Fearing the “Other” Is Politically Profitable: Iran, Islamo-Fascism and the Pursuit of Truth
by Racialicious special correspondent Latoya Peterson
The whispers about Iran are starting to become more numerous to ignore. The same whispers continue in hushed tones about Islamo-Fascism, hatred of freedom, and the need to do something.
Do what, I wonder? Bomb more people?
But the whispers grow in volume every day. So, to try to make sense of it all, I began to read.
I read an interesting Q & A on Pop & Politics about Islamo-Fascism.
(Fabulous moment of semi-irony: David Horowitz defending Ann Coulter by saying “Why should anybody in America, whose democratic culture is based on the pluralism of ideas, be offended by a religious belief?” Yes, David, why should they be offended by a religious belief? And why would they decide to be actively offensive toward those who hold other beliefs?)
This appeared the same day I read a Washington Post hosted chat about a PBS program I missed on the whole Iran situation.
Pop and Politics has also been covering some of the issues surrounding some of this othering and the issues surrounding the Bush Administration’s newest target - Iran:
In the Path to Iran, Chris Nelson briefly summarizes Seymour M. Hirsch’s article on the Bush Administration and the next target:
In sum, the war in Iraq is now being redefined— years too late and for ulterior motives— as in fact a strategic conflict with Iran. But blaming Iran for the humiliating U.S. failure in Iraq is merely the latest rhetorical approach to persuade Americans of the need to bomb Tehran, according to Hirsch.
In another post, P & P discussed one of Ann Coulter’s recent speaking engagements in honor of Islamo-Fascism Awareness week:
Ann Coulter descended on USC campus to promote her new book last week as part of the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s “Islamo-Facism Awareness Week.” While speaking to a crowd of about 230 fans at the Annenberg School, she offered equal doses of anti-liberal tirade and inflammatory discourse on the world beyond these amber waves of grain.
…
“Eschewing debate, I would turn to inflicting horrible physical pain. That seems to change people’s minds,” Coulter said when asked during the Q&A if she believed that “very vigorous intellectual debate could perhaps change [Islamo-Fascist’s] views against using violence to spread religion?”
“Who would have thought the Japanese were governable? A few well-placed nuclear bombs and they’ve been gentle little lambs ever since,” was how she followed-up the “horrible physical pain” plan for Islamo-Fascists.
…
She is a massively efficient, sound-byte spewing, ideologue.
[O]ne of her adoring fans, who were omnipresent at Annenberg (the Young Republicans, who sponsored the event, must have chosen their guest-list wisely), asked her if she thought the facts of her speeches got lost in the heat of her rhetoric.
“No,” she said smugly.
While David Horowitz calls Ann Coulter a “brilliant political satirist,” it becomes frighteningly obvious that there are some who take her opinions seriously:
…[W]hat caught her off-guard was the overwhelmingly conservative crowd that greeted her. Seems that receiving a standing-o at a college appearance is not exactly par for the course. Instead of being tossed barbs by left-leaning questioners, she was asked sincere questions by supporters who simply wanted to know more about the topic she purportedly came to speak on.
She couldn’t cite any figures when asked “What percent of the world population of Muslims [could be called Islamo-Fascist] ?” by a man who simply wanted to “get a clearer idea of the extent of the terrorist problem throughout the world.”
“I couldn’t talk about specific numbers. I don’t know off the top of my head… what I can tell you is generally way too many. That’s the answer. Way too many.”
Hmm. Thanks, Ann.
When asked “Why is it that the media and the president are turning a blind eye to the Assyrian population in Iraq?” The Assyrians are the indigenous Christians of Iraq. Coulter: “Oh yes, I’ve heard about this and I have no idea. I do not know what the answer is.”
Asked twice by a reporter for the university newspaper to define fascism, she floundered. The first time she offered a roundabout response that mentioned Communism, Nazism, and nihilism, saying it was the “total control of people’s lives” and so in this respect “every government is to some extent fascist.” As unsatisfied as everyone else in the room, the reporter, reminding her that she was invited to speak for Islamo-Fascism week, pressed again for a definition. Visibly uncomfortable or perturbed, she told him to consult a dictionary.
More than unprepared, she seemed uninterested. Christopher Hitchens, for example, hasn’t shied away from the pretty basic and important question.
Alas, Coulter managed to steer the discussion back to her interests. She used “homosexuality” and “soddomy” interchangeably when answering a question about Ahmadinejad and Iranian homosexuals. She then suggested we repeal the portion of the Constitution that grants citizenship to people born in the U.S. so that a pregnant Mexican woman doesn’t hop across the border with “a lifetime of free welfare checks” in her belly. Then she insisted that most gender and race activist groups are “a front for the Democratic Party.”
If there is one thing Ms. Coulter has mastered, it’s the ability to divide and polarize to the point of rendering opinionated discourse irrelevant.
All this discussion about Iran and Islam is not a mistake. I am starting to think that the two are conflated for a reason - to create fear in the American psyche and drum up a little more grudging support for yet another act of aggression.
Unfortunately, I think that it is working.
Faced with a media vacuum about Persian culture, Americans are susceptible to believing just about anything the media presents on this topic. We simply do not know enough about that is going on in Iran - or the Middle East in general - to separate out facts from propaganda.
From the dramatic photo of Laura Bush (taken in the UAE, by the way, not Iran) to the Time cover Manish just posted about (which features Pakistan) these strong, salient images are melding into one pulsing message:
It’s America against these violent others.
They hate our freedom times infinity!
I sit and I read and I watch. And this worries me. This melding of other countries as all the same, the similarity in reporting style and images presented, the hype accorded to Islamic terrorists in the Middle East and other areas of the world is culminating in a very strong image that can be twisted to the advantage of any political appointee with a jingoistic bend.
I am worried.
And I am worried because the message has started to take hold in me as well. As a person who is generally skeptical of mainstream media, who feels no immediate threat from Muslims, who understands a little - but not a lot - about the many facets of Islam as a religion, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that some of those messages started to take root.
I read the Wired feature on the terrorist hunter mom and grew concerned.
Then I read some of the quotes from the article. A sample:
Rossmiller took language from Mohammed Atta’s favorite poem and included it in some of her flowery posts. She got a lot of hits and replies, so she’s been laying down the purple prose ever since. “I would change and tailor it to what I needed,” she says. She knew that Arabic communication and speech often quote the Koran, so she would page through it, learning the stories and noting suitable verses. “These are handy little things to adjust for different occasions,” she says, “like Hallmark cards for jihad.”
I read that wondering, WTF? The Holy Koran got condensed down to “Hallmark cards for jihad?” My general skepticism kicked in, pushing any “Should I be more concerned about Islamic Terrorism?” thoughts to the back of my mind. But thousands of other people have read this article, and are probably thinking the same thing - holy shit, this is real.
Obviously, the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are real. But, to me, the evidence for both wars was based on flimsy pretexts at best. With Afghanistan, we came for Osama Bin Laden and left leaving a trail of destruction in our wake. Americans callously cheered shock and awe, sparing no thought to the human casulaties. The move into Iraq felt like a windmill from the start, a way to settle an old score conveniently.
Iran frightens me because it feels different. It appears that they are actually going to try to make a case for this one. To actually provide evidence. To stoke the fires of anti-American sentiment, and broadcast it in “best of” segments on the nightly news. You read the story of the woman in Wired and realize that not only is she terroist-hunting, but she is helping to actually stop acts of terrorism and locate key participants…like other Americans.
I am deeply unsettled. I promise myself that I will become better educated, that I will read more books on historical conflicts and flimsy alliances. But in the meantime, I just watch TV. I read the news. I see no representations of Islam outside of violent proselytizing. I hear my Christian friends start to pay more attention to Islam and begin drawing their personal lines in the sand. I hear more simplified rhetoric, see more images of people waiting for America’s downfall. I worry.
I googled “Islamo-Fascism Week” and saw many sites in support. I saw mentions of controversy over the week from Harvard, NPR, and a few other news sites. But I did not see anything to create Islamic awareness. Nothing challenging the idea of Islamo-Fascism. No easily accessible place to receive information about Islam or the influences or differing perspectives.
I wonder if Americans have already bought the idea that Islamo-Fascism is a threat to our lifestyle and we are just working out the details on how to deal with it.
I wonder if there is going to be a voice of sanity to arise out of this, to explain what is actually happening, to initiate honest discussions on theocracies, sovereignty of nations, and demystifying the region so we can stop lumping The Middle East-Pakistan-Iraq-Iran-Afghanistan together as a mass and understand the specific issues in each respective country.
I wonder…
I watch…
I wait.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of 
Kai wrote:
From where I stand, I sure don’t view the “bomb Iran” war drums as growing whispers (more like deafening thunder to me), but I really appreciate your writing this piece, Latoya. Because you really can’t separate pop culture from the war machine which sponsors it.
I don’t wanna bore everyone with an overly extensive stick-waving history lesson here, but let me just say for those who are interested that, in my view, this goes back to the end of WWII, the emergence of the US as global hegemon, and the officially documented decision reached by the US National Security Council in 1945 that the enormous shallow high-quality oil reserves in Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia constituted the “greatest prize” in the history of imperialism. Shortly thereafter, the US installed the House of Saud, supported the rise of the Baath Party in Iraq, and overthrew Iran’s democratically-elected government to install a dictatorial puppet regime. These are the essential outlines of the post-colonial Middle East and the basis for present-day US regional policy.
Of course, the “problem” with Iran is that the Ayatollahs successfully transformed popular rage against US imperialism into theocratic power via the appeal to religious fundamentalism as a location of resistance, leading to the overthrow of the Shah and the infamous hostage crisis. In the eyes of the US military planners, this is unfinished business.
The dark irony is that the more the US government asserts itself through violence in the region, the more its imperial grip erodes and it is left with no better options than scorched earth slaughter to “send a message”. Students of Chinese history know that this is a phenomenon you see toward the end of every dynasty (sometimes described as “imperial encirclement”), characterized by increasingly overwrought wars against barbarians at the outskirts of empire, an accompanying loss of actual power and influence in world affairs, and a strong tendency of the domestic populace to turn away from the outside world toward materialistic distractions.
Coming back to the specter of Islamo-fascism, the “beauty” of this propaganda is that it purposely plays right into the Ayatollahs’ strategy of transferring discourse from raw geopolitical calculation to religious/racial terrain. The Iranian rulers took anti-imperialism and turned it into theocratic power; US military planners are now in the midst of one-upping that move by turning theocratic power into justification for imperialism. It’s quite a dance.
Peace.
Posted 02 Nov 2007 at 11:13 am ¶
nadia wrote:
thanks for that prof. kai!
“I googled “Islamo-Fascism Week” and saw many sites in support. I saw mentions of controversy over the week from Harvard, NPR, and a few other news sites. But I did not see anything to create Islamic awareness. Nothing challenging the idea of Islamo-Fascism. No easily accessible place to receive information about Islam or the influences or differing perspectives.”
there are PLENTY of places to get this information. i notice that when i attempt to use google to find information, i don’t find any of the information i want, and instead get a bunch of hateful trash. look at http://www.mideastyouth.com–they also have an interfaith network listed on there…look into the muslim blogosphere. there are plenty of resources out there but i feel like the people who hate us flood the internet with their own words so that we are silenced.
but don’t look to muslims expecting us to constantly challenge “islamofascism.” steven salaita (anti-arab racism in the u.s.) has a word for this, but i can’t remember what it is. basically, arabs and muslims are considered guilty of terrorism from jump, so before speaking we are always compelled to condemn terrorism (and not u.s. sponsored terrorism of course, but “islamic terrorism,” always).
Posted 02 Nov 2007 at 11:54 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
Kai -
Thanks for the clarification. Do you have any books/materials you would recommend for further reading? I read about these issues, but normally from a personal perspective. So I’ve read things like Lipstick Jihad and Persopolis but those put a highly personal viewpoint on historic events.
Nadia -
If I shouldn’t look to Muslims to dispel myths about their experience and religion, then who should I look to?
White men writing books about Islam?
Trust and believe, I understand the feeling of frustration that results when you are expected to become representative/defender/translator for your race/gender/ethnicity/religion.
However.
There are reasons why I used the words I did in my post.
No easily accessible place was in there for a reason. Of course I know there are areas on the Web for those who want to learn about Islam to go. But are they available as immediate alternatives? One of the things that we (as in activists/pocs in general) tend to forget is that the things we take for granted or in truth are actually NOT that easily accessible to others.
How many people know there is a Blackout going on today?
No mention of it anywhere - except on 7 of the blogs I frequent that cater to African-American interest. (Seven out of a total 20, I should mention…the info got out way late)
So, it can be harder to find information - and quality information at that - without references or guides.
Hence why some people prefer to rely on their “friends” to help them find the information they need.
I feel that with Islam, there is a particular need for guidence because there is so much misinformation. The word that I get from a brother in the Nation of Islam will not be the same info I get from an article on Beliefnet which will not be the same as me asking Fatemeh to provide me with some reading.
And, most tellingly, the ease of accessing knowledge directly relates to how much a person will ultimately seek for themselves.
My knowledge of Asian American history has skyrocketed. But that is entirely due to me discovering Asian American blogs. Which I probably would not have known about if they weren’t on Racialicious.
And my knowledge of that history would not have happened if it were not for the efforts of bloggers (through posting and linking and reading lists and citations) to make the information easily available and accessible.
Posted 02 Nov 2007 at 1:15 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
Oh, and Kai -
“From where I stand, I sure don’t view the “bomb Iran” war drums as growing whispers (more like deafening thunder to me)”
It is both, depending on what you are watching and reading.
Politicos, etc seem to think that a strike on Iran is inevitable. The populace hasn’t heard that yet. Bush threw out the teaser on Iran a few times, but there is no villain yet. We aren’t chasing Osama there. Saddam is done. Once most Americans are answering polls about the Ayatollahs (or even know what an Ayatollah is), then it will seem like a deafening drum.
Until then, the news kind of takes a backburner to other life altering issues like…Britney’s album being number one and trashy teen Halloween costumes and staph infections.
Posted 02 Nov 2007 at 1:23 pm ¶
nadia wrote:
latoya,
like i said, mideastyouth.com is a good resource. there is also a big muslim blogosphere–i don’t have time right now to look up links for you, but there are some on my blogroll which link to many many more on their blogrolls. also, if you haven’t read said’s ‘orientalism,’ that is a good one to read (it covers in depth some of the things you touch on here, like the homogenizing of all middle eastern, south asian and muslim countries).
i think you misunderstood me. i wasn’t taking issue with muslims being put in a cultural translator position. i was saying that it often seems like the majority of non-muslim interest or stock in our words is entirely contingent on us first denouncing terrorism (and this “terrorism” refers to all terrorists actions committed by any arab, desi, muslim, or otherwise brown person). before we can say anything, we must first say this.
Posted 02 Nov 2007 at 1:39 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
Nadia -
Thanks for the clarifications. I did not get the part about interest in Islam being linked soley to denouncing terrorism in your first part.
It is also good that you brought that up, because I tend to encounter Islam in questions of religion (i.e. in the African-American community, should we be looking to Christanity or Islam for guidence? there are other belief systems that also figure prominently in the community but those are the two biggest) or in the question of feminism (as in can you be a feminist and follow Islam). So the concept of Muslims having to prove they are anti-terrorism before being permitted to speak is kind of new to me. (Though, upon reflection, that is exactly what I see…)
Again, it is an important point to make.
Also, just for future reference, I was really angry when I initally read your first response. To me, it came off as very flip and dismissive. These phrases in particular:
*i notice that when i attempt to use google to find information, i don’t find any of the information i want, and instead get a bunch of hateful trash
*but don’t look to muslims expecting us to constantly challenge “islamofascism.”
*arabs and muslims are considered guilty of terrorism from jump, so before speaking we are always compelled to condemn terrorism (and not u.s. sponsored terrorism of course, but “islamic terrorism,” always).
I understand the intent behind your words a lot better now. But the tone and word choices you used in your first points really turned me off to what you were trying to say.
Trust me, I know that things are easily misinterpreted online, so a quick response can be easily construed other ways.
But considering the views you share are important, I am bringing this to your attention. It is up to you to decide what you want to do with this information but I really feel that people need to tread a bit more lightly with how we speak to each other. And Nadia, obviously, this isn’t just directed at you - it happens a lot, all over the blogosphere. (especially on this blog.)
I’m sure you didn’t intend the words as harshly as I interpreted them. Still, I appreciate when people tell me how I could have improved my message and made it more clear. I hope that you are receptive to the same thing.
Posted 02 Nov 2007 at 2:08 pm ¶
squidfly wrote:
Bush and Neo’s made this clear on 9/11, with the “Axis of Evil Speech”. If Bush doesn’t go into Iran then Giuliani certainly will, if he becomes President, as this man is a true Despot, he’s already hired crazed paranoid Norman Podhoretz as his foreign policy advisor, this is like hiring David Duke as the Head of the Civil Rights Division.
Now we have Hilary, who I believe has made her back room deals with the Israeli lobby, so she’ll go into Iran if nominated. Hilary recently called the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group, that’s like the Iranians calling the Marines a terrorist organisation.
Obama is the only major front runner talking about Diplomacy with Iran.
The “Hi-Noon” showdown with Iran has been percolating since the Embassy hostages in the 70’s and the vengeful courtiers of American Imperialism have been waiting a long time for this. It’s either vote Obama, Gore, or Edwards.
Posted 02 Nov 2007 at 4:09 pm ¶
Fatemeh wrote:
HA! I KNEW Ann Coulter didn’t know what the hell she was talking about! She’s just a muckraker!
About the “terrorist hunting mom”: something about using the Holy Qur’an as bait for terrorists doesn’t sit well with me.
I pray Obama will get the Democratic nomination and win the presidency, since he seems to be the only one who cares about diplomacy. I have family members riding on this! But it does seem to be lots of talk. There has been lots of talk in the past. Enshallah, the Bush administration will cool the fuck down and realize that it doesn’t have any military capability to go to Iran, and they’ll just leave us alone!
And to Nadia–I understand and empathize with how much it blows to become a cultural translator just because we’re Middle Eastern or Muslim. And, like you said, there are plenty of good Muslim bloggers out there. We can’t let non-Muslim and non-Middle Eastern academics do this for us, because they’re the biggest reason we’re here in the first place.
Posted 02 Nov 2007 at 5:47 pm ¶
Rob Schmidt wrote:
America has always needed an “other” to fight and defeat–i.e., to fear and hate. The long list of people allegedly out to destroy our way of life has included Indians, immigrants, socialists, Nazis, Communists, and now Islamic terrorists.
The Talking Points Memo blog had some good commentary on Islamo-Fascism Week. It’s now off the main screen, but you can go to the search prompt at http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-search.cgi and find it.
Posted 02 Nov 2007 at 6:19 pm ¶
Colin wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNwJQogiiy8
Here, Cenk Uygar (pretty brutal when talking race, still more than a little rough round the edges, but his political commentary is plain spoken and dead-on!) nails down the term “Islamofacism” as the canard that it is. There’s someone challenging the premise, as you mentioned.
Latoya,
You’re right on so much, but in some ways, and I mean this as nicely as I can put it, but in some ways, politically I’m not drinking all the Kool-Aid.
1. The president does not NEED, nor does he particularly want to seek Congressional approval to merely ATTACK Iran. One more headache for Mr. 24% is all that would be. With Bush’s unitary executive theory, and his powers as commander-in-chief, all he needs is to bomb Iranian facilities and he could induce war and push the Congress to provide more funds for the eventual battles from Iraq through Afghanistan and Pakistan that will then occur. That he recently asked for extra funds for secret bombing missions lends credence to this idea to me.
2. Ayatollahs and Iranian extremism have been household topics since 79. Leno and Letterman used to make fun of Khamenei when he took over and Ahmadinejad has become the same punching bag, and with the Internet, the ones taking shots are just part of an even larger group.
3. The Britney/white girl kidnapping/LiLo/sports/horse caught in mud news stories serve, either intentionally or not, as a great distraction with which the Administration can move rapidly toward its plans for war with Iran.
That’s what I think, and I think it’s stupid, xenophobic, costly, manipulative bullshit that can only have one bright side: it’ll teach us what the new low bar for President is.
Fatemah,
a) You’re joking if you ever thought Coulter was anything but a shrill bag of talking bones. Creepy bones at that.
b) It sucks being a cultural translator, but if you’re good enough at it, you may not have to be the only ones after a while. At least I hope so.
Kai,
It seems clear to me that this goes back to the separation of the Middle East. Iraq is in civil war, from what little I can tell, because there are groups used to fighting one another, much like in Great Britain and the former Ottoman Empire, for land, water, and profits, and the way Iraq is demographically seems to promote this sort of ethnic warfare and isolation, and has made Iraq a focal point for the Middle East for years.
I also feel that it really was ‘43 when US intervention really entangled us in neocolonialism in the Middle East as it is now. It was then that the U.S. basically committed itself to defending Saudi Arabia as FDR knew its oil was important.
What say you?
Posted 03 Nov 2007 at 4:26 am ¶
brownfemipower wrote:
Latoya–
first, I have been reading this site for a long time, and I appreciate this site on many different levels-
but I just have to say–on a site for people of color, on a site *run* by people of color, on site that is specifically set up to talk about anti-racism and create solidarity between people of color–a person of color is advising another person of color to change their tone when speaking their truths?
Posted 03 Nov 2007 at 9:52 am ¶
Luke Pharma wrote:
(@Latoya #3): In college I learned much about the Near East and North Africa from “white men”… and women too by way of my professors and students from that part of the world or who had lived and studied there. So yes indeed, Latoya– whether or not they are Arab, Persian, or Muslim, a “white” scholar from a local university’s department can provide you with some answers too. In fact, some appreciate the opportunity to inform and exchange perspectives. Some are true assholes and dogmatic. But wouldn’t these be true regardless of color, ethnicity, religion, or nationality?
For my money, I’m surprised no one commented or posted this week on the rift between Rumsfeld’s uncovered memo and the White House. Don’t you know our the US now really really really really really loves Arabs now? (-:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5htnYsUqD_TnJjWe6ybmqKIIzht9A
Posted 03 Nov 2007 at 11:38 am ¶
imdeep wrote:
@brownfemipower: I thought this space was “race in media and pop culture” for ALL interested parties we “people of color” included– not just “people of color to form solidarity to talk about anti-racism”? Isn’t the latter your gig CVK? (-:
Posted 03 Nov 2007 at 12:13 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
brownfemipower -
There is a reason I said:
“It is up to you to decide what you want to do with this information but I really feel that people need to tread a bit more lightly with how we speak to each other.”
There are a lot of people who truth tell - but they do it in different ways. A message can be strong and firm without being harsh and off-putting. As I explained above, I appreciate when people explain to me how they perceive what I say. Oftentimes, you may be coming across differently than you think.
As a person receptive to what Nadia was saying, I still felt a very strong reaction to how the initial post was worded. (Obviously, at second post, most of the intent was clarified). So, I felt I would be remiss in not bringing those things to her attention.
People criticize how I say things all the time - sometimes the criticism is warranted, sometimes it is not. But I always appreciate when someone takes the time to tell me what they took from what I said. It helps me to make my messaging more effective.
It is also very uncomfortable to criticize someone on a public forum. However, I would feel much worse if I never brought that to Nadia’s attention and other people tuned out her message because of the same things I thought, but chose not to verbalize.
Posted 03 Nov 2007 at 1:17 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
Colin -
Thanks for the video. Much appreciated.
1. You’re right. I guess my rational mind is refusing to bend around the idea that a third show of aggression would be initiated. But you are correct in this regard.
2. They were topics then, and you bring up some good contemporary examples of commentary. But one of the things I remember about the Axis of Evil speech is that no one could tell me at the time why Iran was included in the Axis. The guy I worked for who was a staunch Republican and fairly knowledgeable about global affairs didn’t know. Most of my professors at Montgomery College did not know. (This was 2001 - my religion teacher may have known but I did not take his class until 2002-2003.)
History fades all too quickly.
3. Si. That was exactly the point I tried to make. News has changed, and what directly moves people has also changed. It’s almost as if we have a Ministry of Propaganda a la Nazi Germany…
****
Also, some of the other reasons I wrote this post:
A few comments I saw here and on other blogs, most notably the commenter who talked about Iranians screaming death to America on the “Reasons I Hate Halloween Post.” I am always surprised at the amount of people who bought into the “they hate America” line of thinking. Some of the most politically aware people I know started rolling with the hype. So again, wary.
I also neglected to mention the post that I just finished reading the graphic novel version of the 9/11 report. Has anyone else read this?
If anyone else read the graphic novel version of the 9/11 report please weigh in with your comments. When I finished reading it, I got the perception that Bush was a hero, terrorists hate our freedom, and all people from the Middle East are suspect.
I really hope I am being oversensitive here - the graphic novel is aimed at young adults.
Posted 03 Nov 2007 at 1:51 pm ¶
Vox wrote:
Latoya, I’m not sure how you took a post that gave helpful suggestions on where to look for Muslim and Arab voices online and sympathized with how difficult it is to find these things via Google, and got that Nadia had som sort of attitude. You seem to be projecting a “tone” onto her comment that, frankly, wasn’t there. That might be something to explore.
Just a critique!
Posted 03 Nov 2007 at 2:30 pm ¶
imdeep wrote:
(@Latoya, #13): The short, simple version of how “axis of evil” came to be, how Iran and N. Korea got sucked into it (2003)
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0121-03.htm
Basically Michael Gerson (chief speechwriter) and his underling David Frum needed to deliver a punch for the 2002 State of the Union speech. They were trying to address all “rogue nations” acting against the US, while finding a rhetorical basis to make the case for action against certain states.
The idea of an axis (meaning three) struck the greatest resonance, bringing up the WWII connection. But there were no relationships to connect any rogue states. Given the religious tone (think three again, coincidence?) of the nation and political and social institutions, “evil” was adopted.
They then filled in the blanks with three examples of evil regimes. Problem was, from thought to expression, “axis” took on a life of it’s own.
For the record, Gerson and Frum have never varied much from this account.
Posted 03 Nov 2007 at 3:01 pm ¶
nadia wrote:
latoya,
there is nothing wrong with what i said or the way i said it. i took the time out to give you some resources as well as provide you with some information about the ‘prerequisite to speech,’ which is not just my opinion but widely embraced cultural criticism.
you projected an opinion onto me–that muslims should not be cultural translators for non-muslims–which was not an opinion that i expressed. once i corrected your misunderstanding, you put me on blast for not taking the right tone with you, and lecture me on blog-etiquette. i don’t appreciate it.
your criticism of my tone sounded familiar, because i’ve heard it before, from a diverse array of arab/muslim-haters, zionists, white supremacists, etc. maybe your reaction is a reflection of the mainstream media messages that you say have begun to take root within you (and by the way, how are muslims and middle eastern people supposed to react when you say that popular mainstream lies about us have begun to take hold of you? yet you want to police my tone).
Posted 03 Nov 2007 at 3:39 pm ¶
gatamala wrote:
we’ve been at the drumbeat stage since “axis of evil.”
Kai
Your “lesson” is on point. Esp the imperial encirclement.
What terrifies me is how many people “out there” don’t. Not only do folks don’t know, don’t care…it doesn’t occur to them to care. Not only do folks not know about the House of Saud & the US, but folks on both sides may not know about the bargain this House struck w/ the religious powers that be.
Too many people don’t understand how the students of 1979 felt that we let Iran down by not living up to our ideals (Mossadegh vs. Shah). Now we have a younger population in Iran that didn’t live through that betrayal. There is a chance to move forward in a fair, nonpredatory manner. There is a population that mouths “death to America” ….like we preface everything with “I support the troops”.
Yet, we are squandering that chance…as we have so many times before.
Posted 03 Nov 2007 at 5:01 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
Nadia -
I would like to mention that I did not mean for my criticism to silence you or dissuade you from speaking in any way.
I have often used a similar discussion of tone with my Christian friends when discussing beliefs and politics so I apologize for not being cognizant that nitpicking about tone/delivery/spelling/grammar is normally a thinly veiled attack in the blogosphere.
I thought about your comment for the last few hours and I do agree. Perhaps there is more latent prejudice than I realize. So, it is highly possible that latent - and heretofore undiscovered by me - prejudice colored your words in ways that you did not intend.
And for that, I apologize.
Thanks again for the links - I am busying myself by working through your blog roll.
Posted 03 Nov 2007 at 6:19 pm ¶
quinacridones wrote:
No easily accessible place was in there for a reason. Of course I know there are areas on the Web for those who want to learn about Islam to go. But are they available as immediate alternatives? One of the things that we (as in activists/pocs in general) tend to forget is that the things we take for granted or in truth are actually NOT that easily accessible to others.
….
And, most tellingly, the ease of accessing knowledge directly relates to how much a person will ultimately seek for themselves.
Don’t we also have to question why certain narratives are far more easily accessible than others? I can find shelves upon shelves of standard Eurocentric perspectives on history, standard conservative and liberal talking points on politics, yet my county’s entire library system has not ONE copy of Andrea Smith (and we’re not a small county) or Cherrie Moraga. I was immensely grateful that we even had Bell Hooks, who had to spend years herself before she could get published.
There actually have been recent discussion on LJ that are related to this issue (started in fandom, but extends to bigger issues):
Africans in academia: Diversity in adversity
A common and hidden knowledge meme on LJ inspired by that article
And re: tone
http://delux-vivens.livejournal.com/569984.html (context of the discussion here)
Posted 03 Nov 2007 at 10:14 pm ¶
nadia wrote:
latoya,
apology accepted.
i’m wondering what happened to the comment i posted prior to yours? is it still in moderation? it will give more context to what you are saying here about latent prejudice.
Posted 04 Nov 2007 at 3:19 pm ¶
Michelle wrote:
This has been excellent! I have loved the discourse in this post.
For one, Kai’s post was very informative and well articulated. It was a nice reminder of history as we talk about issues that indeed go back many, many years. It is hard to untangle the thread when talking about the current war, or the current tensions with Iran, but your post provided a great context.
LaToya, I always look forward to your articles and this one certainly ranks as one of the best. It talks about the intersection of race and the war in Iraq with a clarity that I myself have yet to articulate in my mind, let alone as a conversation with other people.
I also appreciated your admissions…the admission that you didn’t always get what was going on and the issues contained in the war. I honestly thought it was just me. I thought that our objective was to find Osama Bin Laden. I thought that getting rid of Sadam would effectively end terrosim because he was providing crucial support and resource to major terriost groups. While I realize that nothing is ever as simple as it seems, I had been dismayed by our lack of direction. However, it seeems that most Republican and/or conservative pundits seem to have evidence/rhetoric that indicates that the war is going quite well and that we are wrong to think that the war is well, a big fat mess.
I also appreciate your admission that you are starting to believe the hype. You can only see so many images of people who hate you and your country without feeling a little frightened and concerned. I ask myself, “Well, gee, are my liberal/leftist views ignorant in the face of what is really going on in the world?” And it does worry me….because what does that say about the thought process of someone more moderate than I am?
And it was also nice to have a discussion of the larger context of blogging and how we phrase things, while keeping things concise. It is, at least for me, a very vigorous discipline that I get wrong far more than I get right.
You know what is ironic, while I try not to conflate Islam with the Middle East, and while I try to not see all of the Middle East as hate-filled Anti-American extremists, I do see Ann as the voice and face of most Americans. I believe that she says the things that most of America is thinking. At the risk of inflamming things, I think that the people in America who try to think things through, who try to frame the current war in the context of history and geo-politics, who at least consider diplomacy an option, are in the minority. And that is what scares me the most. I think that most Americans will want to do to war first, ask questions later. We did vote for George Bush. At least once.
Posted 04 Nov 2007 at 5:55 pm ¶
Luke Pharma wrote:
To Kai: As with anything and everything, it goes much further and deeper than your otherwise cogent post suggests.
As “funny” as the US portion of the WWII era hints at, there’s the UK and Russia (then USSR) to factor in. as well, with the latter enjoying the longest, bloodiest, most complex, least visible shifting piece of narrative– extending all the way back to the 1500s. Consider the repeated exploitation of the power vacuum by the Russian Empire not only in the capital, but also among Great Britain and the Dutch and other interests squabbling among themselves.
So it’s not always just about oil or religion, though both inevitably play a part, but about power as well.
So to focus solely on an “outside agitator model” and look through its attendant bias ignores the internal forces and dynamics that allowied such to occur. The reverse is true as well..
I push for as many LJ sources as possible by as many informed sources as possible– so long as they are credible among their peers, know that part of the world, and performed their homework well. Again, your gray matter first, your skin second. (-:
Posted 05 Nov 2007 at 12:44 am ¶
luckyfatima wrote:
Latoya this was an excellent piece. Bush’s threats on Iran are looming over all Muslims heads and that is what everyone is talking about these days. It seems like WW III is coming—everyone should be very afraid. And despite the gross failure in Iraq, the General US Public is swallowing the anti-Iran rhetoric hook, line and sinker as they say.
How sad. If Bush doesn’t get to it, someone will pull the same thing within 10 years or so because it is in the US’s interest to get Iran and control the oil. It is going to happen eventually.
That accompanying pic, BTW was cringe inducing for people in the UAE as well since Bush’s consort is just as popular as he is. However, she was doing some PR to raise awareness for Breast Cancer Awareness Week a few weeks back in Dubai and the women with Mrs. Bush in the photo are all cancer survivors.
Posted 05 Nov 2007 at 1:10 am ¶
nadia wrote:
“There is a population that mouths “death to America” ….like we preface everything with “I support the troops”.”
this is such a profound comparison.
Posted 05 Nov 2007 at 12:23 pm ¶
Kai wrote:
Luke Pharma, yup, agreed.
Posted 05 Nov 2007 at 2:25 pm ¶
squidfly wrote:
Michelle wrote:
I also appreciated your admissions…the admission that you didn’t always get what was going on and the issues contained in the war. I honestly thought it was just me. I thought that our objective was to find Osama Bin Laden. I thought that getting rid of Sadam would effectively end terrosim because he was providing crucial support and resource to major terriost groups. While I realize that nothing is ever as simple as it seems, I had been dismayed by our lack of direction.
Saddam was just the hype: It’s been well documented that he had no connection with known “Terrorist Groups”
Iraq was not a Human Rights action as the Neo Radicals would have you believe.
Posted 05 Nov 2007 at 3:27 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
Whooo!
Sorry y’all! I was on deadline for Cerise and working through a few things for Clutch half the weekend and I forbade myself from even peeking at anything else until that was done.
Moving on…
Luke Phrama - Thanks for pointing out that my prejudice was showing. I’ve had a couple bad experiences with white professors and POC issues (especially Africa) but you are correct in saying that the body of the scholar’s work should be the main indication of trust worthiness. (Also, nice spot on the link! I missed that!)
quinacridones -
Exactly. Again, the accessbility plays in to how much people will eventually know. I recently read an article discussing the death of investigative journalism, and part of me wonders if the complacency of the public leads to both of these information dearths.
For the record, I work in two library systems and I understand a little bit of how books are selected for purchase. (Obviously, this veries by entity). Librarians rely on (1) trade pubs, (2) best seller lists, (3) user recommendations and (4) independent marketing efforts to find books to stock. User recommendations tend to figure prominently, so part of the battle is informing the head of acqusitions that you want to read books that feature dissenting opinions.
(Also, thanks for the links. I heart fandom.)
Nadia -
Yeah, there was a large backlog of comments. I’m like a ghost admin here - I can see what you all write, but Carmen is the only one who can approve. I decided to let the comments catch up before posting anymore.
Michelle -
Thanks for getting why I posted the article in the first place. I love all the regular commenters, and you all teach me so much, but this one was kind of for the silent lurkers. Like I said, in RL I am shocked at how many people hold these opinions but just choose not to say anything. So hopefully, me working through my own issues helped someone reading to understand theirs.
In terms of blogging and discussion, we do have a lot to discuss. There are all these witchy little rules about what is acceptable and what is not. Some spaces are more closely moderated than others. For example, the gaming mag I write for is supposed to be a safe space. A commenter was admonished by the admin for basically implying that I had an issue with men. This commenter did not call me any names, nothing but show a little attitude - but the admin issued a warning. I also got a warning about using the word “psycho” in a post. Though I meant it sarcastically, the moderator was concerned that the mentally disabled would be offended.
Like I said, it’s tough.
However, I think that people should be more cognizant of rules and civility. Way too many people take solace in their rage on the blogs, and I am worried that progressive spheres like this one can quickly dissolve into the non discussions we have on gaming boards, where calling someone a dipshit is considered an acceptable way to refute an argument.
(yes, that just happened. not to me, luckily. but I am pissed for the blogger.)
I also think it is important to be willing to make mistakes and willing to work things out. If I hadn’t been willing to voice what I was thinking, I would not be aware of the prejudice Nadia informed me of. It’s so easy to think “I’m not like that. I’m progressive.” But are we really?
I also think that progressive spheres like this one do tend to have a low tolerance for personal growth, but this has got to be another post.
Luckyfatima - Thanks. When I first saw this image, it was on Jezebel, titled “Laura Bush is such a slut!” or something to that extent. Obviously, they were joking, but I feel like that photo - outside of the context - plays into a lot of fears. I had originally linked to it in the article - Carmen used it as the accompanying photo.
Posted 05 Nov 2007 at 4:25 pm ¶
imdeep wrote:
Squidfly: I share your frustration, but that’s not quite accurate and would take care in how to associate the “human rights intervention” piece of the argument/ Human Rights Watch– hardly a neocon group– probably outlines best how this piece of the puzzle got out of hand
http://hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm
It’s important to distinguish that Saddam’s record of atrocities were not found to be related to 9/11. This does not erase the fact that he had a record of atrocities well known to others before 9/11.
We know conclusively that Saddam did have the most tenuous of al-Qaeda connections, but never followed up or collaborated with them and was not involved in 9/11.More tellingly, there is ample evidence showing that he was involved in varying levels of material terrorist support extending back decades, including efforts to undermine the governments of Iran and Turkey, and attacks on US installations during the ‘91 Gulf War (started when he raided Kuwait).
His record should not be dismissed, but put back into its proper context, away from the spin, so that the public gets straight again on who he was and what he did. That should include our government’s support of him during the Iran-Iraq war against the Soviets as well.
To Kai and Luke Pharmai: I think that drumbeat others hear has more to do with a return of that particular rhythm than anything else. That Putin remains silent makes me suspicious, given the weirdness in N. Korea and Iran, the weapons movement for the Taliban and al-Qaeda especially among them. My money’s on an arms race between China and Russia, not based on philosophy but pure geography. Track money and weapons, look at where the US and Europe has been getting goosed diplomatically, and you’re going to see the dangdest realignment this side of WWII.
Latoya: It isn’t WWIII, it’s loud sabre rattling that comes when a world power realizes it ain’t the only game in town anymore, and other kids realize they’ve grown up and want in on the game too…
Posted 05 Nov 2007 at 5:25 pm ¶
ineffability wrote:
Hi Latoya,
I don’t mean to gang up against you when there are already two other people criticizing you, but when I read Nadia’s comment, I didn’t detect any ‘tone’ at all, even after reading your response and then rereading Nadia’s comment. Here’s a must-read about ‘tone’ on the Internet:
http://ciderpress.livejournal.com/182148.html
When I read Nadia’s post, I thought the point she was making was that when most non-Muslims in the English-speaking world try to talk to Muslims, they put the onus on the Muslim to first justify themselves as worthy of communicating with “us”, by first proving that they are not terrorists. However, the fundamental problem with this is that you can’t prove absence of guilt. You can have evidence that somebody is a terrorist, but there is no smoking gun that will prove that somebody is not a terrorist (what would it be? atheism? being gay?).
You MUST assume that a Muslim is innocent until proven guilty, not as a courtesy, but to be logical. No matter what kind of information you read about Islam, it can never disprove the assumption of guilt, because if you’ve already made that assumption, it’s already part of your initial premises from which you will draw your conclusions. This is why you shouldn’t look to Muslims and expect that it is their duty to prove to you that they are not guilty. It’s logically impossible. The problem is you and your assumption. (By ‘you’, in the previous sentence, I mean a general ‘you’ rather than a personal ‘you’.)
(I’m not Muslim, although I’m a PoC, so if I’m saying something inaccurate, please correct me.)
Posted 05 Nov 2007 at 10:22 pm ¶
squidfly wrote:
imdeep wrote:
Squidfly: I share your frustration, but that’s not quite accurate and would take care in how to associate the “human rights intervention” piece of the argument/ Human Rights Watch– hardly a neocon group– probably outlines best how this piece of the puzzle got out of hand
Are you referring to Saddam before or after Bush I and Rummy had installed him as their operative?
The spin I was refering to was the Hyping of WMD’s which were never found, and the ever changing reason for military action. Which turned into the MSM spinning the supposed Human Right’s operation and I was being facetious, when I wrote this. I am very aware of Saddams attrocities.
The spins or reasons were:
1. WMD
2. Topple Sadam, because he gassed the Kurds with American supplies.
As if the Cheney, Wolfowitz, Pearl, Kristol, Podhoretz crowd really cared if 100,ooo Kurds were gassed by Saddam: after all these are the people that turned their back on the Katrina victims, pay mercenaries billions and neglect the troops. Saddam was given a job by Rummesfeld and BushI, and that was to make sure the Kurds didn’t trouble the Turkish Government, as Turkey is the highway into the middle east.
3. Democracy for the Iraq’s.
4. “We need to fight em there so we don’t fight em here” The Geo Bush bumper sticker line.
Maybe the spin/lies have worked on you.
It’s about Oil and Israel, the two ton Gorilla in the American living room, and until we can have honest discussions on both then the American war machine will march onto Tehran.
The Iraq conflict which I think the majority of Middle Eastern people know is an American/ Western Crusade to conquer the region and establish a permanent base there, it’s pretty clear, otherwise why would the State Dept build a Colosal Embassy.
Cheney has vision of a Laurel Crown and a crimson toga.
I wonder what would have happened during the 50’s and 60’s if the Soviets, the Chinese and Cubans said, ” We will march into America to protect and bring Democracy to the Black American? And then they just took over.
That was after all J Edgar Hoover’s terror scenario; a Black insurgency in the form of Communism.
And to think Giuliani may be the next President; he has sworn to bomb Iran.
Giuliani and J Edgar Hoover, two Feds who loved a good pair of stilettoes.
And we call Ahmadinejad crazy.
The “Drumbeat” Is the drone of fear being placed into the cerebal cortex.
Posted 06 Nov 2007 at 2:09 am ¶
Wendi Muse wrote:
i recently severed ties with a friend who expressed ardent islamaphobic sentiment. it was a tought decision to make, but overall, i realized that sometimes you can’t reach people, especially if they have little contact with members of the group being criticized. despite my friend’s leftist leanings, he nevertheless was influenced by the media in his fear of and seeming hatred against muslims and ultimately people of arab descent, whom he more or less considered to all be potential actors in terrorist activity, dormant as they waited for a catalyst.
what is telling about his recent revelation is that anyone can be influenced by what they see on television, on the news, or read in a newspaper here or a blog there. it’s important for us to challenge ourselves to further examine the images with which we are bombared lest we succumb to groupthink and mindless hatred of a group we hardly know. despite some of the criticism you have received, latoya, i think that this is the first step in un-doing what we have learned. of course, there will be moments of doubt, factual insecurity, discomfort in making the effort to change one’s way of thought, and i think it’s unfair to fault those who are attempting to get through the mess to learn something. i applaud you for writing this candidly about your doubts and i am also always pleased to see those who come to this blog, who may know little about race/ethnicity and/or are not confronted with related issues on a daily basis, but who read and comment in order to learn.
it’s unfortunate that so few people take on that challenge.
Posted 06 Nov 2007 at 9:16 am ¶
imdeep wrote:
Reread my comment Squidfly perhaps the lack of irony proved distracting. General gist: “Bad man did bad things, but actions not justified for what followed by US, larger cycles at work where US won’t call shots, US panics to stay relevant”. I’m willing to state it as such if more helpful, of course.
I’d go further by saying the public needs to know more., adding the public needs more info to ask better questions– not spin from its leadership, nor browbeating from any interests or advocacy groups of any flavor to carry the public’s best interest. Doesn’t help…
But for you Squidfly, the link I offered from 2004 actually supports what you said at the beginning, makes clear the US relationship with Saddam (though intel shows for the record, it was a formal tie under Reagan not Bush, and he was a CIA asset before then, another story another time). It provided a human rights context detailing how the issue has been coopted and misused to the chagrin and frustration of the international human rights community.
This was aligned with Latoya’s desire to question and learn more– moreso, because it touched on some points of recent history raised by Kai and Luke Pharma,
So… I question your vitriol on this, and only offer that I cannot answer what you do not wish to hear, and it is not wise to cast aspersions without proof– especially when folks agree with you.
I always worry when the need to rant surpasses the desire to share, and by extension the opportunity to learn from others. For that I applaud the openness of this thread as well.
Posted 06 Nov 2007 at 11:38 am ¶
Marcus E wrote:
For further reading, I recommend Blue Eyed Devil by Michael Muhammad Knight. It’s about Muslims in America, and went a long way toward humanizing Islam for me. It explores a lot of the rifts and complexities in the faith that the Coulters of the world would never try to understand.
Posted 06 Nov 2007 at 2:23 pm ¶
Michelle wrote:
I don’t know if this makes sense to anyone, but I have been desperately trying to put myself in the shoes of the Ann Coulters and Elizabeth Hasselbacks of the world.
For a while, I hated…I mean viciously despised, ultra-Conservatives, Republicans. Especially women, who I see as having a lot to lose, primarily the children that they give birth to if their views do lead us to WWIII.
It occured to me, however, that hating those people and ideas would not help. I then began to seek to understand how what seemed so logical and sensible to me, was anathema to “them”. It occured to me that if I could fully understand how they could think what they think, then I could more effectively debate the issues. I could more effectively figure out a way to speak to those people, without anger and passion winning over logic and compassion.
I have family members, friends(a small few), neighbors, people I meet on the plane….in short, there are tons of people in my life that I interact with who hold these views. If I can someone grasp their ideas, then maybe I would have some leeway in talking with them on their terms, in an effort to help them understand mine. Of course, I think that I am inherently right….
Posted 06 Nov 2007 at 4:03 pm ¶
squidfly wrote:
imdeep wrote:
Reread my comment Squidfly perhaps the lack of irony proved distracting. General gist: “Bad man did bad things, but actions not justified for what followed by US, larger cycles at work where US won’t call shots, US panics to stay relevant”. I’m willing to state it as such if more helpful, of course.
You sound a little nasty/testy, however you feel but don’t condescend to me. One man’s rant is another man’s passion. I’m not here to agree with you, so please don’t take it personally.
When I box Rummy and BushI together, I’m talking of their long time connection which goes back further than Reagan.
Remember e-mail, posting, and all cyber communication lack nuance, that’s why we have emoticons, to indicate “Irony”
And for the record we don’t know that Saddam had tenuous al-Qaeda connections. For the record we do know that this was the propaganda emanating from Cheney’s office.
The American public are more concerned with paying the bills and keeping a roof over their heads than with asking questions. The fear of financial security has made everyone vulnerable to the Feudal Corporatists that have managed to strip civil rights, devalue the dollar, while succesfully blurring the lines between immigration, terrorism and the war on drugs, creating the ultimate American boogey man. The bigger question is who profits from searing these two issues together?
Because if all Americans start associating Brown face , no Green Card, to suicide bombing drug mule, then we’re in serious trouble.
On Law and Order a couple of nights ago, an FBI guy looking at a dead body said “See he looks like a Terrorist” Donoforio’s character responded, “C’mon he look’s like half the guys in our unit”.
Can Americans pull their heads out of balancing their cheque books long enough to see what’s happening around them?
Raving or ranting that’s how I express myself.
Posted 06 Nov 2007 at 4:38 pm ¶
Muslimah American wrote:
I once went into the grocery store and the clerk asked me “why do you dress like that”? I told her I am Muslim. So she said I believe that is fascism. I cover from head to in all black sometimes, and though I disagree with her I did not feel the need to bonk her on the head and make her practise my religion. Afterall this is not how I came into the religion.
I was not brainwashed, brought into it by my husband or otherwise forced into it, nor where the millions of other Muslims in America who converted to Islam.
Let me tell all of you who are not Muslim something about this LIE they are telling you about forced conversions to Islam. YOU CAN NOT FORCE SOME ONE TO BE MUSLIM. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. Being Muslim is about faith and actions. That means if I put a gun to your head and force you to pray like a Muslim you are still not Muslim, if you are praying to a man, a rock, or to your ancestor. THIS GOVERNMENT IS LYING TO YOU, ABOUT ISLAM ABOUT EVERYTHING, WHEN HAVE THEY TOLD THE TRUTH? But believe me there is nothing about Islam that I have to lie to you about. You either except it or reject it. It does not hurt me if you don’t become Muslim. There are many things in Islam that don’t mesh with American culture, I say tell the truth and let Americans decide for themselves, but don’t lie to scare and control people this is real brainwashing, they got you wrapped around their fingers.
Posted 10 Nov 2007 at 12:08 pm ¶