0

kaninelupus said:

Also, the fact that like most democratic nations, voting is compulsory (a fact I know the Yanks find hard to fathom), teaching our students from an early age about how our political system works is given much higher priority, thus creating a much more informed public.

This almost seems as though it might be worth a try, on the grounds of the ends justifying the means - unfortunately, since we don't seem to be able to teach our students how to even add and subtract at the moment, I wouldn't put money on the chance of success in teaching them about something as (relatively) complex as a political system ...

0

kaninelupus said:

This almost seems as though it might be worth a try, on the grounds of the ends justifying the means - unfortunately, since we don't seem to be able to teach our students how to even add and subtract at the moment, I wouldn't put money on the chance of success in teaching them about something as (relatively) complex as a political system ...

What causes people to not be able to add and subtract by the time they graduate from high school? That's a hell of a good thread in its own right! My philosophy is "teach it anyway". SOME of them will learn it (am I being too optimistic to think that MOST of them will learn it? Which one's the rule and which one's the exception?).

0

Do you want to start that thread or should I? :D

And by the way, they can't read or write either. I spend time volunteering - and find myself teaching subtraction with "borrowing", addition with "carrying", and long division with single-digit divisors. Many of the same people can't even begin to solve problems because they can't read well enough to understand the problems. Also, in a related real-world note, they can't make change.

Personal opinion: most of them were never actually TAUGHT. They were "encouraged to discover" - which is NOT equivalent to teaching. One poor young lady told me that the reason that she got A's and B's in math all the way through school was that her teachers knew that she was trying! She is not a stupid person - why didn't any of her teachers actually try to teach her anything??

And yes, I jerked my own kid out of the system after a couple of years and taught him myself. Yes, he ended up in a very good college.

Thanks for providing the soapbox!! :)

0

Also, the fact that like most democratic nations, voting is compulsory (a fact I know the Yanks find hard to fathom)

Yes, nearly 100% of the citizens of Iraq voted and Saddam Hussein won 100% of those votes during the "election". But I would not have called that a democracy. Dictatorships are sometime disguised as democracies.

Votes + Comments
Good point.
0

Yes, nearly 100% of the citizens of Iraq voted and Saddam Hussein won 100% of those votes during the "election". But I would not have called that a democracy. Dictatorships are sometime disguised as democracies.

But kaninelupus said that in reference to Australia, not a country that whose government enforces single-party rule. The context of that quote makes all the difference...

But I see the point you're trying to make. I know that enforcing voting as mandatory restricts the rights of those who purposefully choose not to vote as an action of disfavour with the current politics. Yet, by not making voting mandatory, a new group is created - those people who don't vote only because they can't be bothered to. Sadly, in countries like America and Canada, this group makes up a large portion of the population, so that the voter turnout can be only ~60% on average. The problem raised by this is that only a slim majority of the country took action in choosing their "representative", and only a majority of those who turned out chose that particular representative over the opposition. This results in very skewed and disproportionate representation, and if the country uses a system like PR, rather than first-past-the-post, much more often the winner of the vote does not actually even hold a majority of the votes from those who voted - an even slimmer portion of the population deciding on the representative of the whole nation.

0

But kaninelupus said that in reference to Australia, not a country that whose government enforces single-party rule. The context of that quote makes all the difference...

But I see the point you're trying to make. I know that enforcing voting as mandatory restricts the rights of those who purposefully choose not to vote as an action of disfavour with the current politics. Yet, by not making voting mandatory, a new group is created - those people who don't vote only because they can't be bothered to. Sadly, in countries like America and Canada, this group makes up a large portion of the population, so that the voter turnout can be only ~60% on average. The problem raised by this is that only a slim majority of the country took action in choosing their "representative", and only a majority of those who turned out chose that particular representative over the opposition. This results in very skewed and disproportionate representation, and if the country uses a system like PR, rather than first-past-the-post, much more often the winner of the vote does not actually even hold a majority of the votes from those who voted - an even slimmer portion of the population deciding on the representative of the whole nation.

This is unfortunately true, but it also has another insidious side-effect. Generally speaking, politicians can make use of censuses, polls and records of voting patterns to target those sections of the populous in their "policies" who do vote, and not even pretend to cater for those they know will not even bother to exercise their democratic right to vote. It creates a political institution for the few, not the ALL.

The other advantage we have here is laws which prevent those hefty campaign "contributors" that you have over there, which can create a system of obligation if elected to power.

0

shadwickman> The problem raised by this is that only a slim majority of the country took action in choosing their "representative", and only a majority of those who turned out chose that particular representative over the opposition.

There's not problem. Still whoever gets elected to represent us all, was elected by majority. By those that took initiative and by those that didn't; choosing to let others to choose for them. Not a problem at all, letting freedom garnish the way.

1

Let me get some of this straight :confused::
1) Their is no government with perfect leaders. They often don't represent the
people fairly
2) Their is no government with a non-exploitable system.
3) Lot's of people don't care what to government does, and/or are not
informed.
4) Depending on the system, leaders can use this to give them selves power
over the population.

The Ontario high school curriculum recently got a new mandatory course: Gr. 10 Civics. It was the first smart move I've seen the school board make in a long time. Basicly, it teaches students about government system's, politics, and how to make informed decisions. For example, we had to write an essay on the video I linked on post #13. The hope is to lower the population that does not vote, or blindly votes in the future.

Votes + Comments
You got it.
0


The Ontario high school curriculum recently got a new mandatory course: Gr. 10 Civics. It was the first smart move I've seen the school board make in a long time. Basicly, it teaches students about government system's, politics, and how to make informed decisions.

Sounds good from here. One of our retired Supreme Court justices is trying to start a movement to return to teaching civics in this country - it was taught in 7th and 8th grades when I was a kid, but that was more than 50 yrs ago ...

1

kaninelupus> "Epic failure"?? Because I could actually construct a well thought out dialogue as to why I disagreed with you??
No. It is because you have removed all possible doubts that you don't know what you are talking about.

In response to above post this is what kaninelupus has to say using the negative rep system>

This coming from someone with the all the IQ of a brick! All you've done with your name-calling and blatant antagonism is show the entire site what a true w@nker you really are... and that's on top of being another annoying Yank (I cheered on 9 11) - kaninelupus

Votes + Comments
Disgusting. Thank you for bringing this to everyone's attention.
0

In response to above post this is what kaninelupus has to say using the negative rep system>

and that's on top of being another annoying Yank (I cheered on 9 11) - kaninelupus

Anyone who would cheer on 9/11 is just a scumbag, plain and simple. kanineplus simply isn't worth dealing with/debating under any circumstances after that. You're going to say that and dare to lecture us on democracy or anything else?!?!?

0

and that's on top of being another annoying Yank (I cheered on 9 11) - kaninelupus

Yeah - that's kind of scary. Somehow I don't remember cheering about Chernobyl ...

0

Anyone who would cheer on 9/11 is just a scumbag, plain and simple. kanineplus simply isn't worth dealing with/debating under any circumstances after that. You're going to say that and dare to lecture us on democracy or anything else?!?!?

Given that the comment was made to specifically goad an @rsehole who has been using the rating system to pay out for my disagreeing with him (as well as publicly abusing and insulting anyone who doesn't share his point of view), you can take it as you like.

While I may not have cheered, I certainly hold no sympathy. You may not like that, but I can't forget the fact that both Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were funded, armed and empowered by your country, all in the name of playing out its own political agenda in everyone else's backyard... that's not counting the many other countries that have similarly been played with. How many millions have died as a result of that?? Or the war started in Iraq, based on nothing more than fear and out-right lies? While I may never have liked Saddam or anything he stood for, I still cannot accept the fact that the US had some god-given right to go in and blow the crap out of the country for its own motives (same as a large portion of this country was mad as hell when our government sent even a token force in... my brother-in-law being one of them). I actually have more sympathy for your troops than those effected in 9 11, as not only are they often left to pay the consequences when fools get voted in, I would imagine that voting would be far higher amongst the armed forces; both because of a higher sense of civic duty, and because they know first hand the importance of getting it right.

While I may pity the individuals, I have no sympathy for your country itself... what that day cost your country is nothing short of minute when compared that which many many other countries have suffered all because of the way your country has gone about its business; because the same sorts of fools keep being put into power; because even after 9 11, few if any stopped and wondered why exactly your country draws so much animosity across the globe. It could have been a catalyst for a positive change... but that never happened.

THIS is why I get so damned angry about the apathy displayed at the voting polls, or the general ignorance both national and international politics. When you guys allows idiots to take the helm, that doesn't just effect your country... it effects the rest of us who had no say over who gets elected over there at all. We're just left to pay the price!

0

Given that the comment was made to specifically goad an @rsehole who has been using the rating system to pay out for my disagreeing with him (as well as publicly abusing and insulting anyone who doesn't share his point of view), you can take it as you like.

Don't kid yourself. It wasn't directed at one person. You posted it in a place where everyone could see it. It was directed at all of us. There are twenty million things you could have posted if you just wanted to go after one person. You picked 9/11, something designed to enrage every American (and hopefully the entire civilized world).

While I may not have cheered, I certainly hold no sympathy.

So did you cheer or not? You already said that you did. So did you make it up just to make us (like I said before, no insult involving 9/11 is directed at one person) mad?

(same as a large portion of this country was mad as hell when our government sent even a token force in... my brother-in-law being one of them).

Yes, a huge part of the Australian public was against the Iraq invasion. But fortunately, very very few of them would approve of you cheering on 9/11. The vast majority of Australians realize that there is nothing to cheer about for 9/11 and that we have a common enemy in al Qaeda in spite of any disagreements they have regarding our foreign policy. Seems to me al Qaeda killed quite a few Australians in Bali. Perhaps you read about that?

I actually have more sympathy for your troops than those effected in 9 11

Tell the troops you cheered on 9/11. They'll tell you where to put your sympathy. And you've already expressed by cheering how much sympathy you have for those affected by 9/11.

Petunia Rose is 100% correct. You don't cheer when stuff like this happens, whether it's Chernobyl or 9/11. And if you do cheer, take responsibility for the blackness in your heart that causes you to cheer. Don't pretend that your cheering has anything to do with our foreign policy.

0

[...] Somehow I don't remember cheering about Chernobyl ...

Because you did not. Any decent person did recognize the human tragedy, and the seriousness of the incident. I would risk to state that most likely you felt sympathy as many would had done. Even if their government policies were at fault.

1

Don't kid yourself. It wasn't directed at one person. You posted it in a place where everyone could see it. It was directed at all of us...[blah, blah, blah] (could you be more repetitive?)

No, it was posted on feedback board, which considering few ppl scan other ppl's profile to see what feedback is given, was fairly discretely placed... and given that no matter how the shot was fired it would have as likely been pasted in here.....

So did you cheer or not? You already said that you did. So did you make it up just to make us (like I said before, no insult involving 9/11 is directed at one person) mad?

Cheered - no. Sympathetic - no. Surprised - no. You will no doubt not like hearing this, but given the way your country has been playing backyard politics in everyone else's backyard, I'm highly surprised it has taken this long for something like this to happen. I may not approve of the actions they took, but can very much understand the anger and the blatant hostility.

I mean let's review... your government, funded, armed and empowered Bin Ladden because it suited their cause in during the Cold War and side-conflicts with anything USSR. Your country then cuts him loose, plays politics in his backyard, etc. When it backfires in the form of 9/11, rather than stepping back and figuring out how to break the cycle they actually began, they first prey on the fears of your country's citizens and bomb the crap out of a country which already detests you (as well as being poverty stricken for the most part), and then completely disrespecting their culture, simply because it isn't the "American Way", tell them they need to be more like you!

THEN, just because the party had already started your insane President decides to finish the war his Daddy started. The UN refused to sanction it, so not only was the response along the lines of "we're America, we'll do as we please"; the American media absolutely ridiculed those who openly opposed (ie, France and Germany). Your allies then got bullied and blackmailed into supporting you guys, putting not only your own troops at risk, but everyone else's as well!!

Yes, a huge part of the Australian public was against the Iraq invasion. But fortunately, very very few of them would approve of you cheering on 9/11. The vast majority of Australians realize that there is nothing to cheer about for 9/11 and that we have a common enemy in al Qaeda in spite of any disagreements they have regarding our foreign policy. Seems to me al Qaeda killed quite a few Australians in Bali. Perhaps you read about that?

I'm SO glad you brought that one up, as it has a HELL OF LOT TO DO WITH THE ANGER AIMED YOUR COUNTRY'S WAY! After all the weeks of constant media play on 9/11, Bali got all of five minutes of coverage in America... really nice! After the way our country's armed forces got dragged in to support your forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, we got left to deal with Bali on our own!

Then we can compare the way each event was handled..... after 9/11, the US response was bomb first, ask questions later! America felt perfectly justified in dealing with Afghani citizens under US law - even when it related to events not on US soil, including the detention of David Hicks, an AUSTRALIAN CITIZEN, not guilty of ANY crimes on US soil (was never even a combatant)... and fought tooth and nail when Australia held that America had no authority to detain and prosecute him (an we're supposed to be an ALLY!)

Compare that to Bali... Australian Federal Police got invited in, the worked in partnership with Bali authorities, treated the locals with respect, and finally allowed Bali to deal with the perpetrators under their own sovereign law... see a difference??

You talk of outrage... where was your outrage when your government was playing politics in others' backyards? Where was your outrage when ppl were dying at the hands of dictators your government put into power? Where was your outrage when your government used 9/11 to first strip away even more of your rights, continued the cycle of violence and hostility (making your country an even bigger target), sent your troops into two wars they should never have been involved, putting their lives at risk and sinking your country into ridiculous debt; and then heavily filtered any media coverage lest the public see too much of what was going on (a lesson learned from the first war in Iraq). Where was your outrage over the twisting of your country's laws by sending detainees to Guantanamo Bay so that prisoners had absolutely NO legal protections or representation? Shall I go on??

Sympathy?? Had your country actually learned a damn thing from those horrid events, then you'd get a world of sympathy. Had your citizens actually stood up and demanded answers, or decided to take your anger and concern to the polls, again, a world of sympathy. But that never happened!!

Votes + Comments
Thank you for posting this. Bang-on about American politics and the lack of knowledge of its citizens, combined with their arrogant actions towards the rest of the world.
0

Somehow I don't remember cheering about Chernobyl ...

Apples and oranges.

Chernobyl was the result of negligence, poor safety policies/legislation, mismanagement, under-funding etc... a tragic event.

9/11 was the result of:

  • The US constantly interfering with/disrespecting the politics and cultures of foreign countries with nought but your own interests in mind
  • The utter ignorance/arrogance/apathy of US citizens in regards to foreign policy/practices of your government
  • The way your government/media/citizens vilify anything non-American or that is contrary to your own belief-systems.

You guys claim "no civilised" person could condone or comprehend the actions taken on 9/11. Talking to returned Australian soldiers from the US-lead conflict, and their family members (the school I work in has a large number of military families), you have absolutely no idea the animosity from your "allies" who've witnessed first-hand the true effect of entering a war that should never have been. If you think only a few "black-hearted" individuals are either lacking in sympathy for the US over 9/11, or are disgusted with your country's conduct or the apathy of its citizens, you really have your head buried in the sand.... your country lost SO much sympathy over the way your country has behaved since 9/11.

You guys preach "democracy", forgetting that it was something (like with most democratic nations) that didn't happen by accident.... as a people, you fought for it - you chose it. Now, completely contrary to the whole concept of democracy, your country sees fit to try and force other nations, not only become democratic nations in their own right, but to adopt your own watered-down version of democracy! If that's not the very height of arrogance, I really don't know what is!

But at the end of the day, it really is not surprising that a vast majority of your country remains ignorant, not only in regards to your own political system or of the behaviour/practices of your own government, but also in regards to ethnic cultures & beliefs. When you have a political institution which spends exponentially more on the military than on education, it really is no wonder first-world country such as your own has a third-world education system, with third-world literacy, numeracy and general comprehension levels.... all the better to hoodwink you with I guess!

0

Then we can compare the way each event was handled..... after 9/11, the US response was bomb first, ask questions later! America felt perfectly justified in dealing with Afghani citizens under US law - even when it related to events not on US soil, including the detention of David Hicks, an AUSTRALIAN CITIZEN, not guilty of ANY crimes on US soil (was never even a combatant)

Putting Hicks in Gitmo was major overkill, no argument there. Everything I've seen about him shows he was extremely low level and a pretty confused guy who wasn't all that sure about why he was there and why he was doing what he was doing. Basically an adventure seeker who got in way over his head. Saying he wasn't a combatant is a real stretch though. From Amnesty International in Australia (it's not entirely clear to me who wrote this. No author is listed, but it's on Amnesty's website):

http://www.amnesty.org.au/hrs/comments/david_hicks_the_story_so_far/

Following the 9/11 attacks in the USA, David telephoned his father from Kandahar in Afghanistan, to tell him he was going to help the Taliban defend Kabul from the Northern Alliance.

Key words : "Following the 9/11 attacks". He was cooperating with the Taliban in Afghanistan post-9/11 by his own choice. He was a combatant. 9/11 was a crime on US soil and not just a crime, it was an act of war against not just the U.S. Hicks had nothing to do with it, but al Qaeda admitted to it, the Taliban refused to cooperate and hand him over. The Taliban hence became our and Australia's enemy, so he's in a war zone fighting for the other side.

Compare that to Bali... Australian Federal Police got invited in, the worked in partnership with Bali authorities, treated the locals with respect, and finally allowed Bali to deal with the perpetrators under their own sovereign law... see a difference??

Perhaps if the Taliban had invited us in and helped us arrest bin Laden and kicked al Qaeda out of the country, we wouldn't have had to act militarily. Do YOU see a difference?

-1

At first he couldn't camouflage the offending odor that a descomposing carcass starts emanating. Now, we see the result of the maggots oozing out to light.

Votes + Comments
Nothing even insightful to say in response.
0

9/11 was the result of:

  • The US constantly interfering with/disrespecting the politics and cultures of foreign countries with nought but your own interests in mind
  • The utter ignorance/arrogance/apathy of US citizens in regards to foreign policy/practices of your government
  • The way your government/media/citizens vilify anything non-American or that is contrary to your own belief-systems.

So those are the three reasons, eh? No blame goes out to anybody but us? It, like everything else in the world, is all our fault. Is it even remotely possible that al Qaeda and the Taliban had anything to do with it? That the 19 hijackers themselves need to accept some responsibility? Does Saudi Arabia not have to look at its own society and perhaps ponder the fact that Osama bin Laden and most of the hijackers were Saudi and maybe there is a reason why that has very little to do with us? Maybe the indoctrination in the madrassas and the mosques around the world might possibly be contributing factors too? There's a lot of respect for and no villification of people who don't share the same belief system there, isn't there?

Nope, there apparently are three causes of 9/11 and they're all 100% our fault.

0

Nope, there apparently are three causes of 9/11 and they're all 100% our fault.

I'd say America really does have to take a large part of the blame. The US has been trying to instill their politics in so many different countries over the years, it's no surprise that people will get eventually get angry. And again, the best example is the training of Bin Laden by the CIA, and the funding and support of the Taliban solely because it was an indirect way of confronting the USSR. Then in the mid 80s there was that scandal with Reagan (who's so well revered) where his government had subverted Congress in order to sell weapons to Nicaragua (via Iran) to fund the civil war going on there; another weaseling of themselves into politics that don't concern them.

That being said, I know that there are other factors that play into this, like as Vernon Dozier mentioned, brainwashing and indoctrination through religion. But at the same time, that needed a reason to start. The Afghans didn't wake up one morning and say "oh hey, let's hate America with a burning passion from now on". No, it stemmed from America's previous events and actions regarding Afghanistan, and possibly even other foreign affairs. And will that hatred stop once the democracy that the US wants has been crammed down the throats of the Afghans? I am still in doubt of that.

All in all though, it can be a very complicated matter and I don't think the US is 100% to blame, but as I said, they did do a lot to provoke it and continue their hatred of us.

0

With the 9/11 trump card played, how do we sink this thread any lower?

Ass dance!

Or would that add a little class? You pull out something like 9/11 and an entire site becomes worthless.

Turn on some crappy talk radio station if you want to hear 9/11 still being bombarded at you as an excuse. Or consult this old strip.

Attachments ShinChanAssDance.gif 124.53 KB
0

So those are the three reasons, eh? No blame goes out to anybody but us? It, like everything else in the world, is all our fault. Is it even remotely possible that al Qaeda and the Taliban had anything to do with it? That the 19 hijackers themselves need to accept some responsibility? Does Saudi Arabia not have to look at its own society and perhaps ponder the fact that Osama bin Laden and most of the hijackers were Saudi and maybe there is a reason why that has very little to do with us? Maybe the indoctrination in the madrassas and the mosques around the world might possibly be contributing factors too? There's a lot of respect for and no [vilification] of people who don't share the same belief system there, isn't there?

Nope, there apparently are three causes of 9/11 and they're all 100% our fault.

Are you hoping to change the mind of these people that harbour, and brew such internal thoughts as it has been displayed? It is not the lack of information and reasoning what makes them what they are. Individuals that live in the bile of unhappiness, rejoicing in the suffering of what they perceive as the enemy of their happiness, but impotents to realize that the source of their misery is their failures.
Failure of having the opportunity to choose a form of government that would allow them to complain in a form that it might make a difference.
Failure of not having a voice in their country.
Failure to recognize that no other country make them what they are but themselves.

If I would believe that my country is going downhill due to some other nation(s) control, I would do everything that the law allows me to, in order to go against the elite that is governing, for selling us to foreign powers, instead of focusing my efforts in vilipending the citizens of such nation powers. And definitely, there would not be tolerable excuse for not condemning the lost of innocent lives, as the 9/11, the Beslan school hostage killing, the 2004 Madrid attack, and more; regardless. No however, not but.

As you said before> Anyone who would cheer on 9/11 is just a scumbag, plain and simple. kanineplus simply isn't worth dealing with/debating under any circumstances after that.

0

As you said before> Anyone who would cheer on 9/11 is just a scumbag, plain and simple. kanineplus simply isn't worth dealing with/debating under any circumstances after that.

You're right. It's not going to work. I'll follow my own advice.

0

With the 9/11 trump card played, how do we sink this thread any lower?

Ass dance!

Or would that add a little class? You pull out something like 9/11 and an entire site becomes worthless.

Turn on some crappy talk radio station if you want to hear 9/11 still being bombarded at you as an excuse. Or consult this old strip.

You made your opinion clear at post 35. No need to repeat yourself. You have the choice of unsubscribing from it, and I bet nobody is going to even notice it.

0

You made your opinion clear at post 35. No need to repeat yourself. You have the choice of unsubscribing from it, and I bet nobody is going to even notice it.

And your 30+ posts haven't followed a motif?: Setup trap, attack, defend with excuse, repeat.

0

... and I bet nobody is going to even notice it.

I noticed and I loved it haha. Nice to see some humour being put into this thread :D
And I thought that comic strip was actually really good.

0

MosaicFuneral> And your 30+ posts haven't followed a motif? Setup trap, attack, defend with excuse, repeat.
You are reading too much into it. Nevertheless that gives me an idea for a motif concerning your comments from now on. Ignore.

0

I'm not into politics, but it kinda sounds like kid's playing on a playground. Imagin that each country is a group of kids. You have leaders of the group, and you have followers. Can you imagin these group's acting out what's going on in the world?

0

So those are the three reasons, eh? No blame goes out to anybody but us? It, like everything else in the world, is all our fault. Is it even remotely possible that al Qaeda and the Taliban had anything to do with it? That the 19 hijackers themselves need to accept some responsibility? Does Saudi Arabia not have to look at its own society and perhaps ponder the fact that Osama bin Laden and most of the hijackers were Saudi and maybe there is a reason why that has very little to do with us? Maybe the indoctrination in the madrassas and the mosques around the world might possibly be contributing factors too? There's a lot of respect for and no villification of people who don't share the same belief system there, isn't there?

Nope, there apparently are three causes of 9/11 and they're all 100% our fault.

Fair point, but I didn't say it was the only causes of 9/11 - was pointing out the difference btwn Chernobyl and 9/11. This is where shadwickman actually makes a very poignant remark:

The Afghans didn't wake up one morning and say "oh hey, let's hate America with a burning passion from now on".

No, the Americans didn't go in and brain wash the Afghans (or anyone else aiming their anger your way), to suddenly call a fatwa against "all things American" and to fly a few planes into high-casualty targets over your way. In order for that fanaticism to have been possible, there had to be an awful lot of anger already present.

Let's provide an example you may be able to appreciate:

It's still the Cold War, where there is more than one Super Power in play. The United States' government is over-thrown, with a dictatorship instituted as a replacement. Overnight the US goes from being a democracy to being a Communist State. Over the next 15-20 years, you see close friends and family members either "disappear" or publicly murdered for opposing the political regime.

Then you find out that the USSR was behind the whole thing, having funded, armed and empower the current regime, having made their move to power even popular. The Church (which was forced underground after the new dictatorship was instituted) calls for a rebellion against the "powers of Evil" - ie, the USSR who plunged your country into a state of communistic-repression.

Are you saying that you, or any American would not follow the "call to arms"?

You may laugh or sneer, but this is essentially what your country is currently faced with. Do you think your wilful ignorance in regards to the policies and practices of your government (I say wilful, because in a Westernised nation, you are fully capable of educating yourself and taking action if you actually choose to) is seen as any excuse to those who have suffered for years on end?

You may hate the fact people like myself point the finger right back at you, rather than accepting the "Victim" spiel; happier to blame those who have retaliated (and I don't by the way approve of their methods, even if understanding the root anger behind it), rather than even trying to understand where that anger even originated from.

Now no your country is not this wholly evil entity, evilly plotting against the rest of the know world... your country does do a lot of good as well. But until even the vast majority of your country's citizens actually understand that events like 9/11 are not some isolated or totally unjustified act of "terrorism"; or that much of the "charity" your government performs is not some consolitary act to amend for atrocities performed beforehand; or that even the vast majority or your country actually both decides to get "in the know" in regards to what your government gets up to on the sly, and gets involved in the whole Democratic Process... there will remain a whole tonne of anger aimed your way.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.