charlesbronstein wrote:
I consider I suppose being "moderate" means being open to racial profiling, police surveillance, the erosion of civil liberties"
I consider moderate in the United States to be simply supporting democracy, respecting the multitude of traditions we have and opposing terrorism. By this definition, the King of Jordan, who is often defined as a moderate, would not make the cut.
charlesbronstein wrote:
and if you were fortunate enough to live in lebanon during the summer, having your family murdered by Israeli bombers
Israel is more selective in it's efforts to avoid civilians then the United States. The invasion of southern Lebanon, which was under control of Hezbollah rather then the central government, was perfectly legally due to the fact that rockets were being fired across the border.
Do you have any sources for the accusations of Israeli "murders?" Is it possible that these accusations comes from the
numerous false accusations made against Israel?
charlesbronstein wrote:
hypothetically, if Saddam had attacked the U.S he could have appeal to the "moderate christians" in other western states like Canada and Britain to fight the "radical terrorist christians" of the United States.
If a party similar to the
Baaths (which are based upon the Nazis) took over the United States, and this party was dominated of say, Southerners, and they massacred (I'm not sure what the exact equivalent is but) 15 million people, and invaded and fought a war against Mexico that killed 15 million more (on both sides), and also tortured their political opponents, raped women in "rape rooms," then I would strongly support an effort by a moderate Muslim power to put into place a more just regime. And anyone who would murder innocent civilians, Christian or not, to prevent the removal of that said barbaric regime, would has no morals what so ever.
charlesbronstein wrote:
the number of people that have died under Israel's actions(with U.S funding)
I would object more to the United States funding of Egypt's dictatorship or the dictatorship of Saudi Arabia. Israel doesn't go out of massacre thousands or millions of people, certainly not the Palestinians. But the Arabs have! This is because they don't care about the Palestinians. They care about distracting there own people from their own problems with hatred for Israel. Israel doesn't even run the Palestinian territories, and hasn't for years. The Palestinian territories are in the middle of a civil war right now between two factions: one extreme, and one more extreme.
I would love for some Sadat (no saint) to rise and for an independent, peaceful Palestine to rise next to Israel, but it doesn't look like it's going to happen.
charlesbronstein wrote:
Pinochet(U.S. backed)
Yes, we supported him. His predecessor had been backed by the Soviets, you can hardly expect the U.S. to work hard to undermine him.
charlesbronstein wrote:
the contras in Nicaragua during the 80's, makes the islamic terror argument pretty limp.
Really? What was the contras evil ideology. Osama Bin Laden wants to establish a new caliphate across all of America. He speaks of us giving in after
4 million are dead. No threat there. The contras wanted to replace the Communist dictatorship with a democratic government. What is wrong with that? How is that a threat to the United States or the humanity?