Myths in Profiling
I thank you all, especially those of you who have forwarded my previous email to your friends and family. Some of you took an extra step to forward me the responses you have received from them. I selected two of these responses NOT as a representative of others -- I am so glad, the majority of responses were based on common sense--, but rather the underlying logic of their arguments. Please click on Nader and Paul to read them both before my comment as follows:
While Nader’s long response can be subject to an intellectual debate, I think it is not necessary because as Nader rightfully mentions the fact: his negative tone about religion is true about other religions as well. But that is not the issue. In fact, any reasonable person should expect a lot of different perceptions, additions, deletions, distortions, rivalry, animosity, brutality, etc. in the long history of any religion, but keep in mind the fact that most of it is NOT present in the mind of believers. An average believer is an innocent human being who has inherited a faith and is simply subject to manipulation for economic and political purposes.
I think his ending statement is the most important one “God gave us wisdom to follow the rule of science and logic.” because it simply plays on believers’ wishful thinking. Regardless of what you believe in or not, you can rephrase it to “Man is given wisdom to follow the rule of science and logic.” to be acceptable to seculars as well. What is missing in this wishful thinking is the fact that man is also given an even more important characteristic of IMPRUDENCE to be self-centered and wicked. The cultural –including religious-- background of masses in any nationality is vehemently against such attributes. So, the problem mankind is facing as we speak, is not innocent believers’ ignorance. It is the evil nature of wicked and self centered elites who will never be satiated with greed and atrocity.
These elites have come a long way to become so powerful to divide us to pieces ONLY to rule. It is also this same attribute of their paid agents (traitors of coexisting humanity) that is at work against the innocent believer. I have no doubt Nader means well. Neither have I any doubt that Paul is a good hearted –but self centered-- individual. The problem, in my humble opinion, is shifting the blame to the victim simply by generalization AND, in the balance of power, the weaker to be more vulnerable. Just compare Nader’s response and that of Paul in tone, tenure, and the underlying logic:
Paul goes a long way to stop generalizing the terror act of Christian terrorists including widely supported terrorist acts of Christian militias of IRA –that I agree with because neither peace loving Muslims nor Christians should be blamed for the act of a few --, but he does NOT think for a moment to do the same for Muslims. In fact, it is vividly evident that he does the opposite to conclude all Muslims should be blamed for the terrorist acts of a few Muslims. Furthermore, when he blames Bush, he immediately justifies his action due to previous wrongdoings of a few Muslims. But he ignores a mountain of evidence for America’s wrongdoings against Muslims one of which is its double standard policies between Palestine and Israel.
Nader does not even address the issue at hand. He is so fed up with current regime and/or Islam; he takes the opposite way to state a one-sided long and irrelevant historical evidence for our grievances. Contrary to Paul who would not have even mentioned Bush –if he could--irrespective of how much damage he has done to American principles. Nader, on the other hand, tries hard --so awkwardly-- to put Ahmadinejad in the center of the case!!! Again, we are supposed to turn the spot light on Ahmadinejad because he wrote a letter to Bush on the ground that he does not practice what he preaches! Nader simply does not realize it will obfuscate Bush’s monstrous atrocities against humanity in the name of democracy.
To Nader’s credit, I repeat, he did briefly mention Christianity and Judaism! But how are we supposed to reconcile his argument with that of Paul who is not only defending, but also propagating a “more or less the same” faith?
Just for the sake of an analogy, Nader’s argument is like being in the court against a child molester who has harmed our little daughter, BUT argue about how a forefather of our neighbor raped our progenitor! In other words, the court should FIRST condemn our neighbor for his/her ancestor’s wrong doing! It is even worse, because this same neighbor is also subject to the wrongdoing of the same child molester we are fighting in the court of world opinion. How dare he is looking for justice! That is not all; thanks to the wicked nature of divide and rule; our neighbor does NOT think we are worthy of justice either!!!
Paul can easily state “If the Muslim community rose up in outrage, and said with one voice, “The killing of innocent people is an abomination to our God, and we will stand with you against them then the average American would have no reason not to treat Muslims the same way he treats Hindus or Bahais.” Keeping in mind the fact that minorities are second class citizens in practice any way, not only is it interesting to note his making sure to differentiate Bahais from Muslims in citing just three faiths in one sentence, but also his denying the same logic to Muslims to say “If the American community rose up in outrage, and said with one voice, “The killing of innocent people is an abomination to our God, and we will stand with you against them (those who killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Palestinians) then the average Muslim would have no reason not to treat Americans the same way he treats other people” let alone the undisputed fact that average Muslim has no animosity whatsoever to average American. It is by all means the opposite, especially in reference to average Iranian who loves average American. When they say death to America, they mean the never ending atrocities of American Government they hate to death.
As an analogy think of average American and his/her government as kids and butchers. Hardly any kid can tolerate killing animals, but it is the butcher who brings him/her the hamburger he/she loves so much! All you have to do is to hide the killing by disconnecting the link between the dinner table and the slaughter house! That is what neo-cons have learned so well to control the media for the surrounding music in the family room NOT to mention the violent video games in the kid’s room!
Neither Paul’s argument nor that of Nader is either relevant or fair. While Paul is obviously self centered, Nader is the victim of an ever increasing bombardment of MYTHS by hate-mongering propaganda machines. Remember, a myth is not necessarily baseless. It is aggrandizing an issue –right or wrong-- to represent a world view that is, at best, irrelevant to the argument.
That is what the paid agents of imperialism are doing to us. The objective is to open up old wounds instead of guarding against new ones to fight each other so that their masters keep exploiting us many times more than American people. As the RULE of imperialism dictates: American soldiers get killed like Iraqis –obviously a lot less in numbers-- so that wicked elites like Dick Cheney cronies loot the pillage before a whole new brand of hijackers take the office!!!
August 05, 2007