A culture of violence and bigotry
May. 13th, 2004 08:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pluralthis will probably piss some of you off but it has been brewing for sometime
I am literally fed up and appalled with the coddling by the liberal west of Arab and Muslim governments and militants
To quote Bill Maher
"I am not prejudiced against them, prejudiced means "pre-judging", I am judging"
Which is what I am doing here, looking at their actions, and practices and judging them according to our standards.
Take the prison situation; for Americans to be outraged makes sense such behavior is outside the norm and the boundaries of what is acceptable in Western civilization. For Arabs in middle eastern countries to be outraged is hypocritical bordering on humorous. You cannot honestly be outraged at behavior which is the culturally and societally accepted norm in your society. They are not appalled and outraged that such behavior occurred, they are appalled and outraged that it was done by Americans
When Saddam did the same, there was no Arab outcry.
When King Hussein of Jordan shelled Palestinian refugee camps for a month, slaughtering thousands, there was no Arab outcry
When Arafat has lynched, jailed, tortured or executed his political opponents, there was no Arab outcry
When the Saudis have summarily executed political activists, and dissentors, there was no Arab outcry
But if an American or Israeli does anything remotely similar, all hell breaks loose.
This isn't outrage, it is hypocrisy and racism
They say Islam is a religion of peace, and let us for a moment, assume that is true. Then the questions I must ask are:
Why is nearly every Islamic regime categorically famous for its violent human rights violations?
Why on a per capita basis does Islam produce vastly more extremist militants and terrorists than any other nation, race, or religion?
The answer I hear, is the old "Bad Apples" clause, a few rotten ones spoiling the bunch, but that simply doesn't cut it when you look and realize the extent to which their governments and societies not only approve and condone but carry out large scale human rights abuses. Lets look closely at Arab/Muslim culture, not in the western world where they function (peacefully and successfully) as a minority, but in those places where they are a majority and determine their own society:
Homosexuals are commonly killed or beaten for being homosexual
Women are second class citizens
Daughters are murdered as a result of being raped or having sex in the name of "protecting the family honor"
Wives are beaten at their husbands whim
Dismemberment and beheadings are commonly practiced forms of punishment
Democracy is unheard of
Corruption is commonplace
Censorship of both news and ideas is the rule
Terrorists who target civilians, women and children are lauded as heroes
Religious leaders give public and televised sermons espousing racism and urging the killing of women and children
State text books slander other races/religions with accusations of ritual murder and blood sacrifice
Mainstream politicians call for the destruction of sovereign countries and the extermination of their entire population
Political dissent is met with summary executions or long prison sentences
Militants use children as bombs or cover from which to launch attacks
Public figures routinely threaten the US (and other nations) with Terrorist attacks
I wonder how can any liberal westerner, who supports Human rights, Gay rights and Equality for Women. Who Fights against racism and intolerance, or advocate the Democratic Process, look themselves in the mirror and still support these regimes and this society?
When sermons like this are produced and aired on government television channels, how can we support those causes which so blatantly encourage racism, murder and gross violations of human rights?
I am honestly confused and befuddled, please explain this to me?
I am literally fed up and appalled with the coddling by the liberal west of Arab and Muslim governments and militants
To quote Bill Maher
"I am not prejudiced against them, prejudiced means "pre-judging", I am judging"
Which is what I am doing here, looking at their actions, and practices and judging them according to our standards.
Take the prison situation; for Americans to be outraged makes sense such behavior is outside the norm and the boundaries of what is acceptable in Western civilization. For Arabs in middle eastern countries to be outraged is hypocritical bordering on humorous. You cannot honestly be outraged at behavior which is the culturally and societally accepted norm in your society. They are not appalled and outraged that such behavior occurred, they are appalled and outraged that it was done by Americans
When Saddam did the same, there was no Arab outcry.
When King Hussein of Jordan shelled Palestinian refugee camps for a month, slaughtering thousands, there was no Arab outcry
When Arafat has lynched, jailed, tortured or executed his political opponents, there was no Arab outcry
When the Saudis have summarily executed political activists, and dissentors, there was no Arab outcry
But if an American or Israeli does anything remotely similar, all hell breaks loose.
This isn't outrage, it is hypocrisy and racism
They say Islam is a religion of peace, and let us for a moment, assume that is true. Then the questions I must ask are:
Why is nearly every Islamic regime categorically famous for its violent human rights violations?
Why on a per capita basis does Islam produce vastly more extremist militants and terrorists than any other nation, race, or religion?
The answer I hear, is the old "Bad Apples" clause, a few rotten ones spoiling the bunch, but that simply doesn't cut it when you look and realize the extent to which their governments and societies not only approve and condone but carry out large scale human rights abuses. Lets look closely at Arab/Muslim culture, not in the western world where they function (peacefully and successfully) as a minority, but in those places where they are a majority and determine their own society:
Homosexuals are commonly killed or beaten for being homosexual
Women are second class citizens
Daughters are murdered as a result of being raped or having sex in the name of "protecting the family honor"
Wives are beaten at their husbands whim
Dismemberment and beheadings are commonly practiced forms of punishment
Democracy is unheard of
Corruption is commonplace
Censorship of both news and ideas is the rule
Terrorists who target civilians, women and children are lauded as heroes
Religious leaders give public and televised sermons espousing racism and urging the killing of women and children
State text books slander other races/religions with accusations of ritual murder and blood sacrifice
Mainstream politicians call for the destruction of sovereign countries and the extermination of their entire population
Political dissent is met with summary executions or long prison sentences
Militants use children as bombs or cover from which to launch attacks
Public figures routinely threaten the US (and other nations) with Terrorist attacks
I wonder how can any liberal westerner, who supports Human rights, Gay rights and Equality for Women. Who Fights against racism and intolerance, or advocate the Democratic Process, look themselves in the mirror and still support these regimes and this society?
When sermons like this are produced and aired on government television channels, how can we support those causes which so blatantly encourage racism, murder and gross violations of human rights?
I am honestly confused and befuddled, please explain this to me?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-05-13 05:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-13 06:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-13 05:06 pm (UTC)I do appreciate the intentions of what you're saying overall, though.
Another point: How many Islamic regimes are hiding behind the religion? In other words, I think what we really have are secular leaders who are using religion to control the masses while not adhering to the faith's laws and restrictions themselves.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-13 06:12 pm (UTC)However the problems I mentioned are not specifically limited to the leaders, they are systemic problems throughout the entire culture.
Yes, when we remove muslims/arabs from the culture and place them in a "free" society, they adjust quite well and become valued and productive citizens.
Unfortunately those muslims/arabs living peacefully and successfully in the western world are the exceptions rather than the rule, when we observe the muslim/arab population as a whole
no subject
Date: 2004-05-13 09:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-13 09:58 pm (UTC)I am the same, I look for the meaning not particular phrases which I object to.
Of course, I must confess from time to time recognizing that certain phrases (without overly distorting the overall meaning) will get peoples attention and help to engage them in a discussion they might otherwise pass by.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-13 06:04 pm (UTC)Second, so two wrongs make a right? It certainly makes sense to me to make a bigger deal out of it when it's our own people committing these crimes. We're supposed to liberate this country? And this is how we go about it? I don't think any of the people who are upset about our treatment of the Iraq prisoners condone human rights violations of any kind. I think you are confusing trying not to bulldoze the world into our way of thinking with supporting these regimes.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-13 06:11 pm (UTC)I heard Rummie talk today on cspanradio about how dubya decided who got Geneva convention treatment and who didn't.
WTF?
Shouldn't they all? Reguardless of how they treat us? ESPECIALLY if you are Christian?!
no subject
Date: 2004-05-13 06:28 pm (UTC)I was not in anyway trying to justify behaviors like what occured at the prison, or state that we should not be bound by our convictions and values in our dealings with them.
Nor was I criticizing the people who express outrage that our troops commited such acts.
but I was calling into serious question those who support or empathize with their culture, and seem to suggest that we should respect their culture as being different and equivilent. When by any sane and reasonable measure it borders entirely on barbaric.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-18 09:45 am (UTC)The uprising in Iraq is almost 100% non-uniformed rag-tag clans...certainly the Geneva Convention must be upheld if it is relevant, but if it's not, that's that.
I'm not saying I approve of what we have seen depicted in the pictures of the prison, I'm just saying that someone will have to decide if Geneva is relevant to all prisoners, and no, they all shouldn't receive its protection.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-18 01:30 pm (UTC)The only reasonable justification one could make for the torture of prisoners is to gather intelligence. As has been discussed extensively in the media, terrorists work in cells, limiting any intel to things that have likely already happened by the time they've been caught...
In the 'bigger' picture it would rain down far more intelligence to have it obvious and open that we DONT torture prisoners even though we could.
Why?
humanity. people will see this and be more inclined to aid support the the more 'moral', possibly leading to discovery of 20 new cells...
no subject
Date: 2004-05-18 02:42 pm (UTC)however I disagree that it will lead to benefits or reduction in terrorism directly.
I dont see someone in that culture, facing death for betraying his terrorist neighbor deciding that our moral behavior creates an obligation to inform on his part.
In fact, I do not really think that whether or not we follow the GC with regard to these prisoners, will alter the worlds perspective of us very much at all.
However, I think it important that we hold ourselves to a higher standard, not for the world, but for ourselves, and our own sense of integrity and humanity
no subject
Date: 2004-05-18 09:34 pm (UTC)yeah, I was stretching.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-18 05:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-18 09:41 pm (UTC)It is my belief that fixating on a force being 'uniformed' or 'un-uniformed' is a tedious oversimplification designed to justify immoral behaviour.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-19 05:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-20 01:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-20 01:41 am (UTC)As a more practical illustration consider the following examples:
1) the Japanese never signed the GC, yet we extended them the same rights... far and above what they gave the Allies as prisoners.
2) What of the Taliban? Most had no real uniform to speak of, yet they did fit every other requirement of the accord.
3) While this one is more an intellectual exercise, what of the Souther prisoners who faught without uniforms, not as gorrilas, but in the picket lines...
My point still stands (imho): outlines of behaviour reguarding human rights should be extended to all after they have been declined, or not at all. For if they aren't they undermine the moral principles to which they were originally stated.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-20 11:52 am (UTC)The Geneva convention didnt exist until 1949, i.e. well after WW2. So the japanese couldnt have signed it then.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-20 02:28 pm (UTC)consider
The current incarnation of the geneva convention (the fourth), was indeed agreed upon in 1949. The did exist a geveva convention on the treatment of prisoners (the third) that was agreed upon in 1929.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-20 03:37 pm (UTC)I didnt know that
I had thought it was the situation in ww2 which had brought about the GC
I stand corrected
no subject
Date: 2004-05-20 05:07 pm (UTC)I knew the GC was around during WWII from watching Hogan's Heros, and I knew the Japanese didn't sign the GC because of some history channel thing on Bataan.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-20 06:16 pm (UTC)oh shit
yeah I should have known that
seeing as I loved that show
no subject
Date: 2004-05-21 06:01 am (UTC)A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
and then this last bit from part III article 17:
No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.
It would apear that it really doesn't make a difference whether or not the contry being invaded has signed, it's up to the signees to adhere to the principles... As for who should or should not be given POW status, they need only fall into ONE of the categories listed, and I'm guessing most in of those detained in either Afghanistan or Iraq fall into the one of the three I pointed out.
Also, to argue that we weren't being especially savage, that last bit from article 17 pretty much says we were.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-13 06:23 pm (UTC)Yet every time there is anything remotely untoward accused of the Americans or Israelis the entire Arab/muslim world sounds off vocally against it. This is not outrage but racism, when you allow/condone behavior by one group of people but condemn the same or lessor behavior by another solely based upon their race, nationality or religion.
I was not in the least trying to justify our actions in regard to the Iraqi prisons, not dismiss those of our citizens who are rightfully appalled and critical of such acts.
My question is how so many liberals can support the palestinian cause, and can so easily take the side of a group of people who catagorically reject and consistently behave in a fashion which is entirely contrary to every other belief these same liberal types believe in and work for every day to support.
Personally, I think we should "bulldoze" the rest of the world into our way of thinking, because quite frankly, it is the "right" way.
A society where women and homosexuals are safe from murder due to their sexuality, where political dissent does not result in the torture and murder of individuals and their families, where respect for the most basic human right is the rule rather than the exception is simply better.
Humanity must face the reality of these horrors, and the horrors taking place in other parts of the world, judge, and respond to them, violently if necessary.
How much longer wi
no subject
Date: 2004-05-13 09:03 pm (UTC)consider.
For the record, I will never attempt the suggest that I know more about the israeli/palistinian conflict than you (I've tried in the past, and been utterly humiliated).
And let me be clear: It isn't as though I support the palistinians... It's just that there MUST be a better way than trying to subvert a people than employing their own tactics against them.
When Clinton brokered the last peace accord, it was telling to me that instead of Palistinians rallying around what they'd gained, and turning toward rebuilding, they bought more bombs.
cont... (Fragging email char limit)
Date: 2004-05-13 06:24 pm (UTC)These acts are simply wrong, vicious and unacceptible in the community of nations, or by humanity as a whole, either we stand up and start trying to make this right, by force if necessary or our words mean nothing and we are equally complicit as those maiming and murdering others while we stand by and watch.
Re: cont... (Fragging email char limit)
Date: 2004-05-13 06:32 pm (UTC)How much longer will we sit on our velvet thrones and watch our own troop brutalize people?
If you believe in taking every regime that commits human rights violations down via force, do you realize how many countries that would involve? Do you realize that according to many people, myself included, that would include our own country?
Re: cont... (Fragging email char limit)
Date: 2004-05-13 06:40 pm (UTC)Yes, I am appalled by our troops behaviors and I feel that they should be taken to task for it, however bad such things are, they are still the exception not the rule in our society. However many faults and even gross human rights violations we may commit, they are again the exception rather than the rule.
Take for example France, whose africian policy is riff with human rights abuses, but who like us, for the most part it is the exception not the rule of their behavior. Such a situation could be resolved through economic and political force. However, a situation like the Congo, where there is an epic slaughter of human life going on that we are barely even aware of, would, because of the immediacy and the utter lack of any pretext towards respecting human rights on the part of the governments, require an immediate and martial response.
Re: cont... (Fragging email char limit)
Date: 2004-05-13 06:58 pm (UTC)Tell you what, how about we try to solve these problems without violence first, because we really haven't even tried.
Re: cont... (Fragging email char limit)
Date: 2004-05-13 07:07 pm (UTC)I entirely agree that we should attempt these things first without violence, except perhaps in the most dire situations such as in the congo, and in fact, I am currently drafting a post on this subject which will address this in particular, and which I think you may find more palatable with regard to this issue.
As for determining which countries human rights abuses are the exceptions it is pretty easy. You simply look at how the majority of the people are treated, and how the political process works. If for the most part they aspire and uphold basic human rights, then I would say their failings are the exception rather than the rule of their behaviour.
To be very clear, I am not using the term exception as some sort of excuse or allowance for such behavior, instead using it as a way of sorting between the common and accepted behavior and the abberation.
Take the US for example, how do we now that what happened in those prisons was an abberation of behavior and not the societal norm in america? well we look first at the general behavior of the american government towards its own citizens, then how it treats foreign nationals, and finally we look at the response of American Citizens to such behavior.
What we see is shock and outrage on the part of her citizens, and apologies on the part of her government. What this tells us is that such behavior is not accepted by the society, and therefore an abberation, not the norm.
Re: cont... (Fragging email char limit)
Date: 2004-05-13 07:12 pm (UTC)Personally, I consider the death penalty to be a pretty big violation of human rights, as does groups like Amnesty International. Our society, on the other hand, is almost fully behind it. It's not always so cut and dry.
Re: cont... (Fragging email char limit)
Date: 2004-05-13 07:22 pm (UTC)While I have no problem with the theorhetical concept of capital punishment, I have great problems with our process that leads up to it, and until we can find a way to be better assured that we are not executing innocent people, I personally feel there should be a cease to all executions.
Lastly, with regards to Amnesty international, I have huge problems with recognizing or viewing them as having the slightest amount of integrity, which I feel is truly tragic considering the nobility of their stated goals and aims.
The simple fact is that while the majority of Amnesty Internationals work is fairly respectable, their consistent bias and failures of integrity with regards to the situation in the middle east casts a deep and dark cloud over the entirity of their work.
I have personally experienced reading an amnesty international report detailing a situation which I witnessed first hand and being entirely flabbergasted at the huge discrepancy between the truth and the situation reported in the report.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-13 06:21 pm (UTC)Americans didn't because we are too lazy to learn about such things (consider the Congo, and the unspeakable attrocities going on there, and the total lack or outrage, or even coverage IN THIS COUNTRY).
Why in the world should our actions be dictated by their behaviour? Because they are sadistic fucks, does that really give us a right to be a sadistic fuck back?!
Being a flaming liberal,I heartilly agree! we should overthrow these regimes... but HOW?
You can't impose democracy at the point of a gun. It has NEVER worked... ever.
Consider theis: we will have spent over $120B in the last year on this Iraqi adventure. What if we had spent that money over five years on developing alternative fuels, or subsidizing the transition to a tripling of the gas tax... Halve or quarter our consumption of petrolium products...
You want to see change in those countries? You want to put a spark under thier asses? The reason they don't give a fuck about human rights is they know they can do whateverthefuck they want as long as they keep the taps flowing... and whateverthefuck attrocities they pull to keep those taps flowing, our leaders are good with.
IF we spent this money robbing them of that monkey on OUR backs, that would spark the ultimate revolution, brother.
Not killing 1 in 10 men
no subject
Date: 2004-05-13 06:31 pm (UTC)I think you will get a better idea of what I mean by reading my response to
no subject
Date: 2004-05-13 06:57 pm (UTC)what i'm trying to say, basically, is that Islamic regimes are an entity, a very Arab entity, and when people talk about Islam being peaceful... they're trying to calm people down within america. i only heard people really say it a lot after sept. 11th when there was concern about how muslims in the U.S. would be treated. there are muslims all over the world and the muslim regimes we're all worried most about are in the Arab world. i am honestly not familiar with indonesia... and various other countries currently fighting over religion.
if the United States were run by Christians i think we'd be fucked too. but that's just my opinion. it'd have to depend on which Christians, but i really don't care.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-13 07:07 pm (UTC)by that, i did not mean to imply that people said that to convince americans that the threat is not within the U.S. that's... obviously impossible. just to be clear. it's the same people saying that the violence and trouble is from bad apples, of course, but i think it's safe to attribute that to ethnocentrism. or culturalcentrism... or whatever. i think they're just trying to say they aren't the ones. of course that doesn't really help anyone. as bill maher says (roughly paraphrased), it's good to be color blind, good to be ethnic blind, religious blind, but at the end of the day being blind means that you can't see.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-13 07:10 pm (UTC)The problem is as you mentione these muslim arab regimes, and the societies which support them, unfortunately the majority of muslims live in these societies so it makes it hard to distinguish between the religion and those societies.
That said, I have many friends in the US and other western countries, (not to mention Israel) who are both Arab and Muslim, and they cherish the same values which I do for the most part, live in peace and prosperity in their adopted lands and cultures quite well. I consider them welcome and valued neighbors.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-13 07:05 pm (UTC)As far as whether Arabs have a right to be outraged or not ... why shouldn't they be? As far as why Arabs might not express as much outrage over Saddam Hussein's tortures ... I dunno to what extent things like that get general reportage over there; my impression is that freedom of the press has been largely nonexistent, at least until recently. And as far as that goes the question could be turned around: Why did America express more outrage over Iraqi abuses than it did over, say, Libyan, Saudi Arabian, North Korean, Chinese, etc. etc., abuses? Partly because that's what was in the news, partly because that's what served what the American government perceived to be its best interests. Sure, it's hypocritical, but I'm not sure how many governments there are out there that aren't hypocritical on human rights. This isn't a peculiarly Arab thing, which seems to be what you're saying.
In general I would question the equating of the governments of a people with the culture of the people, particularly if the governments are oppressive dictatorships and there have been occasional attempts at rebellion that have been put down, but I think going down that road that takes me too far afield ...
no subject
Date: 2004-05-13 07:14 pm (UTC)For the American government to pick and choose when to express outrage over certain acts is entirely inconsistent but not directly hypocritical by reason that such acts are not the accepted cultural norm.
With Arab states, there has been a decided pattern of screaming bloody murder at the offenses or presumed offense of non-arabs, and utter silence at the offenses of arabs, this quite frankly is racism.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-13 07:33 pm (UTC)I suppose that it is in America's favor that it is being hypocritical when it supports oppressive dictatorships rather than when it condemns them. That seems like an odd way to compare nations (or cultures), though.
At any rate, in this particular case it seems that the American soldiers were specifically doing things that they knew would be offensive to Muslims, specifically because they knew that the prisoners were Muslims and would find them offensive. Obviously this kind of thing would be particularly offensive to Muslims at large, but I don't know if Saddam Hussein did this also or not. If you have a reference on this I would be interested in reading it.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-13 07:38 pm (UTC)yes, nearly every arab country is a dictatorship and yes there are those who would oppose them but the societies enmass accept and support the status quo, which makes them more than nominally complicit for the actions of their government, just as we are complicit in the actions of ours.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-13 08:03 pm (UTC)The soldiers were doing things to the prisoners specifically because these actions were supposed to be deeply offensive to Muslims. I don't think it is surprising that Muslim countries would therefore be particularly offended by these actions!
(To make an analogy, I think many Christians are more disturbed when a nun or priest is murdered then when a layperson is. Specifically I'm thinking of Argentina in 1977 here.)
This doesn't address the question of whether the countries would be hypocritical by being so offended, though, since I don't know whether or not Saddam Hussein (or whoever) also had his torturers do things to his prisoners that were specifically designed to be deeply offensive to Muslims. If you have any information on this, again, I would be interested in reading it.
I guess you think that this is obvious, but I don't see it at all.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-13 08:15 pm (UTC)as for the second.
every resident in a nation bears some complicity for the actions of their government, regardless of the form of governance. Obviously the degree of complicity scales based on the ability of the persons to effect changes in policy.
In a democracy where it is atleast theorhetically safe and easy, a citizen holds a much higher degree of complexity. But even in a dictatorship, by failing to protest or revolt, they consent to be governed and condone the policies of the administration, and thereby are complicit in its actions.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-14 04:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-14 10:26 am (UTC)Of course, in a democratic society, there are many steps which should be taken to change government policy before resorting to violent resistance, the core culpability is the same.
Ultimately, every citizen of a country, allows their government to continue its policies, and thereby holds a degree of culpability for its actions.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-13 10:08 pm (UTC)Willful ignorance is a trait shared by idealists and fanatics of every society. Painting everything in black and white doesn't often result in open and honest consideration...otherwise the colors would start blending into grey, destroying the rigid right/wrong view. Once you've closed yourself to open and honest consideration, you become an easy target for people with loud or charismatic voices who are willing to pretend to share your view if it wins you to their cause. Once you've started supporting one violent anti-Western group or nation, it only makes sense to support them all. Kind of like the American government did with anti-communists back in the Cold War days.
Obviously no explanation covers everyone and every situation, but most of the anti-American/pro-Palestinian types i've really talked to have shown signs of falling victim to this mental disease.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-21 10:13 am (UTC)When we go in, we go in as the pure white knight riding our horses (aka Apaches) on a proverbial fire-trail of democracy. And of course, while we have great aspirations and hopes, there is a reality that this country and, specifically its military, is not 100% in moral integrity. But why should we be? Well, there's the problem: we always say we are.
And frankly, when you're on the top, people always want to peck at your kneecaps and bring you down a little; make you stumble here and there.
While I think what happened in the prisons is abhorrent and furthermore, I have no question in my mind whether this is systemic, I agree with you that to be judged by the Muslims is beyond ridiculous.
But I should say, while they do have all these things going wrong for them, we have yet to be able to successfully build any nation with the exception of Japan. The fact of the matter is that the Reagan Doctrine (better known as the military addition to Truman's) just doesn't work that well. But then again, that raises the question: what does?
And honestly, I have to admit, I have no answer to that question.
PS> I think I'm gonna add you to my friends list. If this post is any representation, I think your journal will be a very interesting and fun read. That is if you don't mind, of course.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-21 05:16 pm (UTC)Welcome, I am not sure if it is a representative post, as my journal tends to be more personal than political, but for some reason people seem to like it.