Originally posted by poet1b
Yeah, we do have radicals in the U.S., but the murder rate for political purposes in the U.S. is no where near what it is in the Middle East, and more
importantly, people like myself condemn these acts,
Why murder them when you can lock them up by the millions? Perhaps if the middle east were not so economically and politically terrorized they could
afford to build prisons on the scale they exist in the US? What would the murder rate in the US be like if it had the same GDP( inner cities?) as
middle eastern countries? Funny how in the US all crimes are related to 'economics' ( unless your assassinating black panthers or trade unionist,
etc) while in the middle east people fight over politics while their starving....
we don't approve of them as you approved of the murder in people in Europe because they insulted Islam.
I don't approve of it but since when does murder require the approval of the citizenry? Isn't that why we lock up murderers everywhere? What i said
is that he thought it was OK ( and safe) to be a bigot who wished to exploit the general anger against Foreigners ( easy to target those who actually
look different) for financial ends. Perhaps he could have tried to gain fame by something that wasn't quite so obviously dangerous?
You need to watch "The Sixth of May", a movie by a man who was killed by Islamic extremists.
I see more sense in watching movies about the US imperial war machine that has killed more than a million Iraqi's in less than two decades. I see
even more sense in watching movies about western neo liberal economic terrorism that is killing tens of millions of people all over the world ever
year. If more people did that we could save many more Muslim women ( and their children) than watching these videos ever would. But perhaps i am just
not enough of a racist bigot to understand that EVERYTHING can be blamed on Islamic 'culture' which seem to be a few decades behind the west in
women's rights. Perhaps i am misguided in thinking that the best way to help women everywhere is to raise their standard of living( which inevitable
results in more personal freedoms) by discussing the economic systems of the world that are creating this world wide devastation.
It is an excellent portrayal of a situation, and your approval of the directors murder is beyond reasonable. Here in the U.S. we work hard
to eliminate these radical elements, while in the Muslim world they are supported, and the public demonstrations clearly prove that.
Muslims evil; American folk good. Thanks for the update i don't get fifty times a day on ATS. If you could only understand how little i care about
one film director ( what about all the Muslim film directors and journalist the US armed forces have killed in Iraq?) or another you could perhaps
begin to understand why i can only see your defense of this one as bigoted and self interested.
Exactly what did these people say or comment on that makes you think they deserved to die? I am not trying to paint you as some kind of a
radical, you have done that to yourself by this indefensible statement supporting murder in violation of free speech.
In this current world order most people who deserve a faster path to another life is benefiting from the the exploitation of the vast majority of the
rest which are too a smaller or larger degree ( including Theo) victims of their machinations. Since Theo were drug using, chain smoking, binge
drinking nihilist this sort of outcome probably surprised him less than it does you. Don't waste your tears on Theo; he didn't like life much any
Really, where is your proof of this. This subject deserves a thread of its own, and this claim is grossly overstated.
As the imperialist keep telling me without ever assuming any type of burden of proof for their denials.
You want to judge the west by current Western standards, the the radical elements of Islam refuse to accept even today.
Say what? I am discussing IMPERIAL standards; not what Americans think of abortion or women's right in general.
You go back and examine the actions of the West over the last several centuries, and most often they were more civilized than the people
they were confronting as they explored the planet.
If you would believe the imperialist who always seemed to have had bigger weapons ( which i suppose they got trough peaceable cooperation in Europe)
and dim views on anyone who didn't like having their resources confiscated? I am talking about TODAY where the US national security state is
proceeding to wreck what was just about the most modern and westernized nation to be found in the middle east. So much for you understanding the irony
of 'spreading democracy and culture' to nations that were well on their way!
You read through these claims of Western atrocities, and they are all strawmen arguments based on ludicrous claims that ignore the activities
of those that they were dealing with.
I have actually studied them and i just can't seem to ever come up with legitimate reasons ( other than economical and political one's) for
terrorizing the third , and some of the first, world. Feel free to point to a 'good' 'intervention' as staged by the US national security state./
For example, just because the U.S. once associated with some group or individual, the propagandists want to claim that makes the U.S.
responsible for all the atrocities committed by that radical element. This is a ludicrous position.
Unless that movement or group could not, did not or would not have existed but for US funding, US occupations or Us political meddling in that
country. Name a few , or even one, of the terrorist organizations that have attacked US soldiers or soil ( i'll make it seem easy by including
By the same logic, the same arguments makes everyone to blame for the actions of everyone else, and that is total nonsense.
Only in a casual reality where , you know, events has causes? Action reaction? Or do you have some other reality in mind?
Only Saddam Hussain was responsible for the actions of Saddam Hussain, only the members of the Taliban are responsible for the actions of the
Sure only SH is 'responsible' for his own actions but would he have been able to take action in the Baath party without CIA backing oh so long ago?
Would his faction in the Baath party have been able to systematically assassinate or exile the majority of quite progressive ( and SH instituted a
very progressive social agenda) Baath party officials without CIA help? Would the Taliban have gained a foothold without the reign of terror of the US
supplied warlord factions? Would the Soviet Union ever have gotten involved , they were 'invited' ( just like the South Vietnamese puppet president
invited in the US) if the US did not start supplying warlords with weapon and resources to destabilize the incompetent progressive government? All
good question you won't have answers to because you were not even aware of the facts.
I provide links as often as you do, you have made more than your share of audacious claims that you never back up with links.
Audacious claims isn't beyond me but i do try to differentiate between what i believe and what i know. Obviously i should do better but criticism
coming from someone who does so comparatively little isn't why i aim to do better.
You want a link to terrorism in Germany, here ya go. You could have done this yourself.
The evidence is overwhelming.
For what? Who did the 'terrorist' attack in Germany in recent times? Night clubs frequented by American soldiers perhaps? Funny that it's so easy
to associate 'foreign' terrorism with American occupation personal. ....
You are far and away from a vast majority supporting your position, or the idea that we in the West are the root of all evil.
"We' in the west are not the 'root' of all evil'. 'We' are the cannon fodder drafted and taxed to bleed/die and work our asses off for
corporate profit and third world misery and starvation. And then you accuse me of not understanding the issue when you presume that 'the west' means
' the people of the west' who clearly don't support imperialism and militarism. Sad stuff.