Mundine KO's Critics

[Grammatron]

Suddenly responded to this point every bit as eloquently as I would have liked to have responded to it. If you think I'm 'blaming' the USA for the terrorist attacks, I can't help you. All I can say is you're letting your sensitivities cloud your better judgement. Take a breath.

Fair enough, then perhaps you can enlighten us all as to what exactly US did to warrant that terrorist attack. Sorry to thread jack the boxing thread.

 

[Suddenly]

Are you talking about Manifesto or Maudine?

Manifesto

The comment by Maudine as it stood is inapropriate IMO. It at least in large part places blame on America.

I'd agree that he spoke poorly, but I have doubts that any "blame" he placed on America meant he blamed America to the exclusion of the terrorists. The real story with Maudine is that he's a guy that gets hit in the head for a living, a reporter suprises him with a hot button question, and his answer was not followed up with clarifying questions. Who knows what he meant. I think this is what Manifesto was getting at.

There are better ways to broach the subject. I think most Americans are willing to discuss foreign policy and our mistakes. It is the pompus and arrogant attitude that it is our fault and no blame is placed on the perpatrators (as in this case) that angers Americans.

So whenever someone discusses 9-11 and American acts that possibly led to the attacks, they need to say "the terrorists are bad?" Can we at some point assume this? Isn't it an indicator of our "pompus and arrogant attitude" that when someone doesn't make a clear statement that "terrorists are bad" when discussing 9-11, Americans complain? It seems the common tactic is not to conceed that maybe we have done some pretty bad things in the mid-east that would lead us to expect something of this nature, but that doesn't excuse the acts of the terrorists. We just get on a high horse and make accusations that they "blame America." Why? Because they don't every time make it explicit that they do not blame America for the deaths, only that this sort of thing is to be expected when you do less than good things to other countries?

Nowhere does Manifesto make the blame apparent either. Sorry but I don't accept your point. The statement is provocative. If a friend of yours died as a result of a crime and I said to you he brought it on himself I would think that you would find that insulting.

Not necessarily. Depends on the circumstances. Say he makes a big deal that he carries 10K cash wherever he goes and gets mugged in the parking lot and dies of his injuries? I place no moral blame on my friend but I would have to conceed he brought it on himself to some extent. This wouldn't excuse the mugger one little bit. I would however give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't mean to blame my friend to the exclusion of the mugger, and that is my point. When tragedy happens, it is human nature to look for fault on the part of the victim. This is called a survival instinct. Dwelling on evil is pointless, learning from mistakes is not. I'm willing to assume people aren't blaming the victim when they point out things the victim could have done to prevent the crime.

The 9-11 circumstance is different because no sane person is blaming the actual victims. The contention is that the U.S. acted in a way where such an attack could be expected, but didn't prevent it, and thus was a partial cause of the attack. How is this blaming the victims? America was not the victim. The people who died, who lost loved ones are the victims. They are not being blamed by anyone in any fashion.

The statement IS insulting. It might have been unitentional and was done so innocently but it was insulting nonethless. Manifesto might not be able to recognize why this might be insulting so it was wrong to attack him but he knows now. I doubt that will stop him from using provocative and insulting language in the future.

We will see...

I've had disagreements with Manifesto in the past, and my "defense" of him is limited to this thread. It is possible I'm missing some context. I just think he has a point that Americans in general haven't approached 9-11 very rationally or even handedly. I fear he has a point and history will judge us very harshly in this regard.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

People are hacked off at the US for their foreign interventions which, while usually painted as being for the most noble reasons, always seem to manage to benefit the US or would have if it didn't go pear-shaped (such as in Vietnam).

Muslims, in particular, see the US as forever acting against them. This is reflected by the sheer number of times the US has used her right to veto to support Israel in the UN. As I have pointed out before, these resolutions were not merely Israel v a couple of Israel-hating Middle-East countries. They were resolutions voted for by at least 100 countries. Resolutions vetoed include:

33/110: Living conditions of the Palestinian people
33/113C: Condemnation of Israeli human rights record in occupied territories
34/532E: Return of inhabitants expelled by Israel
34/113: Request for report on living conditions of Palestinians in occupied Arab countries.

There are at least 50 resolutions like these since 1978, all being vetoed by the US, with a maximum of two other countries against the resolution- one if you don't count Israel. In all resolutions at least 100 nations voted in favour for the resolution. Oops, except 33/113C which only managed a paltry 97.

Now, I don't think Osama bin Laden is particularly interested in the plight of the Palestinian. From what I've read, it looks as though Osama is hacked off because his house (when I say house, think of the "Houses" in Dune like Artredies and Harkkonnen - I don't know the technical term for it in Saudi Arabia) isn't in power. Apparently, the house that is in power gained power with American help. But he finds and endless stream of sympathisers thanks to America's actions.

If you want to discuss it further, start a new thread.

 

[Suddenly]

Fair enough, then perhaps you can enlighten us all as to what exactly US did to warrant that terrorist attack. Sorry to thread jack the boxing thread.

Nothing "warrants" it. That's the point. One can act in a way that should lead to a particular response. We know that they think we've been propping up dictatorships in the mid-east for years. Heck, as far as I know we have been. This doesn't excuse the killing of innocents, but it is a cause as to why it happened.

The United States has policies that make people mad. When those people act out we have to conceed that our actions caused the reaction. This has nothing to do with morality. It's just a fact. It really bothers me that even now as I examine this fact I feel some need for a "terrorism is bad, bad" disclaimer. I mean, is terrorism exactly a new concept? When someone bombs a bus in Israel we recognize that there is a political cause. When the IRA blew something up, likewise. We deplore the act but we look to the root causes and figure out why someone is so angry.

But when someone hits us we just stop at "evil?"

 

[RandFan]

Thanks for the response.

Can we at some point assume this? Isn't it an indicator of our "pompus and arrogant attitude" that when someone doesn't make a clear statement that "terrorists are bad" when discussing 9-11, Americans complain?

It could be an indication of some people's arrogant attitude. It could be an indicator of frustration and sensitivity on the part of others. I think it arrogant and pompus to assume that all or most Americans are pompus or arrogant. We are a diverse people with many different reasons for our strong feelings about 911 and our reactions to them.

It seems the common tactic is not to concede that maybe we have done some pretty bad things in the mid-east...

I have conceded on this forum that we have made many mistakes in the mid-east, South America, the Philippines, etc. I get angry with those who only see our failures. Foreign relations and diplomacy are difficult matters. Yes many of the mistakes are simply incomprehensible in hindsight and even more so when you consider that we still make many of the same mistakes to this day. But we don't just make mistakes and we have competing and contradictory interests throughout the world. And we get allot RIGHT. Sadly when we do the right thing we often don't even get credit for it. We tried to feed Muslims in Somalia. We fought to end genocide against Muslims in Kosovo and Bosnia. We have given more humanitarian aid to many Muslim nations than other affluent Muslim nations.

But this is not what is discussed or is even cared about. It is our relationship with Israel that is first and foremost along with the fact that we have not always been even handed in our treatment of Israelis and Palestinians.

You probably wont see Manifesto or many of the others who rush to blame America point out the good that we do. It is this inconsistency and hypocrisy that I find so distasteful and the reason for my sharp reaction.

Say he makes a big deal that he carries 10K cash wherever he goes and gets mugged in the parking lot and dies of his injuries? I place no moral blame on my friend but I would have to concede he brought it on himself to some extent.

Hardly justifies my making a big issue out of it to his friends and family.

I've had disagreements with Manifesto in the past, and my "defense" of him is limited to this thread. It is possible I'm missing some context. I just think he has a point that Americans in general haven't approached 9-11 very rationally or even handedly. I fear he has a point and history will judge us very harshly in this regard.

If history only sees the bad then you may be right.

 

[RandFan]

People are hacked off at the US for their foreign interventions which, while usually painted as being for the most noble reasons, always seem to manage to benefit the US or would have if it didn't go pear-shaped (such as in Vietnam).

Muslims, in particular, see the US as forever acting against them. This is reflected by the sheer number of times the US has used her right to veto to support Israel in the UN. As I have pointed out before, these resolutions were not merely Israel v a couple of Israel-hating Middle-East countries. They were resolutions voted for by at least 100 countries. Resolutions vetoed include:

(emphasis mine)

A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest. My apologies to Paul Simon.

Muslims in particular don't have a free press. Muslims in particular are ruled by dictators. Muslims in particular don't have due process. Muslims in particular do not have freedom of speech. Muslims in particular live in sub standard conditions with no redress. Muslims in particular don't have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness but live at the pleasure of their leaders.

Muslims in particular see America as the cause of their discontent and blame little or nothing on their own system of government. Which is convenient for the Arafats of the world who pocket western contributions while shouting jihad.

 

[Suddenly]

.
If history only sees the bad then you may be right.

When I say I fear history I'm speaking to our international stance following 9-11 and not to why the attack occured. I think we are undergoing an episode of a type of national madness, and we are not acquitting ourselves well in the wake of tragedy.

However, that is a whole different discussion.

Also, dealing with my "murdered friend" hypo doesn't it seem dispositive how that message of "brought it on himself" is communicated"? One extreme would be you calling me at 4 A.M. and giggling and saying it. The other is me asking for your opinion and you giving it to me. I think I'm assuming the latter and you are assuming more towards the former. Just a thought.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

(emphasis mine)

A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest. My apologies to Paul Simon.

Muslims in particular don't have a free press.

Except for al-Jazeera.

Muslims in particular are ruled by dictators.

Which they are fighting against.

Muslims in particular don't have due process.

Which they are fighting against.

Muslims in particular do not have freedom of speech.

Debatable. There are plenty of Muslims who are writing on the subject of freedom.

Muslims in particular live in sub standard conditions with no redress.

You've never been to a Muslim country. This is like saying that Americans live in sub standard conditions with no redress, and using the homeless as the basis for your case.

Muslims in particular don't have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness but live at the pleasure of their leaders.

Over simplified, and as I say they are fighting against this.

Muslims in particular see America as the cause of their discontent and blame little or nothing on their own system of government. Which is convenient for the Arafats of the world who pocket western contributions while shouting jihad.

Another over-simplification. The Muslims don't blame America for the problems of their government, they blame Americans for what they do against them.

Put it this way: Say that George Bush enacts legislation which denies all Americans freedom of speech, makes elections illegal, and legislates for the execution of anyone deemed to be anti-Bush. Say, at the same time, Australia is bombing Hawaii.

Now, you would have a freedom movement against the draconian Bush legislation. You would also have a large number of Americans who hate Australia for what they are doing to Hawaii. Would you say "Americans see Australia as the cause of their discontent and blame little or nothing on their own system of government."?

 

[Grammatron]

Nothing "warrants" it. That's the point. One can act in a way that should lead to a particular response. We know that they think we've been propping up dictatorships in the mid-east for years. Heck, as far as I know we have been. This doesn't excuse the killing of innocents, but it is a cause as to why it happened.

The United States has policies that make people mad. When those people act out we have to conceed that our actions caused the reaction. This has nothing to do with morality. It's just a fact. It really bothers me that even now as I examine this fact I feel some need for a "terrorism is bad, bad" disclaimer. I mean, is terrorism exactly a new concept? When someone bombs a bus in Israel we recognize that there is a political cause. When the IRA blew something up, likewise. We deplore the act but we look to the root causes and figure out why someone is so angry.

But when someone hits us we just stop at "evil?"

Just out of curiosity, do you think America brought WWII, or more specifically attack on Pearl Harbor upon itself?

 

[Grammatron]

(emphasis mine)

A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest. My apologies to Paul Simon.

Muslims in particular don't have a free press. Muslims in particular are ruled by dictators. Muslims in particular don't have due process. Muslims in particular do not have freedom of speech. Muslims in particular live in sub standard conditions with no redress. Muslims in particular don't have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness but live at the pleasure of their leaders.

Muslims in particular see America as the cause of their discontent and blame little or nothing on their own system of government. Which is convenient for the Arafats of the world who pocket western contributions while shouting jihad.

This reminds me of what Aristotle once said:

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side.
-Aristotle

 

[RandFan]

Except for al-Jazeera.

Wow, one news outlet. That is what you call freedom of the press? How many outlets that are critical of Muslim governments do the people have access to.

If you call this freedom of the press then you simply do not understand what freedom of the press is.

RandFan
Muslims in particular are ruled by dictators.

Which they are fighting against.

Where?

RandFan
Muslims in particular don't have due process.

Which they are fighting against.

Where?

RandFan
Muslims in particular do not have freedom of speech.

Debatable. There are plenty of Muslims who are writing on the subject of freedom.

Considering that there are statistically few Muslims that live in countries with democratic rule it is hardly debatable. There is always the exception to the rule. Yes there are Muslims that have free speech but that sadly is the exception.

You've never been to a Muslim country. This is like saying that Americans live in sub standard conditions with no redress, and using the homeless as the basis for your case.

Oh cool, then the many Muslims who have not been to America have no basis for their case.

Actually I was basing my statement on a human rights watch article that I read that reported that that the majority of Muslims lived in impoverished conditions. I can't find the link right now so I will withdraw the claim until I can.

Over simplified...

No more over simplified than your statement.

Muslims, in particular, see the US as forever acting against them.

Thank you for noticing.

Put it this way: Say that George Bush enacts legislation which denies all Americans freedom of speech, makes elections illegal, and legislates for the execution of anyone deemed to be anti-Bush. Say, at the same time, Australia is bombing Hawaii.

Now, you would have a freedom movement against the draconian Bush legislation. You would also have a large number of Americans who hate Australia for what they are doing to Hawaii. Would you say "Americans see Australia as the cause of their discontent and blame little or nothing on their own system of government."?

If George Bush was able to control ALL media, if George Bush was able to disseminate stories around the clock about how Australia kills and tortures American citizens, etc. If George Bush could use his control of the media to convince the Americans that Australia was the Great Satan and that it exported its evil throughout the world thus causing pain and misery for all Americans, then YES! Absolutely, it is human nature to rally together to defeat a common enemy. America to many Muslims is the enemy of both the leaders and the people.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. - Arabian proverb

 

[RandFan]

Suddenly,

I have a great deal of respect for you. I whish that more people would use your posts as an example of how to carry out a reasoned debate or discussion.

Sadly I must include myself as one of those people. I try, truly I try.

When I say I fear history I'm speaking to our international stance following 9-11 and not to why the attack occured. I think we are undergoing an episode of a type of national madness, and we are not acquitting ourselves well in the wake of tragedy.

However, that is a whole different discussion.

Agreed (as to the different discussion). Let me just say that there are real reasons for being concerned. However I don't quite agree with you. I realize that times of increased jingoism are historically fraught with problems particularly concerning civil liberties. But our security is at issue and we must make some difficult decisions. I understand and respect your point of view I just disagree, to a degree.

Also, dealing with my "murdered friend" hypo doesn't it seem dispositive how that message of "brought it on himself" is communicated"? One extreme would be you calling me at 4 A.M. and giggling and saying it. The other is me asking for your opinion and you giving it to me. I think I'm assuming the latter and you are assuming more towards the former. Just a thought.

Excelent point. You have knack for seeing the other side and illustrating the difference.

Yes, I would agree 100%. I would even go further and say that it would be appropriate if we were talking soberly about the incident and the events that lead to it and I offered my opinion as a conclusion to those events. "Look, he brought it on himself."

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Wow, one news outlet. That is what you call freedom of the press? How many outlets that are critical of Muslim governments do the people have access to.
If you call this freedom of the press then you simply do not understand what freedom of the press is.

You claimed the Muslims don't have a free press. Al-Jazeera is a free-speech news outlet in every Muslim country.

Where?

Where?

Algerian parties fighting for democracy, specifically Mouvement pour la démocratie en Algérie
Malaysia fighting for democracy
Syrians fighting for democracy
Saudi petition for democracy

Let me know if you'd like more examples.

Your argument that Bush could control the media and convince the American people that Australia is the Great Satan (and, by implication, that the Muslim rulers have done just that) presupposes that people are stupid. They aren't. You are also forgetting that we are in the information age. People have access to the internet now.

Your argument that the Muslims will side blindly with their leaders because they both happen to hate Americans is daft. The Arabian proverb is meaningless.

And in any case, it isn't just the Arabs who think so. Read James 4:4.

 

[Suddenly]

Just out of curiosity, do you think America brought WWII, or more specifically attack on Pearl Harbor upon itself?

If you mean can we identify U.S. acts that were causes for such an attack? I would imagine. Again, this isn't speaking to morality, just to geopolitical reality and cause and effect. I wouldn't dismiss such an assertion out of hand or find such an investigation unpatriotic or offensive. That is a question I never seriously examined, however.

 

[Suddenly]

I don't mean to go backwards here, but I think I put my finger on what was kinda bothering me about Maudine's (the boxer) comment and the reaction towards it. I think there is a double standard being applied.

Maudine's comment is viewed as offensive not necessarily because of what he meant but rather because there are those of us were offended. In other words, his words are being understood from the listener's point of view.

On the other comments made by Americans w/r/t the attacks are expected to be understood with respect to the point of view of the speaker. We act shocked when others see a message other than the one intended, even though that is very possibly the treatment we are giving speakers such as Maudine.

I'm being wildly general here, to be sure. It does seem a valid point, however.

 

[RandFan]

You claimed the Muslims don't have a free press. Al-Jazeera is a free-speech news outlet in every Muslim country.

By this logic if George Bush eliminated all news outlest except Fox News then we would still have a free press.

Sorry Mr. Manifesto. While Al-Jazeera is a good step forward it is hardly evidence of a truly free press. If it were too critical of Muslim Leaders it would be banned.

Let me know if you'd like more examples.

Anecdotes. When the people who regularly march in the street and burn American flags and burn American leaders in effigy march in the street to protest and burn their own leaders in effigy I will believe that there is real opposition. Until then we are just talking about a handful of trouble makers that are easily dealt with by the various regimes.

Your argument that Bush could control the media and convince the American people that Australia is the Great Satan (and, by implication, that the Muslim rulers have done just that) presupposes that people are stupid. They aren't. You are also forgetting that we are in the information age. People have access to the internet now.

Your logic is flawed and quite demonstrably wrong.

The people in North Korea are starving to death enmasse. There is no electricity, no medicine, little food yet aid workers say that the people readily and happily talk of their loyalty to Kim Jong Il. The North Koreans are no more "stupid" than Americans or anyone else. They simply have been endoctrinated.

Likewise Muslims have been endoctrinated. There is little oppostion and they are fed a steady diet from religious leaders and the government.

Your argument that the Muslims will side blindly with their leaders because they both happen to hate Americans is daft.

When large numbers of Muslims rise up and march against the precieved ills of America but don't march to protest their own very real problems at home then it is quite clear that these individuals see the world in a verry narrow view.

The Arabian proverb is meaningless.

That is your opinion but it serves the leaders of Muslim nations quite well. They would like for you and their constiuents to believe this.

And in any case, it isn't just the Arabs who think so. Read James 4:4.

I didn't say it was just the Arabs did I?

And thank you, religion is a powerful endocrinator. Fortunately western governments allow for more than one religion. Muslim nations usually don't tolerate other religions very well. A single state run religion can be quite powerful in controling the citizens of a country. This has been known at least since Constatine and the birth of the Catholic churh.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Anecdotes. When the people who regularly march in the street and burn American flags and burn American leaders in effigy march in the street to protest and burn their own leaders in effigy I will believe that there is real opposition. Until then we are just talking about a handful of trouble makers that are easily dealt with by the various regimes.

No, they're just going to jail and being executed. These people fighting for democracy are doing more in their shortened lifetimes than you, your children, and your children's children will ever do for freedom.

Your logic is flawed and quite demonstrably wrong.

The people in North Korea are starving to death enmasse. There is no electricity, no medicine, little food yet aid workers say that the people readily and happily talk of their loyalty to Kim Jong Il. The North Koreans are no more "stupid" than Americans or anyone else. They simply have been endoctrinated.

Likewise Muslims have been endoctrinated. There is little oppostion and they are fed a steady diet from religious leaders and the government.

So tell me how you know the North Koreans have been endoctrinated (sic). From the propoganda parades? The Kim Jong Il owned press? There are those fighting for democracy and human rights in HK. You're too insulated from world politics and events to have heard of them.

Your continuing attitude of the Muslims being sheep following their leader betrays the deep ignorance you have of the Muslims.

When large numbers of Muslims rise up and march against the precieved ills of America but don't march to protest their own very real problems at home then it is quite clear that these individuals see the world in a verry narrow view.

They have public approval to march against the US. They risk being executed if they march against the government. What purpose does it serve for the resistance to be brought out in the open and killed?

That is your opinion but it serves the leaders of Muslim nations quite well. They would like for you and their constiuents to believe this.

I didn't say it was just the Arabs did I?

And thank you, religion is a powerful endocrinator. Fortunately western governments allow for more than one religion. Muslim nations usually don't tolerate other religions very well. A single state run religion can be quite powerful in controling the citizens of a country. This has been known at least since Constatine and the birth of the Catholic churh.

You really are ignorant of the Muslim religion. Read this link first, then take a good, long look around this site. If nothing else, at least click on 'misconceptions'. Until you learn a bit about Islam, I'm not going to reply to any more of your ignorant statements. I simply don't have the time to rebut each and every one of your misconceptions- there seem to be just too many of them.

 

[RandFan]

No, they're just going to jail and being executed. These people fighting for democracy are doing more in their shortened lifetimes than you, your children, and your children's children will ever do for freedom.

Again, anecdotes. Let me clarify something here. In no way should any of my words be construed to mean that I have a low opinion of Muslims as a people. They are simply human beings and are as capable of bravery and compassion as any group of people. They are by and large hard working individuals who care mostly for their families and want to see their children happy and content.

That being said, the demonstrable evidence is undeniable. Muslims are not in large part rising up against the dictators who rule them.

So tell me how you know the North Koreans have been endoctrinated (sic). From the propoganda parades? The Kim Jong Il owned press? There are those fighting for democracy and human rights in HK. You're too insulated from world politics and events to have heard of them.

The facts remain. Human rights workers have told us time and time again that North Koreans even when alone speak favorably of their leader.

Your continuing attitude of the Muslims being sheep following their leader betrays the deep ignorance you have of the Muslims.

They have public approval to march against the US. They risk being executed if they march against the government. What purpose does it serve for the resistance to be brought out in the open and killed?

If the resistance were large enough it could overthrow the government like the revolutionaries in China, Russia, Cuba, etc. I don't know how many dissidents there are in Muslim countries but I do know that after hundreds of years little has changed.

You can ignore the evidence if you want but I don't see how I can.

I have to take care of something. I will deal with your link in a moment.

 

[Grammatron]

If you mean can we identify U.S. acts that were causes for such an attack? I would imagine. Again, this isn't speaking to morality, just to geopolitical reality and cause and effect. I wouldn't dismiss such an assertion out of hand or find such an investigation unpatriotic or offensive. That is a question I never seriously examined, however.

I think America "brought it upon itself" in WWII just as much as 9/11. Yes, there are direct reasons for why Japan chose to attack Pearl Harbor but they are just as dumb as the reasons for why 9/11 happened.

 

[Suddenly]

I think America "brought it upon itself" in WWII just as much as 9/11. Yes, there are direct reasons for why Japan chose to attack Pearl Harbor but they are just as dumb as the reasons for why 9/11 happened.

Can you elaborate this at all, or is this just a feeling you have? Beyond the sudden nature of the attacks there is very little the two attacks have in common.

P.H. was fully a military target. 9-11 was for the most part civilian
P.H. attack was from military forces of a soverign nation. 9-11 was not.
The U.S. was much more active internationally leading to 9-11 than Pearl Harbor.
Pearl Harbor had an obvious military purpose, the crippling of the U.S. Pacific fleet. 9-11 had no real military purpose beyond terror and symbolism.

One possible reason I don't find dumb is that in both cases we failed to predict and/or prevent either attack. I think the stigma placed on finding the cause of the 9-11 attacks (that cause=culpability) has kept us from evaluating what needs to be done in the future.