"the recent Sihks slayings in Wisconsin were likely intended to be vengeful slayings of Muslims"
Where did you get this information? I don't think that the gunman put that much thought into his hateful actions. He saw "different" people and wanted to kill them.

Greg, it's conjecture but is immaterial to the issue. As you put it, killing "different" people, fits in with my thesis as well. Safe to assume he didn't think he was killing European Americans though...agreed?

While there is some anger at how the U.S. has pushed its weight around financially and at times politically through efforts to destabilize governments unfriendly or unhelpful to American interests, people also understand the tremendous contributions the U.S. has made in the form of aid and business investments. That's why the frequent reminders, when abroad, that America's presidential votes affect the world. And it's true.

Brian,

What movie? The violence has nothing to do with a movie.

Obama has blood on his hands.

"Perhaps Simple advice is the most profound ..."Walk a mile in their shoes," before judging others ... and before reacting."

Simple advice is just that... simple. Sometimes it is profound, other times not so much. Do I have to walk a mile in the shoes of a serial killer before I judge him? Do I have to understand the motivations of a tyrant to respond to his actions?

Is it right to generalize a whole population based upon the acts of its extremists. No. But sometimes that population signs up for that. If the Muslim and Islamic world does not want to be seen in the light of these extremists, then it is their responsibility first to stand up to them and separate themselves from them. They should be front and center, but except for a handful, there is nothing but silence.

Do I hold Islam responsible for their terrorists, no. But do I hold them responsible for their complacency? I don't think it would be unreasonable to do so.

I think that if you read what I wrote you will see I said that the anti-American sentiment preceded the movie I.H. The movie sparked a smoldering fire... reigniting the flame for a small number of extremists. Matt...no. I think the history is in on Hitler.

Terry, which population are you referring to that has signed up for generalization? If it is population under the forcible control of a dictator or tyrant that is like judging prisoners and saying they signed up for generalizations based on the actions of the dictator. I can tell you that I don't like to be judged as part of some monolithic image called"American", as if that term was definitive.

Michael.... Or it's high time we help them rather than meddle in their affairs, attempt to control their agendas, "change" their regimes or outright overthrow them. We could try working with them rather than extending our empire into their lands.

Michael, I hear that a lot and you are part of a large thought form there. Unfortunately this way of thinking, reasonable as it seems, leads to more of the same. When the majority feels they can have no effect on outcomes, minorities, often relatively tiny minorities seize the reins. I am America too as are you. Yes the country is a Corporatocracy, or an Oligarchy or both...but you have a lifetime to say what you think, converse with others about meaningful things, contribute to change and, ostensibly,raise children with better values. The net effect of people refusing to sustain the image you describe will be change... Not sweeping... But through patient education, example and the expression of ideals...yes...ideals. The country wasfoundedonsomeofthe greatest ideals ever set to paper...ideals, btw, they did not have in place and could not enforce fully. We still haven't manifested "all men (humans) created equal in our institutions and systems of justice. Should we drop it altogether and let the few run entirely away with our America? The second point is, regardless of outcome, how do you and I want to live? As submissive gentled sheep to agendas we do not respect? Not me.

Lyle, .... complete agreement. Exceptionalism, Imperialism, Colonialism.... The contemporary Manifest Destiny. We walk on others and they resent it AS WE WOULD. Back to simple....Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If this was our foreign policy....Or better yet... Find out what they need and see if you can help that happen.

7:48 am on Friday, September 21, 2012
Terry....Do you personally know one Muslim? Do you know what their temples support? You are making sweeping statements because, where you sit, I am guessing, you don't "hear much" from the Muslim faith. Where do you hear Christians speaking clearly against Christian agression and violence? When you hear it it is either pointing at the speck in some other person, country or faith's eye...or it is in the mouths of the very few...the Amish after violence hit their community...etc. Not mainstream Christianity.

These are sad times for our country and the world. Just now on television,I saw the shoes in which you would have us walk a mile trampling on the US and Israeli flags before they set them both on fire. I wish it were as easy as trying to understand what they need and then helping them. But the fact is, what they NEED is for America and Israel to disappear from the face of the earth. Now THAT would stop the protests for sure. I agree that it is despicable for us to use drones that every now and then actually kill a terrorist but in the meantime kill countless innocents and it is even more despicable that the president uses these "kills" as some kind of sick proof that he is keeping America safe-while our Ambassador and 3 other innocent souls are murdered in cold blood. It is obvious though that pouring money into these countries, talking nicely to them, bowing to their leaders does nothing to improve the situation. They DO NOT BELIEVE IN FREE SPEECH and we CANNOT GIVE UP FREE SPEECH. Therefore, the only solution is for us to withdraw and stay as far away from them as we can, while preparing to defend our shores under any and all circumstances.

@J.B. Schmidt....I am not sympathetic toward Apologists nor am I sympathetic toward the Exceptionalists. We have to deal with the conditions as they are. Let's begin with Israel.

We, the United States, is Israel's greatest supporter. From the very beginning we have contributed to Israel's founding and survival as a nation. Have U.S. troops ever fought on Israeli soil in the defense of Israel; No! Have we contributed them materially, Yes! Israel has received $3.0 billion a year in foreign aid for decades and continue to do so. But, 2/3 of that has come back to us in the purchase of U.S. manufactured weapons. That being said, can we allow internal Israeli domestic policy drive us in blind support that may result in not being in the best interest of U.S. foreign policy, No! I am a Jew and I support Israel's right to exist and if needed would put my own life on the line to defend Israel. However, I do not support the "Settlement Movement" or the notion of a "Greater Israel". Does that somehow make me less of a Jew or a non-supporter of Israel, certainly not! The building of settlements in support of the notion of a "Greater Israel" is wrong and unsustainable. If Israel were to bomb Iran in an effort to maintain their own idea of security, then that would commit the U.S. to another major engagement. Should we let that happen in light of what we have to lose, absolutely not! Our current policy of isolating and waiting out Iran is the only logical policy approach. (continued)

The reason muslims are allowed to act like maniacle children is because of people like Brain Carlson.

Makes excuses, empathize, pander to. That's all liberals do.

Muslims have been murdering christians, burning their churchs, etc all over africa, yet one little cartoon against their pedophile founder and they flip out and kill people?

And they get away with it time after time after time is because of liberals like Brian and Lyle.

@J.B. Schmidt...What kind of statement of support do you want him to give? He and Secretary of State have made it very clear on numerous occasions the support of Israel's security. Who is the President of the United States, Barack Obama or Bibi Netanyahu? Who should set U.S. foreign policy? Netanyahu has some major domestic issues playing out and he's trying to engage us to support his domestic positions. Do you think we should get involved? Bibi is attempting to keep attention on outside threats to keep the focus off the inside problems.

Supporting a revolution in Iran would prove to be disastrous and if we did, how would we do it? Remember the last time we were involved in an overthrow of a government in Iran, it eventually led to the forming the Islamic Republic that we've been dealing with for close to 35 years.

J.B., you're a bright guy, but terribly naive when it comes to foreign policy and actions.

Terry, I am not trying to make you out to be a bigot. I dont know you at all. I dont think you have ever responded to my blogs prior... I asked a question...Do you know any Muslims? You spoke authoritatively on the entire religion saying that they are complacent with regard to coming out against terrorism. I would like to know to what extent you are tuned in to the Muslim world to be able to make such a comment. I think that is fair. Relative to Christianity....the "Christianizing" of this country included genocide..... stealing lands, hundreds of broken treaties, deportation, starvation and the abduction of children....who were raised in Christian schools and adopted by Christian families. Slavery was supported by Christians. The KKK are terrorists.... The Catholic church participated with dictators in various Latin American countries to finger citizens for arrest, and eventual disappearance..(Not the entire church mind you, but part of it.)

The Shah oppressed "some?" Read up on the history of SAVAK and prisons like Evin. He was a despot through and through. Modernization yes, but what does that mean? Better hospitals, schools and roads, etc...yes...but freedoms stripped from many.

OCR Wow...that is such a whacked statement...
What should "we" do with "the Muslims?" And who are "we?" All non-Muslims? All westerners...no...too many Muslims here. Hmm. Maybe just all Christians and Jews...or do you have issues with some of those groups too? This is what I am talking about OCR.... generalizing based on the actions of a few. The history of many religions contain great amounts of violence.

JB....Of course one can not prove something as historically complex as the evolution of an entire area of the planet would be better or worse had this or that happened or not? You know this but it's a meaningless question. Better questions are.... Did these sovereign nations want us there, did we have a right to be there, were we there to exploit them, what does exploitation cost in real terms...lives, dollars, animosity and who has profited by our history of meddling. And critically, is this the sort of America we want to perpetuate?

Honestly, if it wasn't for oil, would we give two rips about the entire region?

Hoffa is usually a 'prime directive' (of the United Federation of Planets from the Star Trek universe) kind of guy when it comes to foreign policy. However, Hoffa is also a realist, as he relies upon petroleum based products in this modern existence.

Because of such admitted reliance, we as a nation have a choice to make. The scenarios that we've seen thus far played out are the following:

Carter basically following the prime directive. That didn't work out very well for us.

The iron fist policies of Reagan and the Bush's. They did manage to get the kind of results that Americans demanded, even if it didn't help to improve our relations with that part of the world any, but they also didn't act to further cripple our relations either - we would have been hated no matter what and at least under these policies everything was out in the open for the most part.

The appeasement policy of Obama, while continuing to launch secret drone attacks. That hasn't worked out very well for us, and the shadow war may have even set us back as far as our respect in that part of the world goes.

So, do we go with the best option of those already tried, or do we try something new? And if we do try something new, what would such policy entail?

Muslims will never accept us and we should feel the same. They've wanted, they want, and always will want nothing but our deaths so they can go to hell.

Why would I want to walk a mile in my enemies shoes?

If the IRA had legitimate cause to get the British out of their country, moreover, if the Americans had legitimate cause to get the occupying English out of here....why would many of you not agree that the sovereign countries we have attacked, those we occupy, and those we are still attacking...have the same rights? What country should want to be occupied or controled by another?

Ima H.... Why sad? Do you think for a moment that is we tried to exploit our neighbor...Canada... it would go over well? Or, turn it around... What if Canada began attacking supposed enemies of their state on our soil with drone strikes that killed civilians on a regular basis? The fact is...we Have to get along with our neighbors. Moreover, it's not the nineteenth century anymore...not the twentieth either. Our neighbors are everyone on the planet, not just those like us...whoever "us" is. Btw...what is the Hippie supposed to mean? They were about love, not war...unity...peace...that sort of thing.

Nutari, If you think Islam is a religion of hate you have not read the Koran and do not know many contemporary Muslims. I don't know if you have had personal issues with specific people who are Muslim or not, perhaps that colors the vehemence with which you speak. In Iran, the religious leaders have historically, for the past hundrd and sixty years, been very hard on members of various faiths...most notably the Babis in the mid eighteen hundreds, and the Baha'is who followed. Jews and Christians also suffered under religious fundamentalists. But Baha'is know that isnis not representative of Islam and although the Muslims of th country are afraid to stand up to the religious clergy by and large I have known many Iranian Baha'is whomhad wonderful Muslim friends. The people trapped in repressive regimes are under stresses we do not understand here unless you come from such a country and time. Te mentality is you are either with us or against us....(words we heard bandied about not to long ago by GW Bush.... But in those countries, "against us" may mean imprisonment, torture, death and disappearance. You can not know what you would do in such a position. You might look very complacent.

Terry, would you agree that this country, despite the mix of peoples, faiths and philosophies, styles itself as Judaeo Christian and that every president in your life time has had to make it clear he is a Christian of some sort? How Christian they are has often become an issue....the moral majority and the tea party are both quasi- religious, claiming their deep morals and evoking the principles of the founding fathers etc. We are a nation that claims to be under god. I don't have to go back in history at all unless you think last century should no count. That was a century, however, when many of the major issues we face today were in seed. Te British empire still had it's hands in the pockets of diverse places world wide...colonies...and the greatest empire of all time, the United States was on the rise as Britian waned. During that century many Christian nations were at war including ours. The total carnage for death as a result of military conflicts and wars last century was over two hundred million people. Muslims were NOT leading the large wars. Christians occupied their lands and divided them up rather arbitrarily at wars end. Te comparison of Christian led violence to Muslim is both apt and timely.

Bush and Cheney are both Christians to go by what they say....both supported torture. Obama is a Christian who is ramping up drone and robotic warfare, opening a new era of automated violence that will be a nightmare. Eisenhower dropped not one but two atomic weapons on cities! I believe he was a Christian. I am not trying to sink Christianity here... Personally I of Christ's warning that one day many would come to him claiming to be his disciples and he will say to them, as he claimed "Get away from me...I never knew you." governments use religion to veil their agendas, give them a quasi- spiritual spin and to distract the public.

JB...."The US has done more for the betterment of the globe then any other when it comes to economic growth and the advancement of liberty. There is no other country currently who can fill that void in the way that we have if we remove ourselves. All others wish to push tyranny and dictatorship."

The economic growth often pushed by the US involved pushing loans on countries, loans that we propose they will be able to repay due to the projections of analysts who work for these huge lending sources (therefore skewed) and once the country or administration is hopelessly indebted, we dictate policy favorable to our interests and corporations. If they refuse the loans, frequently we have either assassinated their leaders, some of them democratically elected, or staged coups to topple them...changing their regime...as we prefer to spin it now. I will be glad to provide names and dates in Latin America and elsewhere. The loans, by the way, are to be paid to the companies that bring vast improvements to the infrastructure...and local people do not do the work or get the money. Rather the money goes to huge multinational corporations...so the countries are not really getting the money...but sipure are taking on debt. If we replace their leaders...or when we have...frequently the new leaders are military men, despots...dictators....so...contrary to your proposal, JB...in many cases we have rid the countries of democratically elected leaders and conspired to install dictators.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mohsin-mohiud-din/usmuslim-relations-the-se_b_1893844.html?utm_hp_ref=world

Yes,yes...Truman...not Eisenhower. Silly mistake. Was Truman a Christian? I will look into it. Thanks for catching that.

Michael Mc... Robber barons....yes. Very similar group today....I have to agree with you...Have you John Perkins Confessions of an Economic Hit Man?

Greg.... Straighten me out here. Where is the stretch specifically? Thanks.

Was Saddam proposing Jihad in the name of Mohammed? Is Assad claiming guidance by The Prophet? Do we think the Saudi Royal family claim to do things on behalf of Mohammed? No! Yet they are all Muslims and factor heavily in the image the Islamaphobes have and broadcast about Muslims. Bush originally referred to his foray as a Crusade. I think you will find, particularly on the right, that religion and politics in this country are inextricably mixed and people equate an almost nationalistic fervor with Christian spirituality? Go to the next Four of July parades in your town and listen to the
speeches. I do.

This thread and original blog post sounds so similiar to this:

http://www.americannaziparty.com/news/archives.php?report_date=2012-05-28

Makes me wonder about everyone on this blog post.

@Brian
Of course bad things have happened. They will continue to happen no matter the course we or any other country take. However, you are still presenting this as if the world would be better had the US not engaged in certain actions. A side from the emotional response, do you have any evidence this is the case? In fact, a lack of US presence in the Middle East during the cold war could have resulted in a USSR expanding in oil rich regions of the world. How would our world look then?

Where did we remove a freedom loving democratically elected leader and replace him with a despot?

As for, "Don't f--k people over" as policy, does that mean not supporting Israel?

Greg...no I conclude that we went to war because we are not spiritual. I conclude that fanatics who kill people and claim it has something to do with Allah are also not spiritual. I am saying that religion is not the underlying factor eeven in supposedly "religious" wars. This is my point... Don't run down all the members of a religion because of what a handful of people do...dressing it up perhaps as a religious based act but in fact, vying for material power.

Brian... I have to agree with Greg above. The attempt to interject Christianity as comparable is certainly a stretch. It certainly is neither apt or timely as you posted above.

Most of the examples you are giving are dated at best. The colonial days, the dawn of the twentieth century, yes there were atrocities committed in the name of Christianity. But even that was a hundred or more years ago.

When the best examples you can present from the modern era are the Moral Majority (a collection of doddering old men left over from the fifties) and the tea party (whose designation as a christian organization is questionable), it may be time to let this part of the argument go. You really can't expect us to compare the impact of those two organizations on how Christianity and the Americans are viewed with the impact of Al queda, and how it effects the perception of Muslims and Islam.

Show me an example from our lifetime of a christian nation that has launched a war or faith or jihad if you will on another nation or people. Show me a christian terrorist organization that has visible and broad public support in its homeland, and is capable of conducting organized operations in dozens of countries around the world. Then, we can have a conversation which includes Christianity as comparable.

Now, Brian, if you would indulge me a moment, I want to test the depths of your convictions.

I believe your premise is laudable. In a perfect world, a man, culture, or religion should be judged on their own individual merits and not judged solely by the actions of its extremists. We should not judge Islam or Muslims based upon the actions of Al queda or other extremist groups amongst them.

My premise is that while I agree with that, it would not be unreasonable for an average person to make that judgement based on the circumstance we have today. I also believe that it is not necessarily our responsibility to be more understanding, but instead it is the responsibility of the affected culture to show that degree of separation.

You have made it clear above that you believe that many of our problems with how the Muslim world perceives Americans is based upon some of our extreme acts. Regardless of if that is true or not, would you consider it their responsibility to be more understanding (walk a mile in our shoes), or is the burden on us to show the world that is not who we are.

In other words, does your conviction run both ways.

JB, if Russias expansionism would have been wrong, why is our expansionism right? Most of you seem to come from a perspective that America has some special dispensation from somewhere....God?....to run around the globe picking the best fruit off the trees. I don't get that. Imagine you have relatives living in Iran... Would you be supporting Netanyahu In his quest to lead into Iran and a potential Middle Eastern, if not World, War? Relative to the USSR...they were in Afghanistan...bogged down in a country they didn't understand and after a decade left with nothing but ill
will and debt. Did we learn from their colossal mistake? No...we hopped into the tub they were in before it had drained out. A decade later we have nothing. One dead Osama, massive military outlays, lots of dead young people, lots of dead Afghanis.

Terry....I hope I am clear but I will add to your statement...

"I believe your premise is laudable. In a perfect world, a man, culture, or religion should be judged on their own individual merits and not judged solely by the actions of its extremists. We should not judge Islam or Muslims based upon the actions of Al queda or other extremist groups amongst them."

In any world a person should not be judged according to the actions of extremists who bear the same nationality, claim to be members of the same faith, are the same race, etc., but should be judged according to their own merits. Moreover, we will not get to a better world, let alone a perfect one until humans use the reason they were given by God or evolved....to transcend these stereotypes...to rise above this ignorant and deadly categorical sort of black and white mentality.

We are all from the same home. The home is earth. this is the paradigm we will come to and must, but only with education, discussion, and will power... Not by submitting to the idea that this is how it has always been and always will be.

Terry, people resorting to blowing themselves up to kill others are poor people. Tere are many forms of terrorism. Can you imagine looking up to see what above your head is making a mechanical noise, and seeing a glint in the sky... Knowing it's a drone, knowing that drone is there daily, surveilling your house as clearly as if someone was watching your movements from a hunfpdred yards away, knowing that the drone was armed and that some kid on the other side of the globe sitting before a screen could and might kill you and your entire family at any minute with complete impunity? The answer is...No. You can't...nor can I. We can imagine however that being in a situation where you are completely vulnerable to death, as is your family, waking or sleeping, 24/7, is to be terrorized. If people wearing a bomb in a crowd is terror, and it is, what do you call Shock and Awe, what do you call thousands of sorties of heavy bombers dropping more tons of ordinance than was dropped in
WW2? I call it terrorism on a scale I can not imagine. I visited Oklahoma city a week after the bombing ofnthe Alfred Murrah building and witnessed what one bomb can do...buildings blocks away were vacant due to the blast force of this fertilizer bomb. To be subject to an attack by the most sophisticated Super power on the planet must be pure hell, extreme terror.

JB...I will cobble together a list.

1.Syria became an independent republic in 1946, but the March 1949 Syrian coup d'état, led by Army Chief of Staff Husni al-Za'im, ended the initial period of civilian rule. Za'im met at least six times with CIA operatives in the months prior to the coup

to discuss his plan to seize power.

2.In 1953, the CIA worked with the United Kingdom to overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran led by Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh who had attempted to nationalize Iran's petroleum industry, threatening the profits of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.[15] Declassified CIA documents show that Britain was fearful of Iran's plans to nationalize its oil industry and pressed the U.S. to mount a joint operation to depose the prime minister and install a puppet regime.[16] In 1951 the Iranian parliament voted to nationalize the petroleum fields of the country.[16][17]

The coup was led by CIA operative Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. (grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt). With help from British intelligence, the CIA planned, funded and implemented Operation Ajax.[18

Continued.....

3.The CIA supported the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Guatemala led by Jacobo Arbenz.[23][24][25][26] Arbenz was elected without a secret ballot. His land reform was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, which he then purged. He also received arms from the Soviet bloc.[27] The CIA claimed it intervened because it feared that a communist government would become "a Soviet beachhead in the Western Hemisphere;"[28] however, it was also protecting, among others, four hundred thousand acres of land the United Fruit Company had acquired.

Who owned United Fruit or would come to? Look into Bush and United Fruit. I think Sr. Bush might have been the Director of the CIA sometime back then.
Continued....

Continued ....

4.c Indonesian government of Sukarno was faced with a major threat to its legitimacy beginning in 1956, when several regional commanders began to demand autonomy from Jakarta. After mediation failed, Sukarno took action to remove the dissident commanders. In February 1958, dissident military commanders in Central Sumatera (Colonel Ahmad Hussein) and North Sulawesi (Colonel Ventje Sumual) declared the Revolutionary Government of the Republic of Indonesia-Permesta Movement aimed at overthrowing the Sukarno regime. They were joined by many civilian politicians from the Masyumi Party, such as Sjafruddin Prawiranegara, who were opposed to the growing influence of the communist Partai Komunis Indonesia party. Due to their anti-communist rhetoric, the rebels received arms, funding, and other covert aid from the CIA.... Note, I am including, instances where Americans support coups, arm rebels to overthrow leaders of sovereign nations, etc. I do so because the result is often more Military dictatorships...not democracy.

CIA assassination attempts and invasions...
Under initiatives by the Eisenhower and Kennedy Administrations, CIA-trained Cuban anti-communist exiles and refugees to land in Cuba and attempt to overthrow the government of Cuban leader Fidel Castro. Plans originally formed under Eisenhower were scaled back under Kennedy. The largest and most complicated coup effort, approved at White House level, was the Bay of Pigs operation.
The CIA made a number of attempts to assassinate Castro, often with White House approval, as in Operation Mongoose.

Continued....Democratic Republic of Congo...
Eisenhower authorized the CIA to initiate a plan to assassinate Lumumba using poison to be placed in his food or toothpaste, although this plan was aborted.[36][37]

In February 1960, the United States planned a coup against the government of Iraq headed by dictator Abd al-Karim Qasim, who two years earlier had deposed the Western-allied Iraqi monarchy. The CIA hired Young Saddam Hussein who took part in an unsuccessful attempt to riddle Qasims car with bullets. Qasim was later executed and the Baathists came to power, Saddam becoming the rising star in that party. Much later, as we all know, we would have to kill this horrible despot.

The list of assassinations or helping in plotting assassinations is so long as to defy the imagination. This has historically been central to US Foreign Policy. Remarkably this information is easy to obtain...hiding in plain site from a country full of people who prefer watching crime dramas, evidently, than to examining the reality of their own nations affairs.
Trujillo. CIA help in plotting this assassination in the Dominican Republic.
The CIA backed a coup against dictator Ngô Đình Diệm of South Vietnam. Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., the American ambassador to South Vietnam, refused to meet with Diệm. Upon hearing that a coup d'état was being designed by ARVN generals led by General Dương Văn Minh, Lodge gave secret assurances to the generals that the U.S. would not interfere. Lucien Conein, a CIA operative, provided a group of South Vietnamese generals with $40,000 to carry out the coup with the promise that US forces would make no attempt to protect Diệm. Dương Văn Minh and his co-conspirators overthrew the government on 1 November 1963

Democratically elected leaders????
The democratically-elected government of Brazil, headed by President João Goulart, was successfully overthrown in a coup in March 1964. On March 30, the American military attaché in Brazil, Colonel Vernon A. Walters, telegraphed the State Department. In that telegraph, he confirmed that Brazilian army generals, independently of the US, had committed themselves to acting against Goulart within a week of the meeting, but no date was set.[54]

LBJ receives briefing on Brazil.

Lyndon B. Johnson receiving briefing on events in Brazil on March 31, 1964 on his Texas ranch with Undersecretary of State George Ball and Assistant Secretary for Latin America, Thomas C. Mann. Ball briefs Johnson on that status of military moves in Brazil to overthrow the government of João Goulart.
Problems listening to this file? See media help.
Declassified transcripts of communications between U.S. ambassador to Brazil Lincoln Gordon and the U.S. government show that, predicting an all-out civil war, President Johnson authorized logistical materials to be in place to support the coup-side of the rebellion as part of U.S. Operation Brother Sam.[55]

Democratically elected leaders???

Kwame Nkrumah, the first democratically elected president of Ghana[58], helped Ghana gain its independence from British colonial rule and advocated a non-aligned Marxist economic perspective. In February 1966, while he was on a state visit, his government was overthrown in a military coup led by Emmanuel Kwasi Kotoka. Several commentators, including former CIA officer John Stockwell, have confirmed the CIA's extensive involvement in the coup.[59][60][61]

Chile. The U.S. Government's hostility to the election of Socialist President Salvador Allende in Chile was substantiated[62] in documents declassified during the Clinton administration; involving the CIA, which show that covert operatives were inserted in Chile, in order to prevent a Marxist government from arising and for the purpose of spreading anti-Allende propaganda.[63][64]
The CIA, as recounted in the Church Committee report, was involved in various plots designed to remove Allende and then let the Chileans vote in a new election where he would not be a candidate: It tried to buy off the Chilean Congress to prevent his appointment, worked to sway public opinion against him to prevent his election, and financed protests designed to bring the country to a stand-still and make him resign. The CIA, acting with the approval of the 40 Committee—the body charged with overseeing covert actions abroad—devised what in effect was a constitutional coup. The most expeditious way to prevent Allende from assuming office was somehow to convince the Chilean congress to confirm Jorge Alessandri as the winner of the election. Once elected by the congress, Alessandri—a party to the plot through intermediaries—was prepared to resign his presidency within a matter of days so that new elections could be held. This first, nonmilitary, approach to stopping Allende was called the Track I approach.

Chile continued...

The CIA's second approach, the Track II approach, was designed to encourage a military overthrow, by creating an atmosphere of crisis and disaster (a "coup climate") in the country. False flag operatives approached senior Chilean military officers, in "some two dozen contacts", with the message that "the United States intended to cut military assistance to Chile unless they moved against Allende, and that the U.S. desired, and would actively support, a coup."[65]
The CIA provided extensive support for black propaganda against Allende, funneled largely through El Mercurio, but also using other media outlets. Propaganda targeted both the people and the military. Financial support was also provided for anti-Allende political opponents and for organized strikes and unrest to destabilize his government.
"The key is the psych war within Chile," CIA officials stressed. "We cannot endeavor to ignite the world if Chile itself is a placid lake. The fuel for the fire must come from within Chile. Therefore, the Station should employ every stratagem, every ploy, however bizarre, to create this internal resistance." On October 7, Phillips and Broe directed the station to "begin at once a rumor campaign, based whenever possible on tangible peg, which will help create this [coup] climate."...In another, and far more sinister, cable dated the same day the Station was ordered to consider instigating "terrorist" activities that might provoke Allende's followers.[65]

JB...if you've gotten this far...here is Argentina....
The democratically elected government of Argentina headed by Isabel Martínez de Perón was successfully overthrown by a military putsch in March 1976. The Nunca Mas ("Never Again") report released in 1984 by the National Commission on the Disappearance of Persons recorded 600 disappearances and 500 assassinations under the Peronist governments from 1973 to 1976.[73]
Eight days before the coup, Admiral Emilio Eduardo Massera, Chief of the Argentine Navy and a major coup plotter, turned to Ambassador Robert Hill, U.S. ambassador to Argentina, for help in getting a recommendation for an American public relations firm that would manage the Argentine coup leaders' propaganda campaign for the coup and for the crackdown against democracy and human rights activists that was to follow. Ambassador Hill stated that the United States government cannot interfere in such affairs and provided Admiral Massera with a list of reputable public relations firms maintained by the Embassy. Also, more than two months before the coup, senior coup plotters consulted with American officials in Argentina about the coup, and Ambassador Hill reported to Washington that the military coup plotters were "aware of the problem" that their killings might cause and "are already focusing on ways to avoid letting human rights issues become an irritant in U.S.-Argentine relations" by being pro-active with the preparation of the public relations operation.[74]

Afghanistan
One of the CIA's longest and most expensive covert operations was the supplying of billions of dollars in arms to the Afghan mujahideen militants.[79] The CIA provided assistance to the fundamentalist insurgents through the Pakistani ISI in a program called Operation Cyclone. Somewhere between $2–$20 billion in U.S. funds were funneled into the country to equip troops with weapons. No Americans trained or had direct contact with the mujahideen.[80] The skittish CIA had fewer than 10 operatives in the region because it "feared it would be blamed, like in Guatemala."[81] One of the more infamous trained and funded by our CIA was named Osama Ben Laden.

Turkey...

One day before the military coup of 12 September 1980 some 3,000 American troops of the RDF started a maneuver Anvil Express on Turkish soil.[93] At the end of 1981 a Turkish-American Defense Council (Turkish: Türk-Amerikan Savunma Konseyi) was founded. Defense Minister Ümit Haluk and Richard Perle, then US Assistant Secretary of Defense international security policy of the new Reagan administration, and the deputy Chief of Staff Necdet Öztorun participated in its first meeting on 27 April 1982.

From 1981-90, the CIA attempted to overthrow the Sandinista government of Nicaragua.
The Boland Amendment made it illegal under U.S. law to provide arms to the Contra militants. Nevertheless, the Reagan administration continued to arm and fund the Contras through the Iran-Contra scandal, pursuant to which the U.S. secretly sold arms to Iran in violation of U.S. law in exchange for cash used by the U.S. to supply arms to the Contras. The U.S. argued that:[105]

In 2002, Washington is claimed to have approved and supported a coup against the Venezuelan government. Senior officials, including Special Envoy to Latin America Otto Reich and convicted Iran-contra figure and George W. Bush "democracy 'czar'" Elliott Abrams, were allegedly part of the plot.[138] Top coup plotters, including Pedro Carmona, the man installed during the coup as the new president, began visits to the White House months before the coup and continued until weeks before the putsch. The plotters were received at the White House by the man President George W. Bush tasked to be his key policy-maker for Latin America, Special Envoy Otto Reich.[138] It has been claimed by Venezuelan news sources that Reich was the U.S. mastermind of the coup.[139]

I will just stop there for now. As anyone can see and easily confirm, overthrowing regimes, either by assassination, support and direction of coup d'etats, arming and training rebel forces, not to mention economic warfare....has been central to US policy in numerous parts the world. This fact does not escape the awareness of the people who live in these places! It is common knowledge.... But NOT, as I continually am made aware, to most Americans...even to those who style themselves as realists who are politically aware. Terry are these dates recent enough for you....and I haven't pulled to the present except for the drone warfare and ongoing occupation of Afghanistan.

Neil, your words make a case against evolution, maturation, self improvement, or hope for a saner future. You seem happy to live as a Neanderthal... not to trash a group... More a metaphor for your tribal mentality. I really can't reason with that so I will just say.... Grunt, grunt...and leave it at that.

I continue to be amazed by the feminist rants posted by these weak, White PC Progressives. I think the atmosphere of pansy political correctness pushed by the Obama regime causes these male Sandy Pasch's wanna-be's to second guess what is reality and reject any such thoughts that are aggressive or violent or one that puts anyone as less than equal in their minds. What we need in this country is more men like AWD. More men unafraid to express their masculinity and unafraid to put their boot to someones butt when they get out of line.

AWD.... Frankly, you sound threatened and insecure. I think Neal's tribe has some openings for a real man like yourself.

Neil, ay one moment your talking about the welfare of civil society, then your medieval times, then drop back to loin cloths and grunting. I remember being fifteen at one time.... It's fun to play out dramas in your mind.

If there were only two choices available in life, between Neil's tribe or Brian's tribe, Hoffa would choose Brian's tribe in a heartbeat with no regrets.

Honestly, what happened to the principle of all men being created equal?

Patch reader.... JS a frequent responder, asked me for some names of democratic leaders overthrown by the US. I did simply hit this link for the quick answer as I am not writing a doctoral thesis hear. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions

All of these facts can be easily verified on other sites. I have read several books on the topic as well... The first, an insiders report from John Perkins called Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, and the follow up, The Secret History of the American Empire. That we are an empire and act the part is inarguably true. I have read some books that are supportive of this sort of ambition...others that don't. If any of the information I presented is not factual, feel free to debunk it with your research...
Any of you.

Neil.... I think Hitler, should not have invaded Poland. I dislike empiresnwhether German, Japanese, English, Soviet or American. You simply live and think as a reactionary.... I am talking about paradigm shifting globally...about what can happen this century if people realize that we all live in the same house so burning it down is a pretty bad plan.

Hoffa.... Always welcome, never expected. BTW we will try to be good neighbors to the other tribes.

Patchreader...no offense taken. legitimate question. This info is relatively widespread so to grab it I went to wkipedia. Zinn on History and Zinn On War are interesting. Nick Cullather's Secret History. State Terrorism in Latin America by Thomas C Wright. Drone Warfare by Medea Benjamin..... Recent reads.

Hoffa, your namesake began, at least, as a defender of the little people. I agree...no honor in exploitation and less when you try to paint it as spreading liberty, democracy, etc.

“Can you imagine looking up to see what above your head is making a mechanical noise, and seeing a glint in the sky... Knowing it's a drone, knowing that drone is there daily, surveilling [sic] your house as clearly as if someone was watching your movements from a hunfpdred [sic] yards away…”

The foregoing drone surveillance may indeed become a reality within the U.S. As you likely know, Congress passed and the President signed into law in February of this year, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act. This new law essentially opens the U.S. skies to domestic surveillance drones (the same drones used by our military over-seas) without any concern for U.S. citizens’ privacy rights.

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/17/150817060/drones-move-from-war-zones-to-the-home-front

It is my understanding that privacy rights were not even debated in relation to the underlying Bill. Unfortunately, while the vast majority of the U.S. public is distracted by engaging in party-line, divisive, partisan argument, all fueled by our main stream media circus, this same majority fails to realize that the civil liberties of U.S. citizens are slowly eroding away.

Terry... I must argue that the second world war is recent history as is rearranged the world and decimated 60 million people.

1. Adolf Hitler: The Nazi Party Represents Positive Christianity
"We demand freedom for all religious confessions in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or conflict with the customs and moral sentiments of the Germanic race. The party as such represents the standpoint of a positive Christianity, without owing itself to a particular confession...."

- Article 20 of the program of the German Workers' Party (later named the National Socialist German Workers' Party, NSDAP)
2. Adolf Hitler: I am a Catholic
I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.

- Adolf Hitler, to General Gerhard Engel, 1941
4. Adolf Hitler: Christianity and the Holy German Reich
As long as leadership from above was not lacking, the people fulfilled their duty and obligation overwhelmingly. Whether Protestant pastor or Catholic priest, both together and particularly at the first flare, there really existed in both camps but a single holy German Reich, for whose existence and future each man turned to his own heaven.
6. Adolf Hitler: Personification of the Devil
....the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.

- Adolf Hitler (following the position of Martin Luther), Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 11

Continued....

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. ...Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. ...

- Press, 1942), pg. 871-872

If Hitler isnheld to be a model for what it means to be Christian, If Assad or Khomeni, or Saddam are held up as models of Islam.... Then, of course we will all fear one another, hate one another, etc. I apologize for quoting this madman....Terry...but his speeches were as rife with attempts to couch the ambitions of the Third Reich in Christian terms and as the will of God, as are any militant mullah's....... Hitler, however, got away with quite a bit more destruction. If I am not mistaken the Japanese Emporer was held to be a Deity.... Not Christian of course....

Bush's speeches after 9/1 and during the war were also peppered with suggestions that he was leading the Good in a fight against Evil....continuing the Regan Era Axis of Evil theme, but progressively adding scripture and religious rhetoric to his addresses. This sat very well with his fundamentalist supporters without whom he could not have been President.

Again though Brian, if we are to have an intellectually honest discussion about this we have to be specific. No one to my knowledge has ever tried to make an honest argument that religion was a causal factor of World War II. You have a whole spectrum of causal factors that you can attribute that war to. Socioeconomic strife, imperialism, ethnic cleansing, bitterness over the first world war, and a good old fashion dose of megalomania, were all causal factors. Religion was an afterthought that some leaders used to justify their actions. Sure, leaders of one country or another all called upon their gods to be at their sides. Many leaders spouted pretty speeches referencing religion in one form or another. But no one entered that war as a war of faith, the Germans included.

This was not a war of religion or holy war for anyone involved. It was not a "jihad". There is not enough there to support that claim, there just isn't. And repeating it won't bring it there. But even if we accept your premise, then the fact that other "christian countries", entered the war to stop them it would again exempt this particular example from consideration.

Now once again, I understand that one of the tenets of the religion of non-religion is to demonize Christianity. I get that. But there is some Irony here in that you appear to be doing just what your blog is criticizing. You are painting Christianity with the same broad brush you asked us to put down for Muslims.

I think you are quite wrong with the assertion that no one entered that war as a war of faith Terry. Religious exceptionalism "we are the one true faith," has been mixed up inextricably with national though out our history and, no doubt, throughout the history of countless nations, kingdoms, tribes, etc. Read the words to the still popular Battle Hymn of the Republic, sung in churches and military memorial days all my life. It's apocalyptic .... Almost a claim that America is the last bastion of godliness in the world, holding the banner and fighting the real fight...wars...until Christ's return. I completely agree that leaders use religion to mask or to gain support for their very material objectives. That is key to my point.... If Osama was really put off by corporate wealth and industrial power on. A spiritual level, he might have begun by attacking his enormously wealthy family....and by giving away all the money he had inherited from this family! So if our leaders agendas are "not really Christian based...not indicative of true Christianity...why expect some nut cases or angry mobs are exemplars of the Muslim faith? WW2 was NOT a Christian war... Christ would have abhorred it. Look at the enemies...all went to churches praying to the same Lord...with the exception of Japan. All had Christian ministers or priests praying in the bloody fields over the broken bodies of well meaning young people. This is not intellectual dishonesty.

Terry, I understand what you are saying about people in general being swayed by outstanding (bad in this case) examples of members of any group. Perhaps I sound intolerant but I am very passionate on these points and that dynamic can lead and has to many wars, even in my lifetime.

Wars are often sold on lies....this is a search you can make... or a trumped up event is magnified beyond its significance. Sometimes the precipitating events are staged. At this point, out come the stereotypes, the demonizing, the bigotry, racism, ethnocentrism, fascism...and the world wakes up some years later in a smoking battlefield with countless dead wondering how it all got so out of control.

Does the war solve the hate? Does the war bring peace? Does the war bring humans closer to one another, cause them to recognize that they are interdependent? Never. Only peaceful actions bring these results, and these require a higher vision, a proactive life (distinct from reactive) and an effort to raise consciousness about these issues. We are adults. At some point we DO become responsible for living to the light we have, for seeking to increase that light and expand it's range... and for challenging others, as teachers, to do the same.

This is a challenge to others to maximize their potentials as human beings, not to gauge their lives by the past, by "the way it's always been." Those who opt for the latter often do so to justify taking an easy path, avoiding risk, or to make themselves feel better about the choices they have made. They construe an image of the past that suits them, congruent to their life paths. This is understandable, as I said, but it is also the same mentality that allows the perpetuation of some of the most grievous inhumanities our kind is capable of perpetrating. Slavery comes to mind.... Legitimization of torture as a means of interrogation. Sex trafficking. The illegal arms trade. Etc. People say...."well there have always been slaves...that's just the way it is," and slavery goes on until enough people rise up and say, "No, this is wrong...and it must be stopped." Consider the fight women have had and have to be recognized as fully equal human beings will all attendant rights and privileges! This is ongoing....not ancient history

Terry, there is no basis to make the case that the act of the infamous terrorists have any widespread international support among the vast membership of the Muslim faith either. This is why they are termed extremists... Muslims do, in fact, speak out against this type of action. Where are you tuning them in? The slaughter of Muslims in the Balkans may not be religious in nature to you...and I agree that bigotry is not a spiritual quality...but the animosity clearls had a heavily religious component, the language used, the targeted victims.... All shouts bigotry.

Patch reader....thanks, yes. That is the bill. It's outrageous, very likely does contra-vert the Bill of Rights... And who is objecting???? Where is the press???

"patchreader 123
12:46 am on Sunday, September 23, 2012
The law you mention is the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which allows indefinite detention of individuals - to include U.S. citizens.
Many see the NDAA as an affront to the Bill of Rights."

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/president-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-law

I wish everyone understood the power placed in the hands of our leadership by this bill and the degree to which it removes the promise of justice... from the citizenry.

Lyle...re: the Balkans..... Yes, thanks for the input. Think It's safe to say as well that Religious and Temporal Powers....have long been intertwined. Bush was not the first to confuse them nor will the next president be the last...despite the efforts to separate church and state. When leaders need to get humans to run into machine gun fire....they evoke their most deeply held beliefs. My example of Hitler trying to equate himself to Christ chasing money changers out of the temple...is an incredible example. Bush tagging hisnefforts as a "crusade"... similar.

"The Brotherhood's credo was and is, "Allah is our objective; the Quran is our law, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations"

That sounds so much like the credo of the Christian Brotherhood, that started WWII.

A young girl was walking along a beach upon which thousands of starfish had been washed up during a terrible storm. When she came to each starfish, she would pick it up, and throw it back into the ocean. People watched her with amusement.

She had been doing this for some time when a man approached her and said, “Little girl, why are you doing this? Look at this beach! You can’t save all these starfish. You can’t begin to make a difference!”

The girl seemed crushed, suddenly deflated. But after a few moments, she bent down, picked up another starfish, and hurled it as far as she could into the ocean. Then she looked up at the man and replied,

“Well, I made a difference to that one!”

Neil, I don't recall deep research backing any of your comments. The points I gathered quickly for JB...are all easy to verify on many sites. Trying to discount facts because they were obtained on wkipedia is weak....give me your documentation, serious researcher that you propose to be, that contests the facts I presented. I do not propose that I am on expert at anything except making art.... This does not disqualify my opinion either, nor does expertise in a field validate the truth of conclusions.

Neil, you position since the earliest of my blogs has been adversarial, regardless of what I was saying. It is 80% weak attempts at character assassination...15 % rant and 5% some attempt to make a cogent point, i.e. Comparing this blog to that of the American Nazi Party indicates all that need be said of your grasp of what is being discussed and your method of interaction. Posting their link on my site is vandalism...as I have said before you actions are basically blog vandalism...you get on and spray paint your mini rants all over the threads. I can't take you seriously because you do not interact seriously. Frankly, your trashing of other posters makes me inclined to flag most of what you say and let the editor decide if it's germane or just inappropriate crap.

Thanks for the Wikipedia link On the Balkans Neil. There is a lot of information there and many links to more of the same. Here's one for you...http://balkanwitness.glypx.com/sells2.htm

Brian,

It's impossible to walk in the shoes of someone from a culture so different from your own. I could coach you for hours on how you would appear to someone from the jungles of Asia, for example.

I don't think that you have much anger over 9/11, for example. But imagine coming from the culture you are trying to defend, in which someone will smash in the head of a female relative if she happens to speak with a male she is not related to. Or imagine being outraged day and night about a war that took place 600 years ago. No, Brian, you have no idea what it is to walk in their shoes, because you don't wake up looking for a reason to be outraged. (Please don't think that I am saying that there are no reasons for having grievances. I'm merely saying that you don't foment them, so you could never walk in the shoes of those that do.)

Luke, could you be more specific. Which entire culture are you referring to that wakes up looking for a reason to be outraged? I had highly educated female colleagues, Phds., who were Muslim and spoke regularly to me without fear of having their heads smashed by their relatives. rovide more information please.

Terry, I am adding this quote and link, not to say the Iraq war WAS a Christian war against Islam, but to underscore the point that our leader in the battle, not only spoke of it as willed by God, but reportedly was very direct about saying he was instructed by God, to do what he did.

"In the programmeElusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs, which starts on Monday, the former Palestinian foreign minister Nabil Shaath says Mr Bush told him and Mahmoud Abbas, former prime minister and now Palestinian President: "I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George go and end the tyranny in Iraq,' and I did."

And "now again", Mr Bush is quoted as telling the two, "I feel God's words coming to me: 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East.' And by God, I'm gonna do it."

Mr Abbas remembers how the US President told him he had a "moral and religious obligation" to act. The White House has refused to comment on what it terms a private conversation. But the BBC account is anything but implausible, given how throughout his presidency Mr Bush, a born-again Christian, has never hidden the importance of his faith."
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1007-03.htm

@Luke...What are you really attempting to say? Are we incapable of empathy?

Here is the story Luke. I have been many places in the world, and what I have found is that people are very much the same everywhere. They want to grow up, get the best education they can, if possible, find meaningful work or at least make a modest living, most still want families, a place to live that is fairly safe. People do not want war...How many people want to live in a state of war...certainly not those near the battle zones or those pushed into fighting them. The people who want war are either the severly oppressed, who feel everything has been taken away from them and want to stike at their oppressor, or those who profit immensely by war, but stay far from the battles and would never risk their lives in active service. Aside from that...a few psychopaths. The rest of us want to live out our years with those we love...peacefully. This is all it takes to put yourself in another's shoes... Respect his or her basic humanity...recognize there are significant histories leading up to anything that happens and the specific histories may be far from clear. Avoid snap judgements, categorical thinking... Try to see the larger picture.

Neil, I think you should talk to the editor. Please do. In my opinion I have said nothing against my country.... I don't see constructive criticism as being anti-American. Rather, when we propose that our country can not be rationally criticized, we do it disservice. As introspection is key to maturation, honest critique and constructive discourse is vital to a nation's well being. In the countries where this is not allowed or viewed as you view it... Nationalism moves to fascism.

Luke, cite your references on that... How would you poll all Arabs, 98% of Saudi women...etc? That sounds like bs to me. Cite that source, who they were and how that poll was conducted. I didn't say that THE reason for those protests is drone strikes....I offer that as one ongoing reason for anti-American sentiment in many of these countries. Americans would be outraged by drone strikes on our soil as we were with the 9/11 attacks. No one likes to be attacked. Period.

As to people who will strap bombs to their bodies and blow anyone up to make a point.... These people are poor. They don't have phosphorus bombs like we used to make a point on Fallujah, destroying 30,OOO residences and burning god know how many people alive. I don't support terrorism by ANYONE.... But please don't play the US as either non-violent or surgical....somehow humane...in it's violence. That is ridiculous. Fallujah followed the lynching of a group of Blackwater mercenaries...if I am not mistaken. The mercenaries were not killed because they had been handing out Hershey bars to Iraqi kids. Read up on that operation if you want to grasp our brand of violence.

O.K. Brian. While this journey down the Christian path has been enjoyable, it is somewhat off point. To get back to it again;

As I said above, while your premise is honorable, what you are asking of your audience is to adhere to a very high standard. You are asking the average reader to look beyond the actions of Al queda, and to see past their acts of violence. You want us to look beyond the scenes of violence, protests, and mobs we are exposed to on a daily basis through our televisions, blogs, and newspapers. You want us to see the culture and religion behind the curtain for what it is, not what the extremists would present. It's a pretty high bar to set. I would like to explore your convictions again.

Now I would ask, where to you believe the primary burden for this falls? Do you believe it is solely up to us, to be more understanding, compassionate, and forgiving? Or is it up to their culture and religion to stand up and show us that the extremists do not represent them? Is it somewhere in between. Where would you set the bar.

Second, regardless of where you think the burden is stronger, do you believe the Muslim and Islamic world is doing enough to show the world the difference? Are they doing enough to combat those who would tarnish their image to the world? Are they in the fight, or standing on the sidelines?

Again, when you ask us to walk a mile in their shoes, are they doing enough to show us that they aren't giving us shoe bombs....

Luke,
1. I didn't mean how could YOU poll them.... Itbas a generally directed question as in, "How could ONE poll them?"
2. As to modeling violence in culture...again, to me, Americans persist in modeling themselves as very willing o be violent. I am not living in the middle east, so I don't see what they are saturated with in terms of modeling on a daily basis... Perhaps the fact they are in or next to war zones makes the military much more apparent... But America is THE superpower.... From childhood on we are indoctrinated in violence as a solution to settling issues...Most of the popular TV shows continuue to be about rogue cops or agents, breaking rules to get the job done... Extremely violent and much more so progressively. I don't watch these shows....nothing bores me more than watching another adult play guns for a living. But the saturation factor is there. The news is full of violence and fear building about the level of violence. Our foreign policy includes two originally popular wars forc which we were willing to pay trillions of dollars because we believe violence will solve our problems. Read this thread Luke..most of the respondents support believe this is how it has been and will always be...and chide me for my desire to build a more peaceful world...where understanding and respect is increased through education.

3. No Luke, what we prefer to do it to change regimes. Scroll back. If we dont like the policy of say, some Latin American democracy....historically, we send in the CIA, foment a coup or simply kill the President ourselves. Why waste time with the small stuff...burning embassies and what not?

Terry, Yes I think we can rise much higher and that their is great potential for understanding. I absolutely believe it requires equal efforts on all peoples of the world to make this happen. I think the burden is equally spread.... We have to show them that violence, economic and military, is not our entire or primary method...and that we want to find ways to resolve issues without using these. The threat of military action... has to be left at the door. If everything we ask for has the condition of OR ELSE WE KILLL YOU...ATTACHED TO IT...THERE IS NO HOPE FOR PEACE. The administrations or groups we are fighting must put forth the olive branch as well, leave off with the inflammatory rhetoric, and denounce extremist actions when they occur. But remember, I consider our drone program extremist too Terry... So we must see that violence is violence and quit mincing words. This is no different thn a combative couple except in the number of players ....we have to agree to holding to other modes of interaction, slowly build trust based on the experience of change in each others methods, we must beat the swords into plowshares and study war no more.

Terry, "The ability of us to have this debate is one of the critical components of our free society that does show our separation from the barbarians at the gate.". Bravo.... I completely agree and respect both your intelligence and your manner of sticking with the topics adding some but avoiding character assassinations and rants.

I blogged months ago about not saying anything you wouldn't say if you were sitting across a table with the other person. I came up with "Marquess of Queensbury" rules for blogs. So many threads are ruined bynwhat I call blog vandalism...simply stupid character attacks. Moreover, why am I expecte to take anyone seriously who is consistently playing that game? I don't have the time. I appreciate your input.

Neil...you can't enter one reply without trying to trash someone...that is what I am talking about. You know this... I don't see that as making a cogent point. The only point I recall is that you believe you are in a tribe and that you like life there.

The problem I have with swords Terry is that, if you carry them, you are very likely to use them offensively, or in defense that could have been conducted non-violently or less violently. If we could begin by limiting our military ( also the CIA, the mercenaries, etc.) to holding to purely defensive use of weapons, this would represent a huge reduction in conflict and would greatly lessen the animosity towards us in the world. The challenge is, people claim their offense IS defense. We preemptively attack people. We claim right to attack people in countries where we have not declared war. And, as I have indicated, we covertly use violence offensively to topple regimes, foment coups, assassinate people, etc.
It can all be spun as defensive, or protecting our security or whatever.... All the mores in a declared Global War. We can kill anyone anywhere and call it defense. To me, that is offense. So...where do we draw the line between protecting ourselves and aggressively pursuing agendas of empire?

Neil, I have not edited you...I said I feel at times like allowing the editor to decide when your additions are purely derisive. You may be killing time...I am trying to speak with thoughtful people about things that matter to me. I don't need to justify myself to you regarding what I do in the non-blog universe to take the words I say into
action, but I will say that the suggestions you list sound very good.... I have my hands full with what I have taken on right now and direct myself to ways my strengths are best employed.

Neil, if you want to do your smack down on this blog you just have to play with yourself...figuratively. Here is a koan for you: What is the sound of one Neil smacking?

President Obama has been a disappointment to me relative to war. I hoped he would do more to end both wars....he is out of one, yet he has ramped up Bush's drone campaign and, while he is not taking orders from Netanyahu relative to attacking Iran, he has not been outspoken against the madness of doing so. If, however, you propose that the right in this country will be less interested in war.... You will not convince me. Both wars we are in began in Republican administrations....and for what gain? Trillions.... 5000 American lives ended... For exactly what?

@Brian
I took some time to review the actions taken by the US you listed. Here are my thoughts:

1) While some of those the US assisted in removing were Democratically elected, none were saints. Many were borderline tyrants developing relations with the communists that had direct bearing on the many US foreign interest and possibly cause for concern domestically.

2) It is easy point out the failures of our actions; however, Cuba could just as easily point out the failure or our inaction. There are many in Cuba who would have liked to see Fidel taken down.

3) Since you want to claim that our actions have hurt countries and yet our lack of action in Cuba has produced a country caught in the same tyrannical government that many in the middle east have, my question still stands. Would the world be a better place if America had done nothing in those other countries as well? OR Is the world a better place because the US interfered?

(cont.)

@Brian (cont)
Obviously those questions can't be answered. However, you and other liberals are trying to make an emotional argument about the past by assuming the US is the single cause of ills in countries where the US participated in the demise of the a leader. Simply stated if your foreign policy is "Don't f--k people over", not acting could be just as damning as acting. Basically, you want to wait for the correct outcome with out any action. That's not leading. Since the US at a minimum attempts to spread freedom, when we stop leading who will do that in our place?

JB...What do you mean by "spreading freedom?" I would like it if that was our business as I was raised to believe that is what we do. It's apparent to me, however, that historically, our idea of spreading freedom has meant spreading empire...spreading our business interest, spreading our military reach, spreading our control. If that is not antithetical to "speeding freedom," then your dictionary is very different than mine.
1. Are we somehow in charge of killing anyone who is not a saint now.... And have our leaders been "saints," under some amazing disposition I seemed to have missed? Deciding who can rule other countries is not our domain I would say. The communist threat "domino theory" for instance was used to justify all of these actions. Stopping the spread of communism was an obsession for many, but it is interesting to see that,in these countries, it was our corporate interests that were at stake. In other words, if a democratically elected leader wants to privatize the oil industry in their country, or take back the utilities.... He or she has to go. The Soviet communists weren't moving over here. Look into the size and profit of a United Fruit Company or the major oil cos in Latin America and you will see that exploitation of resources was the real game... With democratization that was threatened.

2. You believe it was a mistake that we didn't assassinate Castro as well as several others we did assassinate. Many people think that assassination is an acceptable policy.
3. How does the world look to you? Iraq.... Afghanistan? Looking good and worth the price of our "makeover?" I do not and have not said that all we do is bad. Is it easier for you to grasp this if you look at other Empires? Try the British...all over the planet spreading freedom? No, usurping the people...exploiting the resources, feasting and leaving the scraps to people they did not regard as equals. How can anyone help themselves to the wealth of countries inhabited by people they see as equals? The exceptionalism, the condescension if not the outright racism and bigotry...are at the foundation of expansionism. It's ugly. Neo-Manifest Destiny or simply the continued spread of the same... We live at the expense of people who suffer. Period. Why is this justified? You have said well they would be worse off if we weren't hiring them in all these factories.... (paraphrase). Would they and does that justify exploiting them? Why not get them modest wages, secure their human rights at our factories, really work to help them live healthy lives? To me it's a lame excuse and the bottom line is the main interest...not the people we are "freeing".

JB there are more than two choices in life! Your point seems to be that we had two options...f..k them over or leave them to their own ends. That kind of black and white thinking misses a spectrum of options including COOPERATION...to put a tag on it. It's not either control them or the he'll with them! If we respected other people's and nations as co-equals in this great pageant of existence we all happen to find ourselves in... Diverse but equal... We could dialogue with respect seeking ways to interacts that are win wins for everyone. We could share rather than fight over the planets resources. We could spend our trillions that we throw on wars to setting up sustainable systems to feed the planet, see to the health of all, educate all, etc. But we do not respect others as co equals.... We think we are better than they are....read the thread here. We think we can dictate to others how to live or even what democracy must look like in their country. Democracy is an experiment not an element of nature or some immutable structure.

Clearly the hypothetical situation you described with complete foreknowledge of atrocity is not one we have.

Recently a man in Wisconsin heard an intruder in his back porch, inside the house. I believe he killed him. The intruder turned out to be a drunk kid from a party next door, who, after strolling around outside mistook this guys house for his friends house and pushed his way inside. He is dead. I say this to also point pipit the danger of taking justice into your own hands...becoming judge, jury and executioner on your own. This is dangerous in individual situations and dangerous internationally. It opens the door for gross over reactions, disproportionate punishment and flat out mistakes. This should be obvious from the Iraq war, or at least Afghanistan.

The Muslim world can do more...I am not trying to dodge questions Terry. But Terry, let's say a white person is a racist....he hates black people. Can he say, "Well, when the black community gets together and denounces the violence some of them perpetrate, sometimes against whites, THEN I will start to change my judgement of them?" in fact the black community does speak to the issue of violence in the inner cities....but this guy isn't tuned in. Moreover...he is saying he will relax judging ALL of them when they speak out against some actions SOME of them commit. Blacks are not some monolith.... Nor are Muslims nor are Christians, etc. Every black person is not responsible for how their whole race is perceived....much less so for the gross generalizations of racists. Equally so, to my mind, with bigots.

This is an interesting exchange to follow. I just find it incredible to hold the whole group responsible for the actions of a few. Every since 9/11, Muslims in the U.S. have repeatedly condemned violence. World wide, Muslims have condemned violence against the innocents. Jihad is not sanctioned if it is against innocents, read the Qur'an if you don't believe me. I think it is a mistake to place expectations on people and groups that may not have as part of their own set of expectations. I know that I'll get slammed for this, but we have to own our expectations and not project them onto others.

Luke.... Thee balance of this thread is people maintaining that we are pretty mush justified in doing exactly that. My blog is to say simply...not a good idea. Two hundred enttries follow, most inclining towards saying we have been right to do so, it's natural to do so, it's reasonable to do so, we should do so until that immense group stands up as one and says the few are wrong..or disowns them. That IS the interchange.

Terry...I bow to your knowledge about the break in. I mentioned. I was short on facts apparently. Now let me ask you.... Was the man wielding a gun? What sign did the homeowner have to justify taking his life? The Old Testament had what seemed to be a harse set of rules...an eye for an eye. How harmed was the homeowner...had he been shot severely wounded....had he even been hit? You have the answers. Justify death as the mans impromptu sentence.

Terry, you like to test the depth of people's convictions with hypotheticals. Loots of people claim they would do this or that in a given situation... Lots of cowboys and commandos get on my threads on gun violence, peace, etc.... Most of them never tested in real life situations but inclined to see themselves in dramatic scenarios where they get to put out their weapons...
Here is a hypothetical for you. You are imprisoned by a militant regime in an act of state terrorism since you shoes up at one protest rally. Your jailers, all proven killers, also have your wife or husband in another room...or child. They say to you...."see our cleaning man? We will give you a gun with one bullet. Kill the man with a single shot or we will kill your loved one."
What do you do? The cleaning man has nothing to do with you, you don't know him, he is not a prisoner, he has nothing to do with the predicament you are in.

This may seem preposterous but I know people who have been torturers in prisons where this happened...the difference being they were asked to give names of friends or people they knew who then would, of course, be arrested, tortured and killed.... So they were asked to shoot their friends or people they knew essentially.

The problem with stop gap reactionary attempts to constrain violence with violence is it often leads to more violence and never arrives at peace. I don't advocate doing nothing....that is JBs choice...to either kill or do nothing..

I am very actively doing what I can think of, including speaking with you and my community about these matters.... making human rights activist art, speaking to students about the importance of meaningful content in art, and raising two children tosee that the world is their home and that all humans are their family.

If it wasn't apparent immediately, the cleaning man, a stranger, is what some people like to think of as the collateral damage in war...but a real example. He stands before you, broom in hand...you have a gun and one bullet. Your dear one is in the next room. He is not what our drone operators call "splats" when they kill them on screen...you can see him breathing and he is looking at you waiting for your response.

The proposal of attacking an Iran...is similar in many respects. Without knowing your answer Terry...before I do... Many feel threatened by Iran. The leader seems dangerous...he talks crazy at times, threatens this or that. He may soon have a weapon of mass destruction. So family member in the next room, Israel, or even the US...could be killed....or tortured severely. The cleaning man is all the people we will kill in our effort to save our relative. It is wedding parties that accidentally get targeted by young people in Arizona who think they look like subversive meetings. It is families who die when crazed soldiers, suffering from the mental trauma of war, snap, wander down the road and shoot all of them.

It is people who happen to live in areas designated for carpet bombing. All of these people happened to be ther...like the cleaning man. The analogy is different because we are not in the mad mans jail... unless the madman has entered our psyche in the form of disproportionate fear. So...did over one hundred thousand Iraqis have to die so that we could kill Saddam?

Randy... Could well be. Thanks for the entry....

There is considerable evidence that Hitler was not a Christian after the mid-1920s, some public statements to the contrary, and much evidence as well that many other Nazis preferred the old German gods. For a quick read with plenty of footnotes one can follow, see the Wikipedia entry "The Religious Views of Adolph Hitler" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

The suggestion that we must not be critical of violent Islamists because some among us have used religion for violent ends simply says that no one can criticize anyone. Violence among Islamists is not confined to a small minority: It is world-wide. If it weren't, we would not be having this conversation. And a large portion of those Muslims who do not accept al Qaeda's interpretation of Islam still acknowledge that theirs is a reasonable interpretation, not radical at all.

Disagree with Hitler being unlike anything have seen before or since apart from sheer numbers. There have been genocides since and were before. There have been murders of millions.

Terry, in that situation many people did turn in friends or give names of strangers to the persecutor. This did not, however, save their family member or themselves...they were all killed and more people were rounded up based on the names.

Yes... I dont know if it matters but, in the scenario, I doubt the people were given a lot of time to think.
I think there are many kinds of perfect storms for violence and that we are at the brink of one now, teetering on attacking Iran. There is a large effort underway to demonize the Iranian President (who is a nut for sure), to draw the conclusion that he has or will have nuclear weapons soon and, that once he has them, he is likely to use them on Israel, and therefore, to conclude that we should get him before he can get Israel. This WMD threat, which Romney referred to today as a threat against Israel and "all of the civilized world", was the same used, of course, to attack Iraq and go after Saddam. The potential hear for an all out Middle Eastern war, if not WW3, is, in my opinion, great.
No one seems to question the logic that if Iran has nukes it would necessarily use them. This despite the fact that so far, the US is the only country that has used nukes...and that MAD has, to date, kept anyone from doing so. Israel definitely has nukes...Why have they not used them? A: Because to do so is to commit suicide. Iranians are intelligent. Why would they use nukes on Israel?

Terry, I point out that many people who do bad things call themselves Christian, attend church once in awhile, etc. My definition of a Christian would be someone who follows Christ's teachings..thereby following Christ. I dont consider Hitler to be a Christian... but he evidently did. Evidently he used religion or religious rhetoric to shore up or bolster his agendas. I think fundamentalist extremists of any religion do this...use the religion to mask their quests for power, their twisted agendas, etc. Tis is all I am saying. As to progress I have heard both takes on this and don't know if there is conclusive proof. I see some progress.... I think the UNs creation is progress but I also see Presidents saying the UN is inconsequential. Last centuries score on violence with two world wars and a nuclear arms race doesn't strike me as progress.

Terry, if you kill someone, even under duress, you are part of the cause of his death. The scenario was a proposed deal.... Save your family member by killing the man. to extrapolate in the direction you are headed, you will get to the man caused his own death by being there to begin with, or by bleeding to death when your bullet hit him.