President Declares "Freedom at War with Fear"
A friend just reminded me of this speech that was the president's first after 9/11. For him, this speech was an immediate threat to use nucleur weapons in the Middle East. For me, nucleur weapons are at the bottom of the list.
Upon re-examination of the speech, my concerns lie with the double speak about the status of Muslims in this perpetual war, the wars strategies, and the glorification of an 'enemy' who's powers remained unknown at the time.
Regardless of my babble... read it.
Read what the man says to see if he didn't already have an agenda
Upon re-examination of the speech, my concerns lie with the double speak about the status of Muslims in this perpetual war, the wars strategies, and the glorification of an 'enemy' who's powers remained unknown at the time.
Regardless of my babble... read it.
Read what the man says to see if he didn't already have an agenda
posted by smokey spice at 3:59 AM
4 Comments:
I never had read or heard that speech before, just some excerpts (particulaly the "you are with us or against us" bit).
I do believe that Bush greatly respects true Islam, I don't think it's "double speak". Also, it's not just him personally. Most adherents to "democratic humanism", I think value and even admire true spirituality.
Welcome Heiko
You say: "I do believe that Bush greatly respects true Islam, I don't think it's "double speak". Also, it's not just him personally. Most adherents to "democratic humanism", I think value and even admire true spirituality"
With all due respect, I disagree. As much as I would disagree if someone said the same of Bin Laden. Does he respect Islam as a theology, but not Muslims as adherents? Because, otherwise, I'm not quite sure what part of democratic humanism calls for the registration, detention, and revoking of civil liberties for Muslims that have occured in this country over the last 4 years.
To me, double speak refers to saying that Islam and Muslims are not the enemy then adopting policies that criminalize Muslims and Muslim causes, regardless of their legitimacy in international politics. To me, double speak refers to speaking of the freedom that we enjoy in the US while revoking it by passing things like the Patriot Act; speaking of democracy while calling some of the largest groups of protesters 'focus groups'; speaking of democracy and liberation in Iraq and Afghanistan when anyone that follows any news knows that civil war is a more accurate depiction.
After 9/11 (especially when no attacks followed) when I wondered about the true motives, keeping in mind my background, I realized that one of the primary motives was the polarization between Muslims and the US. Bush, with his fabulous respect for Islam, has but furthered that cause. I don't even want to get into the dirt of religiously inspired politics, but I will say that it is highly influential in a person's perspective. Born again anything means trouble to me.
Honestly, I wouldn't care were he not the most powerful leader of the most powerful nation in the world. But he is.
Firstly, thanks for the warm welcome, it's appreciated, as is your nice reply to my first comment on your blog.
I noticed that your blog was linked on highlander's blog, so I presume you are Libyan? (hmm and yes my German birth doesn't make me a mass murderer either ... meaning I am asking the question out of genuine interest, and maybe curiosity, and not because I'd want to insinuate that something's wrong with you because you are Arab by origin. Sometimes, when people mention my nationality it seems to me like they are trying to blame me personally for what Hitler's done ...)
On GM's blog, I've left some comments in response to highlander, which you may find (hopefully) thought provoking (rather than merely provocative).
I live in the UK, not the US, in fact, I've never been to the United States. Here in the UK, I think Muslims are treated very well, and don't have to fear unfair treatment.
You may get strip searched at the airport for example no matter whether you are Japanese or a Muslim from Saudi Arabia.
I do think religion and race will get taken into account when there is "specific intelligence", say a witness to a murder reports him as a white male, around 40, or as an Asian around 25 with a turban ... And who wouldn't see this as entirely reasonable?
Onto stuff that worries me, I've got to talk about people like Al Muhajiroun. The government seems to have decided to shut their website down. There they wrote stuff that's just unbelievable. And I've seen their posters right here in Birmingham, open incitement to racial murder of Jews, claims that voting is shirk. They want to make Britain an "islamic state", where all 16 year olds are trained to be jihadis, there is the death penalty on apostacy etc.... When I talked to one of their sympathisers, he openly told me that he wanted England to become an Islamic State, in which non-Muslims like myself would have pay an extra tax for the priviledge of being allowed not to convert to Islam ...
Those sorts of people I think must be pursued very vigorously, and I do not class them as true Muslims. I do firmly believe that in a democracy, there cannot be tolerance for intolerance.
When I talked about "democratic humanism" I meant people who believe in liberal democracy, that is fair and regular elections, respect for minority rights, separation of church and state, freedom of religion, equality before the law and so forth. These sorts of things are accepted as the basis for living together as a community/nation in all true democracies by virtually everybody.
So, when I talked about "democratic humanism" I didn't talk about Bush, but about the average person you'd find in Japan, Canada, England or South Korea etc..., and what they think about true spirituality. I think that people admire genuine and deep faith in others, even if they themselves are atheists (and I've seen polls that indicate that there is some substance behind this suggestion of mine; if you ask an atheist in the US about Mother Theresa or Gandhi, they'll express admiration more often than not, even though they do not believe in God).
You talk about freedoms being taken away in the US, what do you mean here specifically? What freedoms do you think are being curtailed?
On Iraq and Afghanistan I passionately disagree, but have to leave that for another day, as it's three in the morning and I am getting rather tired.
Peace be with you,
Heiko
Thank you Heiko for such a well thought out response at 2 am. I can assure you that mine wouldn't be nearly that great at that time of night/morning. I hope I can answer all your questions and ask some of my own in this brief comment.
First, yes, I am Libyan (and proud) and was actually inspired to start blogging after finding Highlander's. Someone had asked her if she knew of any other Libyan bloggers... the answer was no. I realize that we Libyans tend to shy away from the lime-light and that I could take the cue from Highlander and other Libyans I respect to try to turn that around. So, vwalla.. here I am. I'm asked where I'm from all the time (as I live in San Francisco), so I realize that some people ask out of sincere interest rather than anything else. No need to worry about that with me.
It's actually ironic that you're German because Germans are kind of a running theme in life. Everywhere I go, I find the Germans somehow... and it's always been a pleasure. Some of my best friends here are German and I've come to learn and appreciate a lot about the country. I really do hope that people don't still behave like that towards you as a German, though I know that's sometimes the case.
Second, I don't know GM's blog. Who's GM? I didn't find a link from Highlander's blog, so perhaps you can direct me to it. I'm still new to the blogosphere, so any advice is helpful.
Third, I'm not entirely knowledgeable regarding the status of Muslims in the UK, but I tend to agree that they are treated well there. At least, I haven't heard much that would lead me to think otherwise.
This point I find interesting:
"I do think religion and race will get taken into account when there is "specific intelligence", say a witness to a murder reports him as a white male, around 40, or as an Asian around 25 with a turban ... And who wouldn't see this as entirely reasonable?"
The problem here is that the intelligence is not specific. In the example you offered (the witness to a murder), it would be reasonable to look for someone in a certain location based on other relevant information; it would NOT be reasonable to round up or scrutinize all men with those characteristics. I mean, are they going to round up every middle aged Asian man who might have evil thoughts about his wife or do they have more to go on?
In general, I'm against racial or ethnic (or religious) profiling just because I think, as a policy, it is ineffective and leads to the wrong end. I also can't help focusing on the abuse of such a policy.
Take it into consideration as much as necessary, but let's be reasonable about this. Why are thousands of men from Muslim countries detained without charges in places like the Brooklyn detention center, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and the other secret centers around the world? There are legal things occuring at this point in the US that would be unacceptable were another group the target.
Next, I don't know much about al Muhajiroun. I'll do some research before I say anything. Based on what you're saying, they sound familiar.... and extreme. I disagree with those kinds of policies completely. It doesn't reflect the values I was raised with, but I've also come to realize that there is a movement towards the conservative all over the world. I do think it's important to focus on these kinds of trends, so I'll take this opportunity to learn more about what's going on in the UK.
Also I think there are several ways to effect members of groups like these. Perhaps rather than pursue them, it's more effective to pursuade them. I really should end my comment now as I have to run off to work, but I will say that at times these kinds of extreme groups simmer down when brought into the main-stream. I'm thinking of Lebanon's Hizballah... a group that now functions as a mainstream political party after the woeful days of the civil war. When the game changes, so does the bevior of actors playing that game.
"I do firmly believe that in a democracy, there cannot be tolerance for intolerance." I loved this statement and agree 100%, but as everything, this has to do with perception of tolerance and intolerance.
I apparently misunderstood your reference to democratic humanism when I related it to Bush. I'll respond more fully later.
"You talk about freedoms being taken away in the US, what do you mean here specifically? What freedoms do you think are being curtailed?"
All I'll say now is that I don't just think freedoms have been curtailed, I know they have. Again, more later, but I'll give you a hint now. Centralization is not liberal; the Patriot Act and its effects on the due process of law.
Bye for now.
Post a Comment
<< Home