Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiMumbai, the NYT's Revisionism, and Lessons Not Learned
[T]he Bush administration did enormous damage to American credibility throughout much of the region when it blessed what turned out to be a failed coup against Mr. Chávez.
Indeed it did. But what the Times fails to mention, and is apparently eager to erase, is that "the Bush administration" was far from alone in blessing that coup attempt:
The New York Times Editorial Page, April 13, 2002 -- one day after the coup:
With yesterday's resignation of President Hugo Chávez, Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator. Mr. Chávez, a ruinous demagogue, stepped down after the military intervened and handed power to a respected business leader, Pedro Carmona. . . .
Early yesterday [Chávez] was compelled to resign by military commanders unwilling to order their troops to fire on fellow Venezuelans to keep him in power. He is being held at a military base and may face charges in Thursday's killings.
New presidential elections should be held this year, perhaps at the same time the new Congress is chosen. Some time is needed for plausible national leaders to emerge and parties to reorganize. But Venezuela urgently needs a leader with a strong democratic mandate to clean up the mess, encourage entrepreneurial freedom and slim down and professionalize the bureaucracy.
That was one of the most Orwellian editorials written in the last decade. The Times -- in the very first line -- mimicked the claim of the Bush administration that Chavez "resigned," even though, several paragraphs later, they expressly acknowledged that Chavez "was compelled to resign by military commanders" (the definition of a "coup"). Further mimicking the administration, the Times perversely celebrated the coup as safeguarding "Venezuelan democracy" ("Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator"), even though the coup deposed someone whom the Times Editorial itself said "was elected president in 1998" and -- again using the Times' own language -- "handed power to" an unelected, pro-American "respected business leader, Pedro Carmona," who quickly proceeded to dissolve the democratically elected National Assembly, the Supreme Court and other key institutions.
Worse still, the Times Editorial mindlessly spouted the administration's claim that "Washington never publicly demonized Mr. Chávez" and "his removal was a purely Venezuelan affair." Yet less than a week later, the Times itself was compelled to report that the Bush administration "acknowledged today that a senior administration official [Assistant Secretary of State Otto Reich] was in contact with Mr. Chávez's successor on the very day he took over"' -- a disclosure which, as the Times put it with great understatement, "raised questions as to whether Reich or other officials were stage-managing the takeover by Mr. Carmona."
Four days after its pro-coup Editorial, the Times -- once Chavez was returned to power in the wake of Carmona's anti-democratic moves -- returned to the topic of Venezuela, once again echoing the official line from Bush officials, who took to condemning the now-failed coup attempt. The Times, while justifying pro-coup sentiments as understandable, proceeded to denounce that reaction without really apologizing for its own role in endorsing it:
In his three years in office, Mr. Chávez has been such a divisive and demagogic leader that his forced departure last week drew applause at home and in Washington. That reaction, which we shared, overlooked the undemocratic manner in which he was removed. Forcibly unseating a democratically elected leader, no matter how badly he has performed, is never something to cheer.
Despite that, the Times still expressed optimism about the coup, righteously intoning in the first paragraph: "we hope Mr. Chávez will act as a more responsible and moderate leader now that he seems to realize the anger he stirred."
And the Times was hardly alone. As FAIR documented that week -- in a reported entitled "U.S. Papers Hail Venezuelan Coup as Pro-Democracy Move" -- "the editorial boards of several major U.S. newspapers followed the U.S. government's lead and greeted the news with enthusiasm."
* * * * *
It's nice that the Times -- with a disgraced George Bush on his way out the door -- has come to view the Venezuelan military coup as the destructive, anti-democratic event which, by definition, it was. And it's also nice that the Times is now willing to assign blame for anti-U.S. sentiments in Latin America at least partially to the actions of the U.S. Government itself. But it's important that the Times not be allowed to delete its own involvement in those events. Just as was true for Joe Klein's very similar self-serving revisionism on Wednesday, the point here goes far beyond merely illustrating the dishonesty that lies at the heart of this re-writing of history.
The Times' propagandistic cheer-leading for the military coup in Venezuela is an important illustrative event which should be regretted, but not erased. There are vital lessons from the last eight years that get obscured when influential outlets such as the Times Editorial Page try to erase their own responsibility for events and heap all blame on "the Bush administration" -- which was able to do what it did only because it enjoyed the acquiescence, complicity and often blind support from so many of our leading political and media institutions.
To this day, Chavez's hostility towards the U.S. Government (just as is true for the hostility of Iranian and Cuban leaders and many others) is depicted as proof of his dangerous extremism and irrationality -- even his mental instability -- as though American attempts to dictate who governs other countries will generate anger and resentment only among the Primitive, the Crazed, and the Evil. More generally, discussions of our own role in spawning anti-American sentiment around the world is still more or less off limits in mainstream discourse, ludicrously demonized as "Blame America First" pathology from anti-American fringes on the radical Left and the isolationist Right. And our political and media elite continue to bastardize language to justify whatever we do, with "democracy" meaning "a government that follows U.S. dictates regardless of how it gained and maintains power," and "dictatorship" meaning "a government not beholden to U.S. dictates even if they were democratically elected."
It wasn't just the Bush administraiton, but most of our media and political elite, which approved of the overthrow of Venezuela's democratically elected leader and overlooked our own role in it. There is much to learn from that which the NYT Editorial Board shouldn't be able to suppress.
* * * * *
But just as importantly, that heinous though typical pro-coup, government-mimicking NYT Editorial was written in April, 2002 -- just months after the 9/11 attacks, when the extremism and mindless submission to Government authority that would grip this country for the next several years was still rumbling towards it peak. The terrorist attacks in India this week serve as a critical reminder of how easily those forces are unleashed.
Any decent, civilized person watching scenes in Mumbai of extremists shooting indiscriminate machine gun fire and launching grenades into civilians crowds -- deliberately slaughtering innocent people by the dozens -- is going to feel disgust, fury, and a desire for vengeance against the perpetrators, regardless of what precipitated it. The temptation is great even among the most rational to empower authority to do anything and everything -- without limits -- to punish those responsible and prevent repeat occurrences. That's a natural, even understandable, response. And it's the response that the attackers hope to provoke.
It's that temptation to which most Americans -- and our leading media institutions -- succumbed in the wake of 9/11, and it's exactly the reaction that's most self-destructive. As documented by this superb Washington Post Op-Ed today from Dileep Padgaonkar, former editor of the Times of India, the Indian Government -- in response to prior terrorist attacks -- has been employing tactics all-too-familiar to Americans: "terrorism suspects have been picked up at random and denied legal rights"; "allegations of torture by police are routine"; "suspects have been held for years as their court cases have dragged on. Convictions have been few and far between"; Muslims and Hindus are subjected to vastly disparate treatment; and much of the most consequential actions take place in secrecy, shielded from public view, debate or accountability.
As Padgaonkar details, many of these measures, particularly in the wake of new terrorist attacks, are emotionally satisfying, yet they do little other than exacerbate the problem, spawn further extremism and resentment, and massively increase the likelihood of further and more reckless attacks -- thereby fueling this cycle endlessly -- all while degrading the very institutions and values that are ostensibly being defended. The greater one's physical or emotional proximity to the attacks, the greater is the danger that one will seek excessively to empower and submit to government authority and cheer for destructive counter-measures which allow few, if any, limits.
What happened in the U.S. over the last eight years is about much, much more than what "the Bush administration" did. It begins there, but responsibility in the post 9/11-era is much more diffuse and collective than that. Shoveling it all off on the administration that is leaving, while exonerating our culpable media and political institutions that remain, isn't merely historically inaccurate and unfair, though it is that. Allowing that revisionism also ensures that the critical lessons that ought to be learned will instead be easily and quickly forgotten when similar episodes occur here in the future.
102 Comments so far
Show AllFrom the Sidewalk Blogger (Google: Freeway Blogger)
"Truth is Willing
...but the Press is Weak..."
Brought to you by OrwelliYum Lapdog Chow
http://flickr.com/photos/spine/2970168989/
A book that I highly recommend for all you deep thinkers and sages to read especially those that continually refer to muslims as muslim terrorists:
NONVIOLENT SOLDIER OF ISLAMBAD
BADSHAH KHAN
A MAN TO MATCH HIS MOUNTAINS
BADSHAH KAHN AND MAHATMA GANDHI
ALLIES IN A REVOLUTION OF HUMAN SPIRIT
PIONEER IN A CULTURE OF PEACE
By Eknath Easwaran
If this tragic event had happened in Israel or the US, by now we'd be going after Pakistan by force. However, since it is happening in India, there's way too much discussion about "peace talks". India has been a very patient country and has yet suffered the greatest number of terror attacks, a lot of them worse than most of the ones in the US and Europe. I'm amazed that it hasn't been taken over by either the fundamentalist Christians or Muslims in all these years. However, I fear that a lot of us who want to learn from the Hindu culture will be unable to do so in the future if this keeps up.
Why is everyone fighting on this site? Just reading through the posts, I notice that a lot of you share the same concerns about the role of Pakistan and the US, direct or indirect, in the Mumbai tragedies. And instead of blaming one religious group or another like the MSM do, can't we all just get together and peace out ? I swear, there's more war and flaming on each other than there is any meaningful discussion ! Now CUT IT OUT ALL OF YOU AND LET'S GET BACK TO A REASONABLE DISCUSSION PLEASE !
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
Bring America Back !!!!
****Glen Greenwald's is another insightful, intelligent piece !!!!
****It is fitting and correct to throw the US Mainstream Media into the
cabal of Bush which created the mess, enabled the mess, and covered up
the mess of the past 8 years. Has history not proved Chavez correct when
he stood up before the UN calling Bush a liar, a devil (Diablo), and
a mentally insane murderer. ????
****LOOK ! Any time Neocon Karl Rove praises Barak Obama for his picks for
his future Administration Cabinet==you just know Obama is doing exactly the
WRONG thing: I mean c'mon, what do we know about Rove and his direct
involvement with Scooter Libby, Cheney, and King Bush ????
****Obama's cabinet choices Stink !!
========Who in their right mind would allow Robert Gates to remain as
Secretary of Defense==He is a Neocon subject of Bush, an Advocate
of an illegal War, head of the Pentagon jackals who brought us
the so called Surge hoax. This man is a corporate puppet of the
Military Industrial complex===NO Change Here, NO Hope Here, NO
Promise of Democratic redemption for the US miitary crimes.
========Hillary Clinton stinks as a choice for Secretary Of State,
She voted FOR the War; She voted to fund the Trillion $$$ continuation
of the War; She is a puppet of AIPAC, the right wing radical PAC
whcih controls US Mideast foreign policy !! She has been coddled by
right wing war cheerleader FOX TV (Newscorp=Rupert Murdoch) and her
previous arch enemies--the right wing conspiracy perpetrators that went
viciously after her own hubby Bill Clinton.
What a terrible pick she is, when the job belongs to Gov Richardson !
====Obama's cave-in to the Clintonistas is a telling forecast that his
primary campaign promises were pure rhetoric: that neither He nor his
transition team has any clue, any ideas, any concept of how to reform
the US Government as we need to have done !!!
AGAIN, WHEN KARL ROVE AND RUSH LIMBAUGH PRAISE YOUR PICKS, YOU DAMN WELL
BETTER TAKE A LOT HARDER LOOK AT WHAT THE HELL YOU ARE DOING !!!!
TO QUOTE KUCINICH=="WAKE UP AMERICA" !!!!!
i have been trying for some years to get the NY Times Public Editor [their alleged ombudsman] to confront the Times coverage of Venezueala and of Central America. It makes one think that they must have a financial interest in that region, little else explains the kind of reporters they send their and the kind of semi-editorials these guys and gals pen, usually from some country club. the grey lady is no doubt frightened by all those excitable Latinos!
They have a financial interest in sucking up to the Bush Gang.
Their current revisionism is just a change of sucking-up target to Obama.
WOW ! I am amazed that even on this site, people would show their hostility towards the Hindus. My wife's brother lived in Pakistan for 2 years and in India for 3 and I can tell you straight up that in India, there's actually far more religious tolerance whereas in Pakistan and Afghanistan, your life is at risk unless you convert to Islam. I'm afraid that much as I detest bombing a nation, Carla Waters is correct.
Another thing that is ignored is this. Did you notice that the news networks covered only the Jews and Westerners on the attack while everyone else's lives were rendered irrelevant? If all those Americans and Jews were just regular Indians, the Mumbai attack on the hotels would have made no news whatsoever. As a matter of fact, on July 11, 2006, the terrorist attack on a Mumbai subway was similar to the one in Spain in 2004 and yet the media coolly ignored the Mumbai one unlike the Spain one. I find it also truly amazing the like the rightwing, the leftwing has the nerve to come up with double standards in religion. If Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc ... had actually done the terrorizing against the Muslims, this board and the rest of the liberal blogosphere would be showing their outrage at the lives whereas in this case, the leftwing would much rather say that Indians (except for the Muslim ones) are bad people despite the fact that they are the people we rely on for business and use them as slaves. And I noticed on conservative blogs that it is no different from the rightwing. If Christians and/or Jews are attacked, show outrage and go after them whereas if the Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc ... are the victims, then give them the middle finger. I am disheartened to find such religious animosity even on the left. I'd expect the rightwing to be hostile but not the leftwing. Oh well, I guess those ordinary Indian civilians who were the most to lose their lives don't matter to you rightwingers and leftwingers out there, do they?
Jason Jordan
Sandpoint, Idaho
Throughout my life (64 years) the American media has been notorious for it's parochialism. Any tragic event is only of any importance in as much as Americans are victims of it; if not, move on, nothing to see. I lived in Houston for several years and I was astonished that the most horrendous disasters were briefly reported and then cut to the possibility of some wild and tangential connection to someone living (or sometime living) in Houston--otherwise they were ignored. I suspect that's true in cities all around the country.
Americans are accustomed to Jews/Israelis (many dual US/Israeli nationals) so they are second best to Americans as victims in Mumbai. But, frankly, bugger the others; they're just foreigners and darkies and they do nothing for our ratings.
That makes the American media racist. And to think my state gets labeled one ! Thank you for the thought. :) The next time anyone says I come from a racist state, I can bring up what you pointed out about the blatant racism in the American media.
Jason Jordan
Sandpoint, Idaho
Not racist, necessarily. To be fair, nobody in Houston seemed to have any interest in events in DC unless they were connected to some legislation--or legislator--with importance in Harris County, TX. The coverage of the Madrid and London commuter-bombings was quite extensive only because it was assumed to be OUR enemy--not theirs. It took the spectacular and open anti-Americanism of 9/11 to get Americans around the country to feel that NY had some connection to them, even though they had no interest in New York--but the second sentence out of the mouths of every local reporter was some question as to whether there were any Houstonians/S.E. Texans dead (or their relatives still living and wanting to be LIVE on local TV to add their expert opinions).
And you'll notice that every dead American used to get prime time news back home but the million(s) of dead Iraqis might never have existed for all the mention they get.
As I said, it's more parochial than racial. Exacerbated, perhaps, by "American exceptionalism".
Interesting points. Thanks for the clarification. This really does go to prove just how blatant media bias is getting to be.
Jason Jordan
Sandpoint, Idaho
"If all those Americans and Jews were just regular Indians, the Mumbai attack on the hotels would have made no news whatsoever. As a matter of fact, on July 11, 2006, the terrorist attack on a Mumbai subway was similar to the one in Spain in 2004 and yet the media coolly ignored the Mumbai one unlike the Spain one."
I was wondering too why the MSM covered only selected casualties rather than everyone. It's too bad that even on this site, very few people are discussing it. Instead, they're all engaged in religious quarrels. Very sad.
I don't think folks on this site hate other religions but this quarreling is getting way out of hand. If DCBeltway1, gyptian, Carla Waters, bligh4, and the rest of the users who are fighting like crazy would sit down and come together and have a peaceful discussion, I too would take them seriously.
I'm probably going to get flamed for asking this but CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG AND WORK OUT OUR DIFFERENCES AND UNITE SOME ?
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
You are correct. I never understood why people ridiculed "Why can't we all just get along?" Doesn't mean we have to agree, just argue like adults (or as we imagine adults to be : ).
Joe
Not a bad idea. They must not have had their Thanksgiving dinners to keep them at bay though. :)
Jason Jordan
Sandpoint, Idaho
> Did you notice that the news networks covered only the Jews and Westerners on the attack while everyone else's lives were rendered irrelevant?
Standard operating procedure.
My Fellow Americans.
The battle for Americas Soul and Freedoms is now being heavily waged.
Life Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness is being killed by our major media networks.
Not because they can not use the first amendment to tell Americans the truth about our Fascist government,and the stazi police state they have grown, but because they wont.
Either they are afraid, or a willing accomplice.
The right wing Fascists have created a war mongering ,spy nation, stazi police state to control us using the threat of Foreign and Domestic Terrorism.
There is no shortage of fools willing to march lock step with this Freedom Killing Doctrine.
It would only take 1 in thirty people acting as government spys to control the rest of the Nation.
These spys will determine who and what are suspicious.
There are easily 30 million Christian Right Wingers that could fill those slots.
Do you want bible thumpers determining what is suspicious behavior by Americans, and acting as judge, jury and executioner.
Hell No!!!!!!!
Then you have the Liberal left, who have been asleep for 40 years.
While the left wing was dormant the spread of fascism by neocon right wing organizations have allowed our freedoms to be stolen from us.
So now, as the Left awakens to find that the Judicial and legal systems that protect our freedoms have been gutted by bad legislation like the Patriot Act, they find themselves fighting the greatest war since The Revolutionary War.
A new war on Freedom and Independence. The War for Americas Soul.
Religious Right Vs Liberal Left.
Fanatical Fascism Vs. Constitutional Law.
If the lawyers and judges don't get their act together and reclaim the power of the Judiciary Branch as designed by our constitution, the executive branch will have total control of our Nation. That my friends is a dictatorship.
I purposefully have left out the House and Senate Reps because they have not shown us anything other than they are puppets that vote in the direction where money blows.
BornFreeMen
Save the Constitution, Save Americas Soul,Save our Freedoms, before we are all labeled as Home Grown Terrorists or unrepentant sinners.
"Either they are afraid or willing accomplishes". This whore editorial by the whore media just proves this quote. The publishers and owners of the major media are for the most part, wealthy,elite conservatives that have vested interests in the status quo and their editorial writers and reporters know the parameters to keep their employment and fat incomes and most are willing to prostitute themselves for job security and just like anyone else are afraid of upsetting their powerful bosses.Thank goodness for the net!
A book that I highly recommend for all you deep thingers and sages to read especially those that continually refer to muslims as muslim terrorists:
NONVIOLENT SOLDIER OF ISLAMBAD
BADSHAH KHAN
A MAN TO MATCH HIS MOUNTAINS
BADSHAH KAHN AND MAHATMA GANDHI
ALLIES IN A REVOLUTION OF HUMAN SPIRIT
PIONEER IN A CULTURE OF PEACE
By Eknath Easwaran
This article is spot-on. As long as we meddle in other countries' affairs for our own nefarious purposes, as long as we torture and disappear people, as long as we bomb villages and slay the innocent, as long as we violate the norms of civilized modern nations and fail to hold the guilty to account, we will face terrorism. For every alleged terrorist we kill or capture with such heavy-handed and inhumane means, we spawn hundreds more willing to give their lives to take revenge on us. One hopes that Obama will learn not to listen to the hawkish hypocrites with whom he has surrounded himself and see the obvious. Perhaps visits from the Dalai Lama and Archbishop Tutu would help.
Alex
So true.
I am saddened that a few posters on CD are pushing immediate attacks against Pakistan for the terror attacks on India. I have never seen such garbled hate filled postings.
Joe
> For every alleged terrorist we kill or capture with such heavy-handed and inhumane means, we spawn hundreds more willing to give their lives to take revenge on us.
Maybe that was the idea all along. I once read an article in the Dallas newspaper that W had been heard at a party to exclaim that he was making sure the US would never get out of the war business.
I used to think that W was a fool but now I think I was the fool. He fooled me good.
If I were President and wanted to make sure that a nuclear bomb would be shipped to New York City in a container ship and detonated I would do exactly what W has done.
Frisbie:I take it you don't live in NYC. Why would you ship a nuclear bomb/detonate it here in NYC? Why NYC? Am curious.
Me, ship a nuclear bomb? Are you nuts?
I have nothing against NYC. It is the obvious target in such a situation, being the largest city, the financial center, and a port.
Again, IF I wanted to provoke such an act, which I very much don't, I would torture and humiliate Muslims and attack Pakistan, which has nuclear weapons. Obama and Biden seems quite enthusiastic about an assault on Pakistan.
Alex, it's great to see there are some Americans who get it! It's a shame they are in the minority.
When America sets up its foolish missile shield, it will reap even more tragedy given that those who play with fire usually get burned.
If you are interested in this issue, check my latest post: Do Humans Have A Death Wish?
www.dangerouscreation.com
The New York Times should change its name to Pravda West.
I pay no attention to the US corporate media. It is all a pack of lies.
Suddenly from out of nowhere, a previously unknown group (Deccan Mujahadeen) carries out a highly effective and well coordinated assault on one of the global economy's nerve centers. The group prepares no statement of intent nor makes any demands. The media labels it "India's 9/11" and emphasize the attack's toll on Western and Jewish victims. Before the shooting stops the Indian government and U.S. intelligence services point the finger at Pakistan based Lashkar-e-Taiba.
Who's interests were ultimately served by America's 9/11? The US troops in Iraq and soon to be surged into Afghanistan are the answer to that question. Who's interests would be served by a war, even if it included a nuclear exchange, between India and Pakistan? The dire state of the US economy and US imperialism's flagging fortunes in the region should be considered.
bligh4
I am constantly amazed at how people that call themselves progressives can excuse any atrocity as long as it is committed by an approved "repressed group".
If it had been a score of Jewish terrorists that had broken into a Muslim resort to blow away innocent civilians -the entire board would have crashed from the outraged responses.
If it had been a gang of Christians attacking Hindus the board would have lit up with charges against Christians
the list goes on....
Can some things just be evil on the face of it- and be called that no matter who is involved?
> Any decent, civilized person watching scenes in Mumbai of extremists shooting indiscriminate machine gun fire and launching grenades into civilians crowds -- deliberately slaughtering innocent people by the dozens -- is going to feel disgust, fury, and a desire for vengeance against the perpetrators, regardless of what precipitated it.
So, exactly who is excusing an atrocity? I've read all of these responses and don't see it. Sure you aren't making this up?
bligh4
If it had been a score of Jewish terrorists that had broken into a Muslim resort to blow away innocent civilians -the entire board would have crashed from the outraged responses.
Can some things just be evil on the face of it- and be called that no matter who is involved?
COMMENT:
When there is oppression by a majority against a minority, it can seem to the minority that all of the majority are guilty of the oppression and therefore all are the hated enemy.
Blacks rose up in the ante-bellum south and slaughtered many who hadn't beaten or enslaved them, but were deemed part and parcel of the oppressive majority. I grew up reading the Robert C. Ruark columns from Kenya describing the Mau Mau who were workers by day, assassins of entire families by night. Although blood was minimal, American cities such as Detroit and Watts looked like flaming war zones as enraged American blacks lashed out at the buildings and businesses around them indiscriminately.
Was any or all of this "evil"? Perhaps. But none of these "evils" would have occurred but for the evil actions of the oppressing class.
Whether or not, Bin Laden was personally involved in 9/11 or not, he told the world the reason for the action was the US support for oppressors of their people in the Middle East.
The little victims, the out-numbered, outgunned minorities, can't stand up on their hind legs and obey the Marquis of Queensbury rules, or "gentlemanly" rules of war. Their only hope of resistance may be attacking "the other" no matter what. It's not nice, it may be evil, but again, there would be no violent action from the oppressed if there were no oppressed.
In the Middle East, the Jews are clearly the aggressor: they stole the land, they've isolated the people they didn't kill or drive off in three separate "reservations" which they have laid siege to, denying the people in them the basic necessities of life. The Jews have shot innocent children playing in the street, have lobbed missiles into homes killing whatever innocent people may have been in them.
Only when the oppressed blow themselves up in Israel so they can kill some of the oppressing group is the word "evil" usually applied by Western spokesmen.
The way to avoid much of the evil in the world is to stay home, keep your guns out of other countries, mind your own business, treat your own minorities well, equally, and fairly.
Can some things be called evil no matter who is involved? I don't think it is right to do so without referring to what started the action, because it is there at the beginning where the true source of the evil will be found: the thefts, the enslavements, the oppression's, the initial violences - these are the birthplaces of all the evil that follows. I think it can matter a great deal who is involved and why.
bligh4
So, I guess that is a resounding NO to my question as to whether some things can be identified as evil no matter who commits them.
I found it interesting- your reference to Jews. "In the Middle East, Jews are clearly the aggressors". Not Israelis, not Zionists,-Jews. Therefor I guess it makes perfect sense to kill a New York Rabbi and his wife in India.
Sorry, I'm tired of trying to explain away simple murder as somehow justifiable. The attack was cowardly and unjustifiable. Poor people the world over lead peaceful, law abiding lives. These guys (including two from Britain apparently) were not oppressed- they were just full of hate.
"Was any or all of this "evil"? Perhaps. But none of these "evils" would have occurred but for the evil actions of the oppressing class.
Whether or not, Bin Laden was personally involved in 9/11 or not, he told the world the reason for the action was the US support for oppressors of their people in the Middle East. "
And then you wonder why progressives and liberals aren't taken seriously. If Osama wanted to fight against RIGGED capitalism, he had no business carrying out terrorist acts, PERIOD. He could have silently collected and used his money to train the poor and the disaffected in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Middle East to overcome religious oppression and take down the puppet dictators. That would have put the US and Europe on the defensive. Running a plane into the World Trade Center is not the way you deliver a message that capitalism stinks. It only invites war and since no one stood up to the terrorists when they had years to do so, I'm sorry but they allowed themselves to be put in the cross fires. The innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan have nothing to gain from the terrorists and militants as it is. Therefore, they need to stand up to those bad apples or risk facing unintended consequences. Sorry.
Bring America Back !!!! You are indeed sorry Carla, if you still think that a
cave-dwelling Boogieman and 19 airline school flunkouts
pulled off the technical genious that was 9/11. However, what
the kangaroo courts & trials at GITMO have shown is that these poor
religious nuts are more than willing to take credit as the "masterminds"
so they can be martyred for the cause, then inherit their 40 virgins in
Islam heaven !!!! For good example the chauffer/driver of bin Laden and
the water-boarded Massaaoui were admitted "masterminds" !!
********On the other hand, this weeks assault on Mumbai, India was a water and
ground based surprise attack, clearly within the scope and capability of
any organized party with means to attempt it. Vacation cities are not
usually fortresses, especially hotels and jewish centers are wide open
targets. Could well have been the Pakistani branch of radical al Qaeda !
Carla, Your idea of punishing innocent civilians of Pakistan and Afghanistan so they stand up to those bad apples is aganist international law. It's called a 'war crime'. Sorry
You didn't even read my post clearly. The civilians are innocent until proven guilty and for not standing up to those bad apples, they're implicitly "supporting" them. I hate to see them get caught in the cross fires but they had plenty of time to stop those bad apples and they blew it so sorry but tough luck. They'll just have to learn the hard way. I don't like it, you don't like it, but sometimes it takes unpopular decisions to hold the terrorists accountable but what has to be done has to be done. I don't believe in punishing an entire class for one student's misbehavior but when the entire class does nothing to stand up to the bad student's behavior and even "defend" that bad apple, then the entire class becomes an accomplice and also deserves to be punished.
Collective punishment is against international law. Lucky for us, because we are surely the most eligible.
Joe
Sadly, yes. :(
You are so right. W and Dick and Wolfie and Condi must go to jail, or we'll deserve everything we get. In fact if I read you correctly, it is already too late because we failed to restrain them.
Correct.
"The civilians are innocent until proven guilty and for not standing up to those bad apples, they're implicitly "supporting" them. I hate to see them get caught in the cross fires but they had plenty of time to stop those bad apples and they blew it so sorry but tough luck" -
Who you talking about? It sounds just like us!!!
By your logic, any attack on the people of the United States would be OK. But it's called collective punishment and it is against international law.
Joe
"I am constantly amazed at how people that call themselves progressives can excuse any atrocity as long as it is committed by an approved "repressed group"."
Don't worry. You'll get used to it. Yes, it is insane. Just take note. When it comes to Hindus being attacked, and it's almost always the extremists in the Muslim community, I get attacked for bringing that up and the fact that even the Muslims not doing the attacking refuse to hold their bad apples accountable. It's just way too laughable that I'm called a rightwing troll for that alone. I think the mindset on the Far Left is as limited as that on the Far Right.
"If it had been a gang of Christians attacking Hindus the board would have lit up with charges against Christians"
They used to do it but not to the extent the extremists ruining it for the Muslims are doing. In any case, the Christians for the most part, save the evangelicals, are getting along with everyone in India just fine and even the evangelicals have moved on. Until the Muslims in India and the US quit taking their freedoms and rights for granted, they shouldn't expect to be taken seriously.
"Can some things just be evil on the face of it- and be called that no matter who is involved?"
I give the answer a STRONG YES. Too bad some don't learn.
P.S.: Did you know that the US, and India are actually secular nations in addition to being democracies? The same cannot be said of most Muslim-dominated countries. Furthermore, the US and India are the biggest employers for Muslims and give them plenty of freedoms and yet they still complain about not having freedom.
Today I looked at two cable tv news networks from USA; one was CNN, and the other was MSNBC.
They both had on retired military types who gave expert analysis of the Mumbai news.
What crossed my mind is that just a few months ago there was no small amount of hand wringing from this same media when some actual journalists dug up and published the dirt about how the Pentagon had supplied well primed military experts to the main media to push making war on the Iraqi people:...and now the main media are doing it again.
I guess I have to give the main media credit for knowing who butters their bread.
Two thoughts:
1. Many earthshaking or government destabilizing operations have eventually been found to be instigated by the CIA, or other black op groups within the US government. Usually to aid US business and political interests. Many of us have been expecting a black op to reinforce US war making and oppression in the Middle East and an escalation of anti-Islamist policies and propaganda. This may be it, or the beginning of it.
2. Many years ago (about the time of Daniel Ellsberg) I was acquainted with an Ex-FBI man, who had become a very respected investigative journalist. I asked him if he were censored by his paper. He said, "No, there is no censorship in the editorial offices. We may write what we wish. However, any writer soon learns what will be printed and what will go into the wastebasket. Nobody wants to write for the wastebasket, so you learn to write what sells, what will be printed."
I'm sure that this still holds true, more especially in the big "respected" papers and news agencies. Especially with all policies in the hands of a very few wealthy power brokers who work closely with the government to push their agenda.
It's worse than that. Recently I've been reading stories in the Wall Street Journal and LA Times that are propaganda, blatant lies about history. The WSJ has opinion pieces so absurd they could be in The Onion. Guess what? Both papers were recently acquired by billionaires. It is quite clever, Faux News in sheep's clothing.
Mumbai is what happens when downtrodden people get sick and tired of being invaded, occupied, humiliated, exploited, killed, raped, starved, etc. It's like if you plant a crop of poisonous weeds. Why be surprised when poisonous weeds spring up?
The West and America have planted a lot of poisonous weeds over the last hundred years. They are starting to reap what they have sown.
My post on Mumbai may open your eyes!
www.dangerouscreation.com
Thank you Glenn Greenwald. If it were not for people like you who have a memory and look things up, perhaps the Times would get a pass on its customary after-the-fact sanctimony.
Unfortunately, the average New York Times reader will never see your article.
"If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed." Mark Twain
Joe
The author says any decent civilized person watching the scenes in Mumbai would feel a desire for vengeance. I'm a decent cvilized person and I don't long for vengeance. Vengeance is a big part of the problem. I feel a desire for non-violent resolution of conflict.
I too feel a big desire for non-violent resolution of conflict.
Let's find out who did this and bring those individuals and their supporters to trial, whoever they may be.
If we are too incompetent to find out, we cannot compensate for our frustration and inadequacies by invading, bombing and occupying counties and killing and punishing innocent everyday men, women and children like an enraged impotent.
Not again should we let some criminal act become the pretext for an all out assault on an pre-selected enemy, in this case Pakistan. We have to find out what happened and not be set-up or fooled again by that same small cabal of sociopaths hidden in our government.
Joe
"I too feel a big desire for non-violent resolution of conflict. "
I do too but in this case I'd make a strong exception. See, history shows that Pakistan had plenty of chances to clean its acts but they blew them all. They really do need to be held accountable already. NO EXCUSES.
Who should be held accountable? Our friends the Bhuttos? The current regime? Some miscellaneous people at a wedding? A three year old sleeping in her cot at night when a bomb falls? Who?
How should anyone be held accountable? An investigation into the facts? A legal trial and sentencing? An invasion? A carpet bombing with cluster bombs? How?
Joe
Glen's article reminded me of Jeremiah Wright's now infamous speech that he delivered immediately after 9-11. The media remembers 'God Damn the United States'. It was an excellent speech whose premise was that we shouldn't react in fury. 'Revenge is mine' says the bible and Rev. Wright foresaw how the US would might fall into vengeful policies that would lead us to act unchristian. Turns out we acted unchristian and stupidly. Our economy is ruined as a result of the war. It's painful to watch the news, and is so now as I hear our media trying to link these Mumbai attacks to AlQuaeda. For people listening to NPR, CNN, Fox or MSNBC, they listen with half an ear and all they pick up is that this has something to do with our 'war aganist terrorism' and anti-semitism. Responsible background reporting about what was actually behind this will evaporate amidst the bloviation of pundits. I stopped reading the NYTimes decades ago when I realised it was a bunch of propaganda.
justmiming:(Like your screen name). What is the exact date of Rev. Wright's "famous" speech? On the NYTimes: after the "run up to the war" on Iraq, the NYTimes is rather low on credibility.
NYCartist- check out this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ
My recollection is that Rev. Wright gave that sermon on the Sunday following 9-11 to his congregation.
NYCartist: Try this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ
The sermon I believe was to his congregation on the Sunday immediately following 9-11. I found the entire speech on youtube months ago.
In one of Obama's inspiring well-written, well-orated speeches, he said, movingly, "Are we our brother and sisters' keepers"?
Whether it's the NYTIMES which is not the newspaper of integrity and carefully accurate journalism it once was [or am I fooling myself and just have gained more knowledge and sophistication?], with its all-aboard, cheerleader inaccuracies and strange editorials of the last eight years or whether its the war-fever-hawks, big-business-as-usual cabinet members Obama has selected that evoke happy spasms from such newspapers as the NYTIMES, I wonder if that question Obama asked in his speech was supposed to read, "Are we the takers from our brothers and sisters, and WE* get to keep everything?
*The same folks who've been reaping it in from war profits, invading and attacking other countries to bring them democracy, and screw-the-little-people profits on oil and other goodies made by relocated corporations and little-people jobs to China, Dubai, India, Pakistan, etcetera.
I've been listening and reading, and it seems to me that the the world is being run by the mentalities of 10-year-old boys who know how to speak in grown-up voices and dress properly, but their higher wisdoms and their deeper sensibilities haven't made it past "take that," "I'll take that; it's mine!" "Get out of my way or I'll drone you and splat you with my missiles," "We're the good guys; you're the bad guys," and other flat, rigid, uncreative ideologies that draw a line in the sand and at the base of the mountain of which they perceive themselves to be King of, at the top, ... always at the top.
Viva, Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales!
When I was a teenager during the Vietnam era I realized that the NYT was uncritically printing statements by Westmoreland, Johnson et al that could not possibly be true. If you kept track, the running count of "Viet Cong" we claimed to have killed practically exceeded the population of Vietnam. They printed government statements as though they were for real and did no independent verification. The Wall Street Journal was more truthful.
Joe
Too true.
Joe
Cee Miracles:
Viva, Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales!
COMMENT:
These two and the other leaning-to-the-left leaders in Latin America have begun a movement that may be the best, possibly the only, chance for a peaceful and just future for the world.
From a region that gave the name "banana republics" to family-owned countries, tyrannical oligarchies, and petty dictatorships, now comes the best hope for the future. A decade ago who could possibly foresee this possibility?
Be careful about attributing a "movement" being "begun" by those who were ELECTED - which means they are responding to the existance of a majority seeking balances that are local, regional, sustainable, inclusive hence democratic.
These leaders also function with administrative structures that continue to include opposition representatives - also definition of democracy.
Do you want an example of how grown ups behave?
The peoples of Greenland had a referendum to vote for more autonomy from the Country of Denmark.
Greenland has been a colony of Denmark since 1721. The vote favored more autonomy by a number of over 70 percent. The Inuit leaders indicated that this the first step towards total independence which they feel they not yet ready for.
The head of the Government of Denmark called the Inuit leaders and congratulated them on their decision indicating that the Danish parliament will approve the decision within months.
They have worked out a deal wherin Denmark will still subsidize Greenland to the tune of 350 million Krona a year. Greenlands new Government will get the royalties from any minerals/oil/natural gas up to the sum of 75 million. After that Greenland and Denmark will share equally in any such proceeds up to the point that that 350 million subsidy repaid. Thereafter the People of Greenalnd get 100 percent of further royalties.
No bombings. No air strikes. No riots or kidnappings. No trying to rob the Inuit of their resources.
Now what do I fear? I fear the United States of America will go to Greenland bearing gifts, asking for Military access for an "Arctic Command" I fear other nations will jockey for position to see who can get in on the action using bribery and other means to foment dissension amongst the peoples of Greenland. I fear the IMF and the World bank will go into Greenland to help the people develop their budding nation, only to allow open the floodgates to the Corporations.
I really hope that when the peoples of Greenland do finally become a fully independent nation, that they are very very wary of all the nations and corporations that will want to be "their friends".
Be especially wary of the promises of "capitalism" and the "Free markets" for if they adopt them as others will want them to be adopted they will not br free for long.
That all said, I can not say enough about how "Civilized" this latest event was.
If they can act in such a manner why can't everyone else?
Based on history, your fears are quite rational and reasonably justified. I can only hope they do not come true.
When are we going to get past the propaganda line that every country wants to be America? They don't. They have seen what our "free market capitalism" has
become, and how it has destroyed any concept of "the common good" among Americans. They are appalled that taxpayers give corporations billions of dollars of welfare each year, in the form of "tax relief", etc., while only spitting on their poor. They reject the absence of job security, unaffordable higher education, lack of health care -- all those social policies that protect our economic caste system. They can certainly see how our absence of social supports destroys families and lives. Perhaps the largest portion of the US population today is but a single illness, a single job loss, away from losing everything -- and it simply doesn't matter how carefully you "worked hard and played by all the rules".
Sioux Rose
DH FABIAN: Incarceraing 2.2 million is not exactly good PR for "The land of the free and home of the brave," nor is the probable statistic of over a BILLION guns on our streets! High levels or rape & domestic abuse, added to road rage and lethal roadway statistics (about 45,000 die a year in traffic accidents or highway fatalities), added to astounding numbers of the morbidly obese, childhood Diabetes rates, depression... no, I don't think America is exactly the Mecca of idealized fantasies these days. (For those who would counter by mentioning all the Mexicans crossing our border, think NAFTA and the decimation of small farming operations in that nation. People don't just face death crossing borders out of sheer caprice.)
chomsky calls them "totallogies" - undeniable and unquestionable statements of fact
such as: america is good
america is special
god loves america
and so on
he also points out that if "we" do it - it is good, if "they" did it - it is terrorism
let's not rush to judgment about who is doing this or why
there are many scum of many ilks positioning to take advantage of this situation already
we should be careful
once again though, glen raises the specter of 9/11 without any acknowledgment of the fact that that event has never been investigated and that there has been no proof offered demonstrating any involvement on the part of osama bin laden
in fact, he hasn't been seen since 2001 and yet he is still invoked as a bogeyman - newsflash osl is dead
9/11 was an inside job - carried out by elements inside the government and corporations who have made trillions off the war
bush has led an all too willing country into the sewer and this shit really stinks
now we have the idiot palin carrying the banner of a burned out and shelled gop who's only remaining battle cry is that of hatred and racism
sad state of affairs
but just wait until obama launches the war in pakistan - then you will see blowback and the united states will get its long overdue comeuppance for all the murder and destruction it has wrought
what goes around - comes around
cheers, b
. . . a respected business leader . . .
No such thing exists.
'The Times' propagandistic cheer-leading for the military coup in Venezuela is an important illustrative event which should be regretted, but not erased. There are vital lessons from the last eight years that get obscured when influential outlets such as the Times Editorial Page try to erase their own responsibility for events and heap all blame on "the Bush administration" -- which was able to do what it did only because it enjoyed the acquiescence, complicity and often blind support from so many of our leading political and media institutions.'
Excellent - and this goes far beyond the media. The Bush Administration was allowed to stand for eight years. The New York Times was not the only enabler. All Americans share in the responsibility to the extent they did not impeach him and end that administration before it ended on its own.
There is still time to impeach Bush and Cheney, and if it is not done, it wll be a blot on the USA forever.
The Times does not like a real democracy such as Venezuela but they like dictatorships such as those of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
Hear, hear--sock it to the Times!
Dr Wu, the last of the big-time thinkers
Last 8 years???? you mean the last 200 years....
The only difference between the military expansionist policy of Bush, and the military expansionist policy of the the USA for the last 200 years, is Bush has just been a bigger dick about it.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/history/interventions.htm
word!
In Muslim nations such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Afghanistan, etc ... there is no room for secularism. The US may be in a rot but like India it is a secular nation which too many Muslims take for granted. I notice that in the US and in India, Muslim women can easily wear jeans and short skirts and even take off their burkas and show off their beautiful hair. In those Muslim nations, they'd get shot for even a tiny exposure. It's funny how these brain-washed pro-Islamofascists lie about Hindus being the culprit when in fact, the Muslims are their own culprits. If they'd stop ABUSING their freedoms being given to them and stand up to terrorists and trouble makers in their own Muslim community, they wouldn't be paying the price they're now paying for it. The Islamo-fascists have done everything to destroy the Hindu, Christian, Jewish, and even non-religious foundations in Kashmir, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc ... and yet they still complain about being the victims. When those Muslim nations can open their doors to secularism, then they can complain about the US and India. Until then, they can shut the hell up and quit being a bunch of welfare queens like Wall $treet.
I live in a Muslim country and you are full of baloney. Hate and baloney.
Carla Water,
You are either a TROLL or deeply ignorant about the middle east and its politics.
Most likely you are extremely influence and biased by hateful Zionist views
Actually, I studied the Middle East and South East Asia history and politics thoroughly to actually be able to tell good from evil. It's apparent that like most on this forum, your brain is stuck on "but Muslims are the victims of x". Get an independent brain or shut up.
I lived in the middle east and I know what I am talking about.
I expressed my view politely and you tell me to shut up!!
You proved that you are a miserable lout and a real nasty.!!!
Commoner3 I've been to the Middle East also commoner and have seen Muslim women wear jeans in such far flung places as Morocco and Kuwait. Carla has never been to these places and she's full of shit. This also has nothing to do with the attacks in Mumbai.
She's done nothing but create division, spread hate, and preach Islamophobia on this site. I'm angry and devestated to by the attacks also. I condemn the people who did the attacks. But now is the time to support the Indian people, the Indian people are made up of a multi-religious community and we need to help them now and work towards peace.
jeeze carla you are beginning to sound like the non-smoker rants from the folks that just gave up smoking..you sound like it is possible to convert to atheism..atheism is a religion as any other which finds you..most of the folks i know whom follow the ideals of no higher being than themselves do not consider evil or good..
ken
And you call people who defend Islamo-fundies "normal" ? Yeah, that's "progressive" or "liberal" ! Hypocrite !
naw !! i tend toward being a communist..have a glimps..the worker is king..
ken
communist ? yuck. no thank you. I'll stick to regulated capitalism instead.
seems the discussion was about good and evil of what's happening in india 'n whether the folks which follow the teaching's of Mohammad are fascist..so i will play your game..ya like what's going on with capitalism??
ken
Since I'm an economic vigilante, I'm doing great. I was going to help bail you sorry losers out by voting for Ralph Nader but you just had to fall for Obama so maybe it wasn't a bad idea to join the crowd after all. I put up with the last 8 years so I'll withstand the next 4.
"Islamo-Fascism" is a term of propaganda manufactured by the U.S. Right Wing echo-chamber to associate Islam with the evils of Hitler. The Right always needs an enemy, real, exaggerated or manufactured, as its M.O. is to manipulate people through fear. The uncritical use of the term means the acceptance of this Right Wing frame.
Just unpacking "Islamo-Fascism" illustrates its absurdity:
Mussolini gave a straightforward definition of facsism in 1936, he stated:
"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism, as it [fascism] is simply the union of state and corporate power."
So, with "Islamo-Fascism" we have multinational corporations, government and religious extremists all working together for the same ends? It seems a better description of our country under Bush than marginalized (e.g. the Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt) religious nationalists who are leery of all things Western - especially corporations!
Your use of "Islamo-Fascism" makes me wonder why you are on this site. You are either an amazingly uncritical thinker for someone reading CD, or, you are a Right-Wing troll.
Please, do your homework* or spend your time somewhere else.
*Check out Edward Said, Robert Fisk; Tariq Ali among others...
Tom Larsen:
"Islamo-Fascism" is a term of propaganda manufactured by the U.S. Right Wing echo-chamber to associate Islam with the evils of Hitler.
COMMENT:
Adolph Hitler was democratically elected, his government worked closely with and was strongly supported financially and philosophically by holders of corporate and private wealth, he told lies to excuse invasions of benign countries, he supported and used to his advantage popular prejudice against religious, ethnic, and social minorities, he assumed powers not granted to him by German law, he imprisoned people indefinitely without due process and without substantiated charges, he allowed or ordered people tortured. All this is what historians, pundits, and government officials of the one-time "Allied" countries have routinely referred to and defined as "fascism."
Substitute the name of George W. Bush for the name of Adolph Hitler in the preceding paragraph and the description remains completely true, and so does the definition of the word used to describe a form of government.
Using Mussolini's simplified and oft-quoted definition of fascism as corporatism, most capitalist nations are fascist by that definition, but the term is usually applied only to an autocratic brutal form of corporatacracy that violates human rights within its own country and violates international law without.
Most Germans supported or allowed Hitler's fascist government through most of his rule and most Americans supported or allowed Bush's fascist government through most of his rule.
Yet, even though they apply the definition of "fascist" to other regimes, most Americans are too timorous to apply that same definition and call the US government what it is: a fascist nation.
Unfortunately, many people, wingers or not, have applied the word to various totalitarian or autocratic or simply brutal regimes that may not be corporatacricies.
The right-wing by applying the word fascism, divorced from its original meaning of corporatism, to merely apply to any brutal regime, or even any democratic regime they don't like such as Chavez's Venezuela, is distracting the public from the dangers of corporatism. Which is quite possibly the deliberate intention:
Venezuela
The fascist's in the ruling class have long employed the services of some of the country's leading wordsmiths such as William Safire. Thus "liberal," and "socialism" became demon words, and "fascist" has come to mean the "other" and not themselves. Yes, Orwellian indeed.
I too, think Carla should do her homework unless she's just a Right-Wing troll. However, I don't necessarily think the Right-Wingers should stay out of Common Dreams discussions. Anyone who dreams of the common good and is capable of critical thinking should have little difficulty in seeing the elitist authoritarian bigotted viewpoints behind those writers who do not share the common dreams for the common good. To defeat your enemy you must recognize him/her.
So let's welcome the Elizabeth Hasselbeck and the Ann Coulter wannabees to our commons: heck, it gives us an excuse to bring truth to light, and even if such as they are incapable of recognizing it, others may benefit.
And laugh at any stupidity you read here- laughter helps bring relief from the grim realities. Without the likes of GWB and Danforth "potatoe" Quayle comedians would have suffered a dearth of material.
Sioux Rose
ADVOCATE: Your analogy reminds me of the fat person who looks in the mirror and thinks they are "average."
The way the Nazis instigated and then utilized the burning of their Reishtang (not sure of the spelling, sorry), as the seminal event to blame on terrorists, and then use as a trigger for lessening liberties while telling the populace it was necessary for their own security also reads like a movie script 2nd rendition played out in America as 911 and the resulting Homeland Security we-must-spy-on-you modus operandi. Yep. TOO many ominous parallels, but the fat person is you know, just too average to note it.
Sioux Rose:
TOO many ominous parallels.
COMMENT:
Exactly.
Tom Larsen:
"Islamo-Fascism" is a term of propaganda manufactured by the U.S. Right Wing echo-chamber to associate Islam with the evils of Hitler.
COMMENT:
Adolph Hitler was democratically elected, his government worked closely with and was strongly supported financially and philosophically by holders of corporate and private wealth, he told lies to excuse invasions of benign countries, he supported and used to his advantage popular prejudice against religious, ethnic, and social minorities, he assumed powers not granted to him by German law, he imprisoned people indefinitely without due process and without substantiated charges, he allowed or ordered people tortured. All this is what historians, pundits, and government officials of the one-time "Allied" countries have routinely referred to and defined as "fascism."
Substitute the name of George W. Bush for the name of Adolph Hitler in the preceding paragraph and the description remains completely true, and so does the definition of the word used to describe a form of government.
Using Mussolini's simplified and oft-quoted definition of fascism as corporatism, most capitalist nations are fascist by that definition, but the term is usually applied only to an autocratic brutal form of corporatacracy that violates human rights within its own country and violates international law without.
Most Germans supported or allowed Hitler's fascist government through most of his rule and most Americans supported or allowed Bush's fascist government through most of his rule.
Yet, even though they apply the definition of "fascist" to other regimes, most Americans are too timorous to apply that same definition and call the US government what it is: a fascist nation.
Unfortunately, many people, wingers or not, have applied the word to various totalitarian or autocratic or simply brutal regimes that may not be corporatacricies.
The right-wing by applying the word fascism, divorced from its original meaning of corporatism, to merely apply to any brutal regime, or even any democratic regime they don't like such as Chavez's Venezuela, is distracting the public from the dangers of corporatism. Which is quite possibly the deliberate intention:
Venezuela
The fascist's in the ruling class have long employed the services of some of the country's leading wordsmiths such as William Safire. Thus "liberal," and "socialism" became demon words, and "fascist" has come to mean the "other" and not themselves. Yes, Orwellian indeed.
I too, think Carla should do her homework unless she's just a Right-Wing troll. However, I don't necessarily think the Right-Wingers should stay out of Common Dreams discussions. Anyone who dreams of the common good and is capable of critical thinking should have little difficulty in seeing the elitist authoritarian bigotted viewpoints behind those writers who do not share the common dreams for the common good. To defeat your enemy you must recognize him/her.
So let's welcome the Elizabeth Hasselbeck and the Ann Coulter wannabees to our commons: heck, it gives us an excuse to bring truth to light, and even if such as they are incapable of recognizing it, others may benefit.
And laugh at any stupidity you read here- laughter helps bring relief from the grim realities. Without the likes of GWB and Danforth "potatoe" Quayle comedians would have suffered a dearth of material.
"I too, think Carla should do her homework unless she's just a Right-Wing troll"
You are a trip I tell you. LOL ! If you even read my other posts on other topics, you would have realized that I'm a mix. Do I support Hugo Chavez? He's a hell of a lot better than King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia when it comes to using the oil revenue to repair the public infrastructure.
"So, with "Islamo-Fascism" we have multinational corporations, government and religious extremists all working together for the same ends?"
Go ask the corrupt leaders of the Arab World. They're for "free" trade, deregulation, privatization, etc ... As a matter of fact, the big business crooks do business with those corrupt leaders who in return keep the money and further oppress their own people.
There may be Muslims who are not fanatical and who may in fact be trying to stand up to tyranny in their own Muslim community and I applaud them for it and offer my apologies to them if. However, if you even bothered to do your homework, you would have noticed that between the Christian cultists and the radical Muslim extremists, there's really no difference and both are "conservative" rightwing. I'm glad I'm an atheist !
Carla Waters:
...if you even bothered to do your homework, you would have noticed that between the Christian cultists and the radical Muslim extremists, there's really no difference and both are "conservative" rightwing. I'm glad I'm an atheist !
COMMENT:
"Christian cultists" and "radical Musllim extremists" may be "conservative rightwing" but that doesn't necessarily make them fascists. Oil sheiks who own and who very definitely control their countries are not corporations. And "if you even bothered to do your homework" you would know that.
As for saying that you are an atheist a second time in case we missed it the first time, I can only wonder if you are trying to give atheism a bad name.