Aid to Tsunami Victims II

[sob]

It's really been interesting to watch this unfold. The tsunami victims seem to be a cause that all the liberals can really get behind. I saw Madonna and George Clooney parading their faces in front of the cameras just yesterday.

However, I have some questions.

1. What makes a tsunami orphan any more deserving of aid than a starving orphan in, say, East Timor? How much money has Australia sent there?

2. It is my understanding that President Bush is allowing donations made this year (2005) to be used for 2004 tax purposes. Does anyone else think that's a very dangerous precedent?

3. In another thread, I made the comment that we were called "stingy" by the UN. (You know, the organization that flew their flag at half-mast when Yasser Arafat died, but not when Ronald Reagan died.) Some of my words were:

"The point is that the US continues to donate money for aid, even to people who hate us. We are by far the most generous nation in the history of the world, and we still (back to the point of the thread) get dumped on, particularly by the UN."

Now my attention has been drawn to the following:

Thanks, now get out

Thanks For The Help...Now Get Out!
By Dave Gibson (01/14/05)

Tsunami-stricken Indonesia has now shown the world just how grateful they are, in light of the enormous amount of aid which they have received. The nation with the highest Muslim population in the world has given foreign aid-workers a deadline to vacate their country.

I believe that the incident speaks volumes to the kind of enemy we are facing in the War On Terror.

In a recent press conference, Indonesian Vice-President Jusuf Kalla told reporters: "Three months are enough. The sooner, the better. In the future, there will be no need for the foreign military presence."

In light of these incredibly ungrateful words, the U.S. has scrapped plans to set up a temporary Marine base in that nation. The Marines are part of an amphibious battle group which was sent to aid in the relief efforts. The USS Abraham Lincoln has also moved away from the coast of Indonesia. U.S. Navy helicopters were bringing in supplies to the hardest hit regions of that Muslim nation.

This ugly event is just another example of just how strongly the Muslim world hates the United States. The government of Indonesia would rather it's citizens die of malaria, than come to know the United States as anything other than the 'Great Satan.' How can we combat that kind of hatred with anything other than overwhelming military force?

Whether or not most Americans realize it...we are engaged in a Holy War. The war has been declared upon us and it would seem that our enemy is much more determined than we are. The Muslims turn American passenger planes into guided missiles, we send them food and medicine.

Shortly after the devastating tidal-wave hit Southeast Asia, the Israeli Army tried to send a number of troops and medical aid to Sri Lanka. Though the story was much under-reported by the mainstream press, the Sri Lankan government refused to allow the Israelis on their soil.

Those who simply fail to see how religious hatred toward Christians and Jews is a real threat to the West, should study their World War II history. The Muslim world of today is not so different from the Nazi Germany of the 1930's. Most of the world underestimated the threat that Hitler posed to the civilized world, until six million Jews were executed and Europe was living under Hitler's thumb. The Nazis, like the Muslims were driven by incredible hatred and believed that their cause was righteous.

The Muslim world is strongly united against the United States. We however, are a very divided nation. My wish for the new year is that the other half of America wakes up!

[Charlatan]

1. There is no difference between the two. The only difference is that the other children of the world: a) don't get plastered all over the media on a regular basis and b) the Tsunami disaster is immediate... the other childeren of the world are ongoing.

2. This encourages people to donate to a cause that needs money NOW, not a year from now... NOW.

3. The US gives a lot of money... the point the UN official was making was that as a percentage of total GDP the countries of the west (no country was singled out so give it an f'n rest already) gives a pittance. As for Reagan vs. Arafat... one was a former president and the other was a sitting president... I'm sure it is protocol. Are you saying that the UN should lower it's flag for ALL ex-leaders of the world when they kick off?


As for the article... It is sure full of hate...

Indonesia is grateful for the assistance... However, they do not want foreign troops in their country. Would you welcome Russian, Chinese, Kuwaiti, etc. troops on your soil?

If they were required in the short term... I would be OK with this, but in the long term I certainly wouldn't. I would not be all that happy to see American troops (or any foreign troops for that matter) marching all over Canada.

Indonesia is a sovreign nation. I don't see the problem with them saying, OK, thanks now please leave.

The area in question has been the site of a brewing civil war... regardless of which side you would take in the dispute, it is their *elected* governments perogative to keep foreign troops out of this dispute.

I think their reaction is hardly one that is Musilm vs. Christians as the author of this peice suggests. The Indonesian government works quite well with the US and Australia. Asking that the US not set up a base on their soil is hardly an act of war...

[jorgelito]

Originally Posted by sob

(You know, the organization that flew their flag at half-mast when Yasser Arafat died, but not when Ronald Reagan died.)

Wow, is that really true? That just seems so.....wrong. I mean I don't love Ronald Reagan but that type of honors for Arafat? Unbelievable. It was funny to watch the French fall all over themselves to give a military honor guard for the guy but c'mon, enough is enough and we are setting a bad precedent. Will we do the same for Osama? Lower the flag that is. Weird.

Anyways, I think Charlatan is on the right track. It's a bit early to jump on the "world is against us" bandwagon.

It always sucks when "aid and charity" becomes so political. Money is money, aid is aid. Why prevent Israeli doctors from helping YOUR people?

But, I don't think Indonesia was rude or ungrateful. They simply communicated what they wanted. Similarly, at a press conference, Armitage was asked if the newly elected Iraqi government asked (or demanded) the US to leave Iraq, he replied yes, immediately. SO if we are williing to respect the wishes of a newly formed government in Iraq , shouldn't we do th same for another country?

[Justsomeguy]

1. Well, the tsunami completely destroyed many areas of the world. Trying to turn it into the argument you wish is retarded and seems to only try to draw some stupid ass emotional response.

2. No

Originally Posted by sob

3. In another thread, I made the comment that we were called "stingy" by the UN. (You know, the organization that flew their flag at half-mast when Yasser Arafat died, but not when Ronald Reagan died.) Some of my words were:

"The point is that the US continues to donate money for aid, even to people who hate us. We are by far the most generous nation in the history of the world, and we still (back to the point of the thread) get dumped on, particularly by the UN."

I think what you fail to realize is that most Americans do not give a fuck what the UN or the rest of the world thinks. For example, after the 2004 presidential election I saw a British reporter respond to how the election was obviously a backlack against Europe. The truth is, most people in the U.S really do not give a damn about Europe.

Also, I don't really think that Americans care how other nations feel about us. The tsunami obviously did alot of destruction and killed alot of people and people wanted to help. Thats the key...people wanted to help. Therefore, people are donating because it makes them feel good. Finally, many people understand that those countries are shitty to us. However, we tend to think of the families that are suffering and think of their help as aiding fellow people in extreme times of need.

[Manx]

Originally Posted by sob

 

In light of those first two paragraphs, which are exhaustingly disgusting, the third does not come as a suprise in the least.

[Charlatan]

Here is a question for you to answer SOB... India did not want ANY foreign troops on their soil. They let it be known that they didn't want any aid. India is primarily a Hindu country.

Does this make India "ungrateful?"
Does this mean the world's Hindus are at war with us?

Joregelito... why shouldn't the UN honour Arafat? While the view in the west is that he was a monster there are many nations who see him in the exact opposite light. I prefer to look at him as just one side of a very nasty coin. I would expect the same sort of honour to be accorded the death of a serving leader of Israel...

[jorgelito]

I guess I just don't think Arafat should be honored, at least by the UN. I can understand if the Palestinians want to. I guess I see it as a UN endorsement of the man (and his policies etc) and the UN is supposed to be at least neutral or objective. Meaning if they honored Arafat, then why not Reagan? So, for me, I think the UN should be at least consistent in that regard.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

As far as Indonesia goes, I'm not a fan. They are entitled to their opinions, and I don't fault them for wanting foreign troops on there soil. But at the same time I won't send them a dime of aid. I was watching the news a few nights back and I saw a man cleaning up wreckage, then I noticed his shirt... it was a picture of Osama Bin Laden, then I remembered, this was the country were after 9-11 people took to the streets celebrating. Also this is the same country that declared a fatwa of Jihad against America surrounding the run up to Iraq. Maybe they should be just a little more grateful to us Americans, see where they would be at had we left Muslim countries to aid them.

[Charlatan]

Originally Posted by jorgelito

I guess I just don't think Arafat should be honored, at least by the UN. I can understand if the Palestinians want to. I guess I see it as a UN endorsement of the man (and his policies etc) and the UN is supposed to be at least neutral or objective. Meaning if they honored Arafat, then why not Reagan? So, for me, I think the UN should be at least consistent in that regard.

Again... why would anyone outside of the US honour an ex-leader? Arafat was in office when he died, Reagan was not. (The death of Reagan would have been a lot more note worthy if it had happened while in office).

I wouldn't be surprised to see that this is simple protocol.

[Charlatan]

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

As far as Indonesia goes, I'm not a fan. They are entitled to their opinions, and I don't fault them for wanting foreign troops on there soil. But at the same time I won't send them a dime of aid. I was watching the news a few nights back and I saw a man cleaning up wreckage, then I noticed his shirt... it was a picture of Osama Bin Laden, then I remembered, this was the country were after 9-11 people took to the streets celebrating. Also this is the same country that declared a fatwa of Jihad against America surrounding the run up to Iraq. Maybe they should be just a little more grateful to us Americans, see where they would be at had we left Muslim countries to aid them.

So far the only quotes I have seen are from the vice-president saying that he would like it if all foreign aid workers and troops would leave by a certain date. Before the Tsunami, these areas were off limits to foreigners and I'm sure they want to get back to status quo (regardless of how you feel about their reasons).

As for the guy in the OSB shirt... complaining about that is like complaining that some guy in the US is wearing a Che Guevera shirt... I am fairly certain that the US administration does not support the Cuban Revolution...

And finger pointing at a group of people dancing in the street post 9/11 is hardly fair either... do we have context? How many were involved? etc... This like saying because I see some Militiamen waving rifles around and forming an Army ALL Americans are armed to the teeth and fear the government's interfence...

Don't judge 201 million people by what you think you see on CNN...

[Mephisto2]

Despite the fact that the opinion piece that started this thread was extremely biased, I thought I would post this news story.

Indonesia back-pedals over Aceh pullout
By Deborah Cameron, Herald Correspondent in Jakarta and agencies
January 17, 2005

Indonesia has categorically withdrawn a deadline set by its Vice-President, Jusuf Kalla, for the departure of foreign troops from the tsunami-devastated regions of Aceh.

"We would like to emphasise that March 26 is not a deadline for involvement of foreign military personnel in the relief effort," the Defence Minister, Juwono Sudarsono, said yesterday.

"It is a benchmark for the Indonesian Government to improve and accelerate its relief efforts, so that by March 26 the large part of the burden of the relief effort will be carried by the Indonesian Government and Indonesian authorities," he said.

With the aid effort continuing, and escalating fears of disease and malaria, there were concerns that the departure of troops would backfire on Indonesia and magnify the disaster.

A United Nations relief official, Jan Egeland, was among voices urging Jakarta not to press ahead with the deadline, set last week by Jusuf Kalla. "I am sure the Indonesian Government will agree with me that the most important thing is to save lives and not have deadlines," he said.

The US, whose helicopters are doing most of the aid distribution, was prepared to go along with Indonesia's wish for an early departure, however Mr Sudarsono's statement came following a meeting in Jakarta with the US Deputy Secretary of Defence, Paul Wolfowitz.

Mr Wolfowitz, on a whirlwind trip to Thailand, Indonesia and Sri Lanka, was earlier briefed by US military commanders on the progress of their aid mission.

They said they had nearly completed their emergency relief operations in Thailand and Sri Lanka and could withdraw most of the US troops there within two weeks. But the devastated western coast of Indonesia could need foreign military assistance for some time.

The commanders said they were dealing with "mind-boggling" destruction in Aceh province, on the north-western tip of Sumatra island, and were still assessing the population's need for food, water and medical care. Parts of a main highway have been washed away, preventing them from reaching isolated communities that could be in dire need of help, they said.

Marine Lieutenant-General Robert Blackman, who commands a multinational support force based in U-Tapao, Thailand, told Mr Wolfowitz that the mission in Indonesia required "daily maintenance" and that a "fog of relief" was still being sorted out.

As international relief efforts continued, aid volunteers in Aceh province battled to combat outbreaks of "secondary illness" in tightly packed makeshift camps.

So far, efforts to tackle diseases such as cholera, typhoid, measles and malaria have been successful but Stefan Templeton, a paramedic with the French medical group Elisa, said his team was treating two people expected to die from tetanus.

The director of emergency programs with the UN Children's Fund, Daniel Toole, said that while tetanus cases were still limited, more were appearing with up to 20 around Aceh's capital, Banda Aceh.

REF: http://www.smh.com.au/news/Asia-Tsun...810774859.html


Mr Mephisto

[Mojo_PeiPei]

Originally Posted by Charlatan

So far the only quotes I have seen are from the vice-president saying that he would like it if all foreign aid workers and troops would leave by a certain date. Before the Tsunami, these areas were off limits to foreigners and I'm sure they want to get back to status quo (regardless of how you feel about their reasons).

As for the guy in the OSB shirt... complaining about that is like complaining that some guy in the US is wearing a Che Guevera shirt... I am fairly certain that the US administration does not support the Cuban Revolution...

And finger pointing at a group of people dancing in the street post 9/11 is hardly fair either... do we have context? How many were involved? etc... This like saying because I see some Militiamen waving rifles around and forming an Army ALL Americans are armed to the teeth and fear the government's interfence...

Don't judge 201 million people by what you think you see on CNN...

It's no big secret that America is not liked in the Muslim world, and saying that is an understatement. Last time I checked Che Guevera wasn't responsible for the deaths of 3000 people, mostly Americans.

Even before September 11, Osama bin Laden enjoyed a very high reputation due to his unremitting hostility to the United States. His biographer, Simon Reeve, wrote in 1999 that "Many who had never met him, whose only contact was through one of his interviews, a radio broadcast or Internet homepage, pronounced themselves ready to die for his cause."8 Hasan at-Turabi, the powerful Sudanese leader, found that bin Laden had developed "as a champion, as a symbol of Islam for all young people, in the whole Muslim world."9

When he emerged as the man behind the September 11 attacks, his reputation soared to extraordinary heights around the Muslim world. "Long live bin Laden" shouted five thousand demonstrators in the southern Philippines. In Pakistan, bin Laden's face sold merchandise and massive street rallies left two persons dead. Ten thousand marched in the capitals of Bangladesh and Indonesia. In northern Nigeria, Bin Laden had (according to Reuters) "achieved iconic status"10 and his partisans set off religious riots leading to two hundred deaths.11 Pro-bin Laden demonstrations took place even in Mecca, where overt political activism is unheard of.

....

Survey research helps understand these sentiments. In the Palestinian Authority, a Bir Zeit poll found that 26 percent of Palestinians considered the September 11 attacks consistent with Islamic law.22 In Pakistan, a Gallup found a nearly identical 24 percent reaching this conclusion.23 Even those who consider the attacks on September 11 an act of terrorism (64 percent of both Palestinians and Pakistanis) showed respect for these as acts of political defiance and technical prowess. "Of course we're upset that so many died in New York. But at the same time, we're in awe of what happened," said a young Cairene woman.24 An online survey of Indonesians found 50 per cent seeing bin Laden as a "justice fighter" and 35 per cent a terrorist.25 More broadly, I estimate that bin Laden enjoyed in those first weeks the emotional support of half the Muslim world.

With the exception of one government-staged anti-bin Laden demonstration in Pakistan and very few prominent Islamic scholars, hardly anyone publicly denounced him in September or October 2001. The only Islamic scholar in Egypt who unreservedly condemned the September 11 suicide operations admitted that he is completely isolated. 26 Further, not a single Muslim government came out publicly in support of the American bombings against him. American officials were waiting in vain for Muslim politicians to speak up. "It'd be nice if some leaders came out and said that the idea the U.S. is targeting Islam is absurd," notes one U.S. diplomat.27 They did not do so because to so meant to contradict bin Laden's wide adulation.

http://www.meforum.org/article/pipes/417

[Mephisto2]

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

It's no big secret that America is not liked in the Muslim world, and saying that is an understatement. Last time I checked Che Guevera wasn't responsible for the deaths of 3000 people, mostly Americans.

So that means that all Muslims are to be condemned equally because one guy was photographed in an Osama t-shirt?

Well, then I guess all Americans should be too.

The US company that sells these t-shirts is obviously indicative of ALL Americans.


REF: http://www.tshirthell.com/store/prod...?productid=102

The US political party that uses the swastika as its symbol is obviously indicattive of ALL Americans


REF: http://www.americannaziparty.com/about/index.shtml

The actions shown in this image (used as just one example only) are obviously indicative of ALL Americans.





Now to clear the air. I don't really think the above images represent the vast majority of Americans. They can be taken out of context. Such is the case with a picture of an Indonesian in an Osama Bin Laden t-shirt. Maybe he did support OBL, but it's not true to state that all Muslims do so. And certainly, the majority of Muslim nations number Al Queda in their list of enemies and are allies with the US in the so-called "War on Terror".


Mr Mephisto

[Mojo_PeiPei]

I'd believe that if most Muslim nations didn't support terrorist organizations, the only ally I've found in this war on terror is Pakistan, nix that Mushareff. The only reason he is helping us is because he has been targetted for assasination three times by "hardline" Muslims, and because people like Al Qaeda and the Taliban are a challenge to his power.

As far as I'm concerned, and this is only my opinion, I'm not a fan of Islam, and to be honest I don't think the people have are giving much to work with when it comes to them. I often find it to be a repressive religion of hate and ignorance. Now before you guys come back and try to assert how Christianity or Christians are somehow as bad as Islam, where in the civilized Western Christian world does it come anywhere close to the repressive nature of Muslim Sharian regimes? Why is it that women are treated as second class citizens in just about every muslim country? Where has been all the intellectual development in the Islamic world? Why do so many regimes openly support Idealoges of hate and terrorism? Where were all the Muslims speaking out against events such as 9-11? Why does all the leadership in the Muslim world seem to come to corrupt dictators or warlords? You guys can go ahead and call me prejudgiced and ignorant, I'll just fire back that many of you here are willingly ignorant to the frightening and troublesome reality our world is facing with the Islamic religion.

P.S. I'm not asserting it's all bad, just the Islamic world is in need of a MAJOR intellectual and idealological(sp) Reform.

[martinguerre]

not to flog a dead horse...i say dead mostly because the original poster apparently put this one on fire and forget...

but, a "temporary" base for the best quick strike military force in the world? i can see why they refused...i'm pretty sure we would too. that said, the indoensian military is a huge obstacle to distrubuting aid, apparently... these are the guys we're buddying up to to help win the "War on Terrah." it's the classic example of borrowing trouble. in return for a possible benifit in subduing a muslim populace, we accept a corrupt regime that relies on human rights abuses to stay in power. such a regime so despicable, as to inspire folks to listen to extremist fanatics.

God, when have i heard that one before?

[OFKU0]

In my humble opinion, the author in the original post (Dave Gibson) is an idiot. If he isn't careful, he may be headhunted by honestreporting.com. He would well fit in there.

As for pulling out of Indonesia, CNN had a blurb tonight that Wolfowitz agrees that as soon as possible, once things stabalize a pullout will begin accordingly.

[Zeld2.0]

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

I'd believe that if most Muslim nations didn't support terrorist organizations, the only ally I've found in this war on terror is Pakistan, nix that Mushareff. The only reason he is helping us is because he has been targetted for assasination three times by "hardline" Muslims, and because people like Al Qaeda and the Taliban are a challenge to his power.

As far as I'm concerned, and this is only my opinion, I'm not a fan of Islam, and to be honest I don't think the people have are giving much to work with when it comes to them. I often find it to be a repressive religion of hate and ignorance. Now before you guys come back and try to assert how Christianity or Christians are somehow as bad as Islam, where in the civilized Western Christian world does it come anywhere close to the repressive nature of Muslim Sharian regimes? Why is it that women are treated as second class citizens in just about every muslim country? Where has been all the intellectual development in the Islamic world? Why do so many regimes openly support Idealoges of hate and terrorism? Where were all the Muslims speaking out against events such as 9-11? Why does all the leadership in the Muslim world seem to come to corrupt dictators or warlords? You guys can go ahead and call me prejudgiced and ignorant, I'll just fire back that many of you here are willingly ignorant to the frightening and troublesome reality our world is facing with the Islamic religion.

P.S. I'm not asserting it's all bad, just the Islamic world is in need of a MAJOR intellectual and idealological(sp) Reform.

You are entitled to your opinion but the short term looking is quite bad.

You do realize that the religion itself hasn't been the problem - its each government dealing with it in its own terms.

For instance, the issue of women - in some countries, where government is much more secular, women are given great rights. Turkey, Jordan (believe it or not), and Iraq (yes, indeed) have long given women great rights. Countries where radical religion (Islam in this case) have often been the violators of their rights. And this has been true in supposedly "Christian" countries too - do you forget that women weren't allowed to vote til the 1920's in the US? Do you forget that women were once treated as property, rarely given jobs (and if so, at the worst of wages and in worst conditions) for a long time in our own history (which is but a fraction in world history)? The only difference is that we have advanced, but thats something you have to take by one case at a time - some "Western" nations are more liberal (funny that women's rights is a liberal issue but is used by the right in their arguments against Islam) in the feminist movement, others are not. There are women in our own country against those rights, just as there are those fervently in advancing their rights.

Your next issue of intellectual development - do you seem to forget your history? The Eastern World has long been more advanced than the Western World. China for instance has long been the area of its greatest technological advance - compasses, paper, gunpowder (the big ones we all know of) has long been at the forefront in humanity's development of technology.

Indeed, until the 1500's, the Muslim world was superior in technology and intellectual developments to the European/Christian world. Remember the Crusades and Richard the Lionheart? When he was wounded, Saladin sent his personal physicians to treat him - a testament to how medical techniques in the eastern world were superior to European methods. Indeed, the Crusades and Mongol Invasions finally brought much of the technology to Europe at last - papermaking, gunpowder, hell even the game of Chess.

You can note however that in the 1500s, with the Rennaissance, and the beginnings of European colonization (the geographical location of Europe is big here), the shift in technology and power moved towards Europe - Europe and the US really broke away with the Industrial Revolution (which may not have come about with the power and resources via imperialism).

Repressive nature in Christian countries? Do you seem to forget the Soviet Union (or are they un-Christian heathens despite the fact many are Eastern Orthodox, etc.?), Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and other nations in the last 100 years have often had a majority of Christians in the country? Of which many of its people were willing to follow?

Hmm, next issue, you talk about regimes and their idealogues of hate and the lack of support against the terrorists of 9/11. Here's some thought - provide the quotes, the people who said em, and what nation they are from. I bet a lot of those are enemies of the U.S. from past events (Iraq), or are of radical religious governments like Iran, and previously Afghanistan. Furthermore, why must nations come out and make a statement - many nations dont give a rats ass about problems when they have their own. I dont see people asking for many countries in Africa to issue a formal statement about 9/11 and most don't care either.

Its as though one expects teh entire world to send their condolences when those very own countries have their own issues and problems to deal with. How many in America cared when the trains in Spain were bombed? It was on the news and it was off within a week.

Why do leaderships in Islamic countires end up in corrupt dictators? Here's a thought - look up the leaders of the countries in the world. Most, believe it or not, are authoritarian in nature. Corrupt dictators? Remember this quote? "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Hmm, let me see, last I saw, in Cuba they have a dictator, in Argentina they had many military juntas and dictators, Chile, Brazil, all within the last 50-100 (even 20) years. And hey, almost all those countries are 100% Christian! The type of religion does not equate to the rise of dictatorships. "Christian" nations have created some brutal dictators in the past - hey, there was Napoleon - hello Mussolini, hello Hitler!

What does matter is when religion is brought into the government - it creates the big problems. Those Islamic countries with the biggest beef with the U.S. have been those with religious government nature - they often treat women like 2nd class citizens, they often support terrorist actions. Those who have secular governments more or less have been supportive or at least neutral with the U.S. Hell, Turkey is most certainly a Muslim country, but guess what - its been in NATO, is applying for the EU, and other than its people, has little if any semblance to your typical idea of the Muslim country.

Type of religion doesn't determine how a country is run be it democratic or authoritarian - its the difference between religion being used to influence politics (or in some cases, control it) and those who don't allow religion in their politics.

There is a big reason why I want religion and government separated fully - its because when religion is put in a government, one answers only to what one believes in religion, and no longer to the people who run the government (in democracies, that would be people). Thats when it gets dangerous.

Before you call others ignorant of the issue, why dont you look deep into their history and study it first before you decide others don't have a clue about the situation. There are people out there who have dedicated their lives to studying geopolitical situations and how history affects us today - it would do well if you followed that before deciding others don't have a clue.

So you know believe as you wish, but I think there is a whole lot more one can find see and learn when one does it with an open mind.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

Originally Posted by Zeld2.0

You are entitled to your opinion but the short term looking is quite bad.

You do realize that the religion itself hasn't been the problem - its each government dealing with it in its own terms.

For instance, the issue of women - in some countries, where government is much more secular, women are given great rights. Turkey, Jordan (believe it or not), and Iraq (yes, indeed) have long given women great rights. Countries where radical religion (Islam in this case) have often been the violators of their rights. And this has been true in supposedly "Christian" countries too - do you forget that women weren't allowed to vote til the 1920's in the US? Do you forget that women were once treated as property, rarely given jobs (and if so, at the worst of wages and in worst conditions) for a long time in our own history (which is but a fraction in world history)? The only difference is that we have advanced, but thats something you have to take by one case at a time - some "Western" nations are more liberal (funny that women's rights is a liberal issue but is used by the right in their arguments against Islam) in the feminist movement, others are not. There are women in our own country against those rights, just as there are those fervently in advancing their rights.

Point in case we have advanced, they haven't, a woman tries to read she gets stoned. And has you said yourself those countries governments are largely secular and very tough at that, they don't play around.

Your next issue of intellectual development - do you seem to forget your history? The Eastern World has long been more advanced than the Western World. China for instance has long been the area of its greatest technological advance - compasses, paper, gunpowder (the big ones we all know of) has long been at the forefront in humanity's development of technology.

Indeed, until the 1500's, the Muslim world was superior in technology and intellectual developments to the European/Christian world. Remember the Crusades and Richard the Lionheart? When he was wounded, Saladin sent his personal physicians to treat him - a testament to how medical techniques in the eastern world were superior to European methods. Indeed, the Crusades and Mongol Invasions finally brought much of the technology to Europe at last - papermaking, gunpowder, hell even the game of Chess.

You can note however that in the 1500s, with the Rennaissance, and the beginnings of European colonization (the geographical location of Europe is big here), the shift in technology and power moved towards Europe - Europe and the US really broke away with the Industrial Revolution (which may not have come about with the power and resources via imperialism).

Again you made the point, we have advanced, they haven't since the 1500's.

Repressive nature in Christian countries? Do you seem to forget the Soviet Union (or are they un-Christian heathens despite the fact many are Eastern Orthodox, etc.?), Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and other nations in the last 100 years have often had a majority of Christians in the country? Of which many of its people were willing to follow?

Well let's see the people in Russia were othrodox, but the government was Communist, Stalin shipped Catholics and Jews to the gulags, he displaced the entire population of Chechyna who were Muslims, hell he even had shut down the Orthodox churches until the Nazi invasion so the people would rally. Nazi Germany was not Christian, National socialism seeked to subdue and replace the all religion, I just read an interesting article on MSN about how Hitler had plans to Kidnap the pope and take the Vatican, nothing similar to anything in the Muslim world.

Hmm, next issue, you talk about regimes and their idealogues of hate and the lack of support against the terrorists of 9/11. Here's some thought - provide the quotes, the people who said em, and what nation they are from. I bet a lot of those are enemies of the U.S. from past events (Iraq), or are of radical religious governments like Iran, and previously Afghanistan. Furthermore, why must nations come out and make a statement - many nations dont give a rats ass about problems when they have their own. I dont see people asking for many countries in Africa to issue a formal statement about 9/11 and most don't care either.

Its as though one expects teh entire world to send their condolences when those very own countries have their own issues and problems to deal with. How many in America cared when the trains in Spain were bombed? It was on the news and it was off within a week.

I do expect nations to offer formal notices of condolences in light of a massive tragedy like 9-11, I also expect governments to come out and condemn said actions when you got there citizens taking to the streets cheering.

Why do leaderships in Islamic countires end up in corrupt dictators? Here's a thought - look up the leaders of the countries in the world. Most, believe it or not, are authoritarian in nature. Corrupt dictators? Remember this quote? "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Hmm, let me see, last I saw, in Cuba they have a dictator, in Argentina they had many military juntas and dictators, Chile, Brazil, all within the last 50-100 (even 20) years. And hey, almost all those countries are 100% Christian!

Does the name Romero mean anything to you?

The type of religion does not equate to the rise of dictatorships. "Christian" nations have created some brutal dictators in the past - hey, there was Napoleon - hello Mussolini, hello Hitler!

Again, I am always perplexed when people try and mention Hitler and Nazi Germany as an example of a Christian country, there is no parallel between Hitler and Germany as a Christian country compared to a country like Saudi Arabia or Iran as a Muslim. Hitler persecuted Christians, do you know what happened to the Poles? Hitler seeked to completely remove religion, his notion was exactly like Communism, it was all about the state, religion was the biggest obstacle, if anything Christianity was the obstacle.

What does matter is when religion is brought into the government - it creates the big problems. Those Islamic countries with the biggest beef with the U.S. have been those with religious government nature - they often treat women like 2nd class citizens, they often support terrorist actions. Those who have secular governments more or less have been supportive or at least neutral with the U.S. Hell, Turkey is most certainly a Muslim country, but guess what - its been in NATO, is applying for the EU, and other than its people, has little if any semblance to your typical idea of the Muslim country.

Ok, what's your point, the people realize the necessity for said secular government, that's why the government is established as such. Same could've been said about Lebanon until the Muslims tried to grab power and the PLO moved in.

Type of religion doesn't determine how a country is run be it democratic or authoritarian - its the difference between religion being used to influence politics (or in some cases, control it) and those who don't allow religion in their politics.

I think it does. Outside of the few secular governments, who btw are not very democratic (at best limited democracies) or free at all, how does the Muslim world stack up to countries that have been fostered in the Judeo-Christian philosophy... leaps and bounds my friend, there is no comparison.

There is a big reason why I want religion and government separated fully - its because when religion is put in a government, one answers only to what one believes in religion, and no longer to the people who run the government (in democracies, that would be people). Thats when it gets dangerous.

I agree in that I don't think religious leaders should be allowed to rule a country.

Before you call others ignorant of the issue, why dont you look deep into their history and study it first before you decide others don't have a clue about the situation. There are people out there who have dedicated their lives to studying geopolitical situations and how history affects us today - it would do well if you followed that before deciding others don't have a clue.

I didn't call them ignorant of the issues, I said some are willingly ignorant, cutting their nose to spite their faces, in regards to just how undemocratic, unamerican, pro-terrorist the Muslim world really is. History can be taken into account and give answers about the reality, but it shouldn't be used as justification or as an apologist perspective as you try and make it.

[Mephisto2]

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Point in case we have advanced, they haven't, a woman tries to read she gets stoned.

Where does this happen (apart from Taliban Afghanistan which is now defunct)?

Nazi Germany was not Christian, National socialism seeked to subdue and replace the all religion,

This is just untrue. Let me know if you want references.

I do expect nations to offer formal notices of condolences in light of a massive tragedy like 9-11, I also expect governments to come out and condemn said actions when you got there citizens taking to the streets cheering.

I think most countries did condemn it. Maybe I missed something, but as far as I know the only ones who didn't were Iraq and maybe Iran?

Again, I am always perplexed when people try and mention Hitler and Nazi Germany as an example of a Christian country, there is no parallel between Hitler and Germany as a Christian country compared to a country like Saudi Arabia or Iran as a Muslim. Hitler persecuted Christians, do you know what happened to the Poles? Hitler seeked to completely remove religion, his notion was exactly like Communism, it was all about the state, religion was the biggest obstacle, if anything Christianity was the obstacle.

Again, this is just wrong.

I agree in that I don't think religious leaders should be allowed to rule a country.

Leaders who are religous? Or religious leaders?

Two quite seperate things.

I didn't call them ignorant of the issues, I said some are willingly ignorant, cutting their nose to spite their faces, in regards to just how undemocratic, unamerican, pro-terrorist the Muslim world really is.

Many Muslim countries are anti-Amercian, the same way that Amercia is anti-Muslim. It's quid pro quo.

And how can you describe Muslim countries as unAmerican? Of course they are. America supports the illegal occupation of Palestine by Israel. They are bound to resent that.

A lot of the Muslim antipathy towards America can be traced back to (for want of a better term) "self esteem". And American actions only go to emphasize and exacerbate these problems. It's just a fact of life.

Mr Mephisto


Mr Mephisto

[Mojo_PeiPei]

[QUOTE=Mr Mephisto]Where does this happen (apart from Taliban Afghanistan which is now defunct)?

This is just untrue. Let me know if you want references.

Hitler was into the Cult, that was to be incorparated into the party, thus becoming the state religion.

I think most countries did condemn it. Maybe I missed something, but as far as I know the only ones who didn't were Iraq and maybe Iran?

I didn't hear much about it. I saw a half assed statement from Yassar Arafat he looked about as pale as a ghost after footage of Palestinians cheering in the street were aired.

Again, this is just wrong.

It's wrong? So Hitler didn't kill several million Polish catholics? They weren't sent to the same concentration camps as the Jews? Here is more

On the night of January 30, 1933, rank after rank of SA stormtroopers and black-uniformed SS detachments swung through the Brandenburg Gate onto the Unter den Linden in the centre of Berlin. They carried flaming torches and were cheered by huge crowds lining the sidewalks, thousands hysterically giving the Nazi salute as a token of victory. Hitler had achieved his first goal that very day: appointed Chancellor by the aging President Hindenburg.

As Hitler and his Cabinet minister Hermann Goering acknowledged the cheers of the massed citizenry, Hitler was well aware that the victory was only a partial one. The Nazis were still a minority in a fragile coalition. Hitler had, in fact, warned earlier that day in a statement released to the world’s press: “The Nazi Party has at last broken through to the government. I am determined to continue the struggle as fiercely within government as we fought outside it.”

A major part of what Hitler saw as his forthcoming struggle was targeting, isolating and destroying a number of enemies who were perceived as inherently hostile to his dream of the ‘Volksgemeinschaft’ or ‘Racial Community’. Chief among these were Jews, Communists, the Social Democrats with their loyal electoral support, the Catholic Centre Party and the Christian Churches. All were threats, each to be dealt with as quickly as circumstances would allow.

Though Hitler felt a particular urgency — and hatred — when dealing with Jews and Communists, he viewed the Catholic Church as a pernicious opponent, a deeply-entrenched threat that must be controlled and eventually uprooted from German life in order to establish his promised Thousand-Year-Reich. To help eliminate Catholic influence, he turned to Alfred Rosenberg, arch-ideologue, anti-Semite, and despiser of Christianity. In his book The Myth of the Twentieth Century, Rosenberg had formulated a “scientific” theory of racism. For him, the supreme human value was that of race: individual races possessed their own collective soul, a mystical “power of the blood and soil.” Each race also possessed a religious impulse (in the case of the Aryan Germans, this was the pagan cult of Wotan, king of the gods). Christianity, for Rosenberg, was the distorted product of Semitic tribes who had tricked the Aryans into jettisoning their pagan truth. The Catholic Church, prime mover in this spiritual swindle, was singled out for sustained attack as the promoter of “prodigious, conscious and unconscious falsifications.” Rosenberg claimed that Jesus Christ had been an unwitting tool of Jewish world conspirators, active as early as the first century AD. In some writings, he would go further and argue that Christ was possibly not a Jew at all, but a prototype Aryan, son of a Roman soldier stationed in Palestine.

In February 1933 Hermann Goering banned all Catholic newspapers in Cologne, citing that ‘political’ Catholicism — ie commenting on government policy — would not be tolerated. Responding to protests, he denied this was part of a deliberate campaign against Catholics; the government, he claimed, would “seal its own doom with such a policy.” Though the ban was lifted, it sent a warning tremor through the largely Catholic Rhineland, and gave an accurate indication of possible future government moves. A further straw in the wind was apparent when Storm troopers (SA) broke up meetings of Christian trade unions and the Catholic Centre Party. The Manchester Guardian reported one such incident on February 23, 1933 — a prominent politician, Adam Stegerwald, was attacked while speaking at a meeting in Krefeld, and a number of priests were hurt in the fracas.

There was a brief — and carefully engineered — lull in anti-Catholic provocation when Hitler turned his attention to strengthening national unity in the face of potential enemies at home and abroad. He made a public appeal for the Church to negotiate the terms of a new Concordat (Church-State agreement); an offer he knew the Vatican would find hard to refuse. Almost from the outset, however, discussions took place against a drumbeat of threats that the SA would be unleashed on defenceless Catholics unless agreement were quickly reached. Pope Pius XI and his Secretary of State, Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli (the future Pius XII) were faced with a dilemma. If they refused to negotiate with the legally appointed government, Hitler would undoubtedly publicise his terms and claim that the Vatican was anti-Nazi and obstructionist. Any written agreement, Pacelli maintained, would offer a better basis for the protection of civil and religious rights than no legally constituted agreement at all. After all, Lutherans had similar safeguards.

In fact, large-scale arrests were already taking place. Thousands of Catholic Center Party (Zentrum) activists were in concentration camps by the end of June 1933. Although well aware of the ominous situation, government negotiator and Vice-Chancellor Franz von Papen (himself a Catholic), told journalists that relations between the Reich and the Vatican were “so friendly” that it had taken only eight days to sketch the main outline of the proposed Concordat. This was duly signed in July 1933 and specified that certain activities — education, youth associations, Church rallies — were legally guaranteed by the Reich. In return, the Church’s support for the Centre Party and its ally the Bavarian People’s Party would be withdrawn. Actually, the Centre Party, under relentless pressure from the Nazis, had already voted itself out of existence even before the final signing of the Concordat, a fact that Pacelli lamented as it handicapped his negotiating stance.

In view of the controversy that later surrounded the Concordat, Pacelli always argued that the Church had to accept the lesser of the two evils presented to it. Without the agreement, Catholics would have been left to the mercy of SA, SS and Gestapo hit squads. With the agreement, they at least had legal grounds on which to protest injustices. The Secretary of State was realistic enough to remark to a British Embassy official he understood perfectly that attacks on Catholics would not cease, but “they will hardly break all the articles at the same time.”

The Nazis may have heard Pacelli’s opinions, but if so, paid little attention. An “Editors’ Law” promulgated in December 1933 struck directly at free speech. All editors were required to become members of the Literary Chamber of the Third Reich and follow whatever directives might follow. In tandem with this gagging act, government censorship began to tighten relentlessly. Even individual typewriters could be impounded on the whim of local Nazi functionaries and as a result, a partial blackout fell on what was happening inside Germany.

The Vatican, seeking accurate information, found helpers in unusual quarters. A large and unrecognised army of witnesses passed along secret reports and documents. This ad hoc Catholic intelligence grapevine had, as one of its leaders, Dr. Joseph Mueller, an anti-Nazi Munich lawyer known for his coolness and dependability. As an officer in the Abwehr (Military Counter-Intelligence), he was able to move freely between Munich, Berlin and Rome. In his Abwehr bag he carried sheaves of documents giving a detailed account of the campaign being waged against Catholics inside Germany, and, after the Anschluss of 1938, in Austria.

It was clear from Mueller’s documentation that clergy were being singled out for ridicule, humiliation and punishment. The famous ‘Currency’ and ‘Immorality’ trials which peaked in 1935 and 1936, resulted in the imprisonment and fining of hundreds of clergy.

The ‘Immorality’ trials sought to destroy the reputation of Catholic religious, aimed in particular at those working in primary and secondary schools. Priests, monks, lay-brothers and nuns were accused of “perverted and immoral” lifestyles — euphemisms for homosexuality and paedophilia. The Gestapo set numerous traps in order to furnish bogus evidence. The New York Times carried a report in May 1936 describing priests who had been summoned to hotel rooms after desperate messages to administer the last sacraments were received. When the priest entered, the ‘caller’ would turn out to be a prostitute, planted by government agents. Photos would be later produced in court as irrefutable evidence of corruption.

One notorious trial in 1936 concerned the Franciscans of the Rhineland town of Waldbreitbach. This was widely publicised and parents were warned in sanctimoniously penned editorials not to allow their children to enter Catholic schools if they wished to avoid corruption of the innocent. Even children themselves were encouraged to read the lurid accounts. In several cities, newspaper stands were purposely lowered so youngsters could read salacious and pornographic stories accompanied by cartoons in the pages of Der Stuermer (the newspaper controlled by Julius Streicher, notorious anti-Semite and anti-Catholic). Witness statements from children were produced in court by secret police whose testimony was not challengeable. Threats, bribes, brutal night-time interrogations and nervous breakdowns of the accused were reported in various newspapers outside Germany.

In the USA, protest meetings and marches were organised as news of the trials spread. In June 1936, a petition was signed by 48 clergymen. “We lodge a solemn protest against the almost unique brutality of the attacks launched by the German government charging Catholic clergy with gross immorality,” they wrote. “The good name of the Catholic priesthood is to be defamed, in the hope that the ultimate suppression of all Jewish and Christian beliefs by the totalitarian state can be effected.” This protest was signed by Rabbis Samuel Abrams of Boston, Philip Bernstein of Rochester and Philip Bookstaber of Harrisburg, along with 18 other Rabbis and 27 Protestant clergymen. The New York Times reported that Christmas 1937 would see “more than a hundred Protestant pastors and several thousand Catholic clergymen in prison.”

Although roving SA and Hitler Youth gangs were warned in general against turning prominent clergy into martyrs, threats and violence against priests became common. Sometimes, in the wake of local instructions, senior clergy would be intimidated. Cardinal Faulhaber of Munich was shot at and Cardinal Innitzer’s residence in Vienna was ransacked in October 1938. There was a notorious incident in the same month when Bishop Sproll of Rottenburg was manhandled and his residence vandalised. He later received an anonymous letter of apology from an SA man, forced to take part in the outrage: “I have always been proud of my country”, he wrote, “But last Saturday, I was, for the first time, ashamed to call myself a German.”

Songs, films, speeches by party members, poster campaigns, and theatre productions cruelly satirised clergy in the later 1930s. Anderl Kern’s anti-clerical play, pointedly titled The Last Peasant, was performed throughout Germany to wide critical acclaim. Characters included a parish priest with an illegitimate child, an eye for the opposite sex and easy money; a young seminarian who arrives home, announcing he has lost his vocation; and a peasant mother who attempts to murder a servant with rosary beads in one hand and a dagger in the other. At the end of the play, the ex-seminarian emerges as a true German hero, having renounced the priesthood and promising to father a large family for the future security of the Aryan race.

The most important strand of Nazi policy was, essentially, to strangle Catholicism by eliminating all organisations supported by the Church, from schools and children’s groups to Catholic Trade Unions. By 1939, this had been largely accomplished. Replacing them were National Socialist or “Community Schools”, the workers Labour Front and the Hitler Youth with its female counterpart, The League of German Girls. One initial campaign against Catholic schools in Munich reduced the percentage of students attending from 84% in 1934 to 65% a year later. In 1937, parents were asked to choose their child’s school in front of two witnesses, usually SA men in full uniform. Hints would be given of possible future trouble and loss of employment if Catholic schools were chosen.

Meetings were regularly held to vote on the issue of Catholic or Community Schools. In Speyer, a town of some 40,000 situated on the Rhine, one working man wrote to his bishop giving details of how his ‘vote’ had been obtained in 1937: “ I was told to go to the Parish Council Offices. On arriving there I declared that I wanted the Roman Catholic school and prepared to leave. The local Nazi cell-leader held me back and wrote a note to my firm stating that because of my declaration I would be dismissed from my job. A police constable then told me if I didn’t change my mind I would never obtain public work again.”

The cumulative effect of these measures hit teachers in some Catholic schools very hard. A councillor of the Bavarian Ministry of Education announced that in 1936 alone, of 1,600 teaching posts formerly awarded to nuns, 600 would be transferred to secular staff. The councillor didn’t explain what would happen to the employment prospects of the unfortunate 600. The economic effects of such enforced redundancy caused many religious houses to close down and nuns with academic qualifications were driven into low-paid occupations. Some returned to their parents or moved in with sympathetic relatives. Yet others applied for jobs in industry. The town of Baden in 1938 saw 41 nuns working in one textile factory, most former teachers. The government, twisting the knife, then announced that all nuns renouncing their vows would be automatically entitled to State employment, with guaranteed salary and pension rights attached.

Thus, on October 27, 1938, Adolf Wagner, Bavarian Minister of the Interior stated with pride: “The denominational schools throughout the whole of Bavaria have now been transformed into Community schools.” By January 1939 it was estimated that more than 10,000 Catholic schools had been suppressed and by the end of April that year the London Catholic Herald reported that a further 3,300 schools had been abolished by decree in what was described as “A black day for the Catholic Rhineland.”

Continued pressure was brought to bear on thousands of Catholic civil servants who were threatened with disciplinary measures or dismissal unless their children were enrolled in the Hitler Youth or German Girls League (BDM). Training guilds, such as the Prussian Master Craftsman Association, announced that from 1935 onwards, only those enrolled in Nazi Party organisations would be accepted as apprentices. German Railways, employing hundreds of thousands, passed a similar ordinance the same year. Even farmers began issuing notices to the same effect, with shops advertising part-time jobs following suit. The New York Times, on June 1, 1937, reported a Hitler speech referring specifically to the young: “We will take away their children. They shall not escape us.”

In spite of the growing atmosphere of intimidation and fear, protests were made by senior clerics who challenged the Third Reich and its racist, anti-Semitic and anti-Christian policies. These included Bishop Clemens Count von Galen of Munster, Archbishop von Preysing of Berlin, Cardinal Bertram of Breslau, Cardinal Schulte of Cologne and possibly the most famous of all, Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber of Munich. His series of Advent sermons, preached from the pulpit of St. Michael’s Church, aroused national and international interest. They proved so popular that thousands listened, with overflows into the streets outside. In the first of the sermons, preached on December 3 1933, Faulhaber defended Christianity by defending the people from whom it sprung: the Jews. He reminded the congregation that Christianity made no racial distinctions but asked only that its adherents should possess faith. In March 1934, the published edition of his sermons, Judaism, Christianity and ‘Germanism’ was banned for its so-called outrageous slanders on the State.

Faulhaber, undeterred, pressed on with denunciations of Nazi policy on Catholic schools, youth organisations, rigged elections, sterilisation laws, attacks on the Pope and attempts to replace Christianity with what he called ‘ersatz’ (fake) religious principles. He played a considerable role in the writing of the great anti-Nazi encyclical Mit brennender Sorge (‘With Burning Anxiety’) issued in March 1937. It denounced repeated attacks on the Catholic faith, the breaking of almost every article of the 1933 Concordat, and assailed Nazi ideology and political practice. The encyclical was smuggled into Germany under the eyes of Gestapo agents who had received warnings from Berlin to expect an important anti-Nazi pamphlet. Copies were secretly printed in various parts of the country and the underground Catholic network was engaged in distributing it to parishes throughout Germany. Hundreds of helpers, in cars, on motorbikes or bicycles, handed copies personally to priests, sometimes in the dead of night. The encyclical made it plain that the Nazis were intent on a “war of extermination” against the Catholic Church, and that after numerous rebuffs to diplomatic approaches from Rome, the Pope had decided to make a final stand.

The government reaction to the encyclical was immediate. A formal protest was sent from Berlin to Rome, and equally swiftly rejected by Cardinal Pacelli. An enraged Hitler and Goebbels cranked up the propaganda machine and once more dozens of clerics found themselves arraigned on the hoary old charges of immorality and ‘slandering’ the Nazi state. Gestapo units were mobilised to find which presses had produced the encyclical: 12 were confiscated and the editors arrested. In one parish, Essen in the diocese of Oldenburg, seven girls were arrested inside the church as they handed out copies of Mit brennender Sorge after the Palm Sunday service.

The death of Pope Pius XI in February 1939 and the election of his successor, Pacelli, drew sneers from Das Schwarze Korps (‘The Black Corps’), house newspaper of the SS and mouthpiece of Heinrich Himmler, Reichsfuhrer SS. It referred to Pius XI as the “Chief Rabbi of the Christians, boss of the firm of Judah-Rome.” Prior to this, Das Schwarze Korps had taken a leading role in propaganda attacks on Cardinal Pacelli during his official visit to France, labelling him a co-conspirator with Jews and Communists against Nazism.

The strategy of the Nazi government towards Christianity in general and the Catholic Church in particular changed gear a number of times during 1933-9. New policies could be imposed from above or rescinded as the dictates of political events changed. Sometimes central decision-making was emphasised; sometimes party organisations were given freer rein to adapt policy to local circumstances. On occasions harassment could be disguised or even halted if a propaganda coup might thus be gained. In August 1936, for example, during the Olympic Games in Berlin, orders were given to stop measures against Jews, Catholics and Protestants and to hide show trials from the eyes of foreign journalists. The pause soon ended once the correspondents left Germany.

With the coming of war in 1939, Hitler insisted that overt persecution of Christians had to take second place to the effective prosecution of military aims. Others in the party held different views, believing it was a mistake to slow the Kirchenkampf, the battle against the Church. Martin Bormann, ‘deputy’ Fuhrer, reminded Heinrich Himmler in 1941 that the “influence of the Church must be entirely eliminated.” In the event, however, the destruction was to be given a longer time-scale for accomplishment. A clue can be found in the published edition of Hitler’s Table Talk, where he stated as part of a lengthy and rambling attack on the Church that: “I have numerous accounts to settle, about which I cannot think today. But that doesn’t mean I forget them. I write them down. The time will come to bring out the big book.”

As is tragically known today, there was little division of opinion among top Nazis regarding the persecution of the Jews. The war gave Hitler undreamed of possibilities to purify Europe of non-Aryans. Slavs were to be used as labour or killed without compunction when necessary, the Jewish population to be exterminated as vermin. With the invasion of the USSR in June 1941 and the construction of the death camp network, Nazi capacity to kill reached hitherto unimagined levels.

Though the scale of Christian persecution cannot be compared to the Jewish Holocaust of 1941-1945, except perhaps in Poland, the ultimate destruction of Christianity was one of the Nazis long-term aims. From his early years of political dreaming, from within the pages of Mein Kampf to the Table Talk Hitler himself made his contempt for the ‘slave’ ideology of Christianity and its Jewish roots perfectly clear.

Baldur von Schirach, the leader of the Hitler Youth, was fond of addressing mass meetings of his followers with a motto: “We are a Youth that believes in God, because we serve the Divine Law that is called Germany.” That desperate conception of the ‘Divine Law’ was to lead, by ten thousand crooked paths, to catastrophic suffering, total war, and to the ovens of Auschwitz itself.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/art...ld/wh0033.html

Leaders who are religous? Or religious leaders?

Two quite seperate things.

Religious leaders.

As for you other points, I'm not going to further open the flood gates into the legalities of occupation and the larger Israel/Palestinian conflicts.

[Mephisto2]

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

It's wrong? So Hitler didn't kill several million Polish catholics? They weren't sent to the same concentration camps as the Jews? Here is more

No no no. that's not what I meant. Hitler did not want to subvert Christianity. He called for and claimed God's protection on many occasions.

I can post numerous references (both online and paper), and quotations if you want

As for you other points, I'm not going to further open the flood gates into the legalities of occupation and the larger Israel/Palestinian conflicts.

Well, the "Occupied Terroritories" (doesn't the name give you a clue?) are indeed illegally occupied. Everyone knows that. I don't want to open up a floodgate on the "moral" or "religious" basis of said occupation either. I think it's a very thorny issue and do not have a one sided opinion at all (in case you believe I do).

Mr Mephisto

[Mojo_PeiPei]

I guess the Bishop of Berlin was wrong to feel threatened in 1935 then...

"There can be no possible doubt that we Christians are engaged in a hard fight. The new religion of blood has declared war upon us; their battle cries range from a cold rejection of Christian doctrine to an exacerbation full of hate…The aim of this struggle in which we are now engaged is to drive Christianity out of our Fatherland."

Hitler may have tried to use the church as a manipulator of the masses, but make no doubts he did wish to remove it, it was an obstacle to the Reich and his power. Hitler's idea was called 'Positive Christianity", it was not Christian in any sense, it was pagan, and it put state and race over morality and God.

[Mephisto2]

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Hitler may have tried to use the church as a manipulator of the masses, but make no doubts he did wish to remove it, it was an obstacle to the Reich and his power.

Well I, and the respected authors and historians such as Burleigh, Bullock and Evans, disagree.

Oh, and Herr Hitler himself.

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech on 12 April 1922

and

t will at any rate be my supreme task to see to it that in the newly awakened NSDAP, the adherents of both Confessions can live peacefully together side by side in order that they may take their stand in the common fight against the power which is the mortal foe of any true Christian.
-Adolf Hitler, in an article headed "A New Beginning," 26 Feb. 1925

and

The Government, being resolved to undertake the political and moral purification of our public life, are creating and securing the conditions necessary for a really profound revival of religious life.... The National Government regard the two Christian Confessions as the weightiest factors for the maintenance of our nationality. They will respect the agreements concluded between them and the federal States. Their rights are not to be infringed.... It will be the Government's care to maintain honest co-operation between Church and State; the struggle against materialistic views and for a real national community is just as much in the interest of the German nation as in that of the welfare of our Christian faith. The Government of the Reich, who regard Christianity as the unshakable foundation of the morals and moral code of the nation, attach the greatest value to friendly relations with the Holy See and are endeavouring to develop them.
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech to the Reichstag on 23 March 1933

and

So far as the Evangelical Confessions are concerned we are determined to put an end to existing divisions, which are concerned only with the forms of organization, and to create a single Evangelical Church for the whole Reich....
And we know that were the great German reformer [Martin Luther] with us to-day he would rejoice to be freed from the necessity of his own time and, like Ulrich von Hutten, his last prayer would be not for the Churches of the separate States: it would be of Germany that he would think and of the Evangelical Church of Germany.
-Adolf Hitler, in his Proclamation at the Parteitag at Nuremberg on 5 Sept. 1934

and

The National Socialist Movement has wrought this miracle. If Almighty God granted success to this work, then the Party was His instrument.
-Adolf Hitler, in his proclamation to the German People on 1 Jan. 1939

I could go on, but I find quoting Hitler distasteful.

Both the Catholic and Protestant Churches were very powerful in Germany. To think that Hitler wanted to destroy or remove them is incorrect and, to be perfectly honest, disengenuous. It is often used as an excuse as to why many Christians did not rise up and do more. A terrible time in human history...


Mr Mephisto

[Mojo_PeiPei]

Stalin was all about the Orthodox religion when the blitzkreg was barking down his door.

[Zeld2.0]

Mojo: You do realize that the Catholic Church over the recent decades has tried to distance itself from association with the Nazi's? There have been numerous documents revealed in recent years about their associations (such as messages between Pius and Hitler) - indeed, Pope John Paul II has done much of his work as the Pope in mending religious relationships.

And you do realize that half your arguments just support the fact that its not the religion (in this case, Islam) that affects how governments are run - it is the fact that this happens to every religion but it mainly concerns how they are run which ends in result.

Countries with a majority of Christians - even deeply religious ones - have fallen to dictatorships. So have Islamic ones. So have ones in Asia in their various religions. Some have been butchers of their own people (i dont get where the idea that a religion has to support is own people all the time - indeed, Christians have fought with one another in Europe for nearly as long as Christianity has been around), others have not.

Maybe I should restate my point - be it Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, whatever, there have been similar results that lead me to believe its not a matter of religion, its a matter of people and the type of government set up.

For instance, secular Islamic countries have had mixed features:
a) Turkey - secular - one of the most pro-Western countries in the Middle East. Member of NATO and trying to apply for the EU - very close ally of the U.S. - other than the ethnicity and religion, its features would be nearly identical to any other Western democratic nation.
b) Iraq - secular - before the 91 Gulf War, it had long been supported by Western nations as a buffer against radical Islam - it, however, had a butcherous dictator for a leader.
c) Jordan - secular - ruled by the Hussein family (direct descendents of Muhammad iirc), it is ruled by the monarchy but it is a country that has been under the rule of good leaders. Indeed, the advances in literacy, health, and other conditions during the reign of the late King Hussein are considered one of the most remarkable in the Middle East. In fact, during his funeral in 1999, it was one of the most amazing things to see both radical Islamists as well as western dignitaries stand side to side to honor King Hussein - you had Clinton, Bush, Carter, Ford there along with Tony Blair, Prince Charles, Chirac, Schroder, and others there along side Araft, Syrian President Al-Assad, even Qadaffi's son. Hell, old Boris Yeltsin made the trip despite poor health.
d) Pakistan - ruled by a military dictator, but has made its moves towards democratic reforms. Typically neutral with the U.S. due to the situation between India and Pakistan - this is the second largest Muslim country in the world (first being Indonesia) but has none of the supposed features of a repressive country of death.

Indeed, this shows these countries with a nearly 100% Islamic population have had their mix of butcherous dictators as well as democracy and authoritarian leaders that have done good. You can put in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other countries where appropriate.

Then you can look at countries that have (or had) religious governments - places like Iran and Afghanistan and you can see their share of rotten apples - though it is of note that many of these happen to be the governments where religion is mixed in.

Indeed, looking at Christian/Western countries, you see similar patterns.

Lets see:

a) Argentina - it has a secular government, but it has been home to some dictators - remember Peron? Or how about the military juntas in the 70's and 80's that happened to call for the invasion of the Falkland Islands? Oh yeah, their country is overwhelmingly Christian (Roman Catholic to be exact).
b) Chile - secular government, but hey, remember Pinochet? The immediate aftermath of his takeover was 3000 executed as well as 27000 suddenly disappearing off the face of the Earth. Martial law in the country, mmmm, fun.
c) Spain - hey lets not forget Franco! Once sided with the Nazi's and Fascists to overthrow a democratic republic. Hell he ruled til the 70's and allowed the restoration of the monarchy. Ruled with an iron fist in Europe but largely ignored due to his anti-communist stance. Spain is as Christian as they get.

As you can see, Christian countries have had their own problems and thats not even counting countries like Italy and Germany where Christianity is the overwhelming majority, governments were called secular, but were mass murderers, dictators, totalitarians.

The one difference is that in most countries where Christianity is the top religion, the separation of state and religion is known and exists. I suppose thousands of years of history with such situations as the Inquistion, wars between Orthodox and Catholics, later Protestants, the influence of the Pope on politics, and other things have taught them to keep religion out of state. Islam hasn't found that in many of its countries yet (Iran, previously Afghanistan) and that has led to great oppression of ideas and people.

Indeed, since I vehemently oppose religion with state, I think they do need things to change.

But again, I contend with the idea that Islam is the root of the problem. It is not - its religion put in with government and ruling through that context that problems arrive. Religion is a powerful force - if you are a believer in religion, and there is the use of religion to tell people what to do, it becomes a powerful tool for those in powers. That of course is just part of it, but that is probably why it is so common for oppressive tactics to be used in non-secular countries.

Indeed look at the history of the world and you will see that what religion the country is doesnt matter - oppression and butcherous leaders are to be found there. Do you forget Pol Pot and the killing fields of Southeast Asia? Now there was one sick SOB with pictures taken of those who are about to be dead and the hills of human skulls. Do you forget Stalin and how he killed his own people? Do you forget Hitler? Do you forget Mao and the communists in China, who killed my great grandmother simply because she owned land? And that is only in recent history - shall we go further back and look at butchers in history? I dont forget these things happen in many countries of all religions and government types.

But you know what? I mean believe as you wish - these are things I have learned in my own studies and travels abroad. I have unfortunately witnessed my own share of problems and feelings (try taking a tour of some concentration camps like Auschwitz... your life will never be the same... its as though the stench of death has never left the place) and to each their own I guess.

[powerclown]

OT

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Many Muslim countries are anti-Amercian, the same way that Amercia is anti-Muslim. It's quid pro quo.

Anti-Terrorism, yes, but America anti-Muslim? Really?

Here in Detroit, we have the second largest Arab Muslim population outside of the Middle East. They run their own businesses, restaraunts, mosques, legal services, health clinics, car dealerships, book stores, bakeries etc. here in the city of Dearborn. There are some very wealthy muslims living in the suburbs, as well. You would pass out if you saw the house of a prominent Pakistani physician I pass on my way to work: it looks like the freaking Taj Mahal, and good for him.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to designate America as officially "Anti-Muslim." I would say America provides a decent, peaceful life to many muslim-americans. How many Muslim countries give such a welcome to an American presence?

/OT

[Charlatan]

Both sides of this debate are making sweeping judgements...

There are anti-American sentiments in many countries around the world, some of which have a larger percentage of Muslims in their population

There are anti-Muslim sentiments in some parts of America. Just as there are anti-French sentiments in America...

This is not to say that all America is anti-Muslim or all Muslim's are anti-American...

How many Muslim countries give such a welcome to an American presence?

Many can and do... But you are really comparing apples and oranges. You really can't compare North America to countries like Indonesia, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, etc. Life is not easy for *anyone* in these places...

[sob]

Well, I started this thread and got distracted by discovering that my payroll company screwed up my end-of-the-year pay. Great timing.

In glancing over it, I noticed some interesting statements.

Originally Posted by Charlatan

1. There is no difference between the two. The only difference is that the other children of the world: a) don't get plastered all over the media on a regular basis and b) the Tsunami disaster is immediate... the other childeren of the world are ongoing.

2. This encourages people to donate to a cause that needs money NOW, not a year from now... NOW.

I have trouble with the value judgement that this particular emergency is more important than many others, and I don't see that a starving child, by virtue of living somewhere besides Indonesia, should be considered able to wait for food.

I'm also glad emergency rooms don't work on this principle.

Originally Posted by Charlatan

The US gives a lot of money... the point the UN official was making was that as a percentage of total GDP the countries of the west (no country was singled out so give it an f'n rest already) gives a pittance. As for Reagan vs. Arafat... one was a former president and the other was a sitting president... I'm sure it is protocol. Are you saying that the UN should lower it's flag for ALL ex-leaders of the world when they kick off?

No, I'm saying lowering the flag for someone who ended the cold war is more appropriate than lowering it for an advocate of terrorism.

As for the article... It is sure full of hate...

So are a great many Muslims, according to the author.

However, what I intended with this post is for someone to tell me why the Indonesians are more worthy of government assistance than anyone else.

Just so we don't go off on a tangent, I'm not questioning PRIVATE donations.

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

1. Well, the tsunami completely destroyed many areas of the world. Trying to turn it into the argument you wish is retarded and seems to only try to draw some stupid ass emotional response.

It looks like I succeeded with you.

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

2. No

Come on, don't be shy!

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

I think what you fail to realize is that most Americans do not give a fuck what the UN or the rest of the world thinks. For example, after the 2004 presidential election I saw a British reporter respond to how the election was obviously a backlack against Europe. The truth is, most people in the U.S really do not give a damn about Europe.

Perhaps I would "realize" it better if you provided some evidence to support your assertion, instead of one anecdote you happened to see.

In any case, here's a cartoon that pretty much hits the nail on the head in regard to the meaning of my original post. I guess the cartoonist is as "retarded" as I am.



I can't think of a better way to express the point I was making, especially since I've met and talked to some of the "Lost Boys of the Sudan."

[Manx]

Originally Posted by sob

It's really been interesting to watch this unfold. The tsunami victims seem to be a cause that all the liberals can really get behind.

You forgot those bastions of liberalsim, George Bush Jr. and George Bush Sr. They've certainly gotten onboard the whole aid to tsunami victims bandwagon.

But since you wanted to create a polarizing discussion I suppose it makes sense for you to blame the "liberals".

If you could have put aside your own hate for anything and everything liberal, you would probably have been able to recognize some of the obvious differences between the tsunami and, as per your example, Sudan.

Here's a couple:

- The tsunami was a blindingly sudden event. The tragedy in Sudan has been slowly progressing for a decade.

- The tsunami is what is commonly referred to as an act of God, i.e. a natural occurence. The tragedy in Sudan is a political/racial conflict between groups of people.

Both of these aspects are rather significant in regards to emotional response. So it is clear why conservatives and liberals have gotten behind the tsunami relief.

Or I could flip it back on you - didn't you start a thread or complain about how the U.S. was accused of being stingy in aid? Well, now you're doing the exact same thing to "liberals" like Madonna and George Clooney. Aren't they doing enough for you by donating the money and time for any cause? You should be satisfied instead of criticizing them, right. But now you claim the you have no issue with personal contributions ... what do you call Maddona's and George Clooney's time and money? Or are celebrities not supposed to be allowed to use their celebrity status for good deeds if they don't use it for every possible good deed?

edit: On second thought, I think you just had a typo in your first post. You're actually disappointed in conservatives for getting behind this tragedy as opposed to others. ANd this must be true because you have no qualms with personal donations, so you must be referring to government donations. ANd since we have a Republican government, that must be the source of your angst. Am I right or am I right. I thought so.

[sob]

Originally Posted by Manx

You forgot those bastions of liberalsim, George Bush Jr. and George Bush Sr. They've certainly gotten onboard the whole aid to tsunami victims bandwagon.

But since you wanted to create a polarizing discussion I suppose it makes sense for you to blame the "liberals".

Just so I'm clear, how many discussions here AREN'T "polarizing?"

Anyway, you are incorrect in assuming I like everything Bush Sr. and Jr. do. My opinion is that it is inappropriate for our government to decide what charities to support. If I believe my earnings should go to the Sudan, I should be free to send them there, instead of having them confiscated and sent by our government to a cause I don't support as much.

If you could have put aside your own hate for anything and everything liberal, you would probably have been able to recognize some of the obvious differences between the tsunami and, as per your example, Sudan.

And if you could put aside your hatred, period, you'd see that my support for the Lost Boys of the Sudan could go a long way toward preventing another Rwanda. Or have you forgotten your own words:

Originally Posted by Manx

And when you're done, spend 2 hours researching Sudan so in a decade when the Hotel Sudan flick comes out you'll be like "Oh yeah, I remember that."

Here's a couple:

- The tsunami was a blindingly sudden event. The tragedy in Sudan has been slowly progressing for a decade.

- The tsunami is what is commonly referred to as an act of God, i.e. a natural occurence. The tragedy in Sudan is a political/racial conflict between groups of people.

Both of these aspects are rather significant in regards to emotional response. So it is clear why conservatives and liberals have gotten behind the tsunami relief.

When I look at two starving children, I don't find one more compelling because he came into that circumstance suddenly. How you can so blithely relegate the Sudanese to the back of the bus is beyond me.

Or I could flip it back on you - didn't you start a thread or complain about how the U.S. was accused of being stingy in aid? Well, now you're doing the exact same thing to "liberals" like Madonna and George Clooney. Aren't they doing enough for you by donating the money and time for any cause? You should be satisfied instead of criticizing them, right. But now you claim the you have no issue with personal contributions ... what do you call Maddona's and George Clooney's time and money? Or are celebrities not supposed to be allowed to use their celebrity status for good deeds if they don't use it for every possible good deed?

I call it publicity-seeking in the case of Madonna and Clooney. On second thought, I'm sure Madonna would never do such a thing.

edit: On second thought, I think you just had a typo in your first post. You're actually disappointed in conservatives for getting behind this tragedy as opposed to others. ANd this must be true because you have no qualms with personal donations, so you must be referring to government donations. ANd since we have a Republican government, that must be the source of your angst. Am I right or am I right. I thought so.

I think you should consider a switch to decaf.

[Manx]

Originally Posted by sob

Just so I'm clear, how many discussions here AREN'T "polarizing?"

5

Anyway, you are incorrect in assuming I like everything Bush Sr. and Jr. do.

If I had assumed that, I might be incorrect. But since what I did was point out that you mislabeled the people you are criticising, I am not incorrect. You are criticising the gov't for jumping on the tsunami aid bandwagon. The gov't is Republican, not liberal. You also criticize the actions of private citizens, even going so far as to call them out by name, and then you claim to not have any issue with the actions of private citizens. Clearly you are lying to yourself.

And if you could put aside your hatred, period, you'd see that my support for the Lost Boys of the Sudan could go a long way toward preventing another Rwanda. Or have you forgotten your own words:

When I look at two starving children, I don't find one more compelling because he came into that circumstance suddenly. How you can so blithely relegate the Sudanese to the back of the bus is beyond me.

It's interesting that you have now decided that I feel more compassion for tsunami victims than Sudanesse victims. I have not expressed any personal opinion on the tsunami victims, yet you quoted a thread I started which directly deals with the Sudanesse victims. You do not grasp my point in this thread, simply that I explained to you some of the major differences between the two tragedies and how those differences can affect emotional responses in people. You asked why, I gave you a much more valuable answer than your supposition of those damn "liberals".

[sob]

Originally Posted by Manx

5

If I had assumed that, I might be incorrect. But since what I did was point out that you mislabeled the people you are criticising, I am not incorrect. You are criticising the gov't for jumping on the tsunami aid bandwagon. The gov't is Republican, not liberal. You also criticize the actions of private citizens, even going so far as to call them out by name, and then you claim to not have any issue with the actions of private citizens. Clearly you are lying to yourself.

Your lack of comprehension does not make my statement a lie. It also appears that I'm not alone in my thinking:

Jolie Raps Celebrity Grandstanding for Poor
By Thomas Atkins, Reuters

Actress Angelina Jolie says she likes charity work more than acting.

DAVOS, Switzerland (Jan. 29) - Angelina Jolie, the "Tomb Raider" star voted the sexiest woman alive, said on Saturday that celebrities grandstanding as advocates of the poor can do more harm than good.

"I think you can do damage," Jolie said, a day after fellow actress Sharon Stone raised $1 million in five minutes from business tycoons at the World Economic Forum in the Swiss ski resort of Davos with a spontaneous plea for generosity.

"Celebrities have a responsibility to know absolutely what they're talking about, and to be in it for the long run," said Jolie, 29, who has spent four years as goodwill ambassador to the U.N.'s refugee agency UNHCR.

She has used her pulling power to draw public attention to humanitarian crises in Chad, Sudan and Sierra Leone, winning praises from United Nations officials, and says she donates one-third of her income to charity.

"Just being an actress doesn't help me sleep well at night. When I do something for other people, then I feel my life has value," she said.

On Friday, "Basic Instinct" star Stone jumped up from the audience during a session on funding the war on poverty and challenged the Davos elite to pledge donations for bed nets to protect African children from malaria-carrying mosquitoes.

Celebrities have taken unprecedented prominence at this year's business summit, with film stars Richard Gere, Stone and Jolie teaming up with musicians Bono, Lionel Richie, Peter Gabriel and Youssou N'Dour to plead for aid to the poor.

Jolie, who recently starred as a fighter pilot in "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow," says her role as goodwill ambassador has made her work as a film star relatively dull.

"I can't find anything that interests me enough to go back to work," she said. "I'm simply not excited about anything. I'm not excited about going to a film set."

In October, a poll in Esquire magazine named Jolie the "sexiest woman alive." That month, she toured Sudan's Darfur region, calling the humanitarian crisis there as "unbelievably horrible."

Originally Posted by Manx

It's interesting that you have now decided that I feel more compassion for tsunami victims than Sudanesse victims. I have not expressed any personal opinion on the tsunami victims, yet you quoted a thread I started which directly deals with the Sudanesse victims. You do not grasp my point in this thread, simply that I explained to you some of the major differences between the two tragedies and how those differences can affect emotional responses in people. You asked why, I gave you a much more valuable answer than your supposition of those damn "liberals".

And you do not grasp my point, so I'll ask it again:

Why are the Indonesians more worthy of the rest of the world's government assistance than anyone else?

The best answer I can come up with is "the same reason Teddy Kennedy was able to dispatch the U.S. Navy to look for his nephew."

[jorgelito]

Sob,

Actually I think there is a coherent and deliberate function of American Foreign Policy as to why our government reacted in this manner.

I believe Colin Powell himself has said: Our action in Indonesia is directly in our interest given:

1. Largest Mulsim population/country on earth
2. Opportunity to show US as a good guy and extend goodwill
3. Hopefully this type of action will pre-empt or neutralize terrorist activity, recruitment etc.
4. Our current administration, while partially neo-con, exercises a policy of realism and sometimes neo-realism. Condi herself has released a paper a few years back stating the best foreign policy be based on realist doctrine.

So, we look out for our own interest (keep in mind, I am not making any value judgement but rather, a political analysis based on facts, not emotion). Our actions are primarily predicated on that belief.

So, as the "war on terror" and such is the number one objective of US Foreign Policy our actions abroad will reflect that.

My guess would be that, if Osama was rumored to be in Darfur in Sudan, we will see US action there.

So in answer to "Why are the Indonesians more worthy of the rest of the world's government assistance than anyone else?"

Short answer: Because it's in our interest.

In purely theoretical or analytical terms it makes sense. But if one thinks about it emotionally then one will probably get upset or whatever.

[Manx]

Originally Posted by sob

Your lack of comprehension does not make my statement a lie. It also appears that I'm not alone in my thinking:

Well, you are either lying to yourself or you are lying to me. The former is more plausible because the latter would be far too obvious.

In your first post, you deride liberals and you deride private citizens. In a subsequent post you state this:

Originally Posted by sob

However, what I intended with this post is for someone to tell me why the Indonesians are more worthy of government assistance than anyone else.

Just so we don't go off on a tangent, I'm not questioning PRIVATE donations.

These are contradictory messages you are presenting. Which is? Gov't, comprised primarily of Republicans/Conservatives? Or liberals and private citizens? Which groups are you critiquing?

And you do not grasp my point, so I'll ask it again:

I explained 2 of the reasons for this in my second post in this thread. It is not my failure to grasp your point - I see you have 2 opposing points - so either you reconcile those two opposing points or you do not. In either case, the 2 reasons I pointed to are far more valuable contributions to intelligent thought than some derision for the generic "liberal".

[Lebell]

Sigh,

Please play nice.

[sob]

Originally Posted by jorgelito

Sob,


Short answer: Because it's in our interest.

In purely theoretical or analytical terms it makes sense. But if one thinks about it emotionally then one will probably get upset or whatever.

Best answer I've seen. Your reason is short on emotion, long on logic.

I like it.

[Ballzor]

Its interesting to me how many people look at the aid given in the tsunami disaster in any other way than exactly what should have happened. It's one thing to try to guilt trip Americans into dishing out for other disasters in the world. It is an entirely different thing to say, oh, now you care? My father was born in Sri Lanka and I recently visited there. One refugee camp nearly broke into a riot over such things as toothbrushes, underwear, etc. The same camp, had gone 4 days without any food delivered. This was 4 weeks after the tsunami hit. It may seem to everyone that perhaps there are other places equally deserving of such money, but I promise you every cent of these donations are going to be used. And in regards to Sri Lanka denying Israeli troops, they were there, seen them with my own eyes.


Come on fellas, politics shouldn't play any part in this discussion, but it does n thats a shame.