USA academic under fire for criticizing USA foreign policy 3552

faces were

As shocking as the professor's remarks may be, it is even more shocking to see fascist responses as official policy. It is even more interesting to read that the professor is an Indian. It is noted how apologetic we are to blacks over the slavery incident, yet we have not made any similar effort to make a similar compenstaion to the Native Americans.

"This man is actively promoting violence against the United States," said Silverman, a former Denver prosecutor. "He says he's engaged in armed resistance."

Such remarks by the opposition are outright libel and slander, and should be considered more of a crime than the professor's expression of free speech. The former prosecutor is suggesting that such an alleged act of free speech is a crime, without adequate rationale, while he himself is committing the crime of derogatory slander and libel, but is probably immune form prosecution because of handshake deals with the local court which has the authority to prosecute.

Yet these actions are still violations of civil liberties, and it is fair to publicly accuse the former prosecutor of a crime as well, which is more desrving of prosecuiton than what the professor has written.

Even with liberal interpretation of the right to free speech, to falsely accuse someone of treason is due cause for prosecution, and the revocation of certain liberties to be able to speak for the law. We understand that this policy of slandering liberals is also actively used by the Bush administration against its enemies, so this is nothing really too unexpected..but it must be legally challenged.

We do not see any effort by the Bush administration to refrain form slandering its enemies with statements which cannot be proven, while the Bush administration continues to force buttumptions to be believed by the public which also cannot be proven, but on the contray can be easily be disproven if one ignores the noise of advertisements trying to pursuade the public otherwise.

Shall we remind the world that the New York court system spared the previous world trade center planter the rest senstence, because the elite jury did not want to make a martyr out of him, while we continue to lock up non-violent offenders with equally long sentences, sugar commerce, for example. Are any of these jurors comfortable with the fact that they bought the argument of mercy for the jihadist who was convicted for planting the world trade center?

Also bear in mind that these buildings were known targets,, because they were symbols of American might, and are also known as strategic targets of wartime. Where exactly do you think the US is targetting its nukes, or has been targetting nukes, and what is nuclear terrorism anyway. Have we never made city center targets of our nuclear warheads? Have we ever been willing to launch nuclear warheads at foreign capitals over the presence of defensive missiles in nearby islands under foreign soverien control? Have we ever annnnounce the right to make a preemptive military attack? Have we ever had a president who will use or be willing to use nuclear weapons agains foreign civilian population centers? Do we have a president who claims the right to go to war in order to rid another nation of nuclear weapons, while retaining the right of ownership for ourselves? Are we as a nation guilty of hypocrisy, and being too stupid to not understand why we are hated abroad? Are we too stupid to realize that Americans are loved only for their money, and when there is no money, then Americans have nothing of value to offer?

The US is the one nation that has the power to do something about nuclear terrroism, and whenit had the opportunity to do something about it, it did nothing, but only insist on its own right to maintain a nuclear arsenal.

Even our actions in the aftermath of the World Trade Center attack only proved the point of the people who attacked the US.

We do understand that the world is concerned about the nightmares of theuse of nuclear weapons, but if one is truly to see an end to nuclear terrosim, then one must admist that it is not right to be willing to use them and set an example, instead of reeenforcing one's ownn nuclear program and performing military escalation, as has been the case with the US since September 2001.

The world understood the retaliation against Afghanistan, but reveling in the glory of war, Bush found Afghanistan was not enough. Many despots have found popularity in acts of aggression. Naplolean earned his reputaion by invading Egypt, and Bush reenforced his name by invading IRaq. In both cases, we have a population which cllaimed liberty as an ideal, while at the same time considering the liberty of less fortunate muslims as something which they have denied themselves because of a false belief system. We must admist in the esrly 1800's, the white man did not think much of the arab, and there certainly was ethnic hatred, hence the French would have considered being occupied by the French as something good for the Egyptians. We can certainly say not much better things about the American habit and policy concerning occupation and absorbtion of Indian territories.

The professor's comparisons may have been somewhat extreme, but the strike against the World Trade Center was intended to hurt the Aemerican economy very badly, and it had precisely that effect. One does not have to agree with the reaosn for a strike to say it was well orchestrated. Lots of evil things in history have been done with great precision. The interesting thing concerning the 9-11 attacks is the observation that the US has done more damage to itself as a result of the attack than was actually done by the attack itself.

America has made itself more of a viction of terror by irrationally inflaming the fear of terrorism willingly . We see this done so certain groups of individauls can retain power.