Despite the fact that it's a shitty paper filled with veritable brain vomit, I think writing for the Daily Trojan has been has become somewhat therapeutic for me.
I think I get a thrill out of the fact that there are a ton of other students actually reading my happily antagonistic articles, even if they have been vehemently raped by the DT editing staff.
Perhaps even more thrilling is when I get an incredibly stupid and inane response back. I think I am going to be posting there here under the title the "Wall of shame", unless someone has any more inventive or creative names for it.
The first entry onto the wall will be the response to my article published on Tuesday titled, "Islamists' reaction to cartoons risks Western allies" (keep in mind that the editing staff titles the articles). In it, I basically discuss the fact that no excuse of religious offense will ever justify the violence occurring in the middle east as a response to the Danish cartoon, especially since hypocrisy and extremism were the real motivators behind it.
Here's a link to the article
The whole time I was writing it, all I kept thinking about was how many angry Muslims are going to respond, saying that I lack any empathy for, or understanding of, Muslim culture. But instead, I got the exact opposite, in response to my introduction in which I try to establish some basis with Muslim culture:
Hey matt my name is [cunt], I read you article in the DT and I was wondering if you could answer a quick question for me. What did Israel bashing introduction have to do with the rest of the article. First of all from your article is doesnt seem like you know enough about the region to make such statements, and secondly if you were going to mention Israel in any way in your article it should have been to address how ridiculous it is that people in Iran are involving Jews and Israel in this when they had nothing to do with it. I was going to write a letter back on the DT but I figure that is pointless I rather talk to you in person to see where your anti-israel feeling come from.
Signed,
[Loser who can't manage to think for himself]
Junior Majoring in International Relations and Economics
So, knowing that I couldn't let my ego take such an unwarranted blow, I decided to respond with:
[Douchy McDouche],
Let me first of all say that that it was a good conversation starter on your part to call me ill-informed about the region. Congrats on an incredibly tactful move.
However, I am having a hard time qualifying the provincial "Israel bashing" statement that apparently I am guilty of. I brushed over that intro numerous times, and from someone like myself, who has neither a Muslim nor Jewish bias, it just doesn't make sense.
It obviously can't be my statement about Muslims after 9/11, because your head would have had to have been in a hole for the past 5 years to not recognize that Muslims have been perceived much differently after the whole culture was wrongly associated with terrorism.
Similarly, it can't be my comment about the news having a pro-Israel stance, because that is fairly obvious as well. Although the media has been getting slightly less biased recently, it is pretty plain to see that every attack by the Israeli military is characterized as a "response" to Palestinian aggression, which sadly, is not the case half of the time. It is pretty well known that the larger Jewish community in the US has a lot more power and influence over politics and the media than the small Muslim community does, which is why a pro-Israel bias is an all-too-common criticism of the media.
But then that leads me to believe that my statement about how the US whines about conflict in the middle east regarding a two-state solution when they fund the Israeli military is the reason why I am accused of Israel bashing, but that just doesn't make sense either.
I mean, is it not true that the US funds the Israeli military? Because last time I checked, it was to the tune of about $3 billion a year for a number of years now, making Israel the largest recipient if US foreign aid. Not a single African nation receives that much funding, although they have to fight massive poverty, severe underdevelopment, the vicious spread of AIDS, malaria, and other problems that Israel has been able to avoid. Since 1973, funding for Israel has amounted to $240 billion, and of that massive amount, the vast majority has gone to military assistance; for instance, in fiscal year 2003, $2.04 billion was earmarked for military assistance, while only $720 million was for economic aid.
Obviously that's not going to aid peace in the middle east. Although I am in no way, condoning the suicide bombings and other guerrilla methods used by some Palestinians, how are they supposed to respond to such a well-equipped and well-funded military, especially when it is just as fervent to maintain the whole territory as Israel as Palestinians are to establish a separate state from it? And if you are somehow trying to make the claim that the Palestinians are the only aggressors, than you are sorely mistaken. Here is but a small sampling of what the Israeli military is responsible for:
-the murder of Rachel Corrie, who was crushed to death last month beneath an Israel armoured bulldozer as she tried to prevent it demolishing a Palestinian house.
-the Israeli Defense Forces shot two International Solidarity Movement activists in the town of Jenin on the West Bank: Brian Avery, a 24-year-old from Albuquerque, New Mexico, was shot in the face and taken to hospital with serious wounds. Lassel Smith from Denmark was shot in the leg. Both had gone to the West Bank to act as human shields by making peaceful protests.
-In the week of December 8-14, 2005 alone, 10 Palestinians were killed by the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) of which 7 of victims were extra-judicially executed by the IOF in the Gaza Strip; 34 Palestinian civilians, including 17 children were wounded by the IOF; the IOF attacked civilian targets in the Gaza Strip; the IOF continued a total siege on the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) and imposed severe restrictions on the movement of Palestinian civilians in the West Bank; and the IOF confiscated land from several Palestinian villages, near Bethlehem, Hebron and Jerusalem evicting 30 Palestinian families
Sadly, as can be clearly seen, the conflict in the middle east is something that BOTH sides are responsible for.
Which is why it is obviously hypocritical for the US to whine about peace in the middle east. The US, just as the most of the world, supports a two-state solution (as I do), but that can't happen if it's going to fund a military that doesn't hold the same belief. Plain logic will tell you that.
Additionally, you question why I didn't include that "people in Iran are involving Jews and Israel in this when they had nothing to do with it", but I clearly stated in the article that the Muslim response was characterized by completely misplaced anger. That means not only towards the countries of Denmark, France, etc, but also towards Christians, Jews, and others.
The most ironic part is of this all is that if anything, I was expecting angry letters from Muslim people saying that I wasn't being culturally sensitive enough. That's why I included that whole introduction to begin with - to show Muslims that although I may not agree with the response to the cartoons, I am still emphatic towards them. And I can't see why you were puzzled that I included this, as I clearly stated in the very first sentence of my article why I was doing so.
It is so entirely narrow-minded when people are declared anti-Semitic just because they criticize America's policies toward Israel, or considered "Israel bashing" just because they support a bi-state solution. The greatest minds in foreign policy agree that a bi-state solution is the ONLY way to peace.
I have to say that I would have expected more from an IR major. Perhaps you should try opening up one of your books again (or perhaps for the first time), or even trying wikipedia for that matter.
-Matt
Oh, I love fighting. More to come soon.
I think I get a thrill out of the fact that there are a ton of other students actually reading my happily antagonistic articles, even if they have been vehemently raped by the DT editing staff.
Perhaps even more thrilling is when I get an incredibly stupid and inane response back. I think I am going to be posting there here under the title the "Wall of shame", unless someone has any more inventive or creative names for it.
The first entry onto the wall will be the response to my article published on Tuesday titled, "Islamists' reaction to cartoons risks Western allies" (keep in mind that the editing staff titles the articles). In it, I basically discuss the fact that no excuse of religious offense will ever justify the violence occurring in the middle east as a response to the Danish cartoon, especially since hypocrisy and extremism were the real motivators behind it.
Here's a link to the article
The whole time I was writing it, all I kept thinking about was how many angry Muslims are going to respond, saying that I lack any empathy for, or understanding of, Muslim culture. But instead, I got the exact opposite, in response to my introduction in which I try to establish some basis with Muslim culture:
Hey matt my name is [cunt], I read you article in the DT and I was wondering if you could answer a quick question for me. What did Israel bashing introduction have to do with the rest of the article. First of all from your article is doesnt seem like you know enough about the region to make such statements, and secondly if you were going to mention Israel in any way in your article it should have been to address how ridiculous it is that people in Iran are involving Jews and Israel in this when they had nothing to do with it. I was going to write a letter back on the DT but I figure that is pointless I rather talk to you in person to see where your anti-israel feeling come from.
Signed,
[Loser who can't manage to think for himself]
Junior Majoring in International Relations and Economics
So, knowing that I couldn't let my ego take such an unwarranted blow, I decided to respond with:
[Douchy McDouche],
Let me first of all say that that it was a good conversation starter on your part to call me ill-informed about the region. Congrats on an incredibly tactful move.
However, I am having a hard time qualifying the provincial "Israel bashing" statement that apparently I am guilty of. I brushed over that intro numerous times, and from someone like myself, who has neither a Muslim nor Jewish bias, it just doesn't make sense.
It obviously can't be my statement about Muslims after 9/11, because your head would have had to have been in a hole for the past 5 years to not recognize that Muslims have been perceived much differently after the whole culture was wrongly associated with terrorism.
Similarly, it can't be my comment about the news having a pro-Israel stance, because that is fairly obvious as well. Although the media has been getting slightly less biased recently, it is pretty plain to see that every attack by the Israeli military is characterized as a "response" to Palestinian aggression, which sadly, is not the case half of the time. It is pretty well known that the larger Jewish community in the US has a lot more power and influence over politics and the media than the small Muslim community does, which is why a pro-Israel bias is an all-too-common criticism of the media.
But then that leads me to believe that my statement about how the US whines about conflict in the middle east regarding a two-state solution when they fund the Israeli military is the reason why I am accused of Israel bashing, but that just doesn't make sense either.
I mean, is it not true that the US funds the Israeli military? Because last time I checked, it was to the tune of about $3 billion a year for a number of years now, making Israel the largest recipient if US foreign aid. Not a single African nation receives that much funding, although they have to fight massive poverty, severe underdevelopment, the vicious spread of AIDS, malaria, and other problems that Israel has been able to avoid. Since 1973, funding for Israel has amounted to $240 billion, and of that massive amount, the vast majority has gone to military assistance; for instance, in fiscal year 2003, $2.04 billion was earmarked for military assistance, while only $720 million was for economic aid.
Obviously that's not going to aid peace in the middle east. Although I am in no way, condoning the suicide bombings and other guerrilla methods used by some Palestinians, how are they supposed to respond to such a well-equipped and well-funded military, especially when it is just as fervent to maintain the whole territory as Israel as Palestinians are to establish a separate state from it? And if you are somehow trying to make the claim that the Palestinians are the only aggressors, than you are sorely mistaken. Here is but a small sampling of what the Israeli military is responsible for:
-the murder of Rachel Corrie, who was crushed to death last month beneath an Israel armoured bulldozer as she tried to prevent it demolishing a Palestinian house.
-the Israeli Defense Forces shot two International Solidarity Movement activists in the town of Jenin on the West Bank: Brian Avery, a 24-year-old from Albuquerque, New Mexico, was shot in the face and taken to hospital with serious wounds. Lassel Smith from Denmark was shot in the leg. Both had gone to the West Bank to act as human shields by making peaceful protests.
-In the week of December 8-14, 2005 alone, 10 Palestinians were killed by the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) of which 7 of victims were extra-judicially executed by the IOF in the Gaza Strip; 34 Palestinian civilians, including 17 children were wounded by the IOF; the IOF attacked civilian targets in the Gaza Strip; the IOF continued a total siege on the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) and imposed severe restrictions on the movement of Palestinian civilians in the West Bank; and the IOF confiscated land from several Palestinian villages, near Bethlehem, Hebron and Jerusalem evicting 30 Palestinian families
Sadly, as can be clearly seen, the conflict in the middle east is something that BOTH sides are responsible for.
Which is why it is obviously hypocritical for the US to whine about peace in the middle east. The US, just as the most of the world, supports a two-state solution (as I do), but that can't happen if it's going to fund a military that doesn't hold the same belief. Plain logic will tell you that.
Additionally, you question why I didn't include that "people in Iran are involving Jews and Israel in this when they had nothing to do with it", but I clearly stated in the article that the Muslim response was characterized by completely misplaced anger. That means not only towards the countries of Denmark, France, etc, but also towards Christians, Jews, and others.
The most ironic part is of this all is that if anything, I was expecting angry letters from Muslim people saying that I wasn't being culturally sensitive enough. That's why I included that whole introduction to begin with - to show Muslims that although I may not agree with the response to the cartoons, I am still emphatic towards them. And I can't see why you were puzzled that I included this, as I clearly stated in the very first sentence of my article why I was doing so.
It is so entirely narrow-minded when people are declared anti-Semitic just because they criticize America's policies toward Israel, or considered "Israel bashing" just because they support a bi-state solution. The greatest minds in foreign policy agree that a bi-state solution is the ONLY way to peace.
I have to say that I would have expected more from an IR major. Perhaps you should try opening up one of your books again (or perhaps for the first time), or even trying wikipedia for that matter.
-Matt
Oh, I love fighting. More to come soon.