Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Wed 01/05/2005 View Tue 01/04/2005 View Mon 01/03/2005 View Sun 01/02/2005 View Sat 01/01/2005 View Fri 12/31/2004 View Thu 12/30/2004
1
2005-01-05 Southeast Asia
Indonesian Islamists winning support in Aceh through relief work
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Dan Darling 2005-01-05 12:08:20 AM|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [418 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 The geopolitics of relief aid. This is retail politics with long-term impact.
Posted by Captain America  2005-01-05 1:39:41 AM||   2005-01-05 1:39:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 "America uses the country they help as a toy."

Oh, realy. [Mind bending string of anti-Islamic blasphemies follows. N-guard looses 1d6 SAN, gains 2 pts. rage.]

The problem is this [vile expletive deleted] wouldn't dirty his hands helping if we wern't there. After all, this [even viler string of expletives deleted], er, person is shooting for power, and the peasants be damned. In this guy's world, they are a renewable resouce, and it is their privilidge to be ruled by one such as himself.

Posted by N Guard 2005-01-05 1:40:58 AM||   2005-01-05 1:40:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Maybe they all deserve each other, #2. The peasants aren't exactly sympathetic figures:
A survey by the US-funded Freedom Institute think-tank taken late last year, for example, found strong support for key tenets of Islamic law with 40 per cent of Indonesians backing cutting off the hands of thieves and 55 per cent saying stoning adulterers to death was legitimate.
AND
Ahmad Fadli, a 30-year-old labourer who lost his mother and two brothers in the disaster, wished the clothes PKS provided were new
Posted by joeblow 2005-01-05 1:45:44 AM||   2005-01-05 1:45:44 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 No, JB, they don't deserve to be misruled. Not them, not the Russians under stalin, or the Chinese under Mao, or the Iranians under the Mullahs. Most of the folx there are just working stiffs trying to get along as best they can.

Some russian isrealite ,while writing about democracy, observed that in oppressive regimes, the majority of the slaves zeks inmates serfs citizens will say publicly whatever will get them the least heat from whoever the power is this week. I think it was Natan Schransky(sp?) in his "The Case For Democracy", but I can't remember right now.

We're just a temporary ray of goodness in SE asia. The [blasphemy deleted] I referred to in #2 is potentialy a small scale tyrant if he gets a chance. I can only hope that [eardrum rupturing obscenity] dosen't.
Posted by N Guard 2005-01-05 2:16:28 AM||   2005-01-05 2:16:28 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 ..in oppressive regimes, the majority of the citizens will say publicly whatever will get them the least heat from whoever the power is this week.

[...]

The [blasphemy deleted] I referred to in #2 is potentialy a small scale tyrant if he gets a chance.


The population is undoubtedly part of the problem. They don't seem to understand that this desire to avoid "heat" is nothing more than an invitation for tyrant after tyrant to assume power, almost guaranteeing an endless stream of misery. As long as this mindset doesn't change, their situation isn't likely to change either.
Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-01-05 2:32:03 AM||   2005-01-05 2:32:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 geez bomb-a-rama, it's just so easy for someone to talk about changing mindsets. You forgot to realise that in most cases you end up dead if you do that. Therefore, living in a free democratic country, it's very easy to preach about changing mindsets when your life is not on the line
Posted by Igster 2005-01-05 8:04:40 AM||   2005-01-05 8:04:40 AM|| Front Page Top

#7  But of all the independent aid operations now on the ground in Aceh none is as impressive - or well-organised - as that of the PKS, whose earnest cadres have become fixtures at natural disasters [ie: wars caused by them] in Indonesia in recent years.

Ah...Good Ol' Financial Times. NYT and WAPO's Australian cousin. I remember them well prior to the build of Afghanistan and Iraq...blatantly spewing the anti-American propaganda back then too. >"NONE so organized"I> ya say? Notice not one mention of the US effort except a quote from an anonymous Abdullah who adds America only comes to treat them as a toy.

BTW, this seems to be the favorite tactic of the Hate America First press. While I've actually been surprised by the positive coverage on American help, I suppose its hard to ignore it. But despite the positive coverage, notice they focus as much as possible on everyone else who is helping.

I find it kinda funny that the writer did allow, in the very last sentence, that they younger folks don't like the PKS much.
Posted by 2b 2005-01-05 8:12:58 AM||   2005-01-05 8:12:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 younger folks don't like the PKS much
The young grow older, so I wouldn't put much hope in this statement.

I would expect the PKS is well organized and why not - this organization is well integrated into the Indonesian society, whereas other aid organizations are being parachuted into the country from far a field, in some cases seeing the country for the first time.

As for saying what the PKS want - give me a break-the poll was taken by a US funded freedom think tank, there were no PKS machetes at the necks of the respondees. They said what they believed - read the quote again and don't take it out of context to make excuses. These people are what they say they are and believe in. And people deserve what they elect or support. The USA is not always going to be the fairy god mother to go into these Third World countries to wave a magic wand and have everyone change their mindset and love, love freedom. With freedom comes responsibilities and freedom is hard work. Some people don't like that.
Posted by joeblow 2005-01-05 10:37:28 AM||   2005-01-05 10:37:28 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 joeblowhard - gosh.. Thanks for your insight. I'd never have ever guessed that the PKS with their "helicopters" (how many?) and "fleet of trucks" (how many?) would be so much more well-organized and impressive than the US military working with Aussies and the Indonesian govt.

But it says so in the FT...so it MUST be true, right? Right?
Posted by 2b 2005-01-05 11:25:36 AM||   2005-01-05 11:25:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 it's very easy to preach about changing mindsets when your life is not on the line

How many tyrants do YOU think is enough? Two? Three? A handful?

They can either do it themselves, or have external help. Doesn't matter to me which one, but absent either, as has already been said, nothing will change for them. My ass definitely isn't on the line, but that doesn't change the facts on the ground over there.
Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-01-05 11:43:37 AM||   2005-01-05 11:43:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 But it says so in the FT...so it MUST be true, right? Right
Well, just because it says so in the Financial Times, it doesn't mean it's false.

I think you need to get beyond your fragile American flag waving rah-rah when you read articles like these. The PKS is efficient and organized because it is part of the society there, can speak the language, and can actual disseminate the goods that is delivered to the country by our helicopters and trucks. Our military is probably handing over the materials to out stretched hands of the PKS without even knowing they are PKS members.

Posted by joeblow 2005-01-05 11:48:37 AM||   2005-01-05 11:48:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 flag waving rah, rah? Cute. Yep, I've even got a little cheerleader outfit on with USA right across my butt. I like it better than standing around with a "the end is near" sign as you seem to favor...so boring and depressing...brings everyone else down too.

It's an interesting point you make, but I'm confused - according to this article, it is the PKK that has all the trucks and helicopters not the US.

I know you don't really read much beside your own posting - but I'd like to point out that I never said the PKK wasn't using the opportunity to spread it's poison. My comment was on the writing skills of the FT.
Posted by 2b 2005-01-05 11:57:34 AM||   2005-01-05 11:57:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 and yes..I meant PKS.
Posted by 2b 2005-01-05 12:01:32 PM||   2005-01-05 12:01:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 My comment was on the writing skills of the FT
I think the "writing skills" of the Financial Times is aok. It is a respected business journal.

No need to get sensitive about rah-rah. I just meant that knee jerk dismissal of information just because it's not written in the "trusted" Washington Times can be short sighted.

I'm not doom and gloom. I am a realist. Indonesia is not a poor innocent country. It has been infiltrated by extremist Muslims which are anti-American, btw. FT is just simply describing the situation as it is. It wasn't written to "diss" American relief efforts there. It just confirmed that American aid may be ultimately falling into the wrong hands and if you think my take is "doom and gloom," I would suggest you're too chirpy for the reality of the situation there.
Posted by joeblow 2005-01-05 1:16:34 PM||   2005-01-05 1:16:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 1. I don't doubt that you think the reporting skills of FT are aok.
2. The NYT and WAPO, to which I compared it, are also "respected", and I don't doubt you think they are aok also.
4. I never said Indonesia was an innocent country nor was I chirpy on the reality of their situation.

Do me a favor and learn how to read, blowhard. I said that FT reporting on this was a joke, and it is. The PKS does not, by any stretch of the imagination, have the most impressive or well organized effort. The US does. By a long-shot. It's a BGO unless you are daffy enough to disbelieve reality just because some paper puts it in print. Which apparently you must be, to believe that the PKS has amounted a more impressive and well organized relief effort than the US.

All of your little gotcha's aren't going to change what is essentially one of the biggest no-brainers of the week. But you go ahead and believe that the PKS has mounted the most impressive relief effort out there. Don't let me stop you.
Posted by 2b 2005-01-05 1:33:10 PM||   2005-01-05 1:33:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 JB: I'm not doom and gloom. I am a realist. Indonesia is not a poor innocent country. It has been infiltrated by extremist Muslims which are anti-American, btw. FT is just simply describing the situation as it is. It wasn't written to "diss" American relief efforts there. It just confirmed that American aid may be ultimately falling into the wrong hands and if you think my take is "doom and gloom," I would suggest you're too chirpy for the reality of the situation there.

I agree. I don't think American aid will change minds. That has to come from within. The old saying (paraphrased) is that the native would rather live in squalor and be ruled by leaders of the same complexion than live in splendor and be ruled by foreigners. The corollary of that is that the native would rather hear lies from his compatriots than be told the truth by outsiders.
Posted by Zhang Fei  2005-01-05 1:55:11 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2005-01-05 1:55:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Lex, I seriously think you need to get your glasses re-checked. The FT article offered no anti-American slant. It simply reported facts about the popularity of the PKS with the Indonesians in the most Islamically conservative region of the country and that this is not the first time that the PKS has dealt with disaster relief. Of course they'd be well organized and well funded to do so-they are a politcal party and political presence in that country. What's to dis-believe that this is true? Of course the US's aid is greater and we have more helicopters and trucks-we're the most affluent nation on earth duh, but why take away from the resources of the PKS that have developed over time in Indonesia perhaps even funded in some part by our own good Dobie UN foreign aid?

Besides, you of all people should be enamoured by the PKS - after all you're anti-corruption and so is the PKS and that's one of the reasons they've gained the support of the population in Aceh.
The popularity of the PKS is largely the result of a strong anti-corruption stand. But its support is being bolstered by its disaster relief work in Indonesia.

Fyi, the FT is largely business related and how geopolitical situations affect markets, investments, world economies. It can hardly be considered MSM or be compared to the NYT in any shape way or fashion. I suspect you've never read the FT to consider it MSM. It's a British business newspaper - owned by the Pearson Group - similar to the WSJ but with more international overview and less US focus.
Posted by joeblow 2005-01-05 1:57:36 PM||   2005-01-05 1:57:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Another vote here that aid won't make a difference to the political equation. This is another MSM wet dream, to be filed in the Why Do They Hate US? category. A good example of the extraordinary parochialism of those westerners who think that not a sparrow falls in the world without the fell hand of Rumsfeld/Bush behind it.

Aceh's quarrel with Indonesia goes back decades and involves far more than muslim hatreds or US policies for good or ill.
Posted by lex 2005-01-05 2:00:37 PM||   2005-01-05 2:00:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 FT is just simply describing the situation as it is. No....they are not. The US is the biggest presence on the scene, not the PKS who is, according to this article passing out "old clothes" and whose version of Islam is "too hard".

Will American aid change their minds? Probably not. But this article gives us no basis to believe that the PKS aid will accomplish that either.
Posted by 2b 2005-01-05 2:04:33 PM||   2005-01-05 2:04:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 joe blow...I think you must be aris. You never can seem to quite grasp the point that others are making, and spend your time kicking down strawmen that you, yourself set up.

I'm done here.
Posted by 2b 2005-01-05 2:07:01 PM||   2005-01-05 2:07:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 actually ....my apologies to aris.
Posted by 2b 2005-01-05 2:07:37 PM||   2005-01-05 2:07:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 passing out "old clothes" and whose version of Islam is "too hard".
A couple of Indonesians were quoted. I think you have selectively picked out quotes to put a positive spin on the political situation in that country. The first Indonesian woman we meet thanks the PKS. Another Indonesian is quoted as saying: "America uses the country they help as a toy." while he's watching the US aid helicopters take off from his airport! The Indonesian you quote isn't exactly a poster boy for hope in Indonesia. He condescendingly berates the PKS because the clothes are second hand ( he may like Uncle Sam better for a micro second or 2 because we are better heeled donors)and his only criticism of the PKS is that their version of religion is "too tough" for young people. If you think he's endorsing Western liberal democratic values with that comment, you're dreaming.
Posted by joeblow 2005-01-05 2:18:42 PM||   2005-01-05 2:18:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 JB: the FT is largely business related and how geopolitical situations affect markets, investments, world economies. It can hardly be considered MSM or be compared to the NYT in any shape way or fashion. I suspect you've never read the FT to consider it MSM. It's a British business newspaper - owned by the Pearson Group - similar to the WSJ but with more international overview and less US focus.

The Wall Street Journal is more liberal than the New York Times. Except in its editorial section. And the Financial Times is more liberal than the Wall Street Journal, which is saying something. Newspapers, like every other for-profit firm, should be in the business of making money. But they are not, mainly because they are staffed by journalists, whose agenda involves changing the world, not reporting the news or even making money for the company.

If you want to figure out the ideological slant of a particular newspaper or magazine, just watch who they hire. In the past year or so, the WSJ hired Andrew Higgins, formerly of the Guardian. The mix of anti-Americanism combined with leftist smugness found on the WSJ's news pages is just astounding, and I was an avid reader of the New York Times for decades. The WSJ's news pages, formerly headed up by Al Hunt (CNN's Judy Woodruff's hubby) until a few days ago, even has its own liberal editorial section, under various headings, nestled in the news sections.

From the Weekly Standard:

The final product--shown in the table--is a list of ADA ratings for the 20 media outlets. Each rating can be compared with the congressional average of 50, which breaks down into 16 for Republicans and 84 for Democrats.

On the conservative end, the only two outlets below 50 were the Washington Times (35) and Fox News Special Report with Brit Hume (40). Although right of center, these ratings are much closer to the centrist position of 50 than to congressional Republicans' average position of 16.

The other 18 outlets are on the liberal side of 50. Particularly striking are the high liberal ratings for the New York Times and CBS Evening News (both 74), not too far below the average score of 84 for Democratic members of Congress. The news programs of the other two traditional television networks are closer to the center--62 for NBC Nightly News and 61 for ABC World News Tonight.

The one Internet representative, the Drudge Report, comes in at 60, moderately left of center. The most balanced reporting shows up in the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, CNN News Night with Aaron Brown, and ABC's Good Morning America, each of which had a score of 56. Interestingly, these balanced programs provided three of the four anchors for the main election debates--Jim Lehrer and Gwen Ifill from PBS and Charles Gibson from ABC. (It's hard to understand how Bob Schieffer from CBS made it in.)

One surprise is that the Wall Street Journal's news pages have the most liberal rating of all, 85, about the same as the typical Democrat in Congress. The rating for the Journal's editorial pages would of course look very different. (As one quipster observed, James Carville and Mary Matalin probably agree more often than the news and editorial divisions of the Wall Street Journal.)
Posted by Zhang Fei  2005-01-05 2:30:21 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2005-01-05 2:30:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 JB: the FT is largely business related and how geopolitical situations affect markets, investments, world economies. It can hardly be considered MSM or be compared to the NYT in any shape way or fashion. I suspect you've never read the FT to consider it MSM. It's a British business newspaper - owned by the Pearson Group - similar to the WSJ but with more international overview and less US focus.

The Wall Street Journal is more liberal than the New York Times. Except in its editorial section. And the Financial Times is more liberal than the Wall Street Journal, which is saying something. Newspapers, like every other for-profit firm, should be in the business of making money. But they are not, mainly because they are staffed by journalists, whose agenda involves changing the world, not reporting the news or even making money for the company.

If you want to figure out the ideological slant of a particular newspaper or magazine, just watch who they hire. In the past year or so, the WSJ hired Andrew Higgins, formerly of the Guardian. The mix of anti-Americanism combined with leftist smugness found on the WSJ's news pages is just astounding, and I was an avid reader of the New York Times for decades. The WSJ's news pages, formerly headed up by Al Hunt (CNN's Judy Woodruff's hubby) until a few days ago, even has its own liberal editorial section, under various headings, nestled in the news sections.

From the Weekly Standard:

The final product--shown in the table--is a list of ADA ratings for the 20 media outlets. Each rating can be compared with the congressional average of 50, which breaks down into 16 for Republicans and 84 for Democrats.

On the conservative end, the only two outlets below 50 were the Washington Times (35) and Fox News Special Report with Brit Hume (40). Although right of center, these ratings are much closer to the centrist position of 50 than to congressional Republicans' average position of 16.

The other 18 outlets are on the liberal side of 50. Particularly striking are the high liberal ratings for the New York Times and CBS Evening News (both 74), not too far below the average score of 84 for Democratic members of Congress. The news programs of the other two traditional television networks are closer to the center--62 for NBC Nightly News and 61 for ABC World News Tonight.

The one Internet representative, the Drudge Report, comes in at 60, moderately left of center. The most balanced reporting shows up in the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, CNN News Night with Aaron Brown, and ABC's Good Morning America, each of which had a score of 56. Interestingly, these balanced programs provided three of the four anchors for the main election debates--Jim Lehrer and Gwen Ifill from PBS and Charles Gibson from ABC. (It's hard to understand how Bob Schieffer from CBS made it in.)

One surprise is that the Wall Street Journal's news pages have the most liberal rating of all, 85, about the same as the typical Democrat in Congress. The rating for the Journal's editorial pages would of course look very different. (As one quipster observed, James Carville and Mary Matalin probably agree more often than the news and editorial divisions of the Wall Street Journal.)
Posted by Zhang Fei  2005-01-05 2:32:07 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2005-01-05 2:32:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 you've already defeated yourself by saying: Of course the US's aid is greater and we have more helicopters and trucks-we're the most affluent nation on earth duh,

My point has been consistently that the reporter discredited himself on several points, that being a significant one. And the rest of it is just as disjointed. He has one quote from a guy saying that America uses the countries they help as a toy - and one saying that the PKS is "too hard". So why do you put so much emphasis on one rather than the other?

All of your arguments saying that I believe that the Indonesia is too chirpy or that I don't think that the Muslim Extremists can make inroads are just from your own imagination.

All I see in this article is a bunch of innuendo that they will hate the US for their aid and embrace the Islmaists for theirs. And that's all based on a poll numbers showing that a majority still favor chopping off hands as a penalty...which I might add is a far cry from saying they are ready to accept the rest of the PKS extreme agenda.

If you disbelieve that aid from the US will win their hearts and minds, why are you so quick to believe that aid from the PKS will? Especially when the reporters own quotes put that in doubt?
Posted by 2b 2005-01-05 2:42:01 PM||   2005-01-05 2:42:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 The Wall Street Journal is more liberal than the New York Times. Except in its editorial section.

I'm not sure I buy that. Nor do I buy that Aaron Brown got "most balanced". All of that data seems a bit disjointed to me. I smell statistical sample problems.
Posted by 2b 2005-01-05 2:51:29 PM||   2005-01-05 2:51:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 Have the Kuwaitis change their opinion of Americans after being saved from Saddam's claws?
Those who want to give because they are generous people, more power to them! But those who are given thinking that they will change Muslims' opinion of Americans, do not hold your breath.
I, for one, have lived among Muslims for too long to know that they are the most ungrateful and treacherous people on earth. If I could make sure that my money would go to a non-Muslim in need (living among Muslims sucked the generosity right out of my heart), I would contribute some but since I cannot, then I won't.
Posted by Anonymous4724 2005-01-05 3:09:24 PM||   2005-01-05 3:09:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 ZF: the WSJ is pro-GWB and pro-GOP. To claim otherwise is missing the obvious point that GOP is comprised of businessmen and is business friendly, so who else would the WSJ support? Prior to the election, the WSJ was consistently on the side of the GPO and in GWB's corner.

The FT is British owned. While it may have liberal opinion journalists, primarily like the WSJ, its main readership is the business minded sector. Neither the WSJ nor the FT are trying to rival the NYT or the Guardian or the Telegraph for readers. They are for the most part well written business journals for the layman, with a geopolitical overview because that impacts economies and business dealings.

If you disbelieve that aid from the US will win their hearts and minds, why are you so quick to believe that aid from the PKS will? Especially when the reporters own quotes put that in doubt?
You're a bit too defensive for a rational thinker like me. Also 2b you're a little too quick with the personal assassination tactics to be taken seriously. Grow up or go back to the crib where emtional temper tantrums are acceptable types of behavior.

One more time, lex and 2 b: the PKS is already there, it's them, it's the Indonesians in Aceh province, the PKS is in the bodypolitic. Didn't you read the article even a bit?

The reporter wrote what is. This is no different than what's been published elsewhere about Indonesia. Disbelieve the reporter if you want and think rosey thoughts that we're winning hearts and minds in Indonesia with our "compassionate" and excessive, IMO, aid packages. Just don't be shocked when you read that the PKS has won more seats in the next Indonesian election.

Indonesia is a corrupt country(nothing new that the FT reporter has dreamed up) with a strong drift to im-moderate Islam. Open your eyes.

Corruption + extremist Islamics + cash= bad result for the West in the future. And you can take that to the bank, not "hearts and minds" wishes and dreams you seem to carry in your heart about every Third World.
Posted by joeblow 2005-01-05 3:14:41 PM||   2005-01-05 3:14:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 If you disbelieve that aid from the US will win their hearts and minds, why are you so quick to believe that aid from the PKS will?

Probably because the PKS are people of their own ethnic stripe. They're not analysts, and as such, for them it's easier to deal with something known than it is to deal with something unknown.
Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-01-05 3:29:15 PM||   2005-01-05 3:29:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 JB: the WSJ is pro-GWB and pro-GOP. To claim otherwise is missing the obvious point that GOP is comprised of businessmen and is business friendly, so who else would the WSJ support? Prior to the election, the WSJ was consistently on the side of the GPO and in GWB's corner.

The WSJ's editorial section is pro-GOP. The news sections are pro-Democrat. Read an Al Hunt (the former head of the news section) column sometime. Actually, read some of the Iraq articles sometime - they are well to the left of the New York Times.

JB: The FT is British owned. While it may have liberal opinion journalists, primarily like the WSJ, its main readership is the business minded sector. Neither the WSJ nor the FT are trying to rival the NYT or the Guardian or the Telegraph for readers. They are for the most part well written business journals for the layman, with a geopolitical overview because that impacts economies and business dealings.

The FT is like the Economist, that other news publication covering business and the economy. Both came out for John Kerry over GWB. They have come, over the years, to adopt the leftist view of the welfare state - that it is not a necessary evil, but that it is an objective good, going beyond even Edward Heath's (Britain's 70's PM) view that accomodations must be made.

Both the WSJ and the FT are reasonably well-written (i.e. good grammar and sentence construction, much like the Nation and Mother Jones) and are a useful source of raw information about breaking news events. But the liberal lens via which their non-business news articles are written means that the reader needs to figure out what these guys are peddling before deciding whether what they write is complete and in context.
Posted by Zhang Fei  2005-01-05 3:46:41 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2005-01-05 3:46:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 But the liberal lens via which their non-business news articles are written means that the reader needs to figure out what these guys are peddling before deciding whether what they write is complete and in context.
So ZF I'm confused.

Are you saying that this FT article is not accurately describing "what is" re: the PKS being an established presence in the Indonesian province of Aceh?

Are you implying the FT reporters are writing falsely about the Islamic extremists in Indonesia and are only publishing this imagined scenario to undercut the USA's efforts in disaster aid?

Posted by joeblow 2005-01-05 4:02:06 PM||   2005-01-05 4:02:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 The only tantrums I have had are between the strawmen you created in your own imagination. You keep acting as if I somehow think that the Indonesians are going to bow down before the altar of Christianity in gratitude of our aid. It's all just a debate taking place in your own mind and not reflective of anything I've actually written.

You are the one who has chosen to believe the three quotes as being proof positive that they will start the beheadings as soon as they are strong enough to lift a knife.

So let me ask you outright, Joeblow, do you think that the PKS has the most impressive and well organized relief effort in the area? And you've rationalized why you CHOOSE to accept one quote over another. Millions of people and you've come to your conclusion based on one quote which is contradicted by another. How can I but be impressed by your superior intellect?
Posted by 2b 2005-01-05 4:04:45 PM||   2005-01-05 4:04:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 JB: Are you saying that this FT article is not accurately describing "what is" re: the PKS being an established presence in the Indonesian province of Aceh? Are you implying the FT reporters are writing falsely about the Islamic extremists in Indonesia and are only publishing this imagined scenario to undercut the USA's efforts in disaster aid?

I am not making any comments about this specific article. I am merely saying that the FT's past record of left-wing bias means that we should take anything it writes about world events with several large heapings of salt. The FT will show up with a an (anti-American) angle already figured out and take things out of context and use only the quotes that fit the angle even when the quotes are a tiny minority of the responses received, i.e. they are non-representative of the population at large. They will also slice and dice quotes to distort the meaning of what was being said.

I have traveled to the area and am familiar with a smattering of the local languages. I have encountered no real hostility except in reference to American foreign policy with respect to Israel (and now Afghanistan and Iraq), during which there were spirited debates, but no question of me being in physical danger.
Posted by Zhang Fei  2005-01-05 4:20:00 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2005-01-05 4:20:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 2b, sorry but I've pretty much reached my limit for discussing this article with you. IMO,from what I've seen, you're way too emotional, always wanting to re-interpret what other people have said or assign ulterior motives to posters who are not in lock step with the way you see things. Calm down and read my initial comments in #2. I was responding to Nat'l Guard's comment which basically dumped on the PKS's motives and implied that we should feel pity for these poor Indonesian people under the influence of the evil Islamic extremists.

My point was: why?

These people are not under any threat from the PKS. They even voted for them. They've taken aid from the PKS now and in the past. These people are opportunistic, now that they say money bags Uncle Sam on the horizon, some are turning up their noses at used clothes, never mind that they should be in "shock" from the fact that they just lost loved ones in the tsunami.

Then the discussion veared off with complaints about the FT reporters' anti-American left wing bias in recounting the situation in Aceh province so as to undercut the USA's aid efforts.

All I'm saying, 2 b, is that I think the FT's article is depicting the Indonesians in Aceh province and how they view the USand the PKS fairly accurately. I don't think this is false reporting. I think you're hoping it is false and biased so it'll make you feel all warm and fuzzy for sending all that taxpayer cash to Indonesia et al, and you don't want to hear or read anything less than rosey surfacing from that part of the world. Reality sucks.
Posted by joeblow 2005-01-05 4:25:48 PM||   2005-01-05 4:25:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 Postscript to my msg #34: yes,2b, I believe that the PKS's aid was probable well organized and impressive. Why not ? They have had plenty of practice over the years. Geographically Indonesia exists in what has been called the Ring of Fire in terms of natural disasters. You don't get that label for nothing. Also the PKS are Indonesians-they'd be on the spot and prepared to help unlike Western powers. I think you have in your mind that the PKS is comprised of non-Indonesian evil doers who have parachuted into Aceh province from afar and who are rivals to the Good Ship Lollipop USA. The PKS are Indonesians. We are the outsiders. Get it?
Posted by joeblow 2005-01-05 4:35:08 PM||   2005-01-05 4:35:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 and I'm just pointing out the facts. The reporter starts with a false premise - which you agreed was a "duh". You have chosen to believe one of two conflicting statements because it backs up your existing beliefs and to ignore the glaring flaw in the article that it is the US and not the PKS that has the greatest presence.

Your pessimistic logic seems to be that we should just leave them to die because if we help them, then they will hate us more than if we don't. I guess because that means there will be less of them to fight us later. You're just a real nice guy.

I choose to see what's really in the article ..a false premise and conflicting statements. You see only what supports your existing beliefs.
Posted by 2b 2005-01-05 4:47:41 PM||   2005-01-05 4:47:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 From Lex:

Aceh's quarrel with Indonesia goes back decades and involves far more than muslim hatreds or US policies for good or ill.

Lex is correct. The real problem began with the independent Muslim Sultanate establised in Aceh in 837 A.D. (or about that time). That was over 1100 years ago. Real Problems and Real Hatreds began there long before the U.S. even existed. (About 1400 - 1500 A/D.)
Posted by leaddog2  2005-01-05 5:18:07 PM||   2005-01-05 5:18:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 You, 2b, don't want to see Indonesia for what it is and the possibility of what it may grow to be with a huge infusion of Western cash.

Why argue the fine points of the obvious big picture? The PKS are Indonesians and so they are poor and so their aid package is more humnble - but nonetheless the aid is delivered in an efficient fashionn because the PKS are Indonesians who live in the country where the disaster happened. Are you with me so far? While the US aid package is larger than the PKS's, we are outsiders. We are not Indonesians. Got it? Indonesians will have no more warm feelings for the USA's generosity 1 year from now than they had 1 year ago. Sorry but that's the way it is.

Your pessimistic logic seems to be that we should just leave them to die because if we help them, then they will hate us more than if we don't. I guess because that means there will be less of them to fight us later. You're just a real nice guy
Like I said, you can't resist grubbing around like a 2 year with personal insults. Actually since you ask, I am a real nice guy. But a rose colored glasses guy I am not.

I never ever said ignore the tragedy and let the Indonesians die. There you go putting words in my mouth. Stick to keeping straight what you say and believe. I said that we should have a reasonable amount of aid, not excessive as we are now are doing. That area of the world is very tricky for sending excessive amounts of cash to. Anyone who doesn't recognize the dangers of that region having access to an unlimited supply of cash is not just overly optimistic-they're d***.
Posted by joeblow 2005-01-05 5:26:27 PM||   2005-01-05 5:26:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 I'm with you, Joeblow. Just leave them to the mercy of the PKS. We are better off having them dead, suffering or beholden to the mosques. There is nothing we can do for these genetically dysfunctional brown folk. Best to cull the gene-pool now while we can.
Posted by anymouse 2005-01-05 5:27:30 PM||   2005-01-05 5:27:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 thanks, joeblow. I guess I missed that part of the article ...or anywhere else for that matter.....that the Marines are passing out cash. Gotta agree with you there....much danger in passing out cash. Someone should tell them to pass out food, water and medical supplies instead.
Posted by 2b 2005-01-05 5:34:55 PM||   2005-01-05 5:34:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 LD2: Lex is correct. The real problem began with the independent Muslim Sultanate establised in Aceh in 837 A.D. (or about that time). That was over 1100 years ago. Real Problems and Real Hatreds began there long before the U.S. even existed. (About 1400 - 1500 A/D.)

That is correct. The Javanese, who rule Indonesia (Aceh is on Sumatra), converted to Islam from Hinduism from the 14th century onwards. Indonesia's national airline is called Garuda - a mythical monster from the Hindu pantheon. If the Acehnese had ruled Indonesia, that name would never have been adopted. The Acehnese are about as close to Arab extremism as you'll get in Indonesia. This is why I think I think helping them is akin to feeding rattlesnakes.
Posted by Zhang Fei  2005-01-05 5:44:37 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2005-01-05 5:44:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 that the Marines are passing out cash
You are hopeless, 2b. It's a waste of time discussing anything that requires a modicum of common sense with a person who has an emotional need to gain one-upmanship or have the last petty comment in a discussion. See ya.
Posted by joeblow 2005-01-05 5:50:21 PM||   2005-01-05 5:50:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 I never ever said ignore the tragedy and let the Indonesians die

Posted by lol 2005-01-05 5:54:49 PM||   2005-01-05 5:54:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 Sharp-eyed leftists have for decades known that the WSJ's news pages provide much fodder for their analyses.

But that would be true of any business publication. The prevailing left-wing economic meme is the Contradictions of Capitalism, which we all know herald the arrival of socialism and later the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Posted by lex 2005-01-05 6:00:23 PM||   2005-01-05 6:00:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#45  photos of the rattlesnakes

Posted by 2b 2005-01-05 6:07:42 PM||   2005-01-05 6:07:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 2b: photos of the rattlesnakes

Baby lions and sharks are kinda cute, too. And unlike some Muslims, baby lions and sharks never grow up to become religious warriors.
Posted by Zhang Fei  2005-01-05 6:17:20 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2005-01-05 6:17:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#47 Oh oh too bad, ZF, the mother of "the milk of human kindness", 2b, is now going to pull out all her warm and fuzzy photos to disabuse you of the notion that 100% of Indonesians are not pure as driven snow. Be advised that 2b also makes very clever ( well clever to her at least) comments under the pseudonymn of "lol." You go girl, 2 b, just "believe" as they say at Disneyland or maybe "believe' comes from Alice in Wonderland...who knows...I do know that "believe" is an important watchword of breathless reality challenged optomists.
Posted by joeblow 2005-01-05 6:20:26 PM||   2005-01-05 6:20:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#48 another strawman, eh, joeblow? That I think that the Indonesians are pure as the driven snow? I've been consistent in my point that this article is based on a false premise and intentionally ignores any positive impact from the US aid. You've been all over the board and apparently are inable to argue my very consistent point and are left to deriding my desire to assist people in one of the worlds greatest disaters. Well, gee...gosh. I'm just crushed by that.
Posted by 2b 2005-01-05 6:33:22 PM||   2005-01-05 6:33:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#49 Ya know, FWIW, I think all the niggardly stuff is because of an invasion of either alien body snatchers or Savage clones . . .
Posted by cingold 2005-01-05 8:44:06 PM||   2005-01-05 8:44:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#50 2b,

Joe Blowhard is what you’d expect from the name.

I think Zhang Fei may just have bad feeling toward the Indonesians due to how they tried to crush the autonomy of Timor, but I don’t know for sure.

The isolationistic Social Darwinian themes you’re seeing here were previous addressed ad nauseam in this thread, just so you can get an idea of the reactions you’re likely to provoke. And yes, I could be wrong, but I think Joe Blowhard would be very happy if they would all oblige him and simply die . . .
Posted by cingold 2005-01-05 8:59:09 PM||   2005-01-05 8:59:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#51 If you see a person drowning you don't think about whether he will be grateful.

You pull him out because it's the right thing to do.

The Americans who sent CARE packages to Germany in 1946 didn't care whether the starving kids could grow up to be another generation of Nazis.
Posted by True German Ally 2005-01-05 9:00:01 PM||   2005-01-05 9:00:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#52 Ah, out of the weeds of belligerent minutia and imaginary tough-guy stuff - pulling back to The Big Picture. Refreshing and rational. Thx, guys.
Posted by .com 2005-01-05 9:11:01 PM||   2005-01-05 9:11:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#53 Report from a friend of a friend, in hostile territory in Sumatra: an Islamic song coming out of that region talks of the judgement of Allah because of terrorism. Not everybody in Aceh is a rattlesnake.

TGA is absolutely right. Take care of those who are suffering because it's the right thing to do.

"You have heard that it was said, 'love youre neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes His sun to rise upon the evil and the good." Jesus, in The Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:43-44
Posted by mom 2005-01-05 9:18:30 PM||   2005-01-05 9:18:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#54 sanity at last! Glad I checked back.
Posted by 2b 2005-01-05 9:41:22 PM||   2005-01-05 9:41:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#55 The discussion is too binary (too either/or) as in US aid will or will not affect the disposition of the populace. The answer is similar to what the US is encountering today with the Sunnis in Iraq:

- The hardcore will remain hardcore irrespective of US aid

- The open minded will be influence and appropriately grateful

- Those on the margins represent the battle for hearts and minds, and US aid WILL have an affect
Posted by Captain America  2005-01-05 11:03:09 PM||   2005-01-05 11:03:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#56 The PKS are Indonesians and so they are poor and so their aid package is more humnble - but nonetheless the aid is delivered in an efficient fashionn because the PKS are Indonesians who live in the country where the disaster happened.

And best of all, the PKS isn't spending any of joeblow's "hard-earned money".
Posted by Pappy 2005-01-05 11:45:19 PM||   2005-01-05 11:45:19 PM|| Front Page Top

13:01 Crerert Ebbeting3481
00:08 .com
00:02 trailing wife
00:02 Phil Fraering
23:53 Phil Fraering
23:49 joeblow
23:45 Pappy
23:44 .com
23:41 Captain America
23:39 .com
23:39 tu3031
23:38 BH
23:38 Captain America
23:37 .com
23:36 Captain America
23:36 Pappy
23:32 Dave D.
23:28 Zenster
23:25 Omavinter Pheart2665
23:25 .com
23:20 .com
23:17 Captain America
23:15 Pappy
23:14 Captain America

Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
3.235.22.104

Merry-Go-Blog










Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com