Time to kick Iran

[jsiv]

I will. Which one did you mean beside the "came to this world yesterday"-Remark?

#203, #217.

 

[jsiv]

For me it is. Because you didn't mention the countries that pose a humanitarian threat like the Genocides in Africa, for example. Guess what? This isn't big "Freedom-News" in the US [...]

It may not be at the top of the US government's priority list, but it is talked about in the media, even on FOX News (as evident by the fact that a quick search brings up several reports from just this week.)

People don't care though, nor are they particularly interested in hearing about it. It's the same old.

 

[Oliver]

Sweet!

Could I please ask for your interpretation of the phrase "Death to Israel?"

Perhaps it's another "mistranslation?"



Oliver, you live in bizarro world.

In the muslim language (which conspiracy speak is also derived from) Zionist means a jew that is not willing to submit to muslim leadership. In other words, an independent and free jew. These constitute a "threat." Muslims generally have no problems with jews as long as they get to rule over them. This kind of society with jews as second class citizens is part of their holy scripture. That is what extremists believe.

History and Israeli policies are of course also part of the equation today, but it's more complicated than just that.

Also, you keep saying that only Bush is a "war president," and while that may be true in the strictest sense of the word, Ahmadinejad is most definitely waging a war against Israel (and others.) Both through retoric and manipulation of opinion, and through the funding and arming of terrorist groups.

While I know it's more complicated than that - especially because the Muslim World has more than 20 Sub-Believe-System and they're not even friendly to each other, I still see no threat coming from Iran just because of this speech.

Quite frankly - I guess that the "Axis of Evil"-Speech was equally alarming than Ahmadinejad speech. So who's "evilier"?

And again, in contrast to Iran, we know for sure that the US is much more involved in dirty tactics, military interventions, foreign policies in the Middle East or whatever you wanna call it than Iran could ever dream of. That's a sad fact, but still a fact.

Claiming that religious beliefs don't guide Ahmadinejad's policies (both domestic and foreign) is pretty hilarious.

A few people here seem to think that Bush should have been dealt with preemptively, but that nutjobs like Ahmadinejad should be ignored until they actually start dropping bombs (which he already has, indirectly.) Funny.

No. It's funny that Ahmadinejad and Bush are pretty equal and that "Bush" is the more dangerous one if you look at it from both sides of the Story. So far, you didn't do that.

 

[Oliver]

It may not be at the top of the US government's priority list, but it is talked about in the media, even on FOX News (as evident by the fact that a quick search brings up several reports from just this week.)

People don't care though, nor are they particularly interested in hearing about it. It's the same old.

"People don't care because People aren't aware and care".
That's the explanation I found for this phenomena.

However: It's the Media's responsibility to make people aware and to straightway say: "F*** Iraq, this one is more urgent". That's exactly the point in which the US-Media fails on a broad basis.

Now you could argue that "Americans are lazy, selfish, Burger-devouring, sensationalism loving, ignorant, illiterate Idiots who don't care about the rest of the world", but I guess you also disagree with this simplifying view of America, don't you?

So what's the Answer for this phenoma if not:

A. Patriotic breading excluding a neutral View about the World
B. The Mainstream Media failing to show both sides
C. Both of the above

 

[jsiv]

While I know it's more complicated than that - especially because the Muslim World has more than 20 Sub-Believe-System and they're not even friendly to each other

While they don't always get along with each other, they generally hold the same opinions when it comes to jews and the west.

I still see no threat coming from Iran just because of this speech.

I didn't ask if you believed there was a threat, I asked what you believe he is saying. Do you still hold the nonsense opinion that he wants a peaceful co-existence with Israel, or are you going to admit that he was infact not "misinterpreted" and that he really does want Israel and the jews gone so he can carry out his plans to establish himself as the dominant power in the region unhindered?

And again, in contrast to Iran, we know for sure that the US is much more involved in dirty tactics, military interventions, foreign policies in the Middle East or whatever you wanna call it than Iran could ever dream of. That's a sad fact, but still a fact.

While that may be so, it doesn't change the fact that Ahmadinejad and his buddies are by no means innocent either. They have been engaging in indirect warfare for years.

No. It's funny that Ahmadinejad and Bush are pretty equal and that "Bush" is the more dangerous one if you look at it from both sides of the Story. So far, you didn't do that.

I do, but I also recognize that Ahmadinejad and other similar extremists in positions of power are threats too.

 

[jsiv]

"People don't care because People aren't aware and care".

No, people generally are aware.

However: It's the Media's responsibility to make people aware and to straightway say: "F*** Iraq, this one is more urgent". That's exactly the point in which the US-Media fails on a broad basis.

But Iraq is a more important issue for the United States right now. To claim otherwise is insane.

Now you could argue that "Americans are lazy, selfish, Burger-devouring, sensationalism loving, ignorant, illiterate Idiots who don't care about the rest of the world", but I guess you also disagree with this simplifying view of America, don't you?

So what's the Answer for this phenoma if not:

A. Patriotic breading excluding a neutral View about the World
B. The Mainstream Media failing to show both sides
C. Both of the above

No, I just don't think it's exclusive to America, and I think that claiming so is extremely dishonest.

Most of the western world is "selfish" and "uncaring" and exhibits the traits you describe. I know from my experience with people in Europe that this is true.

There comes a point when you have been exposed to so much pain and misery that you just stop caring and become indifferent.

"There's nothing we can do, so let's just focus on ourself and our interests instead."

Sad maybe, but it is simply a fact of life. Look out for yourself and your own first.

 

[Elizabeth I]

No, I'm accusing the US of playing "Good Cop - Bad Cop". You know: old LAPD-Style, "protecting the rich and kicking the blacks".

Oliver, "good cop, bad cop" is a method of interrogation in which one police officer (the "bad cop") assumes a threatening, even menacing, attitude toward the subject, while another apologizes for his colleague and assures the subject that he (the "good cop") is on the subject's side and will do his best to help him (the subject) out.

The idea is that the "bad cop" will scare the subject enough (or make him mad enough, or whatever) to respond to the "good cop's" friendly overtures and provide the information sought.

While I agree that the LAPD has certainly had its problems, most of which it brought on itself, "good cop, bad cop" has nothing to do with "protecting the rich and kicking the blacks." This example, while trivial, is nonetheless significant because it is a good illustration of how your assumption that the United States is the root of all evil and oppression in the world colors everything you say. You didn't even bother to find out the meaning of the phrase. You just added it to the mud you already planned to sling.

 

[Oliver]

While they don't always get along with each other, they generally hold the same opinions when it comes to jews and the west.

Nice to see that you understand that. So here's my Millon-Dollar-Question:
Why is that - and why has this nothing to do with the History of the modern state of Israel (Since the 1900's)?

I didn't ask if you believed there was a threat, I asked what you believe he is saying. Do you still hold the nonsense opinion that he wants a peaceful co-existence with Israel, or are you going to admit that he was infact not "misinterpreted" and that he really does want Israel and the jews gone so he can carry out his plans to establish himself as the dominant power in the region unhindered?

I guess he's saying that all the interventions (Zionism) in the Muslim World (Israel) sucks, wrong?

You don't understand: I believe there could have been Peace a long time ago if this was preferred by both sides. The Fact is: It isn't - on both sides.

While that may be so, it doesn't change the fact that Ahmadinejad and his buddies are by no means innocent either. They have been engaging in indirect warfare for years.

What Drama-Queens, aren't they? So after comparing both sides - who's the threat for World-Peace and who's not - in your opinion?

I do, but I also recognize that Ahmadinejad and other similar extremists in positions of power are threats too.

Everone in Power poses a threat. No question about it. My point is - if we, the western world, have to put our fingers in everything, then it should be in a way in which the rest of the world sees that we're doing the right thing.

And that's what we don't accept or do. Why?

No, people generally are aware.

Yes, they are - in the Meantime. But they weren't when it was important to make a War-Decision. Why is that in your opinion?

But Iraq is a more important issue for the United States right now. To claim otherwise is insane.

Of course, after the destabilized the region, it is an important question. That's why I think it would be a "Crybaby"-Tactic to sneak away from the mess they produced in the first place by invading the country.

No, I just don't think it's exclusive to America, and I think that claiming so is extremely dishonest.

It is exclusive to the US. I don't know any Media in the Western World that is in a similarly way biased, wrong, patriotic.

Most of the western world is "selfish" and "uncaring" and exhibits the traits you describe. I know from my experience with people in Europe that this is true.

Same answer: The US looks selfish in nearly every political way. Compare that argument against european Politics regarding Muslims and the Middle-East. They are between both sides, supporting Israels AND the Muslims Point of View.

There comes a point when you have been exposed to so much pain and misery that you just stop caring and become indifferent.

That's no excuse at all. Especially politically. People are suffering and dying because US politics, so the Media should take the neutral role and broadly explain the truth about the World.

"There's nothing we can do, so let's just focus on ourself and our interests instead."

Exactly. Get your own Country "in order" and then go out and play the "Freedom-Fighters".

Sad maybe, but it is simply a fact of life. Look out for yourself and your own first.

I certainly will whenever Germany passes laws or military interventions that are a matter of life and death.

Oliver, "good cop, bad cop" is a method of interrogation in which one police officer (the "bad cop") assumes a threatening, even menacing, attitude toward the subject, while another apologizes for his colleague and assures the subject that he (the "good cop") is on the subject's side and will do his best to help him (the subject) out.

The idea is that the "bad cop" will scare the subject enough (or make him mad enough, or whatever) to respond to the "good cop's" friendly overtures and provide the information sought.

While I agree that the LAPD has certainly had its problems, most of which it brought on itself, "good cop, bad cop" has nothing to do with "protecting the rich and kicking the blacks." This example, while trivial, is nonetheless significant because it is a good illustration of how your assumption that the United States is the root of all evil and oppression in the world colors everything you say. You didn't even bother to find out the meaning of the phrase. You just added it to the mud you already planned to sling.

I apologize for misinterpreting the "Good Cop - Bad Cop" phrase and I appreciate that you explained it to me to avoid further complications concerning translational differences concerning the phrase.

The US isn't the root of "all evil". Personally I think Humans and their stupid religions are the "root of all evil", well - they also invented the term.

Nevertheless - US Foreign Policies aren't a success for World Peace - quite the opposite. THAT'S what I'm complaining about - and unfortunately: That's the Burden of a so called "Super-Power". :">

 

[jsiv]

Nice to see that you understand that. So here's my Millon-Dollar-Question:
Why is that - and why has this nothing to do with the History of the modern state of Israel (Since the 1900's)?

Mohammed didn't like jews?

I guess he's saying that all the interventions (Zionism) in the Muslim World (Israel) sucks, wrong?

I'm surprised that you of all people choose to twist words in the very same way that you accuse others of doing. No, Oliver, he is not simply saying that "interventions in the muslim world are undesirable." He is calling for the complete destruction of the State of Israel and a return to the times when muslims got to rule over the jews.

You don't understand: I believe there could have been Peace a long time ago if this was preferred by both sides. The Fact is: It isn't - on both sides.

Absurd. The only way there can be peace is if Israel ceases to exist. I suppose you could consider the fact that the Israelis don't want to pack up and leave as meaning they don't want peace.

What Drama-Queens, aren't they? So after comparing both sides - who's the threat for World-Peace and who's not - in your opinion?

I don't consider the United States or Bush to be a threat to my world peace. Infact, I consider them to be my only real defense. I'm sure you could argue that the US was a "threat to world peace" during the cold war as well, but all I know is that people here were genuinely worried about their lives due to Norway's strategic location. Knowing that America was watching over us and acting as a deterrent to any attacks helped. There is a very real chance that the geography and borders of Norway would have been different today had it not been for our relationship with the United States after World War II.

They aren't perfect, nor will human nature ever permit them to be, but one thing is for sure... They are a hell of a lot better than the alternative.

Everone in Power poses a threat. No question about it. My point is - if we, the western world, have to put our fingers in everything, then it should be in a way in which the rest of the world sees that we're doing the right thing.

And that's what we don't accept or do. Why?

Sometimes we have good intentions that we fail to carry out in practice. We mean well, but just end up screwing things up. Sad, but true. Other times, we have to protect our own interests -- even if that is at the expense of others.

Yes, they are - in the Meantime. But they weren't when it was important to make a War-Decision. Why is that in your opinion?

I don't know. Where were you, and how much attention did you give it?

It is exclusive to the US. I don't know any Media in the Western World that is in a similarly way biased, wrong, patriotic.

Same answer: The US looks selfish in nearly every political way. Compare that argument against european Politics regarding Muslims and the Middle-East. They are between both sides, supporting Israels AND the Muslims Point of View.

Hilarious beyond belief. The opinions you hold are partly due to your cultural exposure, and there is no way you can be considered "unbiased."

The amount of nonsense pushed by Norwegian news outlets (like the State TV channels) is... substantial. Sometimes it's hard to notice, because we don't truly get to see things from "other side" either. We think what we're being told is the objective truth because we have been taught to believe so, and are reluctant to question it. I suspect the same is true to some extent in Germany.

A mentionable anecdote regarding them being "between both sides, supporting Israels AND the Muslims Point of View" is the fabulous Norwegian coverage of Arafat's funeral where the reporter broke into tears and was largely unable to provide any coherent coverage.

That's no excuse at all. Especially politically. People are suffering and dying because US politics, so the Media should take the neutral role and broadly explain the truth about the World.

You misunderstand. I am simply explaining the psychological aspect behind it. Increased media coverage isn't going to do much to change it, infact, it might just create even greater apathy.

Exactly. Get your own Country "in order" and then go out and play the "Freedom-Fighters".

There are still people in the US that want to save the world, and that is why we keep seeing things like this.

I certainly will whenever Germany passes laws or military interventions that are a matter of life and death.

Again, I don't think you quite understand. The genocides and starving children in AIDS-ridden third world regions like Africa do not affect the health of you and your loved ones, or your life in any meaningful way, and so there is very little incentive to care.

You will note that my comment was not about Iraq, but rather about the other on-going tragedies (like the genocides in Africa) that get less media attention and that people often display apathy towards.

I am telling you why that could be, and why it is something that can be seen in most of the western world. It is not an American phenomenon, simply a result of distance and overexposure to the point where one gets overwhelmed and tunes out.

 

[Gurdur]

Islam is not just a religion. It is a way of life that encompasses everything a follwer does. This includes politics.

No, that is only one form of "Islam". For other very different forms of Islam, see the various quiescent strands, see Sufi'ism, see Allawitism and the Kurdish strand, etc.

Funnily enough, politics divides Moslems just like it divides everyone else.

 

[Policenaut]

No, that is only one form of "Islam". For other very different forms of Islam, see the various quiescent strands, see Sufi'ism, see Allawitism and the Kurdish strand, etc.

Funnily enough, politics divides Moslems just like it divides everyone else.

Yes but those are a minority of the Muslim population of the world and a minority in their own various countries. And yes it does divide them. There are more than 70 different offshoots of Islam I believe and some see other sects as not "true Muslims" just like some orthodox Jews don't consider non-orthodox Jews "real Jews".

 

[Oliver]

No, that is only one form of "Islam". For other very different forms of Islam, see the various quiescent strands, see Sufi'ism, see Allawitism and the Kurdish strand, etc.

Funnily enough, politics divides Moslems just like it divides everyone else.

Let me illustrate it for Policenaut:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_Islam

• 1 Major Branches
  • 1.1 Sunni
  • 1.2 Shi`a
  • 1.3 Sufi
  • 1.4 Kharijite
• 2 Sunnism
  • 2.1 Schools of Fiqh
    • 2.1.1 Hanafi
      • 2.1.1.1 Barelwi
      • 2.1.1.2 Deobandi
    • 2.1.2 Hanbali
    • 2.1.3 Maliki
    • 2.1.4 Shafi'i
  • 2.2 Schools of Kalam
    • 2.2.1 Ash'ari
    • 2.2.2 Maturidi
    • 2.2.3 Murjite
    • 2.2.4 Mu'tazili
• 3 Shi`ism
  • 3.1 Twelvers
    • 3.1.1 Usooli
    • 3.1.2 Akhbari
    • 3.1.3 Shaykhi
    • 3.1.4 Alawi
    • 3.1.5 Alevi
  • 3.2 Ismailiyah
    • 3.2.1 Nizari
    • 3.2.2 Druze
    • 3.2.3 Bohras
      • 3.2.3.1 Dawoodi Bohras
      • 3.2.3.2 Sulamaini Bohras
      • 3.2.3.3 Alavi Bohras
  • 3.3 Zaiddiyah
• 4 Sufi Orders
  • 4.1 Bektashi
  • 4.2 Chishti
  • 4.3 Naqshbandi
  • 4.4 Oveyssi
  • 4.5 Qadiri
  • 4.6 Suhrawardiyya
• 5 Kharijite Sects
  • 5.1 Ibadi
  • 5.2 Sufri
• 6 Movements within sects
  • 6.1 Salafism
  • 6.2 Wahhabism
  • 6.3 Liberal
  • 6.4 Islamism
  • 6.5 Tablighi Jama'at
• 7 Other sects
  • 7.1 Zikri
  • 7.2 Ahmadiyya
  • 7.3 Moorish Science
  • 7.4 Nation of Islam
  • 7.5 Qur'an Alone
  • 7.6 Submitters
• 8 Related Faiths
  • 8.1 Yazidi
  • 8.2 Bábism
  • 8.3 Bahá'í Faith
  • 8.4 Sikhism
  • 8.5 Five Percenters

@Jsiv: I will reply to your post tomorrow - I'm tired as hell after a long day... :"/


ETA: I see Policenaut beat me to it.

 

[Gurdur]

Yes but those are a minority of the Muslim population of the world and a minority in their own various countries.

Really? What would be the majority in say Turkey? Tunisia? Algeria? Qatar? UAR? Secularised Moslems who do not inject much Islamism if any into politics,
or
political AND more extreme Islamist Moslems?

The point I'm getting at is that Islam, while theoretically a total way of life including politics, is much less than that for a great many Moslems indeed.

And yes it does divide them. There are more than 70 different offshoots of Islam I believe and some see other sects as not "true Muslims" just like some orthodox Jews don't consider non-orthodox Jews "real Jews".

Fair enough.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

I'd make a bold statement in that as far as intelligent religions go, Sufi Islam is probably the one I regard as such. I often think I'd like to be a member if only I could believe in God.

Oh well.

Main problem with Islamists, is that their ideology is so damn appealing to young kids who find this 'meaning' fed toward their lives. Imagine the idea that you are reviving Islam after centuries of it being 'manipulated' by kuffar scholars. You are going to dominate the world and get rid of all the immorality. Exciting.

Shame. As if there was only some guts to challenge this in a strong theological argument, rather than simply running off with 'Well, Islam is a religion of peace, those guys are not true Muslims' and then never speaking again, maybe they would start to listen.

 

[Gurdur]

I'd make a bold statement in that as far as intelligent religions go, Sufi Islam is probably the one I regard as such. I often think I'd like to be a member if only I could believe in God.

Sufi'ism is actually quite a nice strand for the most part.

Mind you, Sufi'ists are so gungho about accomodation and whatnot that they will very happily and ardently claim anyone good was a Sufi'ist, and by the time they've finished talking to you, they've claimed Abraham Lincoln and Albert Schweitzer were all secret Sufi'ists.

Main problem with Islamists, is that their ideology is so damn appealing to young kids who find this 'meaning' fed toward their lives. Imagine the idea that you are reviving Islam after centuries of it being 'manipulated' by kuffar scholars. You are going to dominate the world and get rid of all the immorality. Exciting.

Kids. You know what I mean?

Shame. As if there was only some guts to challenge this in a strong theological argument, rather than simply running off with 'Well, Islam is a religion of peace, those guys are not true Muslims' and then never speaking again, maybe they would start to listen.

They're trying this very hard now in Britain and in Germany. But extremism very often comes over as more sexy to young adults.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

They're trying this very hard now in Britain and in Germany. But extremism very often comes over as more sexy to young adults.

You read Syed Qutb's Milestones? Frightingly compelling.

It would be nice if the world saw this as a theological war rather than a military one, but I think Bush screwed that up with the 'With us or with terrorists' line.

Ultimatly, the fate will be forged by Muslims, and really, we need to give them some credit. Unfortunatly, I fear there are more and more Muslims and non-Muslims like Oliver coming along blaming Western governments for everything that happens, from 9/11 to the London bombings. Western governments are ignorant and clumsy, it is what they are famous for, but ultimatly the onus is on Muslims. There are no public ex-radicals here in London who seem to believe the War in Iraq caused the bombings.

Extremism for Muslims must be very sexy as you say. Living in a society in which other more confident kids are having sex, drinking and driving flashy cars wheras you are left out because you are not drinking and not having sex until marriage (Vast generalisation of Muslims, but... for young suburban kids it is somewhat true) must be difficult. Finding a God who says that those guys are going to hell and you are wise to steer clear must be a immense weight off your chest.

Of course, IMHO.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Bush wants U.S. hegemony in the Middle East (Iraq, Iran) due to the oil.

That is the point.

 

[Oliver]

That is the point.

Not entirely. By it's very own Nature, Israel also has a strong interest in protecting their Country, including pushing American Foreign Policies. Now I don't know the whole influence of the Jewish Lobbies, but if you're interested in an insider report from within the Pentagon during the run-up to war, you might find this Article highly interesting:

http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2004/03/10/osp_moveon/index.html?pn=1

 

[Oliver]

Mohammed didn't like jews?

Nope, I don't think so. Well, Christians and the Bible also addressed the "Don't like Jews"-Aspect because they claim that it was the Jews fault that Jesus died. So this isn't really an explanation.

I think it is this one: If the State of Israel wouldn't exist, no one would care about the Jews in the Middle-East, wrong?

I'm surprised that you of all people choose to twist words in the very same way that you accuse others of doing. No, Oliver, he is not simply saying that "interventions in the muslim world are undesirable." He is calling for the complete destruction of the State of Israel and a return to the times when muslims got to rule over the jews.

Well, and how do you settle conflicts like that? Do you agree that peace between Israel and the Palestinians, including the access to the holy sites to Muslims, would finally and positively change the minds all over the world?

Absurd. The only way there can be peace is if Israel ceases to exist. I suppose you could consider the fact that the Israelis don't want to pack up and leave as meaning they don't want peace.

That's not true. An accepted Palestinian state would be a good start for peace down there. But even that is a pain in the Ass of Israel, isn't it? (Was: Oppression)

I don't consider the United States or Bush to be a threat to my world peace. Infact, I consider them to be my only real defense. I'm sure you could argue that the US was a "threat to world peace" during the cold war as well, but all I know is that people here were genuinely worried about their lives due to Norway's strategic location. Knowing that America was watching over us and acting as a deterrent to any attacks helped. There is a very real chance that the geography and borders of Norway would have been different today had it not been for our relationship with the United States after World War II.

They aren't perfect, nor will human nature ever permit them to be, but one thing is for sure... They are a hell of a lot better than the alternative.

And what "alternative" do you mean by that? My alternative is: Fair chances for everyone. That includes: Nuclear Power for all - or for nobody, including America and Israel. Fair&Balanced.

Sometimes we have good intentions that we fail to carry out in practice. We mean well, but just end up screwing things up. Sad, but true. Other times, we have to protect our own interests -- even if that is at the expense of others.

So you support a robbery if the Robber has nothing to eat and it's his only chance to get money quick?

I don't know. Where were you, and how much attention did you give it?

Like most people, I did focus on Terrorism instead understanding the Backgrounds, especially because I never cared much about politics anyway until 2005/06.

Hilarious beyond belief. The opinions you hold are partly due to your cultural exposure, and there is no way you can be considered "unbiased."

The amount of nonsense pushed by Norwegian news outlets (like the State TV channels) is... substantial. Sometimes it's hard to notice, because we don't truly get to see things from "other side" either. We think what we're being told is the objective truth because we have been taught to believe so, and are reluctant to question it. I suspect the same is true to some extent in Germany.

A mentionable anecdote regarding them being "between both sides, supporting Israels AND the Muslims Point of View" is the fabulous Norwegian coverage of Arafat's funeral where the reporter broke into tears and was largely unable to provide any coherent coverage.

Since I didn't pick my side, I indeed consider myself unbiased. Of course, this is part of my cultural expose - seeing both sides of the story and considering both extremes as nuts.

And while I agree that every opinion about the world "outside" is mainly based on the Media reporting about it, it's also an advantage for neutrality in the Media and the Government if both of them are "culturally exposed" to both sides of the issue. So yes, we truly hear about both sides of this issue.

Well, I guess that you also don't consider one reporter as indication for bias in your Media, do you? Why the heck was he crying about his death?

You misunderstand. I am simply explaining the psychological aspect behind it. Increased media coverage isn't going to do much to change it, infact, it might just create even greater apathy.

Then you may have missed the opposition against US-policies coming from inside the US. Or as some experts put it: "With a honest coverage in the US, the Iraq war wouldn't have happened in the first place".

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q="propaganda+in+the+us"&btnG=Search

There are still people in the US that want to save the world, and that is why we keep seeing things like this.

There is a chance to change the world and to make it a better place. The internet is a good example for that because 15 years ago, I wouldn't have been able to exchange opinions in a public forum to change my and other minds. Let's hope that the efforts to censor this freedom, will fail.

Again, I don't think you quite understand. The genocides and starving children in AIDS-ridden third world regions like Africa do not affect the health of you and your loved ones, or your life in any meaningful way, and so there is very little incentive to care.

You will note that my comment was not about Iraq, but rather about the other on-going tragedies (like the genocides in Africa) that get less media attention and that people often display apathy towards.

I am telling you why that could be, and why it is something that can be seen in most of the western world. It is not an American phenomenon, simply a result of distance and overexposure to the point where one gets overwhelmed and tunes out.

And I completely understand this type of apathy in "general Joe's Mind". But if a Government blusters about Freedoms, Humanity, "Good and Evil" ones, it should make sure that this is meant in a honest way. It wasn't - so here I am to complain about that.

 

[MaGZ]

Hi there Oliver. I'm curious. I supported the invasion of Iraq and would also like to see the government of Iran annihilated. Perhaps not right now, but sometime soon.

Do you think I'm evil? Ignorant? You seem to make out support for such things as being synonymous with being one or the other. So do you really believe people that support such things are evil and/or ignorant or are you just spewing rhetoric?

Notice: the following is a parody to make a point.

Hi there Travis. I'm curious. I support the invasion of Israel and would also like to see the government of Israel annihilated. Perhaps not right now, but sometime soon.

Do you think I'm evil? Ignorant? You seem to make out support for such things as being synonymous with being one or the other. So do you really believe people that support such things are evil and/or ignorant or are you just spewing rhetoric?