Anti anti-Americanism

Ah, and I was thinking about the Vice Prez...

Ticomaya wrote:

candidone1 wrote:

Maybe anti-Americanism is not a result of post-Cold War "superpower envy" as some authors and journalists have suggested, and is either a learned response, or simply knee-jerk reaction to all the flag waving self-congratulatory citizens who themselves have a superiority complex, not because of any objective or perceived superiority, rather, by default vis a vis their citizenship in a nation that encourages and promotes such blind arrogance disguised as vigorous patriotism

Give us your perspective .... do you think the US has a "superiority complex" of which you are envious? You don't like patriotism, and you hate those that do? Please tell us: What is the cause of your anti-Americanism?

I think the US has a superiority complex.
No I am not jealous of it.
I never said that I hate patriotism.
Never said that I hate those who are patriots.
Did you read my post...or just invent text between the lines?

I find that anyone who is so quick to tag an author as a moron is very likely to be wearing that tag around his own neck........does if fit perfectly big eye?

I can see that McGentrix is another poster with high blood pressure.

My congratulations to Intrepid for tagging America for what it is, an arrogant state that assumes vainglorious titles. Further congratulations to Setanta and old europe for adopting the perfect stance and attitude toward Hanson's silly article.

And, rayban, what is wrong with telling the truth? Hanson's article is badly reasoned and about as meaningful as a cheer at a soccer match.

Anti-U.S. Riot Turns Deadly in Afghanistan

Wednesday May 11, 2005 9:16 PM

JALALABAD, Afghanistan (AP) - Shouting "Death to America!" more than 1,000 demonstrators rioted and threw stones at a U.S. military convoy Wednesday, as protests spread to four Afghan provinces over a report that interrogators desecrated Islam's holy book at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay.

Atkins wrote:

I can see that McGentrix is another poster with high blood pressure.

My congratulations to Intrepid for tagging America for what it is, an arrogant state that assumes vainglorious titles. Further congratulations to Setanta and old europe for adopting the perfect stance and attitude toward Hanson's silly article.

And, rayban, what is wrong with telling the truth? Hanson's article is badly reasoned and about as meaningful as a cheer at a soccer match.

What is wrong with telling the truth indeed. I'm still waiting to know which part of the article I posted is not the truth...

Atkins, you seem to know everything, perhaps you could explain?

And you can also recognize the truth that forms an opinion, yes?

History is written by the victors. Already, before the Anglo-American conquest of Iraq is even complete, the creation of myths, the distortion of facts and the abuse of language is in full swing, with hacks, propagandists, "analysts" and politicians - some of whom cannot even pronounce the name "Iraq" - in the driving seat

Conquest has become liberation. The heroic resistance fighters have become terrorists. Looters and outright criminals have become figures of admiration, their crimes symbols of their newly-found freedom, to be marvelled at rather than condemned. Genuine joy at the fall of a tyrant is being deliberately and misleadingly portrayed as an expression of welcome for the invaders.

Some of these misrepresentations may be the result of genuine ignorance and the lack of professionalism on the part of journalists, particularly the embedded ones, many of whom are poorly-trained and inexperienced but fiercely ambitious freelancers who have been temporarily hired by the big broadcasting networks specifically to cover the aggression against Iraq.

For these journalists, this is their "big break", their chance to "make it" to the national and global media with false scoops and the distortion of events which, for them, become "news" only when simplified beyond any recognition. They have little time to check their sources or corroborate their facts, let alone learn about the history and culture of Iraq and its neighbours. Here, the soundbite and the drama are far more important than the truth, which might not appeal to their bosses and the political elite back home.

But there are also more sinister forces at work - politicians in Washington and London with a specific political agenda to drive, and more senior journalists, some on the payroll of the British and US security services, others willing accomplices in the campaign of disinformation and propaganda conducted by the Anglo-American aggressors.

We shall restrict our comments to the British broadcast media - namely, the BBC and Independent Television News (ITN) - since we do not think that the US media is worthy of our comment, but what we have to say will also apply to the US media as well.

Perhaps the most oft-repeated distortion has been the reporting of Iraqi resistance in southern Iraq and elsewhere. Almost without exception, this was described in the British broadcast media as resistance by pro-Saddam Hussein die-hards, the presumption being that all Iraqis welcomed the invasion and those who fought against it must, therefore, be people whose fate is so intertwined with that of Saddam Hussein that they have no choice but to fight against the invaders.

But anyone who knows anything about the people who sustained Saddam Hussein's regime would know that these are the last people on earth who would fight for anything. They are time servers who take their cue from the direction of the wind. They are the people who have now mysteriously evaporated in their thousands and will undoubtedly re-emerge when the time is ripe to serve the US and Britain and whoever replaces Saddam.

To their eternal shame, not one British radio or television outlet, not one broadcast correspondent, referred to the Iraqi resistance simply as resistance to invasion and occupation. Not one single reporter had the grace or integrity to acknowledge what must have been obvious to all but the most ignorant and bigoted: that hatred of the Saddam regime does not equal support for invasion and occupation and that there are many Iraqis who are willing to lay down their lives in defence of their country. (One embedded American reporter, speaking on ITN news, even stooped to the level of describing resistance at Baghdad airport as "terrorism".)

It is hardly surprising, then, that these selfsame hacks were almost unanimous in describing scenes of joy in Baghdad as expressions of welcome for the British and American invaders.

One such scene, in a predominantly Shi'i eastern district of Baghdad, consisted of a demonstration by young men chanting "There is no god but God and Saddam is the enemy of God" (Arabic: "La ilah illa Allah wa Saddam aduw Allah"). This was described by both the BBC and ITN as a demonstration in support of the Anglo-American invaders. But anyone with a little Arabic (the reporters in question must have had Arabic translators) and a rudimentary knowledge of Iraq's religious make-up would know that this was (a) a demonstration against Saddam the tyrant, (b) a demonstration by Shi'i young men against Saddam the (nominally) Sunni and secular leader or (c) both of these. There was no expression of welcome for the invaders. The reporters must have been aware of this.

Other reports by the BBC and ITN showed smaller celebrations by crowds in the streets, which were similarly described as expressions of gratitude for the invading forces. But this was more a description of the reporters' wishful thinking than of an established fact. As one observer pointed out, these same crowds were celebrating Saddam Hussein's leadership just a few days earlier. So why have they suddenly become a vindication of Washington's and London's prediction that Iraqis would welcome the invaders with open arms? They may also have been expressing joy at the fact that the invaders had not murdered them, or they may have been joyful because they could now loot and create chaos.

The bringing down of Saddam Hussein's statue in central Baghdad, which was described by Robert Fisk of the Independent as "the most staged photo-opportunity since Iwo Jima", became an obsession by the BBC and ITN, which repeated the same footage of the event ad nauseum all day on 9 April 2003, as if the statue were Saddam Hussein himself. The event was described by these broadcasters as one where more or less the entire population of the Iraqi capital had come out to destroy the statue. The fact is, as this wide-angle photograph shows, only about 100 people took part in this act, and then went on to loot and pillage from public buildings and private shops. Most Baghdadis stayed at home, not because they loved Saddam, but because they feared for their lives. (You can also see a sequence of video grabs of the event. This will take a few minutes to download. After downloading, view the whole page, right to the end, in order to see all the grabs. You can view the video grabs by clicking here.)

Your facts, truth and opinion, don't always cohere with mine. Problem is McG, you are consistently of the opinion that yours are always infallible.