I did not say Bush Jr. is a terrorist. I was referring to the many protests of the war around the world and in the US where he was called a terrorist. To me, he is just a typical politician (of less values than most of them - and that's being kind) and a very dangerous one.
When I was referring to the ``no fly zone'' situation I just had a feeling that Bush's ``enforcement'' was going to lead to this shit. I didn't say Bush Jr. created the ``no fly zone''.
I'm ashamed of how Bush Jr. used the WTC attacks to further his agenda to remove Hussein at ANY COST (+ many others but this is the most dispicable to me).
My response to your post was prompted by your statement of not giving a shit about the ``New'' terrorists. I know you are more thoughtful than that (And the fact that ``New'' terrorists will emerge goes back to my source of shame).
No, I was not referring to you as a ``smartfucker'' (as Hail mentions this is another poster).
Lastly, I feel we are all responsible for suffering in this world - not ``terrorist'' in the sense that we intend to kill innocents but in a world of limited resources there are of course the haves and have nots (and the gap is increasingly huge). It is survival of the fittest, but do we need to be such blatant assholes ?
-- Modified on 6/23/2004 9:04:59 PM
-- Modified on 6/23/2004 9:48:14 PM
FOR THE LOVE OF FREEDOM
-------------------------------------
June 22, 2004
By Aden Nak
It is a great relief to see, over the past six or seven months, that both the media and the general public in this nation are starting to question the unfounded assumptions and proclamations made by President Bush. While, on a personal level, I find it highly distressing that it took over two years for the discourse in this country to recover from the knee-jerk "get behind our leader" reaction caused by 9/11, I can certainly understand it.
And progress is being made. On a political level, it started with the Democratic primaries, where the early front-runner, Howard Dean, proved that you can criticize the President and not suffer political ruin. The media picked up on the fact that it was acceptable to question the president's figment-oriented mode of communication once John Kerry's own military service caused the nation to re-examine George W. Bush's activities during the Vietnam War.
So, from a liberal standpoint, things are getting better. But they still aren't quite right. In fact, there is one Bush theme, repeated consistently and effectively since 9/11, that qualifies as industrial strength bullshit. Sadly, it's become accepted as fact by most of the population, perhaps even by those in this country that consider themselves liberal. It is a crucial component of Bush's "good vs. evil" rhetoric. And it all swirls around a simple question.
Why?
Why did 9/11 happen? Why did al Qaeda target the United States of America with one of the most brutal, inhuman acts of terrorist in modern history? In short, why do "they" hate us so much? President Bush has made his opinion very clear on this matter. Obviously, the terrorists attacked us because they "love terror" and "hate freedom."
Now, I won't dispute the fact that terrorist groups love terror. I think that's kind of implicit in the word "terrorist," don't you? And many terrorist groups, such as al Qaeda, do have fascist, totalitarian goals in mind, such as the formation of a fundamentalist Islamic state based on the most warped, disgusting, perversion of the Muslim faith imaginable. So yes, terrorists love terror, and many of them have goals that contradict the basic tenets of a free and just society.
But that still doesn't explain why they attacked the United States. I mean, are we really the only "free" nation in the world? The last time I checked, there is a long, healthy list of democracies and republics spanning the globe. A slew of western European nations are part of the free, self-governing world. But self-government isn't limited simply to the United States and western Europe. Both Canada and Australia are both self-governing nations, and generally have more "liberal" social programs and institutions than the United States. Asia has its fair share of freedom-loving democracies.
There simply has to be more to this issue than our freedom (or "freeance," as our president might put it). al Qaeda does not simply attack nations because of the organizing principles of their government, especially when that nation is halfway across the world. What al Qaeda has done since its inception is absolutely abhorrent and unjustifiable. And President Bush is correct in asserting that they are a devious and murderous organization. But this absurd notion that they have declared an unending war on the United States because we love freedom so much is just plain ridiculous.
The real reason the United States has become the central target of al Qaeda is because our government has been manipulating and destabilizing the Middle East for well over thirty years now. Our involvement in Middle Eastern politics, military maneuverings, and oil exportation has wrought havoc on the inhabitants of that entire area of the world.
To them, the United States of America is not a bastion of freedom and justice. When they think of America, they think of puppet dictators and militant tyrants. They think of loved ones who have died for political issues that did not concern them. They think of an iron hand, strangling their countries and their way of life from the other side of the globe. And they hate America for it.
And has the United States of America done these things? Yes, yes it has. But it was neither the will of the people nor the desire of those who truly "love freedom" that brought about these shameful acts. The fact is that the United States government and those who wield its power have long since broken the bonds of accountability with the American people. It's not just a matter of avoiding punishment anymore. Most Americans no longer understand or realize the damage that our self-serving, corrupt "leaders" have done to both the stability of the Middle East and the reputation America once had as a champion of truth and democracy throughout the world.
Our leaders have done us a great disservice, and have systematically thrown the Middle East into utter chaos in order to further their own craven agendas. But from halfway across the world, the distinction between America and its government is a hazy one at best. Those that subscribe to terrorism against the United States are, in effect, taking part in the same knee-jerk reactionary anger that many Americans are still coming to grips with.
But by painting this war as a fight between those who support freedom and those who support terror, Bush is able to polarize the issue into that same old cliché "good vs. evil" garbage that he's been spewing out. It's convenient rhetoric, it fits nicely into a sound bite, but it's patently untrue and absurdly misguided.
It serves to cover up the ugly truth - that while the citizenry of America is generally in favor of truth and justice, our government has been betraying us abroad for many, many years. This is a hard fact for many people to fully come to terms with. And when the alternative of, "We're good and they're evil!" is presented, it's very tempting to take that quick and easy route to absolution. But we need to deal with this at some point in order to move on as a nation, and in order to reclaim our nation from this corrupt minority that has perverted the principles of America and desecrated the spirit of freedom that Bush so ardently claims he loves.
We need to get past the immature name-calling associated with this sort of discussion. We need to stop pointing the haggard finger of "un-American" rhetoric at people the moment they suggest that the United States of America may have been in error. At some point, the people of this nation will have to overcome their own fears of inadequacy and personal loathing, will have to own up to the fact that they have been used by those they once trusted, and accept responsibility for our government's actions in the Middle East.
Terrorism isn't a person that we can assassinate or a nation that we can destroy. It isn't a place that we can bomb back to the Stone Age. It's not a physical thing, and it cannot be entirely a physical battle. For every terrorist that is killed, for every life that is mourned, one more person will grow to hate the United States of America. That is a sad reality of our world, considering the potential and the promise of this proud, wounded nation.
If we ever hope to achieve victory against terrorism, we must change the way we behave on the national stage. We must demand that our government end its support of petty dictators and political hatchet men. We must insist that our leaders use the military as a tool of defense, not occupation and economic insurance. We must force them to bow to our will. The will of the people.
Only once that is done, can we force each and every last one of the sick, murderous bastards that had a hand in 9/11 to take responsibility for their deplorable treachery without behaving like hypocrites in the eyes of the world.
Pulling a passage from your post:
"If we ever hope to achieve victory against terrorism, we must change the way we behave on the national stage. We must demand that our government end its support of petty dictators and political hatchet men. We must insist that our leaders use the military as a tool of defense, not occupation and economic insurance. We must force them to bow to our will. The will of the people."
How can anyone seriously thing that an irrational person like Bin Laden or his followers or committed followers will care about who we support? I agree that dictators and leaders who are brutal to their people should not be supported for one second by us, I do think that we need to engage those leaders who have the potential to turn bad but have not done so - our engagement needs to be driven by the best values that defend our nation.
The only two solutions for Bin Laden and his like are death or life in jail. I really do not give a shit if we make more terrorist if one of the two goals that I just listed is met. We can simply identify and deal with the "new" terrorist the same way.
Bin Laden is a sick individual but not irrational (IMHO). A sick smartfucker if you will (not to be confused with our resident smartfucker).
I also believe that it was Bush's intention to invade Iraq even before he was ``elected'' (felt this way when the ``no fly zone'' situation occured). So, when you say to defend our nation with the best values set possible I couldn't agree more. But the actions (and inactions) of our current Great Defender makes me ashamed (to put it mildly). There are people (Americans and a whole lot of others) that call Bush a terrorist - So, how do you think the Bin Laden's view Bush/USA. My point is, who we support makes all the difference in the world (IMHO) via the values they have (e.g., how they treat others and not just using them as a means to an [their] end).
BTW, if you or someone you loved was killed by a ``new'' terrorist I'm sure you would give a shit.
The northern and southern no-fly zones in Iraq were set up immediately after the first gulf war to protect Kurds in the north and Shites in the south from attack by Iraqi fixed wing aircraft. It was later expanded to include all aircraft. The two no-fly zones were enforced by the Clinton administration when it took office in 1993, that administration maintained the zones for it's full eight years in office then handed the responsibility over to the Bush II administration. During maintenance of the zone, the Kurds in the north thrived and setup functioning towns and commerce. So in short, the no-fly zones were not a bad thing, it can even be stated that they were good and effective in limiting Saddam's reign of terror against his country's citizens.
If you are ashamed that Bush II left Afganistan unfinished to go on an ill timed invasion of Iraq, then I totally agree with you, I think that he screwed up. But if you are ashamed when this nation tries to extinquish what is perceived as a threat (however cumbersome the effort), then I have to firmly differ and state that your feeling, to a large extent, is wrong but that you have the right to feel as you do.
I do not feel that Bush II is a terrorist, an inflexible and often errant ideologue maybe, but not a terrorist. So please stop the hyperbole and post something that can be taken more seriously.
I think anyone living in this country realize now that they or their loved ones can be attacked and killed at anytime by a terrorist. That was not the point I was making, my point was that fresh terrorists will be created as we kill or jail the known ones and those "new" terrorist will seek to and sometimes will harm us, but they will meet the same fate as their predecessors once they rear their heads.
Lastly. I do not know who you were referring to when you called someone on this board a "resident smartfucker". Maybe you were referring to HailTheBaloneySandwich, Bribite, Sully or James. But, if by chance you were referring to me, I am smart enough not to post the inaccurate shit that you posted in the post above.
Also, flip yourself into the shoes of the "other" side. For the sake of argument lets say you're a peaceful civilian Iraqi young boy. You see your Parents, your home and your city destroyed by U.S. forces, in that boys mind BUSH jr. is now JUST as much a terrorist as Osama or Saddam are viewed over here in the U.S.A.
You can't just say let's keep killing them ALL until we take them all out, because A) we will NEVER get to them ALL, and B) what makes YOU any different then THEM if that's your attitude ?
As complicated a situation as it is, a WAR on TERRORISM fought ONLY by the USA, is DOOMED from the get go. It's the wrong choice of action, I realize we can't just shake hands with the Saddam's and Bin Laden's of the world and hope for the best, (speaking of which FUNNY how BUSH & RUMSFELD actually DID shake hands with them not long ago); but you get my point, and the articles point I hope, that we keep sticking are nose where it don't belong and keep making a FUBAR of the situation, it's time to change the way we address the Middle East, and maybe review just Who our real Allies are, because I'm not sure the Saudi's really are, do you think so ?
Maybe we don't really have ANY ?
-- Modified on 6/23/2004 8:17:21 PM
I did not say Bush Jr. is a terrorist. I was referring to the many protests of the war around the world and in the US where he was called a terrorist. To me, he is just a typical politician (of less values than most of them - and that's being kind) and a very dangerous one.
When I was referring to the ``no fly zone'' situation I just had a feeling that Bush's ``enforcement'' was going to lead to this shit. I didn't say Bush Jr. created the ``no fly zone''.
I'm ashamed of how Bush Jr. used the WTC attacks to further his agenda to remove Hussein at ANY COST (+ many others but this is the most dispicable to me).
My response to your post was prompted by your statement of not giving a shit about the ``New'' terrorists. I know you are more thoughtful than that (And the fact that ``New'' terrorists will emerge goes back to my source of shame).
No, I was not referring to you as a ``smartfucker'' (as Hail mentions this is another poster).
Lastly, I feel we are all responsible for suffering in this world - not ``terrorist'' in the sense that we intend to kill innocents but in a world of limited resources there are of course the haves and have nots (and the gap is increasingly huge). It is survival of the fittest, but do we need to be such blatant assholes ?
-- Modified on 6/23/2004 9:04:59 PM
-- Modified on 6/23/2004 9:48:14 PM
Sorry about getting your "Smartfucker" reference mixed up. While I do not agree with everything that you wrote in this last post of yours, I do agree that the proper way for Mr. Bush to have responded to 9/11/2001 would be to focus on the people who were verified responsible until all of them were either dead or in jail. Mr. Bush did not do what he should have, he took his eye off of Afganistan, where the 9/11/2001 perps are and went after Saddam. While Saddam deserved to get removed from power, doing so could have been put off a little while so that more pressing responsibilities could be properly handled.
might be warranted regarding how those wise Europeans were able to "influence" countries throughout the 18th, 19th and first half of the 20th centuries. Some of our biggest blunders have been bailing out them, not just from enemy forces invading their soil (twice), but does anyone remember who went running from Vietnam before we went in? Or who occupied Palestine prior to the UN turning the region over to Isreal? Or Iraq? A good post though, Baloney. It was almost written without your leftist spin. That's refreshing!
