http://www.examiner.com/a-883730~John_R__Thomson__Whose_genocide_will_it_be_.html [rquoter] Commentary John R. Thomson: Whose genocide will it be? John R. Thomson, The Examiner 2007-08-16 07:00:00.0 Current rank: # 2 of 9,280 WASHINGTON - Throughout most of the Muslim world, in madrassas and mosques, in the press and on television, with hardly a voice countering the calumnies, the United States is charged, tried and convicted as the world’s modern leader in genocide aimed at Muslims. President Bush, supported by his accomplice Israel, supposedly leads this Muslim massacre. America is berated for heinous crimes, minimizing whatever may have been done by the regimes of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein and, currently, Sudanese President and Field Marshal Omar al-Bashir. This propaganda campaign seeks to distract the world’s attention from the real murderers, the true ethnic and religious cleansers. For the truth is, the perpetrators to an overwhelming degree are the Muslims themselves. Simultaneously, the accusations are calculated to inflame the credulous Arab/Muslim street, in order to justify murderous Muslim terrorism, to recruit gullible suicide bombers and to attract covert support from Saudi Arabia, once a stalwart U.S. ally. Statistics from publicly available sources decimate what fanatical Islamists are telling the world about the two terrible, sadistic “Satans” and reveal that Muslims have slaughtered millions of their fellow Muslims, for political, religious or ethnic reasons. Not incidentally, this frightening phenomenon is a principal danger in premature U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. In Indonesia, with the world’s largest Muslim population, 400,000 were murdered in 1965-66. Adding East Timor, between 1975 and 1999, another 100,000 to 200,000 Muslims and Christians were killed by the Indonesian army. The Bangladeshi fight for independence from Pakistan in 1971 led to between 1.4 million and 2 million Muslims deaths. In Somalia’s long-running civil war, at least 550,000 Muslims have perished. Just one 1988 aerial bombardment ordered by dictator Siad Barre flattened Somaliland’s regional capital, Hargeisa, and slaughtered 50,000. Sudanese Muslim regimes have conducted 50 years of genocide in the south of blacks, Nubians and other Muslims, resulting in 2.6 million to 3 million fatalities, including 2.4 million civilian deaths, with Darfur the current killing field. In Afghanistan, the Soviet Union’s 1979 invasion and subsequent occupation produced between 1 million and 1.5 million civilian Muslim murders over 10 years, plus another 90,000 Mujahedeen and Taliban fighters, equally split between Soviet and warring Muslim factions. The American invasion in 2001 created perhaps 10,000 fatalities, interrupting the estimated 1.2 million additional deaths generated by Muslim militias’ protracted civil war following Soviet withdrawal. The Taliban’s current one-by-one assassinations of two dozen Korean Christian aid workers are a ghastly exception from routine murders of fellow Afghan Muslims. In Iraq, the 1980-88 war with Iran produced more than 1.5 million Muslim deaths. Saddam’s endless domestic purges added another million, mostly Shia and Kurd deaths. The current Sunni-Shia confrontation is estimated to have caused another 100,000 deaths to date. Neighboring Iran suffered between 450,000 and 970,000 deaths during the 1980-88 Iraq-Iran war, plus unknown thousands of dissidents killed by Iran’s secret police since 1979. In Syria, the late President Hafez al-Assad attacked the city of Hama in 1982, murdering 20,000 Muslim Brotherhood members and innocent civilians ... not to mention one murderous action after another in Lebanon, accounting for at least 130,000 deaths. The foregoing does not consider lethal activities in Chad, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Turkey, Yemen and Zanzibar, Tanzania’s island province. Expert estimates total up to 600,000 mostly Muslim fatalities in these areas since 1960. Who are the real perpetrators of this genocide, the people committing these religious and ethnic cleansings — these massacres? Overwhelmingly, Muslim murderers have massacred their co-religionists, and continue to do so. Were we to leave Iraq precipitately, it is very likely hundreds of thousands — possibly millions — of Muslims would be killed by fellow Muslims, goaded on by Iran to the east and Syria to their west, in a full-scale sectarian civil war. Should such a tragedy occur, would the world correctly consider the United States an accomplice to genocide? In such a situation, sadly, yes. Geopolitical analyst John R. Thomson has lived and worked in Arab and other Muslim countries for four decades.[/rquoter]
the premise is bullsh!t. many muslims are well aware and absolutely condemn the violence that was stated in the article if not a lot of other ones not mentioned. perhaps not as many as should be. but thats a lack of education, not a character flaw. however many times these acts were directly a result of or at least with implicit approval from the US. to ignore that is absurd. to highlight the iraq iran war without discussion our centrality to it is intellectually dishonest. to discuss indonesia and not talk about who supported suharto is problematic. or mentioning the massacre in bangladesh without mentioning how the US supported pakistan both militarily and in the UN during this genocide. of course this doesn't absolve these muslim nations from the crimes they committed. but again, nuanced positions aren't just for smart people. dumb people who write rubbish should try to learn the realities too.
The average Muslim is angry becasue he is DAMNED IF HE DID AND HE IS DAMNED IF HE DID NOT. If he revolts against the corrupted regimes, he will be either be slaughtered and killed and even if he is victorious, the west will nevever accept the elected government and call it TERRORIST and will meet in the U.N in the matter of hours and will boycott and drive the country to hunger. If he accepts the corrupted regimes, he will struggle for the rest of his life and when the time comes when the corrupted govenment, usually a U.S ally, screws with the U.S, then the country will be bombed to death and the citizen will share the fate of the corrupted regime. Egypt Libya Iran Iraq Palestine Lebanon
This article reminds me of pieces that point out that most crime committed by blacks is against blacks. Just as that one could say that there is a lot of black on black crime isn't an excuse for racism the fact that Muslims kill Muslims shouldn't be an excuse for violence committed against Muslims by non-Muslims.
Alternatively, they could overthrow the corrupt regime, but instead of replacing it with a radical Muslim theocracy, they could set up a constitutional democracy, establish diplomatic and trade relations with the west, and otherwise ingratiate themselves with the US and the rest of the modern world.
The United States supported Pakistan both politically and materially. U.S. President Richard Nixon denied getting involved in the situation, saying that it was an internal matter of Pakistan. But when Pakistan's defeat seemed certain, Nixon sent the USS Enterprise to the Bay of Bengal, a move deemed by the Indians as a nuclear threat. Enterprise arrived on station on December 11, 1971. On 6 December and 13 December, the Soviet Navy dispatched two groups of ships, armed with nuclear missiles, from Vladivostok; they trailed U.S. Task Force 74 in the Indian Ocean from 18 December until 7 January 1972. Nixon and Henry Kissinger feared Soviet expansion into South and Southeast Asia. Pakistan was a close ally of the People's Republic of China, with whom Nixon had been negotiating a rapprochement and where he intended to visit in February 1972. Nixon feared that an Indian invasion of West Pakistan would mean total Soviet domination of the region, and that it would seriously undermine the global position of the United States and the regional position of America's new tacit ally, China. In order to demonstrate to China the bona fides of the United States as an ally, and in direct violation of the US Congress-imposed sanctions on Pakistan, Nixon sent military supplies to Pakistan and routed them through Jordan and Iran,[16] while also encouraging China to increase its arms supplies to Pakistan. The Nixon administration also ignored reports it received of the genocidal activities of the Pakistani Army in East Pakistan, most notably the Blood telegram. The Soviet Union had sympathized with the Bangladeshis, and supported the Indian Army and Mukti Bahini during the war, recognizing that the independence of Bangladesh would weaken the position of its rivals - the United States and China. It gave assurances to India that if a confrontation with the United States or China developed, the USSR would take counter-measures. This was enshrined in the Indo-Soviet friendship treaty signed in August 1971. The Soviets also sent a nuclear submarine to ward off the threat posed by USS Enterprise in the Indian Ocean. Blood Telegram The Blood telegram (April 6, 1971) was seen as one of the most strongly worded demarches ever written by Foreign Service Officers to the State Department. It was signed by 29 Americans. The telegram stated: Our government has failed to denounce the suppression of democracy. Our government has failed to denounce atrocities. Our government has failed to take forceful measures to protect its citizens while at the same time bending over backwards to placate the West Pakistan dominated government and to lessen any deservedly negative international public relations impact against them. Our government has evidenced what many will consider moral bankrupt,(...) But we have chosen not to intervene, even morally, on the grounds that the Awami conflict, in which unfortunately the overworked term genocide is applicable, is purely an internal matter of a sovereign state. Private Americans have expressed disgust. We, as professional civil servants, express our dissent with current policy and fervently hope that our true and lasting interests here can be defined and our policies redirected. (U.S. Consulate (Dacca) Cable, Dissent from U.S. Policy Toward East Pakistan, April 6, 1971, Confidential, 5 pp. Includes Signatures from the Department of State. Source: RG 59, SN 70-73 Pol and Def. From: Pol Pak-U.S. To: Pol 17-1 Pak-U.S. Box 2535; [1]) In an earlier telegram (March 27, 1971), Blood wrote about American observations at Dhaka under the subject heading "Selective genocide": 1. Here in Decca we are mute and horrified witnesses to a reign of terror by the Pakistan Military. Evidence continues to mount that the MLA authorities have list of AWAMI League supporters whom they are systematically eliminating by seeking them out in their homes and shooting them down 2. Among those marked for extinction in addition to the A.L. hierarchy are student leaders and university faculty. In this second category we have reports that Fazlur Rahman head of the philosophy department and a Hindu, M. Abedin, head of the department of history, have been killed. Razzak of the political science department is rumored dead. Also on the list are the bulk of MNA's elect and number of MPA'a. 3. Moreover, with the support of the Pak[istani] Military. non-Bengali Muslims are systematically attacking poor people's quarters and murdering Bengalis and Hindus. (U.S. Consulate (Dacca) Cable, Selective genocide, March 27, 1971[2]) Although he was scheduled for another 18 month tour in Dhaka, President Richard M. Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger recalled him from that position since his opposition went against their hopes of using the support of West Pakistan for diplomatic openings to China and to counter the power of the Soviet Union.
it is easy said than done, corrupted regimes, make sure that people stay uneducated, unorganized, corrupted, so they do not get overthrown. there is not such a thing as a vice president, successful organization, democracy teaching, liberal views, or success unless it is related to a govenment approval. Once the government is overthrown, what teachings will be applies??????????????? CHAOS my friend will take over, and the easiest thing to go by is Religion, becasue the one that created it, can not be directly asked or interviewed to confirm whether what the rulers are doing are right or wrong. To always make sure that they are right, the leaders will hire religous clerics that will justify everything they do and twist it to pass religously.
well there is a difference between making the wrong choice and refusing to elect one period. but I see your point.
I'm not sure what the point here is? Corrupt regimes are bad. democracy is ok but if you overthrow it you have chaos? Religous theocracy is bad because it is typically corrupt?(see above on corrupt regimes... they are bad) Democracy allows the people to decide what is right for the people, in a perfect world. People for the most part are selfish and make decisions based on what is best for them which is exactly what you see our democratic government do. Unfortunately we will never make a decision that is perfect and somebody will always be on the losing end... Oh and they will holler loudly about it. Fact: The US has to help in conflict or we are at fault. Fact: There are two sides to a conflict. Fact: You have to decide which side to help. Fact: The other side will be pissed and because we are powerfull will probably lose. Fact: We pick sides selfishly based on who we thing at the time will help us most politically. Fact: There are always people who will after the fact say that we made the wrong choice. (most of the time those same people were happy with the choice when it was made) Now I want someone to logically explain to me how we navigate the above facts in a conflict to come to an ending where everyone is happy.
what I said is if you overthrow any regime even the corrupt ones, you will have Chaos because there are no training in leadership or leaders available to take over.
