While doing my usual virtual activity to my surprise and amusement, I run across an article from the so-called The Society of Honor by Joe America maliciously entitled “Sympathy to the Boston Bomber?” criticizing my article “The Boston Bombing and the US government’s history of mass murder” posted by GetReal Philippines.COM on April 19th.
Let the Radical reply to Mr. America.
Here’s the opening statement of the said piece:
I read a Get Real Post article that expresses sympathy with the Boston bomber. Well, not with the bomber’s act, exactly, but with the motive that is likely behind the bomber: bring down US imperialism.
For the information of all people who care to read any of the posts of this site, let me state for purposes of the records that:
I condoled and sympathized to all the victims of the Boston bombing, not only to the deceased but also to the score of people who were injured by this horrendous and animalistic act.
I have no sympathy whatsoever to the bastard perpetrator of this evil deeds. I condemn his or her or their acts, means, method and motive. They are not human but animals of the worst kind!
In the same vein that I also condemn to the highest possible degree the on-going violence being committed and continuously perpetrated by the US military to the people of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, etc.
The Boston bomber or bombers are terrorists for killing innocent people and spreading fear to the public and the world.
In the same vein, the United States of America through its military by virtue of the executive order of its president in ordering the use of drone attacks and allowing the dropping of bombs against civilians are also terrorists.
The piece continued and claimed that:
The article begins with a stark condemnation of the bombing and expresses condolences for the young boy who was killed. Then it turns the closing call: “DOWN WITH US IMPERIALISM!!!”
Yes, in caps, three exclamation points.
Point one: I expressed condolences not only with the young boy but also to the other victims who died.
For the benefit of the world public, let me quote my own article to highlight this important matter:
My condolences to all the victims of this horrible event, namely 8-year-old Martin Richard, 29-year-old Krystle Cambell, and Lu Lingzi, a BU graduate student from China and so as the multitude of people who got injured due to the blasts.
I don’t know whether Mr. America read my article or if he truly read it, how could he missed to quote the other two casualties of this terrorist attacks? Is he blind or he does not want to honor the other two fatalities?
Point two: I also expressed my condolences to the multitude of people who got injured due to the blasts.
Why Mr. America omitted or did not say so?
Again, I doubt Mr. America’s claim that he read my article.
The ‘critic’ continued and stated that:
In other words, this blog writer is sympathetic to the motives of the bomber. Make no mistake about that. It is not a call for understanding, or compassion. It is a clarion call of hate raised loud and clear on that bastion of blogging integrity Get Real Post.
I do not know what is wrong with this writer! His accusation is not only preposterous, but utterly out of order.
I have no sympathy whatsoever to the motives or desires or design or methods used by the bomber! I consider that bastard as a mass murderer and an evil creature.
There is no difference with the Boston bomber from that of a US pilot dropping bombs and a US soldier stationed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, etc. — ALL OF THEM ARE TERRORISTS!!!
Make no mistake about that!
My sympathy and solidarity is with all the people (regardless of their nationality, sex, gender, religious creed, race, ethnicity and irrespective of whether or not they are American or not) who are victims of violence, aggression and imperialism.
It is on this great sense that I concurred with Professor Dr. Cornel West when he said that:
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” — #MLK Praying for our brothers and sisters EVERYWHERE…from Boston to Baghdad.
Mr. America even accused my article for sowing misunderstanding and doubted my compassion.
It also charged my article as “a clarion call of hate raised loud and clear on that bastion of blogging integrity Get Real Post.”
My I remind him that the duty of the intellectual is to “speak the truth and to expose lies.”
On November-December, 2003, Professor Noam Chomsky was interviewed by David Barsamian of the Socialist Review (“Telling the Truth about Imperialism”); let us consider a portion of the said exchanges:
Barsamian: TRADITIONALLY IF you used the word “imperialism” and attached the word “American” in front of it, you were immediately dismissed as a member of some far left fringe. That has undergone a bit of a transformation in the last few years. Let’s just take Michael Ignatieff, for one. Son of a Canadian diplomat, he’s at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard where he is Carr Professor of Human Rights Policy. He writes in a New York Times Magazine cover story on July 28, 2002, “America’s entire war on terrorism is an exercise in imperialism.” Then he adds, “Imperialism used to be the white man’s burden,” echoing Kipling. “This gave it a bad reputation. But imperialism doesn’t stop being necessary just because it becomes politically incorrect.” On January 5, 2003, in yet another cover story in the New York Times Magazine, he writes, “America’s empire is not like the empires of times past, built on colonies, conquests and the white man’s burden…. The 21st century imperium is a new invention in the annals of political science, an empire lite, a global hegemony whose grace notes are free markets, human rights, and democracy, enforced by the most awesome military power the world has ever known.” And he has a new book out, called Empire Lite.
Chomsky: OF COURSE, the apologists for every other imperial power have said the same thing. So you can go back to John Stuart Mill, one of the most outstanding Western intellectuals, now we’re talking about the real peak of moral integrity and intelligence. He defended the British Empire in very much those words. John Stuart Mill wrote the classic essay on humanitarian intervention. Everyone studies it in law schools. What he says is, Britain is unique in the world. It’s unlike any country before it. Other countries have crass motives and seek gain and so on, but the British act only for the benefit of others. In fact, he said, Our motives are so pure that Europeans can’t understand us. They heap “obloquy” upon us and they seek to discover crass motives behind our benevolent actions. But everything we do is for the benefit of the natives, the barbarians. We want to bring them free markets and honest rule and freedom and all kinds of wonderful things. Today’s version is just illustrating Marx’s comment about tragedy being repeated as farce…
I hate the US government specifically it’s racist, imperialist factions and its war monger military; but I do not hate the American people specifically its working class and those living at the lowest spectrum of its society.
My objective is to expose and oppose US imperialism and to counter it world domination through my writings, teachings and political activities.
I am not a lone voice in the wilderness that is critical of your country’s standing in the world.
Even Ron Paul, in his book, The Revolution: A Manifesto (2008) stated that:
“It is unreasonable, even utopian, not to expect people to grow resentment, and desirous of revenge, when your government bombs them, supports police states in their countries, and imposes murderous sanctions on them.”
I am also not alone in calling your beloved America the NUMBER ONE TERRORIST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.
Consider the following individuals:
“In much of the world the U.S. is regarded as a leading terrorist state.”
— Professor Noam Chomsky
“Americans have been taught that their nation is civilized and humane. But, too often, U. S. actions have been uncivilized and inhumane.”
— Professor Howard Zinn
The US government is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today…
— Dr. Martin Luther Kings
Why should they ask me to put on a uniform and go ten thousand miles from home and drop bombs and bullets on brown people in Vietnam while so-called Negro people in Louisville are treated like dogs and denied simple human rights?
— Muhammad Ali
Look at the American Revolution in 1776. That revolution was for what? For land. Why did they want land? Independence. How was it carried out? Bloodshed. Number one, it was based on land, the basis of independence. And the only way they could get it was bloodshed. The French Revolution — what was it based on? The land-less against the landlord. What was it for? Land. How did they get it? Bloodshed. Was no love lost; was no compromise; was no negotiation. I’m telling you, you don’t know what a revolution is. ‘Cause when you find out what it is, you’ll get back in the alley; you’ll get out of the way. The Russian Revolution — what was it based on? Land. The land-less against the landlord. How did they bring it about? Bloodshed. You haven’t got a revolution that doesn’t involve bloodshed. And you’re afraid to bleed. I said, you’re afraid to bleed.
[As] long as the white man sent you to Korea, you bled. He sent you to Germany, you bled. He sent you to the South Pacific to fight the Japanese, you bled. You bleed for white people. But when it comes time to seeing your own churches being bombed and little black girls be murdered, you haven’t got no blood. You bleed when the white man says bleed; you bite when the white man says bite; and you bark when the white man says bark. I hate to say this about us, but it’s true. How are you going to be nonviolent in Mississippi, as violent as you were in Korea? How can you justify being nonviolent in Mississippi and Alabama, when your churches are being bombed, and your little girls are being murdered, and at the same time you’re going to violent with Hitler, and Tojo, and somebody else that you don’t even know?
If violence is wrong in America, violence is wrong abroad. If it’s wrong to be violent defending black women and black children and black babies and black men, then it’s wrong for America to draft us and make us violent abroad in defense of her. And if it is right for America to draft us, and teach us how to be violent in defense of her, then it is right for you and me to do whatever is necessary to defend our own people right here in this country.
— Malcolm X
… the connection between imperial politics and culture is astonishingly direct. American attitudes to American “greatness”, to hierarchies of race, to the perils of “other” revolutions (the American revolution being considered unique and somehow unrepeatable anywhere else in the world) have remained constant, have dictated, have obscured, the realities of empire, while apologists for overseas American interests have insisted on American innocence, doing good, fighting for freedom.
— Edward W. Said
The “war on terror” is an absurd war against a tactic. It posits the idea of perpetual, or what is now called “generational,” war. It has no discernable end. There is no way to define victory. It is, in metaphysical terms, a war against evil, and evil, as any good seminarian can tell you, will always be with us. The most destructive evils, however, are not those that are externalized. The most destructive are those that are internal. These hidden evils, often defined as virtues, are unleashed by our hubris, self-delusion and ignorance. Evil masquerading as good is evil in its deadliest form.
The decline of American empire began long before the current economic meltdown or the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It began before the first Gulf War or Ronald Reagan. It began when we shifted, in the words of the historian Charles Maier, from an “empire of production” to an “empire of consumption.” By the end of the Vietnam War, when the costs of the war ate away at Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society and domestic oil production began its steady, inexorable decline, we saw our country transformed from one that primarily produced to one that primarily consumed. We started borrowing to maintain a lifestyle we could no longer afford. We began to use force, especially in the Middle East, to feed our insatiable demand for cheap oil. The years after World War II, when the United States accounted for one-third of world exports and half of the world’s manufacturing, gave way to huge trade imbalances, outsourced jobs, rusting hulks of abandoned factories, stagnant wages and personal and public debts that most of us cannot repay.
The bill is now due. America’s most dangerous enemies are not Islamic radicals, but those who promote the perverted ideology of national security that, as Andrew Bacevich writes, is “our surrogate religion.” If we continue to believe that we can expand our wars and go deeper into debt to maintain an unsustainable level of consumption, we will dynamite the foundations of our society.
— Chris Hedges
Now, my question to Mr. America is: how about these notable individuals? Are they teaching hate? Are they liars? Are they manipulators?
My objective is in conformity with Professor Chomsky’s theses on his book Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Domination. The eminent professor’s arguments as lucidly illustrated by Wikipedia stated that:
“the socio-economic elite who control the United States have pursued an “Imperial Grand Strategy” since the end of World War II in order to maintain global hegemony through military, political and economic means. He argues that in doing so they have repeatedly shown a total disregard for democracy and human rights, in stark contrast to the U.S. government’s professed support for those values. Furthermore, he argues that this continual pursuit of global hegemony now threatens the existence of the human species itself because of the increasing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
“Drawing historical examples from 1945 through to 2003 to support his argument, Chomsky looks at the U.S. government’s support for regimes responsible for mass human rights abuses, including ethnic cleansing and genocide, namely El Salvador, Colombia, Turkey, Israel, Egypt, South Africa and Indonesia. He also discusses U.S. support for militant dissident groups widely considered “terrorists”, particularly in Nicaragua and Cuba, as well as direct military interventions, such as the Vietnam War, NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, Afghan War and Iraq War, in order to further its power and grasp of resources. In doing so, he highlights that U.S. foreign policy – whether controlled by Republican or Democratic administrations – still follows the same agenda of gaining access to lucrative resources and maintaining U.S. world dominance”.
Is Professor Chomsky a teacher of hate? Is he a manipulator, too?
I wonder how would Mr. America categorize the good professor who is the leading critic of his own government’s foreign policy, world-wide abuses, global domination, violence, and naked imperialism!?
Mr. America’s tirade continues and stated that:
So the author believes the gut-wrenching sympathy Americans feel about the Boston tragedy is sad because the media tells them to be sad. In other words, there is nothing about the incident on its own merits that calls for sadness. This reveals the author’s own fake condolence in the article, condolence that is merely aimed at posturing himself as a sympathetic man.
First point: Who owns the media is America?
Second point: the author stated that “there is nothing about the incident on its own merits that calls for sadness.”
This pronouncement is an utter disrespect of Mr. America to all the victims of the Boston bombing.
I do not know whether he is a fake person or a fictitious entity or a stool pigeon of Yankee Imperialism, spokesperson and apologist of corporatist bourgeois US conservative media, but let it appear on the record of these exchange that:
My condolences and solidarity to all the victims of this horrible terrorist attack is true, pure and genuine and that it came from the bottom of my heart.
I extremely sympathize to all those victims of terrorism, not only from Boston but also to all those victims of terrorism from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, etc. — deliberately committed and continuously being committed by Mr. America’s beloved country.
To the other baseless accusation of Mr. America that I am not a sympathetic man, let me state categorically that:
I offer no sympathy whatsoever to all terrorists, colonialists and imperialists especially the government of the United States of America, England, etc. and now the emerging bully of Southeast Asia, China.
All of them can go to hell, but I am going to oppose, expose and counter them to the death through my writings, teachings and political activities.
I hate them all!
To the other charge that I am an angry manipulator, the question there is: what manipulation did I committed or concocted?
The source of my anger is my extreme hate of imperialism of whatever type, kind or form.
I will fight them all!
Assuming arguendo that I am an angry manipulator, then what the hell would you call your war freak Lyndon Johnson’s act during the so-called Gulf of Tonkin incident?
Speak the truth, who manipulated that fake event to justify the horrible, infamous and murderous Vietnam War?
How about your stupid Dubya’s claim in reference to Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction?
Where are the WMDs? Or probably, the precise question to ask should be: where’s now Iraq’s OIL? Ha? Mr. American accuser of manipulation?!
Your war monger country is so good at concocting dubious reasons and utterly impertinent explanations in justifying the continuous act of going to war; and then I am the one that you are accusing of manipulation?
Shame on you sir and shame on your country that nearly bombed almost all the known countries of this planet!
Nearing the end of the article, Mr. America introduce to the reader Dr. Zoltan Grossman “who originally compiled the list” of America’s History of Military Intervention.
Dr. Zoltan Grossman is a professor of geography at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington. His website is at http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz and can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org. He is a civilian Member of the Board of G.I. Voice, an antiwar veterans group that runs the Coffee Strong resource center for soldiers outside Fort Lewis. His list of U.S. military interventions since 1890 is at http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html. (Source: Common Dreams)
The good doctor has made his mark writing and teaching about US racism and military interventions. He is an advocate AGAINST war. But he at least appears to teach ideas, not anger.
I am wondering why to Mr. America, Dr. Grossman appears to teach ideas, but when it comes to me: implied that I only teach hate?
This is preposterous! I do not see any difference from the position of the good doctor from that of my own views.
Nonetheless, let us quote the ideas of the good doctor himself in an article entitled “War and the New US Military Bases”, which appeared on the Weekend Edition of the Counter Punch site, dated February 2-4, 2002.
Here’s what the good doctor said about the beloved America of Mr. America:
Geopolitical priorities may help explain why Washington went to war in all these countries, even as paths to peace remained open. President George Bush launched the February 1991 ground war against Iraq, even though Saddam was already withdrawing from Kuwait under Soviet disengagement plan. He also sent forces into Somalia in 1992, even though the famine he used as a justification had already lessened. President Clinton launched a war on Serbia in 1999 to force a withdraw from Kosovo, even though Yugoslavia had already met many of his withdrawal terms at the Rambouillet conference. President George W. Bush attacked Afghanistan in 2001 without having put much diplomatic pressure on the Taliban to surrender Bin Laden, or letting anti-Taliban forces (such as Pashtun commander Abdul Haq) win over Taliban forces on their own. Washington went to war not as a last resort, but because it saw war as a convenient opportunity to further larger goals.
Geopolitical priorities may also help explain the reluctance of the U.S. to declare victory in these wars. If the U.S. had ousted Saddam from power in 1991, his Gulf allies would have demanded the withdrawal of U.S. bases, but his continued hold onto power justifies intensive U.S. bombing of Iraq and a continued hold over the Gulf oil region. The fact that Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar have not been captured in four months of war also provides convenient justification for the permanent stationing of U.S. bases in Central and South Asia. All three men are more useful to U.S. plans if they are alive and free, at least for the time being.
Indeed, the good doctor is a teacher of ideas and I subscribed substantially to all the arguments that he advanced and explicated; yet still I am wondering: what is the difference of his ideas from mine?
Mr. America, what can you say about these words and brilliant ideas of the good doctor? Do you agree with them?
Consider further the good doctor’s analysis of the distinctive common themes of the U. S. military intervention in his A Briefing on the History of U.S. Military Interventions (October 2001) published by the Z Magazine:
Some common themes can be seen in many of these U.S. military interventions.
First, they were explained to the U.S. public as defending the lives and rights of civilian populations. Yet the military tactics employed often left behind massive civilian “collateral damage.” War planners made little distinction between rebels and the civilians who lived in rebel zones of control, or between military assets and civilian infrastructure, such as train lines, water plants, agricultural factories, medicine supplies, etc. The U.S. public always believe that in the next war, new military technologies will avoid civilian casualties on the other side. Yet when the inevitable civilian deaths occur, they are always explained away as “accidental” or “unavoidable.”
Second, although nearly all the post-World War II interventions were carried out in the name of “freedom” and “democracy,” nearly all of them in fact defended dictatorships controlled by pro-U.S. elites. Whether in Vietnam, Central America, or the Persian Gulf, the U.S. was not defending “freedom” but an ideological agenda (such as defending capitalism) or an economic agenda (such as protecting oil company investments). In the few cases when U.S. military forces toppled a dictatorship–such as in Grenada or Panama–they did so in a way that prevented the country’s people from overthrowing their own dictator first, and installing a new democratic government more to their liking.
Third, the U.S. always attacked violence by its opponents as “terrorism,” “atrocities against civilians,” or “ethnic cleansing,” but minimized or defended the same actions by the U.S. or its allies. If a country has the right to “end” a state that trains or harbors terrorists, would Cuba or Nicaragua have had the right to launch defensive bombing raids on U.S. targets to take out exile terrorists? Washington’s double standard maintains that an U.S. ally’s action by definition “defensive,” but that an enemy’s retaliation is by definition “offensive.”
Fourth, the U.S. often portrays itself as a neutral peacekeeper, with nothing but the purest humanitarian motives. After deploying forces in a country, however, it quickly divides the country or region into “friends” and “foes,” and takes one side against another. This strategy tends to enflame rather than dampen a war or civil conflict, as shown in the cases of Somalia and Bosnia, and deepens resentment of the U.S. role.
Fifth, U.S. military intervention is often counterproductive even if one accepts U.S. goals and rationales. Rather than solving the root political or economic roots of the conflict, it tends to polarize factions and further destabilize the country. The same countries tend to reappear again and again on the list of 20th century interventions.
Sixth, U.S. demonization of an enemy leader, or military action against him, tends to strengthen rather than weaken his hold on power. Take the list of current regimes most singled out for U.S. attack, and put it alongside of the list of regimes that have had the longest hold on power, and you will find they have the same names. Qaddafi, Castro, Saddam, Kim, and others may have faced greater internal criticism if they could not portray themselves as Davids standing up to the American Goliath, and (accurately) blaming many of their countries’ internal problems on U.S. economic sanctions.
Do you agree or concur with the analysis of the good doctor, Mr. America?
Finally, nearing the end of his counter-thesis to my article, Mr. America introduced me to the public and bewilderment, even quoted my resume.
Sir, for the record, I am not the one who put my academic record or intellectual credentials to the said site, rather it is the administrator of the same.
Nonetheless, be that as if may, it is my considered view and so hold that my educational attainment has nothing to do with my firm conviction with regard to the issue under discussion.
Hence, highlighting the three degrees under my belt is unnecessary.
To conclude this rejoinder or answer to your counter to my article, let me state that I maintain the strong view, Mr. America that your country is the prime danger to mankind due to your greed, fear, paranoia and pride.
In the straightforward and categorical words of comrade Ernesto “Che” Guevara:
The main enemy of humanity is the United States of North America.
DOWN WITH US IMPERIALISM!!!!
DOWN WITH ALL FORMS, KINDS AND TYPES OF IMPERIALISM!!!!