A perfect example of US myopia and hypocrisy on the issue.

"There is no moral equivalent for this [WTC] act," the mayor said.

I guess all the hundreds of thousands of people US "terrorism" murdered in Cambodia and Laos - to name just one recent US foreign policy event - doesn't count?

Think: how many WTC equals what the US did ONLY in Cambodia and Laos? And US "leaders" consider it an insult to even have to consider US foreign policy and how it might lead people to retaliate against the US?

After the US kills a bunch of Afghanis - innocent and otherwise - in revenge, will anything have changed? -Not if, as the Prince gently and intelligently pointed out, US foreign policy remains the same. Seems he's trying to help in more than one way.

Gee, way to go Rudy.

Some of our Anonymous Cowards at least have the courage to label themselves.

Innocent people die in any war. But at least we don't set out to kill them, unlike the terrorists who provoked this conflict.

Man this place does have a tendency to attract flies.

Rudy just gave America another $10 million reasons not to sit on the sidelines and take any shit. Not from anybody.

There IS NO MORAL EQUIVALENCY. NONE.

stylo~, your analogies are shit.

War is war, terrorism is murder, US foreign policy never murdered anyone.

I think there was an opportunity here to talk about how Bin Laden et. al. use the Palestinian situation as a stalking horse for their true intention of establishing repressive theocracies in the middle east to replace the repressive monarchies of the middle east.

I think it might have been good to get this Saudi Prince to understand that the US Gov't is not buying the links Bin Laden talks about. And have him spread the word in the Middle East.

Just as they have to listen to where we are coming from, we have to listen to where many of them are coming from.

Though I'm in the USA, I have a sense that the opinion of the person-in-the-street across the Arab world is that we remain a clueless giant but-in-ski.

And beware statements like "US foreign policy never murdered anyone" - they have a shaky foundation in my opinion.

1) "War is war, terrorism is murder, US foreign policy never murdered anyone."
2) "But at least we don't set out to kill them."

-these are the most uninformed statements I have read in quite some time.

1)
no state + war + killing our enemies = "freedom fighter"
(the founding of the US, Bin Laden vs. the Russians)
no state + war + killing = "terrorist," "inhuman," "evil"
(Bin Laden vs. US, Palestinians vs. Israel)
state + war + killing = "john wayne," "justice," "moral rectitude"
(Israel vs. Palestinians, US vs. whomever, etc.)

1,2)
Allende, et al??? (To speak only of famous individuals. I'll let you take a mulligan on that one.)

When exactly was war declared on Cambodia or Laos? And their grotesque carpet bombing by the US was just another shining example of US humanitarianism, was it, no one was supposed to get hurt? (And again, the WTC is a drop in the bucket compared to how many the US killed there.) Again, that is only ONE example of US foreign policy and one not even related to the WTC.

The question is: Why exactly was the WTC attacked? If you know the answer to that, you perhaps know how to prevent it, or at least live without hypocrisy. The Saudi prince provided some good hints. You might read Bin Laden's speeches as well. They're fairly clear. -Then, and only then, can you think about possible options. Perhaps present US foreign policy is the best of all possible options? Unlikely, but possible. First, however, you need to think, though this website is obviously not the place for that.

(While here I might also add that Giuliani was magnificent in the aftermath, but his simplistic speech to the UN was like that of a grade 12 valedictorian. Gravitas was apparently to heavy for him. Hand on heart is so much lighter.)

charles, I believe you should stop being such a narrow-minded cnut.

erm... what?! oh! hehe sorry :) what is page for?! a nz guy gave me this url and here am I.
Terrorism is a wrong thing. Period. US is just right in fighting against terrorism, and if some innocents die, then so be it, that's for a good cause (soldiers also die).

yeah war is war its normal terrorist is bad .. war isnt that bad its normal for US right? the self proclamed owners of the world? heh its wrong what they did to WTC but a lot of things that US do also isnt right ... well whatever if they only can TRY making things better with cruiser missiles... probably that only motivates other terrorists to do even worst ...

yeah war is war its normal terrorist is bad .. war isnt that bad its normal for US right? the self proclamed owners of the world? heh its wrong what they did to WTC but a lot of things that US do also isnt right ... well whatever if they only can TRY making things better with cruiser missiles... probably that only motivates other terrorists to do even worst ...

Geez, I go to bed to try to get a night's sleep without dreaming about planes crashing, and when I wake up I find our weblog has been taken over by apologentsia and ignorant children.

Like I said, GO RUDY!

By the way, for the record, I deleted one of the comments in this thread and banned the poster, because it was abusive and insulting.

And "stylo~", you're on the brink too, by posting your insults and muddled moral equivalency anonymously. The Saudi prince you describe as "gentle" and "intelligent" is in reality a spoiled, rich, arrogant leader of one of the most repressive and brutal societies on Earth, and he was trying to make political points with radical Saudis over the dead bodies of thousands of innocent civilians. It was disgusting, and so are you for trying to make apologies for mass murderers.

If you're so fond of the "gentle, intelligent" Saudi Arabians, I suggest you go live there, for a hard lesson about just how "gentle" they are. If you're married, be sure to take your wife, so she can experience the gentle, intelligent Saudi attitude toward women. Maybe you're gay. If so, be sure to bring your boyfriend or girlfriend so they can experience the gentle, intelligent Saudi attitude toward homosexuality.

GO RUDY!

Can Americans never take criticism?

Quote:
I think there was an opportunity here to talk about how Bin Laden et. al. use the Palestinian situation as a stalking horse for their true intention of establishing repressive theocracies in the middle east to replace the repressive monarchies of the middle east. I think it might have been good to get this Saudi Prince to understand that the US Gov't is not buying the links Bin Laden talks about. And have him spread the word in the Middle East.

Joe,

Nothing about what Giuliani did stops us from attempting to spread that message. You're right, the Palestinian situation is being used in a cynical way by Bin Laden and his cronies. But there are many more serious obstacles to communicating that message than Rudy giving back a check!

I have an enormous amount of respect for Giuliani for giving back that Saudi blood money. It's a very human, non-politician thing to do. It's what I would have done.

But when you say we should "make the Saudi prince understand" -- do you really think that's possible? Remember that the current Saudi regime is deeply in bed with radical extremists, and even now is refusing to freeze Bin Laden assets and impeding the investigation.

Chris,

If someone came into my house, told me his name was a nasty word for female genitalia, then started yelling insults at me, I'd throw him out. Comprende?

But when you say we should "make the Saudi prince understand" -- do you really think that's possible? Remember that the current Saudi regime is deeply in bed with radical extremists, and even now is refusing to freeze Bin Laden assets and impeding the investigation.

Perhaps I'm naive, but I think telling the Saudi's where we're coming from - particularly the Saudi leadership - can only help.

Your words for Rudy G's action were that they were the human thing to do. In my mind stating plainly that we have a point of view and it needs to be heard is the American thing to do.

I think Rudy's action was a Boston Tea Party, but was an opportunity for something with more intellectual heft -- something to be heard 'round the Arab world.

I think Rudy's great, but he only get's a B-/C+ for this one. Otherwise the man's straight A's as a statesmen.

I once again commend you, charles, for attempting to run a board like this.

more on this: our side of the story is not getting to the masses in the middle east's - it's osama's story that has mindshare.

Joe,

I just posted a link to an article at Slate that makes a similar argument, and it's a good one.

But I don't think Rudy's rejection of a hypocritical Saudi "donation" is necessarily the best platform to make this point.

I've been reading that Bush is considering an offer to be interviewed by the Al Jazeera TV station that seems to be Bin Laden's main conduit to the outside world.

We'd disagree on that point then. I think the world is rife for opportunities for statemen right now. The idea of Bush on al jazeera is a great one though. One of the many things that needs to happen is a coordinated, smart media-fest on the Arab world.

Don't forget that Giuliani has been right in the middle of the horror from the start. His patience for hypocrisy may be a bit strained.

Charles, it seems like you think the US is 100% right and everyone who says anything negative about the US is 100% wrong.

I don't know if what stylo was saying is true or not, but you've failed to address the real meat of his argument -- the US actions in Cambodia and Laos. Instead, you use ad homenim attacks.

As an American, I find it difficult to even find information on my own government's actions around the world, let alone know the ramifcations of them or the reasons for them.

Like I said, I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong, I'm just saying that I don't think that anything in this world is so simple as "The US is fair and just at all times."

Only one thing, what I wonder about: WHY, WHY, why, keeps the US Saudi Arabia as an allie or its "best friend" in the region, when it is such a repressive government? Think about it... It is not all THAT simple, not black and white, there is always lots of gray...
I anybody has seen abc's documentaion yesterday night, you might realise how complicated the whole issue with afghanistan is.

It is right, there is NO justification for Terrorism, NEVER, but one should have the greatness to at least THINK what one could do to better the relationship to the Arabian World (This means NOT to the Terrorists) .. and this HAS something to do with foreign politics... Seeing the relationship at the moment, something seems to be wrong...

It's not that simple as many here see it, that's my 5 cents
tc

Quote:
I don't know if what stylo was saying is true or not, but you've failed to address the real meat of his argument -- the US actions in Cambodia and Laos. Instead, you use ad homenim attacks.

The meat of his argument? What on earth does the history of the Vietnam conflict have to do with Rudy Giuliani returning a Saudi check? And please, don't start lecturing me about how it's all interconnected. These are just outrageous statements, totally off topic -- not arguments.

The only thing he wrote that is on-topic is his ridiculous characterization of the Saudi prince's statement as "gentle and intelligent." So that's the part I responded to; the rest of it is just the same old tiresome anti-Americanism people like him trot out at the slightest opportunity, so they can seem intelligent.

You obviously haven't read much of what I've posted if you think I'm saying the "US is 100% right." You might be interested to know that I demonstrated against the very bombings that stylo~ felt compelled to bring up.

But I absolutely do think that Rudy Giuliani was 100% right. No, actually... 1000% right.

Can Americans never take criticism?

Yes they can.

Lemme ask you. If your sister was raped, and your neighbors began to suggest she 'had it coming' and then some rich twat rolled into town and left a note with a cheque saying the very same things, would you stand on that side of the arguement? I doubt it.

Wake the fuck up. America was raped on 9-11, it doesn't matter what her reputation was. Not one damn bit. Hell, she probably deserves the occasional derisive remark, even a strong rebuke by her parents and perhaps her preacher, but when the neighbours begin gossiping about her in her time of need, it's time for her brothers to kick some ass. And it would be not to surprising to see her friends rally round her. So piss off, we're not over simplifying her history.

My humble opinion. You are now returned to your regular programming.

Charles said: "If someone came into my house, told me his name was a nasty word for female genitalia, then started yelling insults at me, I'd throw him out. Comprende?"

No, you've lost me there. What has "a nasty word for female genitalia" got to do with this?

I also fail to see how the Saudi prince's remarks equate to "yelling insults". I think he made some good points! Here:

"I believe the government of the United States of America should re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stance towards the Palestinian cause."

Sounds like the words of a gentle debate, not an insulting attack.

"Our Palestinian brethren continue to be slaughtered at the hands of Israelis while the world turns the other cheek."

Again, I don't see him saying anything there that is blatantly attacking or insulting America. Oh, I see, Israel is an ally. No, that doesn't explain it either.

I put it down to an American 'blindness' to diplomacy in the present climate. Anyone who dares to say "Hold on, maybe we should look at the causes of these terrorist attacks" is flamed and put down. Like I know I will be here in your replies.

Come out from the bunker Charles, and try to see things from an international perspective. (Oh no, that guarantees a flame!)

In the UK here, we've been living with terrorism for over 30 years. I speak of the IRA. Their bombs have targeted not just N.Ireland, but also mainland Britain. London, Manchester, and so on. While America has been relatively free from such terrorism until now. So perhaps we see things in a calmer light? Though of course, what happened in your country completely overshadows what we've seen happen here.

The irony is that the IRA are/were funded by AMERICA! How we felt disgust as Sinn Fein leader Jerry Adams was treated as a celebrity in America, on his fund-raising exploits. (Sinn Fein are the political wing of the IRA.)

The FBI have just closed down a radio website which invited IRA members to speak after their attacks. The American owner was trying to defend the site, but he refused to condemn the events of Sept 11! He dodged every question. For too long we have tolerated these organisations, and now America is waking up to what they are capable of - you don't have to go to Afghanistan to find terrorists.

One last flame-bound comment: surely Rudy should have ACCEPTED the cheque, because he could have chosen to IGNORE the comments of the note it came with. Why? Because don't you think $10m would have helped a hell of a lot of people? I can't help feeling he has let them all down, over a petty schoolyard quibble over what another man said about his country. He should have taken the money, surely?

Now he will have upset Saudi Arabia. Why does that count? They hold all the OIL. Without them, it's sure gonna be harder to live. So said the radio news today. One country you do NOT want to turn cheques down from!

Chris,

You're totally misunderstanding me. I was referring to the message I deleted. You didn't see the insults because they are now just digital memories.

Two points:

1. It's very inconsistent to say that on one hand the US isn't diplomatic enough, while on the other hand the US should have been more aggressive about pursuing other terrorist organizations. Which way do you want it, diplomacy or stronger enforcement?

Fact is that each situation in our vastly complex foreign policy has its own rules of realpolitik, and has evolved over time, not always the way we might prefer.

2. I strongly disagree with your opinion that Rudy should have taken the check and shut up. If you don't understand why I feel that way, then we'll have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Charles appears incapable of handling scales without putting his thumb on one side, so we'll put the scales on the table and enunciate clearly. Apologies to those with ears.

-I didn't say that Giuliani should have accepted the check, or refused it. I said it was a good example of hypocrisy. Politicians are often, of necessity, hypocritical. Doesn't mean we need be.
-I didn't say the Prince or Saudi Arabian policy was gentle and intelligent. I said...
-I didn't say anything about Vietnam.
-I didn't say that the US killing of Cambodians and Laotians has anything to do with the WTC. In fact, the opposite. (see point 1 below to see how it fits in.)

The argument is against hypocrisy:

1)
no state + war + killing our enemies = "freedom fighter"
(the founding of the US, Bin Laden vs. the Russians)
no state + war + killing = "terrorist," "inhuman," "evil"
(Bin Laden vs. US, Palestinians vs. Israel)
state + war + killing = "john wayne," "justice," "moral rectitude"
(Israel vs. Palestinians, US vs. whomever, etc.)

2)
The analogy is not the raping of your sister, the analogy is that your brother is the leader of a gang, bullies and kills people all over - as well as helps some, out of close or distant self-interest, as gang leaders do - then, when someone attacks your house, you are utterly shocked and uncomprehending. (The solution, no doubt you will note, is to either kill all your enemies, or consider your brother's habits outside the house. -Or both if you like.)

3)
while on the subject of hypocrisy, for Charles personally:
-I quote from your site: "email (optional)", "home page (optional)." Changing the rules after the game starts is, what do you call it? un-American?

Yes, that's it: "un-American."

Now, for our reading pleasure, Ray will demonstrate the nobility of the English language...

stylo~

Nothing like blaming the victim. There is NO justification for the terror of Sept. 11. NONE.

The rape analogy is exactly right.

Grow up.

Who said anything about "justification"?

And certainly then, by your argument, there is NO justification for US foreign policy past and present killing hundreds of thousands of people. NONE. And the US is a rapist, too, right?

-This is your argument, not mine. You're welcome to it.

Appears we have a society of thinkers there. -Like the ones burning KFCs overseas. They, too, with puffed-out chest, write on the wall with capital letters.

You're not worth one second more of my time.

Leon Wieseltier has demonstrated the nobility of the english language quite adequately.

I leave this thread with this link.

Heroes

There is no nobility in argueing with text posted in a forum.

alternatives?

NO offense: beef up defense.

Call Bin and tell the old boy we're sorry for whatever we've done. Really sorry.

Make Sept 11th Bin Laden Day. A national holiday...for the man who finally made the U.S. A. see its evil ways.
Closing all schools and federal offices.

I think Ray meant the author of the book, Heroes, not the typist accidentally linked to.

OK, enough. Good luck with the monologue Charles.

[browser weirdness above]

I think Ray meant the author of the book, Heroes, not the hack accidentally linked to.

OK, enough. Good luck with the monologue Charles.

[Ahh, missing quote weirdness, here goes again...]

I think Ray meant the author of the book, Heroes, not the hack accidentally linked to.

OK, enough. Good luck with the monologue Charles.