http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20031023-114713-4202r.htm An agency "to help fight the war of ideas"? Why don't we just hire this guy? http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/ He can just tell the world we're not there.
No, Rummy's completely right. It IS a war of ideas, and we are NOT good messengers. But let's analyze this statement: "The overwhelming majority of the people of all religions don't believe in terrorism," he said. "They don't believe in running around killing innocent men, women and children. And we need more people standing up and saying that in the world, not just us." This administration is really something. They seem to understand, or at least parrot the right words - that most people around the world, no matter what their religion, disapprove of "running around killing innocent men, women and children" - terrorism, as we call it. Who could argue that? We do try and get that message out, too; but it's a hell of a job to make that message sound credible when our policies and attacks invariably lead to the deaths of lots of innocent men, women, and children, too. People like Rumsfeld don't seem to have the mental apparatus to look at things from the perspective of parts of the rest of the world - from whose perspective we are also fitting that definition of 'terrorists' quite well. It simply doesn't occur to them that that's one possible rational interpretation, depending on who you are, where you are, the info you get and your frame of reference. So we can massage the 'we're the good guys here' message all we want, but I don't know if the people they're targeting are gonna believe it any more than they do now, not as long as we keep acting the way we are. Probably less - people have a tendency to see through such bullshit.
Well said. The Bush administration doesn't seem to grasp that their actions around the world have created this situation, when taken in light of the fact that they lacked any real evidence of WMD's, they acted preemptively against an already weakened opponent, and innocents suffered as a result. It would be hard for someone who lives in a predominantly Islamic nation to accept that the United States was somehow acting out of the benevolence of its own good intentions, especially when their family members are dead as a result of one of our bombs or weapons. Our leaders need to realize that we no longer monopolize the righteous actions of the protectors of the free world; that by acting preemptively and unilaterally, we more seriously endanger the world we are hoping to protect.
C'mon, gimme a break. We've "created" this situation?? Puhleeze. Once agan, it's ALL our fault. This just in -- terrorists were still around, and were a lot stronger, and were still recruiting, and still engaging in terrorist attacks, during the Clinton Administration. A good deal of the Anti-American sentiment in the Arab world is based on the fact that they think we are so far pro-Israel, and so far anti-Palestine. This anti-American attitude is lubricated by a hyperventilating Al Jazeera and the proliferation of inflammatory web sites. Add in a sense of economic hopelessness, political oppression, a sea of impressionble young minds, a theocratic sensibility on the part of religious leaders, and you have a 5-part formula for some nasty stuff. The fundamentalists would hate us if we didn't have a single M1 tank, and never put a boot on the ground in Iraq, because they believe our entire society is immoral and decadent, that we're only interested in Israel.
Go ahead...feel free to completely blur distinctions and focus on just a small subset of actions to the exclusion of more endemic and deeper rooted causes. Go ahead. Make my day. Anything for the superficial, unthinking, non-nuance, sophomoric, sweepingly shallow perception of the situation. Really, enjoy the mental nutrition provided by the intellectual gummy bears that you ram down your throat.
I seriously doubt it. Sure, there would be those who would hate us (you at nr 1) anyway... but it would be a whole different scene IMO. The US are making it too easy.
You sound like one of those battered women that never divorce their abusive husbands. Right. We should have gotten John the paper and made him dinner like he asked. We deserved that beating. We deserved 9/11.
There are sizable parts of the world that really believes this. All we're trying to do is ask honestly and seriously: why?
Further proof we AREN'T befcoming a fascist state... That you are allowed to SAY this crap in public wihtout being imprisoned.
just beaten and gassed... ...and occasionally shot http://www.faheykleingallery.com/images/photographs/icon2/icon2_01_bg.jpg no big deal though, they deserved it. Pinkos.
There are hundreds of millions of people around the world who believe precisely that. And when al-Qaeda lands another such monstrosity on you, or us over here in the UK, then they will all rejoice again. That's what we're facing. And anyone who would seek to avoid the word 'why' or who, like Karl, simply throws his hands up in the air in exasperation and gets a sulk on, is an active impediment to ever providing us with a measure of safety from this mindset.
I love how they don't interview any police officials in that article. Of course the organizers said they were protesting peacefully--you really expect me to believe it without independent confirmation?
<Kent Brockmann>So tell me officer, did you fire plastic bullets and teargas at a crowd of peacefully, legally demonstrating anti-war activists in order to 'disperse' them? Or was it in fact more a case of 700 crazed pinko anarchists threatening the very fabric of our existsnce - were you, in short, compelled to shoot those America-hating bastards in the face? Is that not what occured, Officer?</Kent Brockman>
We already have several. We've had government-sponsored propaganda machines since 1776. This isn't really news.
If they wrote a report and simply took down the police point of view without even bothering to interview the demonstrators (or at least not quoting them in the article), you'd be crying bloody murder, so why should the reverse not be true?
It always the police at fault. I guess all anti war protestors are peace loving folks. 'Cept for the ones that block streets and attack police officers. What's more believable? *Honest, we were just standing there admiring each others Birkenstocks when the soldiers of the Machine came out with rage in their eyes. They were saying "make the pinko commie ************s pay," and then another said "we're going to make Malmedy look like a picnic." That's when they opened fire, oh my it was awful."* Or.. *We were deployed to make sure nothing got out of hand. The demonstators were fine, until we got there that is. They got pretty mad that we were there. A good deal of them became belligerent, and my men were heavily outnumbered. We were starting to fear for our safety after it was pretty clear that they wanted us gone, then and there. I did the only thing that would deliver a diffused situation. We fired into the crowd, but we made every effort to focus on the belligerent ones. I'm sure others were hit and that's awful, but we were going to be attacked."
Neither is remotely believable. Come on manny, even you can do better than that. No I wouldn't, because I generally don't become quite as agitated by that whole "media bias" you lot hide behind whenever reality deals your chosen view of the world a shit hand.