UDHR under Attack Part 5

“if we start haggling with human rights we end up in a society where the only one having any human rights is the one who has deprived everybody else of theirs.”

The Sri Lankan delegate explained clearly his reasons for supporting the amendment:
“.. if we regulate certain things ‘minimally’ we may be able to prevent them from being enacted violently on the streets of our towns and cities.”

 

In other words: Don’t exercise your right to freedom of expression because your opponents may become violent. For the first time in the 60 year history of UN Human Rights bodies, a fundamental human right has been limited simply because of the possible violent reaction by the enemies of human rights.

The violence we have seen played out in reaction to the Danish cartoons is thus excused by the Council – it was the cartoonists whose freedom of expression needed to be regulated. And Theo van Gogh can be deemed responsible for his own death.

 

Freedom of expression is that right which – uniquely – enables us to expose, communicate and condemn abuse of all our other rights. Without freedom of expression and freedom of the press we give the green light to tyranny and make it impossible to expose corruption, incompetence, injustice and oppression.

This move by the Countries of the OIC is very effectively making dictatorship, Fascism, state-sponsored terrorism and genocide not only acceptable but PROTECTED by the Human Rights Council.

In space no-one can hear you scream…

The Kettle is throwing horse manure in a glasshouse…

A working reactor would make Syria the first Arab nation with nuclear capability and potentially would put nuclear weapons in the hands of a regime that the United States accuses of committing human rights abuses and supporting international terror groups.

Whoa! Didn’t they just claim that Iran was…?

Any way, how credible is this claim, considering that the claims made about Iraq were nothing but pure Texan horse manure?

The United States has a history of trying to prove that countries have stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, he said, comparing the new claims to former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s presentation to the United Nations about alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

The United States not only has a history of falsely accusing other nations of having nuclear weapons and such, they also have a history of wanting to divert attention from their own human rights abuses by pointing fingers at others.

The truly is a case of the kettle throwing horse manure in a glasshouse - and as said in the article:

“Don’t be gullible and fall for this,”

I want the boys to feel bad…

because it’s fun…” (ten year old girl on the topic of this image on a T-shirt:

Think about this: a picture of a fat, hairy woman, sleeping in a bed. A group of men start making fun of her, saying things like “think about waking up with THAT in your bed!” “disgusting!” “Think about having THOSE legs around you while making love!”

Pretty upsetting, huh? This is nevertheless the style a picture of a hairy man sleeping was commented in a women’s group in a debate forum, and when a couple of men got offended and sad by it, they were driven out of the group with insults and mockery… to this day those women don’t understand that it is just as insulting towards a man as it is towards a woman.

That same women chased me out of a Group for posting a post which said: “All Women are Stupid” and didn’t get why I would say such a thing - they didn’t get that I said that exactly to show how they would react if indeed the tables were turned. Their reaction was exactly what I had imagined it would be. They had absolutely no problem badmouthing men in general, mock and belittle their own husbands and boyfriends, but when I said “All women are stupid” all hell broke loose.

Not only are they misandrists and chauvinist sows, they are hypocrites as well.

Chivalry - demeaning to women

I heard an argument a while ago from a woman who claimed chivalry was demeaning to women, on the grounds that it showed male superiority.

Of course chivalry is demeaning to women, it was invented in the Medieval times. How could it not be demeaning to women?? Medieval times were by definition demeaning to women!

I mean, G-d forbid that a man should open a door for a woman at any time especially when both her hands are occupied with grocery bags, or pick up the tab, or offer her his seat on the bus, or offer to carry her 4 grocery bags 10 floors up when the elevator is broken or simply refrain from raping her. I mean that is really demeaning to women.

Men are by definition demeaning to women, and not their behaviour only, but their very existence. In fact anything male is at its very core a degradation of women. It’s a matter of “damned if you do and damned if you don’t”.

If you do not pay attention to women’s needs, you are a brutish bore, and if you do, you are a misogynist asshole…

But smile, E. - at least you get to choose which one you want to be on any given day…

Technorati tag: Gender Politics

UDHR under Attack Part 4.5 - an example of what it means

Eleven Editors-in-Chief and one Cartoonist are expected to be indicted, in their absence, in a Jordanian Court - in the wake of the Muhammad Cartoons. The charges enumerated are blasphemy, insulting a prophet and attempt to cause a rift in Jordanian national unity.

Prosecutor Hassan Abdullat has chosen to strike one of the original charges brought against the 12 Danes - that of crime against the Crown.

Töger Seidenfaden, editor-in-chief of Politikken and Kurt Westergaard, the cartoonist from Jyllands-Posten who sparked the Cartoon Controversy with his image of Muhammad wearing a bomb for a turban are among the 12 to be indicted.

Orders for arrest

It is the newly formed Jordanian movement The Prophet Unites Us that has brought the legal action against the Danish journalists. Its Secretary General, Zakaria al-Sheikh, editor-in-chief for the news paper al-Haqiqa, tells Politikken that he expects order for the arrest of the 12 editors-in-chiefs and of Geert Wilders, the Dutch politician who created the movie FITNA, a 15 minute movie depicting alleged exhortations to violence in the Qu’ran.

The Prosecutor is demanding that Interpol issue orders for the arrest the implicated journalists.

The Prophet Unites Us was formed in February 2008 after 17 Danish news papers had published Kurt Westergaard’s cartoon a second time. The cartoon was originally published by Jyllands-Posten as a comment in a debate on Freedom of Expression.

Working for boycotts

The movement organizes some 40 Jordanian media-outlets and organizations. It also works for a boycott of Danish products.

The indictment is based on the Jordanian blasphemy law, which forbids any insults of prophets. The issue of crime against the Crown was raised because the Royal House of Jordan is considered to hail from the prophet Muhammad and because king Abdullah, following the first caricature crisis said that any insult to the prophet is an insult to him. (my translation -original Swedish article here)

With all due respect to the Prophet (pbuh) and every honest, devout Muslim out there - this is silly. However it is also the writing on the wall that gives an indication of the attitude behind the way the OIC has hijacked the Human Rights Council, the UN, the UDHR and ultimately Freedom of Expression.

The Jordanian attitude described by the article above would be extremely offensive, if it wasn’t so ridiculous. Denmark has never been, nor will it ever be the jurisdiction of Jordanian Court, nor does King Abdullah have any say in what happens to Danish citizens.

I could have understood this whole thing, and even agreed with the prosecutor, if the images had been published in Jordan, but they weren’t and they won’t be.

However with the amendment to the UDHR/Human Rights Council, chances are that we will see more legal actions like this.

G-d Save the Queen!

44452-080430-361656-15
© 2008 All Rights Reserved.

UDHR under Attack part 4

Yesterday’s attack by the Islamists, led by Pakistan, had the subtlety of a thin-bladed knife slipped silently under the ribs of the Human Rights Council. At first reading the amendment to the resolution to renew the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression might seem reasonable. It requires the Special Rapporteur:
“To report on instances in which the abuse of the right of freedom of expression constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination …” (My emphasis.)

“might seem reasonable…” But why would it seem reasonable?

Because, contrary to what many believe, there are actual limits on Freedom of Speech - or rather, there is a general consensus, that if you say certain things there may be legal repercussions, because certain things might be hateful or incite to hatred, and that in turn is a violation of the UDHR articles

Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.

Article 14.
Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

While those articles can primarily be said to deal with how a Government may or may not treat its citizens - they are also clear indications of what we, as a Society, consider to be comme il faut between citizens.

While the amendment to the “job-description” of the Special Rapporteur seems reasonable enough, it isn’t, because it requires the Special Rapporteur to regard as non-violations those violations that may be committed by nations against their own citizens. As Ketutar said in a comment to my entry yesterday:

“… still violations of human rights, but CRITICISING and PROTESTING against violations of human rights have become violation of human rights…

I.e - Criticizing one’s own government where that government tries to infringe on Civil Liberties has become “illegal” - exactly what Freedom of Speech an Freedom of Expression was once instituted to safe-guard - the People’s right to criticize its Government without risk of reprisals.

The consequences of this “amendment” to the UDHR article 19 are far-reaching. Not only does it make it impossible for citizens in religiously rigid societies, such as many Islamic Countries ruled by Sharia Laws, to voice their discontent with their Government. It also makes it possible for said countries to arrest, restrain, expel, gag any Human Rights Organizations that wish to monitor or investigate human rights violations in OIC countries, with impunity - this would include the UN and the Human Rights Council itself.

Freedom of Speech is the back-bone of any democracy, and where Freedom of Speech is restricted in regards to critical analysis of one’s government, there can be no democracy. The OIC has clearly told the world that they disagree with democratic principles and democratic government.

The US-ual disregard for human life

(CBS) The Department of Veterans Affairs came under fire again Monday, this time in California federal court where its facing a national lawsuit by veterans rights groups accusing the agency of not doing enough to stem a looming mental health crisis among veterans. As part of the lawsuit, internal emails raise questions as to whether top officials deliberately deceived the American public about the number of veterans attempting and committing suicide.

CBS News chief investigative correspondent Armen Keteyian reports.

In San Francisco federal court Monday, attorneys for veterans’ rights groups accused the VA of nothing less than a cover-up - deliberately concealing the real risk of suicide among veterans. “The system is in crisis and unfortunately the VA is in denial,” said Veterans Rights Attorney Gordon Erspamer. The charges were backed by internal e-mails written by Dr. Ira Katz, the VA’s head of Mental Health.

In the past, Katz has repeatedly insisted while the risk of suicide among veterans is serious, it’s not outside the norm. “There is no epidemic in suicide in VA,” Katz told Keteyian in November. But in this e-mail to his top media advisor, written two months ago, Katz appears to be saying something very different, stating: “Our suicide prevention coordinators are identifying about 1,000 suicide attempts per month among veterans we see in our metical facilities.” Katz’s e-mail was written shortly after the VA provided CBS News data showing there were only 790 attempted suicides in all 2007 - a fraction of Katz’s estimate.

“This 12,000 attempted suicides per year shows clearly, without a doubt, that there is an epidemic of suicide among veterans,” said Paul Sullivan of Veterans for Common Sense. And it appears that Katz went out of his way to conceal these numbers. First, he titled his e-mail: “Not for the CBS News Interview Request.” He opened it with “Shh!” - as in keep it quiet - before ending with “Is this something we should (carefully) address … before someone stumbles on it?” Today we showed the e-mail to Rep. Bob Filner, D-Calif., who chairs the House Committee on Veterans Affairs. “This is disgraceful. This is a crime against our nation, our nation’s veterans,” Filner told CBS News. “They do not want to come to grips with the reality, with the truth.” And that’s not all.

Last November when CBS News exposed an epidemic of more than 6,200 suicides in 2005 among those who had served in the military, Katz attacked our report. “Their number is not, in fact, an accurate reflection of the rate,” he said last November. But it turns out they were, as Katz admitted in this e-mail, just three days later. He wrote: there “are about 18 suicides per day among America’s 25 million veterans.” That works out to about 6,570 per year, which Katz admits in the same e-mail, “is supported by the CBS numbers.” In an e-mail late Monday to CBS News, Katz wrote that the reason the numbers were not released was due to questions about the consistency and reliability of the findings - and that there was no public cover-up involved.

This really does not need any comment - it stands on it’s own - as an example of the usual US disregard for human life in general and US lives in particular.

If nothing else it’s a nice way to save money - dead people don’t need pensions and health care…

Follow up: VA Struggles With Vets’ Mental Health.
How we got the numbers behind the story.
VA Doctor on Veteran Suicides.
FYI: Suicide Risk Resources and Warning Signs.

UDHR under Attack Part 3

There has been a seismic shift in the balance of power in the UN system. For over a decade the Islamic States have been flexing their muscles. Yesterday they struck. There can no longer be any pretense that the Human Rights Council can defend human rights. The moral leadership of the UN system has moved from the States who created the UN in the aftermath of the Second World War, committed to the concepts of equality, individual freedom and the rule of law, to the Islamic States, whose allegiance is to a narrow, medieval world view defined exclusively in terms of man’s duties towards Allah, and to their fellow-travelers, the States who see their future economic and political interests as being best served by their alliances with the Islamic States.

I am not sure the shift is seismic - I think it’s a pretty predictable shift. Since the Nations that formed the UN and the the UDHR in the wake of WWII have abdicated from whatever moral high ground they might have had, by accepting and enforcing all sorts of restrictive laws that too are in and of themselves violations of the UDHR. Legislation like the Patriot Act and other “anti-terrorist” legislation adopted by the US and her allies in the “war on Terror”. Laws and Legislation that are specifically targeting Arabs and Muslims, as sure as the Nuremberg Laws were targeting the Jews.

It is not surprising then that when given a chance, the OIC will step in and do the same. Really. The leadership has not moved, it was abandoned way back, and the OIC picked it up.

It doesn’t make this stunt pulled by the OIC ok, moral or defensible in anyway, but it sure explains why there might be the misunderstanding that violating Human Rights is an ok thing to do.

If the West clearly says that it’s ok to violate Human Rights when Arabs and Muslims are involved, then how could the West possibly point at the OIC and say: “No, no, - we we the only ones who may torture, maim, kill and persecute your citizens…” and expect them to accept this?

Reverend Wright said one very true thing in the wake of 9/11 2001: “America’s chickens have come home to roost”. From the point of view of the OIC this macht übernahme in the Human Rights Council is just another chicken hatching.

End of Part 3

Why the 404 Messages on Searches?

Because the searches on specific topics in my blog became rather obsessive - a certain Dutch Shock Artist, whom I wrote about about a year ago became the main search and visit magnet, not only for regular readers, but for porn-bots, sleaze balls and people obsessed with sex.

Another entry that drew a lot attention was my piece on Men’s Mental Health - no one ever commented, they just wanted to gawk at the crying soldier. So I made those entries private. Same thing with the entries on Hairy women and Miss Pree-Teen Competition - people and bots came to look for sleaze and porn, not to read my blog.

Sorry guys, if you cannot be more responsible and less in the gutter when reading and searching for things, I’ll have to be your mongoose.

SoB

UDHR under attack Part 2

Three years later Annan’s dream lies shattered, and the Human Rights Council stands exposed as incapable of fulfilling its central role: the promotion and protection of human rights. The Council died yesterday in Geneva, and with it the Universal Declaration of Human Rights whose 60th anniversary we were actually celebrating this year.

That is what you get when you consider something as important as Human Rights to be a matter of politics. It reminds me of how the USONA manipulated, rail roaded and blackmailed the world into believing their lies about Iraq. Today we know that there were no WMDs, today we know that there were no Iraqi ties to Al-Qaeda. Hans Blix of the IAEA were right.

Where’s the connection? - in its underhandedness. Muslims are being portrayed as the ones that are being persecuted through malicious lies about the Qu’ran and Islam, and therefore non-Muslim assertions, opinions and replies to the Qu’ran must be labeled “abuse of Freedom of speech”. That’s not saying that malicious lies about the Qu’ran are not being circulated, but the likeness to the Coup the US pulled over Iraq is till there, as there was nothing to say that individual Iraqis had connections to Al-Qaeda

While I certainly understand the pain and frustration one experiences when one’s Holy Books are being misinterpreted - just ask any Jews how many lies about Torah and Talmud are out there being disseminated to a larger public who have little to no knowledge of what Torah or Talmud is - using the UDHR to stop people from reading and understanding as they will is unethical at best, immoral at worst.

Then, when one digs a little deeper, and realizes that the OIC is not at all concerned with the persecution of Muslims via malicious readings of the Qu’ran, they might not like those readings, but they accept it as part of being in this world - they are concerned with not having the right to jail, kill, abuse and persecute their own citizens. Citizens who object to Qu’ran based legislation. By inserting this amendment the nations of OIC have made it impossible for the Human Rights Council, and in extension the UN to demand that they honor the UDHR and all it’s articles. The nations of the OIC can continue to stone women, hang gays, marry children, mutilate and maim people over misdemeanors etc, and do so without it being a violation of human rights.

It’s ingenious in its evilness.

End Part 2

UDHR under Attack Part 1

International Humanist and Ethical Union carried an article on March 30, 2008.

“With the support of their allies including China, Russia and Cuba (none well-known for their defence of human rights) the Islamic States succeeded in forcing through an amendment to a resolution on Freedom of Expression that has turned the entire concept on its head. The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression will now be required to report on the “abuse” of this most cherished freedom by anyone who, for example, dares speak out against Sharia laws that require women to be stoned to death for adultery or young men to be hanged for being gay, or against the marriage of girls as young as nine, as in Iran.”

The entire idea is silly, because Religious Freedom and Protection of honor and reputation is already guaranteed by the UDHR (articles 12 and 19), so it seems the OIC is somehow overshooting.

Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan saw the writing on the wall three years ago when he spoke of the old Commission on Human Rights having “become too selective and too political in its work”. Piecemeal reform would not be enough. The old system needed to be swept away and replaced by something better. The Human Rights Council was supposed to be that new start, a Council whose members genuinely supported, and were prepared to defend, the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Yet since its inception in June 2006, the Human Rights Council has failed to condemn the most egregious examples of human rights abuse in the Sudan, Byelorussia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China and elsewhere, whilst repeatedly condemning Israel and Israel alone.

Considering that we have 22 Arab Nations, a bunch of Islamic Nations, and Russia, Cuba, China involved as well as the usual abstentions one might be allowed some skepticism. If the old Commission didn’t work because of WHO are the members and the incessant politicking around who votes for because another votes against, one can hardly expect a Council to make much head way, if the same members are allowed to influence the work.

It’s like the debacle with the UN Resolutions - they will always be slanted against Israel, because there will always be 22 votes against her, plus the allies of those 22 votes…and the allies of those allies…

The whole idea of nations being members of UN Bodies is ridiculous, especially in Bodies that should have no political agenda at all, such as the Human Rights Council. Human Rights, Children’s Rights etc are non-political, so the people in UN who deal with those Rights should not be political either - i.e members of the Human Rights Council should not be nations and they should be separated from their Nationality when they assume their duties on the Council. They should also be required to swear that they will maintain their neutrality for the duration of their service on the Council. Any amendments to the various UN Charters and Declarations should be made by those neutral council members and not be voted on out-side the Council.

End Part 1

Why Usonia?

Does that mean all other states in North America are divided?

There is only one other state in North America - Canada. Canada, however does not aspire to occupy the two American Continents merely through its name. Canada doesn’t express an inherent imperialism by what it calls itself. So Canada doesn’t need to be distinguished from the other nations on the American Continents to negate its aspirations and its imperialism.

Is one saying that some people have no right to name their own nation?

Of course people may call their nation whatever they like, but if they chose to call it something that implies that it is a two-continent nation, they may actually have to accept that others disagree with them.

Having a problem with the term America, or Americans~ and the Amerinds probably would not respond so well that term, or the maybe even the Canadians, and when we call Europeans Europeans, French or Germans there does not seem to be a problem.

The French and Germans are part of Europe, Europe is the name of the continent, but they do not claim that all of Europe is France or Germany. There is no imperialism or negation of other Sovereign nations in their nation names, nor in the name Europe.

Of course, the European Union is made of of nations, France, Germany, Italy, etc.

The European Union is first and foremost an Economic Co-Operative, the sovereign nations that are members of it have not entered into a Federal Republic, and nor has Europe itself attempted to erase those sovereign nations, situated on the European Continent from consciousness by naming itself in a manner that implies that only one nation - “Europe”- exists on the continent.

Why this particular singling out the United States of America~ and it does say of America~ because of the narrowing of the term to ‘America’, because of the actions, sentiments, or words of a few, because of the recent incarnation of the government, or even long term policies that may have been going on, done by the government, perhaps in cahoots with some businesses?

Because “United States of America” hijacks two continents - North and South America, and implies that it is the only American Nation in existence, or even the only Nation on the American Continents. That’s why its being singled out. To make a point. Is it a protest against the current administration? No. Is it a protest against some businesses? No. It’s a protest against the inherent national arrogance and long-term imperialistic attitude that is reflected in the name Usonia gave itself.

“The word Usonian appears to have been coined by James Duff Law, an American writer born in 1865. In a miscellaneous collection entitled Here and There in Two Hemispheres (1903), Law quoted a letter of his own (dated 18 June 1903) that begins “We of the United States, in justice to Canadians and Mexicans, have no right to use the title ‘Americans’ when referring to matters pertaining exclusively to ourselves.” He went on to acknowledge that some author had proposed “Usona,” but that he preferred “Usonia.” Perhaps the earliest published use by Wright was in 1927.” From Wikipedia

The International Solidarity Movement: Champions of Peace?

[Note: Much has been written about the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), and much of it has been dismissed as merely rumors. The following report shows the true nature of the ISM in its own words and in well-documented incidents. I want to express gratitude to the Jewish Action Task Force for having provided many of the references used in this report. Their site contains cached versions of some of these references, and should be consulted if any of the links become broken.]

The International Solidarity Movement (ISM), founded in the spring of 2001, prides itself on being a nonviolent movement for peace. At least this is the image its members present to the world, and they have been extremely successful. News media routinely portray them as “peace activists,” and even one member of the Canadian parliament has nominated the ISM for the Nobel Peace Prize. (1)

The liberal Protestant Church has also embraced the ISM, often inviting its members to speak and offering financial support. One group of missionaries working in the West Bank encourages enlistment in the ISM:

How does your faith prompt you to act? How is God calling you to respond through action? Perhaps you have the courage and faith to go into areas of violence and oppression and send a message of peace and justice as part of a Christian Peacemaker Team or with the International Solidarity Movement. (2)

The ISM is often called “peacemaker.” But do they deserve this designation? The best way to understand what the ISM is all about is to read its own words. And the best place to start is the ISM’s own web site.

A Pro-Palestinian Movement

First, the ISM makes a pretense of being neutral, claiming it is not even “pro-Palestinian”: (3)

Over the course of the past year and a half, the Israeli military and government has used various tactics in efforts to delegitimize our message. Some of you in the media have repeated or suggested the accusations yourselves: that we are “young and naive,” that we are “trouble-makers,” that we are “pro-Palestinian.” As I’ve noted above, the ISM is diverse in age and make up. We’re Palestinian-led, but not pro-Palestinian. We’re not pro or against any group. (4)

This pretense is immediately transparent. It will be seen from the quotations to follow that the ISM is indeed pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel. The disingenuousness of the ISM’s claim to neutrality is just a small part of its overall strategy to present a peace-loving image to the media while actually working to enable those who do commit violent acts.

It is true that members of the ISM do not themselves engage in violence. But in word and in deed they support those who do. In fact, they make no secret of their sympathy for the use of violence, even though it is a tactic they personally do not choose. They state that violence is legitimate for those who choose to use it:

The International Solidarity Movement is a Palestinian-led movement of Palestinian and International activists working to raise awareness of the struggle for Palestinian freedom and an end to Israeli occupation. We utilize nonviolent, direct-action methods of resistance to confront and challenge illegal Israeli occupation forces and policies.

As enshrined in international law and UN resolutions, we recognize the Palestinian right to resist Israeli violence and occupation via legitimate armed struggle. However, we believe that nonviolence can be a powerful weapon in fighting oppression and we are committed to the principles of nonviolent resistance. (5)

This is about as “pro-Palestinian” a statement as one could hope for. It also specifies nonviolence as just one option in the struggle against Israel, with violence being another, equally valid option. (6)

Advocates for Violence

If violence is indeed considered legitimate, then why don’t ISM members choose it for themselves? The answer is based not on morality but on strategy. In a revealing essay that appeared in the Palestine Chronicle for January 29, 2002, Huwaida Arraf and Adam Shapiro, two of the ISM’s founders and senior leaders, write:

Let us reiterate, we accept that Palestinians have a right to resist with arms, as they are an occupied people upon whom force and violence is being used. The Geneva Conventions accept that armed resistance is legitimate for an occupied people, and there is no doubt that this right cannot be denied. But that does not mean that this right must be utilized. Regardless of what is a right and what is not, the elements that will make any change in the situation are strategy and tactics. To date, the use of violence as part of the resistance has not evinced a strategy. Not in operations against the military or settlers; not in operations inside the Green Line. The choice of using nonviolence would not be effective either if it was not organized strategically. (5)

This is about as “pro-Palestinian” a statement as one could hope for. It also specifies nonviolence as just one option in the struggle against Israel, with violence being another, equally valid option. (6)

Advocates for Violence

If violence is indeed considered legitimate, then why don’t ISM members choose it for themselves? The answer is based not on morality but on strategy. In a revealing essay that appeared in the Palestine Chronicle for January 29, 2002, Huwaida Arraf and Adam Shapiro, two of the ISM’s founders and senior leaders, write:

Let us reiterate, we accept that Palestinians have a right to resist with arms, as they are an occupied people upon whom force and violence is being used. The Geneva Conventions accept that armed resistance is legitimate for an occupied people, and there is no doubt that this right cannot be denied. But that does not mean that this right must be utilized. Regardless of what is a right and what is not, the elements that will make any change in the situation are strategy and tactics. To date, the use of violence as part of the resistance has not evinced a strategy. Not in operations against the military or settlers; not in operations inside the Green Line. The choice of using nonviolence would not be effective either if it was not organized strategically. (5)

In other words, the Palestinians have an undeniable right to use violence, and since Arraf and Shapiro make no qualifications on that use, it can only be assumed that the Palestinians have a right to use violence just as they are doing right now, in the form of terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians. But the use of this right is not always wise, and so it need not necessarily be exercised. To be effective, the use of violence must follow an organized strategy. The same is true of the use of nonviolence. They are both options to which the Palestinians have a legitimate right, but they are only feasible if they follow an organized strategy.

Lest there be any doubt that this is what the authors mean, and that they do in fact advocate the use of violence if strategically planned, they write further in the same article:

The Palestinian resistance must take on a variety of characteristics – both nonviolent and violent. But most importantly it must develop a strategy involving both aspects. No other successful nonviolent movement was able to achieve what it did without a concurrent violent movement – in India militants attacked British outposts and interests while Gandhi conducted his campaign, while the Black Panther Movement and its earlier incarnations existed side-by-side with the Civil Rights Movement in the United States.

What Arraf and Shapiro fail to mention, of course, is that neither Gandhi nor Martin Luther King endorsed the use of violence but were appalled by it, while the ISM clearly approves of “violent movements” acting “side-by-side” with its own nonviolent approach. The ISM sees itself not as a substitute for but as an adjunct to the use of violence against Israelis. It therefore cynically exploits the legacies of those who stood exclusively for nonviolence and passive resistance. The ISM clearly believes in violence - it actually says so - but chooses nonviolent opposition as an additional tactic.

In a message she posted to an ISM mailing list, Arraf went as far as to quote with approval an essay praising suicide bombers as shahids or martyrs. (7)

Other leaders of the ISM have also expressed their support for violence, even though it is not the tactic they personally prefer to use. Ghassan Andoni, another founder of the ISM, said in an interview by Bitterlemons.org that Palestinians have the right to use violence if they choose:

Bitterlemons: Does that mean that you do not think that armed resistance is valid?

Andoni: No, we state clearly that Palestinians have the full right to resist the occupation with means that they think are suitable. We as the Palestinian Solidarity Movement have decided, however, that our tool for resisting the occupation is non-violence. (

Saif Abu Keshek is a co-ordinator for the ISM in Nablus. In an interview on the ISM-London web site he says the same thing: that Palestinians are morally justified in using violence if they choose.

So there is strong support for the armed resistance? [Keshek:] Surely there is support for the armed resistance. It is one of the rights of the Palestinians to fight back against the occupation. The ISM supports non violent direct action, not armed struggle… [Keshek:] Yes, but also we recognise the right of the Palestinians to choose their way of resistance. To join our way of resistance or to choose armed struggle. (9) 

From all of these statements by people central to the ISM it is clear that the ISM wants to have it both ways: to claim the moral high ground of nonviolence while keeping the tactical advantage of violence. For Palestinians, “violent resistance” usually takes the form of terrorism, that is, targeted attacks against civilians. Even the ISM, in its support of the right to use violence, makes no distinction between terrorism and other forms of violence. We have heard ISM leaders in their own words: “Palestinians have the full right to resist the occupation with means that they think are suitable”; “We recognize the right of the Palestinians to choose their way of resistance” - with no restrictions. Such statements by ISM members are far from unique.

It is now clear that the ISM is not a pure nonviolent movement but sees itself working together with violent, even terrorist factions of the Palestinian fight against Israel. Nonviolence that accepts violence enables violence. Nonviolent obstruction of Israeli efforts to resist terrorism enables terrorism to continue. For example, members of the ISM, including Rachel Corrie, have tried “nonviolently” to obstruct the movement of Israeli bulldozers whose job it was to expose and destroy tunnels used for illegally smuggling weapons. This is “nonviolence” in name only. These “nonviolent peace activists” were helping to ensure that arms get into the hands of terrorists. If your work helps make violence possible, you are participating in violence. There is little difference between distracting your target while others ready their weapons and wielding the weapon yourself. The type of nonviolence that the ISM espouses supports and aids terrorist violence. (10)

Connections to Terrorist Groups

The ISM has indeed worked together with terrorist groups. An ISM press release dated July 2, 2003 announced a demonstration to block construction of Israel’s security fence (which ISM calls an “apartheid wall”), and invited participants to “Join the ISM, the Palestinian National and Islamic Forces and the Apartheid Wall Defense Committee” in these efforts to disrupt the fence’s construction. (11)

Who are these “National and Islamic Forces”? A virulently anti-Israel statement this group issued on February 10, 2001 contains the names of its members, which include the terrorist organizations Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and several others. (12)

There is some evidence that ISM cooperation with terrorist activity goes beyond signing joint statements and giving verbal support. While not engaging in violence directly, ISM members have come to the aid of others who have.

In the spring of 2002 about 40 senior terrorists wanted by Israel took refuge in the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, where IDF soldiers had them under siege. About a dozen ISM members snuck past Israeli troops and entered the church to give support to the terrorists. (13) The ISM published on its own web site an account by the British Guardian containing a proud proclamation that these ISM members were to act as “human shields.” (14)

At about the same time, other ISM members were acting as human shields in the Palestinian presidential compound in Ramallah. They were present not only to support Yasser Arafat but to protect the “Ze’evi Five,” terrorists wanted by Israel for the murder of Rehav’am Ze’evi, Israeli Minister of Tourism, on September 18, 2001. (15)

In the spring of 2003 Israeli troops were searching for Shadi Sukiya, a senior member of the Islamic Jihad in Jenin who had been involved in planning suicide bombings and shooting attacks against Jewish communities. They found him hiding in the offices of the International Solidarity Movement.

At first Susan Barclay, the ISM Coordinator, refused the Israeli soldiers permission to search the offices. But the soldiers forced their way in and arrested both Sukiya and Barclay. A handgun was also found. (16)(17)

An ISM spokesperson claimed that Barclay had no way of knowing who Sukiya really was. Nevertheless, this is no excuse for obstructing a legitimate search for a wanted terrorist. And how plausible is the ISM’s proclamation of Barclay’s innocence? Barclay herself told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer that “she knowingly worked with representatives from Hamas and Islamic Jihad - terrorist groups that sponsor suicide bombings and exist, according to their charters, to demolish the Jewish state entirely.” (18)  

Conclusion

While pretending to stand for nonviolence, in both what it says and what it does the ISM aids and abets violent Palestinian extremist movements. The words of the Jewish Action Task Force capture the essence of the ISM:

The ISM is a terrorist protection organization. The goal of the ISM is not to plant bombs and murder civilians. The ISM aims to protect the terrorists who plant bombs and murder civilians. The ISM hopes to keep the IDF out of Palestinian neighborhoods so that terrorists will be free to manufacture explosives, train suicide bombers, smuggle weapons, arm snipers, and fire rockets at residential neighborhoods without interference from the IDF. The ISM calls itself non-violent, and many supporters of the organization in the U.S. may actually believe that this is a non-violent movement following the footsteps of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King. The leadership, however, is using the rhetoric of non-violence in a calculated effort to mask the true nature of the ISM, which is organized for the protection of terrorists. (19)

This report has presented the International Solidarity Movement in its own words and actions. I have already documented the ISM’s cynical exploitation of the death of Rachel Corrie, and need not repeat that here. The ISM is not, as it pretends to be, a neutral, peacemaking organization. What it does stand for is abundantly clear. Let us not be fooled.

Source: Peace with Realism

 

Notes:
ISM Nominated for Nobel Peace Prize,” Canadian Dimension, May 2, 2003.
What You Can do.”
International Solidarity Movement, “Statement on Bombings.”
International Solidarity Movement, “About ISM.”
Why Nonviolent Resistance is Important for the Palestinian Intifada: A Response to Ramzy Baroud,” Palestine Chronicle, January 29, 2002.
Is ‘Occupation’ an Excuse for Terrorism?” elsewhere on this web site.
ISM Reports: A Bone from Rafah / Ethnic cleansing,” Palsolidarity Mailing List, March 27, 2003.
Resisting the Tool of Control: An Interview with Ghassan Andoni,” October 7, 2002.
Interview with Saif Abu Keshek,” International Solidarity Movement - London,February 23, 2003.
ISM: July 3 Action to Stop the Wall,” New Zealand Scoop, July 2, 2003.
Statement Issued by the National and Islamic Forces,” Jerusalem Media & Communication Center, February 10, 2001.
Israelis Blame Arafat for Bethlehem Church Fire,” CNN.com, May 3, 2002.
From Bristol to Bethlehem,” The British Guardian, May 16, 2002.
Operation Devastation“, May 2002.
Senior Islamic Jihad Terrorist Arrested While Hiding in the Offices of the International Solidarity Movement in Jenin,” March 27, 2003.
Tension Rises Between Activists, Army After Third Recent Casualty,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, April 13, 2003.
Activist’s Death Focuses Spotlight on Mideast Struggle,” Seattle Post-Intelligencer, March 20, 2003.
International Solidarity: A Terrorist Protection Movement,” no date.

---

Comment:

In some time 2005-2006 a poster came into Human Rights Network with posts about “Peaceful Protesters in Bilin” - Ket and I were elated. Finally!
The Palestinians were getting it! We were very happy. This we had been waiting for…

The poster swore that the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) were comparable to Gandhi and MLK. Great. So when IDF opened fire on “protesters” we denounced, condemned and agreed with Israel’s detractors that it was really horrible.

What we did not know was that the poster, and all her friends in the Pro-Palestinian Camp were lying through their teeth about what really was happening. The IDF had been responding to gun fire aimed at them from within the ISM Rally. What ISM hoped for was that they then could say “its militants using the gathering to discredit ISM” - all the while those militants were part of ISM. We fell for it (in fact the entire world fell for it) - of course ISM was a modern Peaceful Civil Rights Movement…

Right now I feel that whatever I have ever conceded - despite the fact that I have not heard any Arabs, Palestinians, Muslims or Xians in this group or elsewhere make any concessions, no apologies, nothing that indicates that they think the Palestinians militants are wrong - I have made into a void of mockery, a chasm of indifference and “let the Jews crawl, grovel and humiliate themselves”.

I am sorry, a “thank you Dov” isn’t going to do it - I want more, I want condemnations of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other Palestinian Terror Organization, and their constant attacks on Israeli border towns from the Arabs and Muslims in this Group.
Dov

Anglo-European Standards rule our World 3

“…you are obviously very intelligent and well educated and so if you side-step my point or expand the realm of an example into areas it wasn’t meant to encompass, I’m going to assume it’s deliberate. Fair enough?”

You are obviously intelligent as well… so what about remembering that there are several different ways of understanding your words and my take on them is one of them.

If I am pointing out that there’s a variant interpretation of your words, or taking your point and running with it in a direction you did not foresee, it’s because that’s what I see through your words or your points. Not some “now I am going to distort the meaning of D’s points here, and side-step and expand on his example…” Nothing deliberate, nothing sinister, nothing malignant. Just my understanding of what you have written.

I understand your first post to mean “OIC is not to be blamed for anything, because everything is USA’s and especially Bush’s government’s fault and we can’t point fingers at OIC before we are perfect ourselves, besides as OIC is a bunch of religious fanatics living in tents 800 years ago, it’s understandable and excusable what they are doing. We (USA, UK, Australia) on the other hand are NOT such barbarians but civilized and exemplary bringers of peace, freedom, democracy etc. etc. so it’s shocking that these Beacons, Saviors, Liberators have fallen and become monsters…”

Arguing for the sake of argument I take to mean launching into an offensive position and getting personal, which is what you have done. You are basically attacking me without any friendly discussion, which I consider to be a damn shame. Your “hot air” opening is your words not mine, nor was it my meaning.

Now, you seem to think I have taken an offensive position and getting personal, which is not what I am doing. I am discussing YOUR WORDS, not your persona.

You have one take, I have another take. The only thing I have to go on in this discussion, D, is your words. In my world, if you say that you do not want to “argue for the sake of argument”, you are saying that you somehow see what I have said as “an argument for the sake of argument”, i.e that I am arguing only to argue, not that I really have anything to say.

“We all know that arguing for the sake of arguing is a pointless waste of time”. It seems that I am not alone in understanding “Arguing for the sake of argument” to mean “so much hot air”.

IF you had wanted to point out that you think I am getting personal, then there would have been far better ways of communicating this. You could for instance have just said, “I think you are getting personal…” You didn’t. Don’t assume that your understanding is the only one possible.

The next point: I could sum it up as “since the Bush administration, things have not gotten worse. There has been no global shift to the right. It is as it always has been.” Have I got it right? I introduced “corporate” because I believe that corporations and their lawyers are largely responsible.

No, you haven’t got it right. I got that you think that “corporations and their lawyers are largely responsible” for what you see as a shift to the right. I disagree with this, hence my point about the CCC being as old as human civilization and perhaps actually a intrinsic part of human civilization and it not being a trend that just popped up with the Bush Administration. Your perspective is short, my perspective is longer (without any value on either) -I am viewing into the past for the reason you seem to the present. I think your making corporate lawyers responsible and me claiming that it’s older than that, is like viewing an ice-berg - beneath the surface (corporate lawyers) is a lump of ice (human civilization) 100 times bigger than the tip sticking up over the water.

While I agree that this shift to the right has been ongoing for many years as a gradual process and only in this century is it coming home to roost in my town whereby the rights we believed we had are being flushed down the toilet. Still, the audacity of our leaders to no longer heed the electorate with comments like “So?” is a marked difference and so appears as a trend.

Note that I am not arguing with your assertion about the state of things, I am just extending the perspective - reading the present in the light of the past, as any good historian would tell you to do.

Or, are you saying that there has been no change at all? I certainly understand this point given world history. I can imagine some guy in Africa who has watched civil war and genocide ravaging his homeland for the last 30 odd years and not noticed any recent difference. I certainly makes for a good topic of conversation but it just wasn’t the topic I raised.

No, I am not saying that there has been no change at all - I see the change, however I don’t think it’s really as marked as you do. I see the same imperialistic, corporate, capitalist and conservative attitudes operate in today’s US and the World as operated in the Roman Empire, The Babylonian Empire, Egyptian Empire or the Ottoman Empire. To me the Bush Admin is just the latest addition to Imperialistic Regimes ravaging the World. I also see where the Bush Administration’s attitude comes from - from an Anglo-American adaptation of the Anglo-European mind-set. 30 years ago, the US would not have managed to make military allies out half of Europe and Australia to go chase down insignificant illegal combatants all over the globe or launch an invasion on a country on the mere suspicion that they might have certain military capacities. The US made an attack on the US into a Global Issue, partly through interesting little lies, partly through coercion and partly through blatant bullying and threats. This [9/11] could have happened under whatever American President you want - pick one - anyone - however, only now could the USONA have succeeded in getting World support for their cause. Why? Because only the Bush Administration would have used all means necessary to get that support, including the immoral ones. Now do you see that rather than disagreeing with you on the basic point of your assertions about the US, I actually agree - I am just extending the perspective on where it comes from.

The only thing I disagree with you about is the Worldwide scale and importance of it. To me it’s just another Country on my Human Rights Black-list, nothing else.

The Declaration of Independence wasn’t irrelevant but how it came to be, while fascinating, was not a negation of what I said even though you presented it as such.

But it [my analysis of the role of the DoI] is a negation. It is also very much relevant, because it [the DoI] is the very foundation of the idea as the US as “the holder of the torch of liberty and the defender of democracy”.

I used the Declaration of Independence to explain where the idea of “the holder of the torch of liberty and the defender of democracy” comes from - if you look at your first post, you will see that you do not question if the USONA is “the holder of the torch of liberty and the defender of democracy” - i.e you represent as if you actually agree that it is - I disagreed with the idea that the USONA would be “the holder of the torch of liberty and the defender of democracy”, and then referred to the history of the Declaration of Independence to put the actions of the US into a historical perspective.

I’m well aware of the hypocrisy of the USA - its history is a series of wars and atrocities that revolve around land acquisition. However, my point was quite simple: the USA, regardless of where they got it launched on a grand experiment to put the ideas and philosophies of the time into law to try to create a non-classed-based democracy that would lead the way for humanity. I did not say they had succeeded.

You didn’t say that they hadn’t succeeded either. In fact the point was represented in a way that could very well be understood as if you thought that they HAD succeeded, and now the Bush Administration is tearing it all down, which was the foundation for my assertion that “U.S.O.N.A. isn’t “the holder of the torch of liberty and the defender of democracy” either, and if I know my history correctly, it never was.”

However, since they have taken up the baton, taking every opportunity to tell the world how they are the “home of the brave, land of the free, and the bringers of democracy” I chose to ignore their obvious failures and allow them to claim just intentions. In so doing I am justified in demanding that they live up to their boasts.

Justified perhaps, but it is questionable if it’s wise, at least without some sort of indication that you are ignoring what you yourself seem to give such importance. It sort of becomes a contradiction within a contradiction, to make a big affair of the Human Rights Violations of the USONA, and then expect people to understand that you are actually choosing to ignore those violations only so you can hold them accountable.

Nevertheless, regardless of where we lay the blame, or what our historical perspectives may be, the fact remains that the UDHR are is under attack.

The point I tried to make already in my second post here was that if we do not expect that everyone respects the Freedom of Speech as put forward in UDHR article 19, we cannot expect anyone to respect it.

If we start making excuses for the OIC, because we think their anger is righteous and justified (which I do), condemning the USONA without any consideration to their historical, social and political reasons, is nothing but hypocritical and another of those Anglo-European attitudes that feeds the anger of OIC.

I put considerable effort into a reply that has disappeared after posting.

I am sorry Cyberspace ate your post. If it’s any consolation, I have my posts eaten by gremlins frequently, which is why I have gotten into the habit of writing all my posts in NotePad or EditPad and copy and paste - that way if gremlins get hungry, I have back-ups.

The crux of it was to outline how I have been maligned in this thread. One example, I recall was SOB’s statement:

Again, I am not assuming. It’s there in your own words. I am not saying that you INTEND it to be. I don’t think you do. It doesn’t change the fact that by saying:

“even if we disagree that a man who sees women as chattel may live in a nice home but his consciousness is 800 years old and still in a tent.”

in a context of Islam, and this thread is that, it becomes derogatory of and insulting to Islam, because you do not clarify what kind of Islam you are referring to.”

Obviously, I’m referring to ANYONE who sees women as chattel and later extend this to anyone who burns people for heresy. To say that I don’t clarify what kind of Islam I’m referring to is more than deliberately misleading, it’s dishonest. I do not propose that SOB sees my comments as insulting to Islam because he believes that all Muslims treat women as chattel because that would be equally underhanded.

The thing is, D that it isn’t obvious that you are referring to ANYONE - what you say in your first post, which I take to be a response to the article ABOUT the OIC’s attack on the UDHR, becomes a statement WITHIN the context of a discussion about Islam, and more specific an Islamic attack on the UDHR. There is no “ANYONE” here. I would also like to turn your attention to what you said in the post one day ago:

“Without moral credibility, how can our criticisms of the OIC be interpreted as anything but an attack on Islam and result in a world far worse than it is right now.”

You were fully aware that this thread was addressing the OIC, and you even admitted that any criticism of it would be interpreted as criticism of Islam. So your “I’m referring to ANYONE who sees women as chattel and later extend this to anyone who burns people for heresy.” falls flat as a defense or assertion that referring to the OIC as “people living in tents and 800 years in the past” is not an attack or insult of Islam.

Have you ever wondered why “our” women aren’t seen as chattel? My wife said that if she was your wife and thought that you saw her as having a nomadic, medieval woman’s mind set, she’d had YOUR hide, not mine…

It is not because of Islamic culture (as if there was one homogenous such), Islam, Arabic culture, Semitic culture, Nomadic culture or what ever, that there are men within those cultures who see the female part of their people as things to be owned… it’s because feminism hasn’t had a reason to exist in some parts of the world. In Europe men have spent most of their adult lives trading, hunting, exploring and warring, and left their women at home to take care of things. Not so in most parts of the world.

African women look down on Euro-USonian feminists trying to bring their words, values and attitudes to the “undeveloped” countries, because they HAVE words, values and attitudes that could be used, but the Euro-USonian feminists are so convinced of their own superiority that they don’t even THINK there MIGHT BE something DIFFERENT but just as valuable.

I am not thinking in short terms, nor am I thinking of the World as tiny, isolated pieces, but one big organism. Nations are like beings, “growing up” just as every human is individual and work on different characteristics of their personalities, have different priorities, and so on and so forth, Nations function similarly.

Saying that men who see women as things are living in tents 800 years ago is ignoring every other aspect of their lives. Besides WHO lived in tents 800 years ago? Not most Europeans, Africans, Asians nor Muslims… Nomads did. Nomads like the Sapmi people in the North of Scandinavia, some Native Americans, Bedouins… You are obviously not speaking of Native Americans nor Sapmis, Mongols or any other Nomads, so you must be referring to Bedouins… Or did I misunderstand you? *sardonic*

Anglo-European Standards rule our World 2

I don’t want to spend all my time arguing for the sake of argument.

Thank you for telling me that you consider this discussion, and especially my part in it, something you really cannot be bothered with and something that is said, not to engage in friendly discussion, but for the sake of argument, basically what I have to contribute to the discussion is of no consequence other than as so much hot air.

While your generalized observation that a movement towards the right has been with us since the first paddock was fenced off, it isn’t relevant to my argument.

Actually, you were the one entering the generalized observation “corporate trend”. Considering the general understanding of the word “trend” as craze, fad, furor, mode, rage, style, vogue, trend and bias, cast, disposition, leaning, partiality, penchant, predilection, predisposition, proclivity, proneness, propensity, squint, tendency, turn, trend - i.e something rather limited, but not specified, your specification of it through the use of “corporate”, a word that did not gain its general meaning “business” until far into modern history puts it into a modern context - what I did was simply pointing out that we are not dealing with a trend - something rather short-lived or recently “invented”, but with a rather essential part of human civilization - barter. Nor can it easily be called a movement, since owning, selling and buying is The Right - i.e Capitalism, i.e Conservative.

If you didn’t think this “corporate trend” is relevant to your argument, why did you enter it into discussion? It could very easily be read as if you wanted your generalized interpretation of the expression “corporate trend” to stand without elaborating argument, such as I offered, in which case your “argument” becomes propaganda. Nice and quiet propaganda, but nevertheless propaganda.

Since the invasion of Iraq, rendition, black sites, torture, private security firms that look a lot like the SS, blatant media suppression, anti-terror legislation that gives no guarantees of due process for any of us and where dissent itself can be dangerous, I would say that the facts speak for themselves.

If we cannot agree on this point then we really should leave the table and agree to disagree.

Example:

Since the invasion of Tibet, rendition, black sites, torture, State police that looks a lot like the SS, blatant media suppression, legislation that gives no guarantees of due process for any of us and where dissent itself can be dangerous, I would say that the facts speak for themselves.

D, what is happening in the USONA has been a reality of human existence and human history since one man decided that he was best suited to rule the local tribe and killed, maimed kidnapped and raped the family of whom he considered his rival - rulers have always used their power to gain control over their subjects and over whomever they consider their enemies. This is nothing new.

I would suggest that the reason all this is possible in the USONA is because it is a young nation that is still in the midst of its evolution as a nation. This is something the USONA has very much common with f.i China, which is why I used China in my example.

I did enjoy your analysis of the Declaration of Independence even though it was irrelevant to my point. As for the monarchies being Elected… That’s a stretch. Not by commoners, they weren’t.

My analysis of the Declaration of Independence is very much relevant to what you said:

“So in terms of America being the defenders of democracy, they were in the sense of the prevailing myths of the time. Other than France, every other developed nation was a monarchy that did not have any power in the hands of the people. America was the ‘grand experiment’ for which the peoples of the entire globe held out hope.”

You introduced the concept of USONA into the discussion as “the holder of the torch of liberty and the defender of democracy” - words that are almost directly quoted from the Declaration of Independence, as semiotician you must be aware that such words have very high symbolic value in the minds of most people, especially since it has been hammered into the general world population since USONA was declared independent from the British. You claim that the current actions of USONA is “shocking” exactly because it is considered, TODAY, not in the past, “the holder of the torch of liberty and the defender of democracy”. Then you claim that this too is irrelevant?? If it is irrelevant to what you wish to say, then why enter it into discussion? That is the third point in my argument you reduce to an insignificant portion of hot air, and I am very much inclined to believe that you do this because your favorite pet-peeve met with some resistance. Whether you enjoyed my analysis or not, however, is irrelevant to the discussion, and I suspect that it’s just another rather condescending royal gesture on your part.

Let me clear up one or two points. My criticism of most historians is that they read the past through current mythologies and fail to realize that world view rather than accepted fact, regardless of whether it is right, wrong or irrelevant causes events to occur.

I am not “most historians”,