We're all blasphemers now, Part 2
Feb. 10th, 2006 11:59 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
katsarisThis actually just reaffirms once more the folly of promising to write future entries concerning this-or-that. Whenever I make such a promise, the mood never actually strikes me as right. I kept on trying to write the calm-to-the-point-of-Zen and complete-to-the-point-of-ideological-manifesto rebuttal to the arguments and analogies that ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
bellatrys brought forward in her own lj...
...turns out my mood wasn't into it. I actually ended up writing and saving two separate half-complete drafts, but whenever I glanced back to read what I had written I felt the need to trash the whole thing and start all over again for the sheer discrepancy in the way I felt and the way I tried to express it. Such a composition might have been proper and good back when the situation was limited to the *threat* of violence and death, not now when such threats have been transformed to reality.
Heartsickness was on me, and in many ways still is, and if I couldn't express it in rage (albeit a coherent one), attempts at calm would seem more like phoniness to my own eyes. So here goes instead a much more disjointed post, not attempting either fullness or calm or anything of the sort -- just random spewing of points I think need be made.
Point A: "Solidarity with the oppressed" doesn't justify everything
The sins of a significant fraction of the entire political spectrum seems to be their attempts to condense into mere slogan form a whole political model of reality. Collectivism is part and parcel of this.
On the right wing this usually devolves to the various of *tribalisms* -- racism, antisemetism, nationalistic or religious bigotries. (Ironical for a political side whose adherents largely claim to believe in *personal* responsibility.)
On the left wing the sin of sloganism is usually expressed with the phrase "Solidarity with the oppressed". That's a fine message. *Fine* message. Unfortunately there's a huge fraction of the left-wing that forgets to remember that the word "oppressed" is not properly static and a noun, but rather a participle, with all the dynamic qualities that this indicates. People that are oppressed in this-and-that manner by this-and-that establishment, may be in a different place, time or simply *situation* the oppressors and the establishment in this-and-that manner over these-and-those people.
Every model of reality must by necessity be a simplification thereof, useful for some purposes and useless for other. And though I consider the class-struggle model an exceptionally good one (far better than the nationalistic/tribal model of right-wing chauvinists certainly, and on a whole-different-league better than the Holy Crusades/Holy Jihad religious warfare model of religious fascists of both sides), the deficiencies of the class struggle model still remain.
Even if the rioters *were* "oppressed", even if the cartoons were themselves a propagandistic tool for further oppression -- the actions of these rioters wouldn't be justified, not by a long shot. From its starting point "solidarity" is a new way of saying "the ends justify the means". At its ending point, it becomes a way to ignore *even* the ends, an excuse to cynically negate all moral codes and principles, and a rhetoric for letting the new oppressors become even worse than the old ones.
Point B: And the protesters aren't the actual oppressed anyway!
The thing however is that even if we *were* to accept the oppressed/oppressors division as the only model of reality that's meaningful (I don't), even if we were to allow rioting and random violence as legitimate tools thereof (I don't)... by no definition plausible are the hired crowds that Syria and Iran brought forth the "oppressed". In no way possible is the directed and useful ire that Saudi Arabia first instigated the sort of "spontaneous anger of the Arab street" claimed.
The key to seeing this, is first noting the almost complete *lack* of massive reaction in those European countries with significant Muslim minorities in them. Significantly: France. A while ago there were mass riots in there by the muslim immigrant minority of the French ghettos. Some right-wing Americans wanted to label this an "Islamist revolt" -- but in that case they were utterly wrong: The reasons for *that* rioting were *truly* social, not religious. In interviews with the rioters you didn't get to hear them babbling about Islam and its prophet, you were hearing instead bitterness about social/political/economical disenfranchisement and marginalization, expressed either coherently or less so.
The lack of such rioting *now* in France over the *cartoon* issue, not only now proves the non-religious reasons of the previous riots, it also proves the NON-social reasons of the *current* riots. Not that the previous riots were necessarily justified (see point A above) but it does show the vast qualitative difference in motivations.
Hardly a spontaneous mass reaction by the poor downtrodden Muslims of Europe, the protests and reactions throughout have been instigated, permitted, led, directed by clerical and/or fascist regimes throughout the Middle East. Some of the most oppressive countries in the world (Saudi Arabia and Lybia) which first led with the "diplomatic reactions", and some of the most *aggressive* regimes in the Middle East (Syria, which occupies, bombs and assasinates the people of Lebanon on a regular basis, and Iran, which has essentially promised to annihilate Israel in a genocide whenever it finds the chance) following soon after with the actual physical violence and embassy burnings.
These riots are the guided tools of some of the worst internal and external state oppressors the world currently experiences. Both the extreme factions of the right *and* the left have pretty much hidden this little fact. Some portions of the far-right want to pretend it's a mass Muslim reaction against Western liberties, some in the far-left want to pretends it's a mass Muslim reaction against Western "oppression" "insensitivity" and "disenfranchisement".
Thing is that it's not a mass Muslim reaction at all. Here's how the events of the last couple weeks are modelled in the class-struggle point of view (the class-struggle *model of reality*). Fascist-clerical state regimes (of the Middle East) pressuring with violence other state regimes into cracking down on independent media.
From a libertarian point of view, it's initiation of violence (coercion) against fundamental liberties.
From a class-struggle point of view, it's the enhancement of state power over independent media.
From a national sovereignty point of view, it's naked imperialism.
Indeed from its very beginning, this whole affair has not only has the stench of Islamofascism and of imperialism in it, but the stench of *genocidal* imperialism at that, where the whole Danish nation is held responsible for the actions of a few of its members, and in turn every single Dane becomes a legimitate target for threats and murder. This is genocidal reasoning by pretty much definition.
Right now I can't think of a single political model in which the riots are justified or even slightly excused. Except the *Sharia* model, ofcourse, where everything is justified in the cause of a global Caliphate.
Point C: "But...but...but... the Nazi literature is banned! Hypocricy alert!?"
Which is the argument last contributed bybellatrys.
First of all, let me start by saying that I have great respect for the liberal/libertarian attitude that all ideas and ideologies must be allowed their say. In truth I have great respect for *both* possible answer in this dilemma, as they both represent different virtues, which both have a place (I think) in the political spectrum, and which both contribute to political life.
The principled position: "We should use the same rules for everyone. Free speech even for the most horrid racists and fascists there can be. There are other ways to oppose fascism." Principles definitely have a role in politics, and the establishment of individual liberty over all definitely does. I have vast respect for this position. In its bottomline, it has also the well-known beneficial side-effect that it doesn't let the camel's nose into the tent, it doesn't allow that same slippery slope which ultimately ends with forbidding drawings that are considered "religiously offensive".
But I will not argue more about it, since the battlefield now chosen by bothbellatrys and the Iranian regime is instead the seeming discrepancy some (not all) European nations have shown by holding the following position instead:
The practical position: "Nazism is by its definition a call to murder, fascism and genocide, the spread of Nazi rhetoric is by definition a self-admitted incitement to racist violence. It's not merely dependent on what history has proven about Nazism, it's in Nazism's very essense. We shouldn't close our eyes to the evil such incitement will do against innocents, just because we want to maintain complete ideological consistency in our support for individual liberty"
But sincebellatrys has argued using the latter "contextual" argument, let me expound a bit further concerning *that* one.
The banning of Nazi ideology isn't actually merely dependent on the purely rational reason I stated above concerning the "incitement" it may cause. Partly it's also due to the purely emotional reason and vast trauma that Nazism caused over the whole European psyche, being at the same time the most imperialistic and most oppressive/genocidal regime that the continent has ever seen. (the breadth of imperialism and depth of oppression don't always coincide, but they did in that case).
It's the emotional argument of "we must not let *this* happen again". You may want to call emotion "hypocricy", and you may be correct. But let's try to atleast acknowledge the potential difference between an emotional (and possibly unconscious) hypocricy based on difference of experience and an amoral self-serving hypocricy.
The second argument is that by banning Nazism we are not violating any of the principles that it *itself* believes in. It's the own-rules argument that advocates of the death penalty use: "People's right to live is absolute, but murderers have abandoned that right by their own actions." Similarly many feel that it's hardly hypocritical to ban Nazism in the name of liberty, when this ideology itself advocates banning all ideologies hostile to itself.
Unlike banning ideologies that (in practice or theory, in general or just *mostly*) support the free interchange of ideas, banning Nazism (which in general bans all ideas disagreeable with itself in the slightest degree) is merely playing the game by the rules *it* chose.
It's with the above two argument where we see how the analogy with the banning of Nazism falters:
a) With the exception of Bosnia, Europe hasn't experienced any recent anti-Muslim genocide or anti-Muslim genocidal strike by fanatics. With the exception of former Yugoslavia there's not been any anti-Muslim state supporting such genocidal strikes. As such the *only* place (using this argument) where it would be justified to ban anti-Mohammed drawings would be countries in former Yugoslavia, mainly Bosnia and Serbia.
Indeed, what Western Europe has recently experienced is genocidal strikes *by* Muslim fanatics *against* Western European countries (Madrid and London train bombings), in order to force these countries to submit to their wishes. If we indeed use the banning of Nazism as a legitimate "precedent" to ban other genocidal ideologies -- I'm afraid that this would cause the spread of *Islamist* ideologies to be banned.
b) Unlike the case with Nazism, where banning it is merely accepting to play in this one instance with its own anti-liberal rules, there's nothing inherent in anti-Mohammed cartoons that would permit them to be banned. If the proper response to the illiberal Nazism is banning it -- then wouldn't the analogous response to the offensive and insulting anti-Mohammed drawings be responding with similar offensive insults instead?
Flag-burning is a perfectly adequate response and I have no quarrel with that. Want to make blasphemous cartoons against either Jesus or Denmark or Europe or whatever? Fine with me.
The proper analogy of confronting Nazism with bans is confronting the anti-Mohammed cartoons with *mockery*.
Not with death threats, and not with embassy burnings, and not with murder.
----
I think that my next posts will be more lighthearted, and probably fandom-related instead of having to do with politics. *g* There are enough books and series I need to comment on anyway...
bellatrys brought forward in her own lj......turns out my mood wasn't into it. I actually ended up writing and saving two separate half-complete drafts, but whenever I glanced back to read what I had written I felt the need to trash the whole thing and start all over again for the sheer discrepancy in the way I felt and the way I tried to express it. Such a composition might have been proper and good back when the situation was limited to the *threat* of violence and death, not now when such threats have been transformed to reality.
Heartsickness was on me, and in many ways still is, and if I couldn't express it in rage (albeit a coherent one), attempts at calm would seem more like phoniness to my own eyes. So here goes instead a much more disjointed post, not attempting either fullness or calm or anything of the sort -- just random spewing of points I think need be made.
Point A: "Solidarity with the oppressed" doesn't justify everything
The sins of a significant fraction of the entire political spectrum seems to be their attempts to condense into mere slogan form a whole political model of reality. Collectivism is part and parcel of this.
On the right wing this usually devolves to the various of *tribalisms* -- racism, antisemetism, nationalistic or religious bigotries. (Ironical for a political side whose adherents largely claim to believe in *personal* responsibility.)
On the left wing the sin of sloganism is usually expressed with the phrase "Solidarity with the oppressed". That's a fine message. *Fine* message. Unfortunately there's a huge fraction of the left-wing that forgets to remember that the word "oppressed" is not properly static and a noun, but rather a participle, with all the dynamic qualities that this indicates. People that are oppressed in this-and-that manner by this-and-that establishment, may be in a different place, time or simply *situation* the oppressors and the establishment in this-and-that manner over these-and-those people.
Every model of reality must by necessity be a simplification thereof, useful for some purposes and useless for other. And though I consider the class-struggle model an exceptionally good one (far better than the nationalistic/tribal model of right-wing chauvinists certainly, and on a whole-different-league better than the Holy Crusades/Holy Jihad religious warfare model of religious fascists of both sides), the deficiencies of the class struggle model still remain.
Even if the rioters *were* "oppressed", even if the cartoons were themselves a propagandistic tool for further oppression -- the actions of these rioters wouldn't be justified, not by a long shot. From its starting point "solidarity" is a new way of saying "the ends justify the means". At its ending point, it becomes a way to ignore *even* the ends, an excuse to cynically negate all moral codes and principles, and a rhetoric for letting the new oppressors become even worse than the old ones.
Point B: And the protesters aren't the actual oppressed anyway!
The thing however is that even if we *were* to accept the oppressed/oppressors division as the only model of reality that's meaningful (I don't), even if we were to allow rioting and random violence as legitimate tools thereof (I don't)... by no definition plausible are the hired crowds that Syria and Iran brought forth the "oppressed". In no way possible is the directed and useful ire that Saudi Arabia first instigated the sort of "spontaneous anger of the Arab street" claimed.
The key to seeing this, is first noting the almost complete *lack* of massive reaction in those European countries with significant Muslim minorities in them. Significantly: France. A while ago there were mass riots in there by the muslim immigrant minority of the French ghettos. Some right-wing Americans wanted to label this an "Islamist revolt" -- but in that case they were utterly wrong: The reasons for *that* rioting were *truly* social, not religious. In interviews with the rioters you didn't get to hear them babbling about Islam and its prophet, you were hearing instead bitterness about social/political/economical disenfranchisement and marginalization, expressed either coherently or less so.
The lack of such rioting *now* in France over the *cartoon* issue, not only now proves the non-religious reasons of the previous riots, it also proves the NON-social reasons of the *current* riots. Not that the previous riots were necessarily justified (see point A above) but it does show the vast qualitative difference in motivations.
Hardly a spontaneous mass reaction by the poor downtrodden Muslims of Europe, the protests and reactions throughout have been instigated, permitted, led, directed by clerical and/or fascist regimes throughout the Middle East. Some of the most oppressive countries in the world (Saudi Arabia and Lybia) which first led with the "diplomatic reactions", and some of the most *aggressive* regimes in the Middle East (Syria, which occupies, bombs and assasinates the people of Lebanon on a regular basis, and Iran, which has essentially promised to annihilate Israel in a genocide whenever it finds the chance) following soon after with the actual physical violence and embassy burnings.
These riots are the guided tools of some of the worst internal and external state oppressors the world currently experiences. Both the extreme factions of the right *and* the left have pretty much hidden this little fact. Some portions of the far-right want to pretend it's a mass Muslim reaction against Western liberties, some in the far-left want to pretends it's a mass Muslim reaction against Western "oppression" "insensitivity" and "disenfranchisement".
Thing is that it's not a mass Muslim reaction at all. Here's how the events of the last couple weeks are modelled in the class-struggle point of view (the class-struggle *model of reality*). Fascist-clerical state regimes (of the Middle East) pressuring with violence other state regimes into cracking down on independent media.
From a libertarian point of view, it's initiation of violence (coercion) against fundamental liberties.
From a class-struggle point of view, it's the enhancement of state power over independent media.
From a national sovereignty point of view, it's naked imperialism.
Indeed from its very beginning, this whole affair has not only has the stench of Islamofascism and of imperialism in it, but the stench of *genocidal* imperialism at that, where the whole Danish nation is held responsible for the actions of a few of its members, and in turn every single Dane becomes a legimitate target for threats and murder. This is genocidal reasoning by pretty much definition.
Right now I can't think of a single political model in which the riots are justified or even slightly excused. Except the *Sharia* model, ofcourse, where everything is justified in the cause of a global Caliphate.
Point C: "But...but...but... the Nazi literature is banned! Hypocricy alert!?"
Which is the argument last contributed by
bellatrys.First of all, let me start by saying that I have great respect for the liberal/libertarian attitude that all ideas and ideologies must be allowed their say. In truth I have great respect for *both* possible answer in this dilemma, as they both represent different virtues, which both have a place (I think) in the political spectrum, and which both contribute to political life.
The principled position: "We should use the same rules for everyone. Free speech even for the most horrid racists and fascists there can be. There are other ways to oppose fascism." Principles definitely have a role in politics, and the establishment of individual liberty over all definitely does. I have vast respect for this position. In its bottomline, it has also the well-known beneficial side-effect that it doesn't let the camel's nose into the tent, it doesn't allow that same slippery slope which ultimately ends with forbidding drawings that are considered "religiously offensive".
But I will not argue more about it, since the battlefield now chosen by both
bellatrys and the Iranian regime is instead the seeming discrepancy some (not all) European nations have shown by holding the following position instead:The practical position: "Nazism is by its definition a call to murder, fascism and genocide, the spread of Nazi rhetoric is by definition a self-admitted incitement to racist violence. It's not merely dependent on what history has proven about Nazism, it's in Nazism's very essense. We shouldn't close our eyes to the evil such incitement will do against innocents, just because we want to maintain complete ideological consistency in our support for individual liberty"
But since
bellatrys has argued using the latter "contextual" argument, let me expound a bit further concerning *that* one.The banning of Nazi ideology isn't actually merely dependent on the purely rational reason I stated above concerning the "incitement" it may cause. Partly it's also due to the purely emotional reason and vast trauma that Nazism caused over the whole European psyche, being at the same time the most imperialistic and most oppressive/genocidal regime that the continent has ever seen. (the breadth of imperialism and depth of oppression don't always coincide, but they did in that case).
It's the emotional argument of "we must not let *this* happen again". You may want to call emotion "hypocricy", and you may be correct. But let's try to atleast acknowledge the potential difference between an emotional (and possibly unconscious) hypocricy based on difference of experience and an amoral self-serving hypocricy.
The second argument is that by banning Nazism we are not violating any of the principles that it *itself* believes in. It's the own-rules argument that advocates of the death penalty use: "People's right to live is absolute, but murderers have abandoned that right by their own actions." Similarly many feel that it's hardly hypocritical to ban Nazism in the name of liberty, when this ideology itself advocates banning all ideologies hostile to itself.
Unlike banning ideologies that (in practice or theory, in general or just *mostly*) support the free interchange of ideas, banning Nazism (which in general bans all ideas disagreeable with itself in the slightest degree) is merely playing the game by the rules *it* chose.
It's with the above two argument where we see how the analogy with the banning of Nazism falters:
a) With the exception of Bosnia, Europe hasn't experienced any recent anti-Muslim genocide or anti-Muslim genocidal strike by fanatics. With the exception of former Yugoslavia there's not been any anti-Muslim state supporting such genocidal strikes. As such the *only* place (using this argument) where it would be justified to ban anti-Mohammed drawings would be countries in former Yugoslavia, mainly Bosnia and Serbia.
Indeed, what Western Europe has recently experienced is genocidal strikes *by* Muslim fanatics *against* Western European countries (Madrid and London train bombings), in order to force these countries to submit to their wishes. If we indeed use the banning of Nazism as a legitimate "precedent" to ban other genocidal ideologies -- I'm afraid that this would cause the spread of *Islamist* ideologies to be banned.
b) Unlike the case with Nazism, where banning it is merely accepting to play in this one instance with its own anti-liberal rules, there's nothing inherent in anti-Mohammed cartoons that would permit them to be banned. If the proper response to the illiberal Nazism is banning it -- then wouldn't the analogous response to the offensive and insulting anti-Mohammed drawings be responding with similar offensive insults instead?
Flag-burning is a perfectly adequate response and I have no quarrel with that. Want to make blasphemous cartoons against either Jesus or Denmark or Europe or whatever? Fine with me.
The proper analogy of confronting Nazism with bans is confronting the anti-Mohammed cartoons with *mockery*.
Not with death threats, and not with embassy burnings, and not with murder.
----
I think that my next posts will be more lighthearted, and probably fandom-related instead of having to do with politics. *g* There are enough books and series I need to comment on anyway...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-10 03:34 pm (UTC)And you know, because in ex-Yu we did go through that clash, unlike in the rest of Europe, cartoons were published and a few folks protested, but really the overwhelming majority of both 'sides' called for reason and nonviolent expression of opinion.
It's terrible to say that one has to go through a conflict to start opposing it genuinely, but I think you're very right in pointing out that the lack of precedent of such a conflict in (Western) European states makes it incomparable to a documented clash of a different nature, namely the Nazi regime and its consequences.
On the other hand I fear that the said lack of precedent is also a factor in Europe's meandering, insecure handling of the situation (and as such being weak before the well organised 'protesters').
The proper analogy of confronting Nazism with bans is confronting the anti-Mohammed cartoons with *mockery*.
Agreed.
Bad Cartoons or Good Comedy?
Date: 2006-02-10 07:39 pm (UTC)I'm sure people of many (other) religions are rising to the defense of free speech and all that. Bet lets turn the focus inward for a moment:
http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/003728.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200602%5CCUL20060206a.html
Let's also not forget attempts to boycott Kevin Smith's Dogma, as well as Jewish protests against Mel Gibson's Passion. I don't know if violence erupted from any of these instances, but it supports my theory that people have a great sense of humor... until you mess with their god.
I feel that if you're okay with other people's gods being made fun of, then you shouldn't make a fuss when people mock your own.
Re: Bad Cartoons or Good Comedy?
Date: 2006-02-11 10:54 am (UTC)Violence, the threat of violence, and the exertion of state power, is the fundamental core of this current affair, without which it wouldn't be controversial at all.
Re: Bad Cartoons or Bad Cartoons?
Date: 2006-02-17 03:19 pm (UTC)http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/003788.html
Re: Bad Cartoons or Bad Cartoons?
Date: 2006-02-17 03:19 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-16 04:03 pm (UTC)-------------------------------
Some exellent points that you made Aris! I would dare say, however, that you are being a bit unfair to the Nazis - despite their terrible record of atrocities it is really Communism and the Soviet Union that can claim the... great distinction(!!!) of being simultaneously "the most imperialistic and the most oppresive/genocidal regime" that not only the continent of Europe, but also the whole world has ever seen. After all, it wasn't Nazi Germany that brought an entire planet to the brink of nuclear holocaust, was it? (that was instead another one of the U.S.S.R.'s many "glorious" achievements!). There certainly seems to be a problem of intellectual honesty and consistency, with those people who would like to ban Nazism but at the same time are pefectly happy to allow hard-line communist parties to maintain their political activities.
Of course I have no doubt that the various Islamo-fascist sponsors of terrorism wouldn't hesitate at all to cause similar carnage, if they were given half a chance - thank goodness that the Taliban found themselves confronted by the might of America's military machine (and I certainly hope this will soon be the case with the people who currently hold power in Tehran and Damascus). One thing that this whole crisis, over the Mohammed cartoons, has made clear is that Europe's "real-politic" and appeasement policies towards its extremist Muslim minorities, as well as the brutal regimes that support them, do not work at all - they are an utter failure in need of a complete overhaul. We have fooled around for too long - let us all put ourselves four-square behind America's war on terror and President Bush's great vision for freedom and democracy around the world.
George Katsaris, City of Coventry, England.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-16 06:05 pm (UTC)Pfft. That's just utter nonsense. After 60 years of communism, there still existed the Kazakh/Turkmen/Ukrainian/Belarussian/Kyrgyz/etc nations in the former Soviet Union. I somehow doubt that the Poles would have survived 60 years of control by Nazi Germany. Indeed you may have noticed that it was only *after* the fall of communism in former Yugoslavia, that the genocidal ethnic cleansing began.
Even Stalin himself allowed a formerly exclusively Russian empire to be divided into separate "ethnic republics" of supposed equal rights and the supposed right to independence. (these rights were never upheld in practice ofcourse, but still that's a vast difference between this and the actions of Nazism which allowed or even demanded the genocidal murder of the "inferior" nations from the "superior" one).
After all, it wasn't Nazi Germany that brought an entire planet to the brink of nuclear holocaust, was it?
*blink* Well, that's just shallow to the point of intentional stupidity, I'm sorry to say. I'm well aware that nuclear bombs hadn't been invented *yet* by Nazi Germany (it's kinda of a major plot-point in the storyline of WW2), but what does technological ability have to do with ideology?
You may as well praise Genghis Khan for not nuking Rome, or praise Iran for not seeking to extend its control over Alpha Centauri.
We have fooled around for too long - let us all put ourselves four-square behind America's war on terror and President Bush's great vision for freedom and democracy around the world.
The Bush administration is (in its actions outside USA borders) a bunch of murderers, torturers and all-around moral cretins, as the latest bunch of Abu Ghraib photos and reports once again reveals, (as if the previous bunch wasn't enough for anyone who hadn't willingly put blinders on).
And internally, Bush's great accomplishment has been to help destroy some of the fundamentals of USA democracy -- like the balance of powers, the idea of accountable government, the idea of the right of a trial-by-jury, etc, etc, etc.
You are drooling over the potential of American power to violently make things happen, and you don't even notice how the moral ground USA once might have held has now forever slipped away from them.
I may still support an American overthrow of Iran or Syria -- I only wish I could feel less dirty for being on the same side as the moral cretins that surround and support Bush.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-16 09:20 pm (UTC)----------------------------
Aris, do you seriously believe that the U.S. govenrnment was not only aware of but actually wanted the abuses in Abu Graib to take place? President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice and the rest of the administration must surely have known that America had nothing to gain and certainly a lot to lose from such treatment of prisoners in American hands - therefore I find it very hard to believe that they would have knowingly condoned such flagrant violations of human rights (after all it would have been very naive on their part if they ever thought that such things would never come to publicity). Unless you are willing to make such a serious accusation against George W. Bush's administration your use of words such as "moral cretins", "torturers", "murderers" etc. would seem to be extremely and unjustifiably harsh. After all it is this "bunch" that got the Iraqi people something better than Saddam Hussein's murderous regime - Iraq has had three elections in 2005 and the country is on the verge of being taken over by a democratically elected government.
In any case thank you very much for taking the time to respond to my comments. I had also made another commentary which I accidentally placed on your previous entry (the one dated February the 4th) instead of your most recent one. Since you had not replied - or should I say rebuked me? -:) - for that one I am not sure if you have actually seen it. Let me also suggest one of my favourite resources on the Internet:
http://www.pentagonchannel.mil
(and then click on the "LIVE" box!)
I am looking forward to hearing again what you think on these and all other matters - please let me and your Internet friends know soon!
George Katsaris, City of Coventry, England.