Mundine KO's Critics

[Mr Manifesto]

This is the story of Anthony Mundine. Aboriginal boxer, ex-rugby league player (as opposed to rugby union or cross-country basketball, I mean, Australian Rules Football).

Mundine was a footy player for St George. Although he had a promising career, he wanted to be a boxer like dear old Dad. His ambition was to be world champion in the fastest time.

The media, specifically the Murdoch tabloids like the Daily Helegraph, said he couldn't fight. My opinion is that it the Murdochs felt slighted by Mundine's preceived snub- it seems like more than coincidence that News Ltd is a major stakeholder of the National Rugby League.

The Murdochs said that Mundine deliberately picked people who couldn't fight for his matches to rack up wins on his record- as if they expected him to take on the world champion with his first fight. As he began to win more and more fights, the Murdochs held to the same theme... He's fighting losers.

Mundine converted to Islam, partly for publicity (in my opinion) styling himself after Muhommed Ali (sorry for the crap spelling). Partly, though, as part of a growing movement in Australia where Indigenous Australians are empowering themselves by converting to Islam, just as the African Americans did in the United States. After the events of September 11, he copped flak for saying that the Americans brought it upon themselves. This comment was given almost no analysis whatsoever (is it possible to countenence that America's violent overseas conduct; and prescence in almost every country in the world might have been a contributing factor?) - at that time it was strictly verboten to suggest that 9/11 was anything other an attack on freedom, democracy and decency.

Mundine's darkest hour was yet to come. In a title bout with Sven Ottke, Mundine was knocked for six (http://www.eastsideboxing.com/SvenOttkevsAnthonyMundine.html).
http://www.eastsideboxing.com/fotos/mundineout.jpg

You can imagine the Murdoch tabloid's response. Mundine, in their opinion, was finished. And serves him right for bad-mouthing the poor Yanks.

Last night Mundine vindicated himself, winning the WBA super middleweight world boxing championship (http://www.abc.net.au/sport/content/s938493.htm). In the press conference afterwards, he said:

If this doesn't silence people I don't know what will, I mean I could fight King Kong and if I beat him they probably still wouldn't give me any credit. Really, Antwun's the King Kong of the division.

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200309/r8606_19849.jpg

Of course, you're only as good as your last fight. It remains to be seen how long he holds the title for. But if nothing else, this should put a zip on the back-seat boxers' claims that Mundine can't fight.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
This comment was given almost no analysis whatsoever (is it possible to countenence that America's violent overseas conduct; and prescence in almost every country in the world might have been a contributing factor?) - at that time it was strictly verboten to suggest that 9/11 was anything other an attack on freedom, democracy and decency.


Boy, you're a one-trick pony.

[RandFan]

After the events of September 11, he copped flak for saying that the Americans brought it upon themselves. This comment was given almost no analysis whatsoever (is it possible to countenence that America's violent overseas conduct; and prescence in almost every country in the world might have been a contributing factor?) - at that time it was strictly verboten to suggest that 9/11 was anything other an attack on freedom, democracy and decency. Odd appeal to authority.

Such assinine commentary "Americans brought it upon themselves" is stupid no matter when it is uttered. Good for Mundine that he has won. In a few years he will be punch drunk and drooling. It's unlikely to help though. He will probably still utter nonsense.

Oh well, vive la mundane mundine.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

wow.

another beacon of intellgence for anyone converting to Islam to look up to.

[KelvinG]

I give Mundine a lot of credit for coming back from his KO loss. A lesser fighter might have faded into obscurity, never to be heard from again.

As for his politics, I try and not let this get in the way when I'm watching a sporting event.

However, it's difficult to expect anyone to sympathize with his post 9/11 remarks. Even if his intentions were to stimulate debate, surely he must have realized how sensitive a time it was after the terrorist attacks, and no one in the US was in the mood to hear "It's your own fault."

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


Boy, you're a one-trick pony.

The article was mainly about how The Man didn't get a fair go from the Murdoch press, possibly because of vested interests (ie, he snubbed the NRL, Murdoch was a stakeholder in NRL, let's dis anyone who isn't good enough for the NRL). The 9/11 comments constituted one paragraph. As Mundine's comments were a major factor in his career (he was at one stage stripped of his ranking by the World Boxing Council for making the comment. I assume this has since been corrected), I couldn't really ignore the fact that the comment had been made.

But you didn't comment at all on the rest of the article. You only commented on what Mundine said about 9/11. You are the one-trick pony.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Mundine converted to Islam, partly for publicity (in my opinion) styling himself after Muhommed Ali (sorry for the crap spelling). Partly, though, as part of a growing movement in Australia where Indigenous Australians are empowering themselves by converting to Islam, just as the African Americans did in the United States. After the events of September 11, he copped flak for saying that the Americans brought it upon themselves. This comment was given almost no analysis whatsoever (is it possible to countenence that America's violent overseas conduct; and prescence in almost every country in the world might have been a contributing factor?) - at that time it was strictly verboten to suggest that 9/11 was anything other an attack on freedom, democracy and decency.


I need to ask few things all of which are luckily in this paragraph. How is converting to Islam empowering yourself? If you look at US civil rights movement of the 60's most people who made any real contribution were not Islamic. Aside from Mohamed Ali who is very vocal no matter what religion he would have chosen, there are no prominent followers of Islam. In facts it's widely known how corrupt and racist the "Nation of Islam" (organization that Ali belonged to which consists of African Americans) is.

I can't believe you are repeating Americans brought it upon themselves BS. I just don't get it, why is it ok for every terrorist Islamic organization to target civilians and then say "oh we are just fighting back in a war", you think it's ok. But when US attacks some military target and civilians accidentally die, you are one of the people to scream USA is an evil empire that kills people for no reason.

[Zep]

Boxing = BORING !!!

[The Fool]

Yea well to be honest I don't usually go to boxers to get information on geo political issues. Would you ask Mike Tyson to comment on economic indicators? Mundines comments on 911 were ambushed out of him by a journalist on a breakfast television interview. He was supposed to be on there talking about an upcoming fight and the Journalist hit him with sophisticated questions about world politics...The guys a boxer for Christs sake.... His views on world politics are bound to be as interesting and informed as Nie Trink whatevers.....

I find Mundine personally annoying, he has a V8 mouth and a 4 cylinder brain. His comparison of himself to the greatest Boxer ever (Ali) was laughable. He has beaten a bunch of nobodies and has beens and finally found a world title belt defended by a chump awaiting gun charges who still has a bullet lodged in his armpit from his last night out on the town. If all the "World Champ" belts available today were layed end to end they would reach the moon.

Another of Anthony's greatest efforts was slagging Cathy Freeman for not speaking out on Aboriginal issues. This is the lady that holds an olympic 400m Gold medal. An olympic track and field Gold is a world class achievment. She also understands and accepts that being a sportsperson does not entitle you to shoot your mouth about political issues....... Anthony should hand his tacky little belt back to the sideshow shooting gallery where its Crome plated plaque on black vinyl sash probably belongs.

End of rant.....

[reprise]

Mundine is still a tosser. He's just a tosser who has proven he can win a boxing title.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I need to ask few things all of which are luckily in this paragraph. How is converting to Islam empowering yourself? If you look at US civil rights movement of the 60's most people who made any real contribution were not Islamic. Aside from Mohamed Ali who is very vocal no matter what religion he would have chosen, there are no prominent followers of Islam. In facts it's widely known how corrupt and racist the "Nation of Islam" (organization that Ali belonged to which consists of African Americans) is.

I can't believe you are repeating Americans brought it upon themselves BS. I just don't get it, why is it ok for every terrorist Islamic organization to target civilians and then say "oh we are just fighting back in a war", you think it's ok. But when US attacks some military target and civilians accidentally die, you are one of the people to scream USA is an evil empire that kills people for no reason.

I don't know how converting to Islam empowers yourself. You'd have to ask the Aboriginies who are doing that. Quote all the history you like, it's irrelevant to the motives of those converting to Islam.

As for my 'repeating Americans brought it upon themselves BS', I am in fact reporting what happened. My criticism is the fact that the comment was in no way analyzed. Mundine was simply shouted down. Can you argue that America in no way contributed to the 9/11 attacks? If America didn't, what was the terrorists' motives for launching a suicide attack on the US?

[Zep]

Are you trying to hijack your own thread, Manifesto?!

Whatever Mundine's religious convictions, and whatever his views on US and world politics (and let's face it, opinions are like *********, everyone's got one), his speaking performances confirm that as a commentator he makes a good boxer.

[Mr Manifesto]

Nah, the "NEVER SPEAK ILL OF 9/11" crew are doing all the hijacking. What I'm trying to point out is that Mundine had a few dark hours in his career, one of them was the 9/11 comment, and the 9/11 comment need not have been that big a deal if only there was a little more respect for the right to free speech in the country that claims to have cornered the market on it.

I really think people should just get over it. The hand wringing and wailing that goes on every time someone dares to mention 9/11 with a viewpoint counter to, "It was a despicable attack perpetuated by people who are jealous of America," is getting a little old. It happened two years ago, the Americans have killed at least three innocent towelheads for every innocent American who died, and there's a great job-creation and investment opportunity in the rebuilding of the site of the WTC. I guess some people just can't look on the bright side.

[Zep]

I still reckon BOXING = BORING !!!

[RCNelson]

Mr Manifesto:
. . . what was the terrorists' motives for launching a suicide attack on the US?
If you are sincere about wanting to know the terrorists' motives, you should read what the terrorist supporters themselves have to say (http://www.almuhajiroun.com/). It's not as if they're trying to hide their motives - they're telling their motives to everyone who will listen. But most people refuse to listen anyway.

[shuize]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

... Can you argue that America in no way contributed to the 9/11 attacks? If America didn't, what was the terrorists' motives for launching a suicide attack on the US?
I guess this means Australia is finally willing to stand up and take responsibility for their contribution to the Bali bombing.

After all, if Australia didn't, what was the terrorists' motives for launching a suicide attack on them?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by shuize

I guess this means Australia is finally willing to stand up and take responsibility for their contribution to the Bali bombing.

After all, if Australia didn't, what was the terrorists' motives for launching a suicide attack on them?

The motive was that Australia is too closely aligned to America (becoming little more than a sock puppet of America), along with Australia's increasingly arrogant relations with her pacific neighbours. Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and John Howard have both said that they will send troops into countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia to pursue terrorists and that they will not brook opposition from these countries.

Did you think you were going to get a reaction from me? Unlike certain Americans, I can recognise when my country is doing wrong.

[Zep]

An additional problem, Manifesto, is that we don't have the humungous military might of the USA to actually back up Howard's words, and everyone knows this including our regional neighbours.

It's no wonder they look at us askant...

*sigh* When will we be rid of this nerd??

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Zep
An additional problem, Manifesto, is that we don't have the humungous military might of the USA to actually back up Howard's words, and everyone knows this including our regional neighbours.

It's no wonder they look at us askant...

*sigh* When will we be rid of this nerd??

We would have been rid of him at the last f***ing election if Al Qaeda hadn't rammed those planes into the AMERICAN BUILDINGS! THAT'S WHY I WANT TO SEE OBL'S HEAD ON A STICK AND HIS CORPSE F***ED BY GENETICALLY ENGINEERED GUARANTEED-TO-OFFEND-ALLAH PIGS! @$$HOLE!

>sigh<

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Zep
I still reckon BOXING = BORING !!!

Like many things, it's boring if you don't know enough about it to appreciate it.

I find opera tedious. Those of my friends and family who are singers, and know enough about singing to appreciate the skill of the performers, enjoy it.

I enjoy watching ballet. My girlfriend, who avoids all forms of exercise and athleticism, finds it tedious.

I enjoy watching boxing. I like watching what they do with their hands, and how they use their footwork. I can see it when they do something clever, or something dumb.

Sadly, it causes brain damage and people really shouldn't do it or encourage it. But ballet isn't good for your feet either.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
...and the 9/11 comment need not have been that big a deal if only there was a little more respect for the right to free speech in the country that claims to have cornered the market on it. Don't you just love the double standard. If we excercise OUR right to free speech then we are not respecting Mundine's right to free speech.

So is Mundine the only one who has a right to free speech?

Here is a little "free speech" for you, BULL S**T!

I really think people should just get over it. The hand wringing and wailing that goes on every time someone dares to mention 9/11 with a viewpoint counter to, "It was a despicable attack perpetuated by people who are jealous of America," is getting a little old. So, what you are saying is that we should sit down, shut up and ignore it when someone else says something so stupid as "we brought it on ourselves"?

You say it is getting a little old? Well if it is getting old then other peoples idiotic statements are getting old.

And I suppose rape victims are partly to blame?

I suppose the innocent palestinians who have died in Isreal "brought it on themselves"?

The logic is bankrupt. You cannot excuse terrorism.

Hey Manifesto, two wrongs don't make a right.

I guess some people just can't look on the bright side. Here is an idea. Don't want me to respond to stupid remarks. DON'T MAKE THEM!

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by RandFan
Don't you just love the double standard. If we excercise OUR right to free speech then we are not respecting Mundine's right to free speech.

So is Mundine the only one who has a right to free speech?

Here is a little "free speech" for you, BULL S**T!

So, what you are saying is that we should sit down, shut up and ignore it when someone else says something so stupid as "we brought it on ourselves"?

You say it is getting a little old? Well if it is getting old then other peoples idiotic statements are getting old.

And I suppose rape victims are partly to blame?

I suppose the innocent palestinians who have died in Isreal "brought it on themselves"?

The logic is bankrupt. You cannot excuse terrorism.

Hey Manifesto, two wrongs don't make a right.

Here is an idea. Don't want me to respond to stupid remarks. DON'T MAKE THEM!

I think it is important, especially when dealing with things like 9-11 to remember that causation and culpability are two seperate concepts. To say that U.S. acts abroad were not a cause of the 9-11 attacks is as absurd as saying that the U.S. is culpable for those acts.

It is unfortunate that when someone starts questioning the cause of the attacks, they are accused of assigning blame. When someone makes a statement of blame, they are likewise attacked as if they are dening other "causes."

If I call out for a pizza and that pizza guy gets into a fatal car crash on the way over, my acts are a cause of his death in that but for ordering the pizza the crash wouldn't have happened. Only a lunatic would find me morally responsible.

A more likely example, a rape victim who was raped while walking alone late at night in a high crime area. That victim's behavior was a likely cause of the rape, in that but for her waking through a bad area alone at night she wouldn't have been raped. However, as above, to say she is morally culpable, or that her acts make the rapist any less culpable seems insane.


I think a lot of political discourse gets muddied because for some reason people don't seperate causation from culpability. The boxer has a point that American policy made 9-11 more likely, but is wrong that American policy excuses or shifts moral blame for those attacks.

[shuize]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

The motive was that Australia is too closely aligned to America (becoming little more than a sock puppet of America) ...

O.K. Thanks for the clarification. America brought the 9/11 attacks upon ourselves and America brought the Bali attacks upon Australia.

It's all becoming clear: Everything is always America's fault.

I guess in the "blame America first" camp, that actually makes sense.

[Grammatron]

I think it would have been more apt for the boxer to critique a specific policy in specific country/region. However, he took a low road just IMO so he could get some publicity.

As far as his boxing goes, well I'd have to see it before I could judge it.

[jj]

Originally posted by Zep
Boxing = BORING !!!

Didn't you mean "disgusting?"

I don't get it. Why is it a "sport" to see two people do each other deliberate brain damage?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by jj


Didn't you mean "disgusting?"

I don't get it. Why is it a "sport" to see two people do each other deliberate brain damage?

The damage can't be any worse than watching Fox News.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Suddenly
I think a lot of political discourse gets muddied because for some reason people don't seperate causation from culpability. The boxer has a point that American policy made 9-11 more likely, but is wrong that American policy excuses or shifts moral blame for those attacks. Thanks Suddenly, good points.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by RandFan
Don't you just love the double standard. If we excercise OUR right to free speech then we are not respecting Mundine's right to free speech.

So is Mundine the only one who has a right to free speech?

Here is a little "free speech" for you, BULL S**T!
Now, now, RandFan, don't have a tanty. Free speech works both ways. The Murdoch press is free to say Mundine can't fight, and I'm equally free to say that the Murdoch press is saying so out of a vested interest.


So, what you are saying is that we should sit down, shut up and ignore it when someone else says something so stupid as "we brought it on ourselves"?

I'm saying you could at least discuss the issue (it isn't that hard, suddenly does it in this very thread) and present your point of view instead of screaming SHUT UP! SHUT UP! I DON'T WANT TO HEAR IT!


You say it is getting a little old? Well if it is getting old then other peoples idiotic statements are getting old.

And I suppose rape victims are partly to blame?

I suppose the innocent palestinians who have died in Isreal "brought it on themselves"?

The logic is bankrupt. You cannot excuse terrorism.
Your hyper-sensitivity of 9/11 is reading excuses of terrorism in what I have said. I am saying that these events do not happen in a vaccuum.

Hey Manifesto, two wrongs don't make a right.

Here is an idea. Don't want me to respond to stupid remarks. DON'T MAKE THEM!
But I like watching people like you lose your temper. It reinforces my belief that Americans are a bunch of flag-waving, donut scarfing morons.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by shuize


O.K. Thanks for the clarification. America brought the 9/11 attacks upon ourselves and America brought the Bali attacks upon Australia.

It's all becoming clear: Everything is always America's fault.

I guess in the "blame America first" camp, that actually makes sense.

Alexander Downer and John Howard are Americans? Y'know, we'd always suspected, but we didn't have any concrete proof until now. Thanks for letting me know, I'll pass it on to parliament for an inquiry...

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Now, now, RandFan, don't have a tanty. Free speech works both ways. The Murdoch press is free to say Mundine can't fight, and I'm equally free to say that the Murdoch press is saying so out of a vested interest.

[b]

I'm saying you could at least discuss the issue (it isn't that hard, suddenly does it in this very thread) and present your point of view instead of screaming SHUT UP! SHUT UP! I DON'T WANT TO HEAR IT!

[b]
Your hyper-sensitivity of 9/11 is reading excuses of terrorism in what I have said. I am saying that these events do not happen in a vaccuum.

[b]
But I like watching people like you lose your temper. It reinforces my belief that Americans are a bunch of flag-waving, donut scarfing morons.

Judging by the last quote it does not appear like you would listen to anything other than the conclusion you already arrived at long, long ago. However, I still think you are missing the point of why others and I are upset with you when you make or quote comments like that.

9/11 was a tragedy and I think you agree with me on that. People who died in it did not deserve to die and were slaughtered by terrorist for some idiotic cause. Your view on this is to forgo the blame on the terrorist and blame USA for being attacked. That view pi**es people off. Now, if we look at USA's history you might make a fair point that our foreign policy created an opportunity for those terrorist to gain power, you might even say that some of USA's action may have directly or indirectly affected the lives of those terrorists. If you want to blame USA for those actions I think you will not find emotional outbursts or insults, you most likely find agreements if you present your evidence properly. Once, however, that those terrorists become terrorists and commit such heinous deeds, all that for the most part flies out of the window. And if you start reasoning out those deeds than you might as well apply the same kind of logic to everything USA ever did wrong -- someone forced their hand they had no other choice.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Judging by the last quote it does not appear like you would listen to anything other than the conclusion you already arrived at long, long ago. However, I still think you are missing the point of why others and I are upset with you when you make or quote comments like that.

9/11 was a tragedy and I think you agree with me on that. People who died in it did not deserve to die and were slaughtered by terrorist for some idiotic cause. Your view on this is to forgo the blame on the terrorist and blame USA for being attacked. That view pi**es people off. Now, if we look at USA's history you might make a fair point that our foreign policy created an opportunity for those terrorist to gain power, you might even say that some of USA's action may have directly or indirectly affected the lives of those terrorists. If you want to blame USA for those actions I think you will not find emotional outbursts or insults, you most likely find agreements if you present your evidence properly. Once, however, that those terrorists become terrorists and commit such heinous deeds, all that for the most part flies out of the window. And if you start reasoning out those deeds than you might as well apply the same kind of logic to everything USA ever did wrong -- someone forced their hand they had no other choice.

I don't think he's missing the point. He's saying American policy was a cause of the attacks, and he's right. The moral blame rests with the terrorists alone, however this doesn't foreclose the possiblility that we could have prevented the attacks. I'm sure you would agree preventing another attack such as 9-11 is of the utmost importance. To prevent the next one we must find out the causes of the first one. This is not an exercise in morality, rather one in reality. Yes, terrorists are evil and bad. This we know and really cannot control.

There are things we can control, such as our internal security, and our image on the world stage. There are two questions in this regard. First, how can we physically keep the next one from happening. Second, is there something we can do or stop doing to keep people from being so mad they want to do this sort of thing? Somehow when someone tries to find out where these two things went wrong leading to 9-11 (especially the latter) they get accused of blaming America.

It's just that somewhere along the line "looking for a cause" became "placing blame." The cold fact is our policy in the middle east, and lack of intelligence were causes of the attack. Except now going and examining those causes without saying over and over that "terrorists are bad" leaves one open to charges that he/she is blaming America and "taking the side of the terrorists" and the like.

I submit that is insane.

We can only say "terrorism bad" so many times. At some point it becomes absurd. Looking into deeper causes in neither unpatriotic or disrespectful, and I'd argue the exact opposite, that not doing so is where the harm lies. From the quotes you list in your post as well as the rest of the thread I can see no example from Manifesto where he "forgo[es] the blame on the terrorist and blame[s] USA for being attacked." He is discussing causes and saying that American's sensitivity over 9-11 is preventing us from discussing this rationally and I'm not so sure he's 100% wrong about that.

[reprise]

I really have trouble understanding how people can believe that the Bali bombing was an "attack on Australia" in the same way that the events of 11 September, 2001 were an "attack on America".

Ever since 11 September, 2001 our politicians and the media alike have sought to include us in some kind of macabre "can we play too?" game which requires Australia to establish its importance on the world stage by being a prime target of terrorism because we joined the "coalition of the willing".

Australia has long had a very strained relationship with Indonesia and there are plenty of extremists in Indonesia who believe that we should be "repaid" for our interference in their domestic affairs. Our alliance with the US and Britain in the "war on terror" is to those people just another example of our interference, and while it may reinforce their view that we need to be "taught to mind our own business" it is not the cause of that viewpoint.

The Bali bombing was an attack against non-Muslim life and values in general and against Western society and values in particular, but it's difficult to sustain the argument that it was directed at Australians and that the other casualties (including the mostly Hindu Balinese) were merely "collateral damage". For terrorists who truly want to target Australia, there is no shortage of identifiably Australian "soft" targets in the Pacific region.

Don't get me wrong, I think that the time will come when Australia is the specific target of an act of terrorism and that it will probably occur in the Pacific region - probably Indonesia, especially if Megawati loses power next year. I just don't believe that the Bali bombing of October last year was such an act.

And yes, I agree that it's almost impossible to make criticisms of US foreign and military policy and how the application of that policy relates to terrorism without such criticisms being perceived as veiled statements that "America deserved 11 Septemeber, 2001".

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Suddenly


I don't think he's missing the point. He's saying American policy was a cause of the attacks, and he's right. The moral blame rests with the terrorists alone, however this doesn't foreclose the possiblility that we could have prevented the attacks. I'm sure you would agree preventing another attack such as 9-11 is of the utmost importance. To prevent the next one we must find out the causes of the first one. This is not an exercise in morality, rather one in reality. Yes, terrorists are evil and bad. This we know and really cannot control.

....



Suddenly, an American who doesn't just give a knee-jerk reaction to issues such as this is a joy to behold. Keep up the good work.

[Zep]

Originally posted by jj
I don't get it. Why is it a "sport" to see two people do each other deliberate brain damage? Just one example of agreement: I find it awfully unnerving and very sad to see how debillitated Mohammad Ali is these days. Although he was undoubtedly a fine boxer, he did take some big head shots, and it seems foolish to deny that this at least exacerbated his current condition if not caused it. Whatever his views and faults, he was respected by many. So what a pity his leadership is being undermined in this totally avoidable fashion.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Now, now, RandFan, don't have a tanty. Free speech works both ways. The Murdoch press is free to say Mundine can't fight, and I'm equally free to say that the Murdoch press is saying so out of a vested interest. Yes, but YOU are the one complaining about others not respecting free speech.

...and the 9/11 comment need not have been that big a deal if only there was a little more respect for the right to free speech in the country that claims to have cornered the market on it. I did not make any such complaint.

I'm saying you could at least discuss the issue (it isn't that hard, suddenly does it in this very thread) and present your point of view instead of screaming SHUT UP! SHUT UP! I DON'T WANT TO HEAR IT! I'm more than willing to discuss the issue. I have discussed it at length on this forum. The comment is provocative. When one makes a provocative comment then one needs to expect such a response.

Your hyper-sensitivity of 9/11 is reading excuses of terrorism in what I have said. I am saying that these events do not happen in a vaccuum. Yeah, right. Sorry if I don't buy it. If the comment were something along the lines of "America's actions contributed to 911" then there would have been NO response. Compare that to "Americans brought it upon themselves."

That's like me calling you an idiot and then saying I just wanted to discuss your relative intelligence.

But I like watching people like you lose your temper. It reinforces my belief that Americans are a bunch of flag-waving, donut scarfing morons. That's fine. Ad hominem suits you.

You actually had a post that could almost pass as reasoned and intelligent. I was about to complement you but you couldn't resist ruining it with fallacious argument. :D

For that I own you a debt of gratitude.

Thanks,

RandFan

[Zep]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe Like many things, it's boring if you don't know enough about it to appreciate it.

But I do. Which makes me dislike it more.

I find opera tedious. Those of my friends and family who are singers, and know enough about singing to appreciate the skill of the performers, enjoy it.

I enjoy watching ballet. My girlfriend, who avoids all forms of exercise and athleticism, finds it tedious.

These are your personal preferences, and I don't know that opera causes brain damage! (except possibly Mahler or Wagner).

I enjoy watching boxing. I like watching what they do with their hands, and how they use their footwork. I can see it when they do something clever, or something dumb.

And how they get their brains rattled inside their skulls? We have continuous revulsion against people shaking babies, but this is exactly the same thing. I have no problem with most combatitive one-on-one sports (karate, tae-kwon-do, judo, real wresting, etc ) but boxing is the one that I would NOT support.

Sadly, it causes brain damage and people really shouldn't do it or encourage it. But ballet isn't good for your feet either.

Quite true, but sore feet mend when you stop, which is not the same as having brain damage.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Suddenly
I don't think he's missing the point. He's saying American policy was a cause of the attacks, and he's right. Are you talking about Manifesto or Maudine?

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

It's just that somewhere along the line "looking for a cause" became "placing blame." The cold fact is our policy in the middle east, and lack of intelligence were causes of the attack. Except now going and examining those causes without saying over and over that "terrorists are bad" leaves one open to charges that he/she is blaming America and "taking the side of the terrorists" and the like. There are better ways to broach the subject. I think most Americans are willing to discuss foreign policy and our mistakes. It is the pompus and arrogant attitude that it is our fault and no blame is placed on the perpatrators (as in this case) that angers Americans.

We can only say "terrorism bad" so many times. At some point it becomes absurd. Looking into deeper causes in neither unpatriotic or disrespectful, and I'd argue the exact opposite, that not doing so is where the harm lies. From the quotes you list in your post as well as the rest of the thread I can see no example from Manifesto where he "forgo[es] the blame on the terrorist and blame[s] USA for being attacked." He is discussing causes and saying that American's sensitivity over 9-11 is preventing us from discussing this rationally and I'm not so sure he's 100% wrong about that. Nowhere does Manifesto make the blame apparent either. Sorry but I don't accept your point. The statement is provocative. If a friend of yours died as a result of a crime and I said to you he brought it on himself I would think that you would find that insulting.

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

We will see...

[KelvinG]

Just my take on boxing, I absolutely love the sport and watch it every chance I get. And I make absolutely no apologies, nor will anyone be able to sway me otherwise.
I'm usually not this dogmatic, but this is one issue I have no desire to debate. I'm right, those who oppose me are wrong. Plain and simple.

BOXING=AMAZING

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Judging by the last quote it does not appear like you would listen to anything other than the conclusion you already arrived at long, long ago. However, I still think you are missing the point of why others and I are upset with you when you make or quote comments like that.

9/11 was a tragedy and I think you agree with me on that. People who died in it did not deserve to die and were slaughtered by terrorist for some idiotic cause. Your view on this is to forgo the blame on the terrorist and blame USA for being attacked. That view pi**es people off. Now, if we look at USA's history you might make a fair point that our foreign policy created an opportunity for those terrorist to gain power, you might even say that some of USA's action may have directly or indirectly affected the lives of those terrorists. If you want to blame USA for those actions I think you will not find emotional outbursts or insults, you most likely find agreements if you present your evidence properly. Once, however, that those terrorists become terrorists and commit such heinous deeds, all that for the most part flies out of the window. And if you start reasoning out those deeds than you might as well apply the same kind of logic to everything USA ever did wrong -- someone forced their hand they had no other choice.

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

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by RandFan
Yes, but YOU are the one complaining about others not respecting free speech.
Yes, I am. The difference is, the people who are not respecting free speech are attempting to injure Mundine (by stripping him of his boxing ranking), which they have no right to do. Free speech means that you counter free speech with more free speech, not by resorting to acts which are designed to shut you up or punish you for not shutting up.

I did not make any such complaint.
I'm going to tell you something that might come as a shock. So make sure you're seated. The world does not revolve around you. I was responding to vague comments made by ziggurat and grammatron as well.

I'm more than willing to discuss the issue. I have discussed it at length on this forum. The comment is provocative. When one makes a provocative comment then one needs to expect such a response.
Who said 'two wrongs don't make a right' on this thread... Need to find that quote... can't put my finger on who it was... Don't suppose you could help me find it?

Yeah, right. Sorry if I don't buy it. If the comment were something along the lines of "America's actions contributed to 911" then there would have been NO response. Compare that to "Americans brought it upon themselves."

That's like me calling you an idiot and then saying I just wanted to discuss your relative intelligence.
Lousy analogy. If you had said 'compared to Oxford Dons, you are an idiot' that would be a closer analogy. Mundine was speaking in the context of how Islam fell about America.


That's fine. Ad hominem suits you.

You actually had a post that could almost pass as reasoned and intelligent. I was about to complement you but you couldn't resist ruining it with fallacious argument. :D

For that I own you a debt of gratitude.

Thanks,

RandFan

Sometime, Rand, you need a little slap to wake you up.

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

Tell me what this better way is. It seems to involve crawling through a mile of broken glass on bended knees and invoking to the Statue of Liberty: "Oh, Mighty America, may we speak of the 9/11 terrorist attacks without reprecussion?"

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

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

We will see... I was reporting fact and making a valid criticism. 'Making the blame apparent' would only have detracted from the basic issue: that these events don't happen in a vaccuum. As to it being insulting, I can only say, again, it's your hyper-sensitivity that translates what I say as insulting. Or, to put it a simpler way: The truth hurts.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


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

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

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by RandFan
Are you talking about Manifesto or Maudine?

Manifesto

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We will see...

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

[Mr Manifesto]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Grammatron


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

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

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

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

[RandFan]

Thanks for the response.

Originally posted by Suddenly
Can we at some point assume this? Isn't it an indicator of our "pompus and arrogant attitude" that when someone doesn't make a clear statement that "terrorists are bad" when discussing 9-11, Americans complain? It could be an indication of some people's arrogant attitude. It could be an indicator of frustration and sensitivity on the part of others. I think it arrogant and pompus to assume that all or most Americans are pompus or arrogant. We are a diverse people with many different reasons for our strong feelings about 911 and our reactions to them.

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

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

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

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

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

[RandFan]

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

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

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

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

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

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by RandFan
.
If history only sees the bad then you may be right.

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

However, that is a whole different discussion.

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

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by RandFan
(emphasis mine)

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

Muslims in particular don't have a free press. Except for al-Jazeera.
Muslims in particular are ruled by dictators.
Which they are fighting against.
Muslims in particular don't have due process.
Which they are fighting against.
Muslims in particular do not have freedom of speech. Debatable. There are plenty of Muslims who are writing on the subject of freedom.
Muslims in particular live in sub standard conditions with no redress.
You've never been to a Muslim country. This is like saying that Americans live in sub standard conditions with no redress, and using the homeless as the basis for your case.
Muslims in particular don't have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness but live at the pleasure of their leaders. Over simplified, and as I say they are fighting against this.

Muslims in particular see America as the cause of their discontent and blame little or nothing on their own system of government. Which is convenient for the Arafats of the world who pocket western contributions while shouting jihad.
Another over-simplification. The Muslims don't blame America for the problems of their government, they blame Americans for what they do against them.

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

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

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Suddenly


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

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

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

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

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by RandFan
(emphasis mine)

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

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

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

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

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Except for al-Jazeera. Wow, one news outlet. That is what you call freedom of the press? How many outlets that are critical of Muslim governments do the people have access to.

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

RandFan
Muslims in particular are ruled by dictators.

Which they are fighting against. Where?

RandFan
Muslims in particular don't have due process.

Which they are fighting against. Where?


RandFan
Muslims in particular do not have freedom of speech.

Debatable. There are plenty of Muslims who are writing on the subject of freedom. Considering that there are statistically few Muslims that live in countries with democratic rule it is hardly debatable. There is always the exception to the rule. Yes there are Muslims that have free speech but that sadly is the exception.

You've never been to a Muslim country. This is like saying that Americans live in sub standard conditions with no redress, and using the homeless as the basis for your case. Oh cool, then the many Muslims who have not been to America have no basis for their case.

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

Over simplified... No more over simplified than your statement.

Muslims, in particular, see the US as forever acting against them. Thank you for noticing.

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

Now, you would have a freedom movement against the draconian Bush legislation. You would also have a large number of Americans who hate Australia for what they are doing to Hawaii. Would you say "Americans see Australia as the cause of their discontent and blame little or nothing on their own system of government."? If George Bush was able to control ALL media, if George Bush was able to disseminate stories around the clock about how Australia kills and tortures American citizens, etc. If George Bush could use his control of the media to convince the Americans that Australia was the Great Satan and that it exported its evil throughout the world thus causing pain and misery for all Americans, then YES! Absolutely, it is human nature to rally together to defeat a common enemy. America to many Muslims is the enemy of both the leaders and the people.

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

[RandFan]

Suddenly,

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Manifesto]

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

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


Where?

Where?
Algerian parties fighting for democracy (http://nationmaster.com/country/ag/Democracy), specifically Mouvement pour la démocratie en Algérie
Malaysia fighting for democracy (http://www.freeanwar.com/news/Heritage1.html)
Syrians fighting for democracy (http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/08/syria080102.htm)
Saudi petition for democracy (http://www.saudhouse.com/dissidence/national_reform_document.htm)

Let me know if you'd like more examples.

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

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

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

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Grammatron


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

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

[Suddenly]

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

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

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

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

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
You claimed the Muslims don't have a free press. Al-Jazeera is a free-speech news outlet in every Muslim country. By this logic if George Bush eliminated all news outlest except Fox News then we would still have a free press.

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

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

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

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

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

Your argument that the Muslims will side blindly with their leaders because they both happen to hate Americans is daft. When large numbers of Muslims rise up and march against the precieved ills of America but don't march to protest their own very real problems at home then it is quite clear that these individuals see the world in a verry narrow view.

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

And in any case, it isn't just the Arabs who think so. Read James 4:4. I didn't say it was just the Arabs did I?

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

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by RandFan
Anecdotes. When the people who regularly march in the street and burn American flags and burn American leaders in effigy march in the street to protest and burn their own leaders in effigy I will believe that there is real opposition. Until then we are just talking about a handful of trouble makers that are easily dealt with by the various regimes.
No, they're just going to jail and being executed. These people fighting for democracy are doing more in their shortened lifetimes than you, your children, and your children's children will ever do for freedom.


Your logic is flawed and quite demonstrably wrong.

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

Likewise Muslims have been endoctrinated. There is little oppostion and they are fed a steady diet from religious leaders and the government.
So tell me how you know the North Koreans have been endoctrinated (sic). From the propoganda parades? The Kim Jong Il owned press? There are those fighting (http://www.nknet.org/en/index.php) for democracy and human rights in HK. You're too insulated from world politics and events to have heard of them.

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


When large numbers of Muslims rise up and march against the precieved ills of America but don't march to protest their own very real problems at home then it is quite clear that these individuals see the world in a verry narrow view.
They have public approval to march against the US. They risk being executed if they march against the government. What purpose does it serve for the resistance to be brought out in the open and killed?


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

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

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

You really are ignorant of the Muslim religion. Read this (http://www.islamweb.net/web/misc.Article?vArticle=33720&thelang=E) link first, then take a good, long look around this site (http://www.islamweb.net/web/ehomepage.home). If nothing else, at least click on 'misconceptions'. Until you learn a bit about Islam, I'm not going to reply to any more of your ignorant statements. I simply don't have the time to rebut each and every one of your misconceptions- there seem to be just too many of them.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
No, they're just going to jail and being executed. These people fighting for democracy are doing more in their shortened lifetimes than you, your children, and your children's children will ever do for freedom. Again, anecdotes. Let me clarify something here. In no way should any of my words be construed to mean that I have a low opinion of Muslims as a people. They are simply human beings and are as capable of bravery and compassion as any group of people. They are by and large hard working individuals who care mostly for their families and want to see their children happy and content.

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

So tell me how you know the North Koreans have been endoctrinated (sic). From the propoganda parades? The Kim Jong Il owned press? There are those fighting (http://www.nknet.org/en/index.php) for democracy and human rights in HK. You're too insulated from world politics and events to have heard of them. The facts remain. Human rights workers have told us time and time again that North Koreans even when alone speak favorably of their leader.

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

They have public approval to march against the US. They risk being executed if they march against the government. What purpose does it serve for the resistance to be brought out in the open and killed? If the resistance were large enough it could overthrow the government like the revolutionaries in China, Russia, Cuba, etc. I don't know how many dissidents there are in Muslim countries but I do know that after hundreds of years little has changed.

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

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

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Suddenly


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

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

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Grammatron


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

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

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

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

[RandFan]

[/QUOTE] Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
You really are ignorant of the Muslim religion. Read this (http://www.islamweb.net/web/misc.Article?vArticle=33720&thelang=E) link first, then take a good, long look around this site (http://www.islamweb.net/web/ehomepage.home). If nothing else, at least click on 'misconceptions'. Until you learn a bit about Islam, I'm not going to reply to any more of your ignorant statements. I simply don't have the time to rebut each and every one of your misconceptions- there seem to be just too many of them. Ok, now your “links”.

Take the verse which is on the lips of almost every Imam of a masjid these days, "And never will the Jews and the Christians approve of you until you follow their religion." (2:120)

This verse is wrongly understood to apply to every individual Jew and every individual Christian. However, we know from the Qur'an itself and from our knowledge of individual Jews and Christians that this is not the case. The Qur'an itself tells us that some Christian embrace Islam, "And when they hear what has been revealed to the Messenger, you see their eyes overflowing with tears because of what they have recognized of the truth." (5:83) My problem with this type of rhetoric is that it views right and wrong through a filter called “The Qur’an” and the philosophy of Muslims. This view presupposes that IT is correct and the other philosophies are wrong.

The great Mahatma Gandhi realized that such assumptions could only lead to violence and separation of people.

ALL MEN ARE BROTHERS (http://www.mkgandhi.org/amabrothers/amabrothers.htm)

Ghandi
By religion, I do not mean formal religion, or customary religion, but that religion which underlies all religions, which brings us face to face with our Maker. (MM, 85)

Let me explain what I mean by religion. It is not the Hindu religion which I certainly prize above all other religions, but the religion which transcends Hinduism, which changes one's very nature, which binds one indissolubly to the truth within and which ever purifies. It is the permanent element in human nature which counts no cost too great in order to find full expression and which leaves the soul utterly restless until it has found itself, known its Maker and appreciated the true correspondence between the Maker and itself. (SB, 223) Gandhi realized that we are above all humans and that human relations are far more important than religion.

The Qur'an says about the Jews and the Christians that they corrupted their scripture: "Among the Jews are those who distort words from their (proper) places (i.e., usages)." (4:46).

It is clear from the verse itself that this does not apply to all Jews. How about the generations of Jews and Christians who came after the corruption had been made, and who believed that what they had in their hands was the true Book that Allah revealed? Ibn Taimyyah says that they cannot be considered as corrupters. So, according to this not all Christians and Jews are "corrupters". Why makes this distinction at all? Why not just point out that Jews and Christians are humans and should be judged on an individual basis? Why bring beliefs into the discussion at all? So what if Christians believe in corrupted scriptures? And who are you to decide that someone else’s scripture is corrupt?

What about the Christians belief that Jesus is the Son of Allah? Even this has to be qualified by the empirical fact, which might come as a surprise to people in the Muslim world that there are thousands of Christians in America who do not believe that Jesus is the son of Allah!

I am relating all this in order to emphasize the point that we should deal with people according to what we know about them. We should not try to impose upon them a belief, which they deny. How should I deal with someone who claims to be a Christian, but who tells me that he does not believe that Jesus is the Son of Allah? Should I tell him that so long as he or she is a Christian then they must believe that Jesus is the son of Allah because the Qur'an says so? Who cares if Christians believe that Christ is the Son of God? Don't get me wrong. I truly understand the sentiment being given here. It however misses the more important point that person’s beliefs are ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT.

People should be free to believe what ever they want and pay no attention to what someone else believes.

What we have just said about beliefs applies also to standpoints on issues. Because people in the West are free-as individuals and groups to express their opinions and positions on issues, you find so many differences among them. It is therefore not only unfair, but also detrimental to our cause to treat them as if they were a monolith. Thank you, thank you, and thank you. Put down the Qur'an and deal with me as a person and not a "Jew", "Christian" or "infidel."

A cautionary remark is in order before we conclude. To treat people fairly and nicely is not the same thing as compromising the truth. We must be firm in accepting and defending the truth that Allah revealed to his Prophet, while at the same time being tolerant with those who reject it so long as they do not resort to any acts of aggression against us. "And do not argue with the People of the Scripture except in a way that is best, except for those who commit injustice among them." (29:46). Tolerance to “those who reject it?” It sounds like “they” have done something wrong. Like “they” robbed a liquor store but we must be tolerant of them. Sorry but this sounds good but is very wrong.

It is this rhetoric that is most destructive. It is not enough to advocate tolerance. It is vitally important to embrace the idea that all humans are equal regardless of religious belief. That which bonds us as human brothers is far more important than any so-called “truth”.

I don’t know if it is possible to have both peace and religion. I do know that as long as there are attitudes like this one (we must be tolerant with those who reject the truth) there simply can be no peace.

[Mr Manifesto]

It however misses the more important point that person’s beliefs are ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT.

You'd think so, wouldn't you. Who, then, do you think said this:

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

Once you've worked out who said that, you'll realise that Muslims aren't the only ones who 'barely' tolerate other religions. Religion is rife through just about every nation on Earth, including yours, and every religion is the 'one true' religion. The fact is, though, Muslims don't exclude other religions, and they recognise that other religions have the right to exist. Where does it say in the New Testament that other religions have the right to exist?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
You'd think so, wouldn't you. Who, then, do you think said this:

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

Once you've worked out who said that, you'll realise that Muslims aren't the only ones who 'barely' tolerate other religions. Religion is rife through just about every nation on Earth, including yours, and every religion is the 'one true' religion. The fact is, though, Muslims don't exclude other religions, and they recognise that other religions have the right to exist. Where does it say in the New Testament that other religions have the right to exist? No argument. I don't think it is right for Bush or anyone to make such statements.

[Mr Manifesto]

So, in the spirit of moving forward in this argument, can you accept that it is common practice for leaders of countries to invoke religion to rally the masses, but it does not neccessarily follow that the masses are blinded by that religion? Otherwise, you would have to accept that Bush can rally the Americans to his cause at any time with a thump of the Bible.

Assuming that you can agree to this, we can move on. Muslims aren't mindless religious robots. So why are they ticked off at America?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
So, in the spirit of moving forward in this argument, can you accept that it is common practice for leaders of countries to invoke religion to rally the masses, but it does not necessarily follow that the masses are blinded by that religion? Otherwise, you would have to accept that Bush can rally the Americans to his cause at any time with a thump of the Bible. Non Sequitur.

1.) America is not a religious state.

2.) There is an active 2 party system in the United States. One is traditionally anti-war. George Bush is currently being denounced by Democratic presidential candidates.

3.) There are MANY outlets and sources of news.

4.)There are many voices of opposition that contribute to a free flow of ideas.

5.) The courts routinely vote in favor of separation of church and state.

6.) George Bush's statement aside, there is little religious rhetoric. A few statements can hardly be compared to calls of jihad.

7.) Many vocal and politically powerful churches are against the war. The Catholic church spoke out against the war. Many nuns and priests marched against the war.

There is very, very little comparison between America and many if not most Muslim Countries.

Just because George Bush makes an idiotic statement does not mean that he IS using the bible to rally Americans to his cause.

On the other hand, many Muslim countries lack the freedoms that we enjoy. There is historic precedent that countries without lots of voices and lots of sources for news are more likely to believe the propaganda of their leaders. North Korea, Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Communist China, etc., etc.

Assuming that you can agree to this, we can move on. Muslims aren't mindless religious robots. I would not call Muslims mindless robots but it is difficult to make decisions when there is limited sources of information. I believe that many Muslims are indoctrinated.

So why are they ticked off at America? Complex Problem. There are many factors that contribute to the feelings of Muslims. I am quite convinced that much of the ill will is directly caused by the propaganda of Clerics and leaders. Calling us the "great Satan" doesn't help. Being a nation made up of Christians (wrong religion) doesn't help.

I will concede that much ill will comes from many of mistakes that we make. Unfortunately the mistakes are highlighted while the good (Somalia, Kosovo) are not or made out to be nefarious.