East vs West - more fuel to the fire

[Kaz]

I find that view awful, lunatic, and dangerous. I mean, since when are we "conscious of the supremacy of our civilisation"? That kind of thinking leads to VERY bad things - see WWII. This point of view: "I am better than you are" really annoys me. And what does Christianity have to do with it? There are Christian extremists, there are Muslim extremists, so what? Europe's "common roots" consist of warring, conquering each other and being conquered by each other over millenia. NOT the best basis for international trust. I also think it is %^(*&^%$ to say that Schroeder AGREES with him. I thought Schroeder was smarter than that.

------------------


Kazara

Sapphire Dragoness of ALSB
Waitress at Cloudy's Cafe
Guardian of the Temple of Aerie (specialized in GenCon and BG)

[Ryanamur]

Originally posted by Memnoch: Italy's Prime Minister, Mr Silvio Berlusconi, has gone out of his way to stress what every other leader backing America's "war on terrorism" is desperate to deny - that the looming conflict is, at bottom, a clash of civilisations.

I hate to admit it, but that what it is. It's not totally accurate, I believe that it's also a clash of religious beliefs. But he is right to say that it's a clash of civilisations.

The sad thing about this is that both civilisations (Occidental and Islamic) are equally commendable. However, you have idiots in BOTH camps that are unable to see the worth of this diversity and the true value of it.

We (Occidental and Islam) are both right and wrong. We must fight side to side to cleanse the world of those idiots and learn to live respecting each others believes (that means that they should respect what we believe in and we should return the favor).

------------------
If I am because I think, then, if I talk without thinking, I'm not really talking! Am I?

[Ryanamur]

Originally posted by Zbyszek: Officially he is right winged. I dont believe you can call somebody a fascist only because he calls for freedom of religion, voice and human rights, but maybe you call anybody fascist just because you dont agree with him - it is up to you - I grant you that freedom. Personally I piss on so called human rigths. There is no such think like human rights, democracy and so on in our world. Guys who have money, power - they set everything. There is only particular interes ruling in the world. US was fighting Soviet Union so they trained and equipped muslims in Afghanistan. In mid 90s US wanted to buid oil pipe from Azerbejan they didnt want to cross Russia nor Iran (political reasons) so they talked with Talibans about it. And Afghanistan said OK - if you will back up Albanians in Europe. It was great offensive in media that Albanians are good and Serbs are bad. Finally US started war with Serbia. Why? for Albanians - for sure not. (War in Persia Gulf was not to free Kuweit and give people in Kuwait freedom - there was no freedom in Kuwait before and there is no now - it was purly economical and political bussines - oil). US bombing gave Serbians "right" to drive out Albanians - civilans. US bombed Serb civilians. Jaheira could say that balance has been hold . Now Serb civilians has been driven out of Kosovo and international forces are afraid to do anything with armed Albanians in Kosovo. They smuggle guns, drugs. Preparing for another war - building Great Albania. And where are human rights? One almost fascism has been changed for another. Pakistan all the time is training Talibans and muslim terrorist in Kashmir (northern India) and who cares? nobody , because Pakistan is our ally (like bin Laden 10 year ago). Muslims kills Christians in Nigeria, and who cares? China held Tibet over half of century - has anybody done anything? Will it change - NO. I am not saying that western point of view is better so I dont agree with Berlusconi. Each one has different one. But some/many try to force his own on all around. Muslims: sometimes we call them fighters for freedom becuse thay oppose Russia and next week they are just terrorists. US is pressing his own point of view, but Russia or China have different. Muslims have different. The true is that nobody likes strangers, we are all xenophobes. I can bet that you never really cared for Albanians nor Serbs civilians - they live so far , maybe let them kill themselves. You know about themn just becuse it was big amount of media noise about them. Have you heard/thougth about Nigeria? About Muslims in Philipines - they fight for freedom, they want to have muslim country there (OK they kidnapped some tourists so they are well known now). But have you heard about muslims in northern China? Do you care Christians in Sudan? But it comes time to choose we or they? We always say we. We dont want people from China/Mexico (US), we dont want muslim refugees from Afghanistan (Austalia). I also dont want them. If the time comes americans will say we choose american point of view, arabs choose arabs. All Paladins are fascists - they have sworn to defend their ideology, to fight with their enemies without mercy without doubts. Sometimes we just call them Dark Paladins because they are not on our side. We are all fascists. I dont want Amarican poit of view. i dont like muslim or russian one. I have my own point of view which I would like to force all over the world - I am fascisc. PS. If you are able to tell people that whey have to believe in, you rule. If you have money, press, TV - you force your point of view to many. You are GREAT fascist.

I agree with you. We are not more virtuous than anyother men (or civilization). Our own political agenda over the years have put us into this tight spot and now, we must face the consequences.

We yell above all "human rights", "democracy" etc etc only if it serves our own interest. That's human nature. However, we fail to recognize that the other side of the coin is just a valid as ours.

Saddly enough, humans, by nature, are unable to trully accept that someone doesn't believe as you do.

------------------
If I am because I think, then, if I talk without thinking, I'm not really talking! Am I?

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by Memnoch: Western society superior to Islam, says Berlusconi

In my view, Berlusconi is a utter right wing arsehole, and I for one hope that nothing he says will be taken as being in any way representative of any 'collective' European view. He certainly does not represent mine in any way shape or form, and I resonate with NOTHING that he says. The man has been tried for corruption, (in 1992 - I believed he wriggled out of that) and linked with the Mafia on more than one occasion. (As have many many Italian policians, to be fair...)

Berlusconi is the richest man in Italy. Amongst his vast holdings are signficant stakes in both Italian television and newspaper publising. (He is Italy's Rupert Murdoch, its media mogul). How this man was allowed to run for office as Prime Minister I do not know. There is a huge conflict of interest here.

I'm not surprised that he made the comments above. Berlusconi has a lot invested in some of the less appealing aspects of the western way of life. He's certainly made his money out of it (not particularly honestly, either).

His Italian TV channels - they are the most banal, rubbishy shit. Tabloid TV with a vengeance. Virtual pap. When I lived in Italy, they were a hissing and a byword for anyone with even a small claim to a functioning brain.

This link between terrorism and the anti-globalisation movement that he makes. (Well, big surprise that is, after his contribution to events in Genoa. Its totally in his interests to dis the anti-globalisation movement.). It's not the first time I've seen statements such as these, and it won't be the last. I was afraid this would happen. These tragic events are a great opportunity for politicians to go about firmly squashing the anti-globalisation movement by making associations that do not exist.

The right wing media (i.e. the large majority of the media) are already enthusiastically backing politicians and big business by portraying the a.g. movement as incoherent, crazy groups of violent yobs and anarchists protesting mindlessly and violently when in fact this element (which does exist, unfortunately, in much the same way as football hooliganism) is but a small part of the whole, who are mostly just ordinary concerned citizens.


------------------


Ascended Mistress of Illumination OR Paws R Us

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zbyszek:
[B] Officially he is right winged. I dont believe you can call somebody a fascist only because he calls for freedom of religion, voice and human rights, but maybe you call anybody fascist just because you dont agree with him - it is up to you

I made the fascist remark because his comments bear such strong resemblance to the rantings of Mussolini.
If Berlusconi's comments are supportive of "freedom of religion, voice and human rights", then I'm a stoat.
And I do not call anyone who disagrees with me a fascist, only those who espouse fascistic viewpoints. Everyone else I call Nancy.


------------------

[AngelofDeath]

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah: The right wing media (i.e. the large majority of the media) are already enthusiastically backing politicians and big business by portraying the a.g. movement as incoherent, crazy groups of violent yobs and anarchists protesting mindlessly and violently when in fact this element (which does exist, unfortunately, in much the same way as football hooliganism) is but a small part of the whole, who are mostly just ordinary concerned citizens.

Silver Cheetah, are you refering to the Media in Europe as a whole, or Italy. Here in America the Media is left winged, and Liberal. How about we get everyone to let go of the emotion, and just report facts. Then, we the people can decide for ourselves.


------------------

[Ryanamur]

Originally posted by AngelofDeath: How about we get everyone to let go of the emotion, and just report facts.

Talk about a utopic idea. This will never happen. People are not interested in the truth, they're only interested in their perception of the truth. Right now, the dominant sentiment in North America is a left wing. That's what people want to hear. It's funny to see the division in the population (in Canada at least). Generally speaking, the Baby Boomers are lefties. The younger generation (35 and less) tend more to the right. Unless the Boomers change their beliefs, the medias will stay to the left because that's what sells.

Also, let's not forget one the most important Western belief: no-effort, full gain. That's another reason why we don't want the media to just give us the facts. We want it all packadge, nicely wrapped, easy to open and gooble. Think of it as TV dinner for the brain
------------------
If I am because I think, then, if I talk without thinking, I'm not really talking! Am I?

[This message has been edited by Ryanamur (edited 09-28-2001).]

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by AngelofDeath: Silver Cheetah, are you refering to the Media in Europe as a whole, or Italy. Here in America the Media is left winged, and Liberal. How about we get everyone to let go of the emotion, and just report facts. Then, we the people can decide for ourselves.

What! Um, that must be a different American media than the one I'm familiar with. Maybe you don't quite get the concept of left wing? As for reporting facts, that's a tricky one. I've been a writer all my life, and I've studied both the language of politics and the language of media. Not to mention my own experience as a journalist, and a copywriter. I can tell you this much, there is no such thing as pure reportage of facts. By the very nature of reporting, some is included, some left out. And then you have the politics of the paper owner, which has an impact on what is and is not reported, you have the fact that the paper has to sell, that will also have an impact on what is reported, and then you have the fact that each individual journalist also has their own bias. Language is subjective. An objective view is impossible. Words, especially adjectives, have negative and positive connotations. Some words are very emotive.

Obviously, I am not in America right now, and cannot see all your papers. However, our own Guardian often reprints articles from various papers, including the Washington Post, the New York Times and so on. I didn't see much evidence of 'letting go of emotion'. (Not would I expect too, especially soon after the event happened. Emotion is natural. The British papers were emotional too.

However, the more left wing liberal papers, such as the Guardian, and to a large degree The Independent are most interested in the causes of terrorism, rather than just being content to rah rah rah about what we're going to do to the terrorists, war on terrorism and so on.

They do a great deal of intelligent reporting, including comment and analysis on those causes, which includes exploring the various Middle Eastern views. For example, The Guardian printed a 12 minute interview with Mullah Omar Mohammad, the Taliban Leader, which was conducted in Pashtu for the publicly funded radio channel Voice of America, which was pulled the previous Friday following objections from the US deputy secretary of state and senior officials of the National Security Council. Reading it, I wasn't quite sure why it had been pulled actually, but was most glad the Guardian saw fit to print it, as I like to get my information from as many sources as possible.

In the same edition of the Guardian, we have an interview with the Pakistani journalist Rahimullah Yusufzai, who has met and interviewed bin Laden on several occassions, and who has tried to give us an insight into his mind. A reasoned and balanced attempt to get the other side of the story. Anyway, as I say, I only see some parts of the American newspapers, and so I cannot speak for them. I can only comment on what I have seen, which is to my mind no way left wing liberal!

------------------


Ascended Mistress of Illumination OR Paws R Us

[Ryanamur]

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah: What! Um, that must be a different American media than the one I'm familiar with. Maybe you don't quite get the concept of left wing? As for reporting facts, that's a tricky one. I've been a writer all my life, and I've studied both the language of politics and the language of media. Not to mention my own experience as a journalist, and a copywriter. I can tell you this much, there is no such thing as pure reportage of facts. By the very nature of reporting, some is included, some left out. And then you have the politics of the paper owner, which has an impact on what is and is not reported, you have the fact that the paper has to sell, that will also have an impact on what is reported, and then you have the fact that each individual journalist also has their own bias. Language is subjective. An objective view is impossible. Words, especially adjectives, have negative and positive connotations. Some words are very emotive.

No, he's right, in America, the media are normally left winged (and I understand the difference between left and right in politics... as I'm a right wingist public relations practitionner with international relations, political science and history background). Mind you up here, the coverage as been mostly divided: left winged on the attack on the WTC and fully right winged on the retaliation on American networks (centered in Canada).

On another note, I'm glad to see that from both side of the media spectrum, we can agree that there's no such thing as an unbiased report.

------------------
If I am because I think, then, if I talk without thinking, I'm not really talking! Am I?

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by Ryanamur: No, he's right, in America, the media are normally left winged

I have visions of a collective media lurching slightly to one side, weighted down by the weight of that same 'left wing'. Well, if you say so Ryanamur... (somewhat puzzled, but lets it go...)

BTW, just heard that Berlusconi has issued an apology for his comments. Somebody(ies) has obviously sat on his big fat head very hard indeed.


------------------


Ascended Mistress of Illumination OR Paws R Us