Thomas Friedman is one of America’s most dangerous people

by Yaniv Reich on December 2, 2009

There are few influential journalists as arrogant, deceptively violent, and insane as Thomas Friedman of the New York Times. I mean, what other pseudo-journalist could write an editorial about the peace plan he pitched to Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah (in the early 2000s), which was nothing more than UN Security Council Resolution 242, which Israel has worked to destroy since 1967. He not only re-pitched an old idea as new, but he tried to lay personal claim to what is the international consensus on how the Israel/Palestinian conflict should be resolved. My hatred for this man and his wicked influence on US politics is unbounded.

But I kinda forgot about that while he spent the last two years writing about the importance of green technology. Sure, this is another example of taking obvious arguments people have been making for a long time and trying to associate himself with them. Its simply not as offensive when the blatant intellectual theft is does not involve occupation and murder.

Well, the racist prick that is Friedman is back this week, more aggrandizing of violence against brown people than ever. He really is one of the most dangerous people in the US. In a recent NY Times post, he rails against what he calls the Narrative that dares question whether the US-caused deaths of at least 288,000 muslims in the last two decades might not have been because the US just loves muslims SO much.

The Narrative is the cocktail of half-truths, propaganda and outright lies about America that have taken hold in the Arab-Muslim world since 9/11.
[…]
Yes, after two decades in which U.S. foreign policy has been largely dedicated to rescuing Muslims or trying to help free them from tyranny — in Bosnia, Darfur, Kuwait, Somalia, Lebanon, Kurdistan, post-earthquake Pakistan, post-tsunami Indonesia, Iraq and Afghanistan — a narrative that says America is dedicated to keeping Muslims down is thriving.
[…]
Have no doubt: we punched a fist into the Arab/Muslim world after 9/11, partly to send a message of deterrence, but primarily to destroy two tyrannical regimes — the Taliban and the Baathists — and to work with Afghans and Iraqis to build a different kind of politics. In the process, we did some stupid and bad things. But for every Abu Ghraib, our soldiers and diplomats perpetrated a million acts of kindness aimed at giving Arabs and Muslims a better chance to succeed with modernity and to elect their own leaders.

The Narrative was concocted by jihadists to obscure that.

The cultural chauvinism, combined with utter disregard for the beliefs of others, is staggering. More importantly, this assumed benevolence is directly contradicted not only by history, but also by Friedman. As Glenn Greenwald so cleverly points out, Friedman’s ideas about helping muslims turns out to be ambiguous… even to Friedman:

Friedman on the Charlie Rose Show (2003):

I think [the Iraq War] was unquestionably worth doing, Charlie. I think that, looking back, I now certainly feel I understand more what the war was about . . . . What we needed to do was go over to that part of the world, I’m afraid, and burst that bubble. We needed to go over there basically, and take out a very big stick, right in the heart of that world, and burst that bubble. . . .

And what they needed to see was American boys and girls going from house to house, from Basra to Baghdad, and basically saying: which part of this sentence do you understand? You don’t think we care about our open society? . . . . Well, Suck. On. This. That, Charlie, was what this war was about.

We could have hit Saudi Arabia. It was part of that bubble. Could have hit Pakistan. We hit Iraq because we could. That’s the real truth.

How little must you value the lives of others to speak about them in this way?

Related Posts:

Previous post:

Next post: