I found this in the Wall St Journal yesterday and found it interesting. It is an example of how radical Islam seeks to take over, manipulate, and destroy democracy, and not just in the U.S.
Islamists vs. Democracy
By MANEEZA HOSSAIN
September 27, 2004; Page A18
When the media cover Bangladesh, they do so mainly as a Third World disaster story. That may soon change, because an Islamist war against democracy is starting to be fought there. A grenade attack on an opposition rally last month, which barely made the news in the U.S., warns of growing conflict in the world's second largest Muslim democracy (after Indonesia).
The Aug. 21 grenade attack appears to have been an attempt to assassinate Sheikh Hasina, leader of the opposition and Bangladesh's second ever woman prime minister -- she served from 1996-2001. She survived, but the assailants killed 13, including Ivy Rahman, a women's activist. A previously unknown organization called the Hikmat al-Jihad (HAJ) claimed responsibility for the attack. Government officials, perhaps embarrassed that political violence in Bangladesh had made news abroad (even as a blip on CNN), initially argued that HAJ might well be fictitious. Two weeks later, however, HAJ sent death threats to prominent Awami League activists, calling them "infidels," a term used by Islamists to delegitimize Muslim opponents.
The grenade attack is just the latest act of Islamist-linked terror. Since 2000, there have been attacks on cinemas, concerts and public rallies. In May 2004, a bomb in the town of Sylhet injured 50, including the British High Commissioner. Humayun Azad, a novelist who'd spoken out against the abuse of women, was stabbed in public on Feb. 27. He died in Germany, where he'd gone for treatment, on Aug. 12. Omar Faruk, a leader of the Islamic Constitutional Movement, an Islamist party, urged that the novelist not be buried in Bangladesh as he was a "a self-proclaimed anti-Muslim author."
ICM activists also burned copies of "Prothom Alo," a newspaper that exposed the illegal training of militants in local madrassas. The Ahmadiyya community, a Muslim sect dating from the 19th century that many clerics consider heretical, has faced harassment. The World Bank representative in Bangladesh, Christine Wallich, left earlier this month after a bomb threat.
Bangladesh has a reputation for moderate Islam, for democracy, and for promoting the rights of women. Indeed, women lead both major political parties, the governing Bangladesh National Party of prime minister Khaleda Zia and the opposition Awami League. Mainstream parties accept that they can only assume power through elections. Bangladesh is home to the Grameen Bank, cited as a model of development for the way that it empowers poor women through small scale loans, or "micro-credit."
But the Islamist current, once marginal, appears to be growing. In 1998, when Osama bin Laden declared "Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders," few took notice that one of his co-signatories was Fazlur Rahman, "emir" of the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh. Nobody in Bangladesh seemed to know who he was. Indeed, the general feeling was that Bangladeshi Islamists, while sometimes noisy, lacked a constituency. Yet today, with the return of migrant workers from Saudi Arabia, they may have found one. The Saudi government has decided to reduce religious militancy among its own young men by pushing a "Saudi-ization" of the workplace, cutting back on foreign employees in favor of Saudis. Returning Bangladeshi workers are not only jobless, but have also been exposed to the intolerant Wahhabism that dominates Saudi Arabia.
The violence and Islamist assertiveness has shocked many Bangladeshis who have come to take their democracy for granted, and to assume that their compatriots could not possibly be misled by extremism. The danger now is that Bangladesh, a country the U.S. had long assumed would always be in the camp of the moderates, has been targeted for conquest by Islamists.
Islamists vs. Democracy
By MANEEZA HOSSAIN
September 27, 2004; Page A18
When the media cover Bangladesh, they do so mainly as a Third World disaster story. That may soon change, because an Islamist war against democracy is starting to be fought there. A grenade attack on an opposition rally last month, which barely made the news in the U.S., warns of growing conflict in the world's second largest Muslim democracy (after Indonesia).
The Aug. 21 grenade attack appears to have been an attempt to assassinate Sheikh Hasina, leader of the opposition and Bangladesh's second ever woman prime minister -- she served from 1996-2001. She survived, but the assailants killed 13, including Ivy Rahman, a women's activist. A previously unknown organization called the Hikmat al-Jihad (HAJ) claimed responsibility for the attack. Government officials, perhaps embarrassed that political violence in Bangladesh had made news abroad (even as a blip on CNN), initially argued that HAJ might well be fictitious. Two weeks later, however, HAJ sent death threats to prominent Awami League activists, calling them "infidels," a term used by Islamists to delegitimize Muslim opponents.
The grenade attack is just the latest act of Islamist-linked terror. Since 2000, there have been attacks on cinemas, concerts and public rallies. In May 2004, a bomb in the town of Sylhet injured 50, including the British High Commissioner. Humayun Azad, a novelist who'd spoken out against the abuse of women, was stabbed in public on Feb. 27. He died in Germany, where he'd gone for treatment, on Aug. 12. Omar Faruk, a leader of the Islamic Constitutional Movement, an Islamist party, urged that the novelist not be buried in Bangladesh as he was a "a self-proclaimed anti-Muslim author."
ICM activists also burned copies of "Prothom Alo," a newspaper that exposed the illegal training of militants in local madrassas. The Ahmadiyya community, a Muslim sect dating from the 19th century that many clerics consider heretical, has faced harassment. The World Bank representative in Bangladesh, Christine Wallich, left earlier this month after a bomb threat.
Bangladesh has a reputation for moderate Islam, for democracy, and for promoting the rights of women. Indeed, women lead both major political parties, the governing Bangladesh National Party of prime minister Khaleda Zia and the opposition Awami League. Mainstream parties accept that they can only assume power through elections. Bangladesh is home to the Grameen Bank, cited as a model of development for the way that it empowers poor women through small scale loans, or "micro-credit."
But the Islamist current, once marginal, appears to be growing. In 1998, when Osama bin Laden declared "Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders," few took notice that one of his co-signatories was Fazlur Rahman, "emir" of the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh. Nobody in Bangladesh seemed to know who he was. Indeed, the general feeling was that Bangladeshi Islamists, while sometimes noisy, lacked a constituency. Yet today, with the return of migrant workers from Saudi Arabia, they may have found one. The Saudi government has decided to reduce religious militancy among its own young men by pushing a "Saudi-ization" of the workplace, cutting back on foreign employees in favor of Saudis. Returning Bangladeshi workers are not only jobless, but have also been exposed to the intolerant Wahhabism that dominates Saudi Arabia.
The violence and Islamist assertiveness has shocked many Bangladeshis who have come to take their democracy for granted, and to assume that their compatriots could not possibly be misled by extremism. The danger now is that Bangladesh, a country the U.S. had long assumed would always be in the camp of the moderates, has been targeted for conquest by Islamists.
-
Unsu...
Re: Islamists vs. democracy
Tue, September 28, 2004 - 1:09 PMnotice that nobody refers to the terrorists from chechnya as islamic terrorists either? they are "rebels", or "separatists". no, they are islamic terrorists.
funny how the media seems so determined to avoid mentioning that.
of course bangladesh has been targeted for islamic conquest! there is no nation on the face of the earth that has not been targeted!! will you people never learn?
-
-
Unsu...
Re: Islamists vs. democracy
Tue, September 28, 2004 - 1:42 PMplease, enlighten me how democracy started it. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Islamists vs. democracy
Tue, September 28, 2004 - 2:22 PMAmerica, in the tradition of other Western powers, has been conquering and exploiting the poorer regions of the world for quite some time. The middle east has been especially under the boot of the West in the 20th century.
If Muslim countries had the ability to fight the West (the U.S. and NATO are rather hard to combat, see the invasion of Iraq in case you don't believe me), in open warfare, they would probably use that. Since America is a rather hard to face foe, more subtle ways have been found, namely terrorist acts.
So, because the West rules the world and cannot be faced in open combat that we regard as "moral" and/or "brave", "evil" and "cowardly" terrorism has been used to try and bring down our structure. -
-
Re: Islamists vs. democracy
Tue, September 28, 2004 - 2:35 PM"lack of democracy" causes terrorism; lack of representation, ect. I think that's what George meant. Not that "democracy" brings about terrorism, but that "taxation without representation" incites some who are not being represented to violence against those in power.
Why are the perpetrators of violence in Chechnya not considered "Islamic Fundamentalists"? Because it is a nationalist movement, not a religious one particularly, and not every Chechen is a terrorist but most do want to suceede from Russia. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Islamists vs. democracy
Tue, September 28, 2004 - 2:56 PMahhh, very interesting. so the fact that they want to secceed from russia and make chechnya an islamic state, the fact that they are 1) Islamic and 2) terrorists doesn't make them muslim terrorists, the fact that the leader of the group that so recently continued the islamic terrorists tactic of killing the innocent trained in afghanastan with al qaeda, all of this seems to indicate they are simple nationalists?
come on, that's simply choosing specific aspects of thier cause to amplify and ignoring the rest. remember when the u.s. doubted Mao was a communist? are the chechnyan terrorists "agrarien reformers" too? oh yes, and khumeni was a "saint". truly the left cannot be wrong again.....
do you think anyone who has two brain cells to rub together thinks all chechnyans are terrorists? show me someone who believes that and i will show you a fool.
your theory as to the roots of terrorism is suited to explaining the american revolution and little else. i do believe they have no suicide bombers running into crowded resteraunts screaming "REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT NOW!! BOOM!".
come on, that's just plain ignorant, no offense.
these creatures are motivated by a twisted worldview dominated by THIER allah, whose words are naturally translated through curiously savage imams and mulluhs. to say the dominance of the west caused terrorism is the same argument as the treaty of versailles caused WWII. as the left promotes the view that it was nationalism, plain and simple, that caused WWII and versailles was merely an excuse, it seems strange to me that you've suddenly flipped. ah, yes, i forgot, facts are merely tools to warp our fragile little minds.
sorry to sound like this, but please pick your justifications for mass murder of innocents and stick to them. as none of them could possibly work, pick any one. I will gladly debate you on it.
-
Unsu...
Re: Islamists vs. democracy
Tue, September 28, 2004 - 3:38 PMFlower, I did not mean that.
Democracy is good for people? How so? It gave us G. W. Bush, G. H. W. Bush, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and Harding as presidents. It has led us into Iraq, Vietnam, WWI, the Philipines, and has us allied to all types of evil governments around the world. Why is it better?
I think that Democracy is the new Christianity. We hold it's sacred nature to be self evident. I want proof before I kill or die for it.
Democracy does not create terrorism, America's foreign policy creates terrorism. America, being the supposed bringer of Democracy started the war with Islam. Democracy started it.
-
-
Re: Islamists vs. democracy
Tue, September 28, 2004 - 3:28 PMGeorge, that was the most backwards, historically ignorant answer I have ever heard from anyone. You look down on democracy as if it was a gnat on the world's ass when it in fact makes lives better, let's people accomplish dreams and gives them opportunities they normally wouldn't be able to because of oppression. Just because democracy exists in an area of the world, it doesn't mean it is in the USA's format. Did you read the article? Women would hardly be so accepted under a Muslim umbrella.
That article was not about the United States, but you felt the need to talk shit and smack about this country. You need help. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Islamists vs. democracy
Tue, September 28, 2004 - 3:34 PMAnd fuck you too SOS.
Democracy in and of itself doesn't seem to be the problem, though the idea of republic that the people that run the government seem to believe in requires expansion, war, and world exploitation to survive, so maybe it is.
Women's rights are oppressed in Muslim countries? And? That only matters if you believe that that is a problem. Many human beings do not. You are putting your value system above theirs. They value different things. If they put their value system on you, as we do to the world, you'd be pissed too.
America is very self serving. If you knew someone that looked only out for itself, how would you view them? If someone only helped you when it was in their economic interests, you wouldn't like them very much. That is a lot of what America does, and has done in the last 100+ years. Why should I love the country so much? Why should I love the West?
Because I don't believe in America's sacred nature I need psychological help? Can you explain how that works, please? -
-
Re: Islamists vs. democracy
Tue, September 28, 2004 - 3:57 PMWhen America goes to war for countries that are our allies, how is that self serving? I can see how you might think that about oil and the gulf wars, but what about WW1 and WW2? Could we have completely ignored the German threat and let our allies go it alone? I doubt it. Natural resources were not our priority in the major wars that we fought in the last 100 years. We protect our allies. If you were President, you probably would too.
And I didn't say FU... that was uncalled for. Sorry for the psych. help comment.
-
Unsu...
Re: Islamists vs. democracy
Tue, September 28, 2004 - 4:17 PMstop skimming your history textbooks and educate yourself please, you'd be much more interesting if you knew what you were talking about, and i love a challenge. -
-
Re: Islamists vs. democracy
Wed, September 29, 2004 - 8:12 AM"stop skimming your history textbooks and educate yourself please, you'd be much more interesting if you knew what you were talking about, and i love a challenge. "
Ditto from me as well. It would be more interesting if people in here knew what they were talking about besides soundbites from t.v. and textbooks from grade school.
Though I would take some arguments in here a little seriously if people paid a little more attention to their punctuation and spelling. When I see all lower case and misspelled words, it seriously subtracts from whatever argument they are trying to present as it shows a lack of education and intelligence. Hmmm. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Islamists vs. democracy
Wed, September 29, 2004 - 11:37 AMwith all i wrote, that is your response? nice to know you can't dispute a single thing i said, i guess. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Islamists vs. democracy
Wed, September 29, 2004 - 11:52 AMI did actually, but as it took me more than 60 minutes to compose it, I was "timed out" by tribe and had to sign back in. Once I did my whole post was gone. That was very frustrating. Don't take a lack of response as "agreement", okay?
Nice to see you're still adverse to capital letters and correct punctuation. It makes it *very* hard to read your posts.
-
-
-
-
Unsu...
Re: Islamists vs. democracy
Tue, September 28, 2004 - 4:22 PMperhaps if you understood the concept of honor, you'd understand why the islamofascist terror campaign will surely fail.
MLK,jr. achieved with honorable leadership what malcolm x could never have accomplished with firebrand rhetoric. if only the arabs could grasp that.
could the us kill peaceful protesters and survive the onslaught of world opinion?
could the israelis kill peacful palestinian protesters and survive once the us was forced to abandon them?
could you justify forgetting values which have made the world what it is as opposed to how so much worse it could've been if you understood and lived with honor as your gide?
stop killing, start thinking. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Islamists vs. democracy
Wed, September 29, 2004 - 1:22 PMHonor? In foreign policy? You need to learn more about the real world. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Islamists vs. democracy
Thu, September 30, 2004 - 12:00 AMSo call me an idealist on this one thing.
I meant using honor as a personal trait, and to further the cause of those who currently kill innocents to achieve thier aim.
The foriegn policy of any nation would best be whatever is in that nation's interst. Not everything is so simple as right and wrong. I'd expect anyone from wherever to be just as nationalistic as I am.
The real world sucks, why accept that? I'm not going to accept anything I don't like, plain and simple.
-
Re: Islamists vs. democracy
Fri, January 25, 2008 - 4:04 PMYou are all so wrapped up in your own egos to realize what or how the real world is. This stupid thread has evolved into nothing more than a bunch of you pathetic cowards hiding behind your computer screens speaking as if have fought the battles yourselves. The world and its state has nothing to do with democracy or even terrorism for that matter. The world is the way it is becasue it has simply always been that way. There has always been and will always be War. There has always been and will always be terror. No matter who rises up to lead, if Chirst or Muhamed themselves returned to lead a perfect nation there would still be those who would rise against it for there own ideals. This the sad undeniable and unchangeable way of mankind.
So long as there is Tyranny(American or foreign) War and terror, there will always be the heros and warriors that rise to defend and fight for the lowly, the oppressed, the innocent and the rightous. I gladly put myself among there ranks, so no matter the squabling politics at least i can say i had the heart to stand and fight for others and what i beleived in.
-
-
-
-
-
Unsu...
Re: Islamists vs. democracy
Tue, September 28, 2004 - 3:52 PMok, so this is the "blame america first" argument. thought we past that?
<<America, in the tradition of other Western powers, has been conquering and exploiting the poorer regions of the world for quite some time. The middle east has been especially under the boot of the West in the 20th century.>>
I'm assuming you refer to places as the phillipenes and cuba? yes, we had our flirtation with empire there. "exploited"? well, as in both cases we went in with the assistance of local rebels themselves fighting the spanish i call that nonsense. true, we screwed it up before leaving, so maybe that's what you refer to?
the middle east under the western boot, eh? *during WWII, correct, any other time, false. do not confuse the english boot with the western boot, damn near all of us have felt that one at our necks yet we do not resort to killing innocents wholesale, do we? *during WWII it was different, you had the uk, french, soviets, american, italian, german, and several lesser powers all doing a crazy thing called fighting a war there. for some reason those pesky germans invaded and we felt it best they not conquer africa, and so give them a foothold to south america, and so give them a foothold to north america, and so link the axis from east and west. maybe we were wrong.
*now, the us promptly pulled out after the war, the english tried to stay but left most of the mideast, and the soviets had to be pushed out upon threat of force. so, of all these nations, america was most at fault? i fail to see the logic, but ok, say it's so.
*so then the UN (and we all know anything they do can't be wrong) aides in creating israel. well, i suppose as palestine was a british protectorate and the u.s. was a member nation of the UN, ok we'll call this one our fault too, why not?
*then the french and english, with isreali help, invade egypt upon nassers nationalization of the suez. um, eisenhower openly opposed that invasion, taking it to *GASP* the UN! but agin, let's just say this was all our fault for the hell of it.
*so then the soviets begin arming and training and basing thier own forces in various arab lands. well, just as we may have been wrong in opposing nazi domination of the world, perhaps we should have ignored this threat, too? hey, you advocate we ignore threats at present, why not the past, too? in response we arm, train, use as a base for our forces, israel in response to keep the balance of power. in retrospect we may have been better off letting the soviet backed arab dictatorships crush lone democratic israel and allow the soviets to control the middle east. sure, national security and opposing a vital strategic threat are no excuses for supporting the good guy, i know. so let's say this was our fault, too.
*so then those same soviets who so fawningly gave tons of equipment and arms to those loveable arab nations turns around and invades afghanastan! our main enemy driving to opening at long last warm water ports in the indian ocean? placing yet another finger around the arab throat? sure, maybe we should've avoided helping those darn "freedom fighters" (remember them? never got over your love for them did you?) and let all this unfold, but once again we selfishly decided to save our asses instead of allowing the soviets to gain a tremendous strategic advantage. tsk,tsk,tsk. yes, we helped the mujahaddin free thier land from a foriegn nation's invasion. apparently, somehow, this was america again oppressing and exploiting the arabs. how? aw, screw it, let's say this too was us doing terrible and unspeakable horrors to the arabs.
*so now that with our direct help through arms and intelligence as well as indirect help through diplomatic pressure to leave afghanastan, we become the single largest provider of foriegn aid to afghanastan. bastards that we are, we just couldn't stop hurting these poor people!! so we'll say this was our fault too.
*so now the arabs lost soviet backing, and as they never could defeat isreal even with it, they all figure "let's make the leader of a terrorist group the figurehead of palestinian statehood!", sure it sounds swell, but we were uneasy. bastards!
*so now the isrealis have overwhelming military superiority and, wonder of wonders, that same terrorist leader/palestinian leader decides "let's use terrorism!". again, sounds peachy, but we were again ill pleased with this tactic. will we never understand the plight of these poor people???? this one counts against us as well i guess.
*so now one of those super guys, an arab dictator, invades a peacful nieghbor. aw shucks guys, what to do, what to do? with our usual stalinesque iron hand, we decide it'd be nice not to have a huge chunk of the worlds oil under one unstable tyrant, and oh, say, incidentaly stop rampant raping and pillaging of kuwaiti cities. oh yes, and we footed the bill for getting all those swell dictators israel crushing tanks into iraq to help themselves. arghhhhh! truly, this is the last straw! we'll call this one more american oppression, too.
*ah, worst of all!!! having learned that diplomacy and threat of force accomplish nothing, we pigheadedly decide that after a further 12 years of mass murder, geonocide, and torture, we'll finaly rid the world of that despot hussein's regime. ouch! this time we've gone too far! he was only killing other arabs, not nice smiling christian europeans, so mass murder is hardly a justification in and of itself!! so we stop a regime intent on killing islamic militants and they....want to kill us now. hmm. well, guess they make as much sense as you do. let's chalk this one up against us too.
*i guess this is the western boot you refer to? this is carrying on western tradition? seeing as we flew in the face of western opinion at all times, this is kinda silly. when europe cooperated with israel to invade egypt, we went against them. when europe supported a terrorist as head of state (remember, they still miss uncle joe stalin), we opposed them.
but again, let's assume you are right and we are evil incarnate.
don't give me that "we're too strong" crap, we defeated the mightiest nation to ever walk the face of the earth with a fraction af the manpower and resources and wealth of the arab nations. several nations have also valiently tried to defeat a vastly supirior force instead of blowing up children. ever hear of the falklands? do you think that with much more wealth and much more manpower and with better technology that the arab nations MIGHT be able to muster the balls of argentina? apparently not. they could fight the soviet army conventionally in an honest to god guirilla war, yet against us they must kill the innocent and blow themselves up. ok, sure wilbur. you just keep on thinking those happy thoughts!!!
we rule the world? boy would china be pissed at you! it's okay, i won't tell them.
we can't be faced in open combat? but i thought we were fighting an insurgency? turns out these are islamic terrorists too?!?!?!? oh boy, we'd better just get out now. everybody knows nothing will bring down your "structure" quicker than suicide bombings! WHY IT'S ALMOST AS BAD AS WHEN WACHINGTON BURNED!!! Oh where is our Andy Jackson now??
LEARN HISTORY BEFORE YOU OPEN YOUR MOUTH.
Again, no wish to be offensive, but i can only take so much.
-
-
Re: Islamists vs. democracy
Wed, September 29, 2004 - 9:26 AMMan, I just wrote a long ass response and now it's gone! This new format sucks! -
-
Re: The Philippines
Wed, September 29, 2004 - 9:30 AMInstead of rewritting everything I just wrote (timed out after 60 minutes- sheesh!!!!), I'm just copying and pasting this. I don't have the time to recompose my mini-novel. Basically, Relentless needs to brush up on his Filipino history before professing to be an expert in that area and needs to learn how to spell the name of the country before I will even begin to take him seriously.
In promoting their "humanitarian" war against Yugoslavia, the big business politicians and their allies in the media and academia simply parrot the empty claims made time and again to justify imperialist aggression. It is ironic that the latest outburst of militarism by the United States comes on the 100th anniversary of her emergence as a colonial power, with the annexation of the Philippines in February 1899, following the Spanish-American War.
The Spanish-American War of 1898 was presented at the time as the most altruistic and moral of wars, an intervention waged on behalf of the people of Cuba to liberate the island from colonial oppression. The demand for war, it was claimed, emanated from the people, who pushed a reluctant President McKinley into dispatching troops to Cuba and the Philippines.
It soon became evident, however, that the US intended to take advantage of Spain's troubles in order to acquire a colonial empire for itself. The real face of American altruism was exposed by the bloody war it waged against the Philippine people. US "philanthropy" toward the Filipinos inspired that great believer in the equality of peoples, Rudyard Kipling, who penned his infamous poem The White Man's Burden in honor of the Philippine annexation.
One of the most notorious promoters of war hysteria against Spain was publisher William Randolph Hearst. Reviewing the role of the media in building public support for the war against Yugoslavia one wonders if the New York Times and CNN have not called up Hearst's ghost. Certainly the term "yellow press," coined to describe the manipulative and sensationalist style of Hearst's New York Journal and Joseph Pulitzer's New York World, could apply to most of today's media.
As one biographer of Hearst noted ironically about his paper's coverage of the Cuban conflict, "The majority of the public found it more exciting to read about the murder of Cuban babies and the rape of Cuban women by the Spaniards than to read conscientious accounts of complicated political problems and injustices on both sides. The hero/villain concept of the war was simple, easy to grasp and satisfying." [1]
Take this piece from the Hearst press describing the leader of the Spanish forces in Cuba: "Weyler the brute, the devastator of haciendas, the destroyer of families, and outrager of women... Pitiless, cold, an exterminator of men... There is nothing to prevent his carnal, animal brain from running riot with itself in inventing tortures and infamies of bloody debauchery." [2]
The attempt by the yellow press to demonize Spain recalls the media campaign against Serbia, where wild and baseless rumors are routinely presented as fact. For example: "Under the heading 'FEEDING PRISONERS TO THE SHARKS' the Journal told how the Spaniards drowned their prisoners at night. The Journal constantly denounced the Spaniards for attacking hospitals, outraging women, poisoning wells, imprisoning nuns, and 'roasting twenty-five Catholic priests alive.'" [3]
Atrocities against women
The allegation of atrocities against women was a staple of the yellow press. As US historian David Traxel wrote in his recent book 1898: The Birth of the American Century, "The themes of this touching up, and often making up, took various forms, but stories about women provided opportunities for particularly moving copy, because of the great value placed on the civilizing role of feminine virtue in the United States. There were reports of innocent female victims: 'WEYLER THROWS NUNS INTO PRISON. BUTCHER WAGES BRUTAL WARFARE ON HELPLESS WOMEN,' was one Journal headline." [4]
The yellow press took a direct hand in stoking up conflict, as when Hearst organized a jail break to free a women prisoner being held by Spanish authorities in Cuba. Later the Journal published a letter purloined from a Spanish diplomat containing critical remarks about President William McKinley. "THE WORST INSULT TO THE UNITED STATES IN HISTORY," wrote the Journal just one week before the mysterious explosion that destroyed the US battleship Maine in Havana harbor.
Under conditions of a determined effort by the United States government to provoke war, no concessions by the Spanish would suffice to avert a conflict. Without any evidence and against common sense the yellow press declared that Spain had given orders to destroy the Maine.
The war fever of the yellow press was echoed in Congress "where jingoistic feelings gathered volume as the fighting (in Cuba) continued. Especially among western Democrats and Populists, war hawks abounded." [5]
The church picked up the cry to "free" Cuba. "The Reverend Washington Gladden, one of the founders of the Social Gospel movement, was sure that it was a selfless desire to help humanity that was behind the excitement. 'To break in pieces the oppressor, to lift from a whole population the heavy hand of the spoiler, to lead in light and liberty, peace and plenty--is there any better work than this for the great nations of the earth?' The United States would fight 'not for territory or empire or national honor, but for the redress of wrongs not our own, for the establishment of peace and justice in the earth. Perhaps this experience may awaken in us that enthusiasm of humanity by which life is purified. In saving others we may save ourselves.'" [6]
President McKinley brushed aside all concessions and apologies offered by Spain, including an immediate halt to military operations against Cuban rebels and reparations for the Maine, and issued a non-negotiable ultimatum. The US declared war and began military operations.
This "humanitarian" intervention entailed few risks to the United States. As the Spanish well knew, they did not have the resources to fight the Americans. The small and antiquated Spanish navy was decimated at the battles of Santiago and Manila with the loss of only one American life. An American expeditionary force landed on Cuba and Puerto Rico, forcing the capitulation of the isolated Spanish garrisons. In the Philippines the Americans secured the surrender of the Spanish with virtually no losses, due largely to the sacrifices of the Philippine insurgent movement led by Emilio Aguinaldo, whom the US had returned to the Philippines from exile.
Many in the United States who had been taken in by the talk of freeing Spain's colonial subjects were genuinely shocked when American forces, far from disbanding after the victory, stayed on to occupy the "liberated" territories. Puerto Rico and Guam were annexed outright by the United States. "Independent" Hawaii and "unoccupied" Wake Island were also taken to provide additional bases for the fleet. As for Cuba, the Americans converted the island into little more than a protectorate by forcing the insurgents to recognize the unlimited right of the United States forces to intervene in the name of preserving "order." For decades the Cuban people enjoyed their freedom under the heel of a series of US-backed puppet rulers.
Counterinsurgency in the Philippines
The fate of the Cubans was mild compared to the treatment meted out to Aguinaldo's forces. Workers who believe the claims by the US and Western European governments that they are deeply concerned over the plight of the Kosovars should ponder the experience of the Filipino "allies" of the United States.
The annexation of the Philippines evoked strong protests in the United States and led to the formation of Anti-Imperialist Leagues in many cities. Among those opposing American policy was Mark Twain, who, in his famous essay To the Person Sitting in Darkness, said US treatment of the Filipinos "debauched America's honor and blackened her face before the world." [7]
The seizure of the Philippines, while not talked about openly in the period leading up to war with Spain, had long been sought by American business interests. Plans had been laid years in advance to move on the Philippines in the event of war. In the wake of the Maine explosion Theodore Roosevelt, at that time US Under Secretary of the Navy, ordered the American Far East squadron to prepare for offensive action in the Philippines in the event of hostilities.
At the beginning of 1898 American businessmen founded a committee on American Interests in China. It sought to get the McKinley administration to promote economic expansion in China and protect American business in the region, then under sharp pressure from British, German and Japanese imperialism. A base in the Far East was widely seen as necessary to secure American access to the vast Chinese market.
In a submission to Congress in June 1898 Secretary of State William Day declared, "The fact has become more and more apparent that the output of the United States manufacturers...has reached the point of large excess above the demands of home consumption...the United States has important interests at stake in the partition of commercial facilities in regions which are likely to offer developing markets for its goods. Nowhere is this consideration of more interest than in its relation to the Chinese Empire."
As one historian wrote "In all parts of the United States people saw the connection between the Philippines and the potential market. In the west the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce petitioned the president to keep the islands, 'with a view to strengthening our trade relations with the Orient.'"[8]
With annexation in mind the United States refused to allow Filipino insurgents to enter Manila and would not recognize the newly founded Philippine Republic. After a skirmish between US troops and Filipino soldiers the United States initiated war against its supposed comrades. The American campaign was marked by brutality on a wide scale. In its campaign to pacify the Philippines the US forces resorted to the same methods employed against Native Americans.
When the Filipinos, defeated in conventional warfare by the superior arms of the Americans, turned to guerrilla tactics, US commanders countered by launching a war against the Filipino people as a whole.
Wounded Filipino soldiers were bayoneted rather than taken prisoner. Whole villages were wiped out with US soldiers killing every man, women and child.
The Americans "developed a 'water torture,' that made even the Spanish cringe. If a captured Filipino refused to divulge military information, four or five gallons of water were forced down his throat until his body became an 'object frightful to contemplate.' Then the water was forced out by kneeling on his stomach. The treatment was repeated until the prisoner talked or died... Thus did the Americans civilize their 'little brown brothers.'" [9]
The struggle dragged on for years. More than 4,000 American soldiers died, 10 times the number killed in the war against Spain. Filipino casualties are unknown, but probably were in the hundreds of thousands, including those killed by starvation and disease.
After formal independence in 1946 the Philippines served as a major base for US imperialism in the Far East, most notably in the war in Vietnam. The Philippine people suffered under the yoke of a series of dictators backed by their "benefactors" in Washington. To this day the Philippines bears the mark of US colonial oppression, economic under-development, widespread poverty and social inequality.
This is the legacy of US "humanitarian" intervention. From the Philippines to Somalia it has been time and again exposed as an attempt to dress in "democratic" trappings the most undemocratic of policies--the subjugation of militarily weak and economically backward countries for the sake of US geopolitical and commercial interests.
The task of ending the oppression of the Balkan people can only be carried out through the efforts of the working people of the region themselves. This requires the construction of an independent political party of the working class, uniting workers of all backgrounds in a common struggle against the ethno-nationalist leaders and Western imperialism. To aid in this task workers in the United States must oppose the bombing of Yugoslavia and fight for the withdrawal of all US and NATO troops from the region.
Notes:
1. Citizen Hearst, W.W. Swanberg, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1961 p117
2. Quoted from the Journal, Feb. 23, 1896
3. Swanberg, p110
4. 1898: The Birth of the American Century, David Traxel, Alfred A. Knopf, 1998 p 83
5. The Transformation of American Foreign Relations, 1865-1900. Charles S. Campbell. Harper & Row 1976
6. Traxel, p. 114
7. From: Mark Twains Weapons of Satire: Anti-imperialist Writings on the Philippine American War, Jim Zwick, ed., Syracuse Univ. Press 1992
8. Campbell, p. 285
9. The Wars of America, Robert Leckie, Harper & Row 1981, p. 570
American Terrorism and Genocide of the Philippine People, 1899–1902
Adapted from the
Political Literacy Course
of the Common Courage Press
In 1898 the United States instigated a war with Spain for the purpose of stealing Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic and the Philippines from the decrepit remains of the evil old Spanish Empire. The Caribbean islands were conquered with ease, but in the faraway Philippines the U.S. military defeated Spain only with the help of Filipino nationalist guerrillas. The Filipinos supported American forces because the U.S. government had promised independence to them.
The U.S. government lied. Of course. It’s an American tradition.
Writes Gore Vidal in his book, The American Presidency:
“President William McKinley decided we ought to keep the Philippines in order to Christianize the natives. When reminded that Filipinos were already Roman Catholic, the president responded, ‘Exactly.’
“The United States betrayed the nationalists who had helped us fight Spain, and we began our own conquest.”
Once they realized they’d been had, the Phillipine people rose in revolt against American rule in February 1899. America unleashed it’s rabid military dogs on them, and 70,000 professional baby-killers (known euphemistically as American soldiers, marines and sailors), spent three years brutally crushing the rebellion. The death toll of Phillipine people was enormous, both from battle casualties and disease. An estimated 200,000 Phillipine men, women and children died horribly at the hands of racist American monsters.
Mark Twain was deeply disturbed by the sadistic war crimes committed by the evil U.S. military in a Vietnam-like genocide which lasted from 1899 to 1902. He was also disgusted with the virtually universal racism in which White Americans shamelessly wallowed throughout those benighted turn-of-the-century years. (The very years which moral Neanderthals in America even now call “The Good Old Days.”)
Twain cynically “saluted” America’s first international genocide “by suggesting that we replace the stars and stripes in our flag with the skull and crossbones.”
It remains an excellent suggestion to this day for the world’s greatest pirate nation.
In A People’s History of the United States Howard Zinn writes of American sadism during the Philippine-American war:
In November 1901, the Manila correspondent of the Philadelphia Ledger reported:
“The present war is no bloodless, opera bouffe engagement; our men have been relentless, have killed to exterminate men, women, children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people from lads of ten up, the idea prevailing that the Filipino as such was little better than a dog...
“Our soldiers have pumped salt water into men to make them talk, and have taken prisoners people who held up their hands and peacefully surrendered, and an hour later, without an atom of evidence to show that they were even insurrectos, stood them on a bridge and shot them down one by one, to drop into the water below and float down, as examples to those who found their bullet-loaded corpses.”
In Manila, a U.S. Marine named Littletown Waller, a major, was accused of shooting eleven defenseless Filipinos, without trial, on the island of Samar. Other marine officers described his testimony:
The major said that General Smith instructed him to kill and burn, and said that the more he killed and burned the better pleased he would be; that it was no time to take prisoners, and that he was to make Samar a howling wilderness. Major Waller asked General Smith to define the age limit for killing, and he replied “Everything over ten.”
In the province of Batangas, the secretary of the province estimated that of the population of 300,000, one third had been killed by combat, famine, or disease.
American firepower was overwhelmingly superior to anything the Filipino rebels could put together. In the very first battle, Admiral Dewey steamed up the Pasig River and fired 500-pound shells into the Filipino trenches. Dead Filipinos were piled so high that the Americans used their bodies for breastworks.
A British witness said:
“This is not war; it is simply massacre and murderous butchery.”
Mark Twain said further of the brutal American genocide:
“...I have seen that we do not intend to free, but to subjugate the people of the Philippines. We have gone to conquer, not to redeem... And so I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the [American] eagle put its talons on any other land.”
— Mark Twain
October 15, 1900
The New York Herald
“We have pacified some thousands of the islanders and buried them; destroyed their fields; burned their villages, and turned their widows and orphans out-of-doors; furnished heartbreak by exile to some dozens of disagreeable patriots; subjugated the remaining ten millions by Benevolent Assimilation, which is the pious new name of the musket; we have acquired property in the three hundred concubines and other slaves of our business partner, the Sultan of Sulu, and hoisted our protecting flag over that swag.
“And so, by these Providences of God — and the phrase is the government’s, not mine — we are a World Power.”
— Mark Twain -
-
Re: The Philippines
Wed, September 29, 2004 - 11:58 AM"rewritting "
talk about spelling -
-
Re: The Philippines
Wed, September 29, 2004 - 12:53 PMMy finger slipped and I didn't catch it. I'm sure you've done the same thing before. I'm talking about the blatantly obvious:
secceed
afghanastan
agrarien
resteraunts
phillipenes
thier
isrealis
guirilla
WACHINGTON
which, when combined with incorrect punctuation, confusing syntax, and almost entirely in lower case, makes anything hard to read. It is hard to counter someone's post when just trying to decipher it gives you a headache. No offense, Relentless, we already made peace. This is directed at SOS. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.Unsu...
Re: The Philippines
Wed, September 29, 2004 - 12:55 PMNone taken, I know I'm a sloppy writer. -
-
Re: The Philippines
Wed, September 29, 2004 - 12:56 PM;) It's all good. I would just like to read your posts so we can debate in an adult like fashion. ;) -
-
Unsu...
Re: The Philippines
Wed, September 29, 2004 - 1:06 PMI will try, but I may just need to say what I have to say sometimes. I'll do my best.
-
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: The Philippines
Wed, September 29, 2004 - 1:32 PMHis splling loosk ok to mee. Keep it up, rlentrenless. ;-)
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: The Philippines
Fri, January 25, 2008 - 4:07 PMPEOPLE OUT IN THE "REAL WORLD" ARE DYING BEING MURDERED, GIVING THERE LIVES AND LYING THEM DOWN FOR OTHERS. AND YOU CHILDREN ARE BICKERING ABOUT SPELLING.
YOU ARE TRUELY PATHETIC.
-
-
-
Unsu...
Re: The Philippines
Wed, September 29, 2004 - 12:05 PMI write a little blurb about the philippines (happy?) and a huge block on all the rest. so i see you have nothing to say to that.
please, if you would, repeat to me when i said i was an expert on ANY SINGLE THING, not just this. please, i'd loooove to see my own words used against me! oh drat, i never said that did i? oops.
it'd be nice for once if you people (ahhh! he said something else to be manipulated!) would simply respond with something other than insults. i write a pretty accurate (as it was all non-researched and recited from memory, hence my haste in ignoring grammerical errors and misspelling, but from now on i will do this with everything :), just for you flower!) rundown of events in the mid-east from WWII-present and i get this:
<<Relentless needs to brush up on his Filipino history before professing to be an expert in that area and needs to learn how to spell the name of the country before I will even begin to take him seriously.>>
ok flower, what i said in one sentence is the condensed version of what it took you 60 mins to write. i do not disagree with the facts of your thread, i strongly object to your anti american drivel, but expect such idiocy from one who is afraid to honestly debate and prefers hurling stones.
please, read the one sentence i wrote on the philippines, and you devoted all of your response to, and tell me anything i said that your your response didn't parrot. i feel no need to babble on for an hour about what could just as easily be expressed in one sentence. but hey, when your in no rush to write anything meaningful, i can understand.
my knowledge of filipino history pretty much only consists of the spanish-american war, and WWII. i'm just not that interested, sorry. that's why i can say without checking all my posts that i never claimed to be an expert, far from it, i know very little. unless it was involved in some subject i do care about, i don't know anything about it, like the spanish-american war, or WWII. so while my info is limited, it's wholly accurate in regards to what i wrote, even if it was oversimplified to your tastes flower.
listen, i'm not gonna throw insults at you when i could just as easily dispute you. try matching me on this so we don't end up endlessly insulting each other, i'm not here for that and i suspect niether are you.
my comments to educate yourself was misleading. to clarify: know something on the subject of which you speak or keep your mouth shut. i do not respond to every post simply for this reason. if i have nothing substantive to offer, i say nothing. it's a nice life.
the U.S. isn't perfect, never said it was. yes we have long black marks on our history, sad but true. instead of responding with hatred for an entire nation, try focusing on your target, flower. i didn't kill any babies, and if i did i'd freely give you permission to kill me in a most horrid fashion.
to call our troops "baby-killers" is absurd and, personally, i'd sooner give them praise to all hell and back than hear that phrase ever spoken again. but thats just me, i love my country very deeply, flaws and all. my biggest regret in life is that i am not fighting this war side by side with those baby killers you so rabidly despise.
WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THOSE WHO TRULY ARE OUT TO KILL BABIES, FLOWER??? ........silence........
Yup, that's what i've heard. but continue mindless propaganda against america, it's people like you that make me realise how wrong i was to ever doubt the right was right. you give us resolve and heart, please keep up the good work. -
-
Re: The Philippines
Wed, September 29, 2004 - 12:25 PMHey now Cheesepuff, my response to you was not posted! Tribe timed me out. How many times do I need to say that? I copied and posted the post above about the Philippines from a website because I don't have the time to reconstruct my essay from before. I did not say "Babykillers", unfortunately that was part of the text from the page that I took it from. Though if you do look at the history of the U.S. military in that region at that time, you will see that the U.S. military did indeed commit atrocities against whole villages, women and children (and most likely babies) included. But to reiterate, this was not my wording.
"it'd be nice for once if you people (ahhh! he said something else to be manipulated!) would simply respond with something other than insults. " You mean like you? Who started insulting whom? Let's see...I said nothing insulting in my first post on this thread only to be slammed by both you and S.O.S. with insults and accusations that I don't know what I'm talking about. I do know what I'm talking about, btw, and I'd like to see some credentials on your part. I at least got a B.A. in International Relations with a focus in global politics from the University of California. Even though I graduated 6 years ago I have kept up with my history reading. In fact, just the day before yesterday I picked up a new book about the history of Palestine from around the 1660's to present. And you? It seems shocking to me that anyone with a Dr. Strangelove avatar wouldn't see the irony in your statements.
Since you invited me to use your "own words" to be used against you:
"listen, i'm not gonna throw insults at you when i could just as easily dispute you. "
And then you follow up with...what's that? An insult???
" i strongly object to your anti american drivel, but expect such idiocy from one who is afraid to honestly debate and prefers hurling stones. "
Who says I'm anti-American? I'm born and bred, a descendant of signers of both the Declaration of Indepencence and the Constitution, I vote in every election, I take time to become informed about issues at stake. And like a good American I have taken it upon myself to become "a well educated" citizen, much like Jefferson's original intent for "a well educated populus". If and when the rhetoric and propaganda don't match the historical facts, that's where I start to question and dig deeper. If that makes me Anti-American in your book, then I guess I am. I suppose the only way according to your narrow definition that I could be pro-American then is to remain uneducated, uninformed, and to swallow the propaganda whole without question?
Oh...and who threw the first stone? It wasn't me.
So why don't you take your own advice? -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.Unsu...
Re: The Philippines
Wed, September 29, 2004 - 12:37 PMFair enough, Flower, I apologize. Sorry for that, i rushed through the preamble and missed where you didn't write all of that, sorry.
I have a great sense of humor and I am poking fun at myself using Dr.Strangelove as my image. That's the point, see?
As to this:
<< Let's see...I said nothing insulting in my first post on this thread only to be slammed by both you and S.O.S. with insults and accusations that I don't know what I'm talking about. >>
I wasn't aiming that at you, but the one who wrote the "boot" thread, so I am sorry you took that as twords yourself.
I get heated when I see certain things, like "baby-killers" and can go off, once again, sorry.
Consider this taking my own advice, and eating crow all in one. -
-
Re: The Philippines
Wed, September 29, 2004 - 12:42 PMOkay...apology accepted. Shall we start a new thread?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-