> Would the "Western world" include not so powerful countries such as
>Lichtenstein, Canada, Belgium, Norway, Ireland; or economically powerful
>countries such as Japan or Singapore? You see the problem?
Sure, but they just follow orders, at least in the case of Canada. The
other Asian countries you named are consider "western" in American/Canadian
press.
> Should the "Western world" make peace with Islamic Canadians?
Sure, but what they should do and will do are very different things.
>How about with Germany's sizable population of Turks (mostly Islamic) or
are they now a part of the "Western world"? Or does "Islamic peoples" refer
to nations predominantly Muslim, or to nations ruled by an Islamic
Theocracy? As you can see, there is confusion here.
It doesn't make sense, but that isn't important anyways. The people at NYT
and CNN won't even ask those sort of questions, or, if they happen to think
about it, they will just make up excusing on how it is different.
> Where is the evidence for this "new enemy" status on the part of the
>"powerful countries" of the Western world?
The evidence seems overwhelming here, I get a lot of US press/propaganda.
> We see a coalition of these countries killing Serbs in ostensible defense
of Muslim Albanians and then turning a blind eye to the ethnic cleansing of
Kosovo of all but Albanians.
Serbs were a dying breed trying to maintain "neutrality" and "independence"
from the super powers. Possible during the Cold war, but not anymore. They
were a good enemy for the US to intervene on European security, give an
excuse to kill some people(even peaceful Norway got a taste of blood) and
make some money.
The thing with Serbs is that they don't run more then one nation. So, you
have to have a more globe enemy, who can be anywhere, even your neighbour!
Like muslims.
>After decades of "Western world" support, we see the "Islamic peoples" of
Indonesia killing predominantly Christian East Timorese.
Does the media ever make that point?
>We see increasing support from the "Western world" for the creation of a
Palistinian state which would be inhabited mostly by followers of Islam.
I've heard of some talk by the US to get Saddam to take in about 2 million
Palestinians so the US would lift the sanctions in reture. Has anyone else
heard about this?
>Other than targeting terrorists, many of whom have been Islamic, who are
the "Islamic peoples" being targeted by the "Western world"?
Ever watch a recent American "shoot them up" movie? This stuff is pretty
obvious.
(Actually, very recently the theme has changed drastically in one movie,
this might be a indicator of a possible future policy change or just an
exception to the rule. Only time will tell.)
>>This transition is easy for many Americans because their culture is so
>>racist to begin with.
> And this 'transition' would be difficult for racist Korea, or racist
>Japan, or racist Canada, or racist Switzerland, or racist Sudan, etc, etc,
>etc.
Not as easy, at least for Canada. We aren't as racist, but give us some
time and we will be up to par(it is moving in that direction at least).
Milutin
--
I am the Nina, The Pinta, The Santa, Maria
The noose and, the rapist
The fields overseer
The agents, of orange
The priests of Hiroshima
The cost of my desire
Sleep now in the fire
|