Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

"The War on Terror" -- in Translation

By Norman Solomon, AlterNet. Posted October 10, 2005.


Here's what the President really meant in his speech last week.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

When the Bush administration fires off a new round of speechifying about "the war on terror," the U.S. press rarely goes beyond the surface meanings of rhetoric provided by White House scriptwriters. But the president's big speech at the National Endowment for Democracy on Oct. 6 could have been annotated along these lines:

* "We will not tire or rest until the war on terror is won."

Translation: This is a war that can go on forever.

* "And while the killers choose their victims indiscriminately, their attacks serve a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs and goals that are evil but not insane."

As president, I am the world's authority on evilness and insanity.

* "These extremists want to end American and Western influence in the broader Middle East, because we stand for democracy and peace and stand in the way of their ambitions."

Those who stand in the way of our ambitions are extremists.

* "They hit us and expect us to run. They want us to repeat the sad history of Beirut in 1983 and Mogadishu in 1993, only this time on a larger scale with greater consequences."

Clinton and even Reagan were wimps compared to me.

* "Over the past few decades, radicals have specifically targeted Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and Jordan for potential takeover."

We must support and defend the torturers who run Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Jordan.

* "The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity, and we must recognize Iraq as the central front in our war on terror."

When enemies of the United States kill in Iraq, that's evil. When the United States kills in Iraq, that's good.

* "The militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region..."

Political prisoners should be grateful that the United States is enabling them to be tortured by moderate governments.

* "Evil men obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience must be taken very seriously, and we must stop them before their crimes can multiply."

We are valiantly obsessed with ambition and legitimately unburdened by conscience, while our crimes multiply.

* "The radicals exploit local conflicts to build a culture of victimization in which someone else is always to blame and violence is always the solution."

The United States is never to blame, and the solution involves violence from the U.S. government and its allies.

* "Over the years, these extremists have used a litany of excuses for violence: Israeli presence on the West Bank or the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia or the defeat of the Taliban or the crusades of a thousand years ago."

The extremists make excuses for violence. We don't need any excuse.

* "In fact, we're not facing a set of grievances that can be soothed and addressed."

The people who kill without U.S. approval are irrational. The only way to stop them is to kill them.

* "No act of ours invited the rage of the killers, and no concession, bribe or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans for murder. On the contrary, they target nations whose behavior they believe they can change through violence."

No one has any valid reason to be angry at us. And we have the prerogative to change behavior through violence.

* "Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy teaches that innocent individuals can be sacrificed to serve a political vision."

The Islamic ideologues don't understand that only the United States government should get to decide when innocent individuals can be sacrificed to serve a political vision.

* "Any government that chooses to be an ally of terror has also chosen to be an enemy of civilization. And the civilized world must hold those regimes to account."

When we terrorize, that's a civilized option.

* "Our goal is to defeat the terrorists and their allies at the heart of their power. And so we will defeat the enemy in Iraq."

We will proceed with destroying Iraq in order to save it.

* "In fact, democratic federalism is the best hope for unifying a diverse population, because a federal constitutional system respects the rights and religious traditions of all citizens while giving all minorities, including the Sunnis, a stake and a voice in the future of their country."

We want to manipulate the situation enough to allow U.S. corporations to buy up much of Iraq while the U.S. military continues to build permanent bases in Iraq.

* "It is true that the seeds of freedom have only recently been planted in Iraq but democracy, when it grows, is not a fragile flower. It is a healthy, sturdy tree."

We have speech writers who like to use metaphors, unencumbered by reality-based constraints.

* "We're encouraging our friends in the Middle East, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia, to take the path of reform, to strengthen their own societies in the fight against terror by respecting the rights and choices of their own people."

We know bad PR when we see it. We're going through the motions of urging an end to repression by U.S. allies in the Middle East, but there's certainly no hurry -- especially when the repression is aimed at foes of our policies.

* "We're making our case through public diplomacy, stating clearly and confidently our belief in self-determination and the rule of law and religious freedom and equal rights for women; beliefs that are right and true in every land and in every culture."

We're trying to tune up the U.S. propaganda machinery. Hopefully, more lofty rhetoric can distract from the actual results of our policies.

* "In Iraq, there is no peace without victory. We will keep our nerve and we will win that victory."

To hell with peace. We want to claim victory, no matter how many people die.

* "As we do our part to confront radicalism, we know that the most vital work will be done within the Islamic world itself."

Here's where I get to preach at Muslims about the sanctity of life.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Norman Solomon is the author of the new book, "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from World! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Norman, you should be president!
Posted by: eastcoker on Oct 10, 2005 10:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am serious. I like your speech much better than Bushes.
Why doesn't Bush write his own damn speech? It would be much more interesting than that junk his spin doctors produce for him. Man I can't even read that stuff, it gives me a freaking headache! It's like the college student who went to the dictionary to get a bunch of big words to impress the teacher without even really knowing what they mean. Blather!

I am serious though, you should run for President. You got my vote.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Examine political speeches for logical fallacies
Posted by: Sojourner on Oct 10, 2005 10:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
During the last campaign, one of my wishes was that some news agency would hire some logicians to diagnose the logical fallacies of political speeches.

In addition to the double-talk that comes from a careful selection of terminology, as Solomon shows, much of what we hear from candidates is logically twisted. Correct facts are used to propose incoheret solutions.

I think folks would be interested to see such analysis.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The O'Reilly Factored in
Posted by: Ghoulman on Oct 10, 2005 2:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
lol! Great point for point!

It was a horrific speech, a renewing of the call to WAR. The point of the speech, for the White House, was to point out that "distractions" aren't as important as the War on Terror.

What did Mr. O'Reilly have to say about George "Dubya" Bush's speech?
'"Talking Points" understands we are engaged in World War III...'
LINK to O'Reily's HTML version.
No analysis here, O'Reilly merely took Bushs speech and added even more frightening language. Yikes!

Has there been ANY critical analysis of this war mongering speech?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

skewered
Posted by: skewered on Oct 11, 2005 7:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr. Solomon the over all thrust of your "speech translation" seems to equate Islamo Fascism with U.S. policy, as if there were no difference between the two sides. You can call the U.S. heavy handed, you can make a case that Bush may have been too quick to go to war. But with every line of your "article" you seem blind to the brutality of a force that has been around and has recently thrust themselves full force onto the world stage: Islamo Fascists. Your snide, tongue in cheek style shows a complete lack of appreciation for a pressing problem. A headless society of thugs with an ever morphing list of grievances is out to institute societies that would put free exchanges of ideas like this on the chopping block. And that would be the very least of their efforts. It's easy to sit back and take pot shots from the safety of a literary ivory tower, but in the real world to root out and destroy ruthless murderers is a messy business and, yes, an effort of war. War will always be a sin but one that can be controlled. The beheading of people in cold dank rooms away from any civilized eye, the shooting of woman in packed stadiums, the slaughter of fellow countrymen in the name of Islam this is an entirely different animal and one that would gladly destroy the society you are allowed to write from. We live in a brutal world, one where controlled brutality sometimes must control organized lunacy. Think about it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: skewered Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: SKEWED, SCREWED and SKIRRED TOO Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RESPONSE Part I Posted by: LMNOP
» RESPONSE Part II Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: SPONSE Part II Posted by: skewered
» Please see RESPONSE above Posted by: LMNOP
» Yes, I hate hate Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Yes, I hate hate Posted by: sambo4
» RE: Yes, I hate hate Posted by: sambo4
» RE: Yes, I hate hate Posted by: sambo4
» RE: skewered Posted by: nellyman
» RE: skewered Posted by: Andy Lee Parker
Logic and tough thinking called for
Posted by: skewered on Oct 11, 2005 9:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Think Kelly, really think. It's easy to have a knee jerk reaction and regress to colege activist simplicity but we are grown ups now you really have to think.

You may think America has been perverted but which society would you rather have. The one the Taliban had instituted in Afghanistan or the one you are currently in. Because that's what those bombing and killing in Iraq want. They want a Taliban like regime. But not just in the Middle East, all over the world!

You hit on a very appropo piece of logic in your post. Iraq is now a hot bed of Terrorism. Yes, exactly. You can debate all day about wether or not Saddam had WMD's, ( I refer you to this age old chestnut: everyone including Europe and Democrats thought he was hiding them) but the fact is that now Iraq is the first front on the war on terror.

So did the US cause it to be so. No we stirred up the hornets nest and spread honey out before them: a battle with the US over Iraq. They were always there Iraq has just brought them and their ideology out of the woodwork. They all came running all that Islamic Facism could muster is now battling in Iraq. And if we win there, you will go on being safe. It is the liberals in a society that Islam with it's Old Testament ideology would go after first.

And when I say think about it, Kelly I really do mean think about it. It is an ugly world and war is a disgusting ugly thing but how else will this scourge on society, Militant Islam be put down. Do you have a method. I'd sincerely like to hear it. Sincerely. Because war is an atrocity, but it is the only one that fascists of any kind understand. And no I don't think America is a fascists state.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» WMD in late 80's Posted by: sambo4
It's a lie that we are 'winning' anything in Iraq
Posted by: Sojourner on Oct 11, 2005 9:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is Iraq better off today than before the invasion? No.

Is Al Qeada weaker today than before the invasion? No.

Is the US stronger in the world today than before the invasion? No.

How could that possibly add up to a conclusion that the war has been a winning effort? Bush is delirious. Or else so accustomed to lying that he no longer can tell the truth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sojourner Don't be fooled
Posted by: skewered on Oct 11, 2005 10:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sojourner you are confused about the nature of "struggle". The struggle to put anything right isn't completed over night. To address Militant Islam is a multi pronged effort that must woo the minds of the Middle Easterner towards Democracy while putting down the crazy's in that society. That could take decades.

Your attitude typifies the appeasmant agenda, "let's not address the problem because it will most definetely get worse before it get's better." That is the same philosophy that let Hitler slowly gain in power until putting him down became a World War rather than a local conflict.

Is Iraq better off today than before the invasion?
Iraq can be better off if the US can stay the course. Iraq would be far better off if the rest of the world including folks in the US would realize the gravity of the Iraq War and get involved.

Is Al Qeada weaker today than before the invasion?
Al Qaida is being fully engaged. Al Qaida is being brought out of the shadows. Al Qaida is not a hamburger or a video game mass consumed in a heart beat. They are a determined, rutheless, dissilussioned bunch who will grow before they are completely expunged. Would that it's members would respond to an open hand and a kind word, they will only bite it off.

Is the US stronger in the world today than before the invasion? No, the US is more challenged than ever before because the world chooses the easy way out. Since various countries have not had anything on 9/11's scale ( and no I don't believe Saddam Hussein was personally responsible for 9/11) they don't have the resolve that America has adopted to handle this threat.

And when years from now it's all over, the dust has settled and Islamo Fascism has gone the way of Communism, the world will canonize George Bush just like they did Ronald Reagan.

I don't know your age Sojourner but you need to sojourn a bit longer. At some point you will realize that global politics is not a Rambo movie. It takes time, it is ugly and one day the world may realize that America was engaged in a fight that they themselves were to lazy to begin.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sojourner Don't be fooled Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: Sojourner Don't be fooled Posted by: skewered
» RE: Sojourner Don't be fooled Posted by: Captainmagic
» RE: Sojourner Don't be fooled Posted by: skewered
» RE: Sojourner Don't be fooled Posted by: Captainmagic
» RE: Sojourner Don't be fooled Posted by: skewered
» RE: Sojourner Don't be fooled Posted by: Captainmagic
» RE: Sojourner Don't be fooled Posted by: nellyman
» RE: Sojourner Don't be fooled Posted by: skewered
» RE: Sojourner Don't be fooled Posted by: nellyman
» RE: Sojourner Don't be fooled Posted by: skewered
» RE: Sojourner Don't be fooled Posted by: nellyman
What is your answer Porgy Girl
Posted by: skewered on Oct 11, 2005 10:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Then what is your answer Porgy Girl. Is the age old adage fight fire with fire completely lost on you. This is the problem with the left peace movement you won't acknowledge what you are really saying. You are saying turn the other cheek. You are saying don't address the problem be nice and hope that the bad guy responds. Believe you me I wish turning the other cheek would change a heart but in this case it only costs you your cheek.

If the Muslims were leaning toward being militarized and this war turned them then they were headed that way anyway. And their conversion is a result of dealing with the problem of Islamo Fascism not because of so called "American terrorism".

What are the other methods of dealing with this. Kicking Israel out of the Middle East? Allowing governments like the Taliban in Afghanistan to exist and persist. Remember Porgy Girl one of the greatest atrocities of Militant Islam is the way it treats woman. You've seen the stories, the treatment of women.

So America is a terrorist equivalent to Al Qaida. Is that your logic Porgy Girl? Look around you. Look at the society you live in. Is this the result of terrorism? Judge a nation by it's results. Judge Saddam by his society and the Taliban by there's. Project outward and think what society the Islamo Fascist would create if they could.

In "The Shade of The Koran" a "bible" for the Radical Islamic movement, the radicals biggest beef with the U.S. and the west was . . . can you guess?

Seperation of Church and state. They hate the idea.

They want a Theocracy Porgy Girl and the want to institute that in as many countries as possible. And they will strap bombs on their bodies and walk into a group of American soldiers handing out candy to children and detonate themselves for the sake of their cause.

America is no saint. This war is disgusting. And yes we have our Abu Garaibs. But run your feet through the grass, stare up at the skyscrapers, marvel at the peacful sucession of government from hand to hand. This is what the American boys in Iraq who you call terrorist are fighting for. It may be a bit simplistic to say win in Iraq = Freedom at home. But it is not to simplistic to say lose in Iraq = suicide bombers at a local shopping mall near you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

roughly translated....
Posted by: Smiggsy on Oct 11, 2005 10:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
* "I'm George Bush, President of the USA"

is roughly translated to:

"I'm a stupid moron who is completely incompetent, & I have successfully connived the US electorate."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Reading between the lines
Posted by: liberazi on Oct 11, 2005 1:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Norman, it's like you were reading my mind while I watched that speech.

Skewered, it's like you have never heard of the PNAC or Rumsfeld's "Pee-Twos". The US is like the bully in the classroom who repeatedly punches his victim in the shoulder until he retaliates, then beats him to death. And you give your full support to the bully.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eading between the lines Posted by: skewered
» RE: eading between the lines Posted by: liberazi
» RE: eading between the lines Posted by: skewered
» RE: eading between the lines Posted by: liberazi
» RE: eading between the lines Posted by: skewered
» RE: eading between the lines Posted by: liberazi
» RE: eading between the lines Posted by: skewered
honesty and competency
Posted by: matty on Oct 11, 2005 2:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Two problems with some of the pro-war arguments above:

First, the problem with Bush speeches for the duration of the war on terror is that he lacks honesty. The administration lied about threats in Iraq. You might say that everyone thought there were WMD's, but as a legal issue, the government should have had the knowledge of no WMD's, thus they had constructive notice of their flawed argument, thus they were negligent in pursuing it in foreign policy. I learned that one in Torts last week. I'm completely fine with extending the should have known to the conclusion that Bush lied. As such, he needs to be honest with everything he says in his presidency after that initial, world-changing lie. But, he hasn't. That's the rub. He treats us like idiots, like we don't get that what he says is full of holes. I know there are nuances to foreign policy, but from what Bush says, no one would ever know. His lack of disclosure about these complex issues is a lie to the American people. So, Norman's analysis of his speech, flipping it on its face and revealing those possible areas of grey, is ok with me. Bush should be presenting those grey areas himself, then convincing us that he is going against them for a valid reason. But, he doesn't do that. We need not take Norman's critique as anything more than what Bush must do as our President - giving us the full skinny on what's going on. Leaving the American people out of the conversation is what allows governments to corrupt themselves.

Secondly, and this is an extension of the first, when we don't see Bush's reasoning, we can only assume that the constant fuck-ups are due, in large part, to incompetency. We can't give him the benefit of the doubt all the time and assume that he recognizes the complexity of the world. Thus, when he glosses over stuff with bullshit, we must sometimes assume that he doesn't see it. As such, we protest the war not only because we don't trust his intentions, but because we can't trust that he has the mind to work through the complexities and bring us to a better place. Thus, we are rightly skeptical of any government action, no matter how justified by world need; we are simply too scared that he will make it worse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Baffling question
Posted by: Maryanne on Oct 11, 2005 4:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What really baffles me, who listens and watches many news "analyst " programs, is that the commentators, pundits, etc. seem to lack a sense of history, and even a sense of current events. They appear to draw their conclusions only from limited sources and from those whom they might have interviewed, without any awareness of what others have publicly shared that might cause them to reach other conclusions. If we, who listen and watch these programs, know what has been said and written by a variety of others in the public eye, why do not these pundits? It is almost as though they live in a vacuum.

The same can be said of many members of Congress. This is not a question of whether they are right or wrong in their opinions or how they vote on issues; this is a matter of their insularity, of being narrow in their view and not being aware of the complexities around them.

An article such as this is appreciated insofar as Mr. Solomon does not take what is said lat face value, but can see beneath the words what is really meant.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Baffling question Posted by: Ghoulman
» RE: Baffling question Posted by: randolphsg
The Enemy We Face
Posted by: skewered on Oct 12, 2005 6:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You can argue from dusk till dawn and wake up to a Middle East that will destroy itself and it's neighbours. And then through terrorism they will drive a stake in the heart of free countries every where. To what end are you arguing and who are you arguing for?

AL QUAIDA NO. 2: U.S. RAN FROM VIETNAM
From Yahoo News by Katherine Shrader Associated Press Writer
In a letter taking up 13 typed pages in its English translation, al-Zawahri also recommended a four-stage expansion of the war that would take the fighting to neighboring Muslim countries.
"It has always been my belief that the victory of Islam will never take place until a Muslim state is established ... in the heart of the Islamic world," al-Zawahri wrote.
The letter laid out his long-term plan: expel the Americans from Iraq, establish an Islamic authority and take the war to Iraq's secular neighbors, including Lebanon, Jordan and Syria.
The final stage, al-Zawahri wrote, would be a clash with Israel, which he said was established to challenge "any new Islamic entity."
The letter is dated July 9, and was acquired during U.S. operations in Iraq.
In his letter, al-Zawahri, a Sunni, devoted significant attention to al-Zarqawi's attempts to start a civil war with the rival Muslim Shiite sect, the majority that now dominates the new Iraqi government. Ultimately, al-Zawahri concluded that violence, particularly against Shiite mosques, only raises questions among Muslims.
"This matter won't be acceptable to the Muslim populace however much you have tried to explain it, and aversion to this will continue," he wrote.
."More than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media," he wrote. "We are in a media battle in a race for the hearts and minds of our umma," or community of Muslims, he wrote.
END ARTICLE
He is fighting for your hearts and minds too. Think about it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Enemy WE face?
Posted by: Ghoulman on Oct 12, 2005 6:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
^^^
Stop being a troll... stop yourself from wasting everyones time with your POV. A view that is demonstrably delusional. We have already pointed out our feelings to you and here you are screaming we "don't get it".

No one on the planet has your opinion about terrorism (an old chestnut, it's not rocket science) except the neocons.

Guess what, if you refuse to talk to people and just keep insisting your view of the issues is correct no one will listen to you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ghoulman
Posted by: skewered on Oct 12, 2005 7:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know I've been snarky in my previous posts Ghoulman and for that I apologize. But there really is something at stake here. The more the American public makes an intellectual game out of what's going on in the Middle East. The more intellectuals use it is a chance to air grievances against a "paternalistic" evil regime (meaning Bush) the harder it becomes to put down a global movement hungry for domination. Hungry for our destruction. That article shows they don't just want Afghanistan they want the whole Middle East.

There is a dire threat out there and we safely posit our little opinions from our warm and cozy office. And that's all right. But what I was trying to illustrate with the article is that there are very determined and brutal people who want to shape the world.

I know in your heart you want to do what's right. I'm sure everyone on this boards has America's best interest at heart. And yes Iraq may have been too much to bite off. Maybe we should have stayed in Afghanistan and risked Saddam having WMD's. (Although I know any sort of war is wrong to many folks, even putting down the Taliban.) But we went to Iraq. And now all the Islamic nuts, the worst of the worst, they are coming to Iraq. And yes some dissilussioned, idealistic, Islamic youth have been swept into this to defeat us. And yes woman and children are dying, and the war has become a long slog.

This war is an affront to any civilized mind. But the left has no alternative to this real world problem. Islamic Fascist want to create Theocracys through out the Middle East. They want to advance a Taliban way of life. It's good for no one.

Has America wronged the Middle East in the past, yes. But we can't go back. There is only here and now. Here is my question. Your enemy is the current US government. You don't like how they are trying to shape the world. That begs the question do you want to see the world shaped in the image of Militant Islam?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Ghoulman Posted by: Ghoulman
» RE: Ghoulman Posted by: skewered
When your religion is your government
Posted by: skewered on Oct 12, 2005 12:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When you are a theocracy and your religion informs everything that your nation is and you have a centralized autocratic government headed by a dicatorial leader to rule over that theocracy then you are an : Islamo Fascist.

That is the type of fascist, autocratic government that Al Qaida wants to "hatch" throughout the Middle East.

That would be bad. No, that would be very bad.

See the term isn't so hard to grasp.

FASCIST: often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

An Outsiders Perspective
Posted by: TassieDevil on Oct 12, 2005 5:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After reading skewered's postings, it appears again that the American egocentricity is what is at fault here, as personified by George Dubya Bush.
There certainly was doubt as to whether Hussain had WMD's but it was the British that turned the tables, with a report we now know was a fabrication. The UN WAS in control of Iraq and doing a good job, even if the UN needed reforming, it was still achieving. Saddam didn't have WMD's, he had no connection to Al-Qaeda, and the terrorist groups in Iraq were being controlled by Saddam's vicious regime.
Now we have a war that shouldn't have happened, the UN banned from involvement on the ground in Iraq, a Bush appointed anti-UN, US representative who had just gutted all hope of reform within the UN and a world that is seeing first hand that terrorism is not being stopped, but escalated at an alarming rate.
I know it may come as a hell of a shock to some US citizens like Skewered, but there is another, real, huge, world out there besides the US. Bali was hit with a suicide bomb last week, India/Pakistan had more killed in their earthquake than the total amount of US citizens killed on 9/11, Rita and Katrina combined, and yet with the exception of a small couple of stories on or near the date of these disasters, the US media has almost forgot about them.
It is the BIG, REAL world that is building AGAINST Bush and his supporter countries, and their boot is starting to be felt.
Lift your head out of your naval and start looking at the REAL world. We no longer live in a world where we only pay for our own actions. Whatever one does, the rest of us pays for it.

And just to finish off, when people steal from a store, they are thieves and the store is a victim. When the thieves can convince the populus that the store is the criminal, the store no longer becomes the victim.
This is basically what is happening with the terrorists. While there is agressive force in Iraq, the terrorists are successfully gaining supporters who now see the 'innocent' US as the agressor/criminal and the terrorists as victims.
To turn this around means handing this whole crisis back to the UN and for negotiations to be seen to be happening for both sides.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: An Outsiders Perspective Posted by: skewered
Easy to throw rocks
Posted by: jpb on Oct 13, 2005 7:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm reading the threads as they go in and one key
issue I see not being addressed is the basic purpose
of government.

If government exists (as I believe it does) to create
order and maintain peace and administer justice, how
does government accomplish that?

Without rules and laws this cannot be accomplished.
The minute you talk about rules and laws you also have
to discuss punishment for breaking those rules and
laws.

I believe government accomplishes that (people
following the rules and laws) ultimately with a
willingness to do violence, but a commitment to as
little violence as possible (see Romans 13 if you want the Bible's perspective).

The great wars the USA has participated in have
always been when powerful leaders used their power to
threaten either the USA or others who were unable to
defend themselves (honestly most often when they
threatened the USA).

This is not necessarily wrong, but is the exact
responsibility and purpose of government (to protect
their citizens and their way of life).

My question for many on this thread (as well as Mr. Solomon) is simple: What actual country would you hold up as an example of one that has handled this current "so called war" (radical Islam VS ????) better than the USA has handled it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: asy to throw rocks Posted by: LMNOP
Skewereds Sordid Past
Posted by: skewered on Oct 13, 2005 7:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tassi Devil you've fallen into a trap of assigning generalities. I know there is a world out there. I lived in Thailand for all of my childhood and that definetely shaped my world view.

Here's how. Let's take Vietnam. The evil that the evil empire perpetrated for so many evil reasons. I grew up next door to Vietnam. I know if the US hadn't thrown a monkey wrench in to Communisms bid for world domination, Thailand would have been the next country to go. I wonder how many of the children I grew up with would have been killed in Thailand had America not fought that war we ultimately retreated from. Then the children I knew and grew up with would very likely be dead. Thailand would have had it's own killing fields.

Yes, Americans and in particular this American knows that there is living, dying, hating, loving and killing going on all over the globe. Again I witnessed it first hand growing up in Thailand. many places I loved and knew in Thailand were hit by the Tsunami you some how think Americans ignored. This American donated goods to Sri Lanka after the Tsunami. My American sister actually went to Indonesia and helped people on the ground.

I, we are not blind to the rest of the world. This stereotype gets raised like a tattered flag in every confrontation over geo politics. It's time to move on.

This particular American, in this whole wide world knows that the Middle East has got some major house cleaning to do to get up to the 21st century. Does that mean they have to be a mini American. No it means they have to give their citizens a reason to invest in their future rather than in blood shed.

Why are American's shores flooded with immigrants seeking a life. (And that includes tons of Middle Easterners.) Not because the American people are so great but because a system of government has been refined and honed here unfettered by years of past wrongs and past grudges. America started with a clean slate and so Democracy grew hear in an unprecedented way. The world needs it and we don't own it we simply know it is the only way to govern a nation effectively. And if they don't implement it then towers will fall. And they have Tassi Devil, they have.

And I live in New York, I rub shoulders with the world every day. And I love the multitudes of heritage and race that grace our shores. America, love it and don't leave it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A bad case of the E.P.O
Posted by: take pills on Oct 13, 2005 9:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow, great article!
Looks like another bad case with insecure mr. george of the:

"EMOTIONALLY
POTENT
OVERSIMPLIFICATION"

,like chomsky states in his "manufactured consent" movie.

You really have to have compassion for bush, he really hates himself. I think we should send him lots of warm, fluffy, lovey, hugs and stuff. He's really in a tough spot. Which doesn't mean that we should just stand back and take his fits of meglomaniacal rage at not being able to uber-alles the world.

Do you see that he is stating once more that, since he is the "authority" on terrorism, that anyone that doesn't agree with him is a terrorist? ...Umm, So are you ready for the concentration camps he's been making by the dozens with your tax money yet?

All anger is a call for help. send your hugs to bush so he stops his attacks on humanity and all life on the planet. Does anyone else think we are living in the dark ages?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush's "B" Movie antics
Posted by: take pills on Oct 13, 2005 9:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My girlfriend says that this sounds like a speech from a really bad movie. i agree.

Also, isn't it amazing how everything he says about everyone else is exactly what he and his cronies actually do? Has anyone heard of what he and his lynchmen do every year at "Bohemian Grove" every year in the redwood forests every year a couple hours north of San Francisco up Interstate 1? Debauchery, worshipping owls and other umm interesting things in the area of blood getting spilled (take it or leave you decide), oh, and policy making..

bohemian grove search on google

ummm, so now that we completely know that we live in the full ripening of orwellian prophecy. What are we going to do about it? Since this isn't a movie, kind of.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bush's "B" Movie antics Posted by: skewered
It's hard to argue with success
Posted by: skewered on Oct 14, 2005 9:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Millions of Iraqis on Saturday are set to mark ballots with ink-stained thumbs, voting on a draft constitution intended to stitch together a legal framework for the ethnically and religiously fractious, war-weary nation.

The vote is regarded as a key milestone in the effort to establish a democracy in the post-Saddam Hussein era.

It enables Iraqis to approve or reject the controversial document drafted by lawmakers on the transitional National Assembly.

Iraq declared a national holiday that began Thursday and ends Sunday. Security has been bolstered at polling places across the country in anticipation of sustained insurgent attacks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» NO IT'S NOT Posted by: LMNOP
War what is it good for?
Posted by: skewered on Oct 17, 2005 6:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Neither Allah or the people of Iraq were choosing their way of life before this. A Sunni minority and primarily Saddam Hussein was choosing there way of life for them. That's why it's called a dictatorship.

America is currently waging war to establish a democratic way of life for a people who seem to be taking to the idea. More and more people are voting. Even under the threat of violence. It seems that the people of Iraq do want Democracy. What Allah wants I couldn't say.

Think deeply, past knee jerk hatred for the right. How does this war get the US cheap oil. We are going Billions into debt. World opinion and the opinion of the American people are turning away from us. George Bush and his administration won't even be in power when the smoke clears on this. How is he going to see profit from this? Where is the huge money trail that funnels back into the Republicans or the Presidents or America's pocket? There is none.

We would have been far better off to continue buying oil from the Saudi's. Iraq will make profits on their oil fields and it will not go to the UN, America or Saddam, it will go to the Iraqi people in a Democratic Iraq. Capitilism and Democracy will replace the rule of the gun. Slowly this insanity of allowing militias to exist (with all their convoluted beefs) will fade out in Iraq. Muqtada al Sadr and his ilk will turn to politics or meet with a bullet.

I hate war just like you ssegallmd. I despise the death of innocents. I can't imagine the psychological horror American soldiers go through in Iraq. Can't imagine the pain of the Iraqi people. But democracy will give them keys to peace that they could never find for themselves. The Middle East has a nasty habit of ping ponging between dictatorships and theocracies. It's got to stop for their sake and ours.

This is a nightmare by anyones estimation. So was the American civil war. Americans against Americans. The bodies piled so high. Can't imagine what the stink of those ancient battle fields were like, before anitbiotics and the rest. But the South had to be put down. And Abraham Lincoln is counted a saint for seeing it through. War is sometimes an unfortunate but necessary evil. History proves it.

If the left continues to lose it's capacity to wage a just war, any sort of war. Then they will be left in the dustbin of History. Obsolete. Forgotten.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: War what is it good for? Posted by: Andy Lee Parker
ssegallmd Words Not mine
Posted by: skewered on Oct 17, 2005 9:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"You consider it paradoxical and hypocritical that people like me hate hate. We are also intolerant of intolerance. Think of the police shooting weapons to restore peace."

You've just made a great argument for a just war ssegallmd. Yes we do need cops. Unfortunately sometimes violence is called for to put down the most violent among us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Job Well Done
Posted by: skewered on Oct 17, 2005 1:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think we cleared'em all out Sambo4. It's Miller Time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Job Well Done Posted by: sambo4
sorry skewered, I'm still here and waiting....
Posted by: nellyman on Oct 21, 2005 4:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm still waiting on your views concerning the shah of Iran and the oil embargo and the other "nonchalant" episodes that you seem to dispel during the 70's that apparently "never happened". I have asked you "three times" now to explain it to me and you have yet to. Hurry skewered, the "cock" is about to crow anytime now......

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement