Something for the Pro-US posters to read

<B>There are several theories being advanced by various commentators explaining why Muslims generally hate the United States. The silliest of them is the one that the Bush administration and the conservative elements in America entertain. They insist that Binladen and other Islamic militants hate America because they hate American values of freedom and democracy. Nothing can be further from the truth. Indeed most Muslims are great admirers of democracy and freedom and insist that these values are not only consistent with Islam but were the bedrock of the glorious Islamic civilization. They point to the diversity, tolerance and harmony at the peak of Islamic civilization to substantiate their claims.

As Islamic awareness increases in postcolonial Muslim societies and Islamic activists try to rebuild their civilization they find that the economically motivated alliance between secular authoritarian regimes in the Muslim world and the West, in particular the US, is the biggest barrier to freedom, democracy and self determination. Turkey, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait are just a few examples of states were non-democratic regimes thrive and repress popular movements with US support.

In 1953 a CIA coup replaced the democratic government of Muhammad Mossadeq in Iran with a monarchy so that Iran could become a client serving US interests in the Middle East. In Algeria the west financed and legitimized a military coup that prevented Islamists from coming to power after winning an election. In the 1960s, and again in 1990s Turkey forced Islamists out of power, even after they had won popular mandates, with the tacit support from the US. Even now all that American establishment can think of, as an alternate to the Taliban in Afghanistan is the reinstatement of a senile monarch, not the establishment of democracy. </B>

x34, thanks for posting that. I think the above 3 paragraphs bear repeating. There is a reason why the US is hated in the Muslim world, and it ain't our way of life here in America. There's also a reason that Middle Eastern countries don't trust the US coming in and "helping" them.

 

Me too. The question I have is, how should this be done? As you correctly point out, the terrorists don't accurately reflect the people or the religion. I think we can also agree that Sadam fits into this category as well. I hope I'm not putting word in your mouth on this point. So my next question is, why are we labelling Iran and Iraq "evil"? We know that it's not the people but really just a few leaders and terrorists. We also know that true Muslims are quite religious and could easily take great offence to this word. And we also know that the moderates in Iran took great offence to this and were protesting in the streets. So why did Bush say this?

 

Don't worry. I'll let you know when you're putting words in my mouth!

I think it's like preaching to the choir. Instead of saying, "We know not everyone is evil, but the ones who are need to be dealt with" we say "We need to get rid of the evil doers, which include Iran and Iraq." It's also using the name of the state in place of the group of people. When we say 'Iran is evil" we mean "the leaders and terrorists in Iran are evil." Many times, we refer to the Queen of England as "the Crown" and this could fall under that category.

I think some of the answer could lie in who is listening. I hope that most Muslims don't take offense to Bush using the word "evil." I hope they realize that he is referring to those few leaders and terrorists and not the whole. If they do realize this, perhaps he is hoping it will rally support behind us. IIt's a lot easier to gain support and fight when everyone has a common enemy and that enemy is really nasty! t's just a thought.

 

I agree with you here. But what I see in this is that it is important that this kind of reform come from within the Muslim world. Perhaps I should say "greatly preferable" instead. If someone outside your religion and culture wags his finger at you and tells you to reform, how likely are you to listen to him? Right. If he's a lot bigger than you, you may tell him you'll do it, but as soon as his back is turned you'll flip him off. But if an insider called you out, you'd respect him and listen to him a lot more. I think the real chance at reform over there comes from people like this working from within. Now, we may have to do something the WMD if they pose a real threat, but calling these people evil is only going to piss them off and give them another reason to hate the west, and that will make the job of guys like the author of this article much tougher, IMO. This is one of the points I've been trying to make.

 

I'm not so sure they do understand this. There have been some protests to suggest that they don't. Major's post shows why they have some legitimate suspicion about US to begin with too. And you have to remember that they don't live here and understand things as we do. They see the world through the filters that their media and their culture give them. So I see the use of that word as problematic.

 

Well said Grizzled, IMO. Like I said, I think Bush was trying to rally us around a common enemy, but I can understand why it wouldn't do that (it's pretty obvious).

I do agree that the use of the word could be a problem. And you're correct in saying that they don't understand it if they're protesting against it. I was just offering a suggestion.

I think if they want our help in reforming, we should be there. And I don't know if they can reform until those evil leaders and terror groups are gone. I think if we can get rid of them, we probably should. I don't know that they can get rid of them alone and as the superpower, I think it's our job to help if we can.

As far as the WMDs go, we do need to step in there. I don't know of any reason that the US should trust Saddam. And I do believe there are real reasons to call it the "Axis of Evil." However, maybe we should specify that we don't mean the actual citizens. I know that when I say we need to attack Iran I don't mean the whole country. But I can't know what other people mean.

 

Excellent article. I've been wondering when this would make its way to the BBS...

It is also interesting to note that the discussion has moved away from the article's central themes. Funny how petty nitpicking on an internet board can do that...

 

Muqtekar Khan said: Until Americans revisit their foreign policy practices and good Muslims challenge distorted interpretations of Islam consistently we may not come out of the circle of terror and counter-terror.

Amen.

 

<B>It is also interesting to note that the discussion has moved away from the article's central themes. </B>

That's because there's nothing of real note in the original article. It basically says moderate Muslims shouldn't tolerate extremism, which I think is fairly obvious and everyone agrees with.

 

Did you just read the first seven words of that sentence, glynch? Or did you just completely miss its (and the article's) point completely?

 

It seems to me that one of the freedoms in this country is to address our posts to whomever we want.

 

Yes, that is basically what it says.

Why does it need to be said, though? Apparently it is not obvious to every muslim that extremism shouldn't be tolerated. Apparently, it may not even be a majority (worldwide) position.

The article was more directed to American muslims than anyone else. There are Imams here who are preaching just as much hate as those in Saudi or Pakistan. This article acknowledges that as a serious problem... And flies against the PC line that no one in the Islamic community agrees with the radicals.

It is not really quantifiable, but when only 3% or so of the Islamic community condones 9/11-type attacks, then there will be no problem with the Islamic community. This is an admission - and an admonition - that the support for such acts is far more widespread than the PC line suggests. Possibly even a majority.

 

If Para 3 bears repeating, lets consider Algeria. Wasn't it France that acted against Algerian democracy? Holding the US responsible for all 'Western' crimes would imply that we should hold all Muslim or Arab countries responsible for transgressions of taliban/al qaeda, Iraq, Iran, etc. We keep hearing about 'the West this' and 'the West that'...

Does that irritate anyone else?

 

<B>If Para 3 bears repeating, lets consider Algeria. Wasn't it France that acted against Algerian democracy? Holding the US responsible for all 'Western' crimes would imply that we should hold all Muslim or Arab countries responsible for transgressions of taliban/al qaeda, Iraq, Iran, etc. We keep hearing about 'the West this' and 'the West that'... </B>

Yeah, this is a problem, but it's also a perception reality. We know it's wrong, but ultimately, fear is often created out of things like this. The west, including the US, has "oppressed" (or helped create oppression in) the Middle Eastern and 3rd-worldish countries for their own benefits, in the name of "doing right". So the next time the US (or anyone in the West) does something in the name of "doing right", people in those countries are going to be suspicious. I think its understandable, although frustrating in the times that we actually are doing something for the right reasons.

 

You are welcome!

I didn't say you were un-American. I said that the implication that someone is un-American because they disagree with SOME American policies is, in and of itself, un-American. Take that as you will.

The point of the thread was obviously aimed at those who disagree with some US policy and voice it here, in particular, policy dealing with the Middle East. Seeing as how you posted an article that nearly everyone agrees with, you may have missed your aim.

What bothers me is the assertion that, if I disagree with any US Policy, I'm anti-US as if one belief could blanket cover everything I think and feel about the United States as a country and as a political power. That is just an easy way to say, "I don't agree with you." and a way to minimalize those who disagree.

My point was an attempt to demonstrate that the only thing un-American is squashing our freedom of expression by trying to brand someone with one stroke of the pen (or keyboard). I'm quite certain that plenty of conservatives didn't think it was wrong or un-American to criticize our former president and his policies so I don't feel like there is anything wrong with my criticism of our current policies.

If you only want people of your choice to respond to your posts, this is the wrong place be posting.

 

I think his point is that some posters don't disagree with 'some US policy,' but rather take exception with ANY positive sentiments attributed to US action. As such these posters might have a tendency to want to focus ONLY on critiquing US action, ignoring other perspectives that might disagree. Not sure what I'm talking about? How about these positive comments?

Insightful. Thanks for the contribution.

No mention of the first part of the article. Only a nice blanket 'US is hated in the Muslim world.'

Or this follow up...

Hmmm, nothing of real note? It is a fact that Islamic extremists are recruiting in 'the West,' so suggesting that a universal consensus exists on the subject is false. But Major would rather rail on US action that allow for a discussion about resposibility for someone other than the US. Hence the article might be of interest to pro-US posters, and considered irrelevant by US bashers. Point proven.

I will say Glynch suprised me with a great cut which highlights the need for action by everyone.

If you always critique US foreign policy it might be informal but hardly incorrect to call you a 'US basher.' Doesn't have anything to do with being un-American, and I didn't see where NCStateFan ever said such a thing. You can be a dissenting voice, upholding the value of unhindered dissent, which is certainly an American (not exclusively of course) value, and be a US basher. I believe he merely meant to stem the inevitable tide of posters saying the author was 'out of it,' 'stating the obvious,' 'contributing nothing new to the debate,' and minimizing the focus on something other than US governmental policy.

 

Treeman, in his haste to disagree asked me if I had read the first seven words of the sentence, i.e., Until Americans revisit their foreign policy practices .

Yes, I had. That is the essential question and point of disagreement. I believe that the US needs to reexamine its failed foreign policies that have led to extreme hatred by the muslim world ,9/11 and seemingly another gulf war that you have been craving, among other problems. You don't and have refused to acknowledge the role of US foreign policy, except perhaps you blame Generals Powell and Scwartkopf for not being aggressive enough militarily.

I have no problem with muslims reexamining the distortions of their religion that led them to justify 9/11 based on their faith.

Similarly I believe that Christians shuould reexamine the distortions in their faith that allow Christians with a clear conscience to enthusiastically support US politicians and corporations who put in place sanctions that have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi kids; market infant formula that has killed hundreds of thousands of the babies of the poor throughout the world and start wars because they prefer suv's to energy conservation etc.

 

I see those quotes, but do you honestly believe that is indicative of everything Major believes about America? He has been one to often argue about how well capitalism works and, being a business owner, he knows the value of living and working here. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but it would seem that having an opinion about US foreign policy doesn't exactly equate to a dislike of all things US.

How does anyone here know exactly how any other person feels about everything? "Always" critque US foreign policy? I don't "always" do that. I do it often here, but "always" is a pretty blanket statement. If I recall, there are posters who are anti-abortion and posters who are pro prayer in school. Both of these opinions fly in the face of US policy. Would that also make them US bashers?

I'm just the only one who asked. And, who is the one taking it personally now?

Oh, good grief. Wah, wah, wah. If you don't want your post to be dissected, DON'T POST HERE. This is a bulletin board with all sorts of opinions. You know that. Every time I post in the Rockets forum in support of Rudy T, I'm ripped for being a Rudy "apologist." Do I like it? Not really, but I know it is the reality of posting here.

If I question you, it is your right to rebutt. If you question me, I'll do the same. If you don't like it, tough.

See the above comment to Hayes. You called people "US bashers" if they disagreed. I disagree with that statement. I think what we are doing here is discussing policy. That doesn't make anyone pro or anti-US by nature. It just makes us people who disagree. I try to refrain from making blanket statements about anyone. It just pisses people off.

Spoiling the mood? Gimme a break. If I had a dollar for every person who cracked a joke, derailed a discussion or made comments I didn't like in a thread, I'd be a thousand-aire. It is the nature of being here. If you don't want to discuss my comments, IGNORE ME. Everyone else seems to be going about the discussion just fine.