Why They Hate Us: The Long Answer

[PaceAdvantage]

I found the following article quite interesting.....some quotes:

He reels off a succession of surprising statistics in support of this argument: the GDP of the world’s fifty-seven Muslim-majority countries combined is less than that of France. Those fifty-seven countries are home to about 500 universities, compared to more than 5,000 in the United States and 8,000 in India. Fewer new book titles are published each year in Arabic, the language of 300 million people, than in Greek, spoken by only 15 million. More books are translated into Spanish each year than have been translated into Arabic in the last century.

Using these facts, Haqqani argues that a lack of economic, intellectual, cultural, and technological productivity in the Muslim world has left a vacuum that has been filled by paranoia and inflammatory rhetoric, fueling “a culture of political anger, rather than political solutions.” Angry rhetoric, he maintains, keeps Muslims in a constant state of fear that Islam and Islamic culture are in danger of being snuffed out, resulting in a persistent cycle of violence as Muslims respond to the perceived threat posed by both external and sectarian enemies.

The full article here:

http://www.bu.edu/alumni/bostonia/2008/winter/explorations/haqqani/

[sammy the sage]

You know what's funny...They hate each other EVEN worse...if it weren't for the oil...we'd be out of there...(or never been there )...and they would go back to killing EACH OTHER...like they've done for 3k years!

[Snag]

They hate us, however, up to the point of taking our aid money.

We cut off our aid and they will become our best friends.

[GaryG]

Nice post Mike...interesting to see what the reaction is from our liberal posters, virtually all of whom are muslim apologists. I'm sure the muslim countries' lack of development is our fault.

[Dave Schwartz]

They hate us, however, up to the point of taking our aid money.

We cut off our aid and they will become our best friends.

Bingo!

I have never understood why we give money to countries who do not support us. The "other guys" sure demand allegiance.

[DanG]

Bingo!

I have never understood why we give money to countries who do not support us. The "other guys" sure demand allegiance.
Because allegiances and circumstances shift through out history.

Most would currently agree financing Bin Laden and the Mujaheddin would not be a wise investment, yet in 1988 we determined it was strategic.

The age old adage…”Keep your friends close…and your enemy’s closer”. ;)

[Dave Schwartz]

I get that but it seems logical to say, "Before we give you the money, let's have an understanding..."

[kenwoodallpromos]

Funny- I always thought it was because they were backwards!LOL!!

[Tom]

The middle has only three resources:

1. Oil
2. Camel poop
3. brain damged idiots


They will one day run out of oil.

[so.cal.fan]

Giving some of these countries financial aid is a form of passivism, and passivity always invites agression.......law of the jungle.

[robert99]

I found the following article quite interesting.....some quotes:





The full article here:

http://www.bu.edu/alumni/bostonia/2008/winter/explorations/haqqani/

Yes it is surprising:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html

The GDP of France is $2067B

The top 7 Muslim countries for GDP are:
Iran 852B
Indonesia 845B
Turkey 667B
Saudi 572B
Pakistan 446B
Egypt 431B
Malaysia 357B

which alone totals £4170B, about double that of France.

Most technical publications are in English and German - not Arabic and students from those countries mainly study in Western Universities rather than at home. They got left behind because they did not industrialise at the time the West did. As the potential market can largely read English and Saudi and Egypt are the only two in that 7 speaking Arabic then there is little commercial point in translating into Arabic.

What evidence is there that the whole Muslim population hates USA. the West, Western Government or what? It is unlikely that they indiscriminately hate individuals in the West, rather than their Government policies. The few rabble rousers might do, some may not be too friendly, some may not agree with certain policy aspects, others, maybe the majority, might not have any opinion one way or the other. Certainly a lot of developing countries of all types are ambiguous in liking a lot of the comforts of the West but are really concerned that their culture disappears at a rapid rate when they do embrace the West.

Yes, it is always best to try to understand and talk with your supposed enemy.

[46zilzal]

Oh there is NO racial profiling here (including each and everyone of a certain geography or ethnicity being EXACTLY the same) NOT AT ALL. But then they want to NUKE EM!!.

[hcap]

It is no coincidence that terrorist activities have increased dramatically in the second half of the 20th century. It is only indirectly related to religious motivations, but directly connected with global struggles for political dominance and the usual scramble for resources and land. Without examining the recent history of Western interference and control of the Mid East, the unbalanced support for oppressive monarchs and Kingdoms, assassinations of elected leaders and overthrow of lawfully elected regimes, all the wondering of "why they hate us" remains a dumbed down overly simplified broadly drawn vision of good vs evil.

Here are some political/historical events that arise in the minds of those that hate us. The politics behind these events may have served us in the past, and may even have been necessary from a realpolitic point of view, but nevertheless these events as seen by those on the Arab Street, colored by religious fanatics tend to get at the root of why we are not always admired.

Of course invading, occupying and destroying Iraq does not help.
And the Palestinians/Israeli conflict only prolongs the problem.

.................................................. .................................................. .....

The United States and Middle East:
Why Do "They" Hate Us?
(revised, 12 Dec. 2001)
By Stephen R. Shalom

The list below presents some specific incidents of U.S. policy in the Middle East. The list minimizes the grievances against the United States in the region because it excludes more generalized long‑standing policies, such as U.S. backing for authoritarian regimes (arming Saudi Arabia, training the secret police in Iran under the Shah, providing arms and aid to Turkey as it ruthlessly attacked Kurdish villages, etc.). The list also excludes many actions of Israel in which the United States is indirectly implicated because of its military, diplomatic, and economic backing for Israel.


Whether any of these grievances actually motivated those who organized the horrific and utterly unjustified attacks of September 11 is unknown. But the grievances surely helped to create the environment which breeds anti-American terrorism.

1947-48: U.S. backs Palestine partition plan. Israel established. U.S. declines to press Israel to allow expelled Palestinians to return.



1949: CIA backs military coup deposing elected government of Syria.1



1953: CIA helps overthrow the democratically‑elected Mossadeq government in Iran (which had nationalized the British oil company) leading to a quarter‑century of repressive and dictatorial rule by the Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlevi.



1956: U.S. cuts off promised funding for Aswan Dam in Egypt after Egypt receives Eastern bloc arms.



1956: Israel, Britain, and France invade Egypt. U.S. does not support invasion, but the involvement of its NATO allies severely diminishes Washington's reputation in the region.



1958: U.S. troops land in Lebanon to preserve "stability".



early 1960s: U.S. unsuccessfully attempts assassination of Iraqi leader, Abdul Karim Qassim.2



1963: U.S. supports coup by Iraqi Ba'ath party (soon to be headed by Saddam Hussein) and reportedly gives them names of communists to murder, which they do with vigor.3



1967‑: U.S. blocks any effort in the Security Council to enforce SC Resolution 242, calling for Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in the 1967 war.



1970: Civil war between Jordan and PLO. Israel and U.S. discuss intervening on side of Jordan if Syria backs PLO.



1972: U.S. blocks Egyptian leader Anwar Sadat's efforts to reach a peace agreement with Israel.



1973: Airlifted U.S. military aid enables Israel to turn the tide in war with Syria and Egypt.



1973‑75: U.S. supports Kurdish rebels in Iraq. When Iran reaches an agreement with Iraq in 1975 and seals the border, Iraq slaughters Kurds and U.S. denies them refuge. Kissinger secretly explains that "covert action should not be confused with missionary work."4



1975: U.S. vetoes Security Council resolution condemning Israeli attacks on Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon.5



1978‑79: Iranians begin demonstrations against the Shah. U.S. tells Shah it supports him "without reservation" and urges him to act forcefully. Until the last minute, U.S. tries to organize military coup to save the Shah, but to no avail.6



1979‑88: U.S. begins covert aid to Mujahideen in Afghanistan six months before Soviet invasion in Dec. 1979.7 Over the next decade U.S. provides training and more than $3 billion in arms and aid.



1980‑88: Iran‑Iraq war. When Iraq invades Iran, the U.S. opposes any Security Council action to condemn the invasion. U.S. soon removes Iraq from its list of nations supporting terrorism and allows U.S. arms to be transferred to Iraq. At the same time, U.S. lets Israel provide arms to Iran and in 1985 U.S. provides arms directly (though secretly) to Iran. U.S. provides intelligence information to Iraq. Iraq uses chemical weapons in 1984; U.S. restores diplomatic relations with Iraq. 1987 U.S. sends its navy into the Persian Gulf, taking Iraq's side; an overly‑aggressive U.S. ship shoots down an Iranian civilian airliner, killing 290.



1981, 1986: U.S. holds military maneuvers off the coast of Libya in waters claimed by Libya with the clear purpose of provoking Qaddafi. In 1981, a Libyan plane fires a missile and U.S. shoots down two Libyan planes. In 1986, Libya fires missiles that land far from any target and U.S. attacks Libyan patrol boats, killing 72, and shore installations. When a bomb goes off in a Berlin nightclub, killing three, the U.S. charges that Qaddafi was behind it (possibly true) and conducts major bombing raids in Libya, killing dozens of civilians, including Qaddafi's adopted daughter.8



1982: U.S. gives "green light" to Israeli invasion of Lebanon,9 killing some 17 thousand civilians.10 U.S. chooses not to invoke its laws prohibiting Israeli use of U.S. weapons except in self‑defense. U.S. vetoes several Security Council resolutions condemning the invasion.



1983: U.S. troops sent to Lebanon as part of a multinational peacekeeping force; intervene on one side of a civil war, including bombardment by USS New Jersey. Withdraw after suicide bombing of marine barracks.



1984: U.S.‑backed rebels in Afghanistan fire on civilian airliner.11



1987-92: U.S. arms used by Israel to repress first Palestinian Intifada. U.S. vetoes five Security Council resolution condemning Israeli repression.



1988: Saddam Hussein kills many thousands of his own Kurdish population and uses chemical weapons against them. The U.S. increases its economic ties to Iraq.



1988: U.S. vetoes 3 Security Council resolutions condemning continuing Israeli occupation of and repression in Lebanon.



1990‑91: U.S. rejects any diplomatic settlement of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (for example, rebuffing any attempt to link the two regional occupations, of Kuwait and of Palestine). U.S. leads international coalition in war against Iraq. Civilian infrastructure targeted.12 To promote "stability" U.S. refuses to aid post‑war uprisings by Shi'ites in the south and Kurds in the north, denying the rebels access to captured Iraqi weapons and refusing to prohibit Iraqi helicopter flights.13



1991‑: Devastating economic sanctions are imposed on Iraq. U.S. and Britain block all attempts to lift them. Hundreds of thousands die. Though Security Council had stated that sanctions were to be lifted once Saddam Hussein's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction were ended, Washington makes it known that the sanctions would remain as long as Saddam remains in power. Sanctions in fact strengthen Saddam's position. Asked about the horrendous human consequences of the sanctions, Madeleine Albright (U.S. ambassador to the UN and later Secretary of State) declares that "the price is worth it."14



1991-: U.S. forces permanently based in Saudi Arabia.



1993‑: U.S. launches missile attack on Iraq, claiming self‑defense against an alleged assassination attempt on former president Bush two months earlier.15



1998: U.S. and U.K. bomb Iraq over the issue of weapons inspections, even though Security Council is just then meeting to discuss the matter.



1998: U.S. destroys factory producing half of Sudan's pharmaceutical supply, claiming retaliation for attacks on U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and that factory was involved in chemical warfare. Evidence for the chemical warfare charge widely disputed.16



2000-: Israel uses U.S. arms in attempt to crush Palestinian uprising, killing hundreds of civilians.





Notes



1. Douglas Little, “Cold War and Covert Action: The United States and Syria, 1945‑1958,” Middle East Journal, vol. 44, no. 1, Winter 1990, pp. 55‑57.



2. Thomas Powers, The Man Who Kept the Secrets: Richard Helms and the CIA, New York: Knopf, 1979, p. 130.



3. Andrew Cockburn and Patrick Cockburn, Out of the Ashes: The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein, New York: Harperperennial. 1999, p. 74; Edith and E. F. Penrose, Iraq: International Relations and National Development, Boulder: Westview, 1978, p. 288; Hanna Batatu, The Old Social Classes and the Revolutionary Movements of Iraq, Princeton: Princeton UP, 1978, pp. 985‑86.



4. U.S. House of Representatives, Select Committee on Intelligence, 19 Jan. 1976 (Pike Report) in Village Voice, 16 Feb. 1976. The Pike Report attributes the quote only to a “senior official”; William Safire (Safire's Washington, New York: Times Books, 1980, p. 333) identifies the official as Kissinger.



5. UN Doc. # S/11898, session # 1862. For a full list of U.S. vetoes in the Security Council on Middle East issues, along with full text of the draft resolutions, see the compilation by David Paul at http://www.salam.org/policy/veto.html.



6. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Power and Principle: Memoirs of the National Security Adviser, 1977-1981 (New York: Farrar Straus Giroux, 1983), pp. 364-64, 375, 378-79; Gary Sick, All Fall Down: America's Tragic Encounter with Iran (New York: Penguin, 1986), pp. 147-48, 167, 179.



7. Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76.



8. See the sources in Stephen R. Shalom, Imperial Alibis (Boston: South End Press, 1993, chapter 7.



9. Ze'ev Schiff, "Green Light, Lebanon," Foreign Policy, Spring 1983.



10. Robert Fisk, "The Awesome Cruelty of a Doomed Poeple," Independent, 12 Sept. 2001, p. 6. Fisk is one of the most knowledgeable Westerners reporting on Lebanon.



11. UPI, “Afghan Airliner Lands After Rebel Fire Hits It,” NYT, 26 Sept. 1984, p. A9.



12. See, for example, Barton Gellman, "Allied Air War Struck Broadly in Iraq; Officials Acknowledge Strategy Went Beyond Purely Military Targets," Washington Post, 23 June 1991, p. A1. See also Thomas J. Nagy, "The Secret Behind the Sanctions," Progressive, Sept. 2001.



13. Cockburn and Cockburn, Out of the Ashes: The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein, chap. 1.



14. Cockburn and Cockburn, Out of the Ashes: The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein, chap. 5. Albright quote is from CBS News, 60 Minutes, 12 May 1996.



15. On the dubious nature of the evidence, see Seymour Hersh, New Yorker, Nov. 1, 1993.



16. See Seymour Hersh, New Yorker, Oct. 12, 1998.

[hcap]

Now PA proposes at least some socio-economic slightly factually flawed reason for the "backwards nature of Muslim society. I have to admit it is a leap forward over the usual argument bandied about here of intrinsic "evilness" of Islam and the intrinsic goodness of our western religious roots. I will give him credit for at least moving the argument somewhat towards socio-economics.

But the argument all along spouted by Bush officials was that the attacks had been motivated by the terrorists’ hatred for America’s “freedom and values.” Or they hate us for our freedoms.

Conveniently ignoring the anger and hatred that Arabs and Muslims have for the United States rooted in decades of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.

The decades of U.S. supplying of advanced weaponry and foreign aid to the Israeli government, and the U.S. government’s almost unconditional support for the Israelis, have had no adverse effect on how Arabs and Muslims feel about the United States.

Their anger and hatred is caused by America’s freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and rock and roll.

[hcap]

And here is how Bin Laden takes advantage.

http://www.slate.com/id/2171752/pagenum/2/

Why Do They Hate Us?Strange answers lie in al-Qaida's writings.
By Reza Aslan

"But Ibrahim's point is that we can learn about al-Qaida's intentions by reading their words, that a book like this can help Americans better understand the nature of the anger directed toward them.

In the most general sense, this is certainly true. But whether a hodgepodge of interviews, declarations, and exegetical arguments can be read as a sort of jihadist manifesto is debatable. While these writings provide readers with page after page of, for example, arcane legal debates over the moral permissibility of suicide bombing, they do not really get to the heart of what it is that al-Qaida wants, if it wants anything at all. Al-Qaida's nominal aspirations—the creation of a worldwide caliphate, the destruction of Israel, the banishing of foreigners from Islamic lands—are hardly mentioned in the book. It seems the president of the United States talks more about al-Qaida's goals than al-Qaida itself does. Rarely, if ever, do Bin Laden and Zawahiri discuss any specific social or political policy.

...What al-Qaida does lay out, however, are grievances—many, many grievances. There is the usual litany of complaints about the suffering of Palestinians, the tyranny of Arab regimes, and the American occupation of Iraq. But again, legitimate as these complaints may be, there is in these writings an almost total lack of interest in providing any specific solution or policy to address them. Indeed, al-Qaida's many grievances against the West are so heterogeneous, so mind-bogglingly unfocused, that they must be recognized less as grievances per se, than as popular causes to rally around. There are protests about the United Nations' rejection of Zimbabwe's elections, the Bush administration's unwillingness to sign up to the International Criminal Court, and America's role in global warming. (To quote Bin Laden: "You have destroyed nature with your industrial waste and gases, more than any other country.

....They are a means of weaving local and global resentments into a single anti-American narrative, the overarching aim of which is to form a collective identity across borders and nationalities, and to convince the world that it is locked in a cosmic contest between the forces of Truth and Falsehood, Belief and Unbelief, Good and Evil, Us and Them.

In this regard, al-Qaida has been spectacularly successful, thanks in no small part to the assistance of the divisive "Clash of Civilizations" mentality of our own politicians. In fact, far from debunking al-Qaida's twisted vision of a world divided in two, the Bush administration has legitimized it through its own morally reductive "us vs. them" rhetoric.

[PaceAdvantage]

Yes it is surprising:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html

The GDP of France is $2067B

The top 7 Muslim countries for GDP are:My guess is the author is using NOMINAL GDP, not Purchasing Power Parity like the CIA factbook is using....

Iran's NOMINAL GDP is only 222B compared to 852B PPP GDP.

Comparisons of national wealth are also frequently made on the basis of nominal GDP, which does not reflect differences in the cost of living in different countries. (See List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita) .) The advantages of using nominal GDP figures include that less estimation is required, and that they more accurately reflect the participation of the inhabitants of a country in the global economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_economy).

As you can see, there's a huge difference in GDP's concerning Iran......by comparison, the United States GDP (PPP) is 13.675 trillion, compared to 13.770 trillion nominal.....nearly no difference whatsoever....

[Secretariat]

And here is how Bin Laden takes advantage.

But FOX told us in 2001 Bin Laden is dead.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,41576,00.html

Report: Bin Laden Already Dead
Wednesday, December 26, 2001

Usama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended the funeral of the Al Qaeda leader.

[PaceAdvantage]

Now PA proposes at least some socio-economic slightly factually flawed reason for the "backwards nature of Muslim society. I have to admit it is a leap forward over the usual argument bandied about here of intrinsic "evilness" of Islam and the intrinsic goodness of our western religious roots. I will give him credit for at least moving the argument somewhat towards socio-economics.I didn't propose a thing. A Mr. Husain Haqqani is the owner of these ideas. I simply posted a link. You know how that works, posting links, correct?

[hcap]

But you gave support to that view by posting it.
Hey, I gave you a :ThmbUp: by at least avoiding the Islam evil thingy.

But it is only a matter of time before the usual suspects jump in.

[chickenhead]

are we enlightened enough to allow that different groups may have different reasons to "hate" us?

It is clear to anyone who looks that the Taliban-esque fundamentalists have extremely deep and irreconcilable problems with "western values".

Is there a broader, more mainstream group that has other, more geopolitically based reasons? Sure. There are whole lots of people of all ethnicities, of all nationalities, of all religions, with geopolitical gripes about the US. They just don't generally kill large numbers of Americans.

Most concerns have been over the first group. I think this is more or less nonsense:

Rarely, if ever, do Bin Laden and Zawahiri discuss any specific social or political policy.

so far as being meaningful...we can look at the areas where Al-Qaeda has weilded the most power, on the ground, and look at the social and political policy that is put into place. To pretend it is not antithetical to Western Values is willful ignorance.

[GaryG]

The root cause of a lot of the hate is Israel and it is directed toward us because we are their main ally. It won't go away until they are able to remove Israel from the former Pasestine. I can't see that happening any time soon, so round and round we go.

[hcap]

Yes, Talibanesque religious fundamentalism is anti-west. It is anti-humane, anti-secular. And? When did I ever say I supported that lunacy?

I am not suggesting we do not face a dangerous group of extremists.
What I am saying is that to ignore the regions' history and our involvement is foolish.

[chickenhead]

Yes, Talibanesque religious fundamentalism is anti-west. It is anti-humane, anti-secular. And? When did I ever say I supported that lunacy?

I am not suggesting we do not face a dangerous group of extremists.
What I am saying is that to ignore the regions' history and our involvement is foolish.

I guess I am missing the critique then.

In this regard, al-Qaida has been spectacularly successful, thanks in no small part to the assistance of the divisive "Clash of Civilizations" mentality of our own politicians. In fact, far from debunking al-Qaida's twisted vision of a world divided in two, the Bush administration has legitimized it through its own morally reductive "us vs. them" rhetoric.

How can pointing out that:

Talibanesque religious fundamentalism is anti-west. It is anti-humane, anti-secular.

Do anything other than to point out that it is us against them? At it's very root that is what this is about. I guess I do not see the third way. If someone comes up with the idea "I must kill chickenhead"...if I recognize that and say "it's me or him"....that is in some way incorrect? I don't think Bush or anyone else can define what Al-Qaeda is after, they have defined it themselves...and they have defined it as a Clash of Civilizations, as us vs. them.

[ddog]

CH said .....
"Do anything other than to point out that it is us against them?
At it's very root that is what this is about.
I guess I do not see the third way.
If someone comes up with the idea "I must kill chickenhead"...if I recognize that and say "it's me or him"....that is in some way incorrect?
I don't think Bush or anyone else can define what Al-Qaeda is after, they have defined it themselves...and they have defined it as a Clash of Civilizations, as us vs. them"

I think at the crux all the other stuff boils down to the above.
I am in the minority for the following sentiments but I have always felt this way:

1. I am willing to take a greater chance that the hyper-militants are more talk than action in regards to a cosmic threat as long as we are vigilent in taking away their means of action. It takes a lot of money and time and access to do a 9-11. I think we can degrade them through mainly non-military channels to keep the lid on that pot.

2.I think the less OVERT military force we use OR DEPLOY to that area is to OUR advantage.
I think that will help to support our allies in other countries and thus allow us to have greater and greater co-operation with them in the constant degrading of the fanatic types.
I do not and never bought they were or are a cosmic threat to us.

3. I do not believe that more than 5 percent of them HATE us.
The goal is not to drive any more of them to that than we need to.

In short , I think we need to accept a little more risk to ourselves to try to allow more of them to see us as wanting to help them.

there is just no getting around the fact that to bellow about spreading Democracy over there and then supporting a ruling class of elites in many countries there is actually two polcies that breed a distrust of anything we say.
when our leaders go to SaudiA and take photo ops with the scum that run that place and sell weapons to them, it drives many away from us of the ones that could be brought to our side.

To stop and/or try to protect THEM from Them by US doesn't do it.
Look at "sunnistan"-Anbar in Iraq, ONLY when the people had seen what the fanactics did to THEM were they willing to come to us.
I am sure some of them in that area hate us, but the heat is turned down for now. We didn't kill everyone that hates us there, you can bet the house on that.



At the end, to say "i want to kill chick" has to be weighed with the ability to carry it out.
If BinLaden placed a fatwah out on you that would be a different kind of threat versus Hcap saying "I want to kill that chick" sometimes.

Finally I don't think Isreal is the be all end all.
I think many have accepted it and want to move on , however they do want and should get a fair shot from us.

[Snag]

The problem, as I see it, is trying to relate money to religon. There are those that could care less about the money as they do about the Koran. We would like to relate the two but they don't match.

[Tom]

Oh there is NO racial profiling here (including each and everyone of a certain geography or ethnicity being EXACTLY the same) NOT AT ALL. But then they want to NUKE EM!!.

Ok, Magic 8 Ball...what the heck did that canned reply have to do with anything about this thread? Yes, I tend to want to nuke murdering dogs who attack us. Just funny that way.

[JustRalph]

Giving some of these countries financial aid is a form of passivism, and passivity always invites agression.......law of the jungle.


Brilliant!!!

[ddog]

details please, Which of "those" countries are we giving fin aid to?
Are "those" countries from the GDP list that was posted earlier?

Has Turkey attacked us,Kenya,Kuwait,Jordan,Lebanon?


Now, which of your list of "those" have attacked us in the last 20 years?

[JustRalph]

ddog................ please go back and read this post

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=479297&postcount=10

your earlier post is a homage to passive policy

[ddog]

ddog................ please go back and read this post

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=479297&postcount=10

your earlier post is a homage to passive policy

I will reread it , others would say it's how we won the Cold War!
I guess that one was fluke.

Or as 46 might say "first do harm".

don't cut off your legs becasue of one hasty diagnosis.

No matter what the degree of passivity one may attach , we are going to draw down no matter who comes in in Nov.

[hcap]

Chick:I guess I am missing the critique then.
hcap:
In this regard, al-Qaida has been spectacularly successful, thanks in no small part to the assistance of the divisive "Clash of Civilizations" mentality of our own politicians. In fact, far from debunking al-Qaida's twisted vision of a world divided in two, the Bush administration has legitimized it through its own morally reductive "us vs. them" rhetoric.

How can pointing out that:

Talibanesque religious fundamentalism is anti-west. It is anti-humane, anti-secular.

Do anything other than to point out that it is us against them? At it's very root that is what this is about. I guess I do not see the third way. If someone comes up with the idea "I must kill chickenhead"...if I recognize that and say "it's me or him"....that is in some way incorrect? I don't think Bush or anyone else can define what Al-Qaeda is after, they have defined it themselves...and they have defined it as a Clash of Civilizations, as us vs. them.

Many on the right have bought into the "Clash of Civilizations" ala Bernard Lewis and others.

You say they want to kill us, and you are right.

They say we want to kill them and point to innocent civilians. From their point of view they are right.

The situation cannot be defined by extremes of both camps. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda are not the entire Islamic world. Nor do the anti-Islamofascists represent the entire west. There is a middle ground that appeals to non extremists on both sides. Neither of which want to exterminate the other

[ddog]

post 10 was the one you quoted, the isolated stmt?

What I was asking was who are "those" countries that the fin aid has inspired aggression toward us?

[chickenhead]

The situation cannot be defined by extremes of both camps.

The situation is between the extremes on one camp and everyone else in the other. That is the situation. Al-Qaeda and crew are not only gunning for the extremely liberal, the extremely western. They're gunning for all that is not orthodox, by their definition.

The extremists (plural, but singular), are what make this a "situation".

Nor do the anti-Islamofascists represent the entire west.

They don't? I think it's hard to be pro-Islamofascist and pro-Western. I can't quite get my head around that. If you are pro-Western, you are anti-Islamofascist. What form that takes may vary, i.e. what to do about it, but to be western requires certain views of these things.

There is a middle ground appeals to non extremists on both sides.

I think that would be properly called :anti-Islamofascist. That is a middle ground that appeals to non extremists. Non extremists are all on the same side. Some of them just don't know it, until, as ddog pointed out, they get a nice strong whiff of it for themselves.

[ljb]

I get that but it seems logical to say, "Before we give you the money, let's have an understanding..."
They did have an understanding. Bin laden and company were supposed to make Afghanistan, Russia's Viet Nam. Mission accomplished.

[hcap]

The situation is between the extremes on one camp and everyone else in the other. That is the situation. Al-Qaeda and crew are not only gunning for the extremely liberal, the extremely western.Al-Qaeda is not all Muslims, and the situation is more than defending ourselves against a small group out to get us. The larger view has to include moderates on both sides. The proper view of the "situation" extends back into causes and we must deal with not only the extremists, but root causes or the "situation" will become a self-fullfilling prophecy of us against them.


The "Clash of Civilizations" philosophy pretty much postulates the same us against them that the Islamic extremists are trotting out.

The one camp only that you claim is fueling our purely defensive posture is not the only player in terms of framing a similar argument.

"I think it's hard to be pro-Islamofascist and pro-Western. I can't quite get my head around that. If you are pro-Western, you are anti-Islamofascist." Setting up a straw dog.

I would argue the use of Islamofascist although colorful is meaningless. However if we agree that the definition is in one form or another Muslim extremists that are out to get us, of course you can not be both pro western and support those out to get the west. Never said you could. You are off base.

I said. Nor do the anti-Islamofascists represent the entire west.

There are other ways of understanding militant Islam without framing it as a form of fascism. Therefore the concept is not as universal as you think. And there are other ways to view the roots of the larger conflict without being anti-Islamofascist

[chickenhead]

Al-Qaeda is not all Muslims, and the situation is more than defending ourselves against a small group out to get us.

Of course Al-Qaeda is not all muslims. Where have I talked about all Muslims? You can go to any country and find a whole bunch of people that don't like us. Are they part of this situation too? The situation that is important to me, right now, is the group that is out to get "us". I'll define that better in a minute.


The larger view has to include moderates on both sides. The proper view of the "situation" extends back into causes and we must deal with not only the extremists, but root causes or the "situation" will become a self-fullfilling prophecy of us against them.

You keep saying moderates on both sides. Both sides of what? Moderates are on the same side. If they weren't, they wouldn't be moderate. If moderates think they are on different sides, they either don't understand what they're talking about, or they aren't moderates.

I would argue the use of Islamofascist although colorful is meaningless. However if we agree that the definition is in one form or another Muslim extremists that are out to get us, of course you can not be both pro western and support those out to get the west. Never said you could. You are off base.

My definition hinges around sharia law. If you support sharia law, you are anti-western. If you are western, you are anti-sharia law. I don't know how colorful it is, but it cuts right to the heart of what my concerns are...and helps me identify the "bad guys". It is certainly a meaningful distinction, there is a real basic philosophical difference. There is no straw dog element to it.

It is also where my not understanding your "moderates on both sides". If you support sharia, you are not a moderate. If you support sharia, you are an enemy to all those who don't (Muslims included). These are my definitions, my understandings, I don't know what yours are.

Of course all sorts of broader elements come in to play when talking about "what to do" about it. But sometimes I think people get all tangled up and confused about the nature of it all. It seems you and I disagree, tho I'm not sure over what.

[skate]

Surprised that India has 3000 more Universities than does USA.

Population is 3 times that of the USA, eeven so, we hear about "how much the Asian and other countries out-perform the USA scholasticly".
With their people out performing, i'd believe their teachers to be better and hence the levil of education to be higher.
And if education is "the answer" to achievement, then why does India have so much poverty.

they too have a large Muslim population.

the fact that they speak (as a country) many different language, could be a big drawback.

Just think if they had to learn Spainish.

[hcap]

Just think if YOU had to learn English?

[ddog]

small hint, many don't get the chance of that education.
""""""""""", geography is often overlooked in development.
""""""""""",check the tech and engineering fields.
""""""""""",read the last 60 years of history of that part of the world , compare to ours here,which would you guess is more conducive to progress?

They have a much tougher job on their hands than we do here. Much of that job doesn't relate to Muslim issues at all.

You started with many benefits you did nothing to earn.

[hcap]

Why they hate us...

"The United States Sunday hailed former Indonesian president Suharto as a "historic figure" who "achieved remarkable economic development," in a statement released by its embassy here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suharto

Suharto seized power from his predecessor, the first president of Indonesia Sukarno, through a mixture of force and political maneuvering against the backdrop of foreign and domestic unrest. Over the three decades of his "Orde Baru" (New Order) regime, Suharto constructed a strong central government along militarist lines. An ability to maintain stability and an avowedly anti-Communist stance won him the economic and diplomatic support of several Western governments in the era of the Cold War. For most of his three-decade rule, Indonesia experienced significant economic growth and industrialization.[2] His rule, however, led to political purges and the deaths of millions of suspected Indonesian communists and Chinese-Indonesians,[3] and enaction of legislation outlawing communist parties and ethnic Chinese.[4] In addition, his invasion of East Timor in 1975 was notorious for its brutality with a reported 200,000 dead during the length of Indonesia's occupation.

[delayjf]

The age old adage…”Keep your friends close…and your enemy’s closer”.
In that spirit, I've invited Ole bin laden over to my place for the big game this weekend - JustRalph can I borrow your GlocK?

[ljb]

From Hcap to Skate,
Just think if YOU had to learn English?
:lol: :lol: :lol:

[JustRalph]

In that spirit, I've invited Ole bin laden over to my place for the big game this weekend - JustRalph can I borrow your GlocK?

not a glock man...........but I have something that will work just as well :lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

So then, with this many responses in such a short amount of time, I suppose Mr. Husain Haqqani may be onto something here....he raises some interesting statistics, don't you think?

[delayjf]

Hcap,

Stephen R. Shalom account/version of US intervention in the Mid-East is a bit shaded IMHO. I don’t deny the CIA’s involvement in Iran in the 1950’s, but the actual implementation of that coup was by Iranians, not Americans. It was the Iranians who willingly accepted American / British bribes that are ultimately responsible. I’m willing to acknowledge US duplicity to an extent, but Muslims need to understand and acknowledge their responsibility as well – the old “ the USA made me do it thing” is a cop out.

I absolutely disagree with regards to his interpretation of Lebanon in the early 80’s. The US was there as part of an International Peacekeeping force. We shelled terrorist after they attacked and killed US Marines.

I don’t understand his objection to arming the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. In this case we’re supporting Muslims.

[skate]

Just think if YOU had to learn English?

Xactly my Point, and this means you are not completely useless.

My word IS final, which renders English Superfluous.;)

[hcap]

Xactly my Point, and this means you are not completely useless.

My word IS final, which renders English Superfluous.;)I suspect rational thinking and clarity of expression as well.
Not to worry, we can have Tom do a running translation for those skate-impaired readers

For instance here is a full interpretation of YOUR take on free market mathematics applied to trade deficits and how that influences foreign policy.

http://www.learning-fun.co.uk/images/bananaMonkey.gif

Oh my goodness, no more time to have major intellectual debates with you skate. Or for that matter no more time for being a thinking rational being.

Time to turn off any critical faculties and bask in the glow of the soothing words of dear leedur.

Your Unca George is doin' da SOTU. Yeehaw!!!!!!

[dav4463]

Islam is the "religion of peace" ! :D

[Tom]

Not to worry, we can have Tom do a running translation for those skate-impaired readers

He makes far more sense than YOU ever did, on any topic!

[skate]

I suspect rational thinking and clarity of expression as well.
Not to worry, we can have Tom do a running translation for those skate-impaired readers

For instance here is a full interpretation of YOUR take on free market mathematics applied to trade deficits and how that influences foreign policy.

http://www.learning-fun.co.uk/images/bananaMonkey.gif

Oh my goodness, no more time to have major intellectual debates with you skate. Or for that matter no more time for being a thinking rational being.

Time to turn off any critical faculties and bask in the glow of the soothing words of dear leedur.

Your Unca George is doin' da SOTU. Yeehaw!!!!!!



a LITTLE obliquely for me...

oh oh oh, yeah, now i get it (boing!) boing boing. you must be pissed cause i was trying to put you on the straight and narrow when i surreptitiously gave you instructions on quantifying your lack in math skills, as witnessed thru your performance.

my goosh!

the-skate is trying to help