“After every major terrorist incident the excuse makers come out to tell us why imperialism, Zionism, colonialism or Iraq explains why the terrorists acted. These excuse makers are just one notch less despicable than the terrorists and also deserve to be exposed. Every quarter the State Department should identify the top 10 hate mongers, excuse makers and truth tellers in the world.”
- Thomas Friedman - http://www.democracynow.org/2006/6/7/thomas_friedman_on_petropolitics
_iraq_israel
_iraq_israel
Let us just conduct a thought experiment. What if i wrote in my GCSE history exam why the Nazis came to power and was asked what role the treaty of versailes played in the Nazi rise to power. And i just wrote
"those historians who argue that the treaty imposed on Germany after the first world war caused grevances which contributed to the rise of Nazism are one notch above being Nazis, further more the real reason Nazis came to power because there was an increasing percentage of people who hate freedom" What mark do you think i would get?
There is surely an enormous difference between identifying grevances leading to acts of terrorism and condoning them. Most historians would aggree that treaty imposed on Germany by the UK, USA and France after World War 1 contributed to the rose of Nazism, does this make these historians near Nazis? Don't let the neo con ideology fool you.
In time history will examine critically what the reasons for the hatred of America in the middle east and history will find Thomas Friedman a man of his time. Why is it that there are so many more Al Quieda attacks since the war on Iraq? As Bin Laden himself said:
"Let him [George Bush] tell us why we did not strike Sweden, for example."
Yes he is evil, Even if the neo con ideology scorns all those who link forign policy of the west with terrorist attacks it is implicit in the reasoning given for forign policy decisions. As Ron Paul points out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD9eO7qToTk
Paul Wolfitiz sited that the War in Iraq was a major event because it would mean the US could take its troops out of Saudi Arabia implicitly regonising that the US troops presence was an important reason for animosity towards America.
The pentagon would have you believe that Saddam Huissain had something to do with 9/11 that there was a link with Al Quida, but in reality the reason why Ossama Binladen hates Saudi Arabia so much is because instead of allowing in his Muja Hadeen fighters into Saudi to fight of the invasion of Kuwait the American's where invited with thier troop presence in the area continueing. The great irony of a war with the stated aim of ridding Iraq of Al Quida is that it has now lead to Iraq having more Al Quida fighters than any other country.
The British and American government would have you believe that,
On an interview with Amy Goodman. Amy Goodman asked
http://www.democracynow.org/2006/6/7/thomas_friedman_on_petropolitics_iraq_israel
Bearing in mind that this is an administration which has said that "you are either with us or against us" in the "war on terror," I wouldn't. Notice how say "imperialism, Zionism, colonialism or Iraq explains why the terrorists acted." has now become "hate speach."
One of the top groups he should be put on Thomas Friedman's list for hate mongering against the US is perhaps the CIA in the drafting of secret report released in 2006 for saying what everyone knows, that Iraq has "worsened the terrorist threat." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&oref=slogin
I will leave you with a Robert Fisk talking about his documentory: "from Bosnia to Beruit"
"I hear my voice on the soundtrack, saying: "When I see things like this, I think of the place I work, the Middle East... I wonder what the Muslim world has in store for us... Maybe I should end each of my reports with the words: 'Watch out!' " And when I checked back to my post-production notes, I find the dates of all our film sequences listed. I had walked into that Bosnian mosque, watched by Serb policemen, on 11 September 1993. My warning was exactly eight years too early."
-http://www.independent.co.uk/news/fisk/robert-fisk-the-age-of-terror--a-landmark-
report-418953.html
"those historians who argue that the treaty imposed on Germany after the first world war caused grevances which contributed to the rise of Nazism are one notch above being Nazis, further more the real reason Nazis came to power because there was an increasing percentage of people who hate freedom" What mark do you think i would get?
There is surely an enormous difference between identifying grevances leading to acts of terrorism and condoning them. Most historians would aggree that treaty imposed on Germany by the UK, USA and France after World War 1 contributed to the rose of Nazism, does this make these historians near Nazis? Don't let the neo con ideology fool you.
In time history will examine critically what the reasons for the hatred of America in the middle east and history will find Thomas Friedman a man of his time. Why is it that there are so many more Al Quieda attacks since the war on Iraq? As Bin Laden himself said:
"Let him [George Bush] tell us why we did not strike Sweden, for example."
Yes he is evil, Even if the neo con ideology scorns all those who link forign policy of the west with terrorist attacks it is implicit in the reasoning given for forign policy decisions. As Ron Paul points out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD9eO7qToTk
Paul Wolfitiz sited that the War in Iraq was a major event because it would mean the US could take its troops out of Saudi Arabia implicitly regonising that the US troops presence was an important reason for animosity towards America.
The pentagon would have you believe that Saddam Huissain had something to do with 9/11 that there was a link with Al Quida, but in reality the reason why Ossama Binladen hates Saudi Arabia so much is because instead of allowing in his Muja Hadeen fighters into Saudi to fight of the invasion of Kuwait the American's where invited with thier troop presence in the area continueing. The great irony of a war with the stated aim of ridding Iraq of Al Quida is that it has now lead to Iraq having more Al Quida fighters than any other country.
The British and American government would have you believe that,
- Palastinians forced from thier homes,
- overthrowing democratically elected government in Iran and installing brutal Shah.
- American arms industry serial numbers found on missles fragments fired on lebanese ambulances from Israeli helicopters,
- the refusal to recognise Palastines democratically elected government and punishment of the people for thier election
- he rejection of the UN resolution 242 ,
- the thousands of children who died as a result of sanctions against Iraq
- the detention without trial of muslims at Gautaimo Bay and the destruction of video tapes of thier "tough" interigation techniques to not expose the interogators, as if the CIA dosn't have the technology to blur a face on a video.
- the Abu Graib torture scandel and the serial abuse by US forces in Iraq
- the support of the use of chemical weapons against Iran in 1980s,
- the shooting down of a civilian Iranian airliner, leading to the deaths of 300 civilians,
- the support for bombing of lebanon in 2006, leading to 10 times more lebanese civilian deaths than Israeli and calling it war of defence while Israel occupy's part of Lebanon's land,
- the imposition of democracy where 90 percent of the population want to the US to leave and a majority support attacks on them with US remaining thier being legitimised on helping Iraq build its "democracy,"
- one million people having died in Iraq in violence following the invasion
On an interview with Amy Goodman. Amy Goodman asked
"AMY GOODMAN: And why do you trust the State Department to make the determination on who they would call terrorists for being critical of the invasion?
THOMAS FRIEDMAN: We clearly know what hate speech is and we know what legitimate opposition is. I know the difference.
AMY GOODMAN: And do you think the State Department knows the difference? The Bush administration, President Bush?
THOMAS FRIEDMAN: I think they could. I know the difference between hate speech and people who oppose a policy on legitimate grounds"http://www.democracynow.org/2006/6/7/thomas_friedman_on_petropolitics_iraq_israel
Bearing in mind that this is an administration which has said that "you are either with us or against us" in the "war on terror," I wouldn't. Notice how say "imperialism, Zionism, colonialism or Iraq explains why the terrorists acted." has now become "hate speach."
One of the top groups he should be put on Thomas Friedman's list for hate mongering against the US is perhaps the CIA in the drafting of secret report released in 2006 for saying what everyone knows, that Iraq has "worsened the terrorist threat." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&oref=slogin
I will leave you with a Robert Fisk talking about his documentory: "from Bosnia to Beruit"
"I hear my voice on the soundtrack, saying: "When I see things like this, I think of the place I work, the Middle East... I wonder what the Muslim world has in store for us... Maybe I should end each of my reports with the words: 'Watch out!' " And when I checked back to my post-production notes, I find the dates of all our film sequences listed. I had walked into that Bosnian mosque, watched by Serb policemen, on 11 September 1993. My warning was exactly eight years too early."
-http://www.independent.co.uk/news/fisk/robert-fisk-the-age-of-terror--a-landmark-
report-418953.html
No comments:
Post a Comment