Defending the Truth

US lawmaker defends Mecca bombing comments - Yahoo! News

As the wise Gandhi once said: "An eye for an eye makes everybody blind."

OH wow.. what a nutjob..forget the mecca bombing comment.. what i find particularly frightening is that he seems to misunderstand the responsibilities of a president.

It is true that the president is the commender in chief of the armed forces, but protecting and defending your country is the premise of the armed forces. That is after all what they are there for. I am completely FLABBERGASTED that he would say that providing health and education isn't his job.. considering that you are the "world leaders" i would think makign sure that your people know how to read and write is a pretty fuckin high priority.. and don't even get me started on healthcare. I can GUARANTEE that more people die each year from lack of adequate healthcare or insurance coverage than have died in all the terrorist actions combined.

It is tragic that a man can even be CONSIDERED a presidential hopeful when he seems to think that his job will consist solely of ensuring "security", and not to ensure better life chances and life quality for the citizens of the country.

I say it again.. what an idiot.

Anyhow in response to the Mecca threat, well you guys are welcome to try, but that is an action that will create 1.2 billion terrorist AND will INEVITABLY unleash nuclear war. Don't forget Pakistan has a nuke, and they have the means to deliver in to the US. EVEN IF the muslim states exhibit such patience that they do not nuke the US, you guys are going to have to look far and wide for a single drop of middle east oil. let's see how much you can squeeze out of alaska.

This suggestion on his part is fabulously ignorant and short sighted. It will ultimately lead to a complete collapse of the US. With no oil, with 1.2 billion people ready to wipe you off the map, and with a nuclear nations among your mortal enemies ( yes they will be mortal enemies) you will essentially have hammered the last nail in your own coffin.

But i am thankful that even Ole Bushy is too smart to talk crap like that.

Of course, bombing Mecca would likely be the worst possible response the US could take regarding an asymetrical Al Qaeda nuclear attack on the US.

And I doubt that such a threat by the US would act as much of a deterent.

I wonder what, however, could be the best response the US could take to such an attack.

Surely, Al Qaeda and other such extremists don't represent the best interests of the Muslim world.

And I would think (perhaps, hope) that the "response" will come from the moderate Muslim world in the sense that they will very actively root out such extremists.

But the US would undoubtedly have to respond, at least in some way, to such an attack.

(I think it is likely that Israel would be attacked with a nukes at the same time as the US or even before the US.)

Well prevention is better than a cure.

Right now ANY response to a terrorist attack will seem heavy handed and imperialistic. The reason for that is that the US already has the blood of more than half a million lives on its hands ( Iraq). Combine that with various human rights violations (Gitmo & Abu Ghraib), unconditional support for Israel ( in spite of Israel's illegal settlements, its subjugation and slow destruction of palestinian territories, and its ridiculous war in lebanon) hypocritical support for some unconstitutional dictators, looting of Iraq through smaller "contractors", and an overall policy of hegemony and non-compliance with international law, and anything the US gets will be too good for them. I have always wondered how the death of 500,000 Iraqi civilians can be justified by 9/11. 500,000 Iraqis are roughly as much worth as 3000 americans. I know that you can't keep "score", but at present moment any terrorist attack against the US will only be viewed as its just dessert.

What the US SHOULD be doing is dealing with the hatred and ill will it creates the world over through its foreign policies. Until the muslim countries see some sort of objectivity vis'a'vis the ME conflict, until the muslim countries see some sort of respect for their sovereignty, until the WORLD sees that the US is leaving its "global bully" attitude behind, most of the world will consider any terrorist action deplorable but understandable.

I hate to say it man.. the innocent individuals who may get caught up in this certainly do NOT deserve to die ( that includes any american individuals also). But the US as a nation, as a sovereign entity, does deserve to pay for the destruction it has caused. Be that payment in remorse, restitution, regret or in blood, that is for the US to decide. But it certainly does owe the world.

I started this post thinking there would be some more suitable alternative.. but unfortunately in the global context, the US has no right to venegance. So IMHO you guys are damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Oh, I guess it's just so easy for someone to paint the US as the "bad guy" even though countries and peoples of the Middle East aught to be responsible for their own actions.

I mean, is the US responsible when various groups of people fight each other in Iraq and in the rest the Middle East, such as Sunni and Shai blowing each other up?

Is the US responsible for various countries own human rights violations, such as Saddam's Iraq?

Should the US be responsible for, say, not toppling the Saudi regime because the Saudi's do not have a democracy?

Should the US be responsible if there are groups of people in the Middle East who have no intention whatsoever of ever reaching a true peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians?

In reality, there is plenty of blame to go around for the current status of the Middle East.

So, to even imply that it is "all the US's fault" is rather...well...one-sided.

No doubt about that. However there is a marked difference. The US very clearly positions itself as the global policeman and as the bastion of democracy and human rights.

When you insist you are in charge, then you are incharge and responsible for EVERYTHING. Mind you, nobody told the US to be the boss of everybody. But since this role was very willingly taken up by the US when it went unilaterally into Iraq, is it little wonder that the world community demands they take responsibility for the good as well as bad?

That said, you are absolutely right that responsiblity lies with indigenous factions also. HOWEVER, they are summarily dismissed by the US. In not speaking to DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT in Palestine, In not talking to Iran, In refusing to acknowledge the popular support of Hamas and Hezbollah, the US dismisses the opinions of those that do not agree with them.

But IRAQ.. well that is ALL USA. What revenge are the Iraqi people entitled to? Does 9/11 justify the deaths over half a million civilians in Iraq? The war was/is unjust and it is the source of greater danger, desparation and destruction than 100 Saddams could have been. YOur nation has been unable to let go of the 3000 innocent civilians of 9/11. Can you really expect that Iraq should let go of the 500,000 + deaths the US has caused? Are they not entitled by the same logic the US has employed to go after Bush, Cheney and RUmsfeld?

What about Palestine. SHould the palestinians not blame the US for its unwavering support of Israel? For its refusal to censure Israeli breaches of UN conventions ( that continue to this day). FOr its refusal to accept the result of the most free and fair elections the middle east has ever seen? FOr its refusal to stop Israel from breaching palestinian sovereignty, blockading Gaza and killing the already shattered economy?

The US, on account of being the most powerful nation in the world, on account of its insistence on policing the world, on account of its refusal to bow to any international organizations, on account of its unilateral actions that have destroyed whole countries is most certainly to blame.

Look i think perhaps i am getting a bit heated here. I never ever believe violence will solve anything. However on the cosmic scale of things, the US has to experience the same level of death and destruction it has caused the world over ( no organization, party or nation is responsible for the level of destruction the US is ) before anybody will think of the US as the "victim".. that is except for the US itself that always seems to be the victim of evil actions whereas everybody else "deserved" it or were "acceptable losses" or "collateral damage" in the glorious fight for "freedom".

more than half a million people are dead because of the lies about Iraq.. It's gonna take a LOT to clean up after disasters of this administration.

Ummm...so when exactly did the US insist that it is in charge of the world?

The idea of the US being the world's so-called "superpower" is, in reality, just a concept. So, putting the blame on the US for the world's problems is really just a convenient scapegoat for anyone who wishes to dismiss or excuse actions by other countries or groups of people.

Regarding Hamas, it's kind of hard to take such a group seriously as a force of reason when their admitted goal is the outright destruction of Israel. They might be popular, but so was the idea of slavery many years ago. And, shouldn't Hamas be responsible for bringing weapons into the Gaza Strip which would most likely be used against Israel? And, what has Hamas actually contributed to the peace process between Israelis and the Palestinians?

Regarding Iraq, how exactly is the US responsible for Sunni and Shia and Al Qaeda extremists who wish to kill each other...and actively do just that? I mean, short of locking the entire populace of Iraq in a prison, how can the US stop their actions? In essence, why should the US be responsible for actions that is out of its control?

And, regarding so-called "victims," whether real or imaginary, people's in the Middle East tend to know how the use their "victim card" rather well. Why do you think only a few countries have ever offered Palestinian refugees citizenship and land outside the Israeli/Palestinian area? But no, Israel got to go...even though there once was a potential "two-state" solution before Israel was created back in the 1940's. So, of course they are the victims, since Israel won't just disappear.

I'm sorry, but I still think your position is rather one-sided. And, the violence that you may so readily turn a blind eye to regarding potential attacks in the West is just as bad as US troops outright killing unarmed citizens of Iraq.

Perhaps not said in so many words, yet clearly indicated through its actions. Non-compliance with international resolutions, refusal to accept the ICC, amnesty for all american soldiers in foreign lands, and a general attitude of demnading adherence to UN resolutions while being in complete violation themselves. These are all actions that indicate how the US find itself accountable to NOBODY, while insisting that everybody else should be held accountable ( except of course their allies ).

COmbine that with the unilateral action in Iraq, and you have a nation that considers itself superior all others and accountabloe to none.
i'm pretty sure that being a "super power" is more than just a mere CONCEPT for the US. There is NO DOUBT that there exists only ONE global superpower on the planet right now and that is the US. The US has made good use of this status since the end of the cold war by being able to take actions without anybody having the might to oppose them. And those that do, tend to get isolated.

No doubt characters like the fundo mullahs use the US as a scapegoat for their obvious administrative incompetence. However APART from that there are PLENTY of things for which the US is culpable. Of course the ME quagmire is american. You can blame it all you want on the "insurgents" etc, but the fact is that the conflict was started by the US with no honest rationale, and all the things that the US was warned against have come true.

Yet lets take a look at some other things. Agrarian nations suffer under US trade policies because they do not want their own farmers threatened by the cheaper agricultural products of Asia. Cotton products, for instance, have strictly controlled quotas beyond which no products can be exported to the US. SUre ur taking care of your own farmers, but your nation is obviously in contradiction of its open capitalist market philosophy. The US is pressuring Korea to accept US beef imports, even though popular korean sentiment is dead against it. Local beef producers will suffer. But of course in this situation the US firmly believes in "open markets".
American pressure often works in the benefit of the american economy to the DETRIMENT of local economies.
Lets take a look at the alleged "spread of democracy". Lets not forget that the US has a history of funding unscrupulous dictators when it serves their purpose. Also it has a history of funding and training terrorists. BUt most of all it is allegiance to the US ( NOT YOUR DEMOCRACY) that determines whether you are OK or whether you are part of the "axis of evil".
The US will happily fund and support a tyrannical and unpopular dictator. Noriega, Saddam, Zia-ul-Haq come to mind immediately.
The US will happily support or even re-install anti-democratic and despotic rulers as long as they keep the oil flowing. Saudi King Abdullah and the King of Kuwait come to mind.
The US will happily train volunteers in guerilla warfare and inhuman combat tactics when it serves their purpose, and leave them behind once they are done. OBL and the Mujahedin
THe US will happily condone torture, if it serves their purpose. Abu Ghraib, Gitmo

Sure, you are right that indigenous communities should take responsibility for themselves. But tell me, what was pakistan to do when their military dictator was being funded by the US? What were the nicaraguans to do when their leader was a CIA asset? What were the shiites to do when their despotic leader was allowed to remain in charge in spite of US promises to the contrary ( any count on how many people were exterminated as a result?). What are the democratic forces in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to do when their leaders are actively supported even though they stand for discriminatory sexist fundamentalist policies?

No doubt the indigenous populations have their share of responsibility... but the US is certainly not innocent of making it near impossible.
Hamas has been unable to contribute ANYTHING since nobody wishes to accept the results of the free and fair elections of palestine. IF your leaders can hob-nob with an unsavoury character like Saddam or Noriega or Zia ( who each stood for their particular brand of repression and violence) then why the sudden scruples when it comes to a DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PARTY?
The simple fact is that the Palestinian people have chosen Hamas to represent them. WHo the hell are we to decide who they can or can not vote for? The DUTY of the rest of the world is to talk to Hamas. Om the negotiating table it is expedient that the demand for Israel's destruction is retracted. But that can ONLY take place when they talk. TO demand concessions prior to talks is unjust. I can assure you that Hamas is practical enough to realize tat it cannot expect a solution that involves the elimination of Israel. But that demand can only be discussed at the negotiating table.
In ANY CASE< as a SOVEREIGN NATION with a DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED LEGISLATURE, it is perfectly within Hamas' rights to arm their populations. Granted it is not the best move, but again if we are to hold up the pretence of "democracy" then we must also respect the sovereignty and executive control over palestinian territories granted by the free and fair election. Nobody bloody well asks the Israelis to disarm even though they kill AT LEAST 10 palestinians for every israeli. If we are talking numbers, then the Israelis are 10 times as violent and deadly as the palestinians, yet all demands of disarmament are made to Hamas. Israel continues its constant breach of UN resolutions, yet the onus is placed on the shattered nation of palestine.
Well whatver Saddam was, he succeeded in implementing a secular policy that involved all segments of society including women. Under him, the tensionsbetween the ethnic and religious groups were not so big. The US was warned prior to entering Iraq that removing saddam would cause the situation to explode.
Also prior to the US invasion , Iraq was free of Al Qaeda. The fact that it is now present in Iraq entirely thanks to the US. The alleged "links" between AQ and saddam are completely fictitious, but their obvious presence there NOW is NOT.
SInce the IRaq war was unilateral ( initiated under the guise of broken UN resolutions - what a joke- and WMDs - another joke) the resultant mess is ENTIRELY the US' fault.

Look if Canada came in and decided that it owned Alaska, mexico came in and decided it owned california, do you think the US would just "get over it"? Absolutely not. You would fight the fight for generations under the belief that Alaska and California are US territory. Just because Israel has existed your whole life, does not mean that the Palestinians should be expected to be A-okay about it.

This is further made impossible when Israel continues its illegal settlements as well as the inhuman blockade of Gaza. Whether you like it or not, the Israelis are the interlopers/ insurgents and they will be viewed as such. Today's world requires a two state solution. But the focus is all wrong. The focus is being put on selling it to the Israelis. The Israelis should be ahppy that the option is even on the table, and they should be happy and grateful for whatever they get. It is the Palestinian population that has been made into hungry refugees that fight for their daily survival. If it isn't an Israeli incursion that will kill them, it may just be starvation as a result of the clockade. It is a complete desecration of justice when demands are placed on the poorest, most desperate, most threatened nation that was arbitrarily evicted by the decision of external powers.
The Palestinians are the wronged party who live dangerous and depleted lives. Yet you also demand that they remove any last vestiges of national sovereignty so you can bestow your benevolence upon them. Honestly dude, how realistic is that. How would YOU react under the same circumstances.
First of all they are POTENTIAL attacks that may perhaps kill MANY LESS than the US kills. The 3000 dead of 9/11 have translated into 500,000 dead Iraqis. OF COURSE its one sided when the violence perpetrated is so one sided. I consider 500,000 dead in a war based on a US LIE to be FAR MORE IMPORTANT than US paranoia at losing fewer people than are killed by your indigenous weapons industry. Americans kill more than 11,000 american each year with your guns. But i can assure you that no tyrant ever killed half a million people in Iraq. You are a greater danger to yourselves.

As i have said many times i agree that the local populations must take responsibility for themselves. But unfortunately that is not possible as long as the US continues to support dictators, guerilla groups and support violent regimes responsible for MANY MORE DEATHS than their enemies.
Well perhaps it would be possible if the US decided to butt out. But apparently global justice is what the US decides, and thus every decision msut be rubber stamped by the US for it to work. The UN decided that Israel was building illegal settlements and encroaching upon palestinian land. BUt of course the US will never demand ANYTHING of israel. RIce went the furthest by "discussing" the matter with Olmert. Whoop dee doo.
Global justice is a farce as long as the ultimate authority is US approval.

But, why single out the US when:

1) Other nations have been found in non-compliance with international resolutions?

2) Other nations have not agreed to the treaty laid out by the ICC?

3) Other nations have agreed to sign BILATERAL immunity agreements?

And,

4) Other nations have a general attitude of demanding adherence to UN resolutions while being in complete violation themselves?

...unless, as being evident, you have a problem with the US in particular...even though the US is doing exactly what other nations are doing themselves?

The truth is, EVERY nation in the world generally acts in ways to protect its own self-interests...which means, at times, supporting dictatorships, protecting their own economies and businesses, and even turning a blind eye to examples of human rights violations.

So why, again, single out the US when other nations are acting, themselves, in ways that protect their own self interests?

Could it be that you personally expect the US to act in a more idealistic way than all other nations...even though the US does EXACTLY what other nations do to various extremes?

Well, if Hamas truly felt that the state of Israel has the right to exist, why wouldn't they just come out and say that Israel has a right to exist?

Surely, this would help bring Israel and her allies to the negotiation table with Hamas as being a more acceptable player (to them) in promoting peace in the region and a much more realized potential for a truely peaceful-and acceptable to both parties-two-state solution.

Evidently, if Hamas is unwilling to simply and publicly realize the very evident fact that Israel isn't just going to go away be making such a statement, what hope of peace between the Israel and the Palestinians is there-by way of Hamas-within such an environment that Hamas perpetuates?

The implied notion that Saddam's government was "all-inclusive" and peace-provoking along ethnic, cultural, or religious lines is complete nonsense considering the actual environment on the ground that Shiites and Kurds (and other groups) lived within while Iraq was being run by Saddam.

And, in addition, the notion that the Iraq War was a "unilateral" action by the US is also complete nonsense since other nations besides the US actively supported this war and also, to various degrees of participation, played active military roles in this war...and still do.

History often plays a role in helping guide decision-makers, in the present sense, by explaining how events took place in the past.

But, on the other hand, history can often be used as a crutch for decision-makers, in the present sense, if they focus all of their attention on history.

(Heck, its extremely hard to find ANY ethnic, cultural, racial, or religious group that DOESN'T have a beef with some other ethnic, cultural, racial, or religious group.)

Of course, Israel and her allies are guilty of past and present actions that may have harmed Palestinians in some way.

But, the Palestinians and her allies are also guilty of past and present actions that may have harmed Israelis in some way.

So, rather than harp on history or events that will soon be history, how do you think the Israelis and Palestinians should settle their differences...keeping in mind the doubt that Israel will simply go away?

(Personally speaking, I think you are an idealist...which is ok. I, on the other hand, tend to be a realist...which might explain some of the differences in our positions. )

*[I'd add that your "Canada/Mexico taking over parts of the US analogy" isn't an accurate anology regarding the current Israel - Palestinian conflict since that area was a part of the Ottoman Empire and later a British Mandate before the current conflict began in the 1940's. And, throughout history before that, that area had been under the control of various peoples...and not just Arabs or Jews who happened to live there. It's a mess, I will admit.]

No doubt at all. However the contrast between the CLAIM of being a good ally, a world benefactor and a bastion of democracy and its actual ACTIONS, is particularly stark in the case of the US. Perhaps it is a result of more media coverage and closer international scrutiny. However the US is more involved in the local politics of foreign nations than any other. It is the most vocal nation regarding the duties and obligations of other nations, and it is infinitely more powerful than any other nation on the planet. With power comes responsibility.

As the most powerful nation, as the world leader, as the alleged bastion of justice and democracy, the US cannot justify its actions by the actions of smaller and less powerful states. It claims to be setting global standards. That means that it should be doing as it SAYS. Because until it does, the smaller and less powerful states can always point to you and say "well they are doing it".

OF course i can understand that you may find it unfair that the US is held to higher standards, but that is a natural result of your successive admins casting themselves in the role as the world leaders.

Realpolitik. I'm all for it. I have absolutely no problems with a nation looking out for itself. But i respect the chinese more for being straightforward about it. They will deal with ANYBODY to safeguard their interests, but at least they aren't hypocritical about it.

What possibly burns people more than anything else are the false claims that the US stands for global democracy ( when they are actively supporting brutal dictators) the hypocrisy of condemning others for Human rights violations, (when they are clearly in breach themselves) and boykotting regimes under the guise of disliking their extremism ( again while supporting others who are guilty of the same).

ANd yes this brings a LOT of attention on the US because its statements/policies/principles are often in direct opposition to their actions. And it engenders a lot of hatred because when the US is accused of supporting dictators, or of human rights violations or of any of the number of things the US uses as excuses to fuck with other nations, it will either deny it or claim that it is "different". It's a very clear "do as i say, don't do as i do" situation.
Again as the nation that has been decimated, as the poorest, least organized and most fractured nation, as the nation that has been EVICTED in favor of millions of immigrants, i have always found it incredible that the onus is on the palestinians. If any party in this conflict is practicaly incapable of changing things it is the palestinians. They are the party with the least power, the least wealth, the least organization, the least cohesion, the least governmental writ, and the least capacity for change. They are already living ont he brink of starvation, with no economy and with no state to speak of. How much more should they give. THey are without a doubt the biggest losers in this conflict. They have lost their land, they ahve lost their sovereignty, their economy, their self-determination, their ability to defend themselves EVERYTHING. How much more should they give. To retract the demand for Israel's destruction before the benevolent powers will deign to speak to the democratically elected representatives of the people is akin to slapping them across the face with their irrelevance.

There is no doubt that any solution for peace will inevitably require a two-state solution. However one cannot place demands PRIOR to negotiations. TO do so will mean that Hamas enter the talks already defeated. And no party or nation can do that. For Hamas it is particularly problematic as their support comes from the fierce nationalism they stand for. To accept this is an acceptance of reality.

The ONLY and i repeat ONLY thing Israel and the US has to do is agree to holding talks WITHOUT any pre-requisites. Once talks have started they will INEVITABLY lead to Hamas dropping its demand for Israel's destruction. But you cannot expect a nationalistic party to retract demands before they actually start talking.
No doubt tensions existed, but i can assure you that Saddam definately still had them working together ( this is what made Iraq the main regional power). Regarding the Kurds, they have always had a rough time both in Iraq and in Turkey.

Anyhow it is only natural that ethnic tensions erupt when the country is pluged into war and destruction. It would NOT have erupted in the same manner had the US not invaded and destroyed the country.
come ON dude.. The US invaded Iraq IN SPITE of UN decisions to the contrary. It invaded IN SPITE of Hans BLix stating there were no WMDs. The action was unilateral in the sense that it was clearly spearheaded by the US. The US is fighting this war almost single handedly. the "coalition of the Willing" was and is more or less a joke. The only big power siding with the US in this conflict is the UK. And it is a fact that the Iraq war was started on the behest of the US> No other nation would ( or could) have suggested or spearheaded such action.
Well the analogy was made to explain the emotions involved. When what you perceive as your land is arbitrarily given to an OUTSIDER BY OUTSIDERS, you will cling to the injustice for generations. ESPECIALLY when the injustice continues to deprive you and your nation of its fundamental rights.

Imagine yourself living in a place that has been ruled by various rulers for generations who never gave you self determination.. yet when the rulers decide to leave, they do so after having given the land away to somebody that doesn't even belong to the area. The creation of Israel was a travesty against the indigenous people.

It is true that after