did I miss something? :confused:
 
Z

Zadok001

Guest
TomB: I would NEVER defend Bin Laden. His crimes are beyond imagination, and he should be punished. I _will_ defend the rights of the innocent people who will die if the US presses into war. That's my entire argument - War is the wrong answers, and we CANNOT allow ourselves to sink to the level of Bin Laden and his people. It would be unthinkable.

I stand for justice, not for vengeance.
 
B

Baskil

Guest
/agree Zadok

At least there's a handful of people out there that understand.
 

TomB

Administrator
Staff member
Originally posted by Zadok001
TomB: I would NEVER defend Bin Laden. His crimes are beyond imagination, and he should be punished. I _will_ defend the rights of the innocent people who will die if the US presses into war. That's my entire argument - War is the wrong answers, and we CANNOT allow ourselves to sink to the level of Bin Laden and his people. It would be unthinkable.

I stand for justice, not for vengeance.
I'm sorry, Zadok. I wrote that while I was angry at DÛke, and I know it was uncalled for. I apologize.

[Edit - I'd also like to include Duel in that apology :eek: - TomB]
 
A

Apollo

Guest
From Lotus Mox: what exactly is this blurb supposed to do? to bring trouble around here, by any chance?

If any other opinion than yours means trouble well then of course there are many trouble-makers here.
Go read his post again, Lotus Mox. He said that those people were not stirring up trouble. He said the exact opposite thing from what you accuse him of. He was saying that their opinion was OK as long as they weren't doing it in a way that would antagonize people.

DUke: first off, I'm afraid these articles don't make much sense. Sure, he says some interesting stuff, but none of it whatsoever is relavent to what you've said.

Secondly, I'm afraid you're starting to prove TomB right. What do you think that smart-alek comment at the end of your first post does? It makes TomB mad at you, thereby stirring up trouble. You weren't doing it before, but you are now.

Here's a tip: if you can look back at your comment, and see that it has no purpose whatsoever other than to annoy somebody else, or rub their noses in something, chances are you're stirring up trouble.
 
D

DÛke

Guest
...

I'm sorry, Apollo. I wrote that while I was angry at TomB, and I know it was uncalled for. I apologize.

The thread is for TomB. He thought I was stirring up trouble when I was saying the same stuff as that article. I just wanted to show him that I'm not alone. Indeed I'm not.
 
D

Duel

Guest
First off, throwing my weight behind Zadok, here. I was offended, even though I know you meant no harm, Tomb. I don't approve of, defend, or even like to think about the actions of Bin Laden. I WOULD like to understand them, though.

I don't condemn you for feeling angry, but the minute some innocent person dies because people in our country got angry, we're guilty of 2nd degree murder. Feel angry. Please, calm down before you act.

http://menic.utexas.edu/menic/utaustin/course/oilcourse/mail/saudi/0007.html
I'm an admirer of Fisk, from what I've read so far. Look at the link. It's worth seeing.
 
Z

Zadok001

Guest
(TomB: No offense taken. I kinda figured you weren't really trying to nail me on that one.)
 

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
Okay, from what I'm reading, the first article doesn't try to link the Middle East conflicts directly to the WTC attacks but kinda says what Gizmo and DUke are saying (I think): that the US policies towards the Middle East might have stirred up enough emotions that we should have expected it.

The second is merely asking if bin Laden is truly responsible.

Is this an article or editorial? It has the flavor fo the latter... and what LA newspaper?

I think it's a valid viewpoint but again, it doesn't address the reasons behind US foreign policy except to say to support the Israelis and Lebanon. I don't see the reasons behind WHY the support, such as Palestinian support from Syria, Jordan, and others, surprise and unprovoked attacks from the Israeli wars, Hamas bombings and support, etc. It only provides one view and though it's the different and opposite view, it doesn't answer all.

The second doesn't address the gathering evidence so far that links the terrorists to lin Baden. That's just irresponsible (unless this was Tuesday or Wednesday).

And Baskil, what's up with this?
At least there's a handful of people out there that understand
If I didn't know you better (kinda of), I could take offense at this and mention what an arrogant statement THAT is. I could easily say "And maybe you're the handful of people that DON'T understand" :rolleyes: Let's try to refrain from the cheap shots and judgemental attacks, as have been mentioned before.
 
B

Baskil

Guest
Originally posted by Spiderman
If I didn't know you better (kinda of), I could take offense at this and mention what an arrogant statement THAT is. I could easily say "And maybe you're the handful of people that DON'T understand" :rolleyes: Let's try to refrain from the cheap shots and judgemental attacks, as have been mentioned before.
It wasn't really a cheap shot. Not understanding that Violence promotes Violence, Giving up Liberties for Security gets you neither, and that reason should not be thrown out the window even in the darkest hour, is being naive. Or brainwashed. Or letting their anger get in the way of rational thought.

/flame on :p
 

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
I would tend to disagree with you on the finer points there, but I think what you're saying is that you agreed with Zadok's statements, as opposed to thinking that THAT way was the RIGHT and ONLY way and implicitly insulting the rest of us who have differing viewpoints.

I'll take it as such unless you want to correct my understanding of your statement :p
 
M

mogg bomber

Guest
I agree with Zadok and Baskil. There are too many people in this country who are letting their anger get the best of them(I'm not sure if anyone here has gone that far yet, but I do know several people on other sites and in real life who have). I'm not saying they're entirely wrong, they have the right idea(somewhat) but the wrong method. We need to avoid going to war and killing innocents, at almost any cost. It will not solve anything, only make things worse. Also of importance, it is wrong to attack the whole for a small group of radicals.

An example I came up with is this: How would you feel if in a sudden "war against racism" most of the world came together to attack all of the U.S. just because we have groups such as the KKK here? Of course it's a highly hypothetical situation, but it gives you something to think about.
 

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
Well, if you want to be technical about it, we already have the fundamentalist Muslims "at war" with us, the Chinese aren't too happy, relations with Europe had cooled a bit before all of this due to Bush's stance on several world issues....

They're not "at war" but everybody certainly isn't one big happy family with the US.
 
D

Daggertooth

Guest
Originally posted by mogg bomber
An example I came up with is this: How would you feel if in a sudden "war against racism" most of the world came together to attack all of the U.S. just because we have groups such as the KKK here? Of course it's a highly hypothetical situation, but it gives you something to think about.
That example is flawed. It would need to be more like this:

The leader of the KKK somehow kills thousands of innocents in a paralising attack against the world. The world Gets mad and Demands the KKK leader to be handed over. And America Defends him.

Thats what is happening. The taliban Refuses to give up Osama Bin Ladin even though America has stated something to the effect of: Those harboring terrorists and Terrorists will be seen in the same light. So now we are at war with afganistan.

Daggertooth
 
Z

Zadok001

Guest
"The taliban Refuses to give up Osama Bin Ladin"

Inaccurate. The Taliban has decided nothing at this point. They are currently discussing the situation.
 
Top