In my analysis racism is a tool, not a cause, with regard to foreign policy.

While at times it is useful to declare certain groups others, to soften the human toll of war, and political upheaval, such declarations are for the most part, made more for the collateral effect than a guiding philosophy.

Thank you for your thoughtful - and thought-provoking - reply.

In particular, I would like to respond to your opening paragraphs (reproduced above). Once again, I find myself agreeing with what you have written, but wonder whether it goes quite far enough.

I agree that racism may be a tool rather than a cause; more of a collateral effect than a guiding philosophy. But I also think it's a prerequisite in order for the "true motivations" (to which you referred in an earlier comment) to gestate and take form.

Perhaps it's a "chicken-and-egg" type of scenario, such that we could argue which came first, greed or racism, but I don't think you can have the former as a root cause in a militaristic foreign policy without the latter. Otherwise, the U.S. would be known only for its ruthless capitalism and aggressive trade policies and negotiating tactics...not death, destruction and occupation.

we need a clear distinction between the good muslims (all in green) and the not so good ones (pick any color you want) and the problem would get fixed!

"Are we to take your word on it, Mr. Greenwald, that we've been detaining Uighurs in Guantanomo simply because they're Muslim? Somehow I suspect there's more to the story."

-- -- MJMC

Absolutely. I have it on very good authority that they hate us for our freedom.

Eric Rudolph, Timothy McVeigh, the Doctor assassins, etc., may have been Christian terrorists, but we NEVER judge an entire group by the actions of a few bad apples!!

"This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile."

- George W Bush

Notice the wording used to describe the two events. The actions in Iran were described as acts of "protest" for "freedom." Whereas, the Uygars are "rioting." By applying "protest" or "riot" to either event greatly influence how we see and feel toward each of them. There can be no doubt that certain elements in Iran were committing acts which that certainly could be described as rioting. Obviously, the application of the two terms is intentional to influence and shape people's perception of the events. Language is our reality.

Yeah, and a decade later Egypt expelled the UN peace-keeping force from the Sinai, and Israel reoccupied it and held it until Egypt sought its return by peaceful means, resulting (with the able assistance of the evil anti-Semite formerly known as Jimmy Carter) in a durable peace between the two nations. What was so great about what Eisenhower did, again?

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/07/deadly-rioting-by-chinese-muslims-in-china.html

This is NOTHING like the Tibet unrest.

The Dalai Lama said that his homeland was in serious peril and called for an investigation into what he called "cultural genocide."

Tibet wants to be free; Muslims want to take over.

- - Pamela Geller

__________

My prior post should be corrected to read:

Israel can do this without...instead of Israel can't do this.....

Sorry.

This bias towards anything deemed the "Enemy" also extends to the Left, as the events in Honduras shows (what some call "Chavez Mania"). Witness the ridiculous spectacle of Sen. Jim Demint, S-SC defending the clearly illegal coup in Honduras:

President Obama’s call for the reinstatement of Zelaya is a slap in the face to the people of Honduras. And the resolution written by the Organization of American States tramples over the hopes and dreams of a free and democratic people.

(From his Senate web site.) So you see, condemning an illegal coup that overthrew a democratically elected government "tramples over the hopes and dreams of a free and democratic people." Meanwhile the "freedom loving" oligarchs who are behind this coup have already stripped the "free and democratic people" of the right to assemble, the freedom of unreasonable search and seizure, freedom of association, rights to due process, etc.

So what gives with Demint and his ilk? Zelaya's crime, of course, was nothing more than that he had turned to the Left and repudiated the Central American Free Trade Agreement, something near and dear to Jim Demint's heart (http://www.counterpunch.org/kozloff07032009.html). For that, we must support a "military impeachment" and get busy inventing "facts" about Zelaya and the coup. (See http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/06/more_on_the_honduran_military.html for an egregious example; and see http://www.narconews.com/, Spanish daily El Pais [elpais.es], counterpunch.org for a clearer picture.)

Okay, we know what Biden said about Israel being entitled to attack Iran but what he couldn't have meant are these things:

1. That Israel can do this without our knowledge ahead of any attack.

2. That Israel can't do this without our military hardware and supplies they would need to buy from us and/or pay for with billions of dollars we give them every year.

3. That Israel can't do this without our assistance on the ground providing them with clear air apace and places to refuel on route. Israel does not have the capabilities to send planes with bombs and return back without refueling and needing clear air space to avoid being shot down on route.

And if Israel does something like this our 133,000 or so troops in Iraq had better be out before then or they will be slaughtered as they try to leave. Also expect a deepening depression as oil blockades send prices soaring.

Everyone needs to be perfectly clear that if Israel bombs Iran it will be with our tacit approval and military cooperation helping to unleash consequences too horrific to even imagine. If something like this does happen we all had better be demanding Obama's impeachment forthwith.

on Hollywood - When I grew up every major movie-terrorist or villain talked like me or Arnold ('ve haf ways to maik yuu talk') - and somehow around 2002 it all changed and the bad dudes

suddenly all had black hair - often beards and a much better tan than I am. And it got so crazy that on a flight to LA a whole group of dutch tourists even didn't want to sit besides a guy with a turban (do you think the dutch are even 'worst than the Americans?) - So I sat with him and we had a ball - He was a Sikh from punjab and told me that just for flying to the states he would love to get rid of his turban but his religion wouldn't allow it.

So what to do - I think Hollywood should repair the damage they have done - A few blockbuster

with some dudes in turbans as the heroes who shout: We are Muslims- or what's about giving these Uighurs also green bandanas - that would help -- or Sascha Baron Cohen in his next film could pose as some 'Ali' dude?