the dog who bites feeding master's hand.

http://www.mail-archive.com/milis@pii.or.id/msg00335.html

In 1985, President Ronald Reagan received a group of
bearded men. These bearded men I was writing about in those days in The
New Yorker, actually did. They were very ferocious-looking bearded men
with turbans looking like

they came from another century. President Reagan received them in the
White House. After receiving them he spoke to the press. He pointed towards
them, I’m sure some of you will recall that moment, and
said, “These are the moral equivalent of America’s founding fathers”. These were the Afghan Mujahiddin. They were at the time, guns in hand, battling the Evil Empire. They were the moral equivalent of our founding fathers!

I do not wish to embarrass you with the reminder that Mr. Bin Laden, whom fifteen American missiles were fired to hit in Afghanistan, was only a few years ago the moral equivalent of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson! He got angry over the fact that he has been demoted from ‘Moral Equivalent’ of your ‘Founding Fathers’. So he is taking out his anger in different ways.[/b]

Surely you understand, this is politics, dix...

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend", and all that rot.

Iraq was a "sorta kinda" good guy at one point, too, when they were sending their tanks against Iran, and not threatening America's tame Saudi buddies...

Then Saddy-san got uppity, and:
Hammer Time


Here's a bit of a little ditty I became aquainted with not too long ago. It's not about the current crop of people who think blowing stuff up is a purty neat way of expressing their dissatisfaction with the state of affairs, but it rang eerily in my jaded old ears when I heard it...

And you dare to call me a terrorist -
while you looked down your gun
When I think of all the deeds that you had done

You had plundered many nations... divided many lands
You had terrorised their peoples... you ruled with an iron hand.
And you brought this reign of terror to my land


"Moral equivalent of our founding fathers"...

I loved that line. Ronnie was da bomb.

;)

...Mr. Bin Laden, ..., was only a few years ago the moral equivalent of ...

Is the point of your post that people should never change? Or that the ideals of people should never change? Or that once a nation makes friends with someone/some nation, that it should remain friends no matter what changes occur on the Earth? ...that things should always remain the same?

What IS the point of your post?

Baron Max

As I see it, neither Bin L nor USA doctrines/ideals changed much over the last 20 years. What's the point of your post then? Still, the slide from the " moral equivalent.." to a representative of Evil on Earth in such a short time is quite spectacular. It's way beyond normal fluctuations in people's values, views, etc. The point of post is: one needs to see interests over the words. Bin L is quite sincere (if he's still alive). USA, on the other hand, is a pure hypocrite which hide the thirst for global domination behind words like "freedom, democracy, evil, good...". Don't get me wrong, thirst for domination is "natural" as sunrise. It's the use of the words for propaganda war to justify that thirst makes me mad. Word "democracy" is a curse in some parts of the world, "Freedom" will follow shortly...because of the Western hypocricy. If zombie makers in American media start to use those words in a context of foreign policies.... something is fishy there, it's a big fat, red flag.

Well, I even don't think USA try to dominate world for itself. As I see it, USA is big, fat attack dog for global financial capital, which don't really care much for USA itself. But USA is a good doggy, which loves its master no matter how much beating it gets from him. Financial capital needs global market to make more and more "abstract" $ out of thin air in financial speculations. USA jumps over itself to create such a market for people without any national allegiance, which is kind of misterious to me. It seems so masochistic and (sadistic too).

How have you changed over the last twenty years? Are there things that once annoyed you now tolerable? Are ideas you once thought good now leaning more toward the bad side? How about your thought processes? Do you now really try to see both sides, or are you still stuck on your own dogmatic ways? Do you now see the value of both sides of the argument? How about your taste in food and women? Is it the same as twenty years ago? Or has it evolved?

I know that personally some things can change in a matter of weeks after some serious reflection on things. Maybe my core stays the same, but my ability to see the value in all opinions that might change a piece of that core.

I am not criticizing you. I am merely pointing out that twenty years brings about many changes. As someone wrote earlier the enemy of my enemy is my friend, that, of course, makes political alliances tenous. Perhaps, the best way to perceive it is to understand that the truer light of OBL has come to fruition. Maybe three years of Reagan, four years of Bush, and then eight years of Clinton represents a greater change in ideas then what you think.

Just cogitating!!!





As I see it, neither Bin L nor USA doctrines/ideals changed much over the last 20 years. What's the point of your post then? Still, the slide from the " moral equivalent.." to a representative of Evil on Earth in such a short time is quite spectacular. It's way beyond normal fluctuations in people's values, views, etc. The point of post is: one needs to see interests over the words. Bin L is quite sincere (if he's still alive). USA, on the other hand, is a pure hypocrite which hide the thirst for global domination behind words like "freedom, democracy, evil, good...". Don't get me wrong, thirst for domination is "natural" as sunrise. It's the use of the words for propaganda war to justify that thirst makes me mad. Word "democracy" is a curse in some parts of the world, "Freedom" will follow shortly...because of the Western hypocricy. If zombie makers in American media start to use those words in a context of foreign policies.... something is fishy there, it's a big fat, red flag.

Well, I even don't think USA try to dominate world for itself. As I see it, USA is big, fat attack dog for global financial capital, which don't really care much for USA itself. But USA is a good doggy, which loves its master no matter how much beating it gets from him. Financial capital needs global market to make more and more "abstract" $ out of thin air in financial speculations. USA jumps over itself to create such a market for people without any national allegiance, which is kind of misterious to me. It seems so masochistic and (sadistic too).

To compare the idea creations, thought process, ideal making/changing of a person and large organizations/states is not right. Person is much more flexible, organizations are much more conservative. Freequently, course changes in large entities are possible only after significant amount of blood letting. States (especially states), and "Freedom fighters" (as collective) do not change much "mentally" in 20 years.

Still, the slide from the " moral equivalent.." to a representative of Evil on Earth in such a short time is quite spectacular. It's way beyond normal fluctuations in people's values, views, etc.

Not necessarily so spectacular, or peculiar.
For example, IIRC, the USA's view of the Soviet Union in the '30s was as the "HQ" of commie evil.
This changed once nazi Germany invaded 'em in 1941, to depicting poor ol' Rooskie peasants fighting valiantly against their would-be ratzi opressors. (kinda ironic, since great sodding boatloads of 'em were giving a big huzzah at the thought of the Wehrmacht booting the Reds out, and decalring their willingness to join up and fight...)
Then, after WW2, raging against the Red Menace threatening to gobble up the world - and, quite ironically, doing our best to put the very nation we had helped pound into dust (Germany) back into working order with the view that they were best suited to serve as the "Bulwark of Free Europe" against the Red Horde.

.

For example, IIRC, the USA's view of the Soviet Union in the '30s was as the "HQ" of commie evil.

"Views" especially popular view are result of great deal of propaganda. I'll give you another example: 1917 pacifist populace of USA, watching WWI from the great distance, was transformed into a nation of flaming antigerman bigots in extremely short time. Thus, state policies come first, "popular views" are result of tight mind control. It's called freedom (western style) :), people think that they have "views" when, actually, they are told to have them. The value #1 "dog eat dog, and uses all help it can find to do so" remains the same always. Yes, policies of USA government (and government sponsored views of populace) changed somewhat between 1930s and 1940s. However, I don't think that American or Soviet values changed much at the same time.

Reagan was speaking not about temporary common interests in fighting Soviets. He was speaking about ethic values ("Moral equivalent and stuff"), he was appealing to emotions (when a politician appeals to emotions: WATCH OUT). In two words Reagan spoke about the things which don't change in 20 years much no matter the changes in state interests.