Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [OT] facism gaining ground in US

[Ron Parker]

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 23:34:25 +0200, nadim <address@hidden> wrote:

> >    You've never lived or experienced a fascist state if you truly think
> > that. In Iran people get beaten & jailed for talking about having fair
> > elections.
> 50 years ago, black were beaten to death because they talked to a white
> girl or wanted to have equal rights.  I'm sorry Pierce but you have been
> taking us for idiots long enough. Open your eyes and stop talking about
> other when the subject is about you. You might not feel that the US is
> fascistic towards its people but I think it is towards the world.

/me counts to 10.

Okay, still don't like that comparison. So here goes. The original
comment seemed to be in reference to the behavior of the State. On the
other hand, your comment about blacks being beaten to death 50-years
ago in the U.S. has nothing to do with the State and everything to do
with a few bigoted-racist individuals. That is not fascism.

Were some blacks killed 50 years ago by whites in America because they
talked to a white girl? I can't think of a specific instance off of
the top of my head, but I wouldn't dispute that it could have happened
either.

Were there race riots in the 60s? Yes, as a matter of fact they got
pretty bad and it was a rather frightening time when my father and an
uncle had to go to the hospital downtown to pick up my newborn cousin
and his mother.

Did people die in the race riots? Probably on both sides, those
protesting and breaking the peace and those attempting to maintain the
peace.

But these are isolated and rare occurrences, not the usual behavior of
the people or the State.

There have also been cases of blacks beating whites to death because
they happened to be driving through the wrong neighborhood.
Specifically, I am referring to the riots that resulted from, IMO, the
media's very deceitful handling of the Rodney King beatings.  But by
the same token, when I grew up in St. Louis, Missouri a white person
was very likely to be beaten for just stepping foot on the streets in
East St. Louis, Illinois just across the river.

Now some of the individuals involved in any of those situations may or
may not have worked for the government. But that does not mean that
the government condoned or performed those actions.

That is a pretty big difference in my book. Please do not confuse the
actions of bigoted or angry individuals with the official behavior of
a government.

Have there been abominable things that certain people in official
positions have been responsible for over the years? Yeah, and no doubt
in most other countries as well.

> >  I can. I think going into Iraq was the right thing to do. How we
> > presented it to the world was terrible, but that's a different issue.
> 
> This is exactly the kind of answers that piss me off. You should work for
> Bush because you master the "denial" technique better than he does. Do you
> think it was a good idea to invade Irak because it could use the weapons
> you sold it to attack you?

Making Iraq about "WMD" was probably the stupidest decision of Bush's
political career. Were there legitimate reasons unrelated to that for
going into Iraq? At least I have heard reasoned arguments that there
were.

If we went in to deal with Saddam because of his support of terrorism,
after 9/11 I could have stood behind that decision and even have
stomached telling the rest of the world "get lost, this is our war."
But that is not what happened and Bush has horribly managed the entire
situation.

In my opinion what is abominable is that the U.S., which supposedly
stands for religious freedom, is at least partially responsible for
instituting an officially Islamic gov't. complete with Sharia Law in
Iraq. As a matter of fact the only official position given to a
Christian in Iraq, is the Minister of Emigration. I can't stand the
irony of that, given that the 2.5 million Christians in Iraq are about
to find themselves on the wrong side of the law.

> Saddam also gave the impression to be a loose canon but in fact was a nice
> guy that had quite a lot of pals in the US. 

Perhaps for a very strange definition of "nice guy". What part of
using nerve gas on thousands of Kurds makes him a nice guy? Thousands
of Kurds vs. millions of Jews during WWII could be used to draw an
interesting comparison to another well know fascist dictator.

> Maybe someone should invade
> you, kill your people, steal your oil and beat your people in jails for
> you to understand the question.

Okay, you wanted a reasoned discussion. I have to wonder what your
personal agenda is, given such inflammatory statements.

> Where are the WMD and all other nasty stuff? Still think it was worth killing 
> 10K+ people to prove nothing.

How do you measure worth? If 10,000 people die and potentially keep
>10,000 alive is that "worth" it? I'm not willing to make those kind
of judgments. If war must be fought, it should be fought based on
principles. But all war stems at some level from the lusts found in
man's heart. So, I cannot be so naive.

However, the idea of limited warfare is a joke.  A reasonable person
tries to minimize the unnecessary loss of life, even in war. But to
expect to fight a war and only have "the guilty" die is also naive.  I
have not met a mind-reading bullet, bomb or missile. It is impossible
not to have innocents die in a war.

>From those I have spoken with that are coming back from Iraq, most of
the people there are glad Saddam is gone. Yes others are not. He was
one of the greatest financial backers of terrorism in the world. And
apparently there are still those that believe terrorism is a useful
and effective tactic for obtaining their desired results or we would
not be seeing the kind of violence that has cropped up in Iraq,
Israel, Palestine, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Sudan, etc.

> > We don't have to be perfect: The US is often looked to as an honest
> > broker, not
> > because we're truly honest, but often just because we're the best from
> > a list of bad choices.
> 
> The one that sees the US as anything close to honnest is a fool. I think
> you (Pierce) are either taking this as a joke or are completely brain
> washed.
>
> I would have prefered to argue with a Bush lover (hell it would have been
> nice to hear their political opinion) than with you because I believe you
> to be false! Thanks to the two or three "real mails" (IMHO of course),
> that some (other) guys wrote, this thread wasn't completely useless. What
> I was looking for was feelings and description of lifes some Us guys have
> so I could understand better how it is to be one of you and try to
> understand how your society works (and still have hope after, which I
> still do ) not empty rethoric which main point was to go from the primary
> subject (though you are right, more than 10 focused answers are difficult
> to achieve but you diverged quicker than that)

I would be curious to hear your opinion on a couple of subjects,
Nadim. I may be falsely assuming from your full(er) name, Nadim Ibn
Hamouda El Khemir, an Arabic heritage, if so, I apologize. Despite a
middle name of David I am primarily English and German, not having a
drop of middle-eastern blood to my knowledge. If you are more
comfortable replying off-list that is fine. I am actually interested,
I am not really trying to anger or pick a fight.

1. Which forms of government and ideologies are superior and why?
(Since they have come up in this thread) fascism, democracy, sharia
law?

2. Is there a proper use for what our media calls terrorism in the world?

3. How do the legitimacy of the Palestinian fought intifada and the
American fought war in Iraq compare?

> Happy voting to all of you, Nadim.

I'm just glad I get one this year, even if it doesn't mean much.

P.S. If this is too OT and Tom wants to end this discussion, I will
respect that.