Reasoning Against Peace
Too Heavy a Price for Israeli Elites?
September 28, 2010
By JONATHAN COOK
With the resumption of settlement construction in the West Bank yesterday, Israel’s powerful settler movement hopes that it has scuttled peace talks with the Palestinians.
It would be misleading, however, to assume that the only major obstacle to the success of the negotiations is the right-wing political ideology the settler movement represents. Equally important are deeply entrenched economic interests shared across Israeli society.
These interests took root more than six decades ago with Israel’s establishment and have flourished at an ever-accelerating pace since Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip after the 1967 war.
Even many Israeli Jews living within the recognised borders of Israel privately acknowledge that they are the beneficiaries of the seizure of another people’s lands, homes, businesses and bank accounts in 1948. Most Israelis profit directly from the continuing dispossession of millions of Palestinian refugees.
Israeli officials assume that the international community will bear the burden of restitution for the refugees. The problem for Israel’s Jewish population is that the refugees now living in exile were not the only ones dispossessed.
The fifth of Israel’s citizens who are Palestinian but survived the expulsions of 1948 found themselves either transformed into internally displaced people or the victims of a later land-nationalisation programme that stripped them of their ancestral property.
Even if Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, signed away the rights of the refugees, he would have no power to do the same for Israel’s Palestinian citizens, the so-called Israeli Arabs. Peace, as many Israelis understand, would open a Pandora’s box of historic land claims from Palestinian citizens at the expense of Israel’s Jewish citizens.
But the threat to the economic privileges of Israeli Jews would not end with a reckoning over the injustices caused by the state’s creation. The occupation of the Palestinian territories after 1967 spawned many other powerful economic interests opposed to peace.
The most visible constituency are the settlers, who have benefited hugely from government subsidies and tax breaks designed to encourage Israelis to relocate to the West Bank. Peace Now estimates that such benefits alone are worth more than $550 million a year.
Far from being a fringe element, the half a million settlers constitute nearly a tenth of Israel’s Jewish population and include such prominent figures as foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman.
Hundreds of businesses serving the settlers are booming in the 60 per cent of the West Bank, the so-called Area C, that falls under Israel’s full control. The real estate and construction industries, in particular, benefit from cut-price land -- and increased profits -- made available by theft from Palestinian owners.
Other businesses, meanwhile, have moved into Israel’s West Bank industrial zones, benefiting from cheap Palestinian labour and from discounted land, tax perks and lax enforcement of environmental protections.
Much of the tourism industry also depends on Israel’s hold over the holy sites located in occupied East Jerusalem.
This web of interests depends on what Akiva Eldar, of the Haaretz newspaper, terms “land-laundering” overseen by government ministries, state institutions and Zionist organisations. These murky transactions create ample opportunities for corruption that have become a staple for Israel’s rich and powerful, including, it seems, its prime ministers.
But the benefits of occupation are not restricted to the civilian population. The most potent pressure group in Israel -- the military -- has much to lose from a peace agreement, too.
The ranks of Israel’s career soldiers, and associated security services such as the Shin Bet secret police, have ballooned during the occupation.
The demands of controlling another people around the clock justifies huge budgets, the latest weaponry (much of it paid for by the United States) and the creation of a powerful class of military bureaucrat.
While teenage conscripts do the dangerous jobs, the army’s senior ranks retire in their early forties on full pensions, with lengthy second careers ahead in business or politics. Many also go on to profit from the burgeoning “homeland security” industries in which Israel excels. Small specialist companies led by former generals offer a home to retired soldiers drawing on years of experience running the occupation.
Those who spent their service in the West Bank and Gaza Strip quickly learn how to apply and refine new technologies for surveillance, crowd control and urban warfare that find ready markets overseas. In 2006 Israel’s defence exports reached $3.4bn, making the country the fourth largest arms dealer in the world.
These groups fear that a peace agreement and Palestinian statehood would turn Israel overnight into an insignificant Middle Eastern state, one that would soon be starved of its enormous US subsidies. In addition, Israel would be forced to right a historic wrong and redirect the region’s plundered resources, including its land and water, back to Palestinians, depriving Jews of their established entitlements.
A cost-benefit calculus suggests to most Israeli Jews -- including the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu -- that a real solution to their conflict with the Palestinians might come at too heavy a price to their own pockets.
Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books).
http://www.counterpunch.org/cook09282010.html
Wednesday 29 September 2010
Monday 27 September 2010
The Collapse of Western Morality
The Indispensable People?
The Collapse of Western Morality
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
Weekend Edition
September 24 - 26, 2010
Yes, I know, as many readers will be quick to inform me, the West never had any morality. Nevertheless things have gotten worse.
In hopes that I will be permitted to make a point, permit me to acknowledge that the US dropped nuclear bombs on two Japanese cities, fire-bombed Tokyo, that Great Britain and the US fire-bombed Dresden and a number of other German cities, expending more destructive force, according to some historians, against the civilian German population than against the German armies, that President Grant and his Civil War war criminals, Generals Sherman and Sheridan, committed genocide against the Plains Indians, that the US today enables Israel’s genocidal policies against the Palestinians, policies that one Israeli official has compared to 19th century US genocidal policies against the American Indians, that the US in the new 21st century invaded Iraq and Afghanistan on contrived pretenses, murdering countless numbers of civilians, and that British prime minister Tony Blair lent the British army to his American masters, as did other NATO countries, all of whom find themselves committing war crimes under the Nuremberg standard in lands in which they have no national interests, but for which they receive an American pay check.
I don’t mean these few examples to be exhaustive. I know the list goes on and on. Still, despite the long list of horrors, moral degradation is reaching new lows. The US now routinely tortures prisoners, despite its strict illegality under US and international law, and a recent poll shows that the percentage of Americans who approve of torture is rising. Indeed, it is quite high, though still just below a majority.
And we have what appears to be a new thrill: American soldiers using the cover of war to murder civilians. Recently American troops were arrested for murdering Afghan civilians for fun and collecting trophies such as fingers and skulls.
This revelation came on the heels of Pfc. Bradley Manning’s alleged leak of a US Army video of US soldiers in helicopters and their controllers thousands of miles away having fun with joy sticks murdering members of the press and Afghan civilians. Manning is cursed with a moral conscience that has been discarded by his government and his military, and Manning has been arrested for obeying the law and reporting a war crime to the American people.
US Rep. Mike Rogers, a Republican, of course, from Michigan, who is on the House Subcommittee on Terrorism, has called for Manning’s execution. According to US Rep. Rogers it is an act of treason to report an American war crime.
In other words, to obey the law constitutes “treason to America.”
US Rep. Rogers said that America’s wars are being undermined by “a culture of disclosure” and that this “serious and growing problem” could only be stopped by the execution of Manning.
If Rep. Rogers is representative of Michigan, then Michigan is a state that we don’t need.
The US government, a font of imperial hubris, does not believe that any act it commits, no matter how vile, can possibly be a war crime. One million dead Iraqis, a ruined country, and four million displaced Iraqis are all justified, because the “threatened” US Superpower had to protect itself from nonexistent weapons of mass destruction that the US government knew for a fact were not in Iraq and could not have been a threat to the US if they were in Iraq.
When other countries attempt to enforce the international laws that the Americans established in order to execute Germans defeated in World War II, the US government goes to work and blocks the attempt. A year ago on October 8, the Spanish Senate, obeying its American master, limited Spain’s laws of universal jurisdiction in order to sink a legitimate war crimes case brought against George W. Bush, Barack H. Obama, Tony Blair,and Gordon Brown.
The West includes Israel, and there the horror stories are 60 years long. Moreover, if you mention any of them you are declared to be an anti-semite. I only mention them in order to prove that I am not anti-American, anti-British, and anti-NATO, but am simply against war crimes. It was the distinguished Zionist Jewish Judge, Goldstone, who produced the UN report indicating that Israel committed war crimes when it attacked the civilian population and civilian infrastructure of Gaza. For his efforts, Israel declared the Zionist Goldstone to be “a self-hating Jew,” and the US Congress, on instruction from the Israel Lobby, voted to disregard the Goldstone Report to the UN.
As the Israeli official said, we are only doing to the Palestinians what the Americans did to the American Indians.
The Israeli army uses female soldiers to sit before video screens and to fire by remote control machine guns from towers to murder Palestinians who come to tend their fields within 1500 meters of the inclosed perimeter of Ghetto Gaza. There is no indication that these Israeli women are bothered by gunning down young children and old people who come to tend to their fields.
If the crimes were limited to war and the theft of lands, perhaps we could say it is a case of jingoism sidetracking traditional morality, otherwise still in effect.
Alas, the collapse of morality is too widespread. Some sports teams now have a win-at-all-cost attitude that involves plans to injure the star players of the opposing teams. To avoid all these controversies, let’s go to Formula One racing where 200 mph speeds are routine.
Prior to 1988, 22 years ago, track deaths were due to driver error, car failure, and poorly designed tracks compromised with safety hazards. World Champion Jackie Stewart did much to improve the safety of tracks, both for drivers and spectators. But in 1988 everything changed. Top driver Ayrton Senna nudged another top driver Alain Prost toward a pit wall at 190 mph. According to AutoWeek (August 30, 2010), nothing like this had been seen before. “Officials did not punish Senna’s move that day in Portugal, and so a significant shift in racing began.” What the great racing driver Stirling Moss called “dirty driving” became the norm.
Nigel Roebuck in AutoWeek reports that in 1996 World Champion Damon Hill said that Senna’s win-at-all-cost tactic “was responsible for fundamental change in the ethics of the sport.” Drivers began using “terrorist tactics on the track.” Damon Hill said that “the views that I’d gleaned from being around my dad [twice world champion Graham Hill] and people like him, I soon had to abandon,” because you realized that no penalty was forthcoming against the guy who tried to kill you in order that he could win.
When asked about the ethics of modern Formula One racing, American World Champion Phil Hill said: “Doing that sort of stuff in my day was just unthinkable. For one thing, we believed certain tactics were unacceptable.”
In today’s Western moral climate, driving another talented driver into the wall at 200 mph is just part of winning. Michael Schumacher, born in January 1969, is a seven times World Champion, an unequaled record. On August 1 at the Hungarian Grand Prix, AutoWeek Reports that Schumacher tried to drive his former Ferrari teammate, Rubens Barrichello, into the wall at 200 mph speeds.
Confronted with his attempted act of murder, Schumacher said: “This is Formula One. Everyone knows I don’t give presents.”
Neither does the US government, nor state and local governments, nor the UK government, nor the EU.
The deformation of the police, which many Americans, in their untutored existence as naive believers in “law and order,” still think are “on their side,” has taken on new dimensions with the police militarized to fight “terrorists” and “domestic extremists.”
The police have been off the leash since the civilian police boards were nixed by the conservatives. Kids as young as 6 years old have been handcuffed and carted off to jail for school infractions that may or may not have occurred. So have moms with a car full of children (see, for example, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AaSLERx0VM ).
Anyone who googles videos of US police gratuitous brutality will call up tens of thousands of examples, and this is after laws that make filming police brutality a felony. A year or two ago such a search would call up hundreds of thousands of videos.
In one of the most recent of the numerous daily acts of gratuitous police abuse of citizens, an 84-year-old man had his neck broken because he objected to a night time towing of his car. The goon cop body-slammed the 84-year old and broke his neck. The Orlando, Florida, police department says that the old man was a “threat” to the well-armed much younger police goon, because the old man clenched his fist.
Americans will be the first people sent straight to Hell while thinking that they are the salt of the earth. The Americans have even devised a title for themselves to rival that of the Israelis’ self-designation as “God’s Chosen People.” The Americans call themselves “the indispensable people.”
Paul Craig Roberts was an editor of the Wall Street Journal and an Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. His latest book, HOW THE ECONOMY WAS LOST, has just been published by CounterPunch/AK Press.
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts09242010.html
The Collapse of Western Morality
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
Weekend Edition
September 24 - 26, 2010
Yes, I know, as many readers will be quick to inform me, the West never had any morality. Nevertheless things have gotten worse.
In hopes that I will be permitted to make a point, permit me to acknowledge that the US dropped nuclear bombs on two Japanese cities, fire-bombed Tokyo, that Great Britain and the US fire-bombed Dresden and a number of other German cities, expending more destructive force, according to some historians, against the civilian German population than against the German armies, that President Grant and his Civil War war criminals, Generals Sherman and Sheridan, committed genocide against the Plains Indians, that the US today enables Israel’s genocidal policies against the Palestinians, policies that one Israeli official has compared to 19th century US genocidal policies against the American Indians, that the US in the new 21st century invaded Iraq and Afghanistan on contrived pretenses, murdering countless numbers of civilians, and that British prime minister Tony Blair lent the British army to his American masters, as did other NATO countries, all of whom find themselves committing war crimes under the Nuremberg standard in lands in which they have no national interests, but for which they receive an American pay check.
I don’t mean these few examples to be exhaustive. I know the list goes on and on. Still, despite the long list of horrors, moral degradation is reaching new lows. The US now routinely tortures prisoners, despite its strict illegality under US and international law, and a recent poll shows that the percentage of Americans who approve of torture is rising. Indeed, it is quite high, though still just below a majority.
And we have what appears to be a new thrill: American soldiers using the cover of war to murder civilians. Recently American troops were arrested for murdering Afghan civilians for fun and collecting trophies such as fingers and skulls.
This revelation came on the heels of Pfc. Bradley Manning’s alleged leak of a US Army video of US soldiers in helicopters and their controllers thousands of miles away having fun with joy sticks murdering members of the press and Afghan civilians. Manning is cursed with a moral conscience that has been discarded by his government and his military, and Manning has been arrested for obeying the law and reporting a war crime to the American people.
US Rep. Mike Rogers, a Republican, of course, from Michigan, who is on the House Subcommittee on Terrorism, has called for Manning’s execution. According to US Rep. Rogers it is an act of treason to report an American war crime.
In other words, to obey the law constitutes “treason to America.”
US Rep. Rogers said that America’s wars are being undermined by “a culture of disclosure” and that this “serious and growing problem” could only be stopped by the execution of Manning.
If Rep. Rogers is representative of Michigan, then Michigan is a state that we don’t need.
The US government, a font of imperial hubris, does not believe that any act it commits, no matter how vile, can possibly be a war crime. One million dead Iraqis, a ruined country, and four million displaced Iraqis are all justified, because the “threatened” US Superpower had to protect itself from nonexistent weapons of mass destruction that the US government knew for a fact were not in Iraq and could not have been a threat to the US if they were in Iraq.
When other countries attempt to enforce the international laws that the Americans established in order to execute Germans defeated in World War II, the US government goes to work and blocks the attempt. A year ago on October 8, the Spanish Senate, obeying its American master, limited Spain’s laws of universal jurisdiction in order to sink a legitimate war crimes case brought against George W. Bush, Barack H. Obama, Tony Blair,and Gordon Brown.
The West includes Israel, and there the horror stories are 60 years long. Moreover, if you mention any of them you are declared to be an anti-semite. I only mention them in order to prove that I am not anti-American, anti-British, and anti-NATO, but am simply against war crimes. It was the distinguished Zionist Jewish Judge, Goldstone, who produced the UN report indicating that Israel committed war crimes when it attacked the civilian population and civilian infrastructure of Gaza. For his efforts, Israel declared the Zionist Goldstone to be “a self-hating Jew,” and the US Congress, on instruction from the Israel Lobby, voted to disregard the Goldstone Report to the UN.
As the Israeli official said, we are only doing to the Palestinians what the Americans did to the American Indians.
The Israeli army uses female soldiers to sit before video screens and to fire by remote control machine guns from towers to murder Palestinians who come to tend their fields within 1500 meters of the inclosed perimeter of Ghetto Gaza. There is no indication that these Israeli women are bothered by gunning down young children and old people who come to tend to their fields.
If the crimes were limited to war and the theft of lands, perhaps we could say it is a case of jingoism sidetracking traditional morality, otherwise still in effect.
Alas, the collapse of morality is too widespread. Some sports teams now have a win-at-all-cost attitude that involves plans to injure the star players of the opposing teams. To avoid all these controversies, let’s go to Formula One racing where 200 mph speeds are routine.
Prior to 1988, 22 years ago, track deaths were due to driver error, car failure, and poorly designed tracks compromised with safety hazards. World Champion Jackie Stewart did much to improve the safety of tracks, both for drivers and spectators. But in 1988 everything changed. Top driver Ayrton Senna nudged another top driver Alain Prost toward a pit wall at 190 mph. According to AutoWeek (August 30, 2010), nothing like this had been seen before. “Officials did not punish Senna’s move that day in Portugal, and so a significant shift in racing began.” What the great racing driver Stirling Moss called “dirty driving” became the norm.
Nigel Roebuck in AutoWeek reports that in 1996 World Champion Damon Hill said that Senna’s win-at-all-cost tactic “was responsible for fundamental change in the ethics of the sport.” Drivers began using “terrorist tactics on the track.” Damon Hill said that “the views that I’d gleaned from being around my dad [twice world champion Graham Hill] and people like him, I soon had to abandon,” because you realized that no penalty was forthcoming against the guy who tried to kill you in order that he could win.
When asked about the ethics of modern Formula One racing, American World Champion Phil Hill said: “Doing that sort of stuff in my day was just unthinkable. For one thing, we believed certain tactics were unacceptable.”
In today’s Western moral climate, driving another talented driver into the wall at 200 mph is just part of winning. Michael Schumacher, born in January 1969, is a seven times World Champion, an unequaled record. On August 1 at the Hungarian Grand Prix, AutoWeek Reports that Schumacher tried to drive his former Ferrari teammate, Rubens Barrichello, into the wall at 200 mph speeds.
Confronted with his attempted act of murder, Schumacher said: “This is Formula One. Everyone knows I don’t give presents.”
Neither does the US government, nor state and local governments, nor the UK government, nor the EU.
The deformation of the police, which many Americans, in their untutored existence as naive believers in “law and order,” still think are “on their side,” has taken on new dimensions with the police militarized to fight “terrorists” and “domestic extremists.”
The police have been off the leash since the civilian police boards were nixed by the conservatives. Kids as young as 6 years old have been handcuffed and carted off to jail for school infractions that may or may not have occurred. So have moms with a car full of children (see, for example, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AaSLERx0VM ).
Anyone who googles videos of US police gratuitous brutality will call up tens of thousands of examples, and this is after laws that make filming police brutality a felony. A year or two ago such a search would call up hundreds of thousands of videos.
In one of the most recent of the numerous daily acts of gratuitous police abuse of citizens, an 84-year-old man had his neck broken because he objected to a night time towing of his car. The goon cop body-slammed the 84-year old and broke his neck. The Orlando, Florida, police department says that the old man was a “threat” to the well-armed much younger police goon, because the old man clenched his fist.
Americans will be the first people sent straight to Hell while thinking that they are the salt of the earth. The Americans have even devised a title for themselves to rival that of the Israelis’ self-designation as “God’s Chosen People.” The Americans call themselves “the indispensable people.”
Paul Craig Roberts was an editor of the Wall Street Journal and an Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. His latest book, HOW THE ECONOMY WAS LOST, has just been published by CounterPunch/AK Press.
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts09242010.html
Steal From the Poor, Give to the Rich
Steal From the Poor, Give to the Rich
The Redistribution of Wealth
By PATRICK IRELAN
September 27, 2010
The United States is undergoing a great redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich. President Obama and the Congress have done nothing to alter this trend. Despite the corporate media’s obsession with the alleged differences between the Democrats and the Republicans, this transfer of wealth has increased in both size and speed regardless of the party in power. The number of poor people has steadily increased and their loss of income has made their situation increasingly desperate.
In September of this year, the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee released a report called Income Inequality and the Great Recession. A statement from that report summarizes the problem. “Over the past three decades, income inequality has grown dramatically.…” Most of this inequality was observable in “…the share of total income accrued by the richest 1 percent of households. Between 1980 and 2008, their share rose from 10.0 percent to 21.0 percent, making the United States as [sic] one of the most unequal countries in the world.”
The report also states that “Income inequality peaked prior to the United States’ two most severe economic crises—the Great Depression and the Great Recession.” If you want the rich to steal from the poor at a faster rate, join whatever political outfit seems most likely to promote economic disasters. At present, when comparing the two major parties, I see little difference between their respective abilities to promote economic crises at a rate satisfactory to the corporate plutocrats who rule our lives.
The Congressional report provides other examples of the redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich and finally makes some tepid proposals to solve the problem, none of which would ever correct the central causes.
In order for the United States to recover from its present economic and financial disaster, it must do two things. The first is simple. The second is not. Neither is likely to occur.
First, following the failure of George W. Bush, the Obama administration and the Congress, which was controlled by Democrats, should have passed legislation to reregulate the banks that created the initial financial catastrophe that led to the Great Recession. The deregulation of banking during the Clinton administration had led directly to the introduction of banking practices such as subprime loans and credit-default swaps that eventually caused the financial crisis in the first place. One simple step needed to correct these problems was an updated version of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, which had created a firewall between depository banks and investment banks. This law had prevented the worst banking practices for decades. At this moment, nothing like the Glass-Steagall Act has been introduced by Congress or the President.
Regulations that prevented the issuance of subprime loans could have already been in place if the Bush administration had heeding the warnings that arrived years before. Even I could see the danger. An agent from Countrywide, a firm that mastered the subprime-loan racket, once offered me a loan for a condominium less than two hours after my initial inquiry, much too little time for the company to have checked my financial history and pondered the wisdom of the loan. All our discussions took place over the telephone. I never saw the agent, and he never saw me. I rejected the offer and remained in my apartment.
My second proposal will never be adopted because the politicians in this country are too meek and too stupid. Before millions of workers can rise from the poverty of unemployment and remain employed, we must reindustrialize the United States. We must again manufacture things. We must make our own washing machines, clothing, computers, and thousands of other useful products. A country that doesn’t even make its own refrigerators is a third-world country. Manufacturing and strong labor unions raised millions of people out of poverty and into the middle class during and after the New Deal. The alleged benefits of a “post-industrial society” that became popular more recently were a mirage, the inventions of primitive thinkers trained in the universities of the Lower Paleolithic Period.
In order to convince corporations to again manufacture things within the borders of this country, tax incentives and tax disincentives could be offered. To really convince the corporate predators, an even better strategy would be to criminalize the export of jobs to foreign countries. To bring back the jobs that have already gone to foreign countries, we should try, convict, and fine the predators any amount of money required. I wouldn’t oppose jail time for malefactors of great wealth. I’m a law-abiding citizen. I’d support such laws. It’s a crime to rob a woman at gunpoint. Why is it less of a crime to rob her by stealing her job and giving it to someone in Asia?
This plan would not necessarily create ex post facto laws. Legislation could penalize the future import of products made by U.S. companies in foreign countries. Nor am I advocating an end to international trade. Maytag used to manufacture washing machines in Newton, Iowa. One of my uncles worked there during his entire adult work life. Whirlpool now owns Maytag, and the factory that used to be in Newton has now been replaced by a factory across the Rio Grande in Reynosa, Mexico. In a more perfect world, Whirlpool would have to sell or give that plant in Reynosa to the Mexicans, who could then use it for whatever they wanted. If they decided to continue making washing machines, I’m sure the people of Newton could still make better ones.
All this is so logical, practical, and moral that I can promise you that our rulers will never accept these modest proposals. We’re supposed to let the magic of the markets save us. The notion that markets can solve our problems is one of most primitive superstitions I’ve ever heard of. It’s more primitive than belief in a deity who lives in a volcano and requires the periodic sacrifice of a virgin.
If you want to remain safe from a volcano, don’t build your town right beside it. If you want a good washing machine, don’t buy one manufactured by Whirlpool in Reynosa, Mexico. And while you’re thinking about it, don’t buy Whirlpool refrigerators made in Reynosa. The people of Galesburg, Illinois, made them much better.
Patrick Irelan is a retired high-school teacher. His most recent book is Reruns, a collection of comic short stories.
http://www.counterpunch.org/irelan09272010.html
The Redistribution of Wealth
By PATRICK IRELAN
September 27, 2010
The United States is undergoing a great redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich. President Obama and the Congress have done nothing to alter this trend. Despite the corporate media’s obsession with the alleged differences between the Democrats and the Republicans, this transfer of wealth has increased in both size and speed regardless of the party in power. The number of poor people has steadily increased and their loss of income has made their situation increasingly desperate.
In September of this year, the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee released a report called Income Inequality and the Great Recession. A statement from that report summarizes the problem. “Over the past three decades, income inequality has grown dramatically.…” Most of this inequality was observable in “…the share of total income accrued by the richest 1 percent of households. Between 1980 and 2008, their share rose from 10.0 percent to 21.0 percent, making the United States as [sic] one of the most unequal countries in the world.”
The report also states that “Income inequality peaked prior to the United States’ two most severe economic crises—the Great Depression and the Great Recession.” If you want the rich to steal from the poor at a faster rate, join whatever political outfit seems most likely to promote economic disasters. At present, when comparing the two major parties, I see little difference between their respective abilities to promote economic crises at a rate satisfactory to the corporate plutocrats who rule our lives.
The Congressional report provides other examples of the redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich and finally makes some tepid proposals to solve the problem, none of which would ever correct the central causes.
In order for the United States to recover from its present economic and financial disaster, it must do two things. The first is simple. The second is not. Neither is likely to occur.
First, following the failure of George W. Bush, the Obama administration and the Congress, which was controlled by Democrats, should have passed legislation to reregulate the banks that created the initial financial catastrophe that led to the Great Recession. The deregulation of banking during the Clinton administration had led directly to the introduction of banking practices such as subprime loans and credit-default swaps that eventually caused the financial crisis in the first place. One simple step needed to correct these problems was an updated version of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, which had created a firewall between depository banks and investment banks. This law had prevented the worst banking practices for decades. At this moment, nothing like the Glass-Steagall Act has been introduced by Congress or the President.
Regulations that prevented the issuance of subprime loans could have already been in place if the Bush administration had heeding the warnings that arrived years before. Even I could see the danger. An agent from Countrywide, a firm that mastered the subprime-loan racket, once offered me a loan for a condominium less than two hours after my initial inquiry, much too little time for the company to have checked my financial history and pondered the wisdom of the loan. All our discussions took place over the telephone. I never saw the agent, and he never saw me. I rejected the offer and remained in my apartment.
My second proposal will never be adopted because the politicians in this country are too meek and too stupid. Before millions of workers can rise from the poverty of unemployment and remain employed, we must reindustrialize the United States. We must again manufacture things. We must make our own washing machines, clothing, computers, and thousands of other useful products. A country that doesn’t even make its own refrigerators is a third-world country. Manufacturing and strong labor unions raised millions of people out of poverty and into the middle class during and after the New Deal. The alleged benefits of a “post-industrial society” that became popular more recently were a mirage, the inventions of primitive thinkers trained in the universities of the Lower Paleolithic Period.
In order to convince corporations to again manufacture things within the borders of this country, tax incentives and tax disincentives could be offered. To really convince the corporate predators, an even better strategy would be to criminalize the export of jobs to foreign countries. To bring back the jobs that have already gone to foreign countries, we should try, convict, and fine the predators any amount of money required. I wouldn’t oppose jail time for malefactors of great wealth. I’m a law-abiding citizen. I’d support such laws. It’s a crime to rob a woman at gunpoint. Why is it less of a crime to rob her by stealing her job and giving it to someone in Asia?
This plan would not necessarily create ex post facto laws. Legislation could penalize the future import of products made by U.S. companies in foreign countries. Nor am I advocating an end to international trade. Maytag used to manufacture washing machines in Newton, Iowa. One of my uncles worked there during his entire adult work life. Whirlpool now owns Maytag, and the factory that used to be in Newton has now been replaced by a factory across the Rio Grande in Reynosa, Mexico. In a more perfect world, Whirlpool would have to sell or give that plant in Reynosa to the Mexicans, who could then use it for whatever they wanted. If they decided to continue making washing machines, I’m sure the people of Newton could still make better ones.
All this is so logical, practical, and moral that I can promise you that our rulers will never accept these modest proposals. We’re supposed to let the magic of the markets save us. The notion that markets can solve our problems is one of most primitive superstitions I’ve ever heard of. It’s more primitive than belief in a deity who lives in a volcano and requires the periodic sacrifice of a virgin.
If you want to remain safe from a volcano, don’t build your town right beside it. If you want a good washing machine, don’t buy one manufactured by Whirlpool in Reynosa, Mexico. And while you’re thinking about it, don’t buy Whirlpool refrigerators made in Reynosa. The people of Galesburg, Illinois, made them much better.
Patrick Irelan is a retired high-school teacher. His most recent book is Reruns, a collection of comic short stories.
http://www.counterpunch.org/irelan09272010.html
The Danish Cartoon Affair
How and Why It All Began
The Danish Cartoon Affair
By RUNE ENGELBRETH LARSEN
Weekend Edition
September 24 - 26, 2010
On September 30, 2005, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published 12 cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, some of which were extremely demonizing in their outspoken anti-Muslim symbolism. Four months later violent protests erupted outside Danish embassies in some Muslim countries, and the terror threat against Denmark increased dramatically. Yet what happened during those four months, and could the escalation of the crisis have been prevented? Was it simply about freedom of speech and a "clash of civilizations" or were other agendas in play? Moreover, why did it happen in Denmark of all places?
The End of Diplomacy
Among the most important and often overlooked elements in understanding why the Cartoon Crisis originated in Denmark and how it escalated into the biggest international crisis in the history of Danish foreign politics since World War II, are. 1) The increasing acceptance of demonizing and antagonistic rhetoric directed against Muslims in Danish mainstream politics and the media since the mid-1990's. 2) The lack of diplomatic efforts by the Danish government to prevent the escalating crisis. 3) The stridently patronizing and arrogant approach of the Danish government and media towards ambassadors from Muslim countries as well as the deliberate misrepresentation of their intentions displayed by the then Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen in October, November and December 2005.
Without these elements, an escalation of the crisis would have been highly unlikely, and the violent protests and riots seen in some Muslim countries four months after the publication of the cartoons would never have taken place. The whole affair would have most likely blown over before it became a global media phenomenon.
Yet how did it all begin?
The first crucial event after the publication of the cartoons was a letter to the then Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, October 12 2005, by ambassadors from eleven Muslim countries requesting a meeting concerning (among other things) Jyllands-Posten's Muhammad cartoons.
The ambassadors' letter contains four main points: 1) A criticism of the "very discriminatory tendency towards Muslims in Denmark" and "the defamation of Islam as a religion." 2) A warning of the danger of the possible escalation of the crisis. 3) An appeal to the Prime Minister to "censure those responsible" to the extent the law permits. 4) A request for a meeting with the Prime Minister.
Primarily, the ambassadors criticised what they perceive as an "ongoing smear campaign" against Islam. To illustrate their point, in addition to the Muhammad cartoons they cited several other "recent instances" of this phenomenon, e.g., Racist articles published on the website of Danish MP Louise Frevert, in which, among other derogations, Muslims were compared to "Cancer"; Minister of Culture Brian Mikkelsen's speech at the annual meeting of the Conservative party, in which he called for a new cultural struggle against "medieval Muslim culture" in alleged Muslim parallel societies in Denmark; and a xenophobic local radio station, which in the summer of 2005, called upon Danes to "kill a significant part of the country's Muslim immigrants".
Furthermore, the letter placed great emphasis on the very real possibility of serious consequences and repercussions in the wake of these events: "We must emphasise the possibility of reactions in Muslim countries and among Muslim communities throughout Europe."
Nevertheless, the Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen refuses to meet with the ambassadors and instead chooses to respond in a letter dated October 22, proclaiming that freedom of speech is "the very foundation of Danish society".
Neither in his written response nor in public does the Prime Minister refer to the issues raised by the ambassadors, failing to comment even once on any of the specific examples of the "very discriminatory tendency" provided by the ambassadors.
Large sections of the press as well as political commentators quickly reduce the content of the ambassadors' letter to an example of their (Muslim countries) ignorance of Democratic society. They even portray it as a direct assault on freedom of speech itself, despite the ambassadors' repeated assurances to the contrary.
The Palestinian representative, Maie Sarraf emphasises that the purpose of the letter was never to control the press: "It's not as if we are asking Anders Fogh Rasmussen to exercise control over the Danish media, but even Western politicians have the option to make certain recommendations to the media, and that is what we ask him to do." (October 22, 2005).
Notwithstanding, Anders Fogh Rasmussen said of the ambassadors' criticism that "a Prime Minister cannot intervene and control the press" (October 25, 2005), and that "the principles upon which Danish democracy is built are so self-evident, there can be no basis for convening a meeting to discuss them" (October 25, 2005).
Despite the fact, the ambassadors had never requested a meeting to discuss the principles of Danish democracy, Anders Fogh Rasmussen nevertheless claimed that the ambassadors' intentions in this matter were in conflict with Danish democracy itself.
Egypt's Ambassador, Mona Omar Attiah repeatedly points out that they only requested of the Prime Minister that he distance himself morally from dehumanizing utterances: "It is a big misunderstanding when people think we have asked the Prime Minister to put limits on freedom of speech. We wished for him to call for a responsible and respectful use of this freedom. We also wished for him to take a moral position by declaring that Danish society is striving for the integration, not the demeaning, of Islam." (October 27, 2005).
Fügen Ok, Turkey's ambassador to Denmark points out: "We're not stupid; we know the Prime Minister has no authority to intervene. Our intention was to encourage him to improve the situation in the country; what happened is very serious and very provocative. This is not about closing newspapers. It's about presenting your views on the issue and trying to promote dialogue." (October 28, 2005).
Despite the ambassadors' direct rejection of the Prime Minister's wilful misrepresentation of their letter, he blatantly ignores them, intensifying his hostility in a way which can only be characterised as arrogant. In response to the ambassadors' criticism and allegations that the Muhammad cartoons represent an attack on Muslims and Islam in general within a bigoted Denmark, he declares: "In my opinion, this reveals an abysmal ignorance of the principles of true democracy, as well as a complete failure to understand that in a free democracy the government neither can, must nor should interfere with what the press may write." (October 30, 2005).
The ambassadors' request that those responsible for the cartoons be prosecuted "to the extent permitted by Danish law" is fully compatible with Danish jurisprudence and custom (blasphemy is illegal in Denmark). Hardly an attack on freedom of the press!
Otherwise stated, Anders Fogh Rasmussen chose to pontificate to eleven ambassadors as if they were schoolchildren who simply did not understand the definition of democracy, instead of discussing the issues raised by them, and commenting on the fact that their single request was for him to take a moral position on the issue of the cartoons.
Subsequently, Minister of the Church (and Religious affairs), Bertel Haarder reduces the whole affair to a clamour for "censorship" (October 30, 2005), and Foreign Affairs spokesman for the Prime Minister's party Venstre - The Liberal Party of Denmark, Troels Lund Poulsen, can see no reason to "enter into dialogue with persons who want to short-circuit the democratic process" (December 20, 2005).
The Danish government it seems is not content with refusing to meet with the Muslim ambassadors: they proceed to lecture them in patronising tones and their request for a dialogue suddenly becomes an attempt to "short-circuit" Danish democracy.
Portraying the ambassadors' appeal as an attack on freedom of speech is simply a wilful attempt at misrepresenting their intentions. Nevertheless, the Prime Minister continued his insistence upon this false interpretation, disregarding the ambassadors' explanations and statements to the contrary.
All of this was completely absent from his reasoning. The media and most Danish commentators also ignored it.
Paradoxically, Anders Fogh Rasmussen encourages the offended Muslims to respond to the cartoons in the very manner he himself refused to respond to the ambassadors: "The Danish tradition is to call a meeting, where we can sit and talk peacefully with each other. Sometimes we disagree strongly even when the meeting's over, and sometimes we reach an understanding of each others' motives. That's the Danish model. That's what we call conversational democracy." (Jyllands-Posten, October 30, 2005).
Apparently, "conversational democracy" does not apply to Muslim ambassadors! They were refused a meeting with the Prime Minister who obviously did not intend to discuss the matter with them, peacefully or otherwise.
Escalation
It was brought to the Prime Minister's attention on several occasions how easily he could end the conflict with no implications whatsoever for freedom of speech, but each time he adamantly refused to consider it.
The Prime Minister's rejection of the ambassadors' request for a meeting, his wilful misrepresentation of the contents of their letter and his denial of any anti-Muslim tendencies in Danish politics, significantly increased the rifts in Danish society between Muslims and non-Muslims as well as between Denmark and Muslims worldwide.
Simultaneously, the Danish government chose to overlook the fact that the ambassadors' letter warned about possible "reactions in Muslim countries", and a few days later - still in October 2005 - the Egyptian government warned the Danish ambassador in Cairo about "a possible escalation of the problem".
As early as October 29, the Egyptian ambassador Mona Omar Attiah, makes very clear recommendations: "The Egyptian Embassy urgently appeals to the Danish government to adopt a more serious approach to the problem in order to avoid an escalation, and expects at the very least, a statement from the government confirming its disapproval of these types of drawings as well as any violation of Islam in general." An Egyptian official who described the sort of reaction his government was calling for suggested the same: e.g. "an official statement condemning the mocking of Islam and its Prophet".
On November 18, the Egyptian Foreign Secretary Ahmed Aboul Gheit, emphasizes what several ambassadors have told the Danish press: that nobody asked for the newspaper "to be closed or for it to be censored", they had simply hoped for some sort of official statement. He goes as far as to detail all that was required of the Prime Minister to prevent the crisis from escalating: "Gentlemen, you must understand that my hands are tied. I cannot act against it, yet I would like to declare that this is not my opinion". (Politiken, November 18 2005).
The escalating crisis could probably have been contained if the Danish government had distanced itself from the image of Islam depicted by the cartoons, without doing any damage to the freedom of the press in the process. End of story.
Instead, the Prime Minister responded to the ambassadors' letter by misrepresenting their intentions whenever he spoke to the press. He distorted and omitted critical phrases and warnings in their letter, simultaneously ignoring the ambassadors' own explanations of its contents, even though they have repeatedly emphasised, starting immediately after receiving his response to their letter, that they have neither expressed any desire for control of the press nor for any kind of encroachment upon freedom of speech.
The entire affair gave the Egyptian Foreign Affairs Minister the distinct impression that "there are actually people within the Danish government who like what they see" in the cartoons.
Yet the Danish government continues to ignore the continuous requests for a clear indication of its moral position regarding the message behind the cartoons. Despite the constant flow of clarifications and repetitions of this request from numerous foreign government officials, the Danish Minister of Foreign Affairs Per Stig Møller in November 2005 still chooses to overhear everything: "The Constitution prevents censorship from ever being reintroduced. If Jyllands-Posten, claiming the protection of the constitution has violated the blasphemy law, then that's the business of the courts." (November 8, 2005).
Time and again, with equal condescension, the Danish government neglected to comment the many specific requests from ambassadors and other official agents from Muslim governments and the Islamic world in general, who ask for no more than a statement of disapproval from the Prime Minister.
Shortly after Christmas 2005, the Secretary General of the Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization ISESCO, threatened calling for an economic and political boycott of Denmark among its 51 member states. The Egyptian ambassador Mona Omar Attiah emphasised that the Secretary General's threat should be taken seriously: "He's not the only one calling for a boycott. The public sentiment is such that it may lead to people not buying Danish products." (December 27, 2005).
Even though Attiah still believed in the possibility of a diplomatic solution, she warned that there were also "elements in the Middle East who are not as interested in solving problems through dialogue as we are". Nonetheless, the Danish government chose to ignore the political reality for months, showing no understanding of the gravity of the situation.
On the contrary, Anders Fogh Rasmussen criticised 22 former Danish ambassadors for "bad timing", when they in December 2005 in an open letter criticised his handling of the case, which they found had prevented a diplomatic solution.
Since mid-October, Anders Fogh Rasmussen has maintained this wilful misrepresentation of the situation despite repeated warnings of a possible escalation of the crisis, including the possibility of a trade boycott, never once heeding the opinions or advice of the ambassadors.
There is plenty of documentation after events began to spiral of control in late January. Whatever one's opinion of Jyllands-Posten's initial publication of the Muhammad cartoons, and how exaggerated the violent reactions may have been four months later, it was still the Danish Prime Minister's wilful manipulation and distortion of events throughout the three months of conflict that resulted in the greatest international crisis in post-war Danish history.
This so-called Muhammad Cartoon Controversy has succeeded in establishing a rift between Denmark and many ordinary Muslims worldwide, as well as providing a host of anti-Muslim movements in the West with ammunition in their proclaimed struggle for 'freedom of speech'. A struggle which often seems to be nothing more than an excuse for the 'right' to demonize Muslims! At the same time radical Islamists have benefited from the cartoons by 'proving' that freedom of speech and other human rights serve to legalize blasphemous and Islamophobic hatespeech, whereas various types of anti-Semitism on the other hand are often considered serious offences.
Unfortunately, these double standards are the rule rather than the exception, enforcing an ongoing conflict that stimulates anti-Muslim tendencies in the West, as well as anti-Semitic and anti-Western tendencies in the Muslim world. In this way, the fundamental weakness of Danish diplomacy, coupled with a constant flow of anti-Muslim rhetoric and provocations in Denmark have played a key part in deepening the religious and ethnic rift that unfortunately dominates parts of the international political arena today.
Rune Engelbreth Larsen is an historian of ideas and columnist in the Danish newspaper Politiken.
http://www.counterpunch.org/larsen09242010.html
The Danish Cartoon Affair
By RUNE ENGELBRETH LARSEN
Weekend Edition
September 24 - 26, 2010
On September 30, 2005, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published 12 cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, some of which were extremely demonizing in their outspoken anti-Muslim symbolism. Four months later violent protests erupted outside Danish embassies in some Muslim countries, and the terror threat against Denmark increased dramatically. Yet what happened during those four months, and could the escalation of the crisis have been prevented? Was it simply about freedom of speech and a "clash of civilizations" or were other agendas in play? Moreover, why did it happen in Denmark of all places?
The End of Diplomacy
Among the most important and often overlooked elements in understanding why the Cartoon Crisis originated in Denmark and how it escalated into the biggest international crisis in the history of Danish foreign politics since World War II, are. 1) The increasing acceptance of demonizing and antagonistic rhetoric directed against Muslims in Danish mainstream politics and the media since the mid-1990's. 2) The lack of diplomatic efforts by the Danish government to prevent the escalating crisis. 3) The stridently patronizing and arrogant approach of the Danish government and media towards ambassadors from Muslim countries as well as the deliberate misrepresentation of their intentions displayed by the then Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen in October, November and December 2005.
Without these elements, an escalation of the crisis would have been highly unlikely, and the violent protests and riots seen in some Muslim countries four months after the publication of the cartoons would never have taken place. The whole affair would have most likely blown over before it became a global media phenomenon.
Yet how did it all begin?
The first crucial event after the publication of the cartoons was a letter to the then Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, October 12 2005, by ambassadors from eleven Muslim countries requesting a meeting concerning (among other things) Jyllands-Posten's Muhammad cartoons.
The ambassadors' letter contains four main points: 1) A criticism of the "very discriminatory tendency towards Muslims in Denmark" and "the defamation of Islam as a religion." 2) A warning of the danger of the possible escalation of the crisis. 3) An appeal to the Prime Minister to "censure those responsible" to the extent the law permits. 4) A request for a meeting with the Prime Minister.
Primarily, the ambassadors criticised what they perceive as an "ongoing smear campaign" against Islam. To illustrate their point, in addition to the Muhammad cartoons they cited several other "recent instances" of this phenomenon, e.g., Racist articles published on the website of Danish MP Louise Frevert, in which, among other derogations, Muslims were compared to "Cancer"; Minister of Culture Brian Mikkelsen's speech at the annual meeting of the Conservative party, in which he called for a new cultural struggle against "medieval Muslim culture" in alleged Muslim parallel societies in Denmark; and a xenophobic local radio station, which in the summer of 2005, called upon Danes to "kill a significant part of the country's Muslim immigrants".
Furthermore, the letter placed great emphasis on the very real possibility of serious consequences and repercussions in the wake of these events: "We must emphasise the possibility of reactions in Muslim countries and among Muslim communities throughout Europe."
Nevertheless, the Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen refuses to meet with the ambassadors and instead chooses to respond in a letter dated October 22, proclaiming that freedom of speech is "the very foundation of Danish society".
Neither in his written response nor in public does the Prime Minister refer to the issues raised by the ambassadors, failing to comment even once on any of the specific examples of the "very discriminatory tendency" provided by the ambassadors.
Large sections of the press as well as political commentators quickly reduce the content of the ambassadors' letter to an example of their (Muslim countries) ignorance of Democratic society. They even portray it as a direct assault on freedom of speech itself, despite the ambassadors' repeated assurances to the contrary.
The Palestinian representative, Maie Sarraf emphasises that the purpose of the letter was never to control the press: "It's not as if we are asking Anders Fogh Rasmussen to exercise control over the Danish media, but even Western politicians have the option to make certain recommendations to the media, and that is what we ask him to do." (October 22, 2005).
Notwithstanding, Anders Fogh Rasmussen said of the ambassadors' criticism that "a Prime Minister cannot intervene and control the press" (October 25, 2005), and that "the principles upon which Danish democracy is built are so self-evident, there can be no basis for convening a meeting to discuss them" (October 25, 2005).
Despite the fact, the ambassadors had never requested a meeting to discuss the principles of Danish democracy, Anders Fogh Rasmussen nevertheless claimed that the ambassadors' intentions in this matter were in conflict with Danish democracy itself.
Egypt's Ambassador, Mona Omar Attiah repeatedly points out that they only requested of the Prime Minister that he distance himself morally from dehumanizing utterances: "It is a big misunderstanding when people think we have asked the Prime Minister to put limits on freedom of speech. We wished for him to call for a responsible and respectful use of this freedom. We also wished for him to take a moral position by declaring that Danish society is striving for the integration, not the demeaning, of Islam." (October 27, 2005).
Fügen Ok, Turkey's ambassador to Denmark points out: "We're not stupid; we know the Prime Minister has no authority to intervene. Our intention was to encourage him to improve the situation in the country; what happened is very serious and very provocative. This is not about closing newspapers. It's about presenting your views on the issue and trying to promote dialogue." (October 28, 2005).
Despite the ambassadors' direct rejection of the Prime Minister's wilful misrepresentation of their letter, he blatantly ignores them, intensifying his hostility in a way which can only be characterised as arrogant. In response to the ambassadors' criticism and allegations that the Muhammad cartoons represent an attack on Muslims and Islam in general within a bigoted Denmark, he declares: "In my opinion, this reveals an abysmal ignorance of the principles of true democracy, as well as a complete failure to understand that in a free democracy the government neither can, must nor should interfere with what the press may write." (October 30, 2005).
The ambassadors' request that those responsible for the cartoons be prosecuted "to the extent permitted by Danish law" is fully compatible with Danish jurisprudence and custom (blasphemy is illegal in Denmark). Hardly an attack on freedom of the press!
Otherwise stated, Anders Fogh Rasmussen chose to pontificate to eleven ambassadors as if they were schoolchildren who simply did not understand the definition of democracy, instead of discussing the issues raised by them, and commenting on the fact that their single request was for him to take a moral position on the issue of the cartoons.
Subsequently, Minister of the Church (and Religious affairs), Bertel Haarder reduces the whole affair to a clamour for "censorship" (October 30, 2005), and Foreign Affairs spokesman for the Prime Minister's party Venstre - The Liberal Party of Denmark, Troels Lund Poulsen, can see no reason to "enter into dialogue with persons who want to short-circuit the democratic process" (December 20, 2005).
The Danish government it seems is not content with refusing to meet with the Muslim ambassadors: they proceed to lecture them in patronising tones and their request for a dialogue suddenly becomes an attempt to "short-circuit" Danish democracy.
Portraying the ambassadors' appeal as an attack on freedom of speech is simply a wilful attempt at misrepresenting their intentions. Nevertheless, the Prime Minister continued his insistence upon this false interpretation, disregarding the ambassadors' explanations and statements to the contrary.
All of this was completely absent from his reasoning. The media and most Danish commentators also ignored it.
Paradoxically, Anders Fogh Rasmussen encourages the offended Muslims to respond to the cartoons in the very manner he himself refused to respond to the ambassadors: "The Danish tradition is to call a meeting, where we can sit and talk peacefully with each other. Sometimes we disagree strongly even when the meeting's over, and sometimes we reach an understanding of each others' motives. That's the Danish model. That's what we call conversational democracy." (Jyllands-Posten, October 30, 2005).
Apparently, "conversational democracy" does not apply to Muslim ambassadors! They were refused a meeting with the Prime Minister who obviously did not intend to discuss the matter with them, peacefully or otherwise.
Escalation
It was brought to the Prime Minister's attention on several occasions how easily he could end the conflict with no implications whatsoever for freedom of speech, but each time he adamantly refused to consider it.
The Prime Minister's rejection of the ambassadors' request for a meeting, his wilful misrepresentation of the contents of their letter and his denial of any anti-Muslim tendencies in Danish politics, significantly increased the rifts in Danish society between Muslims and non-Muslims as well as between Denmark and Muslims worldwide.
Simultaneously, the Danish government chose to overlook the fact that the ambassadors' letter warned about possible "reactions in Muslim countries", and a few days later - still in October 2005 - the Egyptian government warned the Danish ambassador in Cairo about "a possible escalation of the problem".
As early as October 29, the Egyptian ambassador Mona Omar Attiah, makes very clear recommendations: "The Egyptian Embassy urgently appeals to the Danish government to adopt a more serious approach to the problem in order to avoid an escalation, and expects at the very least, a statement from the government confirming its disapproval of these types of drawings as well as any violation of Islam in general." An Egyptian official who described the sort of reaction his government was calling for suggested the same: e.g. "an official statement condemning the mocking of Islam and its Prophet".
On November 18, the Egyptian Foreign Secretary Ahmed Aboul Gheit, emphasizes what several ambassadors have told the Danish press: that nobody asked for the newspaper "to be closed or for it to be censored", they had simply hoped for some sort of official statement. He goes as far as to detail all that was required of the Prime Minister to prevent the crisis from escalating: "Gentlemen, you must understand that my hands are tied. I cannot act against it, yet I would like to declare that this is not my opinion". (Politiken, November 18 2005).
The escalating crisis could probably have been contained if the Danish government had distanced itself from the image of Islam depicted by the cartoons, without doing any damage to the freedom of the press in the process. End of story.
Instead, the Prime Minister responded to the ambassadors' letter by misrepresenting their intentions whenever he spoke to the press. He distorted and omitted critical phrases and warnings in their letter, simultaneously ignoring the ambassadors' own explanations of its contents, even though they have repeatedly emphasised, starting immediately after receiving his response to their letter, that they have neither expressed any desire for control of the press nor for any kind of encroachment upon freedom of speech.
The entire affair gave the Egyptian Foreign Affairs Minister the distinct impression that "there are actually people within the Danish government who like what they see" in the cartoons.
Yet the Danish government continues to ignore the continuous requests for a clear indication of its moral position regarding the message behind the cartoons. Despite the constant flow of clarifications and repetitions of this request from numerous foreign government officials, the Danish Minister of Foreign Affairs Per Stig Møller in November 2005 still chooses to overhear everything: "The Constitution prevents censorship from ever being reintroduced. If Jyllands-Posten, claiming the protection of the constitution has violated the blasphemy law, then that's the business of the courts." (November 8, 2005).
Time and again, with equal condescension, the Danish government neglected to comment the many specific requests from ambassadors and other official agents from Muslim governments and the Islamic world in general, who ask for no more than a statement of disapproval from the Prime Minister.
Shortly after Christmas 2005, the Secretary General of the Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization ISESCO, threatened calling for an economic and political boycott of Denmark among its 51 member states. The Egyptian ambassador Mona Omar Attiah emphasised that the Secretary General's threat should be taken seriously: "He's not the only one calling for a boycott. The public sentiment is such that it may lead to people not buying Danish products." (December 27, 2005).
Even though Attiah still believed in the possibility of a diplomatic solution, she warned that there were also "elements in the Middle East who are not as interested in solving problems through dialogue as we are". Nonetheless, the Danish government chose to ignore the political reality for months, showing no understanding of the gravity of the situation.
On the contrary, Anders Fogh Rasmussen criticised 22 former Danish ambassadors for "bad timing", when they in December 2005 in an open letter criticised his handling of the case, which they found had prevented a diplomatic solution.
Since mid-October, Anders Fogh Rasmussen has maintained this wilful misrepresentation of the situation despite repeated warnings of a possible escalation of the crisis, including the possibility of a trade boycott, never once heeding the opinions or advice of the ambassadors.
There is plenty of documentation after events began to spiral of control in late January. Whatever one's opinion of Jyllands-Posten's initial publication of the Muhammad cartoons, and how exaggerated the violent reactions may have been four months later, it was still the Danish Prime Minister's wilful manipulation and distortion of events throughout the three months of conflict that resulted in the greatest international crisis in post-war Danish history.
This so-called Muhammad Cartoon Controversy has succeeded in establishing a rift between Denmark and many ordinary Muslims worldwide, as well as providing a host of anti-Muslim movements in the West with ammunition in their proclaimed struggle for 'freedom of speech'. A struggle which often seems to be nothing more than an excuse for the 'right' to demonize Muslims! At the same time radical Islamists have benefited from the cartoons by 'proving' that freedom of speech and other human rights serve to legalize blasphemous and Islamophobic hatespeech, whereas various types of anti-Semitism on the other hand are often considered serious offences.
Unfortunately, these double standards are the rule rather than the exception, enforcing an ongoing conflict that stimulates anti-Muslim tendencies in the West, as well as anti-Semitic and anti-Western tendencies in the Muslim world. In this way, the fundamental weakness of Danish diplomacy, coupled with a constant flow of anti-Muslim rhetoric and provocations in Denmark have played a key part in deepening the religious and ethnic rift that unfortunately dominates parts of the international political arena today.
Rune Engelbreth Larsen is an historian of ideas and columnist in the Danish newspaper Politiken.
http://www.counterpunch.org/larsen09242010.html
Saturday 11 September 2010
THE KORAN AT FAHRENHEIT 451
THE KORAN AT FAHRENHEIT 451
September 10 - 12, 2010
By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
By the end of the week, the air was so thick with pieties about the need for tolerance and respect for all creeds that one yearned for the Rev. Terry Jones, mutton chop whiskers akimbo, to rescind his last minute cave-in, stiffen his spine, then toss those Korans into the burn barrels outside his Gainesville church in Florida and torch them on this year’s anniversary of 9/11.
Jones announced on Thursday that he was canceling his Koran burning plan after getting a pledge that the scheduled Muslim center near Ground Zero in lower Manhattan would be moved. When it turned out there was no such pledge Jones hinted he might just reach for the kerosene can after all.
It’s not surprising Jones blinked. The entire world court of enlightened opinion had borne down on this former hotel manager, now senior pastor at the Dove World Outreach Center and its modest congregation, which does – on the evidence of videos of the church’s proceedings – boast of some young female members of whom many a beleaguered Anglican parish would be only too proud to have raising their arms in ecstasy next to the altar.
Take Hillary Clinton, U.S. secretary of state. “It's regrettable that a pastor in Gainesville, Fla., with a church of no more than fifty people can make this outrageous and distressful, disgraceful plan and get, you know, the world's attention,” Clinton said in a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations, a favored venue for the elites debating homicidal policies around the world. Clinton concluded, “It doesn't in any way represent America or Americans, or American government, or American religious or political leadership.”
This is the same Hillary Clinton who has spent much of her term as helmswoman of the nation’s foreign affairs demonizing Iran and threatening it with nuclear obliteration, during which uncounted millions of Korans and the people clutching them would turn to cinders.
And here was U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman imploring Jones to reconsider: “I appeal to people who are planning to burn the Koran to reconsider and drop their plans because they are inconsistent with American values and, as General Petraeus has warned, threatening to America's military.”
This is the same Lieberman who is the most sedulous U.S. lobbyist for the interests of Israel in Washington, D.C. Has Lieberman warned Israel that its planned law to force every Palestinian to swear explicit allegiance to the Jewish state, hence the tenets of Zionism, is inconsistent with American values, and thus might prompt him to reconsider his approval of America’s annual disbursement of $3 billion to Israel’s collection plate?
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder called Jones’ plan “idiotic and dangerous.” Would Holder call the action of his Democratic predecessor as attorney general, Janet Reno, in ordering the federal onslaught that led to the incineration in 1993 of the Branch Davidian church in Waco “idiotic and dangerous”? The Justice Department has always defended Reno’s action, even though it prompted the blowing up of the Murrah Center in Oklahoma City – until the 9/11/2001 attacks, the most deadly act of terror perpetrated on American soil.
And here was Gen. Petraeus making what is described as an unusual – for a member of the military – intervention: “Images of the burning of a Koran would undoubtedly be used by extremists in Afghanistan – and around the world – to inflame public opinion and incite violence.” Petraeus can only advise Pastor Jones, who has the constitutional freedom to dispose of the Koran as he thinks fit, consonant with local laws pertaining to public bonfires. He can, however, suspend by a simple order the lethal Predator onslaughts that regularly blow to pieces civilian groups in Afghanistan and the Pakistan border region, inflaming public opinion and leading invariably to escalation in violence.
For their part, Afghans demonstrated in Kabul in anticipatory protest at Pastor Jones’ plan. They denounced disrespect for the Koran. But we also learn from earnest proponents of religious tolerance and interconfessonal amity that the Koran promotes respect for the Bible, (though not, of course, the Christian claim of the divinity of Christ – a view also held by followers of Judaism, whose Talmud locates Christ in hell for all eternity, boiling in excrement). What did the indignant Afghans say when, in early August of this year ten members of a Christian medical team – six Americans, two Afghans, one German and a Briton, three women among them – were gunned down by the Taliban who claimed they were trying to convert Muslims to Christianity. The gunmen spared an Afghan driver, who screamed he was a Muslim and babbled some verses from the Koran. The group were members of the International Assistance Mission, one of the longest serving nongovernmental organizations operating in Afghanistan, registered as a nonprofit Christian organization, apparently not proselytizing. So, what if they were?
Pastor Jones, a good old boy with a nose for a headline, aroused the fury of the American establishment, which has, as a matter of regular imperial maintenance, promoted the murder of millions across the world in the name of “American values.” Modern Christians, fusionists of the all-get-along school deplored Jones and started reading the Koran in church to show their broad-mindedness. But many Evangelicals thought Jones was on track, though they mostly won’t say so publicly. As a Southern Baptist said to me last week, “Alex, they say that Christianity is tolerant. But Christ drove the moneychangers from the Temple. He didn’t tolerate them. A line has to be drawn, just like Jones is doing.”
And if the line isn’t drawn by Pastor Jones, Westboro Baptist Church, in Topeka, Kan., the church that pickets funerals of American soldiers to spread its message that God is punishing the country for being tolerant of homosexuals, has promised it will pick up the Zippo if it falls from Jones’ nerveless hand.
What better symbol than Jones of what should have been America’s overall resilience in the aftermath of the Muslim attacks of 9/11/2001: an assertion of one of the greatest of American values, as embodied in constitutional provisions for free speech. These freedoms matter most when they are under duress. Amid the duress after 9/11/2001, the Constitution was trashed by the same leaders who now decry Jones. The same President Obama who denounced Pastor Jones for planning an act “completely contrary to our values as Americans” is defending the “extraordinary renditions” of the Bush era with “state secrets” rationales just endorsed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Read the tortures inflicted on those men rendered by US government agents to Egypt and Morocco, and judge for yourself whether Obama has any standing to preach to Jones about “our values as Americans.”
My hope had been that on the other side of the road from Pastor Jones’ burn barrels, or on some piece of property volunteered by the mayor of Gainesville, a gay man, there would have been other barrels, into which could be tossed by their opponents the Bible, and kindred sacred texts such as the Talmud, plus Bacon’s Advancement of Learning, Feuerbach’s Essence of Christianity, and Das Kapital. Fahrenheit 451 is the temperature of the crucible, in which ideas and principles survive or die.
http://www.counterpunch.org/
SEPTEMBER 11 REMINDER FROM OBAMA: ENEMY IS AL QAEDA, NOT ISLAM
On the eve of the September 11 anniversary, Obama made an impassioned plea to Americans to show religious tolerance toward ordinary Muslims. 'We are not at war with Islam,' he said.
By Peter Grier, Staff writer / September 10, 2010
Washington
President Obama on Friday made an impassioned plea to Americans that they express religious tolerance toward ordinary Muslims and understand that the nation’s true enemies are Al Qaeda and like-minded Islamist extremists.
This year’s anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks occurs in a context of controversy and apprehension driven by a Florida pastor’s plan to burn the Quran and by a planned Islamic center and mosque near ground zero in New York, among other things. Asked about this mood at his Friday midday press conference, Mr. Obama said tough economic times and general anxiety can produce societal divisions.
Then he added that he admired the way President George W. Bush in those harrowing days after 9/11 made it clear that the US was not at war with Islam itself.
“We are not at war with Islam. We are at war against terrorist organizations that have distorted Islam or falsely used the banner of Islam to engage in their destructive acts,” said Obama.
Millions of Muslim Americans are US citizens, the president noted. They are neighbors, coworkers, and fellow students. They serve in the US military.
“You know, we have to make sure that we don’t start turning on each other,” Obama said. “And I will do everything I can, as long as I am president of the United States, to remind the American people that we are one nation, under God. And we may call that God different names, but we remain one nation.”
Asked specifically about the plans of Florida pastor Terry Jones to burn Qurans on Sept. 11, Obama said burning the sacred texts of someone else’s religion is not what America stands for.
In addition, he said that, as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, it is his obligation to speak out against acts that would put US troops in harm’s way. Pastor Jones’s plans have already led to riots in Kabul, Afghanistan, and would undoubtedly be used by Al Qaeda as a recruiting tool, said Obama.
The president said his worry was not so much Jones himself as the possibility that the pastor's actions could breed copycats, leading to an unending, media-driven uproar.
“Part of my concern is to make sure that we don’t start having a whole bunch of folks all across the country think this is the way to get attention,” said Obama.
Asked whether it is a policy failure that the Obama administration has not captured or killed Osama bin Laden, the president said finding the Al Qaeda leader remains a priority. The best minds in the intelligence business are working on it, he said. He claimed that increased pressure on Al Qaeda leaders has forced them to go deeper underground and made it more difficult for them to operate.
Pressed as to whether this situation would continue indefinitely, with Americans facing a terror threat stretching across generations, Obama said the US ultimately would be able to stamp out the Islamist terrorist problem, but that it would take a long time.
But the US should not start overreacting, or lose sight of what defines the country, he said.
“We are tougher than them. Our families and our businesses and our churches and mosques and synagogues and our Constitution and our values, that’s what gives us strength,” Obama said.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0910/September-11-reminder-from-Obama-Enemy-is-Al-Qaeda-not-Islam
OBAMA HONORS 9/11 VICTIMS, CONDEMNS TERRORISTS
'It was not a religion that attacked us that September day, it was Al Qaeda — a sorry band of men which perverts religion,' the president says during a memorial at the Pentagon.
By Christi Parsons, Tribune Washington Bureau
September 11, 2010|9:19 a.m.
Reporting from Washington —
Observing the 9/11 anniversary at the Pentagon on Saturday, President Obama asked Americans to honor the tragedy's victims by renewing a "sense of common purpose" and refusing to let terrorists tear down the nation's ideals.
The highest honor that Americans can pay to those killed that day nine years ago is to do what adversaries fear most, Obama said.
"We define the character of our country," Obama said, "and we will not let the acts of some small band of murderers who slaughter the innocent and cower in caves distort who we are."
Obama spoke not far from a prayer room opened by the military weeks after the attack so that service members of all faiths could pray, read their holy books and join clergy — including an imam, once a week — for services.
As the furor continues over the possibility that an Islamic center and mosque will open blocks from ground zero in New York, Obama vowed to champion the rights of every American to worship as they choose, "as service members and civilians from many faiths do just steps from here, at the very spot where the terrorists struck this building."
The country is not at war with Islam, the president said.
"It was not a religion that attacked us that September day, it was Al Qaeda — a sorry band of men which perverts religion," he said. "And just as we condemn intolerance and extremism abroad, so will we stay true to our traditions here at home as a diverse and tolerant nation."
Obama spoke to friends and family members of the victims at the Pentagon, where 184 people died when terrorists crashed a hijacked plane into the building. He also laid a wreath at the site.
"Those who attacked us sought to demoralize us, divide us, to deprive us of the very unity, the very ideals, that make America America — those qualities that have made us a beacon of freedom and hope to billions around the world," Obama said. "Today we declare once more we will never hand them that victory."
Vice President Joe Biden marked the day in New York in a memorial service at ground zero in Lower Manhattan. The assembly observed four moments of silence — marking the time when two of four hijacked planes struck the World Trade Center and when each of the towers fell.
First Lady Michelle Obama and former First Lady Laura Bush were in Shanksville, Pa., where the fourth hijacked plane crashed.
"In the face of terror," the former first lady said, "Americans chose to overcome evil."
The group in Pennsylvania observed a moment of silence, broken when relatives of the victims began to read aloud names of the 40 passengers and crew who died and tolling a bell for each.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/sc-dc-obama-remembrance-20100912,0,2787032.story
AMID FUROR OVER NYC MOSQUE, NATION PAUSES TO REMEMBER VICTIMS OF SEPT. 11
BETH FOUHY, VERENA DOBNIK Associated Press Writers
4:28 p.m. CDT, September 11, 2010
NEW YORK (AP) — Rites of remembrance and loss marked the ninth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, familiar in their sorrow but observed for the first time Saturday in a nation torn over the prospect of a mosque near ground zero and the role of Islam in society.
Under a flawless blue sky that called to mind the day itself, there were tears and song, chants, and the waving of hundreds of American flags. Loved ones recited the names of the victims, as they have each year since the attacks. They looked up to add personal messages to the lost and down to place flowers in a reflecting pool in their honor.
For a few hours Saturday morning, the political and cultural furor over whether a proposed Islamic center and mosque belongs two blocks from the World Trade Center site mostly gave way to the somber anniversary ceremony and pleas from elected officials for religious tolerance.
But this Sept. 11 was unmistakably different from the eight that came before it, and not only because a new World Trade Center is finally ready to rise. As they finished reading names, two relatives of 9/11 victims issued pleas — one to God and one to New York — that the site remain "sacred."
And within hours of the city's memorial service near ground zero, groups of protesters had taken up positions in lower Manhattan, blocks apart and representing both sides of the debate over the mosque, which has suffused the nation's politics for weeks leading up to the anniversary.
Near City Hall, supporters of the mosque toted signs that read, "The attack on Islam is racism" and "Tea Party bigots funded by corporate $." Opponents carried placards that read, "It stops here" and "Never forgive, never forget, no WTC mosque."
At the other Sept. 11 attack sites, as at ground zero, elected leaders sought to remind Americans of the acts of heroism that marked a Tuesday in 2001 and the national show of unity that followed.
President Barack Obama, appealing to an unsettled nation from the Pentagon, declared that the United States could not "sacrifice the liberties we cherish or hunker down behind walls of suspicion and mistrust."
"As Americans we are not — and never will be — at war with Islam," the president said. "It was not a religion that attacked us that September day — it was al-Qaida, a sorry band of men which perverts religion."
In Shanksville, Pa., first lady Michelle Obama and her predecessor, Laura Bush, spoke at a public event together for the first time since last year's presidential inauguration. At the rural field where the 40 passengers and crew of United Flight 93 lost their lives, Obama said "a scar in the earth has healed," and Bush said "Americans have no division" on this day.
In New York, the leader of a small Christian congregation in Florida who had planned to burn copies of the Quran to mark the Sept. 11 anniversary called off his plans.
Pastor Terry Jones gave an interview to NBC's "Today" after flying to New York in hopes of meeting with leaders of the mosque and persuading them to move the Islamic center in exchange for his canceling his own plans. No meeting had taken place, he said.
Nonetheless, "We feel that God is telling us to stop," he said. "Not today, not ever. We're not going to go back and do it. It is totally canceled."
Jones' plan had drawn opposition across the political spectrum and the world. Obama had appealed to him on television, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates in a personal phone call, not to burn the Islamic holy book. Gen. David Petraeus, head of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan, said carrying out the plan would have endangered American troops.
Nevertheless, there were isolated reports of Quran desecrations on the anniversary, including two not far from ground zero.
Afghans, meanwhile, set fire to tires in the streets and shouted "Death to America" for a second day despite Jones' decision to call off the burning. The largest drew a crowd estimated at 10,000.
There were no arrests in New York, police said. There were scattered scuffles in the streets, including one in which a man ripped up another's poster advocating freedom of religion and the second man struck back with the stick.
Near the World Trade Center site, a memorial to the 2,752 who died there played out mostly as it had each year since 2001. Bells were tolled to mark the times of impact of the two hijacked jets and the times the twin towers collapsed.
Assigned to read the names of the fallen, relatives of 9/11 victims calmly made their way through their lists, then struggled, some looking skyward, as they addressed their lost loved ones.
"David, please know that we love you. We miss you desperately," said Michael Brady, whose brother worked at Merrill Lynch. "We think about you and we pray for you every day."
Sean Holohan, whose brother was killed, called out to the 343 firefighters who died: "All of you proved that day to the world that we are still one indivisible nation under God."
Family members of Sept. 11 victims also laid flowers in a reflecting pool and wrote individual messages along its edges.
Around the spot where they paid tribute, ground zero is transforming itself. Just this week, officials hoisted a 70-foot piece of trade center steel there and vowed to open the Sept. 11 memorial, with two waterfalls marking where the towers stood, by next year. At the northwest corner of the site, 1 World Trade Center, formerly known as the Freedom Tower, now rises 36 stories above ground. It is set to open in 2013 and be 1,776 feet tall, taller than the original trade center.
The proposed Islamic cultural center, which organizers say will promote interfaith learning, would go in an abandoned Burlington Coat Factory two blocks uptown from ground zero.
Muslim prayer services are normally held at the site, but it was padlocked Friday and closed Saturday, the official end of the holy month of Ramadan. Police planned 24-hour patrols until next week. Worshippers on Friday were redirected to a different prayer room 10 blocks away.
On Saturday, about 1,500 opponents of the mosque chanted "USA" and "No mosque here." Critics have said that even if organizers have a First Amendment right to build the center where they want, putting it near ground zero would be a show of disrespect.
"Stop bending down to them. Stop placating them. No special treatment," said Alice Lemos, 58, speaking of Muslims and holding a small American flag on a stick. "This isn't about religion. This is about rubbing our faces in their victory over us."
Elizabeth Meehan, 51, was among about 2,000 rallying to support the mosque. Meehan, who rode a bus to the rally from her home in Saratoga, N.Y., about 180 miles away, said she is an observant Christian and felt it was important for Christians to speak in favor of religious freedom.
"I'm really fearful of all of the hate that's going on in our country. People in one brand of Christianity are coming out against other faiths, and I find that so sad," she said. "Muslims are fellow Americans, they should have the right to worship in America just like anyone else."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-sept-11-anniversary,0,5543473.story
September 10 - 12, 2010
By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
By the end of the week, the air was so thick with pieties about the need for tolerance and respect for all creeds that one yearned for the Rev. Terry Jones, mutton chop whiskers akimbo, to rescind his last minute cave-in, stiffen his spine, then toss those Korans into the burn barrels outside his Gainesville church in Florida and torch them on this year’s anniversary of 9/11.
Jones announced on Thursday that he was canceling his Koran burning plan after getting a pledge that the scheduled Muslim center near Ground Zero in lower Manhattan would be moved. When it turned out there was no such pledge Jones hinted he might just reach for the kerosene can after all.
It’s not surprising Jones blinked. The entire world court of enlightened opinion had borne down on this former hotel manager, now senior pastor at the Dove World Outreach Center and its modest congregation, which does – on the evidence of videos of the church’s proceedings – boast of some young female members of whom many a beleaguered Anglican parish would be only too proud to have raising their arms in ecstasy next to the altar.
Take Hillary Clinton, U.S. secretary of state. “It's regrettable that a pastor in Gainesville, Fla., with a church of no more than fifty people can make this outrageous and distressful, disgraceful plan and get, you know, the world's attention,” Clinton said in a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations, a favored venue for the elites debating homicidal policies around the world. Clinton concluded, “It doesn't in any way represent America or Americans, or American government, or American religious or political leadership.”
This is the same Hillary Clinton who has spent much of her term as helmswoman of the nation’s foreign affairs demonizing Iran and threatening it with nuclear obliteration, during which uncounted millions of Korans and the people clutching them would turn to cinders.
And here was U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman imploring Jones to reconsider: “I appeal to people who are planning to burn the Koran to reconsider and drop their plans because they are inconsistent with American values and, as General Petraeus has warned, threatening to America's military.”
This is the same Lieberman who is the most sedulous U.S. lobbyist for the interests of Israel in Washington, D.C. Has Lieberman warned Israel that its planned law to force every Palestinian to swear explicit allegiance to the Jewish state, hence the tenets of Zionism, is inconsistent with American values, and thus might prompt him to reconsider his approval of America’s annual disbursement of $3 billion to Israel’s collection plate?
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder called Jones’ plan “idiotic and dangerous.” Would Holder call the action of his Democratic predecessor as attorney general, Janet Reno, in ordering the federal onslaught that led to the incineration in 1993 of the Branch Davidian church in Waco “idiotic and dangerous”? The Justice Department has always defended Reno’s action, even though it prompted the blowing up of the Murrah Center in Oklahoma City – until the 9/11/2001 attacks, the most deadly act of terror perpetrated on American soil.
And here was Gen. Petraeus making what is described as an unusual – for a member of the military – intervention: “Images of the burning of a Koran would undoubtedly be used by extremists in Afghanistan – and around the world – to inflame public opinion and incite violence.” Petraeus can only advise Pastor Jones, who has the constitutional freedom to dispose of the Koran as he thinks fit, consonant with local laws pertaining to public bonfires. He can, however, suspend by a simple order the lethal Predator onslaughts that regularly blow to pieces civilian groups in Afghanistan and the Pakistan border region, inflaming public opinion and leading invariably to escalation in violence.
For their part, Afghans demonstrated in Kabul in anticipatory protest at Pastor Jones’ plan. They denounced disrespect for the Koran. But we also learn from earnest proponents of religious tolerance and interconfessonal amity that the Koran promotes respect for the Bible, (though not, of course, the Christian claim of the divinity of Christ – a view also held by followers of Judaism, whose Talmud locates Christ in hell for all eternity, boiling in excrement). What did the indignant Afghans say when, in early August of this year ten members of a Christian medical team – six Americans, two Afghans, one German and a Briton, three women among them – were gunned down by the Taliban who claimed they were trying to convert Muslims to Christianity. The gunmen spared an Afghan driver, who screamed he was a Muslim and babbled some verses from the Koran. The group were members of the International Assistance Mission, one of the longest serving nongovernmental organizations operating in Afghanistan, registered as a nonprofit Christian organization, apparently not proselytizing. So, what if they were?
Pastor Jones, a good old boy with a nose for a headline, aroused the fury of the American establishment, which has, as a matter of regular imperial maintenance, promoted the murder of millions across the world in the name of “American values.” Modern Christians, fusionists of the all-get-along school deplored Jones and started reading the Koran in church to show their broad-mindedness. But many Evangelicals thought Jones was on track, though they mostly won’t say so publicly. As a Southern Baptist said to me last week, “Alex, they say that Christianity is tolerant. But Christ drove the moneychangers from the Temple. He didn’t tolerate them. A line has to be drawn, just like Jones is doing.”
And if the line isn’t drawn by Pastor Jones, Westboro Baptist Church, in Topeka, Kan., the church that pickets funerals of American soldiers to spread its message that God is punishing the country for being tolerant of homosexuals, has promised it will pick up the Zippo if it falls from Jones’ nerveless hand.
What better symbol than Jones of what should have been America’s overall resilience in the aftermath of the Muslim attacks of 9/11/2001: an assertion of one of the greatest of American values, as embodied in constitutional provisions for free speech. These freedoms matter most when they are under duress. Amid the duress after 9/11/2001, the Constitution was trashed by the same leaders who now decry Jones. The same President Obama who denounced Pastor Jones for planning an act “completely contrary to our values as Americans” is defending the “extraordinary renditions” of the Bush era with “state secrets” rationales just endorsed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Read the tortures inflicted on those men rendered by US government agents to Egypt and Morocco, and judge for yourself whether Obama has any standing to preach to Jones about “our values as Americans.”
My hope had been that on the other side of the road from Pastor Jones’ burn barrels, or on some piece of property volunteered by the mayor of Gainesville, a gay man, there would have been other barrels, into which could be tossed by their opponents the Bible, and kindred sacred texts such as the Talmud, plus Bacon’s Advancement of Learning, Feuerbach’s Essence of Christianity, and Das Kapital. Fahrenheit 451 is the temperature of the crucible, in which ideas and principles survive or die.
http://www.counterpunch.org/
SEPTEMBER 11 REMINDER FROM OBAMA: ENEMY IS AL QAEDA, NOT ISLAM
On the eve of the September 11 anniversary, Obama made an impassioned plea to Americans to show religious tolerance toward ordinary Muslims. 'We are not at war with Islam,' he said.
By Peter Grier, Staff writer / September 10, 2010
Washington
President Obama on Friday made an impassioned plea to Americans that they express religious tolerance toward ordinary Muslims and understand that the nation’s true enemies are Al Qaeda and like-minded Islamist extremists.
This year’s anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks occurs in a context of controversy and apprehension driven by a Florida pastor’s plan to burn the Quran and by a planned Islamic center and mosque near ground zero in New York, among other things. Asked about this mood at his Friday midday press conference, Mr. Obama said tough economic times and general anxiety can produce societal divisions.
Then he added that he admired the way President George W. Bush in those harrowing days after 9/11 made it clear that the US was not at war with Islam itself.
“We are not at war with Islam. We are at war against terrorist organizations that have distorted Islam or falsely used the banner of Islam to engage in their destructive acts,” said Obama.
Millions of Muslim Americans are US citizens, the president noted. They are neighbors, coworkers, and fellow students. They serve in the US military.
“You know, we have to make sure that we don’t start turning on each other,” Obama said. “And I will do everything I can, as long as I am president of the United States, to remind the American people that we are one nation, under God. And we may call that God different names, but we remain one nation.”
Asked specifically about the plans of Florida pastor Terry Jones to burn Qurans on Sept. 11, Obama said burning the sacred texts of someone else’s religion is not what America stands for.
In addition, he said that, as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, it is his obligation to speak out against acts that would put US troops in harm’s way. Pastor Jones’s plans have already led to riots in Kabul, Afghanistan, and would undoubtedly be used by Al Qaeda as a recruiting tool, said Obama.
The president said his worry was not so much Jones himself as the possibility that the pastor's actions could breed copycats, leading to an unending, media-driven uproar.
“Part of my concern is to make sure that we don’t start having a whole bunch of folks all across the country think this is the way to get attention,” said Obama.
Asked whether it is a policy failure that the Obama administration has not captured or killed Osama bin Laden, the president said finding the Al Qaeda leader remains a priority. The best minds in the intelligence business are working on it, he said. He claimed that increased pressure on Al Qaeda leaders has forced them to go deeper underground and made it more difficult for them to operate.
Pressed as to whether this situation would continue indefinitely, with Americans facing a terror threat stretching across generations, Obama said the US ultimately would be able to stamp out the Islamist terrorist problem, but that it would take a long time.
But the US should not start overreacting, or lose sight of what defines the country, he said.
“We are tougher than them. Our families and our businesses and our churches and mosques and synagogues and our Constitution and our values, that’s what gives us strength,” Obama said.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0910/September-11-reminder-from-Obama-Enemy-is-Al-Qaeda-not-Islam
OBAMA HONORS 9/11 VICTIMS, CONDEMNS TERRORISTS
'It was not a religion that attacked us that September day, it was Al Qaeda — a sorry band of men which perverts religion,' the president says during a memorial at the Pentagon.
By Christi Parsons, Tribune Washington Bureau
September 11, 2010|9:19 a.m.
Reporting from Washington —
Observing the 9/11 anniversary at the Pentagon on Saturday, President Obama asked Americans to honor the tragedy's victims by renewing a "sense of common purpose" and refusing to let terrorists tear down the nation's ideals.
The highest honor that Americans can pay to those killed that day nine years ago is to do what adversaries fear most, Obama said.
"We define the character of our country," Obama said, "and we will not let the acts of some small band of murderers who slaughter the innocent and cower in caves distort who we are."
Obama spoke not far from a prayer room opened by the military weeks after the attack so that service members of all faiths could pray, read their holy books and join clergy — including an imam, once a week — for services.
As the furor continues over the possibility that an Islamic center and mosque will open blocks from ground zero in New York, Obama vowed to champion the rights of every American to worship as they choose, "as service members and civilians from many faiths do just steps from here, at the very spot where the terrorists struck this building."
The country is not at war with Islam, the president said.
"It was not a religion that attacked us that September day, it was Al Qaeda — a sorry band of men which perverts religion," he said. "And just as we condemn intolerance and extremism abroad, so will we stay true to our traditions here at home as a diverse and tolerant nation."
Obama spoke to friends and family members of the victims at the Pentagon, where 184 people died when terrorists crashed a hijacked plane into the building. He also laid a wreath at the site.
"Those who attacked us sought to demoralize us, divide us, to deprive us of the very unity, the very ideals, that make America America — those qualities that have made us a beacon of freedom and hope to billions around the world," Obama said. "Today we declare once more we will never hand them that victory."
Vice President Joe Biden marked the day in New York in a memorial service at ground zero in Lower Manhattan. The assembly observed four moments of silence — marking the time when two of four hijacked planes struck the World Trade Center and when each of the towers fell.
First Lady Michelle Obama and former First Lady Laura Bush were in Shanksville, Pa., where the fourth hijacked plane crashed.
"In the face of terror," the former first lady said, "Americans chose to overcome evil."
The group in Pennsylvania observed a moment of silence, broken when relatives of the victims began to read aloud names of the 40 passengers and crew who died and tolling a bell for each.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/sc-dc-obama-remembrance-20100912,0,2787032.story
AMID FUROR OVER NYC MOSQUE, NATION PAUSES TO REMEMBER VICTIMS OF SEPT. 11
BETH FOUHY, VERENA DOBNIK Associated Press Writers
4:28 p.m. CDT, September 11, 2010
NEW YORK (AP) — Rites of remembrance and loss marked the ninth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, familiar in their sorrow but observed for the first time Saturday in a nation torn over the prospect of a mosque near ground zero and the role of Islam in society.
Under a flawless blue sky that called to mind the day itself, there were tears and song, chants, and the waving of hundreds of American flags. Loved ones recited the names of the victims, as they have each year since the attacks. They looked up to add personal messages to the lost and down to place flowers in a reflecting pool in their honor.
For a few hours Saturday morning, the political and cultural furor over whether a proposed Islamic center and mosque belongs two blocks from the World Trade Center site mostly gave way to the somber anniversary ceremony and pleas from elected officials for religious tolerance.
But this Sept. 11 was unmistakably different from the eight that came before it, and not only because a new World Trade Center is finally ready to rise. As they finished reading names, two relatives of 9/11 victims issued pleas — one to God and one to New York — that the site remain "sacred."
And within hours of the city's memorial service near ground zero, groups of protesters had taken up positions in lower Manhattan, blocks apart and representing both sides of the debate over the mosque, which has suffused the nation's politics for weeks leading up to the anniversary.
Near City Hall, supporters of the mosque toted signs that read, "The attack on Islam is racism" and "Tea Party bigots funded by corporate $." Opponents carried placards that read, "It stops here" and "Never forgive, never forget, no WTC mosque."
At the other Sept. 11 attack sites, as at ground zero, elected leaders sought to remind Americans of the acts of heroism that marked a Tuesday in 2001 and the national show of unity that followed.
President Barack Obama, appealing to an unsettled nation from the Pentagon, declared that the United States could not "sacrifice the liberties we cherish or hunker down behind walls of suspicion and mistrust."
"As Americans we are not — and never will be — at war with Islam," the president said. "It was not a religion that attacked us that September day — it was al-Qaida, a sorry band of men which perverts religion."
In Shanksville, Pa., first lady Michelle Obama and her predecessor, Laura Bush, spoke at a public event together for the first time since last year's presidential inauguration. At the rural field where the 40 passengers and crew of United Flight 93 lost their lives, Obama said "a scar in the earth has healed," and Bush said "Americans have no division" on this day.
In New York, the leader of a small Christian congregation in Florida who had planned to burn copies of the Quran to mark the Sept. 11 anniversary called off his plans.
Pastor Terry Jones gave an interview to NBC's "Today" after flying to New York in hopes of meeting with leaders of the mosque and persuading them to move the Islamic center in exchange for his canceling his own plans. No meeting had taken place, he said.
Nonetheless, "We feel that God is telling us to stop," he said. "Not today, not ever. We're not going to go back and do it. It is totally canceled."
Jones' plan had drawn opposition across the political spectrum and the world. Obama had appealed to him on television, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates in a personal phone call, not to burn the Islamic holy book. Gen. David Petraeus, head of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan, said carrying out the plan would have endangered American troops.
Nevertheless, there were isolated reports of Quran desecrations on the anniversary, including two not far from ground zero.
Afghans, meanwhile, set fire to tires in the streets and shouted "Death to America" for a second day despite Jones' decision to call off the burning. The largest drew a crowd estimated at 10,000.
There were no arrests in New York, police said. There were scattered scuffles in the streets, including one in which a man ripped up another's poster advocating freedom of religion and the second man struck back with the stick.
Near the World Trade Center site, a memorial to the 2,752 who died there played out mostly as it had each year since 2001. Bells were tolled to mark the times of impact of the two hijacked jets and the times the twin towers collapsed.
Assigned to read the names of the fallen, relatives of 9/11 victims calmly made their way through their lists, then struggled, some looking skyward, as they addressed their lost loved ones.
"David, please know that we love you. We miss you desperately," said Michael Brady, whose brother worked at Merrill Lynch. "We think about you and we pray for you every day."
Sean Holohan, whose brother was killed, called out to the 343 firefighters who died: "All of you proved that day to the world that we are still one indivisible nation under God."
Family members of Sept. 11 victims also laid flowers in a reflecting pool and wrote individual messages along its edges.
Around the spot where they paid tribute, ground zero is transforming itself. Just this week, officials hoisted a 70-foot piece of trade center steel there and vowed to open the Sept. 11 memorial, with two waterfalls marking where the towers stood, by next year. At the northwest corner of the site, 1 World Trade Center, formerly known as the Freedom Tower, now rises 36 stories above ground. It is set to open in 2013 and be 1,776 feet tall, taller than the original trade center.
The proposed Islamic cultural center, which organizers say will promote interfaith learning, would go in an abandoned Burlington Coat Factory two blocks uptown from ground zero.
Muslim prayer services are normally held at the site, but it was padlocked Friday and closed Saturday, the official end of the holy month of Ramadan. Police planned 24-hour patrols until next week. Worshippers on Friday were redirected to a different prayer room 10 blocks away.
On Saturday, about 1,500 opponents of the mosque chanted "USA" and "No mosque here." Critics have said that even if organizers have a First Amendment right to build the center where they want, putting it near ground zero would be a show of disrespect.
"Stop bending down to them. Stop placating them. No special treatment," said Alice Lemos, 58, speaking of Muslims and holding a small American flag on a stick. "This isn't about religion. This is about rubbing our faces in their victory over us."
Elizabeth Meehan, 51, was among about 2,000 rallying to support the mosque. Meehan, who rode a bus to the rally from her home in Saratoga, N.Y., about 180 miles away, said she is an observant Christian and felt it was important for Christians to speak in favor of religious freedom.
"I'm really fearful of all of the hate that's going on in our country. People in one brand of Christianity are coming out against other faiths, and I find that so sad," she said. "Muslims are fellow Americans, they should have the right to worship in America just like anyone else."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-sept-11-anniversary,0,5543473.story
Thursday 9 September 2010
Obama urges Fla. pastor to call off Koran burning
Obama urges Fla. pastor to call off Koran burning
By William Branigin
Thursday, September 9, 2010; 1:57 PM
President Obama urged a Florida pastor Thursday to call off a plan to burn copies of the Koran on Sept. 11, warning that such a "stunt" would amount to a "recruitment bonanza for al-Qaeda" and would endanger Americans.
Obama added his voice to a chorus of criticism of the proposed Koran-burning in an interview broadcast Thursday on ABC's "Good Morning America" program. Amid continuing protests in countries such as Afghanistan, he urged Terry Jones, pastor of a small evangelical church in Gainesville, Fla., to listen to his "better angels" and cancel his plan to burn copies of the Muslim holy book on the ninth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
"If he's listening, I just hope he understands that what he's proposing to do is completely contrary to our values as Americans; that this country has been built on the notions of religious freedom and religious tolerance," Obama said. "And as a very practical matter, as commander in chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, I just want him to understand that this stunt that he is talking about pulling could greatly endanger our young men and women in uniform who are in Iraq, who are in Afghanistan. We're already seeing protests against Americans just by the mere threat that he's making."
Obama added: "Look, this is a recruitment bonanza for al-Qaeda. You know, you could have serious violence in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan. This could increase the recruitment of individuals who would be willing to blow themselves up in American cities or European cities."
The State Department later issued a worldwide travel alert, warning U.S. citizens "of the potential for anti-U.S. demonstrations in many countries" in response to the planned Koran burning.
"Demonstrations, some violent, have already taken place in several countries, including Afghanistan and Indonesia, in response to media reports of the church's plans," the State Department said Thursday. "The potential for further protests and demonstrations, some of which may turn violent, remains high."
Obama said he hopes Jones "listens to those better angels and understands that this is a destructive act that he's engaging in."
Asked whether he feels helpless or angry about having to deal with the fallout from the actions of a single pastor with a few dozen followers, Obama acknowledged, "It is frustrating." He noted that "we are a government of laws, and so we have to abide by those laws. And my understanding is that he can be cited for public burning, but that's the extent of the laws that we have available to us." The interview with "Good Morning America" was conducted Wednesday.
Jones told USA Today that he had not been contacted by the White House, State Department or Pentagon about his plan, the paper reported Thursday. If he were, "that would cause us to definitely think it over," he was quoted as saying. "That's what we're doing now. I don't think a call from them is something we would ignore."
By weighing in on the controversy, Obama joined critics from across the political and religious spectrum in condemning Jones's plan.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Obama's opponent in the 2008 presidential election, said Thursday on Twitter: "Pastor Jones' threats to burn the Koran will put American service men/women in danger - for their sake please don't do it!"
Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton also have made similar pleas in recent days.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/09/AR2010090903014.html?hpid=topnews
By William Branigin
Thursday, September 9, 2010; 1:57 PM
President Obama urged a Florida pastor Thursday to call off a plan to burn copies of the Koran on Sept. 11, warning that such a "stunt" would amount to a "recruitment bonanza for al-Qaeda" and would endanger Americans.
Obama added his voice to a chorus of criticism of the proposed Koran-burning in an interview broadcast Thursday on ABC's "Good Morning America" program. Amid continuing protests in countries such as Afghanistan, he urged Terry Jones, pastor of a small evangelical church in Gainesville, Fla., to listen to his "better angels" and cancel his plan to burn copies of the Muslim holy book on the ninth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
"If he's listening, I just hope he understands that what he's proposing to do is completely contrary to our values as Americans; that this country has been built on the notions of religious freedom and religious tolerance," Obama said. "And as a very practical matter, as commander in chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, I just want him to understand that this stunt that he is talking about pulling could greatly endanger our young men and women in uniform who are in Iraq, who are in Afghanistan. We're already seeing protests against Americans just by the mere threat that he's making."
Obama added: "Look, this is a recruitment bonanza for al-Qaeda. You know, you could have serious violence in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan. This could increase the recruitment of individuals who would be willing to blow themselves up in American cities or European cities."
The State Department later issued a worldwide travel alert, warning U.S. citizens "of the potential for anti-U.S. demonstrations in many countries" in response to the planned Koran burning.
"Demonstrations, some violent, have already taken place in several countries, including Afghanistan and Indonesia, in response to media reports of the church's plans," the State Department said Thursday. "The potential for further protests and demonstrations, some of which may turn violent, remains high."
Obama said he hopes Jones "listens to those better angels and understands that this is a destructive act that he's engaging in."
Asked whether he feels helpless or angry about having to deal with the fallout from the actions of a single pastor with a few dozen followers, Obama acknowledged, "It is frustrating." He noted that "we are a government of laws, and so we have to abide by those laws. And my understanding is that he can be cited for public burning, but that's the extent of the laws that we have available to us." The interview with "Good Morning America" was conducted Wednesday.
Jones told USA Today that he had not been contacted by the White House, State Department or Pentagon about his plan, the paper reported Thursday. If he were, "that would cause us to definitely think it over," he was quoted as saying. "That's what we're doing now. I don't think a call from them is something we would ignore."
By weighing in on the controversy, Obama joined critics from across the political and religious spectrum in condemning Jones's plan.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Obama's opponent in the 2008 presidential election, said Thursday on Twitter: "Pastor Jones' threats to burn the Koran will put American service men/women in danger - for their sake please don't do it!"
Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton also have made similar pleas in recent days.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/09/AR2010090903014.html?hpid=topnews
Obama Speaks Out Against Pastor’s Plan to Burn Koran
Obama Speaks Out Against Pastor’s Plan to Burn Koran
By HELENE COOPER
Published: September 9, 2010
WASHINGTON— President Obama sharply criticized a Florida pastor’s plan to burn copies of the Koran on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, calling it a “stunt” that threatens the lives of American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq and violates American principles of religious tolerance.
“If he’s listening, I just hope he understands that what he’s proposing to do is completely contrary to our values as Americans,” Mr. Obama said in an interview shown Thursday on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” referring to Terry Jones, a pastor from Gainesville, Fla.
“As a practical matter, as commander in chief of the armed forces of the United States, I just want him to understand that this stunt that he is pulling could greatly endanger our young men and women in uniform who are in Iraq, who are in Afghanistan,” the president said.
Mr. Obama said that the Koran burning would be a “recruitment bonanza for Al Qaeda” and other terrorist groups looking for people willing to “blow themselves up” in American or European cities.
Mr. Obama is the strongest voice so far among a long list of prominent political and religious leader who have condemned Mr. Jones’s plan. General David H. Petraeus, the American commander in Afghanistan, said this week that the burning would put American troops there directly in harm’s way, a warning echoed by the F.B.I., which has said that Islamic extremists would likely retaliate.
The reaction in the Muslim world, many Islamic experts said, could be as bad, or perhaps even worse, than the reaction after a Danish newspaper published a cartoon in 2005 depicting the prophet Mohammad with his turban turning into a bomb. The cartoon ignited huge protests around the Muslim world. The United States stayed largely out of the controversy, with riots and burnings directed toward Danish and European entities. But a burning of the Koran — Islam’s most sacred text — in Florida would unleash that anger directly at the United States, Muslim scholars warned.
The pastor, who heads the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, has said he is still praying about his plan, but has not indicated any willingness to back down so far. He has also said that he won’t be responsible for any deaths that may occur as a result of his church’s actions.
“He says he’s someone who is motivated by his faith,” Mr. Obama said. “I hope he listens to those better angels and understands that this is a destructive act that he’s engaging in.”
Later in the day, in a statement marking the Muslim holiday of Eid-ul-Fitr, Mr. Obama again urged religious tolerance and unity.
“It is a time of self-reflection focusing on the values that Muslims and people of all faiths share — charity, community, cooperation and compassion,” the statement said. “This year’s Eid is also an occasion to reflect on the importance of religious tolerance and to recognize the positive role that religious communities of all faiths, including Muslims, have played in American life.”
Mr. Obama also said that “those devastated by the recent floods in Pakistan will be on the minds of many around the world” and urged Americans to donate to the Pakistan Relief Fund.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/10/us/10obama.html?_r=1&hp
By HELENE COOPER
Published: September 9, 2010
WASHINGTON— President Obama sharply criticized a Florida pastor’s plan to burn copies of the Koran on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, calling it a “stunt” that threatens the lives of American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq and violates American principles of religious tolerance.
“If he’s listening, I just hope he understands that what he’s proposing to do is completely contrary to our values as Americans,” Mr. Obama said in an interview shown Thursday on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” referring to Terry Jones, a pastor from Gainesville, Fla.
“As a practical matter, as commander in chief of the armed forces of the United States, I just want him to understand that this stunt that he is pulling could greatly endanger our young men and women in uniform who are in Iraq, who are in Afghanistan,” the president said.
Mr. Obama said that the Koran burning would be a “recruitment bonanza for Al Qaeda” and other terrorist groups looking for people willing to “blow themselves up” in American or European cities.
Mr. Obama is the strongest voice so far among a long list of prominent political and religious leader who have condemned Mr. Jones’s plan. General David H. Petraeus, the American commander in Afghanistan, said this week that the burning would put American troops there directly in harm’s way, a warning echoed by the F.B.I., which has said that Islamic extremists would likely retaliate.
The reaction in the Muslim world, many Islamic experts said, could be as bad, or perhaps even worse, than the reaction after a Danish newspaper published a cartoon in 2005 depicting the prophet Mohammad with his turban turning into a bomb. The cartoon ignited huge protests around the Muslim world. The United States stayed largely out of the controversy, with riots and burnings directed toward Danish and European entities. But a burning of the Koran — Islam’s most sacred text — in Florida would unleash that anger directly at the United States, Muslim scholars warned.
The pastor, who heads the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, has said he is still praying about his plan, but has not indicated any willingness to back down so far. He has also said that he won’t be responsible for any deaths that may occur as a result of his church’s actions.
“He says he’s someone who is motivated by his faith,” Mr. Obama said. “I hope he listens to those better angels and understands that this is a destructive act that he’s engaging in.”
Later in the day, in a statement marking the Muslim holiday of Eid-ul-Fitr, Mr. Obama again urged religious tolerance and unity.
“It is a time of self-reflection focusing on the values that Muslims and people of all faiths share — charity, community, cooperation and compassion,” the statement said. “This year’s Eid is also an occasion to reflect on the importance of religious tolerance and to recognize the positive role that religious communities of all faiths, including Muslims, have played in American life.”
Mr. Obama also said that “those devastated by the recent floods in Pakistan will be on the minds of many around the world” and urged Americans to donate to the Pakistan Relief Fund.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/10/us/10obama.html?_r=1&hp
The Quran burning: sign of things to come?
The Quran burning: sign of things to come?
Director, Islamic Studies, U. of Delaware
Muqtedar Khan
Associate professor, political science and international relations; Fellow of the Institute of Social Policy and Understanding.
"Where books are burned in the end people will burn." - Heinrich Heine
On May 10th, 1933 the Nazis burned 25,000 books -- including those written by Jewish poet Heinrich Heine, who had predicted in 1820 that "where books are burned in the end people will burn," - and eight years later the Holocaust began.
The connection is not too difficult to discern. Books are repositories of histories, of identities, of values. They are the soul of civilization. A society must abandon basic decencies in order to muster the immoral courage to burn books as a celebratory act. Once it starts burning the souls of civilization, human souls will not be left behind.
On September 11, 2010, some misguided Americans plan to burn the Holy Quran, the only book in the entire heritage of humanity that claims to be solely the word of God. This dastardly act is the brainchild of Terry Jones, a Christian Pastor from Florida. This act is not just some symbolic gesture of defiance. It is an act of egregious violence against the beliefs and the sacred symbols of one fourth of humanity. The act will scorch Muslim hearts everywhere. The searing pain will never be forgotten.
Along with the idea of God and prophets, the Quran is the thing that Muslims hold the dearest. My children have been listening to it since even before they were born. I use to recite it to them while they were still in the womb. Their children will be reciting it to them when they will be lowered in to their tomb. Believe me, there is nothing more precious to Muslims than the Quran, and watching people toss it into fire, will be horrifying. I would rather burn in fire myself, than watch a Quran burn.
I am amazed at how millions of Americans who are decent and honorable can watch this happen. No matter how ugly the act the Constitution permits this, is not an acceptable excuse. The Constitution does not permit this. The Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment. For Muslims this is worse than torture.
I have been agonizing over this since I heard about it. My feelings are mixed. Sometimes I feel dismayed at having to suffer this. At other times I feel betrayed, for I think Muslims may have invited this through their own hateful zealotry. In the past few years alone so many churches have been desecrated in the Muslim World, many missionaries were murdered, nuns stabbed to death and the worst of all, the 1500 year old Buddhas of Bamiyan were intentionally dynamited. It was an ugly blow against not just religion, but also a major landmark of human history. I can now begin to imagine how millions of devout Buddhists must have suffered.
The Quran explicitly forbids all such acts. They merely chronicle the savagery and meanness that Muslims these days display towards others and now it is unfortunately our turn to get a taste of our own medicine.
As a reminder to those Muslims who still appreciate what the Taliban did, let me quote the relevant Quranic source: "Do not insult their Gods, lest out of ignorance they insult Allah" (6:108).
Those determined to burn the Quran are doing so as a way to either hurt or get even with Muslims. They however are laboring under the illusion that Quran belongs to Muslims. Yes, Muslims attach unimaginable value to it, but the Quran belongs to all people, it is part of the human treasury and the Quran attests that it was sent, not to Muslims, but to the entire humanity: "It is nothing less than a message to all nations" (Quran 68:52). It belongs as much to Terry Jones as it does to Muslims. The only difference being, some have built great civilizations on its basis others may burn their own values along with it.
When images of Quran burning will be flashed around the globe, it will excite Muslim anger. I want Muslim leaders everywhere to council their communities. Recognize this provocation for what it is and ignore it. And remember do not let this become a source for anger and hatred towards Christians. Remind your congregations what the Quran tells Muslims about Christians:
"...Forgive them and overlook their misdeeds, for Allah loves those who are kind (Quran 5:13).
If Muslims react with anger and indiscriminate violence then one of Terry Jones' goals will be fulfilled. He would have shown the world that some Muslims are more barbaric than even he is. Be patient, encourage everyone to be patient, let Terry Jones enjoy the monopoly on barbarity for a while.
"True believers are those who show patience, firmness and self-control (Quran 3:17) and indeed God is with those who are patient (Quran 2:153)."
Dr. Muqtedar Khan is Associate Professor at the University of Delaware and a Fellow of the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/muqtedar_khan/2010/09/the_quran_burning_sign_of_things_to_come.html?hpid=topnews
Director, Islamic Studies, U. of Delaware
Muqtedar Khan
Associate professor, political science and international relations; Fellow of the Institute of Social Policy and Understanding.
"Where books are burned in the end people will burn." - Heinrich Heine
On May 10th, 1933 the Nazis burned 25,000 books -- including those written by Jewish poet Heinrich Heine, who had predicted in 1820 that "where books are burned in the end people will burn," - and eight years later the Holocaust began.
The connection is not too difficult to discern. Books are repositories of histories, of identities, of values. They are the soul of civilization. A society must abandon basic decencies in order to muster the immoral courage to burn books as a celebratory act. Once it starts burning the souls of civilization, human souls will not be left behind.
On September 11, 2010, some misguided Americans plan to burn the Holy Quran, the only book in the entire heritage of humanity that claims to be solely the word of God. This dastardly act is the brainchild of Terry Jones, a Christian Pastor from Florida. This act is not just some symbolic gesture of defiance. It is an act of egregious violence against the beliefs and the sacred symbols of one fourth of humanity. The act will scorch Muslim hearts everywhere. The searing pain will never be forgotten.
Along with the idea of God and prophets, the Quran is the thing that Muslims hold the dearest. My children have been listening to it since even before they were born. I use to recite it to them while they were still in the womb. Their children will be reciting it to them when they will be lowered in to their tomb. Believe me, there is nothing more precious to Muslims than the Quran, and watching people toss it into fire, will be horrifying. I would rather burn in fire myself, than watch a Quran burn.
I am amazed at how millions of Americans who are decent and honorable can watch this happen. No matter how ugly the act the Constitution permits this, is not an acceptable excuse. The Constitution does not permit this. The Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment. For Muslims this is worse than torture.
I have been agonizing over this since I heard about it. My feelings are mixed. Sometimes I feel dismayed at having to suffer this. At other times I feel betrayed, for I think Muslims may have invited this through their own hateful zealotry. In the past few years alone so many churches have been desecrated in the Muslim World, many missionaries were murdered, nuns stabbed to death and the worst of all, the 1500 year old Buddhas of Bamiyan were intentionally dynamited. It was an ugly blow against not just religion, but also a major landmark of human history. I can now begin to imagine how millions of devout Buddhists must have suffered.
The Quran explicitly forbids all such acts. They merely chronicle the savagery and meanness that Muslims these days display towards others and now it is unfortunately our turn to get a taste of our own medicine.
As a reminder to those Muslims who still appreciate what the Taliban did, let me quote the relevant Quranic source: "Do not insult their Gods, lest out of ignorance they insult Allah" (6:108).
Those determined to burn the Quran are doing so as a way to either hurt or get even with Muslims. They however are laboring under the illusion that Quran belongs to Muslims. Yes, Muslims attach unimaginable value to it, but the Quran belongs to all people, it is part of the human treasury and the Quran attests that it was sent, not to Muslims, but to the entire humanity: "It is nothing less than a message to all nations" (Quran 68:52). It belongs as much to Terry Jones as it does to Muslims. The only difference being, some have built great civilizations on its basis others may burn their own values along with it.
When images of Quran burning will be flashed around the globe, it will excite Muslim anger. I want Muslim leaders everywhere to council their communities. Recognize this provocation for what it is and ignore it. And remember do not let this become a source for anger and hatred towards Christians. Remind your congregations what the Quran tells Muslims about Christians:
"...Forgive them and overlook their misdeeds, for Allah loves those who are kind (Quran 5:13).
If Muslims react with anger and indiscriminate violence then one of Terry Jones' goals will be fulfilled. He would have shown the world that some Muslims are more barbaric than even he is. Be patient, encourage everyone to be patient, let Terry Jones enjoy the monopoly on barbarity for a while.
"True believers are those who show patience, firmness and self-control (Quran 3:17) and indeed God is with those who are patient (Quran 2:153)."
Dr. Muqtedar Khan is Associate Professor at the University of Delaware and a Fellow of the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/muqtedar_khan/2010/09/the_quran_burning_sign_of_things_to_come.html?hpid=topnews
Tuesday 7 September 2010
DOVE CENTER A HAVEN FOR HATE
DOVE CENTER A HAVEN FOR HATE
Posted on 01 September 2010
Brandon Thompson / Contributing Writer
Bringing a new meaning to the phrase “a wolf in sheep’s clothing,” The Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida seems to thrive off of its controversial slogans and slander. Hiding under the title of “church”, this center does not display the values that a church would normally teach its members like unconditional love, kindness and obedience.
Their most recent act of controversy was the announcement that on September 11, in honor of 9/11 victims, they will be burning copies of the Qu’ran at their center and encourage others to do the same. The Qu’ran is the holy book in Islamic religion; it is equivalent to the Bible in Christianity.
Rev. Terry Jones, the head of the Dove Outreach Center has preached to his congregation that the Islamic religion “is of the Devil”, and by burning the Qu’ran they are ridding the world of “darkness”.
Though many religions beliefs may not be the same, this does not give anyone the right to burn the others holy literature The Nazi’s burned non-German and Jewish literature to express their superiority over other religions and suppress all other non-Germans. That is exactly what this center is trying to do, but instead to those who follow Islam.
By burning the Qu’ran, Dove World Outreach Center is trying to spark fear into those who follow the Islamic faith and convert them to Christianity. When asked about this event Rev. Jones replied,” “The goal of these and other protests are to give Muslims an opportunity to convert”. This is hypocritical for a so-called Christian “church”, because the Bible teaches that we are to love our neighbors like we love ourselves (Matthew 22:39).
Another incident that the center was involved with was the posting of the sign, “Islam is of the Devil” on their front lawn in July 2009. They also produced t-shirts printed with the same slogan, which are still for sale. Taking freedom of speech too far and turning it into hate speech is what this center is doing. It seems provoking those around to riot and protest is what brings satisfaction to this congregation. Someone actually tore down the sign, but the church quickly reposted it.
I am of Christian faith as well, but I do not believe what this center is trying to do is right. Nowhere in the Bible does it state that if we don’t agree with another religion or practice to hate them, post hateful signs and burn their literature.
The Bible teaches Christians that we should do unto others, as we would have them do unto ourselves (Luke 6:31). If another religion stated they would like to burn the Bible I’m sure that there would be a world-wide protest in efforts to stop this event.
The Dove World Christian Center should remove their label as a church, and replace it with hate center.
fiusm.com
Student Media at Florida University
http://fiusm.com/2010/09/01/dove-center-a-haven-for-hate-2/
Posted on 01 September 2010
Brandon Thompson / Contributing Writer
Bringing a new meaning to the phrase “a wolf in sheep’s clothing,” The Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida seems to thrive off of its controversial slogans and slander. Hiding under the title of “church”, this center does not display the values that a church would normally teach its members like unconditional love, kindness and obedience.
Their most recent act of controversy was the announcement that on September 11, in honor of 9/11 victims, they will be burning copies of the Qu’ran at their center and encourage others to do the same. The Qu’ran is the holy book in Islamic religion; it is equivalent to the Bible in Christianity.
Rev. Terry Jones, the head of the Dove Outreach Center has preached to his congregation that the Islamic religion “is of the Devil”, and by burning the Qu’ran they are ridding the world of “darkness”.
Though many religions beliefs may not be the same, this does not give anyone the right to burn the others holy literature The Nazi’s burned non-German and Jewish literature to express their superiority over other religions and suppress all other non-Germans. That is exactly what this center is trying to do, but instead to those who follow Islam.
By burning the Qu’ran, Dove World Outreach Center is trying to spark fear into those who follow the Islamic faith and convert them to Christianity. When asked about this event Rev. Jones replied,” “The goal of these and other protests are to give Muslims an opportunity to convert”. This is hypocritical for a so-called Christian “church”, because the Bible teaches that we are to love our neighbors like we love ourselves (Matthew 22:39).
Another incident that the center was involved with was the posting of the sign, “Islam is of the Devil” on their front lawn in July 2009. They also produced t-shirts printed with the same slogan, which are still for sale. Taking freedom of speech too far and turning it into hate speech is what this center is doing. It seems provoking those around to riot and protest is what brings satisfaction to this congregation. Someone actually tore down the sign, but the church quickly reposted it.
I am of Christian faith as well, but I do not believe what this center is trying to do is right. Nowhere in the Bible does it state that if we don’t agree with another religion or practice to hate them, post hateful signs and burn their literature.
The Bible teaches Christians that we should do unto others, as we would have them do unto ourselves (Luke 6:31). If another religion stated they would like to burn the Bible I’m sure that there would be a world-wide protest in efforts to stop this event.
The Dove World Christian Center should remove their label as a church, and replace it with hate center.
fiusm.com
Student Media at Florida University
http://fiusm.com/2010/09/01/dove-center-a-haven-for-hate-2/
DOVE CENTER A HAVEN FOR HATE
DOVE CENTER A HAVEN FOR HATE
Posted on 01 September 2010
Brandon Thompson / Contributing Writer
Bringing a new meaning to the phrase “a wolf in sheep’s clothing,” The Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida seems to thrive off of its controversial slogans and slander. Hiding under the title of “church”, this center does not display the values that a church would normally teach its members like unconditional love, kindness and obedience.
Their most recent act of controversy was the announcement that on September 11, in honor of 9/11 victims, they will be burning copies of the Qu’ran at their center and encourage others to do the same. The Qu’ran is the holy book in Islamic religion; it is equivalent to the Bible in Christianity.
Rev. Terry Jones, the head of the Dove Outreach Center has preached to his congregation that the Islamic religion “is of the Devil”, and by burning the Qu’ran they are ridding the world of “darkness”.
Though many religions beliefs may not be the same, this does not give anyone the right to burn the others holy literature The Nazi’s burned non-German and Jewish literature to express their superiority over other religions and suppress all other non-Germans. That is exactly what this center is trying to do, but instead to those who follow Islam.
By burning the Qu’ran, Dove World Outreach Center is trying to spark fear into those who follow the Islamic faith and convert them to Christianity. When asked about this event Rev. Jones replied,” “The goal of these and other protests are to give Muslims an opportunity to convert”. This is hypocritical for a so-called Christian “church”, because the Bible teaches that we are to love our neighbors like we love ourselves (Matthew 22:39).
Another incident that the center was involved with was the posting of the sign, “Islam is of the Devil” on their front lawn in July 2009. They also produced t-shirts printed with the same slogan, which are still for sale. Taking freedom of speech too far and turning it into hate speech is what this center is doing. It seems provoking those around to riot and protest is what brings satisfaction to this congregation. Someone actually tore down the sign, but the church quickly reposted it.
I am of Christian faith as well, but I do not believe what this center is trying to do is right. Nowhere in the Bible does it state that if we don’t agree with another religion or practice to hate them, post hateful signs and burn their literature.
The Bible teaches Christians that we should do unto others, as we would have them do unto ourselves (Luke 6:31). If another religion stated they would like to burn the Bible I’m sure that there would be a world-wide protest in efforts to stop this event.
The Dove World Christian Center should remove their label as a church, and replace it with hate center.
fiusm.com
Student Media at Florida University
http://fiusm.com/2010/09/01/dove-center-a-haven-for-hate-2/
Posted on 01 September 2010
Brandon Thompson / Contributing Writer
Bringing a new meaning to the phrase “a wolf in sheep’s clothing,” The Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida seems to thrive off of its controversial slogans and slander. Hiding under the title of “church”, this center does not display the values that a church would normally teach its members like unconditional love, kindness and obedience.
Their most recent act of controversy was the announcement that on September 11, in honor of 9/11 victims, they will be burning copies of the Qu’ran at their center and encourage others to do the same. The Qu’ran is the holy book in Islamic religion; it is equivalent to the Bible in Christianity.
Rev. Terry Jones, the head of the Dove Outreach Center has preached to his congregation that the Islamic religion “is of the Devil”, and by burning the Qu’ran they are ridding the world of “darkness”.
Though many religions beliefs may not be the same, this does not give anyone the right to burn the others holy literature The Nazi’s burned non-German and Jewish literature to express their superiority over other religions and suppress all other non-Germans. That is exactly what this center is trying to do, but instead to those who follow Islam.
By burning the Qu’ran, Dove World Outreach Center is trying to spark fear into those who follow the Islamic faith and convert them to Christianity. When asked about this event Rev. Jones replied,” “The goal of these and other protests are to give Muslims an opportunity to convert”. This is hypocritical for a so-called Christian “church”, because the Bible teaches that we are to love our neighbors like we love ourselves (Matthew 22:39).
Another incident that the center was involved with was the posting of the sign, “Islam is of the Devil” on their front lawn in July 2009. They also produced t-shirts printed with the same slogan, which are still for sale. Taking freedom of speech too far and turning it into hate speech is what this center is doing. It seems provoking those around to riot and protest is what brings satisfaction to this congregation. Someone actually tore down the sign, but the church quickly reposted it.
I am of Christian faith as well, but I do not believe what this center is trying to do is right. Nowhere in the Bible does it state that if we don’t agree with another religion or practice to hate them, post hateful signs and burn their literature.
The Bible teaches Christians that we should do unto others, as we would have them do unto ourselves (Luke 6:31). If another religion stated they would like to burn the Bible I’m sure that there would be a world-wide protest in efforts to stop this event.
The Dove World Christian Center should remove their label as a church, and replace it with hate center.
fiusm.com
Student Media at Florida University
http://fiusm.com/2010/09/01/dove-center-a-haven-for-hate-2/
THE FIRE THIS TIME
Weekend Edition
September 3 - 5, 2010
THE FIRE THIS TIME
By Rev. WILLIAM E. ALBERTS
“The fires of injustice yield no ashes from which to rise until we all burn inside with a sense of the wrongdoing.”
– Eva Y. Alberts
In his second Inaugural Address, former president George W. Bush championed his administration’s pre-emptive, falsely based, criminal war of choice against Iraq with, “We have lit a fire . . . and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world.” ( “ ‘There is No Justice Without Freedom,’” text of President Bush’s second inaugural address, Jan. 21, 2005, washingtonpost.com) Bush’s “untamed fire of freedom” has now reached “the darkest corners of” Florida. Rev. Terry Jones, an evidently Bush- inspired evangelical Gainesville pastor, with a photograph of the former president in his office, plans to commemorate the September 11 attacks against America by burning copies of the Koran, Islam’s sacred book, in an observance he calls “International Burn a Koran Day.” The sign outside his Dove World Outreach Center church, next to which he posed for a photo, contains an inflaming message: “ISLAM IS OF THE DEVIL.” (“Far From Ground Zero, Obscure Pastor Is Ignored No Longer,” By Damien Cave, Aug. 25, 2010, The New York Times) Pastor Jones is not an isolated extremist, but an extension of “the darkest corners of” American ethnocentric and Christocentric beliefs.
Pastor Jones is a symptom of a sickness that is afflicting the soul of America. Rather than engaging in needed national soul-searching in response to the horrible 9/11 attacks against America, the Bush administration used the attacks to justify the militarizing of America even more. Instead of a President who was also “Commander-in-Chief,” we had a full-time “Commander-in-Chief,” who mobilized the whole country, a self-proclaimed “war president” whose administration launched a never-ending “war on terror.” A “Commander-in-Chief” who wrapped himself in piety, “pray[ed] daily for peace,” and in his January 28, 2003 State of the Union Address told Americans that they “can trust in . . . the ways of Providence,” while plotting war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. A “Commander-in-Chief” who told Americans how great they were, and how evil and envious of their freedom the enemy was.
And who was the enemy? Anyone who opposed “the greatest nation on the face of the earth.” “You’re either with us or against us in the fight against terror,” Bush declared to the world. (“Bush says its time for action,” Nov. 6, 2001, CNN.com./US) And he said, “Our immediate task around the world and in Iraq and Afghanistan is to bring those terrorists to justice. . . .These are ruthless people. . . . These are cold-blooded killers. You cannot negotiate with them. . . . Therapy won’t work. The best way to protect you is to defeat them overseas so we don’t have to face them here at home.” (Quotes-Repeat Offender (Therapy Won’t Work),” DubyaSpeak.com)
The “war president,” who’s picture hangs in Pastor Jones’s church office, began his administration’s “war on terror” by calling it a “crusade.” (“Europe cringes at Bush ‘crusade’ against terrorists,” By Peter Ford, The Christian Science Monitor, Sept. 19, 2001) Bush’s battle cry was medieval Christianity’s barbaric Crusades against the Muslim world, and suggested his own Christocentric belief and globalized stereotyping of Muslims as “ruthless people.” With the help of advisors he later avoided repeating the word “crusade.” He also sought to cover his administration’s indiscriminate war-waging tracks by calling Islam a religion of peace and the 9/11 attackers as perverters of their religion. This positive gesture was a necessary public relations ploy, to mask launching unnecessary, criminal wars against the whole people of Afghanistan and Iraq. The “war president” nodded to Islam as a religion of peace, with a wink-of-the-eye to Pastor Jones and everyone else.
“Cold-blooded killers.”
Former President Bush, and influential members of his administration, are among the worst “cold-blooded killers” in the world. And the war-inspiring “ways of Providence” he envisioned and followed should be analyzed, and then “Providence” should be banished to the heavens where “He” cannot hurt anyone else, if “therapy won’t work” for “Him.” And, alas, the “Jesus who changed” Bush’s “heart” is the very opposite of the one who taught, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” How important therapy is for those who have such “vision” problems. Bush, and the vast majority of white evangelical Christians who supported his administration’s immoral, criminal war, reveal not the perversion of Christianity but the inherent imperialism of its central claim to be the only true way to “God.”
The Bush administration’s “cold-blooded” war against defenseless Iraq did not differentiate between all the “peaceful” Iraqi Muslims and the small number “you cannot negotiate with,” and for whom “therapy won’t work.” Estimations of hundreds of thousands, to over one million, of Iraqi Muslim men, women and children dead—these staggering documented numbers America’s mainstream media rarely cite, and politicians and the Pentagon avoid and deny. More than four million Iraqi civilians displaced. The country’s life-sustaining infrastructure decimated. An American “fire of freedom” that continues to inflame deadly sectarian violence-- as US forces supposedly end their combat mission. And now they head to Afghanistan to continue the fanning of “the fire of freedom to the darkest corners” of that country.
And at the Lincoln Memorial, on the 47th anniversary of the March on Washington and Dr. Martin Luther, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech, and in the face of America’s intensified militarization and war crimes, a “Restoring Honor” rally that produced more darkness. Rally organizer, Glen Beck, and other speakers, “exhorted a vast and overwhelmingly white crowd to concentrate not on the history that has scarred the nation but instead on what makes it ‘good.’” While lamenting America’s “darkness,” Beck proceeded to avoid it with, “For too long, this country has wandered in darkness . . . and has spent far too long worried about scars. . . . Today,” he said, “we are going to concentrate on the good things in America, the things that we have accomplished.” Beck “insisted that the rally ‘has nothing to do with politics [and] everything to do with God, turning our faith back to the values and principles that made us great.’” (“Beck, Palin call for restoration of traditional values,” By Philip Rucker and Carol Morello, Washington Post, Boston Sunday Globe, Aug. 29, 2010)
The Tea Party movement rally also glorified American militarism, with Sarah Palin saying “she was speaking not as a politician, but as the mother of a combat veteran, referring to her son Track, 20, who served in Iraq.” Joining other speakers in “honor[ing] Americans serving in the military,” she also “called on Americans to restore traditional values,” saying, “‘We must restore America and restore her honor.’” (Ibid)
The Tea Party’s “Restoring Honor” rally is believed to have much to do with “darkness,” i.e., with the inability of many white people to come to terms with and accept a dark man living in their “White House” and presiding over their country. A black man made darker with the middle name of “Hussein—and whom almost a fifth of the respondents in a recent Pew Research Center poll believe to be a Muslim. (“President Dismisses Faith Rumors,” The New York Times, Aug. 30, 2010)
And currently President Obama himself is trying to dispel the “darkness” that hangs over America. He trumpets the so-called end of US military combat in Iraq, and wants Americans to now “turn the page” on this horrible war crime by saying, “No one could doubt President Bush’s support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security-- a statement that could be made about many tyrants. And Obama ends his speech on Iraq by lauding the US troops, who “stared into the darkest of human creations—war—and helped the Iraqi people seek the light of peace.” (“President Obama’s Address on Iraq,” The New York Times, Aug. 31, 2010) Never mind that the Iraqi people were at peace until the Bush administration launched its criminal war of choice against them. Never mind that US political leaders lied about and hid their war-making behind the glorification of and “support for the troops”—over 4400 of whom were sacrificed and tens of thousands wounded in body and spirit. And the wasting of our country’s greatly needed resources.
Intolerance is darkening the soul of America. The Bush administration’s bogus “war on terror” has lit a “fire” of fear and hatred across America. An “untamed fire” that stereotypes and demonizes all the followers of Islam, rather than differentiating between them and the destructive behavior of a few—while enabling Americans to remain oblivious to their own political leaders’ foreign policy, with its massive, indiscriminate, “cold blooded” murder and oppression of Muslims in their name. A “fire” that sheds heat and not light on any culpability of US foreign policy for the attacks against America on 9/11. A “fire” started by opportunistic power-seeking politicians and their war-profiteering corporate sponsors. A “fire” that warms the hearts of those evangelistic Christians who believe that their way is the only way. A “fire” that is kept burning by those mainline Christians who have yet to fully deal with the crimes against humanity committed by a president and his administration in the name of their “God.” A “fire” that seeks to consume the constitutional right of Muslim Americans to build a cultural center, and house a mosque in it, near Ground Zero. A “fire” throwing off sparks that flare up in the form of the anti-Muslim acting out of a Pastor Jones and increasing numbers of other ethnocentric and Christocentric Americans.
9/11 should be a day of national soul-searching. And a day to affirm that the ground upon which every human being walks in hallowed.
Rev. William E. Alberts, Ph.D. is a hospital chaplain and a diplomate in the College of Pastoral Supervision and Psychotherapy. Both a Unitarian Universalist and a United Methodist minister, he has written research reports, essays and articles on racism, war, politics and religion.
http://www.counterpunch.org/alberts09032010.html
September 3 - 5, 2010
THE FIRE THIS TIME
By Rev. WILLIAM E. ALBERTS
“The fires of injustice yield no ashes from which to rise until we all burn inside with a sense of the wrongdoing.”
– Eva Y. Alberts
In his second Inaugural Address, former president George W. Bush championed his administration’s pre-emptive, falsely based, criminal war of choice against Iraq with, “We have lit a fire . . . and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world.” ( “ ‘There is No Justice Without Freedom,’” text of President Bush’s second inaugural address, Jan. 21, 2005, washingtonpost.com) Bush’s “untamed fire of freedom” has now reached “the darkest corners of” Florida. Rev. Terry Jones, an evidently Bush- inspired evangelical Gainesville pastor, with a photograph of the former president in his office, plans to commemorate the September 11 attacks against America by burning copies of the Koran, Islam’s sacred book, in an observance he calls “International Burn a Koran Day.” The sign outside his Dove World Outreach Center church, next to which he posed for a photo, contains an inflaming message: “ISLAM IS OF THE DEVIL.” (“Far From Ground Zero, Obscure Pastor Is Ignored No Longer,” By Damien Cave, Aug. 25, 2010, The New York Times) Pastor Jones is not an isolated extremist, but an extension of “the darkest corners of” American ethnocentric and Christocentric beliefs.
Pastor Jones is a symptom of a sickness that is afflicting the soul of America. Rather than engaging in needed national soul-searching in response to the horrible 9/11 attacks against America, the Bush administration used the attacks to justify the militarizing of America even more. Instead of a President who was also “Commander-in-Chief,” we had a full-time “Commander-in-Chief,” who mobilized the whole country, a self-proclaimed “war president” whose administration launched a never-ending “war on terror.” A “Commander-in-Chief” who wrapped himself in piety, “pray[ed] daily for peace,” and in his January 28, 2003 State of the Union Address told Americans that they “can trust in . . . the ways of Providence,” while plotting war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. A “Commander-in-Chief” who told Americans how great they were, and how evil and envious of their freedom the enemy was.
And who was the enemy? Anyone who opposed “the greatest nation on the face of the earth.” “You’re either with us or against us in the fight against terror,” Bush declared to the world. (“Bush says its time for action,” Nov. 6, 2001, CNN.com./US) And he said, “Our immediate task around the world and in Iraq and Afghanistan is to bring those terrorists to justice. . . .These are ruthless people. . . . These are cold-blooded killers. You cannot negotiate with them. . . . Therapy won’t work. The best way to protect you is to defeat them overseas so we don’t have to face them here at home.” (Quotes-Repeat Offender (Therapy Won’t Work),” DubyaSpeak.com)
The “war president,” who’s picture hangs in Pastor Jones’s church office, began his administration’s “war on terror” by calling it a “crusade.” (“Europe cringes at Bush ‘crusade’ against terrorists,” By Peter Ford, The Christian Science Monitor, Sept. 19, 2001) Bush’s battle cry was medieval Christianity’s barbaric Crusades against the Muslim world, and suggested his own Christocentric belief and globalized stereotyping of Muslims as “ruthless people.” With the help of advisors he later avoided repeating the word “crusade.” He also sought to cover his administration’s indiscriminate war-waging tracks by calling Islam a religion of peace and the 9/11 attackers as perverters of their religion. This positive gesture was a necessary public relations ploy, to mask launching unnecessary, criminal wars against the whole people of Afghanistan and Iraq. The “war president” nodded to Islam as a religion of peace, with a wink-of-the-eye to Pastor Jones and everyone else.
“Cold-blooded killers.”
Former President Bush, and influential members of his administration, are among the worst “cold-blooded killers” in the world. And the war-inspiring “ways of Providence” he envisioned and followed should be analyzed, and then “Providence” should be banished to the heavens where “He” cannot hurt anyone else, if “therapy won’t work” for “Him.” And, alas, the “Jesus who changed” Bush’s “heart” is the very opposite of the one who taught, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” How important therapy is for those who have such “vision” problems. Bush, and the vast majority of white evangelical Christians who supported his administration’s immoral, criminal war, reveal not the perversion of Christianity but the inherent imperialism of its central claim to be the only true way to “God.”
The Bush administration’s “cold-blooded” war against defenseless Iraq did not differentiate between all the “peaceful” Iraqi Muslims and the small number “you cannot negotiate with,” and for whom “therapy won’t work.” Estimations of hundreds of thousands, to over one million, of Iraqi Muslim men, women and children dead—these staggering documented numbers America’s mainstream media rarely cite, and politicians and the Pentagon avoid and deny. More than four million Iraqi civilians displaced. The country’s life-sustaining infrastructure decimated. An American “fire of freedom” that continues to inflame deadly sectarian violence-- as US forces supposedly end their combat mission. And now they head to Afghanistan to continue the fanning of “the fire of freedom to the darkest corners” of that country.
And at the Lincoln Memorial, on the 47th anniversary of the March on Washington and Dr. Martin Luther, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech, and in the face of America’s intensified militarization and war crimes, a “Restoring Honor” rally that produced more darkness. Rally organizer, Glen Beck, and other speakers, “exhorted a vast and overwhelmingly white crowd to concentrate not on the history that has scarred the nation but instead on what makes it ‘good.’” While lamenting America’s “darkness,” Beck proceeded to avoid it with, “For too long, this country has wandered in darkness . . . and has spent far too long worried about scars. . . . Today,” he said, “we are going to concentrate on the good things in America, the things that we have accomplished.” Beck “insisted that the rally ‘has nothing to do with politics [and] everything to do with God, turning our faith back to the values and principles that made us great.’” (“Beck, Palin call for restoration of traditional values,” By Philip Rucker and Carol Morello, Washington Post, Boston Sunday Globe, Aug. 29, 2010)
The Tea Party movement rally also glorified American militarism, with Sarah Palin saying “she was speaking not as a politician, but as the mother of a combat veteran, referring to her son Track, 20, who served in Iraq.” Joining other speakers in “honor[ing] Americans serving in the military,” she also “called on Americans to restore traditional values,” saying, “‘We must restore America and restore her honor.’” (Ibid)
The Tea Party’s “Restoring Honor” rally is believed to have much to do with “darkness,” i.e., with the inability of many white people to come to terms with and accept a dark man living in their “White House” and presiding over their country. A black man made darker with the middle name of “Hussein—and whom almost a fifth of the respondents in a recent Pew Research Center poll believe to be a Muslim. (“President Dismisses Faith Rumors,” The New York Times, Aug. 30, 2010)
And currently President Obama himself is trying to dispel the “darkness” that hangs over America. He trumpets the so-called end of US military combat in Iraq, and wants Americans to now “turn the page” on this horrible war crime by saying, “No one could doubt President Bush’s support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security-- a statement that could be made about many tyrants. And Obama ends his speech on Iraq by lauding the US troops, who “stared into the darkest of human creations—war—and helped the Iraqi people seek the light of peace.” (“President Obama’s Address on Iraq,” The New York Times, Aug. 31, 2010) Never mind that the Iraqi people were at peace until the Bush administration launched its criminal war of choice against them. Never mind that US political leaders lied about and hid their war-making behind the glorification of and “support for the troops”—over 4400 of whom were sacrificed and tens of thousands wounded in body and spirit. And the wasting of our country’s greatly needed resources.
Intolerance is darkening the soul of America. The Bush administration’s bogus “war on terror” has lit a “fire” of fear and hatred across America. An “untamed fire” that stereotypes and demonizes all the followers of Islam, rather than differentiating between them and the destructive behavior of a few—while enabling Americans to remain oblivious to their own political leaders’ foreign policy, with its massive, indiscriminate, “cold blooded” murder and oppression of Muslims in their name. A “fire” that sheds heat and not light on any culpability of US foreign policy for the attacks against America on 9/11. A “fire” started by opportunistic power-seeking politicians and their war-profiteering corporate sponsors. A “fire” that warms the hearts of those evangelistic Christians who believe that their way is the only way. A “fire” that is kept burning by those mainline Christians who have yet to fully deal with the crimes against humanity committed by a president and his administration in the name of their “God.” A “fire” that seeks to consume the constitutional right of Muslim Americans to build a cultural center, and house a mosque in it, near Ground Zero. A “fire” throwing off sparks that flare up in the form of the anti-Muslim acting out of a Pastor Jones and increasing numbers of other ethnocentric and Christocentric Americans.
9/11 should be a day of national soul-searching. And a day to affirm that the ground upon which every human being walks in hallowed.
Rev. William E. Alberts, Ph.D. is a hospital chaplain and a diplomate in the College of Pastoral Supervision and Psychotherapy. Both a Unitarian Universalist and a United Methodist minister, he has written research reports, essays and articles on racism, war, politics and religion.
http://www.counterpunch.org/alberts09032010.html
Monday 6 September 2010
Do Americans Know What Happened in Iraq?
Do Americans Know What Happened in Iraq?
by Michael O'Brien, September 06, 2010
A Fox News poll released last week indicates the majority of Americans feel the Iraq war was a success. It also suggests they want to get past it and focus on other things. This is good and bad. It is good that average Americans can put our invasion of Iraq in 2003 out of their minds. It is bad because it indicates they don’t know what happened, or don’t care.
According to the Fox News article, 900 people were surveyed by telephone and asked questions such as “Do you think the war was a success?” “Do you think the Iraqi people are better off now than before the war?” However, the survey didn’t ask some very important questions. For example, it didn’t ask the respondents questions such as “Have you ever been to Iraq?” “Have you ever read a book about the Iraq War?” “Do you know the number of Iraqis who died in the war?” These would be very interesting questions to ask along with the others. They would gauge the level of knowledge and awareness of the respondents to judge the veracity of the answers they gave.
According to the Fox News article:
“Despite its contentious history, most American voters appear to have made a positive judgment about the country’s efforts in Iraq. Almost six in 10 (58 percent) voters think, overall, the United States ‘did the right thing’ by going to war, according to the latest Fox News poll.
“A little over one-third of voters (35 percent) take the opposite view – that the U.S. “did the wrong thing” by becoming involved militarily in Iraq. From a partisan perspective, there is still division – as 54 percent of Democrats think the U.S. did the wrong thing in Iraq, while only 14 percent of Republicans feel the same way. A slim majority of independents (52 percent) think the U.S. did the right thing in Iraq.”
Did the United States do the “right thing” when we invaded Iraq in March 2003? I look at things as opposites. For example, what would Iraq be like today if we had not invaded in 2003? Chances are Saddam would still be in power, and the life of the typical Iraqi would be pretty much the same today as it was then. I was in Iraq for 14 months, and the Iraqis I worked with told me what their lives were like before we invaded. If they kept out of trouble, they got by. For many Americans, it was right for us to go there and change the Iraqi form of government, even if they didn’t ask us to, and even though thousands of Iraqis died in the effort. The Iraqis I worked with would say to me, “Mr. Mike, we understand Mr. Bush wants to fight the War on Terror, but why did he pick Iraq to do it?” What could I say to them?
“An even larger share of voters (71 percent) expresses some level of agreement with the view that the Iraqi people are better off today because of the U.S.-led action, while 19 percent disagree.”
So, the question remains, are the Iraqi people better off after our invasion? Many Americans say we went there to defend our freedom, to take the war to the enemy. If so, why didn’t President Bush give that as his reason for invading, instead of going after Saddam’s WMDs? What threat was Iraq to the United States in 2003? Were we about to be attacked by Saddam Hussein? Was he on his way? Obviously, the answer is no, and he was no more a threat to our national security than Belize. If we went there to export democracy, why weren’t we given this as a reason as well? The fact is, we weren’t given any of these reasons, which puts the entire rationale for invading Iraq into question. We invaded a country that posed no threat to us, or even to any of its neighbors. Iraq’s sin was having a bad actor for a dictator who had made an assassination attempt on President Bush’s father.
Therefore, how can a majority of Americans think the war was the “right thing?” By saying this, they are also saying they’re OK with being misled, with being lied to. That may be OK with them, but it’s certainly not with me.
“If Iraq is considered a success, who deserves the credit? Voters are pretty clear, as a 54-percent majority names former President George W. Bush as the person who should be acknowledged as most responsible for the success in Iraq. Some 19 percent think President Obama deserves the most credit. Some 14 percent volunteer the view that neither of the presidents, but instead the Iraqi people are most deserving of this accolade. Interestingly, Democrats are evenly divided on this question (34 percent Bush, 34 percent Obama).”
I find this part of the survey especially disturbing, for it is assigning credit for the successful invasion of Iraq. Not only is it interesting that a majority of Americans think it was successful, it is also interesting that Fox wants to assign credit to Bush or Obama for the success. Who gets the credit for all of those dead Iraqis who would be alive today if we had not invaded in March 2003? Who gets the credit for doing nothing for nearly four years while Iraq went down the drain as a result of our invasion? Who gets the credit for disbanding the Iraqi army and national police, thereby leaving the country totally defenseless against the growing insurgency? Who will get the credit for dismantling the Ba’ath Party, which included all government officials and bureaucrats who knew how to keep the basic functions of government operating? Who gets the credit for losing 190,000 AK-47 rifles that the U.S. purchased for issue to the Iraqi army and national police, many of which ended up in the hands of insurgents? Did the Fox poll ask these questions too?
“All in all, voters seem to have moved past the divisions that formerly characterized the Iraq War debate and now judge the enterprise to have been – overall at least – a success.”
It’s nice the average American feels our invasion of Iraq in March 2003 was a success. Do they feel this way because America is always right, even if we’re wrong? Do they feel this way because of the “surge,” even though it was executed four years after the invasion, and was done because the previous four years were a disaster? Do they feel this way because they have never been to Iraq or seen bodies of dead Iraqi civilians lying in a pile on the sidewalk? Would they feel this way if a house half a mile from where they worked in Baghdad was found with 60 decapitated bodies in it while Gen. George Casey, the U.S. commander in Iraq, was telling everyone the war was going great?
Polls like this give the American people a very slanted view of reality. But they can sleep soundly at night knowing that we killed at least 100,000 Iraqis to defend our freedom.
http://original.antiwar.com/obrien/2010/09/05/do-americans-know-what-happened-in-iraq/
by Michael O'Brien, September 06, 2010
A Fox News poll released last week indicates the majority of Americans feel the Iraq war was a success. It also suggests they want to get past it and focus on other things. This is good and bad. It is good that average Americans can put our invasion of Iraq in 2003 out of their minds. It is bad because it indicates they don’t know what happened, or don’t care.
According to the Fox News article, 900 people were surveyed by telephone and asked questions such as “Do you think the war was a success?” “Do you think the Iraqi people are better off now than before the war?” However, the survey didn’t ask some very important questions. For example, it didn’t ask the respondents questions such as “Have you ever been to Iraq?” “Have you ever read a book about the Iraq War?” “Do you know the number of Iraqis who died in the war?” These would be very interesting questions to ask along with the others. They would gauge the level of knowledge and awareness of the respondents to judge the veracity of the answers they gave.
According to the Fox News article:
“Despite its contentious history, most American voters appear to have made a positive judgment about the country’s efforts in Iraq. Almost six in 10 (58 percent) voters think, overall, the United States ‘did the right thing’ by going to war, according to the latest Fox News poll.
“A little over one-third of voters (35 percent) take the opposite view – that the U.S. “did the wrong thing” by becoming involved militarily in Iraq. From a partisan perspective, there is still division – as 54 percent of Democrats think the U.S. did the wrong thing in Iraq, while only 14 percent of Republicans feel the same way. A slim majority of independents (52 percent) think the U.S. did the right thing in Iraq.”
Did the United States do the “right thing” when we invaded Iraq in March 2003? I look at things as opposites. For example, what would Iraq be like today if we had not invaded in 2003? Chances are Saddam would still be in power, and the life of the typical Iraqi would be pretty much the same today as it was then. I was in Iraq for 14 months, and the Iraqis I worked with told me what their lives were like before we invaded. If they kept out of trouble, they got by. For many Americans, it was right for us to go there and change the Iraqi form of government, even if they didn’t ask us to, and even though thousands of Iraqis died in the effort. The Iraqis I worked with would say to me, “Mr. Mike, we understand Mr. Bush wants to fight the War on Terror, but why did he pick Iraq to do it?” What could I say to them?
“An even larger share of voters (71 percent) expresses some level of agreement with the view that the Iraqi people are better off today because of the U.S.-led action, while 19 percent disagree.”
So, the question remains, are the Iraqi people better off after our invasion? Many Americans say we went there to defend our freedom, to take the war to the enemy. If so, why didn’t President Bush give that as his reason for invading, instead of going after Saddam’s WMDs? What threat was Iraq to the United States in 2003? Were we about to be attacked by Saddam Hussein? Was he on his way? Obviously, the answer is no, and he was no more a threat to our national security than Belize. If we went there to export democracy, why weren’t we given this as a reason as well? The fact is, we weren’t given any of these reasons, which puts the entire rationale for invading Iraq into question. We invaded a country that posed no threat to us, or even to any of its neighbors. Iraq’s sin was having a bad actor for a dictator who had made an assassination attempt on President Bush’s father.
Therefore, how can a majority of Americans think the war was the “right thing?” By saying this, they are also saying they’re OK with being misled, with being lied to. That may be OK with them, but it’s certainly not with me.
“If Iraq is considered a success, who deserves the credit? Voters are pretty clear, as a 54-percent majority names former President George W. Bush as the person who should be acknowledged as most responsible for the success in Iraq. Some 19 percent think President Obama deserves the most credit. Some 14 percent volunteer the view that neither of the presidents, but instead the Iraqi people are most deserving of this accolade. Interestingly, Democrats are evenly divided on this question (34 percent Bush, 34 percent Obama).”
I find this part of the survey especially disturbing, for it is assigning credit for the successful invasion of Iraq. Not only is it interesting that a majority of Americans think it was successful, it is also interesting that Fox wants to assign credit to Bush or Obama for the success. Who gets the credit for all of those dead Iraqis who would be alive today if we had not invaded in March 2003? Who gets the credit for doing nothing for nearly four years while Iraq went down the drain as a result of our invasion? Who gets the credit for disbanding the Iraqi army and national police, thereby leaving the country totally defenseless against the growing insurgency? Who will get the credit for dismantling the Ba’ath Party, which included all government officials and bureaucrats who knew how to keep the basic functions of government operating? Who gets the credit for losing 190,000 AK-47 rifles that the U.S. purchased for issue to the Iraqi army and national police, many of which ended up in the hands of insurgents? Did the Fox poll ask these questions too?
“All in all, voters seem to have moved past the divisions that formerly characterized the Iraq War debate and now judge the enterprise to have been – overall at least – a success.”
It’s nice the average American feels our invasion of Iraq in March 2003 was a success. Do they feel this way because America is always right, even if we’re wrong? Do they feel this way because of the “surge,” even though it was executed four years after the invasion, and was done because the previous four years were a disaster? Do they feel this way because they have never been to Iraq or seen bodies of dead Iraqi civilians lying in a pile on the sidewalk? Would they feel this way if a house half a mile from where they worked in Baghdad was found with 60 decapitated bodies in it while Gen. George Casey, the U.S. commander in Iraq, was telling everyone the war was going great?
Polls like this give the American people a very slanted view of reality. But they can sleep soundly at night knowing that we killed at least 100,000 Iraqis to defend our freedom.
http://original.antiwar.com/obrien/2010/09/05/do-americans-know-what-happened-in-iraq/
‘They Kill Alex’
‘They Kill Alex’
Posted on Sep 6, 2010
By Chris Hedges
Carlos Arredondo, a native Costa Rican, stands in a parking lot of a Holiday Inn in Portland, Maine, next to his green Nissan pickup truck. The truck, its tailgate folded down, carries a flag-draped coffin and is adorned with pictures of his son, Lance Cpl. Alexander S. Arredondo, 20, a Marine killed in Iraq in 2004. The truck and a trailer he pulls with it have become a mobile shrine to his boy. He drives around the country, with the aid of donations, evoking a mixture of sympathy and hostility. There are white crosses with the names of other boys killed in the war. Combat boots are nailed to the side of the display. There is a wheelchair, covered in colored ribbons, fixed to the roof of the cab. There is Alex’s military uniform and boots, poster-size pictures of the young Marine shown on the streets of Najaf, in his formal Marine portrait, and then lying, his hands folded in white gloves, in his coffin. A metal sign on the back of the truck bears a gold star and reads: “USMC L/CPL ALEXANDER S. ARREDONDO.”
“This is what happens every week to some family in America,” says Carlos. “This is what war does. And this is the grief and pain the government does not want people to see.”
Alex, from a working-class immigrant family, was lured into the military a month before Sept. 11, 2001. The Marine recruiters made the usual appeals to patriotism, promised that he would be trained for a career, go to college and become a man. They included a $10,000 sign-on bonus. Alex was in the Marine units that invaded Iraq. His father, chained to the news reports, listening to the radio and two televisions at the same time, was increasingly distraught. “I hear nothing about my son for days and days,” he says. “It was too much, too much, too much for parents.”
Alex, in August 2004, was back in Iraq for a second tour. In one of his last phone calls, Alex told him: “Dad, I call you because, to say, you know, we’ve been fighting for many, many days already, and I want to tell you that I love you and I don’t want you to forget me.” His father answered: “Of course I love you, and I don’t want—I never forget you.” The last message the family received was an e-mail around that time which read: “Watch the news online. Check the news, and tell everyone that I love them.”
Twenty days later, on Aug. 25, a U.S. government van pulled up in front of Carlos’ home in Hollywood, Fla. It was Carlos’ 44th birthday and he was expecting a birthday call from Alex. “I saw the van and thought maybe Alex had come home to surprise me for my birthday or maybe they were coming to recruit my other son, Brian,” he says. Three Marine officers climbed out of the van. One asked, “Are you Carlos Arredondo?” He answered “yes.”
“I’m sorry, we’re here to notify you about the death of Lance Cpl. Arredondo,” one of the officers told him. Alex was the 968th soldier or Marine to be killed in the Iraq war.
“I tried to process this in my head,” Carlos says. “I never hear that. I remember how my body felt. I got a rush of blood to my body. I felt like it’s the worst thing in my life. It is my worst fear. I could not believe what they were telling me.”
Carlos turned and ran into the house to find his mother, who was in the kitchen making him a birthday cake. “I cried, ‘Mama! Mama! They are telling me Alex got killed! Alex got killed! They kill Alex! They kill Alex! They kill Alex!” His mother crumbled in grief. Carlos went to the large picture of his son in the living room and held it. Carlos asked the Marines to leave several times over the next 20 minutes, but the Marines refused, saying they had to wait for his wife. “I did this because I was in denial. I think if they leave none of this will happen.” Crazed and distraught with grief, the father went into his garage and took out five gallons of gasoline and a propane torch. He walked past the three Marines in their dress blues and began to smash the windows of the government van with a hammer.
“I went into the van,” he says. “I poured gasoline on the seats. I pour gasoline on the floor and in the gas tank. I was, like, looking for my son. I was screaming and yelling for him. I remember that one day he left in a van and now he’s not there. I destroy everything. The pain I feel is the pain of what I learned from war. I was wearing only socks and no shoes. I was wearing shorts. The fumes were powerful and I could not breathe no more, even though I broke the windows.”
As Carlos stepped out of the van, he ignited the propane torch inside the vehicle. It started a fire that “threw me from the driver’s seat backwards onto the ground.” His clothes caught fire. It felt “like thousands of needles stabbing into my body.” He ran across the street and fell onto the grass. His mother followed him and pulled off his shirt and socks, which were on fire, as he screamed “Mama! Mama! My feet are burning! My feet are burning!” The Marines dragged him away and he remembers one of them saying, “The van is going to blow! The van is going to blow!” The van erupted in a fireball and the rush of hot air, he says, swept over him. The Marines called a fire truck and an ambulance. Carlos sustained second- and third-degree burns over 26 percent of his body. As I talk to him in the Portland parking lot he shows me the burn scars on his legs. The government chose not to prosecute him.
“I wake up in the hospital two days later and I was tied with tubes in my mouth,” he says. “When they take the tubes out I say, ‘I want to be with my son. I want to be with my son.’ Somebody was telling me my son had died. I get very emotional. I kept saying ‘I want to be with my son’ and they think I want to commit suicide.”
He had no health insurance. His medical bills soon climbed to $55,000. On Sept. 2, 2004, Carlos, transported in a stretcher, attended his son’s wake at the Rodgers Funeral Home in Jamaica Plain, Mass. He lifted himself, with the help of those around him, from his stretcher, and when he reached his son’s open casket he kissed his child. “I held his head and when I put my hands in the back of his head I felt the huge hole where the sniper bullet had come out,” he says. “I climbed into the casket. I lay on top of my son. I apologized to him because I did not do enough to avoid this.”
Arredondo began to collect items that memorialized his son’s life. He tacked them to his truck. A funeral home in Boston donated a casket to the display. He began to attend anti-war events, at times flying the American flag upside down to signal distress. He has taken his shrine to the Mall in Washington, D.C., and Times Square in New York City. He has traveled throughout the country presenting to the public a visual expression of death and grief. He has placed some of his son’s favorite childhood toys and belongings in the coffin, including a soccer ball, a pair of shoes, a baseball and a Winnie the Pooh. The power of his images, which force onlookers to confront the fact that the essence of war is death, has angered some who prefer to keep war sanitized and wrapped in the patriotic slogans of glory, honor and heroism. Three years ago vandals defaced his son’s gravestone.
“I don’t speak,” he says. “I show people war. I show them the caskets they are not allowed to see. If people don’t see what war does they don’t feel it. If they don’t feel it they don’t care.”
Military recruiters, who often have offices in high schools, prey on young men like Alex, who was first approached when he was 16. They cater to their insecurities, their dreams and their economic deprivation. They promise them what the larger society denies them. Those of Latino descent and from divorced families, as Alex was, are especially vulnerable. Alex’s brother Brian was approached by the military, which suggested that if he enlisted he could receive $60,000 in signing bonuses and more than $27,000 in payments for higher education. The proposed Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, or DREAM Act, is designed to give undocumented young people a chance at citizenship provided they attend college—not usually an option for poor, often poorly educated and undocumented Latino youths who are prohibited from receiving Pell grants—for at least two years, or enlist and serve in the military. The military helped author the pending act and is lobbying for it. Twelve percent of Army enlistees are Hispanic, and this percentage is expected to double by 2020 if the current rate of recruitment continues. And once they are recruited, these young men and women are trained to be killers, sent to wars that should never be fought and returned back to their families often traumatized and broken and sometimes dead.
Alex told Carlos in their last conversation there was heavy fighting in Najaf. Alex usually asked his father not to “forget” him, but now, increasingly in the final days of his life, another word was taking the place of forget. It was forgive. He felt his father should not forgive him for what he was doing in Iraq. He told his father, “Dad, I hope you are proud of what I’m doing. Don’t forgive me, Dad.” The sentence bewildered his father. “Oh my God, how can I forgive you? ... I love you, you’re my son, very proud, you’re my son.”
“I thought, when he died, my God, he has killed somebody,” Carlos says quietly as he readied for an anti-war march organized by Veterans for Peace. “He feels guilty. If he returned home his mind would be destroyed. His heart would be torn apart. It is not normal to kill. How can they do this? How can they take our children?”
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/they_kill_alex_20100906/
Posted on Sep 6, 2010
By Chris Hedges
Carlos Arredondo, a native Costa Rican, stands in a parking lot of a Holiday Inn in Portland, Maine, next to his green Nissan pickup truck. The truck, its tailgate folded down, carries a flag-draped coffin and is adorned with pictures of his son, Lance Cpl. Alexander S. Arredondo, 20, a Marine killed in Iraq in 2004. The truck and a trailer he pulls with it have become a mobile shrine to his boy. He drives around the country, with the aid of donations, evoking a mixture of sympathy and hostility. There are white crosses with the names of other boys killed in the war. Combat boots are nailed to the side of the display. There is a wheelchair, covered in colored ribbons, fixed to the roof of the cab. There is Alex’s military uniform and boots, poster-size pictures of the young Marine shown on the streets of Najaf, in his formal Marine portrait, and then lying, his hands folded in white gloves, in his coffin. A metal sign on the back of the truck bears a gold star and reads: “USMC L/CPL ALEXANDER S. ARREDONDO.”
“This is what happens every week to some family in America,” says Carlos. “This is what war does. And this is the grief and pain the government does not want people to see.”
Alex, from a working-class immigrant family, was lured into the military a month before Sept. 11, 2001. The Marine recruiters made the usual appeals to patriotism, promised that he would be trained for a career, go to college and become a man. They included a $10,000 sign-on bonus. Alex was in the Marine units that invaded Iraq. His father, chained to the news reports, listening to the radio and two televisions at the same time, was increasingly distraught. “I hear nothing about my son for days and days,” he says. “It was too much, too much, too much for parents.”
Alex, in August 2004, was back in Iraq for a second tour. In one of his last phone calls, Alex told him: “Dad, I call you because, to say, you know, we’ve been fighting for many, many days already, and I want to tell you that I love you and I don’t want you to forget me.” His father answered: “Of course I love you, and I don’t want—I never forget you.” The last message the family received was an e-mail around that time which read: “Watch the news online. Check the news, and tell everyone that I love them.”
Twenty days later, on Aug. 25, a U.S. government van pulled up in front of Carlos’ home in Hollywood, Fla. It was Carlos’ 44th birthday and he was expecting a birthday call from Alex. “I saw the van and thought maybe Alex had come home to surprise me for my birthday or maybe they were coming to recruit my other son, Brian,” he says. Three Marine officers climbed out of the van. One asked, “Are you Carlos Arredondo?” He answered “yes.”
“I’m sorry, we’re here to notify you about the death of Lance Cpl. Arredondo,” one of the officers told him. Alex was the 968th soldier or Marine to be killed in the Iraq war.
“I tried to process this in my head,” Carlos says. “I never hear that. I remember how my body felt. I got a rush of blood to my body. I felt like it’s the worst thing in my life. It is my worst fear. I could not believe what they were telling me.”
Carlos turned and ran into the house to find his mother, who was in the kitchen making him a birthday cake. “I cried, ‘Mama! Mama! They are telling me Alex got killed! Alex got killed! They kill Alex! They kill Alex! They kill Alex!” His mother crumbled in grief. Carlos went to the large picture of his son in the living room and held it. Carlos asked the Marines to leave several times over the next 20 minutes, but the Marines refused, saying they had to wait for his wife. “I did this because I was in denial. I think if they leave none of this will happen.” Crazed and distraught with grief, the father went into his garage and took out five gallons of gasoline and a propane torch. He walked past the three Marines in their dress blues and began to smash the windows of the government van with a hammer.
“I went into the van,” he says. “I poured gasoline on the seats. I pour gasoline on the floor and in the gas tank. I was, like, looking for my son. I was screaming and yelling for him. I remember that one day he left in a van and now he’s not there. I destroy everything. The pain I feel is the pain of what I learned from war. I was wearing only socks and no shoes. I was wearing shorts. The fumes were powerful and I could not breathe no more, even though I broke the windows.”
As Carlos stepped out of the van, he ignited the propane torch inside the vehicle. It started a fire that “threw me from the driver’s seat backwards onto the ground.” His clothes caught fire. It felt “like thousands of needles stabbing into my body.” He ran across the street and fell onto the grass. His mother followed him and pulled off his shirt and socks, which were on fire, as he screamed “Mama! Mama! My feet are burning! My feet are burning!” The Marines dragged him away and he remembers one of them saying, “The van is going to blow! The van is going to blow!” The van erupted in a fireball and the rush of hot air, he says, swept over him. The Marines called a fire truck and an ambulance. Carlos sustained second- and third-degree burns over 26 percent of his body. As I talk to him in the Portland parking lot he shows me the burn scars on his legs. The government chose not to prosecute him.
“I wake up in the hospital two days later and I was tied with tubes in my mouth,” he says. “When they take the tubes out I say, ‘I want to be with my son. I want to be with my son.’ Somebody was telling me my son had died. I get very emotional. I kept saying ‘I want to be with my son’ and they think I want to commit suicide.”
He had no health insurance. His medical bills soon climbed to $55,000. On Sept. 2, 2004, Carlos, transported in a stretcher, attended his son’s wake at the Rodgers Funeral Home in Jamaica Plain, Mass. He lifted himself, with the help of those around him, from his stretcher, and when he reached his son’s open casket he kissed his child. “I held his head and when I put my hands in the back of his head I felt the huge hole where the sniper bullet had come out,” he says. “I climbed into the casket. I lay on top of my son. I apologized to him because I did not do enough to avoid this.”
Arredondo began to collect items that memorialized his son’s life. He tacked them to his truck. A funeral home in Boston donated a casket to the display. He began to attend anti-war events, at times flying the American flag upside down to signal distress. He has taken his shrine to the Mall in Washington, D.C., and Times Square in New York City. He has traveled throughout the country presenting to the public a visual expression of death and grief. He has placed some of his son’s favorite childhood toys and belongings in the coffin, including a soccer ball, a pair of shoes, a baseball and a Winnie the Pooh. The power of his images, which force onlookers to confront the fact that the essence of war is death, has angered some who prefer to keep war sanitized and wrapped in the patriotic slogans of glory, honor and heroism. Three years ago vandals defaced his son’s gravestone.
“I don’t speak,” he says. “I show people war. I show them the caskets they are not allowed to see. If people don’t see what war does they don’t feel it. If they don’t feel it they don’t care.”
Military recruiters, who often have offices in high schools, prey on young men like Alex, who was first approached when he was 16. They cater to their insecurities, their dreams and their economic deprivation. They promise them what the larger society denies them. Those of Latino descent and from divorced families, as Alex was, are especially vulnerable. Alex’s brother Brian was approached by the military, which suggested that if he enlisted he could receive $60,000 in signing bonuses and more than $27,000 in payments for higher education. The proposed Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, or DREAM Act, is designed to give undocumented young people a chance at citizenship provided they attend college—not usually an option for poor, often poorly educated and undocumented Latino youths who are prohibited from receiving Pell grants—for at least two years, or enlist and serve in the military. The military helped author the pending act and is lobbying for it. Twelve percent of Army enlistees are Hispanic, and this percentage is expected to double by 2020 if the current rate of recruitment continues. And once they are recruited, these young men and women are trained to be killers, sent to wars that should never be fought and returned back to their families often traumatized and broken and sometimes dead.
Alex told Carlos in their last conversation there was heavy fighting in Najaf. Alex usually asked his father not to “forget” him, but now, increasingly in the final days of his life, another word was taking the place of forget. It was forgive. He felt his father should not forgive him for what he was doing in Iraq. He told his father, “Dad, I hope you are proud of what I’m doing. Don’t forgive me, Dad.” The sentence bewildered his father. “Oh my God, how can I forgive you? ... I love you, you’re my son, very proud, you’re my son.”
“I thought, when he died, my God, he has killed somebody,” Carlos says quietly as he readied for an anti-war march organized by Veterans for Peace. “He feels guilty. If he returned home his mind would be destroyed. His heart would be torn apart. It is not normal to kill. How can they do this? How can they take our children?”
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/they_kill_alex_20100906/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)