Reply to Fanmail from Jack Harris
This is a reply to
this email from Jack Harris
From: "Andrew 'Wes' Weston"
To: "Jack Harris"
Subject: Re: regarding your website
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 04:40:21 -0500
Greetings Jack,
First of all, thank you for writing. I realize that you must have been very insulted by what I
wrote in those articles but I do appreciate the time you spent responding to me. I did not expect
any responses, and had in fact written most of those articles some time ago. In fact, I am quite
surprised that anyone read them there. How did you come upon my site? Were you looking in Google
or something?
Obviously, you disagree with a lot of my opinions, which is fine... from what you have written,
I also disagree with a lot of yours. You have asked for sources, which I have provided, though
you have not provided any sources for any of the claims you yourself made. So I'm not sure that
scholarship is really your strong suit. Perhaps you will correct this error.
I also think that you have an erroneous notion of who I am and what my politics are. Where possible,
I have tried to clear this up for you. I think it would be helpful however if you stepped out of
the me-vs-you, left-vs-right, conservative-vs-liberal bullshit because it mostly does *not* apply
in this situation. Contrary to such meaningless labels, I try with my writings to pursue the truth,
in all its glory and ugliness. I hope you are also pursuing truth, and can appreciate the
information I have provided in that light.
> Since you are completely off base on all of your "writings"
> on your website, I hardly know where to begin. I suppose we
> can just look at parts of each of your magnanimous writings
> which you boldly dared to waste valuable web space with.
Not a great way to start a discussion Jack. Although later in this "rant" you raise some good
points, through much of it you seem to prefer ad hominem attacks to actual debate or discussion. But
I do see that you are intelligent and the fact that you spent so much time writing this email to me
indicates at least some desire for a reasoned exchange. If you treat me respectfully, I will return
the favour. Or not... up to you.
> First, your letter only 4 days after 9/11:
> you said: "So while I can understand why the United States
> was targeted by this attack, I am surprised that you seem to
> have learned nothing from it. Already, there are calls to
> drop a nuclear warhead on Afghanistan. Why Afghanistan?
> Apparently, the media has decided that Osama Bin Lauden (sp)
> is guilty. Someone needs to be punished but why don't we
> determine who the guilty is before we condemn those we
> suspect?"
> No one deserves such an attack. How dare you justify it.
> It was Osama Bin Laden.
First of all, I am not justifying what happened. I do not think it was justified. I think you may
want to re-read the article Jack. Nowhere did I say that it was justified and I certainly do not
feel that way. I think that the attack needs to be understood if "terrorism" is to be stopped. How
can you truly stop terrorism unless you understand where it comes from?
Whether the perpetrator was Osama bin Laden or not is debatable as far as I am concerned. I
understand that the vast majority of the world believe that it was inded Al Quaeda, but there has
still at this time been insufficient evidence to suggest this, and plenty of evidence has also been
suppressed. I allow that it is possible that Al Quaeda was responsible and there is in fact evidence
that proves this, but judging from the evidence Bush and Blair and their cronies faked for their
recent adventure in Iraq, I am not confident that it exists.
I find it interesting however that those who believe that it was Osama and crew, are unwilling to
listen to the alleged explanation from them as to why it was done. They would prefer to hear Bush's
idiotic idea "They're against freedom and democracy" than the reasons Osama suggested in his many
communiques (which themselves may be faked, so it's hard to say). But if you believe that it *was*
Osama, why not believe his own reasons for committing the crime? Wouldn't it be more sensible to
listen to his reasons? Does Bush have a better idea than Osama as to why Osama did it? It boggles
the mind...
You are aware of the reasons given by Osama himself, I trust?
Nevertheless, the fact that the Bush and Blair administrations and the media has repeated ad
nauseum the claim that it *was* Osama, does not necessarily make it true. But honestly, I don't
know any more. I'd like to see whoever did it punished. I just suspect that it's a lot more
complicated than we've been led to believe.
> You were wrong, we were right.
Well... it's hard to argue with that logic.
> you also said: "Arab-Americans have been beaten and
> harrassed in the streets by angry non-Arab-Americans."
> Do you have a statistic to defend this, or did you just
> hear that a few guys treated your precious arab-Americans
> badly, and decided that somehow defended your anti-American
> point of view?
My "precious arab-Americans"? I don't support arab-americans any more than I support any group
of people. That you would suggest that I am somehow favouring Arabs over Americans is insipid and
not a little racist. It's obvious why you support racial profiling. I have no special love for
Arabs or any group, but you apparently have some special hatred reserved for them.
I do know of individual cases that were not reported. A friend of mine, who was Arab-Canadian (close
enough I guess) was attacked while she was walking down the street in a suburb of Detroit.
There was at least one case of a Sikh temple being burned down here in Canada (Hamilton I believe),
allegedly in response to 9/11. Which is odd, since Sikhs were obviously not involved. Same
difference to a racist, I suppose.
Actually, here's one that has been in the news lately:
http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/articles/FrankRoque09302003-CR-CP.html
Surely you don't agree with this character's actions?
And here are some statistics in general that might help you:
http://www.hanania.com/hatevictims.html
I think we can both agree that immediately after 9/11 (ie just before my article was written) that
things were rather emotionally intense all around. There was a lot of fear in the air, especially
if one had dark skin or Arab features.
Keep in mind that given that many of the above situations happened in between 9/11 and my article,
therefore it was not wrong to say what I did. It just didn't turn out to be as bad as I suspected,
for which I am very grateful. Hindsight is 20/20 I suppose. But given the statistics above, I think
you can see where my concerns lay.
I also do not consider myself to be anti-American though I am not surprised when others paint me
with that brush. I do not approve of your government's actions towards other nations, including
Canada. I do not like the way your government has treated its own citizens. I consider George W. Bush
and the people he runs with to be fascists. I do not like the way the US does business (Breton Woods,
GMO, softwood lumber, IPR, etc). But I also count many individual Americans as very good friends of
mine. And most of those Americans are quite familiar with my political views by the way.
> 1. The war on terrorism is our fight against the Islamic
> fundamentalists who attacked on 9/11.
Terrorism, despite what you seem to think, is not limited to "Islamic fundamentalists". The
definition that you yourself give could easily be applied to *many* other peoples and governments.
In fact, your own government has actually been charged with acts of terrorism by the World Court.
Here are some examlpes that illustrate this from Noam Chomsky. He may be too "leftist" for your
tastes, I don't know. But I urge you to read these anyway.
http://hnn.us/articles/1763.html
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles/Chomsky_TerrorandJustResponse.htm
http://monkeyfist.com/ChomskyArchive/essays/mirror_html
Assuming that it was indeed Islamic fundamentalists that attacked on 9/11 as most people believe,
fair enough... but this does not make all Arabs and muslims guilty of the crime? No more so than
most Christians should be held accountable for the actions of Christian fundamentalists I should
think. Most abortion doctor murderers are (I would assume) statistically white male christians.
Should we round all of them up also?
> This is the issue,
> and the only issue regarding this specific war. It is our
> fight; therefore, my nation should not be pressured by other
> nations, for that is a sign of weakness.
Your fight does involve other people and countries. If it is your fight, as you say, then why has
Bush been trying so desperately to get other countries to send troops to Iraq? It seems unilateralism
only goes so far... which is it?
A sign of weakness? Let me ask you this... do you feel safer after the US attacks on Afghanistan and
Iraq? Do you honestly feel that the war on terrorism is being won on some levels? Personally, I do
not. In fact, I think the actions of your country are creating *more* terrorists which is absurd.
Therefore, I do not think that the "war on terrorism" is a Good Idea (TM).
But like you, I would like to see terrorism *stop*... all kinds of terrorism. Not just the terrorism
committed by non-Americans against Americans.
> 2. terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force
> or violence by a person or an organized group against people
> or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing
> societies or governments, often for ideological or political
> reasons (dictionary.com - I used it too).
Kind of inadequate though, don't you think?
That definition could easily be applied to a *lot* of things.
Frankly, I do not believe that there exists a consistent definition of terrorism that would satisfy
me. You will note that I often use the word in quotations for this very reason. The definition
changes depending on who you ask. Not only is the tactic used politically, the very defintion is
used politically. Witness the declaration by the US that Iraqis that attack American occupation forces
are "terrorists". Did you know that it is actually allowed under international law to attack
occupation forces? So why are they considered terrorists? Simple... because they are attacking
Americans.
The same (lack of) logic is applied to Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. A kid who throws
a rock at an Israeli tank is a terrorist. The tank that responds by destroying the kid, his family
and the block of housing that they lived in is considered a patriot. But then Palestinians also have
darker skin, so maybe they're all terrorists to some people.
The definition you listed seems reasonable enough Jack, but like most definitions I have seen, it
can be applied to a *lot* of different things. Using this definition, I would definitely say that
the U.S. is guilty of terrorism, as are *all* states and their apparatus. Police are a good example
of terrorists according to this definition.
(Interestingly, the definition on www.dictionary.com seems to have been altered from what it was a
few months ago. But I think this adds to the point I am trying to make.)
Legitimized use of force and coercion still counts as terrorism near as I can tell. I would also
say that terrorism as it is defined is not always such an evil thing. The whole "Terrorist vs
Freedom Fighter" dilemma. Were the Stern Gang terrorists? The ANC? The IRA? How about those
American freedom fighters that nobly fought against King George's forces?
The problem with defining terrorism (and in turn, dealing with it) is that it is such an emotional
issue. I think that's partly why terrorism *works* unfortunately.
> 3. No, flying a plane into a building is much worse than
> disagreeing with America. However, for those of you who are
> Anti-American, there are places like the Middle East, where
> you and John Walker Lynn can express your anti-American
> views as much as you want, but dont think you'll be able to
> post it on a website, or get off by reading your little
> article in some liberal magazine.
John Walker Lindh you mean? Sorry, but I do not think that a battlefield is the most appropriate
place for two competing views to be settled. I also think Lindh is a bit of a weird guy actually...
This paragraph of yours was obviously meant to insult me rather than engage in anything
constructive. Shame really, I think I would have enjoyed an exchange with you had you not gotten
so condescending.
> 4. No, we are not guilty of the same crime. My nation
> waged war on another nation for HARBORING these terrorists.
> The intent of this war was not to kill innocent civilians,
> like the motiv of the 9/11 attacks.
"Motive" has an 'e' in it. I wouldn't normally mention this, but you seem to think that I am
such a bad speller :)
Intent is only one facet of a crime. Whether it was the US' intention to kill so many innocent
civilians or not makes little difference in my book. They did. In fact, they actually killed
*more* civilians than the 9/11 people did. Did you know that? If that wasn't their intention,
they are either completely incompetent or maybe they're going about things in the wrong way...
How many of those orphans will grow up to be "terrorists", Jack? Do you think your precious motives
will mean anything to them?
But look beyond the fact that the alleged perpetrators of 9/11 were based in Afghanistan. Let's
assume that is true for now. Do you think that the Afghani government actually *knew* what was
planned? Do you think that the people of Afghanistan *knew*, or even *approved* of the plan? It
seems to me that attacking Afghanistan was wrong, because of these reasons. It is entirely
possible that many Afghanis did hate the US before 9/11. A *lot* of people around the world hate
the US (more now than ever). But this does not mean that they would approve, even tacitly, such
an attack against innocent people in the WTC.
Can you tell me *why* exactly negotiating with the Taliban for the extradition of Bin Laden and
crew was such a bad idea? Do you think attacking and occupying an entire country is a more
appropriate response? Why? Which is the primary motive here... justice or revenge?
> We warned Afghanistan
> of our attack, rather than a "sneak attack". Our purpose
> was political war, rather than a jihad. Those are a few
> reasons why the answer is no.
The warning meant nothing. The attack itself was not warranted.
A sneak attack, like terrorism or guerilla warfare, is only a tactic. It is not in itself any
more moral or immoral than a "regular" attack as far as I am concerned.
What difference is there really between a jihad and a "political war"? Do you not think that
whoever was behind 9/11 also thought that *they* were justified in what they did? This is not to
say that they *were* justified, only that their stated reasons might be worth paying attention to.
Rationalization is such an easy trap to fall into, isn't it? I sometimes fear that your entire
nation has fallen victim to some kind of cognitive dissonance.
Me, I'm more interested in seeing that innocent people stop being killed because of all this
shit, whether they be American or Afghani or Iraq or what-have-you. Innocent people, regardless
of where they live, should not have to suffer in war. This is a basic tenet of the Geneva Accords.
Do you disagree with it?
> 5. No negotiation for one main reason: there is no room
> for compromise. There is no bargaining here.
???
That's not a reason, Jack. It's repitition. You can't say "blue is blue because it is blue".
> This was the act of war, a religious war started by these extremist muslims.
And attacking them without the possibility of compromise or negotiation doesn't strike you as
slightly fundamentalist or extremist?
And if it *was* an act of war, as you say... then why have all of the captives from Afghanistan
and Iraq been treated as "illegal enemy combatants" instead of the standard designation of
"prisoners of war". Are people that attack the US somehow beneath the concerns of international
law? Why?
I'm not by the way suggesting that the guilty parties get off the hook for what they did. I am
suggesting that the way "justice" was sought was completely ass-backwards. Were the traditional
means of bringing terrorists to justice somehow inadequate?
How much suffering do the Afghani people have to go through before you feel that they have paid
for the crimes of *other* people?
> 6. There is no need for a response here. Hopefully you now
> believe that Osama Bin Laden is guilty, and if you don't,
> then maybe there will be reason for a second e-mail.
:)
> 7. Suddenly? this attack obviously took years and years of
> planning. The reasons why? well lets see, the Taliban
> hates the United States.
It wasn't sudden? I don't know anyone who wasn't surprised by the attacks. Do you think that
Afghanistan, Iraq, and all of the muslims of the world were somehow keeping it secret for years?
Come on... if anything it was a *very* small group of people that planned and carried out the
attacks. We don't know. But the fact is that thousands of people have now died as a result of
*retaliation* for something which they clearly had nothing to do with.
How is this just?
> They are Islamic, and the Qua'ran reads that conversion or
> death for any non-Muslims. Thats your reason.
Really? I have read the Qu'ran and don't recall reading any such passages. Have you read it? Can
you provide me with references? Granted, it has been a *long* time since I read it. Back in
high school actually. So I may be wrong.
Assuming that you are correct about this, then I suppose we should also take the Bible literally,
right? Have you read Leviticus lately? Own any slaves? Have you stoned to death anybody working
on Sundays?
Islam is not in and of itself an evil religion. No more so than any religion.
But personally, I'm an atheist. I find it all pretty silly.
I will say this though. Even if there is *not* a passage like that in the Qu'ran, it's quite
possible that a lot of muslims in countries like Afghanistan or Pakistan might not know any
better. Like early Christians, there is a huge literacy problem in many of these places. The
Madrasas schools that *do* instill a sense of anti-Americanism in a lot of people might be a
way that terrorism *can* be stopped. But I digress.
> 8. We represent freedom and democracy.
I disagree. Americans always say this but your actions speak otherwise.
And please do me the favour of *not* parroting quotes from Bush or idiots like Rush Limbaugh.
If you want to engage me in dialogue, I'm all for it, but please do us both a favour and think
for yourself. I'll have far more respect for you.
> By attacking us, you attack those values.
I do?
I am all for freedom and democracy, thank you.
> You seem to know a lot, considering your only source of
> information is the media conglomerates you apparently distrust.
???
Not only is this incorrect, it seems like a very strange thing to say. Do you have some sources
that I am not privy to? If so, please enlighten me!
For the record, I definitely do not trust media conglomerates for the simple reason that they
have lied so often. I would much rather get my news directly from the source if possible, and
failing that from reputable journalists who have no reason to lie. There are journalists like
that. Most of them do not get jobs at US newspapers.
> 9. Yes. Sacrifice few for the lives a many.
So the state comes before the individual? The rights and freedoms of the few, because of their
nationality or religion, are abrogated to a greater cause?
Do you realize that this is a basic tenent of fascism. It's funny how fascist you sound in some
parts of this email, especially for someone who is arguing against fascism (apparently).
> Define torture, if you even consider responding to this e-mail.
Did you not want me to respond?
Let's use the agreed-upon source of definitions then:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=torture
(Curiously, this definition has also changed recently. I'm starting to lose my faith in
that site...)
Now, let's look at some references of American-style torture.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1038845,00.html
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3044.htm
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20030331&s=press
How can democracy, freedom and *torture* exist in the same society? I'm really curious...
> Frisk me everytime I get on a plane. I'll wait in line. I
> have nothing to hide. As long as they find that one guy
> (statistically most likely to be an Arab male) who is
> planning on hijacking the plane for mass murder (100% of
> hijackings for the purpose of mass murder are performed by
> Arabs).
You ask me for statistics and then you provide me with a completely bogus one.
Hijackings are definitely *not* 100% commtted by Arabs. Are you not familiar with the
many Cuban hijackings?
I don't know about the actual percentage however. It may be quite high... not sure.
I am not sure that I can adequately argue against your point. It is not an unreasonable
point of view. It is racist, as is all racial profiling. Whether a little bit of racial
profiling is a necessary tool for security is debatable. I think you are probably
in the majority opinion on this, and I really don't know what else to suggest as an
alternative.
I would say that treating people as if they were guilty, because they are muslim or Arab,
is wrong. Suspecting them may or may not be appropriate, but still... a basic tenet of
any democracy is that people are innocent until proven guilty. Is this yet another
"democratic freedom" that you think the US should rid itself of?
It hasn't been *just* Arabs that have been frisked or turned away from flying planes
though. Several high profile Green Party people as well as a lot of anti-capitalist
protesters with reputations for non-violence etc. There is in fact a *list* of people that
are not allowed to get on a plane in the US for the crime of disagreeing with your
government's policies. Disagreeing is not in the same league as blowing up airplanes,
as you and I have already agreed. So why can't these people fly?
> 10. We attacked Afghanistan after 9/11. You cannot suggest
> that we planned on attacking them before then.
I am suggesting that very thing.
http://www.ringnebula.com/Oil/Timeline.htm
> You know no more than me on this issue. I say we didnt plan,
> you say we did...it will never end.
You're probably right. But it is suspicious, isn't it? What about Rumsfeld telling his
staff to prepare an invasion on Iraq within *days* of 9/11?
> The fact is, they gave us a
> reason, whether we were looking for one or not.
I am suggesting that maybe the reason came after the desire to attack. I am suggesting
that the reason was fabricated; a pretext for invasion.
But you're right... neither of us can prove anything. We'll just have to wait for Bush
to reveal to the public all those documents he is hiding from the 9/11 commission. Can
you think of any reason why he is trying to stop the investigations? You said earlier
that you had nothing to hide. Shouldn't the governement follow the same logic?
> I agree
> with George W. Bush when he said "When it comes to our
> security, we really don't need anybody's permission." (march
> 2003).
Does this also apply to other nations? What if their security is threatened by the US?
Are the international agreements for national security inadequate? They are quite
explicit and comprehensive, as you are no doubt aware.
> 1. Bush won the electoral college. Get over it. The
> electoral college has been used forever to decide the winner
> of the election.
I do not agree with the electoral college system. I think that it is undemocratic. It
is also irrelevant what I think because I do not participate in the farce you Americans
call "democracy".
Fact is, just because the system is set up that way does not make it right. By that logic,
slavery was a noble thing while it was on the law books. All of the law passed in Germany
preceding and during WWII were also valid I guess.
> It's interesting how once you don't like
> leader elected, you disagree with the Consitution's
> electoral college.
I do not understand what you mean here. This sentence makes no sense to me.
I would not, if I were you, attempt to guess my position of some matters. You have been
way off-base so far and I wouldn't want to see you dig yourself a deeper hole than you
are in.
> The supreme court was Clinton's/Gore's
> supreme court.
???
The US Supreme Court has been dominated by Republicans for *years*...
What are you talking about? Am I misunderstanding something?
> In retrospect, I guess you can argue that
> the democrats screwed themselves, but what could does it do
> for you to write little articles about how you with Gore was
> president.
I don't wish Gore was president. Where did I say that?
I wish Bush was *not* president... not the same thing.
I do agree that the Democrats screwed themselves though. But not for the erroneous
reasons that you claim.
> And furthermore, dont try to say Gore would have
> done a better job, there is no way of knowing that.
Err... ok. I wasn't going to say that.
> Just
> because you find a few points that you think can classify
> him as a dictator, does not make Bush a dictator. There
> goes your facism theory.
What is "facism"?
I do think that Bush is remarkably dictator-like actually. Did you know that Hitler
was also elected? In fact, Hitler had more legitimacy than Bush, technically speaking.
For me, a leader acting outside of the mandate of the people counts as a dictatorship.
If the people want bread and you give them wars instead (just by analogy) then how much
of a say do those people really have in the way things are run? It's hardly government
by the people for the people now, is it?
Of course, this is not unique to Bush alone. I think most leaders are guilty of this,
including my beloved Chretien. In fact, I think we are *all* moving towards grand-scale
fascism. But Bush is an easy target because he fits the profile of a dictator so obviously.
Far more than say Clinton or Chretien. I think you'll find that I am not alone in this
regard.
Tell me, do you not think that the mandate of the people should count more ultimately than
the whims of one man?
> 2. Bush didn't cheat. As I said before, he won the
> electoral college.
...and the thousands of disenfranchised black voters in Florida that were recorded
as criminals and not allowed to vote?
...and all those old Jewish people in Florida who it was claimed voted for Pat
Buchanan? Huh?!?
...and the fact that a Republican-dominated Supreme Court *gave* the election
to Bush?
Maybe "cheat" is too strong a word. Let's say instead that the whole election was bogus.
> Nader didnt stand a chance.
Agreed. It would certainly be interesting to see how things would be different though had
he won...
> He didnt have the money, or political backing.
Give them time.
> I am not saying that
> is a good reason he didnt stand a chance, but, the point is,
> realistically, Nader was not in contention for the
> presidency.
I think you are right. I do not however think he should have been sidelined like he was.
He should have at least been allowed to participate in debates, don't you think?
> So Ashcroft is trying to pass a bill you say?
> But I thought the United States was fascist? Do they pass
> bills in fascist nations?
Err... yes they do actually. What part of the defintion precludes this?
> I'm sorry, i've never read a fascist Constitution.
I'll try to find one for you.
Nevertheless, the trampling of the US Constitution is a pretty good step *towards* fascism
actually.
When the freedoms granted by a constitution are abrogated due to an ongoing war on terrorism
or whatever... ultimately you will find that you have no constitution, or that it is meaningless.
What value is a constitution when it is ignored? Your nation should have learned this lesson
back in WWII when you interned Japanese-Americans for the crime of being Japanese. A constitution,
in my opinion, should be all or nothing. You can't pick and choose when it's convenient. Do you
disagree?
> 3. You are missing a key point. The so-called racism
> towards Middle Easterners is an attempt to help the country,
> not become fascist.
Sorry... your sentence above is a little unclear.
With that comma there, are you saying that it is "helping the country not become fascist"... or
are you saying that these are two separate ideas, ie "helping the country" and "not an attempt
to become fascist"
I certainly don't see how racist discrimination (even if justified) can help a country avoid
becoming fascist. It seems to me that a key element of fascism is racism (or at least discrimination
of one or more groups of people).
But as I said above... way above... I do not feel it is worth it to argue this point with you. I'm
content to agree to disagree here.
> You cannot argue that an overwhelming
> majority of terrorism is by Arab men.
Statistics please?
Doesn't this depend again on how you define terrorism? I consider the US government, and indeed all
governments to be terrorist in nature. Legitimized use of terror is terror nonetheless. So I'm not
sure that any statistics you give me would be of any value to us here.
> That is FACT.
Aye aye sir!
> Therefore, Arab and Islamic men, between the ages of 25 and
> 45 fit the criminal profile of a terrorist.
And thus it was told.
> It is sad but true.
I agree that it is sad.
How do we address this then, assuming it is true? Should we attempt to understand *why* these people
become terrorists in the first place? Or just harrass them at airports and bomb the bejeezuz out of
them all?
> By detaining them, while searching for terrorists,
> this is not racial profiling, but instead, criminal
> profiling where race and religion are the greatest common
> factors.
How is that not racial profiling? It is almost a textbook definition of racial profiling. Call
it whatever you want though. It's the same thing.
> This is not facism. This is protection.
No insult intended, but I think you may want to revisit the history books. The rise of fascism was
in many ways based on the perceived need for protection. This is pretty basic stuff, Jack...
> Just because you think you find some definition of fascism,
> and find one point for each of the four parts of the
> definition does not make The United States fascist.
Agreed. Frankly, that was a silly little article. Funny, and fun to write, but kind of silly. Oh well.
At least people are reading it and thinking about things.
> You mentioned some mistakes America has made. Mistakes
> are human, not fascist. (P.S. - use spell check)
And fascists are what... robots? lobsters?
What did I misspell?
I find this kind of hypocritical Jack. While it is entirely possible that I have made a few spelling
errors here or there, you have made many spelling and grammatical errors in this very email I am
responding to. Not that it matters really. I would just rather that you attack my arguments rather
than my ability to spell.
It's rather ad hominem, no?
Peeple in glass howses shiddint throw stoans :)
Also, it's also possible that the spelling errors were made by my editor rather than myself. Very
annoying, but it happens. What kind of editor corrects a correct spelling with an incorrect spelling?
*sigh* Happens more often than you would think. If you have also had your writing published, I know
that you will understand my frustration.
> I do not have all day to point out the flaws in all of your
> meaningless writings, that were somehow published.
You did spend a considerable amount of time though. I appreciate that.
> So I am planning on concluding my "rant" shortly.
But we were just getting started!
> Hopefully response is what you were looking for.
Not really... but this has been lots of fun, so let's continue!
> You seem to refer to the idea that Bush was not elected in
> mostly all of your writings. I am sorry, but he was.
More than half of the population of the US seem to disagree with you. But they're only a
majority...
> If the popular vote won elections, you would be correct;
> however, the electoral college wins elections.
We've been over this.
> Bush won the
> electoral college through a Florida recall, remember?
Yes, I think you mentioned it a few paragraphs above this. You also missed a lot of other
relevant facts.
> They followed the rules of the constitution and the law, and
> through this they determined Bush was the President elect.
Well, it's your constitution, not mine. But to me, this seems like a retarded way to choose
a leader.
> Also, I would love to see your sources for some of your information.
Certainly... I hope the sources I have provided are adequate.
Perhaps you will return the favour.
> Specifically the naked muslims in a freezing
> room you referred to on December 21 of 2002.
http://www.warblogging.com/archives/000660.php
http://cbsnewyork.com/terror/terror_story_236201039.html
http://migreens.org/amberwaves/2003wint/14.htm
Did you think that I made this all up? I almost wish that I had...
> Regarding that same article, I again must stress the point
> that because a few Muslims are hurt does not mean my nation
> is anti-Muslim.
Perhaps, but the recent quotes by General Boykin certainly don't help now do they?
Or the quotes by Pat Robertson (who is admittedly insane, so maybe he doesn't qualify).
To my mind though, consistent and institutionalized racism towards a specific community indicates
*something really bad*. But the US is not alone in this crime unfortunately. Canada seems to be
following suit.
> MUSLIMS LED THE 9-11 ATTACKS.
No need to shout.
I have my doubts about this. Say it all you want... but I'd really like to see some proof.
> I wish it wasnt so, but this is the way
> it has to be in order to successfully stop, or at least
> control terrorism in our borders.
And do you feel it has been successful?
> If a few feelings get
> hurt, but further attacks are stopped, I say without a doubt
> it is completely worth it.
I guess we'll have to wait and see if the attacks are stopped or not. I have my doubts on this
as well. I hope they do stop though, for what it's worth.
> Emperor Bush? alright, well said. Emperor - the male
> leader of an empire
> empire - a large territory/series of territories governed by
> one man.
>
> Bush is forced to act as an Emperor because of the
> irresponsible acts of Congress.
Err... first you claim Bush is not a dictator and now you're content to call him an Emperor?
Do you think that the US being an empire is a good thing? Wasn't your nation formed specifically
against imperialism? Or is it ok when you're the ones that do stuff like that? Kind of a
do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do sort of thing maybe?
> Because Congress "punted"
> on the issue of war with Iraq, Bush was forced to make his
> own decision, because Congress was afraid they would get a
> bad reputation of the war went badly. Bush was forced to
> take all the weight solely on his shoulders.
How noble of him.
So you are saying that because Congress (a democratic body, ostensibly) did something that Bush
(as one man) did notagree with, that it was ok for him to take command and rule against them?
How is he not a dictator again?
How familiar are you with the rise of Hitler? Hitler claimed similar reasons for assuming
dictatorial power. Merely as an educational exercise, you may want to investigate this. The
similarities are shocking. Here's another link for you:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0316-08.htm
> This was not his intent, but with no help from Congress Bush
> was forced to act, on this issue, as an Emperor.
You plainly approve of this.
Personally, I'm opposed to imperialism.
> Reading all of your articles, it shocks me how one Canadian
> thinks he can know so much about policies of another
> country.
From this email, I am shocked how little one American knows about his own country :)
But does this mean that only Americans are qualified to write about America? So all those journalists
in other countries should give it up and find new jobs? Many of the jounralists working in the US
that you are getting your news from are actually from other countries, you realize? Or does this
only matter when someone publishes material that you disagree with?
Face it, the reason a lot of us write about the US is because our lives are affected by it. The US,
for all the wrong reasons, is a dominant force in the world at this brief moment in time. How can we
not be affected by it? Canada, in my opinion, is a de facto colony of the US in many ways, for which
I am disgusted. A nation and its people should control its own destiny, and not have it dictated to
them by another nation. But I think you agree with me on this, given what you have written below.
> Doesn't Canada have better things to do?
I can't speak for all Canadians... but I certainly don't.
> Can't you run your own country without vicariously running
> one through mine.
If we ran your country Jack, that would make us an *empire*. And most of us Canadians would rather
avoid being an empire because *empires are bad*.
> As I read more of your misspelled poorly editted
Do you mean edited?
> and misinformed "essays" it seemed to me that you
> are anti-American because since Clinton, it has been
> mainstream to rebel against the president.
Nah, I rebelled against Clinton too. I just haven't archived any of those articles. Clinton was
pretty bad also. His adventures in Yugoslavia were rather disgusting. And let's not forget that
incident in Somalia. What about that medicine factory in Sudan?
Not so sure that rebelling against the president is "mainstream"... if my views are so mainstream
though, I'm flattered you chose to bless me with your response instead of the many other candidates.
> My president.
If he's "your president" then maybe you can hold him in check before he destroys this planet. The rest
of us on planet Earth are becoming concerned.
> Couldnt you write an essay about Chretien?
Yawn... maybe next week.
> Recently, a member of Parliament claimed that he was not Canadian.
> He was told to leave and think about what he did.
Hahaha... really? That's hilarious. Got a link for me?
"Go to your room young man, and think about what you just said."
Talk about paternalistic politicians heheh.
I'm actually impressed that you looked that up. Most Americans are completely ignorant of Canadian
politics. Or Canada period. Most of them couldn't even find Canada on a map, which will help us if
you ever try to invade us like you did Afghanistan and Iraq.
> While parts of your parliament are in time-out you are busy
> bashing the nation below you.
Well, actually I wrote those articles some time ago. I've been busy with other things lately. Would
you like to read some of my fiction? :)
> By the way, without the United States,
> Canada would be worse off the the Middle East.
Oh boy, here we go...
Care to explain this statement?
> You should should be praising the stars and stripes.
Never! You should be praising the maple leaf or the beaver or something.
Honestly Jack, I think you are above comments like this. I'll assume that you're just joking because
I really do not believe that you are stupid enough to actually mean it.
But when Americans say things like that, it irritates the people of other countries. It makes people
start to hate Americans. So if you are concerned about the rampant anti-Americanism in the world (and
you should be) then if I were you, I would refrain from saying things that are silly.
But by all means continue to debate with me. I'm enjoying this! In fact, I may just post all of this
on my website also for all to see. Or at least the parts where I look good and you look bad :)
> We helped give you the ability to make your extremist website.
Thanks guys!
> I hope my response to your website was well-taken, and I
> look forward to your response.
>
> Jack Harris
I enjoyed your email a lot, Jack... thanks for writing it!
Cheers,
WES
NAVIGATION
Homepage
->
Archive of Writings
-> Reply to Fanmail from Jack Harris