Political Islam explained
Almost every modern religion has faced a clash of ideologies of some sort. However, none is so far-reaching and momentous than the challenges facing the Islamic religion today. Ever since 9/11, Islam has become the epitome of extremism and radicalism in the religious divergence.
The effects of Islamic extremism in the world have been substantial and influential. Muslim radicals have managed to hijacked airplanes and used them as weapons of mass destruction, rallied entire villages and factions against US and foreign troops, kidnapped, attacked and invaded sovereign nationals and territories, and managed to influence political and religious discourse in the Middle East, temporarily unifying at least, other Muslims to rally behind their cause.
However, we keep asking ourselves, where are the moderate Muslims? Why have not they come forward by publicly condemning this wing of Islamic radicalism. Moderate countries lost a very good opportunity to come forward during the 34-day war between Israel and Hizbollah. The situation is very complex. Muslims are a very traditionalist culture. Many nations are plagued with sectarianism even under the skirts of ‘democracy’ and the religion itself has many branches of ideology from very moderate to very orthodox. Nevertheless, the Islamic religion is in a historical crossroad; change won’t come easily, but it is worth the try, and many are already doing so.
The real thing Muslims have to acknowledge is which faction of Islam will get them to form better, peaceful societies with strong foundation of governance and democracy and which allows them to be full participants in world affairs. Unfortunately, the message being carried by the radicals is: “you will never accomplish anything without violence”. Communication between different Islamic factions is at a low and it is up to moderate Muslims in the region to commit themselves to bringing peaceful discourse and negotiation. The clergy can also provide a dash of wisdom as they still are a strong, staunch voice in Islamic politics.
September 14, 2006
September 12, 2006
September 06, 2006
Bush confesses....
Bush has finally admitted to the existence of CIA secret prisons abroad, after 5 years of silence. According to him, these detention centers have deterred possible attacks on US soil. Please! The intelligence we have gathered from having these detention centers is so inconsequential that most of our efforts to extract better and more sophisticated intelligence are currently being diverted by overstepping our timeline in Iraq. After Bush leaves office, we will be left with no diplomatic influence in the world, a poor and battered military, no significant breakthroughs in intelligence gathering and so indebted that our intelligence infrastructure will resemble Russia’s in the 1990’s. We have wasted precious resources with the war in Iraq, our counterparts fighting the war on terror seem to be in the right track when it comes to intelligence gathering, like Britain. Wake up Bush, let’s stop fighting this useless war and concentrate all of our brains and pockets finding better intelligence solutions to fighting terrorism, because guess what? Acts of terror are here to stay.
August 23, 2006
Muslims as powerful regional players
There is a new war being fought in Lebanon after the UN-brokered cease-fire. It is not a military war, but a political one. Despite 34 days of fierce fighting between Hizbollah and the Israelis, Hizbollah has consolidated its grasp in Southern Lebanon as they have laid down their rockets and picked up the shovels in an effort to rebuild war-torn Lebanon.
And what is even more surprising is that despite the aid been poured by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other nations, the Lebanese government is having difficulty reaching those in need amidst the country's reconstruction mode. Iran has already contributed $150 million in cash and is still sending more. Hizbollah is endearing themselves among their supporters by sending out engineers and contractors to survey and repair damages done to entires villages in the south.
This consolidation in power makes it more difficult for the world to dissarm Hizbollah. Their influence has grown exponentially, not just because they withstood the powerful Israeli army but also because they were the first in the line of responders for reconstruction efforts.
This entails many new tangibles for the West. Washington's influence and diplomacy in the region is at a new low. The US has only committed $50 million in aid. Iran has already disumbursed three times that amount to Hizbollah and so far Saudi Arabia has injected $500 million into the Lebanese economy. However this is not enough, the government needs approximately $3 billion to reach pre-war levels. The real and often obscure predicament is that the rules of the game have changed and many are not willing to see this. By supporting Hizbollah, Iran is telling the world that not only are they a powerful player in the region, but there needs to be a shift in the way negotiations occur in the Middle East. It is not only up to the West to make decisions that affect mostly the inhabitants of the region. The message is clear yet it's difficult to digest.
We have come to see that Israel's military might is not as reliable as it once was. Something the US can relate to in Iraq. Hizbollah has succedeed in punching a hole in the invincibility of the Israeli military apparatus. With this said, a new reality is emerging in that the countries of the West need to shift their political policies to encompass a more balanced round of discussions, by respecting their counterparts' ideologies without stumping on their political rights. The truth is that Arabs should no longer be considered "donkey riders", as an Israeli reservist said. Israel and the West must recognize Arabs as equals and seek political solutions rather than military ones. All western countries went down that path before being emacipated and reaching high class status; at some point they too were donkey riders with a cause.
It is time we play it fair.
And what is even more surprising is that despite the aid been poured by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other nations, the Lebanese government is having difficulty reaching those in need amidst the country's reconstruction mode. Iran has already contributed $150 million in cash and is still sending more. Hizbollah is endearing themselves among their supporters by sending out engineers and contractors to survey and repair damages done to entires villages in the south.
This consolidation in power makes it more difficult for the world to dissarm Hizbollah. Their influence has grown exponentially, not just because they withstood the powerful Israeli army but also because they were the first in the line of responders for reconstruction efforts.
This entails many new tangibles for the West. Washington's influence and diplomacy in the region is at a new low. The US has only committed $50 million in aid. Iran has already disumbursed three times that amount to Hizbollah and so far Saudi Arabia has injected $500 million into the Lebanese economy. However this is not enough, the government needs approximately $3 billion to reach pre-war levels. The real and often obscure predicament is that the rules of the game have changed and many are not willing to see this. By supporting Hizbollah, Iran is telling the world that not only are they a powerful player in the region, but there needs to be a shift in the way negotiations occur in the Middle East. It is not only up to the West to make decisions that affect mostly the inhabitants of the region. The message is clear yet it's difficult to digest.
We have come to see that Israel's military might is not as reliable as it once was. Something the US can relate to in Iraq. Hizbollah has succedeed in punching a hole in the invincibility of the Israeli military apparatus. With this said, a new reality is emerging in that the countries of the West need to shift their political policies to encompass a more balanced round of discussions, by respecting their counterparts' ideologies without stumping on their political rights. The truth is that Arabs should no longer be considered "donkey riders", as an Israeli reservist said. Israel and the West must recognize Arabs as equals and seek political solutions rather than military ones. All western countries went down that path before being emacipated and reaching high class status; at some point they too were donkey riders with a cause.
It is time we play it fair.
August 15, 2006
Bush is a fool
HIZBALLAH STARTED THE CRISIS, AND HIZBALLAH SUFFERED A DEFEATGeorge Bush, August 15, 2006.
After 34 days of fighting, 1,000 killed, 1.5 million displaced, Israel and Hizballah have reached a UN-brokered cease-fire. However, some leaders are just plain stupid, boasting to the world that Israel has won and Hizballah has lost. Can someone tell the president of the United States (who else) that things are way more complicated than that.
Time to face the facts: Israel's move to airstrike Lebanon after Hizballah entered Israeli territory, killing six soldiers and kidnapping two, was a considerable just reaction from a Prime Minister that had been seen as too weak and compromising by the majority of Jews. Acting with sufficient military arsenal(plenty of arms and troops)and unable to cripple Hizballah military capabilities, Israel has maybe temporarily succeeded in halting direct confrontation with the radical Arabs, but many Jews are of the mindset that this conflict has produced a bigger ridge between the two cultures and exposed Israel's unique vulnerability to the radicals of the region that are gaining strength and have now a new poster child: Hizballah.
Who says that anyone has won this conflict? The truth is more complicated than that. If your enemy can fire more rockets the last day of the conflict than any other day, then your degradation campaign did not work. Israel trusted blinded in its military capability (just like the US did in Iraq) and forgot that they are dealing with a camaleonic enemy, capable of patient retaliation and an unwavering strength that seems to grow day by day.
Some scholars and even political bloggers would argue that Hizballah displayed more tactical discipline in the battlefield than Israel did, killing more soldiers than Israel and effectively announcing ahead of time possible targets so that civilian deaths were minimal. Even after the cease-fire came into effect at 1:00 a.m. Eastern time on Sunday, Israel continued bombing Beirut.
And now, the president of the US is complacently undermining the little remnants of diplomatic influence this nation has. By coming out and saying so openly to the world, like a pestering child that Hizballah has lost and Israel won, he is single-handledly enabling the people of Lebanon (shiites, sunnis, christians) to unite against the evil-doer Israel who inflicted destruction and dispair to the majority of Lebanese civilians. This is the kind of memory that fuels the insurgent mind, and when the young generation of this conflict arrives at adulthood, some will come to realize that Israel is the enemy because they had lived through it and remembered what it was like. The West should open their eyes: what the radicals are doing is creating memories that will serve as the guiding principles of these young and maleable minds. As an enabler of a foolish Israeli policy, Bush has helped unite the Arab world against Israel and around Hizballah. Hopefully he does not have the same "success" in Iraq.
June 28, 2006
Congress goes on a long field trip
Editorialized USA Today article
When most American schools are returning from a 3-month recess, Congress is skipping town for the entire month of August. Even Pres. Bush, notorious for taking long vacations, is only resting for 10 days. Why does Congress need a whole month in a year of unresolved issues facing this nation?
According to the USA Today "the House of Representatives is on track to be in session this year for the fewest days since 1948". Alarming? It seems that loss of productivity is not just an economic issue.
Republican majority leaders have wasted away scarce time on frivolous issues like repealing the estate tax (beneficial for the rich), constitutional amendments on gay marriage and flag burning? Have we created a monster in that Congress cannot find a way to endorse the issues that affect MOST Americans? We should have all grown accustomed to this dubious Republican political strategem, in fact in a year of fierce Congressional elections, we have all earned master's degrees when it comes to recognizing this heavy, polluted political machinery boasted by Republicans.
Seriously, voters that are comforted by the idea of giving medals to their incumbents this year, should consider the following unresolved and pressing issues:
Immigration: Even when a bipartisan majority supports border security and humane treatment for the 12 million immigrants illegally in this country, House Republicans are fixed in blocking any compromise with the Senate. Shame on you!
Iraq: For the 130,000 + US troops currently in Iraq, shifting military policy operations can be dangerous, as the new priority for US ground troops will be avoiding an all-out civil war by securing Badgad instead of focusing completely on insurgent violance. Nonetheless, this policy shift, though immiment and necessary, has not been updated and authorized by our "busy" Congress.
Terror detainees: Even tough Bush's plans to create tribunals for detainees were slapped down by the highest court on the land; Congress, responsible for setting up a lawful process for trying these detainees, has not even visited the issue, upsetting the already delicate situation for more than 400 detainees held without trials in Guantanamo and contributing to the deplorable condition of our human rights record.
Minimum wage: It's been long overdue and yet Republicans have been holding down the debate of increasing the already depreciated minimum wage, even when accounting for inflation it's equivalent to the minimum wage after the World War II. Not surprisingly they are 'reconsidering' their positions only if Democrats agreed to pass legislation that would eliminate the estate tax. Like the USA Today stated: "When Congress returns, it should give America's poorest workers a raise and forget about giving its wealthiest heirs a fat tax break". Dream on.
Budget 2007: One thing Congress must do each year is pass the annual spending bills that fund everything from the space program to Medicaid, yet the Senate has only produced one of the 11 appropriation bills due at the end of September. Our fiscal year starts October 1. Can Congress pull this one off when we already have a $300 + billion dollars deficit? If not, it will be the first time Congress fails to measure up.
When most American schools are returning from a 3-month recess, Congress is skipping town for the entire month of August. Even Pres. Bush, notorious for taking long vacations, is only resting for 10 days. Why does Congress need a whole month in a year of unresolved issues facing this nation?
According to the USA Today "the House of Representatives is on track to be in session this year for the fewest days since 1948". Alarming? It seems that loss of productivity is not just an economic issue.
Republican majority leaders have wasted away scarce time on frivolous issues like repealing the estate tax (beneficial for the rich), constitutional amendments on gay marriage and flag burning? Have we created a monster in that Congress cannot find a way to endorse the issues that affect MOST Americans? We should have all grown accustomed to this dubious Republican political strategem, in fact in a year of fierce Congressional elections, we have all earned master's degrees when it comes to recognizing this heavy, polluted political machinery boasted by Republicans.
Seriously, voters that are comforted by the idea of giving medals to their incumbents this year, should consider the following unresolved and pressing issues:
Immigration: Even when a bipartisan majority supports border security and humane treatment for the 12 million immigrants illegally in this country, House Republicans are fixed in blocking any compromise with the Senate. Shame on you!
Iraq: For the 130,000 + US troops currently in Iraq, shifting military policy operations can be dangerous, as the new priority for US ground troops will be avoiding an all-out civil war by securing Badgad instead of focusing completely on insurgent violance. Nonetheless, this policy shift, though immiment and necessary, has not been updated and authorized by our "busy" Congress.
Terror detainees: Even tough Bush's plans to create tribunals for detainees were slapped down by the highest court on the land; Congress, responsible for setting up a lawful process for trying these detainees, has not even visited the issue, upsetting the already delicate situation for more than 400 detainees held without trials in Guantanamo and contributing to the deplorable condition of our human rights record.
Minimum wage: It's been long overdue and yet Republicans have been holding down the debate of increasing the already depreciated minimum wage, even when accounting for inflation it's equivalent to the minimum wage after the World War II. Not surprisingly they are 'reconsidering' their positions only if Democrats agreed to pass legislation that would eliminate the estate tax. Like the USA Today stated: "When Congress returns, it should give America's poorest workers a raise and forget about giving its wealthiest heirs a fat tax break". Dream on.
Budget 2007: One thing Congress must do each year is pass the annual spending bills that fund everything from the space program to Medicaid, yet the Senate has only produced one of the 11 appropriation bills due at the end of September. Our fiscal year starts October 1. Can Congress pull this one off when we already have a $300 + billion dollars deficit? If not, it will be the first time Congress fails to measure up.
June 24, 2006
The Addiction to Oil: Hidden Consequences
After watching the movie Syriana for the second time (it takes two times to actually understand the plot) I was compelled to analyze how oil consumption and addiction has made nations weaker and vulnerable in many ways when it comes to stability and collective security.
The US consumes 25% of the world's oil production and many of the world's security conflicts stem from our self-confessed addiction to petroleum products. Let me break it down for you:
Just recently Cheney's critical speech of Russia's autocratic government was met with silent dismay (calls have been raised to suspend Russia's membership into the G8 because of its democratic crackdowns). Behind the lack of response? Oil and natural gas, and of course Russia has plenty to feed US demand and the world's.
The US, Europe and Asia need oil and natural gas and are willing to abandon western principles and independence to get them. This is called addiction. One possibility to the lack of consensus the US has tried to gather from the European Union and the UN Security Council to stop Iran from enriching uranium (accused of developing nuclear weapons) may have a deeper explanation: as the world's oil reserves diminish and ways to explore and extract it become more expensive, securing Middle Eastern oil and Russia's own production is at the heart of the debate. I still fathom the possibility that the Iraq war has been the linkage to securing a buffer zone to deal with extremist regimes in the Middle East that are sitting on the oil wells we westerners have an addiction to.
Another good example of how our addiction is in direct conflict with our democratic principles is our ambiguous relationship with Saudi Arabia, which supplied 15 of 19 Sept. 11 terrorists. Most of our oil comes from this country, yet as we continue to crackdown on terrorist and extremist Muslim nations worldwide that can produce attacks on US soil or allies, we seem to ignore the fact that this nation still teaches militant Islam in school textbooks, and has not produced democratic elections in decades.
We all know that the cost of oil will keep rising thanks to climate change, widespread authoritarianism (Venezuela and Iran) and nuclear proliferation. Developing countries will be hit the hardest as their bargaining power is almost non-effective and citizens end with most of the hidden costs.
We need not only to recognize that we have an addiction, but to seek practical alternatives to oil. There is much to learn from Brazil, which developed a cost-effective, alternative to oil. Three decades ago, Brazil made a shift in consumption and invested in sugar cane ethanol production. Today, Brazil has succeeded where other industrialized nations have failed: it has become energy independent. During his most memorable moment in this year’s State of the Union address, Pres. Bush finally recognized this country’s addiction to oil; now let’s act together to find the cure.
During his most memorable moment in this year’s State of the Union address, Pres. Bush finally recognized this country’s addiction to oil; now let’s act together to find the cure. Developing alternative energy sources is not economic suicide like many have advocated, instead it is a national security issue just as it’s a vital economic one. It would be advantageous for the US to assume a leading role in a cleaner and more sustainable world.
The US consumes 25% of the world's oil production and many of the world's security conflicts stem from our self-confessed addiction to petroleum products. Let me break it down for you:
Just recently Cheney's critical speech of Russia's autocratic government was met with silent dismay (calls have been raised to suspend Russia's membership into the G8 because of its democratic crackdowns). Behind the lack of response? Oil and natural gas, and of course Russia has plenty to feed US demand and the world's.
The US, Europe and Asia need oil and natural gas and are willing to abandon western principles and independence to get them. This is called addiction. One possibility to the lack of consensus the US has tried to gather from the European Union and the UN Security Council to stop Iran from enriching uranium (accused of developing nuclear weapons) may have a deeper explanation: as the world's oil reserves diminish and ways to explore and extract it become more expensive, securing Middle Eastern oil and Russia's own production is at the heart of the debate. I still fathom the possibility that the Iraq war has been the linkage to securing a buffer zone to deal with extremist regimes in the Middle East that are sitting on the oil wells we westerners have an addiction to.
Another good example of how our addiction is in direct conflict with our democratic principles is our ambiguous relationship with Saudi Arabia, which supplied 15 of 19 Sept. 11 terrorists. Most of our oil comes from this country, yet as we continue to crackdown on terrorist and extremist Muslim nations worldwide that can produce attacks on US soil or allies, we seem to ignore the fact that this nation still teaches militant Islam in school textbooks, and has not produced democratic elections in decades.
We all know that the cost of oil will keep rising thanks to climate change, widespread authoritarianism (Venezuela and Iran) and nuclear proliferation. Developing countries will be hit the hardest as their bargaining power is almost non-effective and citizens end with most of the hidden costs.
We need not only to recognize that we have an addiction, but to seek practical alternatives to oil. There is much to learn from Brazil, which developed a cost-effective, alternative to oil. Three decades ago, Brazil made a shift in consumption and invested in sugar cane ethanol production. Today, Brazil has succeeded where other industrialized nations have failed: it has become energy independent. During his most memorable moment in this year’s State of the Union address, Pres. Bush finally recognized this country’s addiction to oil; now let’s act together to find the cure.
During his most memorable moment in this year’s State of the Union address, Pres. Bush finally recognized this country’s addiction to oil; now let’s act together to find the cure. Developing alternative energy sources is not economic suicide like many have advocated, instead it is a national security issue just as it’s a vital economic one. It would be advantageous for the US to assume a leading role in a cleaner and more sustainable world.
June 20, 2006
Iraq War: donkey vs. elephant
There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January.
In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq.
When some claim that President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state the following:
a. FDR led us into World War II.
Because we were attacked by Japan and we launched an attack on them (well deserved, because they were killing massive Chinese and other Asian too), before FDR, republican presidents had led this country into an isolationist retrieve and so we emerged , thanks to WWII and FDR, as the respected leader in the WORLD that we are today. That was a conscientious decision from a very good foreign policy maker president. (the only one so far)
b. Germany never attacked us; Japan did.
>From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ...
an average of 112,500 per year.
First imagine the world today with a Germanized Europe, then let's talk
c. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea.
North Korea never attacked us..
>From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost ...
an average of 18,334 per year.
Yes Truman did start a war (that had an end) as ANY other president would have (especially a Republican one);at the time, we were making foreign policy decisions that were compatible with the democratic ideals of this country, the war was a tool to stop the spread of communism, something the RIGHT has always been scared of.
d John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us.
You are wrong, the decision to liberate South Vietman was already in the table thanks to Eisenhower (the Republican President), Kennedy had no choice especially when it was being pressured by the right to stop COMMUNISM (you know the thing that the RIGHT is most afraid of).
e. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
>From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ..
an average of 5,800 per year.
Vietnam was a mess since the start, whether a republican or democrat as president. It was an open-ended military and ideological war, just like Iraq is today.
f. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.
Bosnia never attacked us.
He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three
times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on
multiple occasions.
Have you looked at Bosnia today? or Serbia and Croatia? I believe they are democratic or at least close to that. Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia today are European Union candidates. Besides we went in not to "force the establishment of a democracy" but to STOP the beginning of genocide (ethnic cleansing), like the one going one in Darfur today. Democracy came as a by product of having NATO and the UN presence. The problem with the Iraq war is that it never should have been fought as part of the global fight against terror. There were very little terrorists in Iraq; today is a lair of terrorists thanks to the US invansion.
g. In the years since terrorists attacked us , President Bush
has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled
al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and, North
Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who
slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
The most problable and intelligent reason to assume there has not been another terrorist attack is not because we are safer today, is probably due to the fact that the enemy is in recharge (has no funds at this time), that means that they can take as long as they need to inflict pain again, that is what they do best, it has nothing to do with our intelligence and leadership abilities and everybody knows that. In regards to those other "accomplishments" that Bush has realized they are very ill founded. Liberating a country does not mean winning the war on terror, his actions have ignited the war on terror to the point that terrorism will now be part of the US foregin policy agenda for many years to come.
The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking.
Democrats and republicans alike are complaining about the bad administration and the mishandling of the war, not how many years is taking. It will take as much as it is needed, because we cannot afford to lose it, yet we desperately need new policies.
But it took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound.
A very bad choice of analogy that deserves no comment.
That was a 51-day operation..
We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.
Another bad one too. It has nothing to do with national security. Republicans made this war a national security issue and look where we are today.
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.
Seriously these are not in any way comparable choices. But I will comment that the brilliance of Rumsfeld was to disband the Republican Guard and leave them their arms and now we are fighting them as insurgents. That was a TERRIBLE mistake, that one is costing lives.
It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!
So you mean we have Iraq in our hands now?
Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB!
The Military morale is high!
Sure he is doing the best he can do. I mean we are talking about a guy that quits everything when it goes bad (his oil company, his baseball team, his national guard service). But some will say he is sticking to his guns, not changing course is what is hurting our military and our pockets.
The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts
We have already realized what this administration is made of. thank you.
But Wait . Bring it on
There's more!
--
In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq.
When some claim that President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state the following:
a. FDR led us into World War II.
Because we were attacked by Japan and we launched an attack on them (well deserved, because they were killing massive Chinese and other Asian too), before FDR, republican presidents had led this country into an isolationist retrieve and so we emerged , thanks to WWII and FDR, as the respected leader in the WORLD that we are today. That was a conscientious decision from a very good foreign policy maker president. (the only one so far)
b. Germany never attacked us; Japan did.
>From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ...
an average of 112,500 per year.
First imagine the world today with a Germanized Europe, then let's talk
c. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea.
North Korea never attacked us..
>From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost ...
an average of 18,334 per year.
Yes Truman did start a war (that had an end) as ANY other president would have (especially a Republican one);at the time, we were making foreign policy decisions that were compatible with the democratic ideals of this country, the war was a tool to stop the spread of communism, something the RIGHT has always been scared of.
d John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us.
You are wrong, the decision to liberate South Vietman was already in the table thanks to Eisenhower (the Republican President), Kennedy had no choice especially when it was being pressured by the right to stop COMMUNISM (you know the thing that the RIGHT is most afraid of).
e. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
>From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ..
an average of 5,800 per year.
Vietnam was a mess since the start, whether a republican or democrat as president. It was an open-ended military and ideological war, just like Iraq is today.
f. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.
Bosnia never attacked us.
He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three
times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on
multiple occasions.
Have you looked at Bosnia today? or Serbia and Croatia? I believe they are democratic or at least close to that. Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia today are European Union candidates. Besides we went in not to "force the establishment of a democracy" but to STOP the beginning of genocide (ethnic cleansing), like the one going one in Darfur today. Democracy came as a by product of having NATO and the UN presence. The problem with the Iraq war is that it never should have been fought as part of the global fight against terror. There were very little terrorists in Iraq; today is a lair of terrorists thanks to the US invansion.
g. In the years since terrorists attacked us , President Bush
has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled
al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and, North
Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who
slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
The most problable and intelligent reason to assume there has not been another terrorist attack is not because we are safer today, is probably due to the fact that the enemy is in recharge (has no funds at this time), that means that they can take as long as they need to inflict pain again, that is what they do best, it has nothing to do with our intelligence and leadership abilities and everybody knows that. In regards to those other "accomplishments" that Bush has realized they are very ill founded. Liberating a country does not mean winning the war on terror, his actions have ignited the war on terror to the point that terrorism will now be part of the US foregin policy agenda for many years to come.
The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking.
Democrats and republicans alike are complaining about the bad administration and the mishandling of the war, not how many years is taking. It will take as much as it is needed, because we cannot afford to lose it, yet we desperately need new policies.
But it took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound.
A very bad choice of analogy that deserves no comment.
That was a 51-day operation..
We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.
Another bad one too. It has nothing to do with national security. Republicans made this war a national security issue and look where we are today.
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.
Seriously these are not in any way comparable choices. But I will comment that the brilliance of Rumsfeld was to disband the Republican Guard and leave them their arms and now we are fighting them as insurgents. That was a TERRIBLE mistake, that one is costing lives.
It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!
So you mean we have Iraq in our hands now?
Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB!
The Military morale is high!
Sure he is doing the best he can do. I mean we are talking about a guy that quits everything when it goes bad (his oil company, his baseball team, his national guard service). But some will say he is sticking to his guns, not changing course is what is hurting our military and our pockets.
The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts
We have already realized what this administration is made of. thank you.
But Wait . Bring it on
There's more!
--
On torture
Last week we learned in dismay that two American soldiers had been kidnapped by the insurgency at a security checkpoint in Iraq. It is the first time the insurgency has succeeded in kidnapping American troops. It is a scary situation. Why? As this war drags on, so does our military and ideological confidence (this is as much a military as an ideological war). Since this administration has been accused of torture, and as we continue to knock on doors of countries were it is legal and acceptable (outsourcing torture), we have exacerbated this issue to the point of no return.
Before we were accused of torturing enemy combatants, we could protest the abuse of our soldiers and contractors in captivity and be supported by our allies. Unfortunately, this is not the case today. Thanks to the Bush-Cheney torture policy, our two soldiers have no considerable protection and we have no justification to evoke the Geneva Convention, after it has been chewed up by this administration. This is why torture is always wrong, no matter the circumstances. Generations of American troops have cemented the idea that torture was unthinkable. No longer. This is just one of the many things gone wrong on this war.
Before we were accused of torturing enemy combatants, we could protest the abuse of our soldiers and contractors in captivity and be supported by our allies. Unfortunately, this is not the case today. Thanks to the Bush-Cheney torture policy, our two soldiers have no considerable protection and we have no justification to evoke the Geneva Convention, after it has been chewed up by this administration. This is why torture is always wrong, no matter the circumstances. Generations of American troops have cemented the idea that torture was unthinkable. No longer. This is just one of the many things gone wrong on this war.
June 18, 2006
Voters beware: House Republicans on the hunt again
Republicans in the House have officially unleashed their divisive political stunts at the near-sight of Congressional elections. Last Friday, the House voted 256-153 to reject a timetable for the pullout of US troops in Iraq (as if there are no other pressing issues facing our nation like immigration reform, education, state of emergency medical facilities, and high gasoline prices to name a few), fiercely igniting an ongoing debate about the mismanagement of the war in Iraq and the open-ended commitment and resources this Administration is blindly banking on. According to the Associated Press, "the Republican-led House has approved a non-binding resolution that praises US troops, labels the Iraq war part of the larger global fight against terrorism and says an "arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment" of troops is not in the national interest".
The surreptitious move in this strategic political stunt is to rally republican support for the President's failed Iraq policy and to mold it into a cheap political slogan for the coming elections, using it to engage votes in a platform that suggests that if you are not for the support of the troops and the fight against terrorism then you must be unpatriotic and a traitor. Voters beware: Republicans want to make you believe that opposing the war is not on our national interest, but what we are REALLY saying is this: let's have a comprehensive review of policies and consider redeployment. A change in direction is in the best interest of the US and Iraq. Like the USA Today stated on Friday's Our View: the (House) debate is a cynical display of election-year politics that turns troops into political pawns.
I couldn't agree more.
The surreptitious move in this strategic political stunt is to rally republican support for the President's failed Iraq policy and to mold it into a cheap political slogan for the coming elections, using it to engage votes in a platform that suggests that if you are not for the support of the troops and the fight against terrorism then you must be unpatriotic and a traitor. Voters beware: Republicans want to make you believe that opposing the war is not on our national interest, but what we are REALLY saying is this: let's have a comprehensive review of policies and consider redeployment. A change in direction is in the best interest of the US and Iraq. Like the USA Today stated on Friday's Our View: the (House) debate is a cynical display of election-year politics that turns troops into political pawns.
I couldn't agree more.
June 16, 2006
The unrecognizable face of the office of the US Presidency
A lot has changed since January 2001 when the US presidency was assumed by George W. Bush. It is truly a privilege to witness the transfer of government in this solemn nation that prides itself in the democratic republic it was founded upon. Only a few nations in the world can experience this truly remarkable sight: the transfer of power in a transparent, democratic way. Hurray!
However, not everything is like it seems and this great nation of ours has seen an unprecedented use of executive powers that go well beyond the established Constitutional ones.
Since taken power in January 2001, President Bush has expanded presidential authority over this land without been challenged or denied. It has taken 5 ½ years for the other equal branches of government: Congress and the Courts to begin to push back against this great trespassing of government authority. In fact, Bush’s executive branch has seen the greatest expansion of presidential powers in a generation or more. (So much for limited government, you know that well-known Republican slogan).
Anyway going back to the issue, the most striking scenario has just been framed in regards to these powers. Congress has made an outcry of the FBI’s recent raid of the office of a congressman because it was not properly briefed about it. The Senate Intelligence Committee is demanding fuller briefings and copies of warrants submitted prior to the any search. Hah! I see, when it comes to members of Congress, then the Executive and the Courts are trespassing, but the American people have been complaining for over 5 years now. This is starting to look interesting, because it can actually give the Democrats a chance to win back the House or Senate this coming election.
Among the extended presidential powers the Bush White House has acquired are the following:
• Keep deliberations private/refusal to testify: White House Aides have refused to testify about the federal response to 9/11 and Katrina, arguing that it might discourage staffers from providing “untarnished advice” in the future.
• Restrict access to presidential papers: Bush signed an executive order in 2001 permitting former and current presidents and vice-presidents to restrict the release of their papers, which become public after 12 years of the end of an administration. (Is there anything else he is hiding from us?)
• Set aside laws and treaties: Ok this one is really annoying: Someone wrote a memo asserting that the president of the US (Bush) could violate federal laws and international treaties when he viewed it as necessary for the nation’s security. That someone was Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez.
• Interpret and curtail new laws: I was not aware he could actually interpret anything. Bush has issued more than 750 “signing statements” –more than all previous presidents combined - designed to state his own interpretation of the law and in some cases to claim a presidential prerogative not to enforce provisions that he says encroach on executive authority. For example the Torture Bill sponsored by Sen. McCain, which says that no torture will be performed by US military personnel, but Bush inserted a signing statement saying he holds the final say on the torture issue.
• Permit warrantless surveillance on domestic calls: Bush authorized the NSA to wiretap domestic phone calls of terror suspects without a court warrant if one of the participants is from abroad.
• Limit judicial oversight: This one really worries me and it should you too. The president claims the authority to designate US citizens “enemy combatants” who can be held indefinitely without charges. He has also asserted the right to hold terrorist suspects overseas and try them before special military commissions.
However, not everything is like it seems and this great nation of ours has seen an unprecedented use of executive powers that go well beyond the established Constitutional ones.
Since taken power in January 2001, President Bush has expanded presidential authority over this land without been challenged or denied. It has taken 5 ½ years for the other equal branches of government: Congress and the Courts to begin to push back against this great trespassing of government authority. In fact, Bush’s executive branch has seen the greatest expansion of presidential powers in a generation or more. (So much for limited government, you know that well-known Republican slogan).
Anyway going back to the issue, the most striking scenario has just been framed in regards to these powers. Congress has made an outcry of the FBI’s recent raid of the office of a congressman because it was not properly briefed about it. The Senate Intelligence Committee is demanding fuller briefings and copies of warrants submitted prior to the any search. Hah! I see, when it comes to members of Congress, then the Executive and the Courts are trespassing, but the American people have been complaining for over 5 years now. This is starting to look interesting, because it can actually give the Democrats a chance to win back the House or Senate this coming election.
Among the extended presidential powers the Bush White House has acquired are the following:
• Keep deliberations private/refusal to testify: White House Aides have refused to testify about the federal response to 9/11 and Katrina, arguing that it might discourage staffers from providing “untarnished advice” in the future.
• Restrict access to presidential papers: Bush signed an executive order in 2001 permitting former and current presidents and vice-presidents to restrict the release of their papers, which become public after 12 years of the end of an administration. (Is there anything else he is hiding from us?)
• Set aside laws and treaties: Ok this one is really annoying: Someone wrote a memo asserting that the president of the US (Bush) could violate federal laws and international treaties when he viewed it as necessary for the nation’s security. That someone was Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez.
• Interpret and curtail new laws: I was not aware he could actually interpret anything. Bush has issued more than 750 “signing statements” –more than all previous presidents combined - designed to state his own interpretation of the law and in some cases to claim a presidential prerogative not to enforce provisions that he says encroach on executive authority. For example the Torture Bill sponsored by Sen. McCain, which says that no torture will be performed by US military personnel, but Bush inserted a signing statement saying he holds the final say on the torture issue.
• Permit warrantless surveillance on domestic calls: Bush authorized the NSA to wiretap domestic phone calls of terror suspects without a court warrant if one of the participants is from abroad.
• Limit judicial oversight: This one really worries me and it should you too. The president claims the authority to designate US citizens “enemy combatants” who can be held indefinitely without charges. He has also asserted the right to hold terrorist suspects overseas and try them before special military commissions.
May 22, 2006
The Da Vinci Code
Any story that attacks traditional Christianity is bound to cause hysteria. It is targetable theme. Basically like any other traditional religion, it does not take well open discussion. Many Christians including myself have managed to harmonize the fiction and the facts very well. People should take this film as it is:a story based on real institutions and legendary events some based on evidence and others simply raised. Why is it hard to allow for the possibility of different accounts regarding the life of Jesus and Christianity as a whole? Is Jesus' humanity not as important as his divinity?
I think many people, not just religious critics, missed one important point about this book. Dan Brown's re-emergence of the femininity theme and the ritual of the feminine goddesses during Paganism. The fact that our society consisted once of a balanced hierarchal structure. Unfortunately the most debated issue was the human condition of Jesus and the insinuation that he was married to Mary Magdalene and left a child. The sad thing is that the most fascinating piece of discussion was lost to the trivial debate of religious righteousness and heretic indictment. As inhabitants of this planet and its many cultures, the majority of us are not ready to experience the entire reality of our majestic existence and that is something worth pondering.
May 19, 2006
The Elephant may be snoozing but it is also alert
Why am I not surprised, with Congressional elections looming, to see republicans starting to sift through their agenda by playing the background music to their conservative base with issues such as gay-marriage and abortion right bans, security over privacy, tax exemptions, and so on. Just recently a Senate panel advanced a constitutional ban on same sex marriage and Congress managed to extent another tax exemption for the wealthy. Haven't we figured out their formula yet? This is a repetitive pattern that seems to go well with the Elephant in the room: legislative proposals that come to pass whenever the base is stimulated in the right places. Republicans have shown to be great strategists, there is no denying that, but are they great administrators? There is a reason why campaign strategists and analysts are dismantled once the elections are over, at the least in a transparent democracy they should be, there is little place for them in governance, otherwise the entire tenure will resemble an Elephant snoozing in the room while the rest are too fearful to move.
May 18, 2006
Airport security has a new name
Finally after four and half years of its creation the TSA has finally come up with a comprehensive program for detecting terrorist activities at airports. The program is called SPOT - Screening Passengers by Observation Techniques -a race-neutral profiling program designed to deter terrorist activities. The program will be tested out at JFK, LAX and O'Hare after sucessfully been tested at Logan Airport for the last three years. It has led to the arrest of 50 or so people guilty of having fake ID's, illegal documents and drug possession.
SPOT employees will be trained to observe human behavior for incongruities. Those identified as suspicious will be further examined and interviewed by local police and/or other officials.
I seem to recall an article I read a few years ago about the effectiveness of TSA when it was first created. Passengers were not allowed to carry lighters, scissors, and other instruments. But we had managed somehow to leave out the human element at the security checkpoints. As far as I am concerned, the human aspect is a critical aspect of intelligence gathering, and it ranks high within the CIA and the FBI. So we seemed to have left it out when the Department of Homeland Security created the Transportation Security Administration. The article said we needed to learn from Ben Gurion, Israel's international airport and the safest in the world, on how their security officers are efficiently trained to spot abnormal human behavior for the purposes of terrorists attacks and how they have managed to run an efficient and secure airport.
Finally we are learning something.
SPOT employees will be trained to observe human behavior for incongruities. Those identified as suspicious will be further examined and interviewed by local police and/or other officials.
I seem to recall an article I read a few years ago about the effectiveness of TSA when it was first created. Passengers were not allowed to carry lighters, scissors, and other instruments. But we had managed somehow to leave out the human element at the security checkpoints. As far as I am concerned, the human aspect is a critical aspect of intelligence gathering, and it ranks high within the CIA and the FBI. So we seemed to have left it out when the Department of Homeland Security created the Transportation Security Administration. The article said we needed to learn from Ben Gurion, Israel's international airport and the safest in the world, on how their security officers are efficiently trained to spot abnormal human behavior for the purposes of terrorists attacks and how they have managed to run an efficient and secure airport.
Finally we are learning something.
May 17, 2006
Democrats should be paying attention
As I was driving home today and listening to NPR's All things considered, I could not help but think how easily the Democrats can win Congress this November. The interview with Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) could not have been more forthcoming in that aspect. His fumbling and incoherent explanation regarding the recent USA TODAY story on secret gathering of phone calls from Americans has put things into perspective for me. At the beginning, I thought the NSA spy program was not that bad of an idea, even with the illegalities in question, my first reaction was to actually give the President the benefit of the doubt. However, this interview has cleared my thinking on how ill-prepared these investigations are, especially because they do not actually explain how they are aiding the fight against terrorism. And that is exactly the problem with this Administration and congressmen like Sen. Roberts, who do not have a clear and coherent argument on how circumventing the laws is necessary and ultimately beneficial for us.
The new Latin American Populism has been split
First it was Chavez, the ex-military "caudillo" from the Venezuelan army, who took many by surprise when he was elected president in 1998. He led an attempted coup six years before being elected president but failed, was jailed, and later pardoned. He then came back, formed a political party, and was elected president in 1998, after growing and widespread poverty and plummeting confidence in the traditional political parties of Venezuela during the 1990's. Since then many other countries have followed similar political paths including Bolivia's Evo Morales, who has recently announced the government takeover of oil and gas industries. Peru's Ollata Humala has joined Bolivia's Morales in the standup against big business. But we also see it in Argentina and Brazil, and now Chile has elected a woman president, more aligned towards the left than the right, even though she supports the corporate environment in Chile.
Brazil's Lula da Silva has managed to play down Chavez's and Morales' influence in Latin American politics, mainly because they part from the same ideological framework. Lula da Silva has been the advocate for promoting political and economic alliances in the region. Even Chavez's "bolivarism" has not taken flight as expected. Brazil has been pushing for Mercusor and EU multilateral treaties and has made regional cooperation its top priority while Chavez prefers bilateral negotiations where Venezuela's involved and avoids making the rounds with countries that trade with the US.
It's amazing how not long ago regional cooperation was the main agenda for many of these leaders, it seems now that they are backstabbing each other and undermining a set of ideas that got them elected in the first place. With da Silva's term coming to an end and Chavez can certainly not govern forever, the Populist experiment in Latin American could be experiencing a bold makeover in the face of nationalism and global market influences.
May 16, 2006
Pentagon plane crash
The State Department has finally released a video capturing the crash of the American Airlines plane the morning of 9/11. However, the State Department has not yet released the videos recorded by other cameras in the perimeter of the Pentagon including Sheraton National Hotel, Nexcomm/Citgo gas station and the State of Virgina DOT cameras. A watchdog group called Judicial Watch has requested several times the release of these videos partly because there is a growing need to establish among the mainstream public what is speculation and what is reality. Sources said that the FBI had confiscated the videos back in 2002 and since then some conspiracy theories have been created by public opinion that the airplane was brought down by the military and that a missile instead crashed into the Pentagon.
I personally do not think this Administration could be that clever to pull such maneuver and keep it a secret for so long. We are taking about the most incompetent administration in the history of the U.S. Even if the threat was so critical that the only solution was to bring down the planes (Pentagon or Pennsylvania) to avoid a bigger catastrophe, this government still after 9/11 does not have the resourceful line of thought to coordinate such national security tactic.
Check out the video at
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/16/pentagon.video/index.html
I personally do not think this Administration could be that clever to pull such maneuver and keep it a secret for so long. We are taking about the most incompetent administration in the history of the U.S. Even if the threat was so critical that the only solution was to bring down the planes (Pentagon or Pennsylvania) to avoid a bigger catastrophe, this government still after 9/11 does not have the resourceful line of thought to coordinate such national security tactic.
Check out the video at
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/16/pentagon.video/index.html
May 15, 2006
Foreign Policy Matters
Far from being an expert in US foreign policy, I strongly believe this Administration not only suffers from a bipolar posture in regards to foreign policy making; but their faith-based dogmatic practices have clearly polluted the reflective mirror that gives shape to our foreign policy. It seems obvious that under this Administration the faith-based factor has come to play a critical role in the decisions influencing our foreign affairs. The time has come for the US to redesign their ideological thinking in regards to Middle East foreign policy.
You see for many years the U.S. has taken pride, or better yet, a misplaced gratification in being a rational, secular and unequivocal world leader in global affairs. Unfortunately, this is a pretense we can no longer export, let alone demand. It is true, the world has changed since 9/11 or at least some aspects of our tenure as the dominant world power have changed, but as dogmatic as many members of this Administration are when it comes to the tactical aspects of Middle Eastern political affairs, the urgent need to reestablish a coherent ideological criterion for dealing with the Middle East under a long term commitment instead of short term undertakings should not be considered an extra-curricular activity.
Since the start of the war on terror, our foreign policy has been the target of outspoken global criticism from incoherent and argumentatively short-sided to ineffective and contradictive. Even our position in the UN Security Council is sometimes counterproductive when Russia and China play the balancing act in many Mid East conflict negotiations. By refusing to establish a more accessible line of communication with Iran, and with the rest of the fundamentalist governments, which is long overdue and ultimately in our best interest, this Administration is single handedly diminishing the diplomatic strength and reputation of US and the important role it can play in the political world stage.
This diplomatic influence has already suffered many drawbacks. Under this Administration, the U.S. has been guilty of violating more international laws than our European counterparts fighting the war on terror. According to some observers - violations that have occurred at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and Afghanistan, including the Eastern European countries acting as hosts for the CIA covert internment system that detains and possibly tortures terrorist suspects - we have overstepped the boundaries of the rule of law.
Three years after the U.S. invasion nobody raises the concern anymore that this might well be an illegal occupation under the tenets of international law as defined in the UN Charter. I can see now how Saddam might have been right about us, at least on legal grounds. Not only have we been accused of torture, unfair imprisonment and disrupting civil liberties under many international statutes including the UN Convention Against Torture, the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights, and the UN Declaration of Human Rights; but what is more alarming is our reticence in admitting that as the number one world power, we continue to send mixed signals in regards to our actions and strategic interests only to naively expect that the Islamic states in the region follow our own failed guiding principles. Who are we fooling with our morality-heavy, faith-based policy making which has taken us deeper into a regional conflict that started as a game of parlor of political gains and has transcended into a conflict of political and ideological consequences?
Today many concerned Americans are struggling to understand the enormous price we are paying in lives, prosperity and national security in addition to our diminished diplomatic strength in the world community and the waves of resentment it has provoked even among our allies. The real consequence of our ignorant and misguided actions is the escalation of regional political unrest in an area plagued with religious and nationalistic sentiments that we are far from comprehending, unless we find a viable and realistic, long-term approach to Mid East foreign policy. Even more astounding is the direction our unilateral actions and extremist policies are taking us regarding the war on terror as evident in our negligence of multilateral commitments. Again, when it comes to foreign policy this Administration suffers from acute bipolarity and conflicting political principles. Let’s at least recognize that the cultural and religious framework we find ourselves in when it comes to the war on terror desperately needs rethinking.
Da Vinci Code
La reciente ola de controversia sobre el libro El Codigo Da Vinci ha provocado histeria en la comunidad religiosa, especialmente entre cristianos que temen que la historia expuesta en el libro comprometa el dogma establecido por la iglesia. Porque la histeria ha llegado tan lejos no sabemos todavía, pero lo que si demuestra es una avalancha de debates entre aquellos que se ven amenazados por tal “destructiva ficción” y aquellos que hacen de la ficción y de los hechos una armoniosa síntesis.
Si la ira causada por este libro afecta tanto a los fieles seguidores porque otros escandalos que si fueron hechos y siguen siendo noticias no reciben la misma consternación? La iglesia catolica por ejemplo ha recibido varios sacudiones en los ultimos años desde pedofilia entre sus lideres, indiferencia hacia ciertos traumas mundiales como genocidio y la ultima controversia frente al Sida y uso del preservativo. Entre las criticas del libro/película, los autores tambien son acusados de utilizar esta oportunidad para obtener ganancias monetarias, ya que cualquier libro o película que sea hostil hacia el Cristianismo tradicional es una gran oportunidad de mercadeo. Desde un punto de vista financiero, las dos partes han sido beneficiadas, porque muchos criticos por parte de la iglesia publicaron volúmenes de articulos y libros en respuesta a la publicación original contribuyendo a la ola de controversia.
La cuestion es la siguiente: En primer lugar comprender de una vez por todas que la iglesia no solo es una institución religiosa con asignación de fomentar la fe en los cristianos, sino tambien una empresa gigante con varios departamentos entre ellos el de mercadeo, con gran experiencia para modular cualquier controversia. En segundo lugar, comprender que el libro El Codigo Da Vinci es una publicación de ficción. Ha estado por 165 semanas consecutivas en la lista de ficciones mas vendidas del mundo. El libro esta basado en instituciones reales, y los eventos narrados son legendas algunas basadas en evidencias, otras expuestas por si solas. El autor nos otorga el libre albedrio para sacar conclusiones de lo que califica como ficcion.
Si la ira causada por este libro afecta tanto a los fieles seguidores porque otros escandalos que si fueron hechos y siguen siendo noticias no reciben la misma consternación? La iglesia catolica por ejemplo ha recibido varios sacudiones en los ultimos años desde pedofilia entre sus lideres, indiferencia hacia ciertos traumas mundiales como genocidio y la ultima controversia frente al Sida y uso del preservativo. Entre las criticas del libro/película, los autores tambien son acusados de utilizar esta oportunidad para obtener ganancias monetarias, ya que cualquier libro o película que sea hostil hacia el Cristianismo tradicional es una gran oportunidad de mercadeo. Desde un punto de vista financiero, las dos partes han sido beneficiadas, porque muchos criticos por parte de la iglesia publicaron volúmenes de articulos y libros en respuesta a la publicación original contribuyendo a la ola de controversia.
La cuestion es la siguiente: En primer lugar comprender de una vez por todas que la iglesia no solo es una institución religiosa con asignación de fomentar la fe en los cristianos, sino tambien una empresa gigante con varios departamentos entre ellos el de mercadeo, con gran experiencia para modular cualquier controversia. En segundo lugar, comprender que el libro El Codigo Da Vinci es una publicación de ficción. Ha estado por 165 semanas consecutivas en la lista de ficciones mas vendidas del mundo. El libro esta basado en instituciones reales, y los eventos narrados son legendas algunas basadas en evidencias, otras expuestas por si solas. El autor nos otorga el libre albedrio para sacar conclusiones de lo que califica como ficcion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
