..
Upon hearing of the death
of several thousand of my countrymen, I can hardly imagine the first thing
coming to any sane, responsible person's mind being "Dandy, let's go kill a
few hundred thousand more."


Why leap upon Fischer for being "insensitive" to the deaths of thousands of
his countrymen, when his countrymen are equally "insensitive" to the deaths of
myriad others?
Bobby's position was that the USA had done wrong to others (i.e. killing them
or helping others, like Isreal, to kill them), and that "what goes around,
comes around." We are akin to a big, bad bully, who needs to be taught a
lesson, in Fischer's eyes. Bullys are not being "sensitive" when they hurt
others. So why should others be "sensitive" when giving them a taste of their
own medicine? Is this not one logical way to try and "correct" the behavior of
a mean old bully?

If you reject Fischer's view, you can call him very insensitive for those
remarks, but they still make a certain logical sense from his particular point
of view. Unless you think bullies should just be left alone, to do as they
please.

BTW, you are far better off reading Louis Blair's brief quotes than trying to
listen to those ridiculous, longwinded interviews, which are roughly 99%
idiotic blather.

Fischer`s not necessarily wrong with what he sees, rather it is his
conclusions that are often downright literally insane. Stereotyping and
generalizing millions of people based on his personal experience with one
incident, things like that, demonstrates an inability to think logically.
This "all Jews are x", and "all Americans are y", all that stuff is
nonsense, and shows he`s lost the capacity for clear reasoning.

So, for example, he sees Israel being a terrorist state, and murdering and
stealing from Palestinians. This is true. Then he sees that many or most
people in Israel are Jewish. So, from there, he draws the conclusion that
ALL Jews, everywhere, are evil murderers. I suppose he even includes
members of the international group Jews in Support of Palestine, and
Anti-Zionist Jews. If he were thinking logically, he could seperate things,
not have them all grow into a giant mash in his head. There are Jews, even
in Israel itself, that oppose what Israel is doing. Why can`t he say that
he hates the Israeli government, that he hates Zionism? Nope, not good
enough. Many Jews are Zionists, therefore to him ALL Jews are Zionists,
even if they hate Zionism more than he does (and I`ve met at least one of
these).

Again, with the 9/11 thing, it`s not that his observations are so wrong
(even though they`re harsh and will reflexively anger most people in the
USA), it`s that he draws conclusions that US civilians, even those who are
opposed to US foreign policy, murder, and theft, deserve to die by violence.
Does he include himself? Me? I`m such an ardent opponent of what the US
does around the world, yet to him I am equally lumped in with the
flag-waving proponents of murder.



"NoMoreChess" wrote in message
...
.
Why leap upon Fischer for being "insensitive" to the deaths of thousands
of
his countrymen, when his countrymen are equally "insensitive" to the
deaths of
myriad others?
Bobby's position was that the USA had done wrong to others (i.e. killing
them
or helping others, like Isreal, to kill them), and that "what goes around,
comes around." We are akin to a big, bad bully, who needs to be taught a
lesson, in Fischer's eyes. Bullys are not being "sensitive" when they
hurt
others. So why should others be "sensitive" when giving them a taste of
their
own medicine? Is this not one logical way to try and "correct" the
behavior of
a mean old bully?

If you reject Fischer's view, you can call him very insensitive for
those
remarks, but they still make a certain logical sense from his particular
point
of view. Unless you think bullies should just be left alone, to do as
they
please.

BTW, you are far better off reading Louis Blair's brief quotes than
trying to
listen to those ridiculous, longwinded interviews, which are roughly 99%
idiotic blather.

Paul Rubin wrote in
message ...
(Nick) writes:
Paul Rubin snipped the fact, which I had mentioned in my post, that
the United States State Department refused to grant its permission
for Bobby Fischer to travel legally to Cuba to participate in that
tournament. I submit that an official grant of such permission to
travel *normally implies* (though Paul Rubin might prefer to
insinuate otherwise) that the traveller should be free to return to
his home in the United States after the completion of his visit abroad.

Certainly so. What I'm getting at is that people can leave the US
without needing any kind of official permission. There are no exit
controls at the borders. You can leave with no questions asked....

The following article does *not refer to the exact context* of what
Paul Rubin wrote (above), but it still may be of some interest:

"Big Brother takes grip on America: The US's response to 11 September
has been an unprecedented clampdown on the rights of its own citizens"
by Paul Harris in 'The Observer' (7 September 2003):

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...037090,00.html

"The (United States) government refuses to number the amount of foreign
nationals it holds without charge. But even those released and deported
are still victims. The shadow of being detained for suspicion of terrorism
is not easily lifted. Certainly, Akil Sachveda is suffering. He is now
a part-time pump attendant in Toronto. He used to own a petrol station,
a bar and a pool hall in New Jersey, until one day the FBI came looking
for an ex-employee who was a Muslim. The man had left but they arrested
Sachveda instead *on suspicion of Islamic terrorism, despite the fact he is
a Hindu*. *He was held for five months and given no access to a lawyer.*
Prison guards threatened his life. Eventually, he was deported to Canada.
*He was never charged, but he had lost everything.* 'It is so painful.
It was terrifying, but you can't fight the government', he said.

Sachveda now can't get a full-time job. His spell in prison put off employers.
'You either don't get an interview or they let you go as soon as they find out.
But I never did anything wrong.'
....
Yaju Dharmarajah had applied to help with a state (Massachusetts) emergency
co-ordination agency as part of plans to become an aid worker. *But his Asian
name and accent* instead brought the local campus FBI officer to his house....
'*I am lucky. I have a white American wife.* If she was Sri Lankan like me,
I wouldn't have said anything for fear they would deport us', Dharmarajah said.
....
New York lawyer Barbara Olshansky, who is involved in several Patriot Act
suits, is stopped almost every time she flies. She is frequently subjected
to strip and full body searches. *She now fears to leave the US, despite
being an American citizen, out of concern she will not be allowed back.*
....
But it already is too late for some. Sachveda (described earlier) is not
adjusting well to his newfound poverty and exile from his adopted home.
'I lost everything. It would have been better if I had never come to
America', he said."

--Paul Harris (7 September 2003, 'The Observer')

Perhaps that's what the proudly 'flag-waving' Americans mean, when, reciting
their 'Pledge of Allegiance', they say, '...with liberty and justice for *all*'

--Nick

(Nick) wrote in
message . com...
...
"Big Brother takes grip on America: The US's response to 11 September
has been an unprecedented clampdown on the rights of its own citizens"
by Paul Harris in 'The Observer' (7 September 2003):

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...037090,00.html

Someone has written to me in an ignorant attempt to 'justify' the United
States government's treatment of the persons cited in this news article as
a necessary measure to oppose 'Muslim terrorism'. On the contrary, as far
as I can tell, *none of the persons who were named in my quoted text even
seems to be a Muslim, let alone a plausibly suspected 'Muslim terrorist'.*

"The (United States) government refuses to number the amount of foreign
nationals it holds without charge. But even those released and deported
are still victims. The shadow of being detained for suspicion of terrorism
is not easily lifted. Certainly, Akil Sachveda is suffering. He is now
a part-time pump attendant in Toronto. He used to own a petrol station,
a bar and a pool hall in New Jersey, until one day the FBI came looking
for an ex-employee who was a Muslim. The man had left but they arrested
Sachveda instead *on suspicion of Islamic terrorism, despite the fact he is
a Hindu*.

Akil Sachveda is a Hindu, not a Muslim.

*He was held for five months and given no access to a lawyer.*
Prison guards threatened his life. Eventually, he was deported to Canada.
*He was never charged, but he had lost everything.* 'It is so painful.
It was terrifying, but you can't fight the government', he said.

The government of 'the land of the free and the home of the brave'.

Sachveda now can't get a full-time job. His spell in prison put off employers.
'You either don't get an interview or they let you go as soon as they find
out. But I never did anything wrong.'
...
Yaju Dharmarajah had applied to help with a state (Massachusetts) emergency
co-ordination agency as part of plans to become an aid worker. *But his Asian
name and accent* instead brought the local campus FBI officer to his house....
'*I am lucky. I have a white American wife.* If she was Sri Lankan like me,
I wouldn't have said anything for fear they would deport us', Dharmarajah
said.

In Sri Lanka, the Sinhalese majority tends to be Buddhist, and the large
Tamil minority tends to be Hindu. Sri Lanka has a Muslim minority, but
it seems quite unlikely that someone with the family name of 'Dhramarajah'
would be a Muslim.

...
New York lawyer Barbara Olshansky, who is involved in several Patriot Act
suits, is stopped almost every time she flies. She is frequently subjected
to strip and full body searches. *She now fears to leave the US, despite
being an American citizen, out of concern she will not be allowed back.*

It seems unlikely to me that Ms Olshansky is a Muslim.

...
But it already is too late for some. Sachveda (described earlier) is not
adjusting well to his newfound poverty and exile from his adopted home.
'I lost everything. It would have been better if I had never come to
America', he said."

--Paul Harris (7 September 2003, 'The Observer')

As far as I know, Akil Sachveda's story has *not* been covered by the
'mainstream' news media in the United States. And I doubt that the patriotic
'Voice of America' would mention it in their radio broadcasts overseas.

As I recall, according to the Canadian news media, thousands (at least) of
persons of *perceived* Middle Eastern or Muslim background who had been living
legally in the United States (some of them even had 'green cards') have felt
compelled by intolerable harassment or fear of persecution by the United States
government to abandon their homes and jobs in the United States (which usually
would be a major financial sacrifice) and apply for refugee status in Canada.

Perhaps that's what the proudly 'flag-waving' Americans mean, when,
reciting their 'Pledge of Allegiance', they say, '...with liberty and
justice for *all*'

Perhaps some of those proudly 'flag-waving' Americans have a definition
of being 'real Americans' that would *not* include people who *appear*
to be like Akil Sachveda, a Hindu who was imprisoned and deported, evidently
*without being permitted to defend himself against any specific charges in
a legal trial*, by the United States government because it suspected him of
being an 'Islamic terrorist'.

--Nick