Defining the term "anti-Americanism"

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Paul Stevens:
Dead horse kind of thing.

Who wants to beat dead horse, will do that anyway.

[Meadowlark Bradsher]

I was born in the United States and immediately granted citizenship for the effort.
The only definition I have of "Anti-American" in which I find the term truly repugnant is when it describes an example (if I was or could have been a part of it) in which I would personally feel discriminated against, including being threatened, simply because I was born here or raised as a child here.
I think criticism of things I was taught here, or "culturally" exposed to, or even just the government, is as good as the critic but in general criticsm is always a good thing. The USA (or any other country or any other culture, I regret to inform some people) is not perfect in principle or execution. Therefore criticism is always an important feature of improving any system. The abolitionists of the USA criticised slavery for a long time and as a result the country grew slowly away from looking away when slavery or discrimination occured and became more active.
My understanding is that even Thomas Jefferson criticized slavery in a draft of the Declaration of Independence but later wrote it out because the South was needed to fight the British. Later it took a bloody Civil war to get a more honest democracy started. War is the starkest form of criticism but in this case it was against one of the worst hypocrisies.
This country has always been divided like that perhaps not as dramatically, and along different lines. It always will be, and a heavy dose of freedom of speech continues today as long as it can afford its medium.
Some may disagree but good critism is the only way to refinement. There is always room for that.
Discriminatory criticism is just meant to vent and hurt. Its best not to get to hurt and just move on.

[Sameer Jamal]

I agree with Jason about the cannibal joke. It reminded me of imperialism and Religious terrorism.
One kills for democracy, other kills in the name of religion.Both are not really different for an observer from a Third World country

If this is the response of what I've posted then you might not know that this is not the observation of a viewer of a third world country(who is me) this is the view of Noam Chomsky (whom you should know ) Micahel Chowdusky and Fiedel Castro (Combodian president ) and the facts which I've posted was taken from New York Times and Washington Post(read those papers during 16 to 24 september 2001) but that thread was deleted and a private warning was sent to me just because I am not an American Citizen and a poster from a third world country
and Michael has rightly said here

But the reason Thomas can joke about US stuff and I can laugh is because Tom's home is here -- by default or by choice I don't care. As much as we disagree with each other on other points, he's a fellow American.

[ February 07, 2003: Message edited by: Sameer Jamal ]

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Sameer Jamal:
and the facts which I've posted was taken from New York Times and Washington Post(read those papers during 16 to 24 september 2001) but that thread was deleted

I saw that thread before it was deleted. There were no "facts" in it, nor as I remember it was it sourced. I had tried to post a response debunking each and every one of those "facts", but the thread was deleted before I hit submit.

[Mapraputa Is]

There is a difference between "anti-American" jokes and "anti-American" posts, IMHO. While we may disagree was a joke "anti-American" or not, and whetter it was offending or not, jokes are just that - jokes. It won't do too much harm to avoid them, especially if the target audience asked for it. But posts (or links to some info) is another matter. Isn't free exchange of information what democracy is built on? It's no good to exclude a part of world population from discussion on the only ground they aren't Americans, or because of "past anti-American tendencies" (which often amounts to criticizing the USA). Then, of course, to post under a fake unregistered name and then run away is dening. These people are a shame and they only undermine our anti-American movement. (I do not mean Sameer.)
[ February 07, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[Sameer Jamal]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
I do not mean Sameer.
[ February 07, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

You mean <Sameer> or Sameer Jamal

[Mapraputa Is]

Err... I mean anonymous posters, those who use <whatEverName> to post something inflamatory and then we never see them again.
I did not mean Sameer Jamal or any other MD resident.
[ February 08, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[Mohanlal Karamchand]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
they only undermine our anti-American movement.

I wizh to diztanse myzelf from thiz movement. I repent my pazt croolty to americanz. Az an act of penanse I shall uze americun zpelling in all my pozts in this forem.

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Sameer Jamal:
I agree with Jason about the cannibal joke. It reminded me of imperialism and Religious terrorism.
One kills for democracy, other kills in the name of religion.Both are not really different for an observer from a Third World country

If this is the response of what I've posted then you might not know that this is not the observation of a viewer of a third world country(who is me) this is the view of Noam Chomsky (whom you should know ) Micahel Chowdusky and Fiedel Castro (Combodian president ) and the facts which I've posted was taken from New York Times and Washington Post(read those papers during 16 to 24 september 2001) but that thread was deleted and a private warning was sent to me just because I am not an American Citizen and a poster from a third world country

[ February 07, 2003: Message edited by: Sameer Jamal ]

I wonder about your "facts". For example, Castro has never been a Cambodian president, not even close. He is communist dictator on the other side of world.

[Sameer Jamal]

Originally posted by herb slocomb:

I wonder about your "facts". For example, Castro has never been a Cambodian president, not even close. He is communist dictator on the other side of world.

Yes he is offcourse not a Combodian President but he is the President of the Republic of Cuba I may have written the name of the country wrong but he is not a dictator as you people think.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Sameer Jamal:
Yes he is offcourse not a Combodian President but he is the President of the Republic of Cuba I may have written the name of the country wrong but he is not a dictator as you people think.

Do you know what a dictator is? When were the last free elections held in Cuba?

[Jason Menard]

This article seems to be on topic.
Anti-Americanism Takes Shape in Western Europe

[Sameer Jamal]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

Do you know what a dictator is? When were the last free elections held in Cuba?

Yes I know exactly what a dictator is. The president and vice president were elected by the election which were held on cuba on 24th feb 1998 (it does not matter whether US recognises that elections or not). Cuba is a Socialist Republic country and I dont know why democratic countries says that a president can be only from democratic republic country, beside that you also beleive that Pervez Musharraf is not a dictator and also recognises Switzerland as a republic country there is a lot of conflicts in your policies so there is a need for you people to understand difference between a dictator and a president.

[Ashok Mash]

Originally posted by Sameer Jamal:


... Cuba is a Socialist Republic country and I dont know why democratic countries says that a president can be only from democratic republic country, beside that you also beleive that Pervez Musharraf is not a dictator and also recognises Switzerland as a republic country there is a lot of conflicts in your policies so there is a need for you people to understand difference between a dictator and a president.

Good point, Sameer.

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Ashok Krishnan:

Good point, Sameer.

Great point, and don't forgot to add that Sadaam was also elected as well. The fact that there is no real opposition, EVER, in communist countries is of course not relevent. Of course...

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Sameer Jamal:

Yes he is offcourse not a Combodian President but he is the President of the Republic of Cuba I may have written the name of the country wrong but he is not a dictator as you people think.

Sameer, I live in South Florida. My State is about 50 miles from Cuba(not Cambodia). There are thousands of people living here in Miami who have stories of relatives or friends that have been put in prison or killed over the last 50 years by Castro. You have no idea how amusing it would be for me just to imagine you debating the issue of whether Castro is a dictator or not with these exiles in Miami.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Sameer Jamal:
Yes I know exactly what a dictator is. The president and vice president were elected by the election which were held on cuba on 24th feb 1998

From CNN report of the election:
The results of the election, expected to be announced Monday, are not in doubt. While not all of the candidates were members of the Communist Party, all support the government's policies and there were no known opponents to Castro on the candidates' lists voters were asked to endorse.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Sameer Jamal:
...beside that you also beleive that Pervez Musharraf is not a dictator and also recognises Switzerland as a republic country there is a lot

How do you know what I believe? Musharraf is a dictator and Switzerland is a democracy. Why don't you think that Switzerland is a democracy?

[Ashok Mash]

Originally posted by herb slocomb:

Great point, and don't forgot to add that Sadaam was also elected as well. The fact that there is no real opposition, EVER, in communist countries is of course not relevent. Of course...

Sameer's point that I was talking about was what he said about US's double standards of accepting General Musharaf (Military General, who came to power with a coup overpowering a democratically elected government, denying all major political parties from participating in the elections, arresting other all other leaders who were brave enough to talk against him, tweaking the constitution to make himself 'President'.. list is endless.), as a 'responsible ally and wise blah blah.. whatever' where as they are too keen to name every other 'bad guys' as dictators. I admit that Saddam is bad, but there are worse out there in Americas side of the alliance.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Ashok Krishnan:
I admit that Saddam is bad, but there are worse out there in Americas side of the alliance.

So which of America's allies are responsible for the deaths of more than 1 million people?

[Ashok Mash]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

So which of America's allies are responsible for the deaths of more than 1 million people?

There is no one who has done that sort of atrocities in American side, AFAIK, and definitely that side is not a 'Saron-Saroman' alliance.
In case my prev. post was misleading, let me add some further clarifications. Perception of a tragedy/event differs from each persons viewpoint. Like America decided to handle Al-Queda first before trying to tame Saddam; the fact that Saddam Hussain have culled a million in the name of ethnicity/religion or what ever is tragic, but not as tragic as the pain that I had to go through by losing my close friends and relatives in our borders fighting against someone who is pledged to continue this for ever.
To me, General Musharaf is more evil that Saddam Hussain. And that?s because Gerenal Musharaf?s evil regime directly affects me, than Saddam Husain?s.
And General Musharaf is in the American side of the alliance.
[ February 11, 2003: Message edited by: Ashok Krishnan ]

[Axel Janssen]

These discussions does not leed to anything.
Can we agree that US-foreign policy, like the foreign policy of every country, is mostly motivated through the self interest of the US citizens, or at least the perceived self interest of that interest by the government?
This self interest does not mean exploitation. Its just about more stability in the region as a sound basis for trade.
There is a need for a reliable ally in middle east. So Pakistani-diplomats and US-diplomats make a deal that pakistani aggression against India does not matter too much.
Pakistan government may use these war activities to get support under hard core muslims.
India looses in this game.
Of course US would be happy if there would be democratic nations in middle east. But if there are no... They need regional allies.
With Bin Laden we saw that supporting a enemy in a war against a bigger enemy is quite risky in the long run. Hope they act with more caution in the future.
Foreign politics is very cold hearted and very little about propagating democracy. True democracy can only develop itself inside a society. Economic growth, having other democracies as allies might help.
[ February 11, 2003: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]

[Sameer Jamal]

Cuba(not Cambodia).

To err is human nature so forgive me for writting Combodia instead of Cuba

There are thousands of people living here in Miami who have stories of relatives or friends that have been put in prison or killed over the last 50 years by Castro

Whatever I know about Castro is only from News papers and magazines (where I've read his speeches on war against terrorism and socialism) so I beleive that he is not a dictator but if he is responsible for killings of many people(as you are saying ) then I have to change my beleif (the whole gist of discussion should be that we should agree on something rather posting ).

How do you know what I believe? Musharraf is a dictator and Switzerland is a democracy. Why don't you think that Switzerland is a democracy?

I was talking about US double standard on its foreign policy as Ashok has already stated that. I completely agree that Switzerland is a democracy but I was saying if US recognises Swis as a Democracy then why it does not recognises other Social Democratic countries as a Democratic nation.

The fact that there is no real opposition, EVER, in communist countries is of course not relevent. Of course...

I think you know Communism only from the Surface ( as I know about Castro) If you read Communist Manifesto there they have clearly stated about Multi party theory and opposition, but communist model is relatively new to the 400 year old democracy so there is still space for lot of improvements. Another reason that there is no real opposition in communist countries is that they have no basic difference in their policies and thinking so they agree upon on choice.

The results of the election, expected to be announced Monday, are not in doubt. While not all of the candidates were members of the Communist Party, all support the government's policies and there were no known opponents to Castro on the candidates' lists voters were asked to endorse.

If this is the reason why Castro is recognised as a Dictator then he is a dictator who represent 90% of the people of his nation and Bush is a Dictator who represent only 30% of the American Population(because everybody knows what happened in florida).

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Sameer Jamal:
Another reason that there is no real opposition in communist countries is that they have no basic difference in their policies and thinking so they agree upon on choice.

ROFLMAO! That is the funniest thing I have ever read. I guess you never heard of the gulags. Of course everyone agrees... because if they don't they are killed or imprisoned.

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Sameer Jamal:

Whatever I know about Castro is only from News papers and magazines (where I've read his speeches on war against terrorism and socialism) so I beleive that he is not a dictator but if he is responsible for killings of many people(as you are saying ) then I have to change my beleif (the whole gist of discussion should be that we should agree on something rather posting ).

Here's some links on deaths caused by Castro :
http://www.cubaarchive.org/english/dl/dle01.pdf
(5,000+ by firing squad)

Here's a list of people killed due to communism in Cuba. Most are from firing squad, some from trying to leave the island, so not all directly from Castro's hand, yet he created such conditions and most of the murders he is responsible for.
http://www.aguadadepasajeros.bravepages.com/english/executed_in_Cuba.htm

Another URL with more recent human rights issues in Cuba :
http://www.canfnet.org/linksmain.htm

If this is the reason why Castro is recognised as a Dictator then he is a dictator who represent 90% of the people of his nation and Bush is a Dictator who represent only 30% of the American Population(because everybody knows what happened in florida).

Reminds me of Iraq where Sadaam got 100% of the vote (he was only one allowed on the ballot).
The percent of vote anyone receives has NOTHING to do with whether a society is free or not.
I will not go into detail on how democracy works in US (elctoral college system) or in European govts with coalitions (no one recieved majority of vote).
[ February 14, 2003: Message edited by: herb slocomb ]

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

ROFLMAO! That is the funniest thing I have ever read. I guess you never heard of the gulags. Of course everyone agrees... because if they don't they are killed or imprisoned.

This is so short sighted; how about those Taliban folks from Afghanistan (I personally very much disagree with what they've done, don't get me wrong), but the USA built their own gulag for just thost folks. Just think about what the Geneva conventions (signed by the USA too) have to say about this and then come back with real arguments instead of exhibiting the real american way of thinking (or lack thereof) causing you to laugh your lower back off. Does the phrase 'introspection' mean something to you?
no further discussion possible.
kind regards

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Jos Horsmeier:

This is so short sighted; how about those Taliban folks from Afghanistan (I personally very much disagree with what they've done, don't get me wrong), but the USA built their own gulag for just thost folks. Just think about what the Geneva conventions (signed by the USA too) have to say about this and then come back with real arguments instead of exhibiting the real american way of thinking (or lack thereof) causing you to laugh your lower back off. Does the phrase 'introspection' mean something to you?
no further discussion possible.
kind regards

Please provide URL of American built gulags.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Jos Horsmeier:
but the USA built their own gulag for just thost folks. Just think about what the Geneva conventions (signed by the USA too) have to say about this

They are called prisoner of war camps. They have been inspected by the Red Cross and no violations of the geneva Convention have been found. The Red Cross is at these camps all the time. But I do agree with you that no further communication is possible. People like you who have an obsessive and mindless hatred of the US have nothing to add to the conversation.