The Demonization of Muslims and the Battle for Oil

[Dover]

The Demonization of Muslims and the Battle for Oil


excerpt:

...Demonization is a PSYOP, used to sway public opinion and build a consensus in favor of war. Psychological warfare is directly sponsored by the Pentagon and the US intelligence apparatus. It is not limited to assassinating or executing the rulers of Muslim countries, it extends to entire populations. It also targets Muslims in Western Europe and North America. It purports to break national consciousness and the ability to resist the invader. It denigrates Islam. It creates social divisions. It is intended to divide national societies and ultimately trigger "civil war". While it creates an environment which facilitates the outright appropriation of the countries' resources, at the same time, it potentially backlashes, creates a new national consciousness, develops inter-ethnic solidarity, brings people together in confronting the invaders.

It is worth noting that the triggering of sectarian divisions and "civil wars" is contemplated in the process of redrawing of the map of the Middle East, where countries are slated to be broken up and transformed into territories. The map of the New Middle East, although not official, has been used by the US National War Academy. It was recently published in the Armed Forces Journal (June 2006). In this map, nation states are broken up, international borders are redefined along sectarian-ethnic lines, broadly in accordance with the interests of the Anglo-American oil giants (See Map below). The map has also been used in a training program at NATO's Defense College for senior military officers.

MAP OF THE NEW MIDDLE EAST
Note: The above map was prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters. It was published in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006, Peters is a retired colonel of the U.S. National War Academy. (Map Copyright Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters 2006).

The oil lies in Muslim lands. Vilification of the enemy is part and parcel of Eurasia energy geopolitics. It is a direct function of the geographic distribution of the World's oil and gas reserves. If the oil were in countries occupied predominantly by Buddhists or Hindus, one would expect that US foreign policy would be directed against Buddhists and Hindus, who would also be the object of vilification..

In the Middle East war theater, Iran and Syria, which are part of the "axis of evil", are the next targets according to official US statements.

US sponsored "civil wars" have also been conducted in several other strategic oil and gas regions including Nigeria, the Sudan, Colombia, Somalia, Yemen, Angola, not to mention Chechnya and several republics of the former Soviet Union. Ongoing US sponsored "civil wars", which often include the channelling of covert support to paramilitary groups, have been triggered in the Darfur region of Sudan as well as in Somalia, Darfur possesses extensive oil reserves. In Somalia, lucrative concessions have already been granted to four Anglo-American oil giants.

"According to documents obtained by The Times, nearly two-thirds of Somalia was allocated to the American oil giants Conoco, Amoco , Chevron and Phillips in the final years before Somalia's pro-U.S. President Mohamed Siad Barre was overthrown and the nation plunged into chaos in January, 1991. Industry sources said the companies holding the rights to the most promising concessions are hoping that the Bush Administration's decision to send U.S. troops to safeguard aid shipments to Somalia will also help protect their multimillion-dollar investments there." (America's Interests in Somalia, Global Research, 2002)..cont'd

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0701/S00076.htm

[Briar]

1. Good to see someone joining the dots

The demonisation of muslims is blatant, yet it is apparently invisible to us. I am sick of seeing westernised muslims called "moderate" just because they have thrown their lot in with us, as I am sick of seeing tv films and nasty series like 24 featuring muslims as villains. Oh, we're not bigoted. It's just that muslims are terrorists. No?

[BoneDaddy]

2. All true but

there is a naivete about the dangers that Islamic fundamentalism DOES pose.

The problem is that is that it is not so simple and cut and dry. Human rights abuses are very high in many muslim countries, women are still considered property and are treated as such, other religions are barely tolerated at best, and the masses are still very poor, uneducated and under the sway of a very vitriolic form of theocracy.

So where all that you said is true above, there is still so much that these countries need to do. Countries like Turkey, Egypt etc are certainly moving in the right direction, but to ignore some of the real dangers is foolish.

I disagree with your statement about "If the oil were in countries occupied predominantly by Buddhists or Hindus, one would expect that US foreign policy would be directed against Buddhists and Hindus, who would also be the object of vilification" not because it may or may not be true as I think they would certainly try, but the theologies are VASTLY different and I do not think it would hold much water.

Currently in the world buddhists and hindus do not believe it is their role to convert the world to their particular religion. Nor do their religious texts justify the use of violence as a means to do this. Of course Buddhist and Hindu countries have engaged in violence in the past and present but it is NO WHERE near the level of Islamic fundamentalism.

It really gets old to hear the Islamic fundamentalist apolgists continue to try and neglect the sad reality of many Islamic theocraties out there in an effort to try and appear fair. Sure the West has magnified and inflamed the violence and in many cases initiated it, but the threat that theocratic forms of government pose, be they Islamic, Christian or Judaic, cannot be minimized or overlooked.

[Chulanowa]

3. All religions carry fundamentalists

Hindu fundies are still a notable problem in India, and were the primary forces of violence within India during the 1940's. Buddhist fundamentalists are the one who spread the religion through Asia in the first place - Tibet, Mongolia, Korea, Japan, all were hit by Buddhists speaking koans and carrying pointy sticks. I'm sure there's plenty left.

Give CNN a religion and ten minutes and they'll find some stock footage of some screaming idiot portraying that religion, to serve all your propaganda needs.

[BoneDaddy]

6. As I said in my original reply

I don't disagree as history is proof that any religion can be co-opted. I just believe that it is much much harder to justify it based upon the religious texts. You have to dig real deep and manipulate interpretation in Buddhist and Hindu texts to justify violence, whereas in the Koran as in the Old Testament, you need merely to randomly open a page, throw a finger down and you could find a passage that justifies violence against the "OTHER".

[Chulanowa]

9. Justification is not an issue for fundamentalists

We're talking about people who could find justification from a bazooka joe wrapper, here.

It's not a question of which religion justifies it more - that's just an argument to paint one religion or another as somehow inherently worse - it's a question of whether the person reading the manuscript in question is fucking deranged enough to turn any part of it into an excuse for murder.

The fault lies with people. Not with a book.

[BoneDaddy]

14. I agree

but if their holy texts justifies it, it makes it that much easier to do it. For instance, you don't see Tibetan Buddhists or Jains killing people or blowing themselves up because violence is anathema to the very essence of their belief system. It is not to Muslim, Christian and Judaic texts. That is where the difference lies.

[Chulanowa]

16. YOu don't see Tibitian buddhists going boom...

because the Chinese occupiers of Tibet are VERY thorough at disarming the natives and executing mass reprisals against innocents when Tibetians do take up arms every now and again. However if you study Tibetian history... the Lamas weren't any better than hte Chinese there now, and in fact have perpetrated many of the same crimes against the Chinese. The invasion of 1952 is just continuation of a war between teh two nations that's been going back and forth since the yellow Emperor.

If you study the history of Buddhism, you'll note that it, like the Abrahamic faiths, was spread largely by threatening people to convert and weeding out hte populations of those who didn't. The Buddhists tried this in India, and got their asses kicked. They carried the violent methods of spreading the belief system into central asia, Tibet, and the far east, leaving a pretty big swathe of bloody bodies in their wake.

As I said... Justification is not an issue.

[BoneDaddy]

17. I don't think you are hearing what I am saying

I don't disagree with what you are saying as I am aware that there are historical skeletons in the closet with regards to Buddhist violence, racism and theocracy.

My point has been that it is much easier to justify that violence when the religious groups are instructed to do violence against the other. It is easy to point out the hypocrisy of Buddhist nations, groups or individuals who act in contrast to the tenents of non-violence because the vast majority of Buddhist texts do not justify it, whereas in Islam it is easy to find the basis for acting out in such a way because it is so often repeated in the Koran.

Does that mean I think the Koran is bad, no not at all. I see it as a historical book of a tribal culture that was in a time and place where the scarcity of resources and growing population probably justified such a warlike mentality, similar to Judaism, where there were often enemies on all sides.

I happen to be a fan of Islam as they have brought us so much in the way of culture, mathematics, astronomy and other sciences, but there seems to be a resistance to accept the shadow side of Islam and the negative aspects of it.

It is en vogue to pick apart Christian fundamentalism on DU and probably with very good reason, yet when that light is shone on Islam, there seems to be a knee jerk reaction as if the violence committed by Muslims is not their fault or simply a reaction to Western incursions.

In fact, I think you will find that there is probably more muslim on muslim violence in the world than there is muslim vs. christian or muslim vs any other ism. But to pretend that this does not exist, is not their responsibility to address or that it is not informed and fed by their religious teachings is to live in a vacuum with no understanding interconnection to the belief systems that feed such behavior.

This is basic psychology...What people believe affects how they feel and ultimately determines how they act.

[No Exit]

21. We should not criticize others until we sweep around our own back door.

"whereas in Islam it is easy to find the basis for acting out in such a way (violently) because it is so often repeated in the Koran."

As I recall, the Old Testament is not exactly a paean to peace.

Some of us have studied these regions and religions more than others have. But even those who have studied them fairly thoroughly need to be vigilant regarding the necessity of updating our information. Things change. And sources vary. I am not going to accept the "common wisdom" regarding what really goes on in faraway countries or religions.

In your earlier post, you expressed concern about institutionalized racist and sexist attitudes in certain nations, as well as intolerance for other religions. Yet I see Israel, a close ally of ours, practicing overt discrimination regarding religion. You mention downtrodden masses of people. The Palestinians come to mind.

For a long time, and especially for the last 5-6 years, we have been fed a steady diet of images of muslims as desperate bombers, suiciders, and murderers. I don't buy it. When I perceive that the powers-that-be are forcefeeding me this sort of thing, my instinct is to reject it out of hand. What the Arabs and the Muslims and the Persians do can surely not be much worse than what our own country--with the fervent backing of "Christians"--is perpetrating. That is the bottom line.

Let's work on our own extensive problems before addressing those of others. "Isolationism" it may be, but it's an absorbing and constructive way to live our lives. And the bonus is, that way, others get to live theirs, too--without being blown up by us.

Please don't tell me "yes, but". I refuse to continue to demonize the Muslims, the Arabs, and the Persians. In fact, I refuse to continue to criticize them--there has been criticism enough; it's all on the table now. I have had enough of it and all it has done has made me ripe for exploitation by Bush/Cheney and other persons who couldn't care less if I live or die.

[BoneDaddy]

26. We do not disagree

I have acknowledged, fucking ad nauseum, the problems with Christianity, the problems with Judaism, the problems with the West. Give me a break for Christ's sake. REad my other posts before you make judgements about me. I am highly critical of Christian fundamentalism, I am highly critical of Israel and their policies against the Palestinians.

That does not make the attrocities committed in the name of Allah any more or any less.

You are a hypocrite if you refuse to look at Muslim attrocities.

[BoneDaddy]

36. I never said that the OT is a paen of peace

if you happened to do a sliver of research, instead of gut reacting, you would see that my contempt is for most Abrahamic religions, christianity, islam and judaism.

I never denied the instance of abuse of power, racism or extreme fundamentalist nationalism with regard to Israel. In fact I agree. I, unlike you, see that trend not only among our our Western "Christian religions" but also among Islam...seems, for people like you, you excuse Islamic religious insanity and only see it in Christianity and Judaism...foolish if you ask me and ignorant.

I agree with the statement that we, America, need to work on our own hypocrisy, but that does not exuse the legitimate criticism of Islamic theocracy, male domination, religious irrational fervor, or human rights abuses. You seem to have a rather ignorant idea that because the USA and the WEst are deficient in their approach to correct behavior, that that exuses the incredible amount of human and civil rights abuses that occur in Islamic countries. You are an absolute idiot if you think that.

"Let's work on our own extensive problems before addressing those of others". If that is not the most stupid and politically ignorant statement uttered lately, I do not what is. Do you really believe this or are you subscribing to the irrational?


Yes but..."you refuse to criticize them".. Are you nuts?

[Chulanowa]

30. Alright then

Sorry if I caused too much of a headache. I'm just so used to "Well they're ALL bad, sure, but Islam and / or Christianity are so much worse!"

I tend to get into a lot of arguments on more right-leaning sites, and I'm sorry if my asbestos shell causes soem chafing here :)

Personally I'd be happy if the Abrahamics just got together in Patagonia or the Gobi or some other lonely place - all of 'em- and just worked it all out. However htey want to do it. Just leave the rest of us the feck alone :)

[BoneDaddy]

35. LOL

I am in entire agreement. And you didn't cause a headache you had some really good responses.

I, too, am used to fighting with the right wing on their take of Islam. To them it is all bad and they cannot see the good. The mistake the left often makes is that even though the right magnifies and makes it an absolute statement about Islam, the left often overlooks the reality. And for me the reality of any fundamentalist religion scares the shit out of me. I find there single minded approach and only one way at looking at life very dangerous.

[Dover]

4. But the point is...this conflict has little to do with the issues you bring up.

And even if it did, there are many ways to deal with it beyond bloodshed and the breaking of international laws.

I think the author is just saying that the Muslim's least attractive characteristics are being exploited for an altogether different reason than stated. And further, these reasons are being used to bend or break our national and international laws with regards to "War".

[BoneDaddy]

5. I don't disagree

but it appears that many on DU give a big pass to the legitimate criticisms of Islamic fundamentalism. I think the right over inflates the danger while the left under estimates and minimizes the reality.

[Dover]

7. Well both groups are 'off topic' as regards the real issues, and that's what the neocons want.

They want us to fight among ourselves over these issues rather than over the real ones.

My only beef with this article is that it's way too simplistic. There are MANY players vying for oil and other resources in these regions, not just the U.S. For instance, China is not so blatant in their maneuvering, but they and Russia, U.K, etc. are all players in this chess game.

[Briar]

8. Bingo

n/t

[BoneDaddy]

13. Very true

and as the resources dry up, and China kicks into full industrial mode, the world will find itself in more conflict.

[yurbud]

20. the difference is, Russia and China are negotiating for it--which probably cost less in

lives and money than going to war to give it to cronies.

The UK is our bitch, and junior partner at best in this, which is why Blair has no choice but to follow Bush's lead.

[yurbud]

12. yep--like saying the Civil War was about whether to call the noon meal dinner or lunch.

[BoneDaddy]

18. What?

Ok. Whatever you say.

[yurbud]

19. religion is incidental. The wealthy people in this country wouldn't care if Muslims ATE their wives

if they didn't have oil.

Come to think of it, why aren't we have a war on cannibals or Hindu wife burning?

[No Exit]

24. Very good points!!

It's all about oil--or about whatever substance or resource happens to be considered the most desirable for increasing personal wealth to obscene levels.

It would at least be a small improvement if our "leaders" would quit speaking in euphemisms such as "promoting democracy", and speak plainly, as in "We're going in because we want their oil", or "We're going in, because they're threatening to get people to trade a currency other than dollars for oil."

[BoneDaddy]

25. Speak for yourself

I certainly do care what people do to one another around the world. You may be correct in saying that the republican masses focus upon this as important as opposed to the brutal slayings of Darfur for instance, but not me personally.

If your main point is that if oil was not found under the middle east we would not be focusing upon the problems encountered there, I can understand and agree, but that does not happen to be the case for me, personally. I find the attrocities committed in Saudi Arabia as offensive as Hindu wife burning as I do ritual sacrifice in other primal nations as I do cliterectomys.

[yurbud]

28. Darfur has something else: oil

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/sudan/2005/0615oil.htm

It is odd that even our "humanitarian" interventions like Somalia and bombing the crap out of yugoslavia to stop a genocide (better to kill them by air than let them be killed on the ground) seem to have an economic subtext as well.

[BoneDaddy]

29. Yes everything is a conspiracy

i do not doubt that there are some serious selfish motives for any of our actions, of course there are, but that does not mean that the reasons may not be because of some tragedy that calls for intervention.

This is my problem with the left. Just because the Right says they are doing something does not mean that the opposite is true.

For instance any intervention in Darfur may have an ulterior motive that may be corporate based and essentially profit driven does not mean that there is NOT a problem in the area.

Sometimes I think the left defines itself by the right's opposite and that is just foolish.

Even GW bush and the crazies are correct a small percentage of the time... Although in most cases I totally disagree with the way they handle it.

[yurbud]

31. have you seen blood diamond yet?

One of the best ways to steal from better is to create chaos and civil war so you can choose a weaker negotiating party or just buy the stuff through the black market.

It's actually a pretty old method. Teddy Roosevelt used it to peel off Panama from Columbia to run the canal through it.

It's not a conspiracy theory, it's how business is done. You want to do something, so you make your action a product people want.

In the case of something like Darfur, I'd look long and hard at the causes and try to snuff some of those out before advocating any kind of military intervention.

[yurbud]

10. no one apologizes for them, but they would probably be toothless if we hadn't thwarted democracy

in a lot of those countries.

Iran was a secular democracy until we overthrew Mossadegh. Without an outlet for political participation, that function was grafted onto the mosque. If the only place we were allowed free speech and a voice was church, you'd see things get uglier at ours too.

[yurbud]

11. also, how does killing Muslims and taking their oil fix fundamentalism?

[BoneDaddy]

15. Please do not project what you think I said

to what I REALLY said. I never said that killing them fixes it. All I said was that muslim fundamentalism is a real threat and pretending that it does not exist is ignorant and foolish.

Personally, I would stay out of the middle east militarily and instead use economic and political pressure for them to address human rights issues, sectarian violence and massive gender inequality... NOT VIOLENCE.

Western military incursion into the middle east has NEVER worked. Time is the only way modernity would find it's way into that region of the world.

[No Exit]

23. I even question whether modernity is necessarily a good thing.

We are the epitome of modernity, aren't we? Look around you. In most places in this country, we can't even use the legs we were born with to simply walk in the sunshine to the store to buy food. (Nor can we grow it on a large scale, without paying royalties to Monsanto--but that's another story.) The roads are geared to automobiles, which makes walking very dangerous. Tax breaks are given to people who buy gas-guzzling SUV's. These breaks were originally even given to those who bought USED SUV's. This tells me the tax breaks were not put in to help the auto-sellers with their businesses; they were put in to encourage people to buy gas guzzlers, which benefits the oil industry.

I live in a suburb and every house has a yard. There are even some small patches of woods nearby. Yet at any given moment during the day, it is almost a sure bet that you can hear an internal combustion engine of some sort. It's loud. It's grating. It uses gasoline--which benefits the oil industry.

There are few old houses in this metro area. Why? Because the construction industry cannot make money if old houses are preserved. Ditto for old office buildings. (Which raises an interesting question related to the WTC--but again, that's another story.) Yet old houses are often worth keeping. The newer constructions are farther and farther out, and are great distances from stores and markets. Even if you wanted to walk, you couldn't, because the streets/highways are geared for fairly high speeds, so walking is hazardous. This benefits the oil industry.

Now, should I get into how the banking industry controls many aspects of our lives, and often robs us?

Or maybe I should talk about how our country's system has of late been totally supportive of globalists--creating an environment where large international entities can rob individuals of virtually everything, and even national governments can't or won't do anything about it?

Or we could talk about advertising. Virtually our every waking moment is polluted by it. We are told to take medicines. We cannot even trust our doctors not to be on the take, when we ask them if these medicines are all really necessary.

Everything, and I do mean everything, is for sale.

That, to me, is our "modernity". Now, some wild-eyed Muslim fanatics (whose principles outlaw usury... gasp!) decide they don't want to live in such a milieu. But our people insist on it, because our people have decided that they want to make some money off the lands and people where Islam happens to hold sway. The wild-eyed Muslim fanatics continue to resist.

I, for one, don't blame them. "Modernity", as we practice it, is not particularly desirable.

Do we leave them alone, as they desire? No--we go and kill them.

Who is the real savage here?

[BoneDaddy]

27. blah blah blah

if what was done in our country what is being done in theirs, you would be the first person to whine and complain...give me a fucking break

[stillcool]

37. you might find this interesting...

A Brief History of U.S. Interventions:
1945 to the Present
by William Blum
Z magazine , June 1999
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html

[BoneDaddy]

39. Why do people assume I don't know this

Why does US military intervention for corporate greed have to be mutually exclusive with legitimate criticism of dangerous, fundamentalist religions?

I happen to see your point and agree with it. That, however, does not mean that Islamic or Christian or any theocratic fundamentalist belief systems are not a valid concern.

Funny that I can be very flexible in looking at you and others point of views on issues yet you cannot see the legitimacy in mine.

So in your eyes fundamentalist Islam is a garden of roses? Come on now.

[stillcool]

40. In my point of view...

necessity is the mother of invention.... circumstances trigger behavior rather than the other way around, and one can not judge a society by a snapshot provided by a passer-by. When I focus on say one finger on my hand...it magnifies the individual characteristics of that finger, but dwarfs the attributes of the hand. I don't think there is very much in this world that can be viewed as constant... A tool created to enhance and make light of some difficulty, is mutated and manipulated for other purposes deeming the tool 'bad'. To me, whatever necessitated the need for the use of the tool in such a way is where the focus need be rather than eradicating the tool.

[BoneDaddy]

41. Circumstances trigger behavior?

in some cases that is true, but by believing this is the ONLY way things occur means that no one is responsible for anything they do because they can always claim the circumstances shaped their behavior instead of owning one's behavior and seeing how circumstances/consequences/cause and effect resulted in that behavior.

I would say that there is more likely a fluidity between circumstances and behavior with each interconnected and influencing each other, but certainly not something as one sided as circumstances alone having the main responsibility of causality.

[stillcool]

42. When I take responsibility

for wrongs I have done, I first have to understand what it was I did, and why I did it. Then I can go about trying to act in a more acceptable less harmful way. To say that my behavior is inherent only to me, and that killing, or tossing me in a cell, will eradicate the behavior is ridiculous. Seeds are planted unwittingly or not. Why is it that people can not see the world as a reflection of themselves..as in there but for the grace of God?

[BoneDaddy]

43. YOu are asking for a level of consciousness

few people, if ever, reach in a lifetime. So what is your plan for the world? Continue to let murderous, insane, out of control people live freely in society with the hopes that one day they can understand their nature of mind like you do? That is a tall glass of water my friend.

And yes, killing someone, locking them up will, at the very least, stop their behavior from affecting other people, especially those most dangerous to the world.

I would say your points have validity if we are living in an ideal world, but I don't think this world is that forgiving

[Karenina]

48. And WHO is most dangerous to the world?

:shrug:

[Karenina]

44. Your focus on fundamentalists in Islam

is one of those things that make ya go hmmmm... The American MIC on behalf of its corporate governors has historically STOMPED OUT any moves towards democracy and modernity in the Middle East and in Latin America. Iran and Iraq were both evolving well until the ugly Amis arrived. I find it beyond hubris that those who have consistently fomented regression want to point fingers at the crazies they helped create.

I guess it goes hand-in-hand with the new "blame the Iraqis" meme.

[BoneDaddy]

45. So in you mind, there would not be fundamentalists

if we didn't "create" them? Again, things don't exist in a vacuum and I certainly can understand how our influence has helped to inflame the situation beyond measure, but where is their responsibility in this matter? Are you suggesting that they are blameless? Hardly.

I accept your comments and agree with them. It is reprehensible what the US and other Western powers have done to help shape things in the middle east and I agree that the collective WE are part of the big problem. But I hope you are not suggesting that the Islamists are without accountability in this situation.

So the despots who keep their people poor and uneducated shouldn't be blamed? The mullahs who preach hatred of the West are not accountable? Is it the US who beheads people or cuts off limbs? Do we keep their women subjugated as property? Is the US responsible for their human rights violations?

Come on now, let's be honest. I like to look at levels of accountability, not some black/white, absolutist and ultmately illogical way of assigning blame. Whereas I agree with your comments, you refuse to hold them accountable for their part. That is what is wrong with your thinking on this matter.

Re: "blame the Iraqi's meme" I couldn't agree more and I think it is pitiful and shameful for the US to take such a stance.

[Karenina]

46. Fundamentalists of all stripes exist everywhere.

They were on the wane in the modern development of Iran. They were held in check by the more forward-thinking westernized youth. Saddam held them at bay in Iraq just as Tito did in the former Yugoslavia. Cultures and nations do tend to work these issues out s-l-o-w-l-y. Who are YOU to define the terms?

"So the despots who keep their people poor and uneducated shouldn't be blamed? The mullahs who preach hatred of the West are not accountable? Is it the US who beheads people or cuts off limbs? Do we keep their women subjugated as property? Is the US responsible for their human rights violations?"

Your questions are ALL textbook examples of American myopia.

What is YOUR OWN RESPONSIBILITY in keeping YOUR X-TIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS, who at this very moment are conspiring with YOUR WE-CONTROL-THE-WORLD FUNDAMENTALISTS to wreak havoc on this poor planet, in check? Get back to me when the Islamists have murdered a million Amis and laid waste to your country.

[BoneDaddy]

47. I don't mean to sound harsh but are you visually impaired?

because you seem to have a comprehension problem when you read what I wrote.

On one hand you are more than willing to acknowledge the dangers of fundamentalism, especially Christian fundamentalism,
yet you keep making excuses and justifications for Islamic fundamentalism.

"Your questions are ALL textbook examples of American myopia."

So you are saying these things don't exist?

You want it both ways and that is the problem. You want to blame the west for everything, without acknowledging the Middle East's mentality and behavior as part of the problem too.

I have said AD NAUSEUM that your critique of America and the West is accurate, yet you keep on trying to paint a picture that portrays me as a defender of the US and the West. What mental block is going on?

You create straw man arguments meant to defend Islam about things that I already agreed upon re: Christian fundamentalism and US hedgemony. That is totally the opposite of what I have been saying.

AS for my OWN RESPONSIBILITY in the matter, I am a frequent and rabid critic of the Christian fundamentalist movement and their influence in politics. I write letters, participate in debates, educate others about the dangers of fundamentalism, vote, engage in protesting our government.

Is that enough for you?

Regarding your opening response, once again I agree that without Western involvement, things certainly would be different in the middle east, but you want it all, don't you. You want it to be all the West's fault because that fits into your nice little safe convenient boogie man mentality. Well that is not the world nor is it reality. It is childish and immature if you ask me.

[No Exit]

22. Well, like, see, if they're all dead, they can't be rabid fundies any more!

:sarcasm:

Seriously, your question is a very good one. The answer, of course, is: it doesn't.

[Strelnikov_]

32. Yep

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2881626

[oblivious]

33. Look at how Iran is almost surrounded by US troops. And Iran is presented as a threat!

The relentless propaganda actually works to present Iran as a threat to Israel and the US.

From the OP link:

[LibertyorDeath]

34. Thanks Dover for the info

Great Post

Kick

To (you know who you are)

Pick up a fucking History book

War (Wars) are always about resources and Control

Religion is just the trojan horse they ride in on.....

[CJCRANE]

38. Good post and very relevant.

I find it absolutely remarkable how pervasive, how blatant and yet how effective the PSYOPS has become in the Bush Era.

In regards to the argument that Islam (or the Abrahamic faiths) are somehow uniquely violent I think we actually need to find out what's going on in the rest of the world outside what the MSM shows us (i.e. outside the parts of America, Europe and the Middle East they focus on). The reality is that there is crime, wars and terrorism in the rest of the world on a vast scale, there is no monopoly on these in any particular culture.

As for tackling Islamic fundamentalism - forget it. How is that possible when B*sh & Cheney are on the Saudi payroll?

It's all a big game of divide and conquer for the elites on both sides who rile up the masses with propaganda and do billion dollar business deals in the background.

[Dover]

49. How Do We Stop The Hate?

http://www.mentorthesoul.com/soldiers_heart/stop_the_hate.pdf

Stop the Hate
November 27, 2006

excerpt:
....We have heard from families of 9/11 victims. Very many have declared, “Do not strike back, do not kill others, do not use my lost loved one to justify more killing. Do not kill in my name; do not kill in theirs.”
Finally, what about those we call upon to do our fighting, to make our country safe from the orcs (Lord Of The Rings) we imagine are out there trying to destroy us? I recently spent a week with members of an American ranger battalion who enlisted to defend our homeland and now in their twenties have experienced 3 – 6 combat tours and have participated in both battles and atrocities. I asked them what the lesson of 9/11 and the Iraq War should be? This is what they said:

“9/11 took me from enlistment through fierce patriotism to fighting with all my soul against
committing atrocities.”
“We had many sacrifices on 9/11. Sacrifice should create awareness.”
What awareness, I asked, should 9/11 and this war bring us?
“That we are terrorists as much as anyone else,” they answered. And, “If I had a choice, I’d fight
on their side because they are truly protecting their country from invaders.”
Therefore, our young rangers declared, we Americans must learn to “see the world through other
people’s eyes.” And “see violence for what it is all the time, whether someone does it to us or us to
them.” And that we “say no to any and all unjust violence, no matter who causes it.”

These, then, are some of the spiritual lessons we must draw from violence: Your dead are our
dead. Your fallen are ours as well. Do not strike back. Do not let our losses rob others of heart or life.

..snip..

I had a vision just after 9/11. As our president stood before the world declaring that we would
hunt, punish and kill those who had hurt us, I imagined a scene from the book of Jonah. When reluctant Jonah finally arrived in Ninevah and declared that God would destroy that great city because of its wicked ways, the king believed the prophet. He put on sackcloth and ordered his citizens to repent as well. And the city was saved.

I envisioned a president of the United States, the most powerful person leading the most powerful
nation on the planet, putting on sackcloth and standing before the world. I imagined him saying, “We did not realize that so many of you are angry and hurt and hate us to this degree. We are sorry. We will not strike back but instead will listen as you tell us of your pain and rage. We will hear your story and forgive. Let us join together at this terrible moment, and in this great pain, and make our suffering and rage and loss one. As did that wise king of old, rather than destroy great cities, together let us save them from mutual destruction.”

This is our best opportunity to end hatred. Through 9/11 we Americans joined with the rest of
the world in receiving a shared and common wound. That wound is what the world has been feeling, and
screaming about, and doing violence over, ever since Isaac and Ishmael became alienated as brothers over the broken legacy from their father. That wound is the horrendous pain and fear in all our hearts and lands that is caused by violence and warfare, greed and oppression. Everyone feels it. Everyone causes it. Now we know. Now we can say to the world, we share your pain because we understand it, we feel it too.

Cont'd