# Soooo tired of being political correct.



## nicko (Oct 5, 2001)

Today on the way into work I was listening to the radio and that mentioned that Reuters is refusing to use the word Terrorist in an effort to be politically correct, siting that "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". *GIVE ME A BREAK.*

Sorry to spot of like this, but anyone who cannot see that the people who committed the acts that occurred on 9/11 are not terrorists then you are crazy. I really think people need to lighten up on this politically correct stuff it really is getting to be too much.


----------



## risa (May 11, 2001)

Now that's definitely taking political correctness to an extreme. How is Bin Laden a freedom fighter? Whose freedom is he fighting for? And what freedom fighter tries to take away other people's freedom? That's definitely what the terrorist acts of Sept 11 and the anthrax scare have done to Americans. I've tried very hard not to let the recent events change the way I live, but it's hard to avoid. I don't watch the news or listen to the radio as often anymore because I don't want to be more scared. I'm flying overseas next week and I've never been frightened to fly, but I do have butterflies this time. I have friends and co-workers who seem to be on the edge of a nervous breakdown because of their very high anxiety levels. They tend to stay home more now and only leave their homes to go reluctantly to work. One friend who works in NYC refuses to take the subway now because he's worried that someone will release anthrax. He's even considering quitting his job so that he doesn't have to commute.

I did listen to the radio while working yesterday: NPR World News. A male student in Pakistan was being interviewed. Chills went down my spine listening to him. He was convinced that Sept. 11 and all the events after were concocted by Israel to rid the world of Muslims. He even went on to say that if he had the money, he would bomb America for its crimes against Islam. Now there's a potential terrorist -- freedom fighter my ***!


----------



## bevreview steve (Jan 11, 2000)

One has to remember that Reuters, unlike the Associated Press, is not based in the United States....


----------



## kokopuffs (Aug 4, 2000)

You've all heard of that dirtbag named Ira Einhorn who murdered his girlfriend 20 years ago and fled to France. Is he a hippie and politically correct or just plain selfish?


----------



## m brown (May 29, 1999)

Bin Laden is said to be worth billions if not millions.
If he had a human heart and was a freedom fighter he would have taken his money and family influence and built his country up, given the inhabitants food and education, built houses of worship and worked to change the politial climate for the bettermet of Islam. Is troops would be working with the children and infrastructure of the country in praise of Allah and bringing health and religious strenght to his country. Working within the constructs of the world stage to gain understanding for his people he could have been a really good thing. 
Well, he did not, has not and who knows, will not and he does not deserve to be labled as anything but Filth, Low and Disgusting.


----------



## momoreg (Mar 4, 2000)

That sounds politically correct to me.


----------



## isa (Apr 4, 2000)

Always hate political correctness specially in French where noum have a gender and people now want to use both gender in any text. Imagine reading phrases like: the chefe and chef and the directore and director....


----------



## kimmie (Mar 13, 2001)

Very good point Isa! Food for thought...


----------



## kylew (Aug 14, 2000)

Mr. Einhorn is now a guest of The State Correctional Institution at Houtzdale .

We certainly would not want to upset the delicate sensibilities of Uncle Osama now, would we.


----------



## kokopuffs (Aug 4, 2000)

'Scuse me, KyleW, for being politically incorrect. Both Osama and Ira should be bedmates.:bounce:


----------



## chefboy2160 (Oct 13, 2001)

Hey , instead of bedmates they should be cell mates in a prison totaly run by women and what will happen behind bars will happen .


----------



## blanchtoque (Oct 29, 2000)

It is my understanding that the reason Reuters and some of the other News Services have stopped using the word "terrorist" not because of political correctness but because they have corrispondents all over the world and using the "t" word may put them in jepordy in some countries.


----------



## anneke (Jan 5, 2001)

That was also my understanding. I don't think anyone is denying (including AL Qeda) that this was an act of terrorism. However, journalists are going through a dangerous period indeed. One of my friends at NBC is on antibiotics after the anthrax scare. These people, especially the foreign correspondents, put their lives at risk every day...


----------



## w.debord (Mar 6, 2001)

I've never been politicly correct (more politicaly ignorant than anything) so here's my policticly incorrect take:

I'm trying to learn what I can threw the media about Bin Laden....and I saw a show that did say Bin Laden DOES puts his money into the people of the region. That's why they love him (there has to be SOME reason don't you think?). Common on, there has to be some substance to tie the people to him...


They said there are tons of orpans in the region and Bin Laden is the main financial support for them. He has hundreds of children who would be on the streets with out him. Plus he sponsers the many places of worship, which happen to be the only place children can obtain education. He's all they have and therefore he's bought their /knowledge/experience which tells them to hate us. To thousands of people he isn't a terrorist, he's pushing their political agenda. 

I do think Bin Ladens got a plan, 'divide and conquer'. His message seems crazy to most people but to some its right. I think we SHOULD accept all peoples opinions. Not adopt, not honor BUT let people have a voice. The majority will choose the way. Isn't that how we work, isn't that what WE want for ourselfs? Give it back and then we can have some comunication which is better than oppressing people which leads to unrest. Let everyone have their own views and lets live in peace doing so...(reminds me of John Lenon) but he was right. Imagine if there was no religion?


AS a JEW. Quite frankly I've seen very little in my life on American t.v about the conflicts with the middle east that doesn't lean strongly in flavor of Isreal. Can you disagree? Honestly? I never learned why we support Isreal side always? Why Isreal is alway correct? Did any of you grow-up with a balanced view here in the States? Just day after day they cover the conflict and tell us whats happening in Isreal. If it was unbaised maybe I would side with the jewish view as the 'only view' but they never showed us any other info.


As I get older I've also began to notice how the media in general isn't perfect. Isn't as unbaised as it claims. It pushes it's agenda first, to 'scare us', 'educate us','teach us' etc....but their bottom line is getting the numbers watching them, cause that brings in dollars to maintain there jobs.


----------



## kokopuffs (Aug 4, 2000)

WDeBord:
During my Silly Clone Valley days I got alot of guff from the techies due to my having visited Algeria. I mentioned that during my visit I felt safer on the streets of Algiers (this was in the mid 70's) than I ever did in L.A. and San Jose. That's because arabs deal with criminals more harshly. America could do the same.

Little does this country know how much of its cuisine, astronomy, chemistry and math derive from the early arab culture. Algebra, an arabic word, means "the reduction"; alfalfa means "the father" and alcohol means... (I can't remember). All of those words...arabic.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR EQUANIMITY!!!

    :bounce:


----------



## w.debord (Mar 6, 2001)

Anyway I'm kind of trying to say is...


Who isn't a terrorist? For each view, theirs an opposite view? 

We are terrorists, they are terrorists. Lets call each other names and see how things progress....they'll get no where. We will for-ever because we will not agree. Which leaves all of our children growing up in a world full of hate and wars. 

Put aside labels, think about the other guys views alittle.

Allow people to express their view, with-in reasonable boundries so they don't inflict their will on others who agree.

Call me names, call me a JEW, call me anything. So long as it doesn't inflict harm onto me I will turn my check, because my will for survival is strong enough to live next to you who hates me with out throwing stones back. 

I'll listen until I go deaf to your point of view. I'll honor all people that are around me. As I ask you to listen too and honor me also.

Who cares which words we use, so long as we have a dialog?


----------



## anneke (Jan 5, 2001)

A terrorist does NOT want to have a dialogue with you. He just wants to erradicate you. War and terrorism are not the same thing. There is a difference, irrespective of what side you are on.


----------



## cape chef (Jul 31, 2000)

Anneke,

You are absolutly on the money.
I am also a Jew,and feel very strongly about the USA position with israel.

Israel has been attacked so many times over the ages
Israel is surrounded by people who want the land and want them dead.

This is not about dialogue,It's about securing a life for our children free of "TERROREST "

just because there are two sides to a story dosen't mean that the two sides are terrorest,How can we even us that word so freely in conjunction with dialogue.

Osama bin Laden is a Terrorest!!!!
He wants to scare ,kill and humiliate people.
cc


----------



## w.debord (Mar 6, 2001)

Good points Anneke, but perhaps I still don't follow.


I don't understand how war and terrorism are really any different in their goals. Why doesn't which word you use depend on where your standing when the action of either is to inflict death on the other side? Does the opposition in war want a dialogue with you or your surrender? Then terrorists just want everyone but themselfs dead? Or do they want to force their agenda?

Forget whos right and whos wrong, for a moment. I don't see how when both parties who are killing each others citizens (regardless of the method because method is linked to money) you can say one side is right and one side is wrong with a blanket sentence. It depends upon which side your on. It's been an eye for an eye for too long in the middle east! Heck who even remembers who threw the first stone anymore? It's time for PEACE!

Now I can agree that what happened in NY was unprevoked terrorism without any question! They thew the first stone. Yes I agree with our defence and retaliation, AND that it is necessary! But our hands aren't so perfectly clean as to never have particapated in conflict and never have prevoked some hatred.

But fighting will never ever stop unless we can dialog with terrorists/enemies whatever you word you wish to use. If you don't believe you can talk then we have no hope, just endless distruction. Then what? Just kill everyone until theres only 'civilized' nations left? Then aren't we forcing our will on others?

Sorry I don't mean to be dumb, I guess I just don't get it (seriously) 

I looked up the word terrorism in the dictonary. 
It says, 'the systematic use of terror esp. as a means of coercion'. Coercion says, ' repress. compel. enforce'. 
Terror means, 'a state of intense fear. one that inspires fear'.


So we aren't using terrorism, we're using coercion while in war.
But after all don't the words depend upon which side your on in a literal sense? Either that or whos memory is the best as to who cast the first stone.


----------



## cape chef (Jul 31, 2000)

When someone walks into a Israely discotec wrapped in bombs and blows himself up and kills 22 innocent Isrealy teenagers what are the mothers,fathers and goverment suppose to do?

As for war...Yes we are at war,But not with Islam.We are at war with the cowards who kill in the name of god.

Unfortunatly in war innocent people will die,But it is not our intention to kill them...like it was the intention of the terrorest to kill as many men,women and children with one blow as they possible could.
I know the USA does not always have clean hands,and we have done some pretty stupid stuff. 

When the USA has gone to war it has been provoked and we react. I am not a man of violence,and I do believe in Peace and trying to find diplomatic ways to peace BuT I am heartened to say that unless the people in the middle east that train,fund and house these legiones of terror are not braught to justice then there will never be peace in this world.
cc


----------



## nancya (Apr 30, 2001)

Well said Cape Chef.

To me the difference lies in the _intention_ behind the action. This is, of course, clouded by perspective...but overall, in war - armies fight armies. In terrorism, a few fanatics hurt whoever they can.


----------



## isa (Apr 4, 2000)

That poor guy from France entered a foreign country lead by a bunch of fanatics. He did so illegally, dressed as a woman. He knew the risks, knew the rules and decided to go for it, thinking that they wouldn't dare do anything to him. He was wrong. He did something utterly stupid and now will have to pay for it.


I’m not cold hearted I just think that when a grown man decides to try such a stupid stunt in these troubles times must be nuts. Sure it’s too bad and I’m sorry for him and his family but I have to wonder what the **** was he thinking about??


----------



## pastachef (Nov 19, 1999)

Osama Bin Laden, in his pervasion of the beautiful Islamic religion, actually believes he is doing the right thing. He's insane! There is a verse in his (Koran?) that says they should kill the enemies of Allah. In my opinion he considers us the enemy because we have a capitalist form of government and are not following the harsh form of faith that his sect forces on their people. His mind set says KILL, and that is exactly what he intends to do. I can't believe that all of these atrocities are being committed in the name of God. Our bible says that God IS love!


----------



## kuan (Jun 11, 2001)

I'm going to say what I'm going to say. Take it however you want, but it's the way I feel. Just to show how misguided our concept of what a terrorist is or isn't, I'll use Indonesia as an example.

Indonesia was, by all international standards, a nation of peaceful tolerance among the inhabitants of that nation. All this came to a halt about three years ago when the Asian economic crisis hit. The collapse of the Baht and Rupiah triggered a rapid deterioration between religious and racial relations. The Chinese who held 90% of the wealth fled the nation as they were attacked by angry mobs who went from household to household raping burning down everything they could and raping Chinese women. This of course perpetuated the collapse of the economy which led things to spiral out of control.

During this time, the Achenese were attacking the Javanese government employees in the name of religion. Unreported, and unheeded by influential governments, the Javanese government had stripped the provinces of all natural resources to float their personal programs. In the Moluccas, the Lascar Jihad gains momentum against the Christian majority. 90% of the Muslims there are jobless.

When Megawati Sukarnoputri came into power, the Chinese were assured that they would receive support, but this turned out to be a flat out lie. The first appointment of a Chinese official to a high level position in the cabinet was quickly axed by the temporary president.

In Iran Jaya and Sulawesi, Muslims riot in response the government's deliberate draining of resources from the provinces, and also the "appointment" of Javanese to high government positions and state owned companies. When Suharto relocated Muslims to the outlying regions of this vast nation, local Muslims were displaced. This immediately created pockets of civil war in provinces over jobs and other resources. It's too bad videos of mass slayings and beheadings don't make it to CNN.

East Timor seceded, most of its economic infrastructure torn up, their buildings torched and reduced to rubble when the militia pulled out. As they left, they took with them thousands of "refugees," the most famous was a 13 year old girl claimed as a war prize. She was impregnated by an army General and paraded in front of her family and other United Nations officials who watched from the other side of the border.

The army, police, cabinet, all finance their high life with private businesses. Generals go to war against other generals for control over a lucrative piece of territory. Muslim mercenaries for sale to the highest bidders destroy bars and any place of "sin" just so police can collect their protection money. It doesn't stop there, the courts and government officials, they're all in it.

So who is the terrorist here? By supporting Megawati Sukarnoputri's agenda, is President Bush supporting the opression of a forcibly displaced people? Are those who fight against an obviously corrupt government terrorist? The acts they commit such as firebombing the residences of high ranking government officials could be considered acts of terrorism, and the intent is similiar to that of the ones responsible for the Sep. 11th attack, but IMO, these aren't terrorists.

Kuan


----------



## kuan (Jun 11, 2001)

Osama funds public education. The schools he funds are fundamental Islamic schools where nothing except the Qu'ran is taught. The people of Afghanistan are too poor to buy food or go to school so Osama's schools are the next best thing. There they're fed food (and anti-American propoganda) and given a shelter for at least a part of the day.

Why we support Israel.

The support of Israel symbolizes the existence of a democratic state and a free society. This support has been recognized both formally and informally in Congress and the Senate since the 70's. United States foreign policy has centered aroud three pillars since the end of WWII. The suppresion of communism and the influence of the Soviet Union, the support of Democracy (hence the support for Israel) and the maintainance of a secure oil pipeline to the United States.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union we all of a sudden have one less pawn to defend. Nevertheless, we should be commited to a free Israel because it is a key part of our foreign policy. There are at least two ways we can look at it. The first is a through a nation-state/political ideology model. This is the traditional way of looking at the situation. We need to support Israel because we support the right of a people to have their own democratic state and to be free.

The next is a rather cloudy view, and I think our world sometimes mistakenly tries to apologize for all of Israel's woes in this context. This is a religous/economic outlook on why we should support Israel. This view IMHO incorrectly equates Zionism with Judaism, and constantly draws into consideration the conflict between religion and economics. For those who hold this view, statehood is synonymous with religion, and Israel has a right to exist where it exists based on the location of the holy city. Most anti-Israel advocates argue from this point of view.

I think it's important to not supplant the first paradigm with the second. I see no purpose in doing so and if we do, I think we're doing ourselves a disservice because it takes what Americans hold dear (freedom, democracy, capitalism, etc.) and turns it into a melding of church and state.

No matter which way you look at it, and even if you don't agree with any of what I've said so far, I think we can all come to support Israel solely on the basis of personal moral introspection. Here is a group of people who stand united as one. To deny them a place to live would be to treat them as lower than animals. We provide a safe habitat for animals, and we protect our wetlands and desserts. Why should we deny them shelter? After all, they're human aren't they? Last I checked I was human too.

Kuan


----------



## mezzaluna (Aug 29, 2000)

Thank you for your support of Israel, Kuan. I must, however, rebut one point: You can't have Judaism without at least some extent of Zionism. (My definition of Zionism is that the land of Israel is the Jewish homeland; I don't wish to exclude others from living there in peace as residents or citizens.)

A synonym for "The Jewish People" is "The People Israel". Not "The People _of_ Israel", you'll notice. We also call ourselves "The House of Israel." It's our collective name. In our worship liturgy and in the Torah (Five Books of Moses), the people and the land are synonymous. This self-perception precedes the modern political state, and is inseparable from what we are. It is important to note that Judaism commands its followers to participate in their lands of residence (America, Canada, Botswana... wherever we find ourselves), and to work for the nation's welfare- as well as working to build Israel the modern state.


----------



## w.debord (Mar 6, 2001)

I not sure how the US was "prevoked" into the Vietnam conflict. Nor do I see how Taiwan is America' child to protect. How supporting dictators in oil rich nations is the right thing to do I miss that too. We want to protect the inocent, support democracy and feed the world. But so far most of our attempts have been so poorly followed thru that we are just the big bully of the world.

Perhaps it's a lack of continuity with changing administrations over the years. But it seems that we are very short sighted.

I still say our media reflects our own image so much that we don't have a clue what we're doing in regards to foreign policy and any of the reprocusions our actions leave on the rest of the world.


----------



## kuan (Jun 11, 2001)

You can thank George W. for further churning the waters which separate China and Taiwan, after all, he DID say that America has an obligation to defend Taiwan against any Chinese attack. Sometimes I wish that George W. would think before he spoke. His handling of this whole spyplane situation showed his lack of sensitivity toward the way Asians negotiate and communicate. We really do NOT have an obligation to defend Taiwan. In fact, our obligation is to dissuade Taiwan from independently and openly declaring itself to be a nation. If not for our intervention in this issue, Taiwan would not exist at this point in time.

I don't think I deserve any more thanks for my support of Israel than I do my support for Canada. To me it's a given and just a part of a whole list of things that humans deserve. The right to live a life free of persecution and fear, etc. That's all.

Kuan


----------



## kokopuffs (Aug 4, 2000)

WDeBord:

America was suckered, not "prevoked", into Vietnam by the French.


----------



## w.debord (Mar 6, 2001)

From what I understand (from frontline on pbs) George W. had actually spent sometime desiding what his adminastrations policy would be toward Taiwan. He was to say in an interview that we "had an obligation to defend Taiwan, but that Tiawan has an obligation to not provoke war", by calling it's self a independant country. But George w. forgot to add the last half of his sentence "that Tiawan had an obligation not to provoke war", MAJOR OOPS don't you think? They had to scurry around and tell the dipolmats the whole deal. But the worlds ears never hear the whole promise.

Many have said his hands off policy with regards to the peace talks in the middle east is what brought this scream of hatred for the US to the front. It's amazing how quickly that went down... 

I don't understand why our policys should change so dramaticly with each new adminastration? I'm not sure how we could prevent this but to some extent it's crazy. We need more world news on our news shows. We need to pay attention to the rest of the world like the rest of the world pays attention to us.


----------

