Monday, September 11, 2006

What the World is Saying























I'm always curious to learn how other countries' news outlets cover major events here in the States. 9-11 is the biggest news story ever and I'm saddened, though not surprised, by the dismissive tone take on by some members of the world press on this sad day.

Le Monde, a leading French daily, offered an account (bilan, circled in the picture above) of the five years since 9-11, which have been marked by "security fever in the United States."

The paper's readers chimed in on a chat room in response to the query "Does 9-11 Still Dictate International Relations?" In spite of that snarky headline, most readers stated that 9-11 is just the beginning of worse things to come and brought up other reasonable concerns that are tied to safety, politics and economics. The issue of whether 9-11 has or should put the brakes on globalization was brought up, and one reader said that the world community can't let this happen.

Another reader asked if 9-11 brought people together - the response was that the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the USSR was a truly unifying event, while 9-11 has deepend the schisms of global politics.

El Pais, the leading newspaper in my mom's hometown of Cali, Colombia, offered a brief analysis of the post 9-11 world by a college professor named Eugenio Gomez. In his view, the clash of civilizations hit its climax on 9-11 and the Bush administration has done little to mend fences or build consensus on who the U.S.' enemies really are. I guess I can agree with that. Another editorial in the paper highlighted that more people have died in the subsequent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq while Osama is still at large. Not much to argue there.

I just wish the paper would have acknowledged that a few Colombians actually died in the attacks, and they were people who came to this country to support their families back home. These perished individuals were contributing to the Colombian economy and to the well-being of its citizens, a nod to that would have been appropriate.

It's no surprise, though, that the terrorists at Al Jazeera make no qualms about their belief that we got what was coming to us on 9-11.

In addition to the stupid comments posted by its terrorist readers (many of whom posted from Western European countries), saying things like the Jews blew up the Towers, bla bla bla, the network's article offered these choice observations:

-- Five years after the tragic event, "cracks" are beginning to appear, with many analysts and political experts questioning the official story about 9/11 and suggesting that the collapse of the World Trade Center was apparently not as straight-forward as it was made out to be.
**WHO ARE THESE ANALYSTS AND "EXPERTS?"

-- Not the U.S. government stands out for the modern monuments to injustice, epitomized by the Abu Ghraib prison, the secret jails run by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the Guantanamo detention camp that was established following September 11 attacks.
** AND NOT ONE MENTION OF THE INNOCENT CIVILIANS, PEACEWORKERS AND JOURNALISTS THAT HAVE BEEN KIDNAPPED AND BEHEADED BY AL QAEDA

-- The numerous conspiracy theories that had emerged since the tragic events took place, all questioning the claim that the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon building were carried out by a handful of young Arabs and Muslims are backed up by even more convincing evidence and a better understanding of why the attacks actually took place, and new voices are beginning to doubt the official story of what happened on 9/11.
** HUH?? THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT A HANDFUL OF YOUNG ARAB MEN, THE SAME ILK THAT IS WANDERING THE STREETS RIGHT NOW DEMANDING RIGHTS AND UNDERSTANDING WERE THE MASTERMINDS OF THE 9-11 ATTACKS.


-- The ensuing War on Terror is much more than an honorable mission to spread freedom and democracy as the American President claims, but a strategy to have American military bases stationed in most of the Middle East countries, and part of a wider plan to extend influence in the region and boost the U.S. hegemony in a way that facilitate laying hand on the Arab and the ME states’ riches. It’s becoming increasingly urgent that all of this be put an end before more innocent lives are lost. As the saying goes, you can't fool all the people all the time.
** WE COULD LEAVE IRAQ TOMORROW AND THESE PEOPLE WOULD STILL HATE US; THEY WILL ALWAYS FEEL OWED SOMETHING FROM US; THEY ARE MORE TROUBLE THAN THEY'RE WORTH...SEND AN A-BOMB THEIR WAY.

8 comments:

ThatGayConservative said...

Perhaps our "allies" aren't our allies after all, eh?

Further, note that those posts sound an aweful like the "Democrats".

GayConservativeLiberal said...

I wouldn't say they sound like democrats as much as terrorists -- not one of the posts on Al Jazeera was sympathetic to the human suffering of 9-11. I can say that this blog has reflected compassion for all affected by terror, but the posts on Al Jazeera make it clear that some people want all out war with us.

GRT said...

In his speech last night, Mr. Bush used "ideological" to describe the "struggle" of the 21st century.

He is absolutely correct in that. His further comments, however, give no indication of how he and his administration plans to engage in changing the minds of our antagonists.

Force of arms have never changed anyone's mind.

The people who post onto these sites must be engaged on an intellectual level at some point or we cannot win this vital, ideological struggle for our way of life.

The political debate in our country today is not whether to engage the enemy, that's a given. It's how and under what conditions and when to take certain steps and where to take those steps.

ThatGayConservative said...

Force of arms have never changed anyone's mind.

Actually, history clearly shows that it has. Sopping wet pussies clamoring to be everybody's friend never changed anyone's mind. Absolute victory has always won the day while appeasement hasn't and never will.

Peace follows victory, not douchebags wishing for it.

Berdo said...

GCL -

Just got back from Europe - which would explain why I haven't peppered your blog with any semi-hostile posts :).

In any case - having just travelled to Europe and spent a week meeting people from around the world, I figured I would provide you with a quick overview of some of the conversations I had with them. Everyone of these convos, I should note, was instigated by them, not me, once they realized I was American (in 0.2 seconds). I rarely begin political debates because the people I run with generally don't like my politics and my friend Betsy does not like it at all. That being said, here's a few observations:

1) The guys I spoke with uniformly (French, Serbian, Irish) did not want to listen. A French guy made the patently stupid, but routine suggestion that America chose to invade Iraq for oil. When I mentioned that the same accusation had been made when we rescued Kuwait, that our biggest ally in the Middle East in Israel (virtually the only country in the region WITHOUT oil and an enemy to every country WITH oil), and the 12 years of UN resolutions (not to mention the Gulf War itself) that preceded our invasion of Iraq, they moved on to another point (no point in debate, simply throw a bunch of spitballs and see what sticks).
2) A Serbian guy we met made a snarky comment about 9/11 that basically followed that we mourn one day while his country mourns four months of US bombing. I ask him if he remembers a person called Slobodan Milosevic, the holocaust he began in Kosovo, the attempted elimination of Bosnia, etc...he says nothing.

3) One French guy told me that it was "for shame" that the US is in Iraq. I told him the shame is with France -a nd other countries who should have been with us in this war or at least fundamentally on our side against viscious dictatorships - to say nothing of the now uncovered Oil For Food scam that enriched many French officials. He again, I kid you not, chose to ignore this and when all else failed, he went back to the US wants oil argument.

4) A Czech guy (very cute too) believed wholeheartedly that Bin Laden was not responsible for 9/11. We spoke about clothes after that.


With the exception of the Serbian guy, we ended up hanging out with and having fun with all of the others, to say ntohing of the tons of Europeans we had met who we, mercifully, did not dicuss politics with. But I imagine that many of the overseas papers, Le Monde, etc...don't provide much of the points I had mentioned. Every single person self-selected a debate with me and every one of them sounded pathetic. Not because I'm so smart (trust me, that ain't my point or my reality) but because they are NEVER exposed to these arguments.

Maybe the world's attitude will change if the elitist media wasn't focused on fostering Bush hatred and Anti-Americanism rather than providing full information and context to the stories they write and the events they cover.

Red Tulips said...

Berdo:

Very well said. You are expounding upon a reality that I do not know the cure of.

*sighs*

GRT said...

It's too easy to accuse MSM of "Bush hatred" and "Anti-Americanism."

They're phrases which are empty of real meaning and serve only to engage the emotions and not the intellect.

GRT said...

That Al Jazeera link is scary. Did you mean to imply that Al Jazeera itself is a terrorist organization or that the commentors were?