Why do 'they' hate us - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dlish · 08-04-2006, 07:15 PM

ive been thinking over the last few weeks about this quote "why do they 'hate' us". it really had me torn.

i mean, being born and raised in australia, to lebanese parents, and being a muslim, what happened on 911 really did shock me, as it did the rest of the world. some with shock and horror, and sadly some with a shock and spitefulness, others with shock and confusion. i think i was a mix of the first and third category. as people tried to understand the enormity of what happened, people started asking questions. who would do such a horrible thing? why would they do such henious acts? why us? why do they hate US?

now nearly 5 years later, sadly it looks like the USA and its constituents still havent really come to terms with these questions themselves..certainly the US administration has not. we are still asking the same questions that we were asking in the aftermath of 911. now, 5 years later...the war on terror has ignited two wars... an ongoing afghan war that doesnt look like subsiding anytime soon, an iraqi insurgency bent on civil war that also seems will be raging for a long time to come.

and now with the countless deaths of innocent civilians in lebanon, the US administration still wont heed the warning signs.

if the US really wanted a long lasting peaceful solution in the muslim and arab world, it needs to start playing fair. we all agree that in this age the propaganda machine plays an integral role in winning the hearts and minds of its people. be it CNN or Al Jazeera or Al Arabiya..it doesnt really matter, all views are skewed to suit the views and needs or the populace, regardless of whichever side of the fence you're on. And this includes all issues be it abortion, homosexuality, war, euthanasia..all news is skewed to suit the audience at large.

so when the 1.1 billion strong arab and muslim world watch the death and destruction of firstly afghanistan, then iraq (rightly or wrongly) at the hands of an occupying force that heeds no authority but its own will,, you can imagine why people start to despise the USA.

and now with the situation in lebanon getting worse by the day, and with the USA able to do something about it, but would rather turn a blind eye and blatently have no regard for human life, you start to wonder why on earth would the beacon of justice in this world not giving a flying hoot about a life that is not american?

i ask you to put yourself in the shoes of an arab or a muslim for a moment, and look through their glasses, and see what they see or feel. i sense a mood changing from optimism and hope to despair. the blatent disregard to the rights of sovereign nations by the USA has turned the whole muslim and arab world against them. Arab nations that are traditionally allies of the USA are speaking up against her. she has backed herself up in a corner against the entire inetrnational community and the entire muslim world and stuck by its old foe israel through thick or thin regardless of the notion of natural justice.

it has turned a shiite iraqi people who have been on the verge of acceptance of the americans against them, and they have undone any good they had done in the land of iraq. it has turned the afghan people against them through 5 years of turmoil. it has taken lebanon back 20 years in the space of a month with its refusal to ask israel for an immediate ceasefire. thats all it takes, two words, yet they refuse to say it.

they have turned every muslim and arab who has any sense of belonging to their roots against them. the favourtism shown to Israel confirms to them that this is definately not a level playing field.

in my opinion the USA has played it cards wrongly this time. they may have had a justification in afghanistan, or even helped overthrow a despot, but they definately have backed an opressor in Israel this time.

as thorny as the issue is, had the USA played it fair, this could have helped the USA strengthen its foothold in the region and in the most forward democracy in the middle east. yet, what we see now is the arab and muslim public opinion turn back against USA.

and the american people ask itself...."why do they hate us?" its not because we hate your freedoms..its not because we despise the way you live, its not because you are infidels, its not because we want to usurp you under an islamic caliphate..its none of that nonesense ... the answer is simple.. because we've been denied justice.

Ustwo · 08-04-2006, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlishsguy

and the american people ask itself...."why do they hate us?" its not because we hate your freedoms..its not because we despise the way you live, its not because you are infidels, its not because we want to usurp you under an islamic caliphate..its none of that nonesense ... the answer is simple.. because we've been denied justice.

We? Do you hate us too? That makes me sad

And they hated us before we were in Afganastan because?

I think they would only love us if we did what they don't have the strength to do despite many many tries and thats destroy Israel. Now if we did that they might like us for a few weeks.

Of course if you think I'm going to side with a people stuck in the 8th century instead of the only free state in the area, you will have to keep hating us.

flstf · 08-04-2006, 08:01 PM

I don't know the answer to your question "Why do they hate us". I assume by "they" you are referring to Muslims and Arabs. I used to think it had something to do with our support of Israel in general.

I wonder if Muslims and Arabs ask themselves the same question about the U.S.?

dlish · 08-04-2006, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

We? Do you hate us too? That makes me sad

And they hated us before we were in Afganastan because?

I think they would only love us if we did what they don't have the strength to do despite many many tries and thats destroy Israel. Now if we did that they might like us for a few weeks.

Of course if you think I'm going to side with a people stuck in the 8th century instead of the only free state in the area, you will have to keep hating us.

ustwo

no i dont hate "yous" i was using the word 'we' collectively to connect with the arab and muslim masses generally.. as a whole, i would be considered within the realm of the arab and muslim masses, hence using the word 'we', though i live in australia.

i dont recall the many many attempts to destroy israel in the last 60 or so years. sure, theres been a few measly attempts, no one can deny it. but i dont think anyone has asked the USA to destroy israel.

sadly, i think you missed my point in this whole post, and your final paragraph is a testament to that. your refusal to even look the issues at hand, and your wanton support of israel without even a sense of apathy for the other side is exactly what im talking about. this is unfortunate since i think your a pretty switched on fellow.

p.s. they hated you before afghanistan for many reasons.. i tried to only concentrate on the last 5 years since 911 since the question 'why do they hate us' popped up then. i think the question of the origins of why do they hate us has come up in previous threads, but id rather limit this to what is happening now, rather than in the last 50 years since this topic can be sidetracked. but im sure that your aware that colonial powers had much to do with the dismembering of the arab world and the installation of western appointed rulers and despots.

i dont think 'we' (yes im using it collectively) think the USA hates us at all. rather we tend to think that the USA is working in its own self interest. so really deep down, they dont think you do it for the hate, only for the greed.

cj2112 · 08-04-2006, 08:55 PM

So because Ustwo disagrees with your opinion and has one of his own, that is a refusal to even look at the issues at hand?

Is it wrong for the USA to work for it's own self interests?

powerclown · 08-04-2006, 09:54 PM

I don't want to speak for Ustwo, but I think what he initially implies is that no matter what anybody does, extremists will do their thing regardless. 9/11 was before Iraq, the Taliban was before 9/11, there were dozens upon dozens of terrorist attacks going back decades before 9/11, before Dubya, before Clinton, before Reagan, before Carter, before Blair, before Major, before Thatcher. So I don't see it as a refusal to look at the issues; I would guess that Ustwo is well aware of the issues at hand.

In the case of the Islamists - who are the source of most of this trouble imo - this shit goes back to an extreme and violent interpretation of the Koran...but I also think it has to do with how Muslims see their place in the world, to what I think flstf was alluding to above. I think they are a culture filled with fear and insecurity, doubt as to who they are and how they achieve their dignity in the world, fear of outsiders and different values...lets face it, if the world was a giant city, the Middle East would be the run-down, boarded up, locked-down part of town that everyone would avoid.

Dictatorships and dysfunctional religious oligarchies provide no economic incentive, no foreign investment, poor educational systems, no way to provide for decent jobs, no civil rights, no transparent judicial systems, no freedom of speech, no religious diversity, no political diversity, no cultural diversity, no exchange of ideas, no innovation...these governments don't create the infrastructure necessary to meet their citizen's basic needs, nevermind to allow for the personal/spiritual/academic/technical growth needed to compete with other countries around the world in anything whatsoever.

And oil only perpetuates these systems. Most of the thought and energy of any given country in the Middle East is put into extracting and exporting oil - little expertise or involvement in any other field.

So this is where I have a problem with the countries of the Middle East feeling a sense of entitlement, while simultaneously pointing the finger at Israel and the West as the source of all their troubles, turning a blind eye to their own corruption and dysfunction. They choose to look outward to avoid having to look inward.

Charlatan · 08-04-2006, 10:41 PM

powerclown, I don't disagree with your assesment of the governments in the Middle East but you forgot the part where western military is used to prop up regimes in an effort to keep the oil flowing.

This is a key part of the equation.

host · 08-04-2006, 10:52 PM

It's a new day.....and once again, it's time for "host" to ask ustwo and powerclown, and those who agree with them,
<h3>How do you know what you know?</h3>

What you "know" seems opposite to today's "fallout", from the history of the western europeans' (and more recently, the Americans'....since the 1953 CIA backed coup in Iran.....) brutal policy of doing whatever the fuck western governments and business interests wanted.....in and to the arab states, and other predominately muslim states, in the middle east, and the effects of these policies on the populations.

The vehemence of your "certainty", is what is most astounding; most offensive to the sensibilities of those of us who stevo painted as "hating Israel". That is the price that those of us who do not subscribe to your "it is obvious that the U.S. and Israel are right", mantra must pay.....we are labeled, along with those who you say we "side with", lumped together by you, as "hating" or "hateful", certainly "too far left" to engage in any meaningful discussion.

Could you possibly consider, in the parameters of "what you know", that you might be letting too little "in"....too little gets past your "filters"? I often consider that I may err by letting "too much" in past my filters.

The result is that "I know" much less than those who profess such unbending certainty, "know".....but I wouldn't have it any other way. I'll continue to share what gets in the way of agreeing with you.....in the way of being as "certain" of anything as you are, because you seem less curious, less open to seeking and studying other information of POV's.....it's as if exposure to alternative POV's is something that you steel yourselves against.

My audeince here does not include you. Each of our posts are storefronts for others to come by and "window shop" our POV's and what we post in support of them. This is a competition and others will decide who among us does a better job of keeping our shit together here, storefronts on display, for all to see....

Quote:

http://www.economist.com/background/...ory_id=7218678
Egypt
May 30th 2006
From Economist.com

Egypt is the most populous country in the Arab world and was the first Arab nation to make peace with Israel, in 1979. Its president, Hosni Mubarak, and his National Democratic Party have sat atop Egypt's sham democracy for 24 years by rigging elections and quashing dissent. As a result, most Egyptians have lost faith in the principles of Egypt's revolution.

To his credit, Mr Mubarak began a gradual process of economic liberalisation, which brought growth in the 1990s. But recent terrorist attacks have hurt tourism, the country's main source of revenue. The attacks have also given Mr Mubarak an excuse to stifle the growing political reform movement. Although Egypt held its first-ever multi-candidate presidential election in September 2005, Mr Mubarak, by no surprise the winner, has broken his promises of reform. A general election in late 2005 offered more choice but was still marred by thuggery and fraud.

Mr Mubarak is still in power in Egypt because the U.S. has insisted that it's geopolitical interests take a higher priority than the political will of a majority of Egyptians, and how "democratic" is that? If I am incorrect, how can anyone prove me wrong? What is the track record of the U.S. insisting on open, honest, umimpeded, democratic elections in Egypt, over the last 24 years?

Quote:

http://www.economist.com/world/displ...ory_id=7218678
The Suez crisis
An affair to remember

Jul 27th 2006
From The Economist print edition
The Suez crisis of 50 years ago marked the end of an era, and the start of another, for Europe, America and the Middle East

.......... The Suez crisis, as the events of the following months came to be called, marked the humiliating end of imperial influence for two European countries, Britain and France. It cost the British prime minister, Anthony Eden, his job and, by showing up the shortcomings of the Fourth Republic in France, hastened the arrival of the Fifth Republic under Charles de Gaulle. It made unambiguous, even to the most nostalgic blimps, America's supremacy over its Western allies. It thereby strengthened the resolve of many Europeans to create what is now the European Union. It promoted pan-Arab nationalism and completed the transformation of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute into an Israeli-Arab one. And it provided a distraction that encouraged the Soviet Union to put down an uprising in Hungary in the same year.

It also divided families and friends, at least in Britain and France, with a degree of bitterness that would not be seen in a foreign-policy dispute until the invasion of Iraq in 2003. If that is difficult to understand, remember that the world was a different place then. Many European politicians still believed their countries had a right to run the affairs of others. Many were also scarred by memories of appeasement in the 1930s. Faced with a provocation, even an entirely legal one involving the nationalisation of a foreign-owned asset like the Suez canal, the instinct of such Europeans was to go to war. They and their Israeli partners-in-invasion were restrained, eventually, by the United States, led by a Republican president and war hero, Dwight Eisenhower. The venture involved intrigue, lies, nemesis—and no end of a lesson. How did it come about?
The road to collusion

In Egypt, the British had become so resented for their racist, arrogant ways that by the early 1950s even Winston Churchill, the grand old imperialist who had returned as prime minister in 1951, felt he could resist the tide of nationalism no more. After 1951 the British were confined to the Suez canal zone, harassed by Egyptian irregulars who wanted them out altogether. By June 1956 the last British soldiers had left even the canal zone.

Yet Anglo-Egyptian relations did not improve. Nasser was enraged by America's withdrawal of its offer of loans to help pay for the building of a dam on the Nile at Aswan. This project was central to his ambitions to modernise Egypt. But John Foster Dulles, the American secretary of state, thought the dam would place too much strain on the resources of newly independent Egypt.

For their part, the British, mistrustful of Nasser and feeling the pinch, were also ready to withdraw their loan offer. So, thought Dulles, best to let the Russians take on the dam, as he knew they would if the West backed out. He did not, however, bargain for Nasser's immediate response—the nationalisation of the Suez canal, whose revenues, Nasser argued, Egypt now needed to replace the loans promised by Britain and America for the dam.

The reaction in Britain was unanimous in condemning “Grabber Nasser”, as the Daily Mirror put it. Comparisons were immediately made to Hitler and Mussolini in the 1930s: if he got away with this, where would he—and other emboldened post-colonial leaders—stop? Eden, who had succeeded Churchill as prime minister the year before, argued that the canal was Britain's “great imperial lifeline”, especially for oil. Nasser could not be allowed to have his hand “on our windpipe”.

The French reacted just as strongly, but for different reasons. First, they had a stake in the Paris-based company that ran the canal. Second, they were fighting an increasingly nasty little colonial war in Algeria. The new government of Guy Mollet was resolved to put down an Arab uprising there with all the force that the Fourth Republic could muster. By the summer of 1956 France had about 400,000 soldiers in Algiers. Nasser backed the Arab insurgents, so the French were as eager as the British to see the back of him. Accordingly, Britain and France started to co-ordinate plans for a military invasion of Egypt and a reoccupation of the canal zone.

But their bellicosity was matched by the scepticism of the Americans, and of Eisenhower in particular, who from the beginning was against the use of force by his two main allies. One concern for him was the presidential election due that November, which he intended to win as the incumbent “peace” president. He knew that the voters would not thank him for taking them into a foreign imbroglio in which America had no direct interest.

Eisenhower was also motivated by an anti-imperialism rooted in the attitudes that had made Americans break free from the British empire. Intensifying his scepticism was a fear that, in the new cold war, any British and French bullying of Egypt would alienate Arabs, Asians and Africans and drive them towards the communist camp. To head off Anglo-French military action, Eisenhower and his secretary of state ensnared the Europeans in a fruitless round of talks and conferences.

Aware that they were on shaky legal ground for an invasion, the British and French reluctantly played along. But they were losing the momentum for military action, which was the American intention. The increasingly histrionic Eden, in particular, wanted not only the reversal of the canal's nationalisation but also regime change: he wanted Nasser “destroyed”.

The Israelis provided a way out. On September 30th a delegation secretly presented the French with a fabricated casus belli: Israel would invade Egypt and race to the canal. The French and British could then invade, posing as peacekeepers to separate the two sides, and occupy the canal, ostensibly to guarantee the free passage of shipping. When this plan was presented to Eden, he jumped at it. Thus was collusion born. The details were agreed on at a secret meeting in Sèvres, outside Paris. Not for nothing is the Suez crisis known in Egypt as the “tripartite aggression”.

The British and French forces now had a pretext to invade. For the Israelis, it would punish Egypt for its escalating incursions into Israel from Gaza. It would also hitch the major European powers to the cause of Israel: up to that point, the French had tried to be even-handed between Israel and its neighbours; the British had leaned towards the Arab states.

A complete mess and botch

Only a handful of people were let in on the collusion. Most of them thought it was mad from the start, arguing, quite correctly, that the cover for the invasion was so flimsy it would soon be blown. To disguise what was going on, the British, in particular, were drawn ever deeper into a bog of lies and deception, particularly with the Americans. Parliament was also deceived. Both Eden and Selwyn Lloyd, his foreign secretary, told the House of Commons that, as Lloyd put it, “there was no prior agreement” with Israel.

On October 29th, Israeli paratroopers, led by a zealous officer called Ariel Sharon, were dropped into Sinai to fulfil their side of the bargain. Feigning surprise, the British and French issued an ultimatum to both sides to cease fire. When the Egyptians rejected this, British planes started bombing the Egyptian air force on the ground and on November 5th Anglo-French troops went ashore to begin the invasion of the canal zone and, it was hoped, topple Nasser.

Eisenhower, kept completely in the dark, felt utterly betrayed by his erstwhile allies. “I've just never seen great powers make such a complete mess and botch of things,” he told his aides. He determined to put a stop to the whole enterprise.

America struck at Britain's fragile economy. It refused to allow the IMF to give emergency loans to Britain unless it called off the invasion. Faced by imminent financial collapse, as the British Treasury saw it, on November 7th Eden surrendered to American demands and stopped the operation, with his troops stranded half way down the canal. The French were furious, but obliged to agree; their troops were under British command.

America also proved adept at working through the UN. On November 2nd an American resolution demanding a ceasefire was passed by a majority of 64 to five, the Russians voting with the United States. And to sidestep Anglo-French vetoes at the Security Council, for the first time the General Assembly met in emergency session (where no country held a veto) and took up a Canadian suggestion to assemble an international emergency force to go to the canal and monitor the ceasefire. These were to be the first “blue hat” UN peacekeepers. The organisation was one of the clear winners of the crisis, gaining an enhanced role in the world. For the other participants in the drama, the consequences were more mixed.

The French drew the clearest lessons. Suez showed that they could never rely on perfide Albion. Britain, then Europe's strongest power, would, it seemed, always put its “special” relationship with America above its European interests. And the Americans, to the French, were both unreliable and annoyingly superior.

So the French would have to look elsewhere for more durable allies—a search that was, by one account, short. The story goes that on the evening of November 6th, when Mollet got the call from Eden that he was aborting the invasion, he happened to be with the German chancellor, Konrad Adenauer. The French foreign minister, Christian Pineau, records Adenauer as saying that “France and England will never be powers comparable to the United States...Not Germany either. There remains to them only one way of playing a decisive role in the world: that is to unite Europe...We have no time to waste; Europe will be your revenge.”

Thus was born the six-country European common market, which has now become the 25-country European Union. The founding Treaty of Rome was signed the very next year, in 1957. And the French, particularly Charles de Gaulle in the 1960s, kept the British, America's Trojan horse, out of it for as long as they could, until 1973. France had by then made itself truly independent of American military power (unlike the British) by building its own nuclear deterrent from scratch and, in 1966, leaving NATO's integrated command structure.

It should have been no surprise, then, that in the months before the invasion of Iraq in 2003, it was the French who played the American role of 1956, though Jacques Chirac could hardly deliver the coup de grâce, as Eisenhower had done in 1956. In reaction to Suez, France had constructed a new identity as the ostensible leader of Europe, upholding a set of universal values in competition with the Americans.

The British were hurt most by Suez. Eden resigned soon afterwards, his health wrecked, his reputation in tatters, his lies and evasions damaging the country's always tendentious reputation for fair play. The crisis exploded Britain's lingering imperial pretensions, and hastened the independence of its colonies.

Some talked of a “Suez syndrome”, where, in Margaret Thatcher's words, Britain's rulers “went from believing that Britain could do anything to an almost neurotic belief that Britain could do nothing”. Certainly, much of Mrs Thatcher's prime ministership, particularly the retaking of the Falklands in 1982, was an essay in exorcising the demons of Suez. Tony Blair has not been afraid to take advantage of her success, by deploying British power in Sierra Leone, the Balkans and Iraq.

But never without the Americans' support. The major lesson of Suez for the British was that the country would never be able to act independently of America again. Unlike the French, who have sought to lead Europe, most British politicians have been content to play second fiddle to America.

Eden recuperated from the crisis in Ian Fleming's house, Goldeneye, in Jamaica. It was an appropriate choice, as it was Fleming who was to mythologise the new relationship in his James Bond novels. The first, “Casino Royale”, was published to little attention in 1953, but the series took off in the years after the Suez crisis, offering some sort of literary consolation to a country coming to terms with its new, humbler status. The partnership between Bond and Felix Leiter, a CIA agent, reflected the way the British now liked to see things, the one suave, smart and endlessly resourceful, the other with a lot of money and a slightly plodding manner.

Eisenhower won his election in America. The crisis affirmed the country's new status as the global superpower, challenged only by the Soviet Union. Suez was also to be the last incident in which America was to take strong action against Israel. As Eisenhower had feared, the Russians moved into the Middle East to fill the gap left by the disorderly retreat of the British, so the Americans felt compelled to get in as well. Thus the cold war spread to north Africa and Egypt (the Russians duly stepped in to finance the Aswan dam, and much else), and Israel became ever more closely tied to the United States.

Before 1956, Israel had been militarily vulnerable, but, beyond the Arab world, morally and politically unassailable. The Israeli occupation of Sinai (and Gaza) in 1956 began the gradual inversion of this state of affairs, as it marked the first expansion of Israel beyond its original borders, with all the subsequent criticisms of its occupation of Arab or Palestinian land. In 1956 the Israelis were quickly forced to withdraw from Sinai by American (and Russian) pressure. Never again, however, would an American president face down Israel as Eisenhower had done at Suez.

The rise of Nasserism

The chief victor of Suez, in the short term, was Nasser. Before the crisis he had faced lingering opposition in Egypt, not only from the former ruling class but also from communists and the radical Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood. “Pulling the Lion's tail”, and getting away with it, proved wildly popular. As dissidents fled, fell silent or filled its jails, Nasser's Egypt projected itself as the vanguard of Arab nationalism and a beacon to liberation movements across the third world.

Puffed up by his own success, Nasser launched misguided adventures such as a short-lived political union with Syria and disastrous nationalisations of Egyptian industry. And the Nasserist dream inspired a wave of pan-Arab nationalism that helped install lookalike leaderships, with similar flags, propaganda and secret police, across much of the Arab world. Saddam Hussein was one who drew inspiration. Nasser himself was largely discredited by Israel's crushing victory in the 1967 war, but the institutions of Nasserism still lived on, in Egypt and elsewhere, as effective systems of political control.
AFP No end of lessons

Nasser's 1956 triumph endured in Arab memory as a moment of cathartic liberation. It inspired, to some extent, Saddam's dramatic moves, such as invading Iran and later Kuwait. A famous Egyptian film, “Nasser 56”, lingers nostalgically over the Egyptian leader. Amid rousing music, he is portrayed in black and white, shrouded in pensive solitude by a swirl of cigarette smoke, reaching his momentous decision to nationalise the canal. But the film jumps to the happy outcome, ignoring the fact that Nasser's victory was not won by this new Arab superman, but delivered by superpower intervention.

A wider lesson lies in the interpretation of history. Eden, who had honourably resigned as foreign secretary in 1938 in disapproval of the appeasement of Hitler and, especially, Mussolini, was nonetheless haunted by Neville Chamberlain's readiness to yield to tyrants. His impulses at Suez were surely complex. Eden was far from anti-American or indifferent to American concerns. He had resigned in 1938 partly because he thought his prime minister, Chamberlain, had treated Roosevelt shabbily. Yet he saw Nasser as a “Mussolini” and was plainly determined to avoid any charge of appeasement, even though the essential features of Munich and Suez were wholly different. Instead of saying that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it, George Santayana might have better said that those who misinterpret the past are condemned to bungle the present.

dlish · 08-04-2006, 11:21 PM

cj2112 - no of course its not wrong for the USA to work for its own interests. but to give the impression that your a champion of peace whilst not doing anything about the situation in lebanon is hypocrisy in my opinion. as for ustwo not looking at the issues at hand.. like i said hes a pretty smart guy, but to discount a whole race and side with the more powerful nation because the weaker ones are a little behind the times doesnt mean they deserve some slack.

powerclown - i agree with what your saying. the dysfunctionality of the middle eastern nations is quite evident. however, what im saying is if you do want the middle east to become an active member of the international community, we need to open lines of communication and trust. through discourse we can build bridges. but sadly in the past month, ive only seen them burn, quite literally.

as for the extreme and violent interpretation of the koran... well the people that the USA is starting to tick off isnt just the muslim arabs... even the christians in the arab world are getting a gutful. so your basically turning every person in the region into an enemy. and thats without even picking up a gun.

the USA were faring better when they led their armies into afghanistan and iraq, but now that the shit has hit the roof in lebanon, without somuch as america raising a gun, they have had a tide of anger turn against them by not only the middle east but the entire world with the exception of a nation or two.

i dont have issues if the USA came down hard on both sides..it'd serve them right.

Seaver · 08-04-2006, 11:26 PM

Thanks for the History lesson Host, too bad the populaces have hated us long before Mubarak.

What it boils down to is many of the Muslim clerics can not come to terms with Islam not being the dominant force in the world. Extreamism popped up with their defeats in the initial crusades, re-popped up with the Mongol Invasion, Turkish conquest, Spainish Reconquista, etc.

To each of these moments in which Islam lost politically, economically, and militarily extreamism reared its head. It is a symptom of Islam not being the dominant power in the world, not our arrogance (no matter how powerful it is sometimes).

JumpinJesus · 08-05-2006, 10:48 PM

From what I've read, most of the hatred of Western civilization stems from the formation of Iraq by Winston Churchill in 1919-1920. Churchill had predicted that the next world war would be fought with airplanes. Iraq was established as a coaling station for the Royal Air Force. Since that time, western nations have played an increasingly large part ensuring that western-friendly leaders come to and stay in power. It always has been and always will be about oil. It has never been and never will be about freedom for the middle east. When freedom is mentioned, it is only because freedom is a means to an end.

It is this interference with their politics, governments, and economies that cause "them" to hate "us".

The tight control that the leaders of many of the Middle Eastern nations have over their populace enable them to whip their citizens into a frenzy of hatred of the West. The reason I say this is because the general populations of these nations do not benefit very much from oil. The leaders do, but not the general population. To this end, the leaders of these nations employ religion as a means to fuel the fires of this hatred. As we can witness in our own countries, religion can sometimes cause people to do some fairly extreme things.

Nimetic · 08-06-2006, 12:42 AM

It's not wrong to work for one's ones own interests - but it's not right either. At best, this seems a morally neutral position.

I think what you have to ask is, how does persuing my/our interests affect those of others (nations groups or people).

A person/group who doesn't take others interests into account would seem to me to be amoral, by definition. So yeah, not necessarily immoral, but lacking in morals ok?

oberon · 08-06-2006, 12:42 AM

Keep in mind that not all Arabs take it personally. In fact, I would say only a small minority try to do anything about it. And a smaller minority still use violence as their means. But otherwise, yes, most of it comes from resentment that "Western" countries like the USA occupy space that belongs to their people. And yes, promoting "freedom" or "democracy" is just a smoke screen. The USA itself isn't a democracy, nor is it all that "free" despite what the Bush administration claims. It's all weasel words and bullshit to lull the ignorant masses into keeping them in power.

I was shocked that they actually did something like 9/11. It was a calculated attack too: Osama specifically calculated the effect of the planes hitting the twin towers. Apparently he never thought they'd collapse. But I had & have no illusion about their motives. You have to remember, countless agreements have been forged in this region, and all have been violated. I personally don't think the "conflict" will end until they get what they want. A lot of the resentment comes from Israel's formation and continued existence.

Personally, I think the quickest way to put an end to the fighting is to nuke Jerusalem and pull everything military out of the region. The ensuing civil war will end at some point when they realize the stupidity of fighting.

Ustwo · 08-06-2006, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

I don't want to speak for Ustwo,

Feel free to speak for me any time

powerclown · 08-06-2006, 12:53 PM

Does that mean I can say the Chi-Sox have no chance of catching our mighty Detroit Tigers, and the Bulls (with OUR 4x DPOY!) won't take 1 game off the Pistons next season?

There I said it!

Rodney · 08-06-2006, 01:13 PM

That part of the world has been heavily manipulated by the west for the last 80+ years, largely to keep control of the oil. Pretty much all foreign policy in the region for the US and other powers has been predicated around oil, not the good of the common man in the street in that part. There are justifiable and real grievances. Then on top of that layer imagined grievances, fanned by rabble-rousers seeking power -- and in the East, your credentials to raise a rabble are religion-based. The only secular power are largely the authoritarian regimes backed by the west, which gives religious nutsos even more moral authority in the eyes of the locals.

IMHO, religion is almost never the root cause of a "religious holy war." It's only an excuse, a justification. It's just another way of saying "God is on our side" as a way of justifying your anger or ambitions. 'Cause there are a lot of Muslims in black African and in Indonesia (world's most populous Muslim nation), and the kind of sh*t that's going down in the mideast isn't going down there, nor are they sending terrorists out in any real numbers. Because we, the west, aren't messing with them. No need to declare "Holy War."

And you know, we've got a lot of Americans crying "Holy War," too, and reveling in imagined grievances. I wouldn't be surprised if one of them's in the White House right now.

FallenAvatar · 08-06-2006, 01:51 PM

This is really a situation where it is not dependant on any goverment to changed. Everyone has to changed. There are so many things wrong with the world to day, and there's not one person whom can fix it all. Problems with, race, sex, religion are not the only things we see evidant everyday.

I consider myself a very smart person and I will tell you something, which you may or may not need to hear, humanity is going to annihilate until there is either a) no one left, or b) enough left to form and build back from the roots.

Annihilation is a problem within itself, but beyond that is the idea that one of two things can happen:

1) Humanity can band together and understand that life is important and that every individual needs to strive to be the most for himself or herself and no one else, with that code of personal values. Through hard work and dedication each man or woman could then possibly engage in a world that could survive. If everyone lived by the same personal values. ( I'm not entering religion in this). As long as there are people that are willing to try and exploit the minds of others or there are people whom are willing to let others exploit their minds then there is nothing that can be done for humanity. I'm not trying to be an asshole but I'll tell you what, I've been lazy in my life, but I don't sit there and try and get others to support me. There are individuals out there in every society who wish to have others do things for them and those people needs to die off, I'm not being cruel; if they aren't willing to work to live then they shouldn't live. (I'm not speaking of those who are completely disabled or retarded etc).

If this doesn't happen, someone is going to stand up infront of the masses, a dictator whom can convince the minds of those who are unwilling to fight for themselves. There will be anarcy there will be chaos, and eventually humanity will take itself right back to where it is, or it will die off.

I can't fix humanity as a single person, because I can't make people realize what they are doing wrong. I'm not the smartest man in the world, but I know what I want in life and I know how to get it. I may be acting like I'm speak right out of a book, but honestly I share a lot of objectivist views. Hell , I consider my signature one of the most important quotes in history, because it is the truth. I'm not trying to turn this paragraph or post into a pro Ayn Rand post, or a Atlas Shrugged post, but I'm just trying to note how important some of her views were. How important it is for humanity, each individual to find what is most important to him or herself and then engage every situation equally with another individual.

American · 08-07-2006, 11:15 AM

What else do they have over there besides oil? If they didn't sell it, what would they have?

abaya · 08-07-2006, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

lets face it, if the world was a giant city, the Middle East would be the run-down, boarded up, locked-down part of town that everyone would avoid.

I must ask, have you been to that run-down, boarded-up part of your nearest big city? And if you have been there, have you gotten out of your car, walked into a store, and talked with people standing on the street or working in the grocery? I mean this in the literal sense. Or do you live in fear of what goes on in the ghetto?

I am not saying that you are wrong in your analogy, but I must ask if you understand *why* that section of the "city" has become what it is. It hasn't always been that way, and most people there certainly don't want it to remain that way. And yet it persists.

There are reasons for this... but no two people on this board will agree to what those reasons are, depending on one's political leanings. An unfortunate armchair predicament... for as we sit, secure in our "wealth" and "freedom," the ghetto persists and becomes infected. And the fear and violence grows.

Quote:

Originally Posted by American

What else do they have over there besides oil? If they didn't sell it, what would they have?

Welcome to politics. Who are "they" that you are talking about? If you are referring to the OP, he is Lebanese, and there is not a drop of oil in that nation. And believe me, having been to Lebanon recently, I assure you that there is *plenty* that "they have over there" besides oil.

Granted, this thread is about more than just Lebanon (and more than the Middle East; I would include most of the rest of the world, especially developing countries, in the "they" who hate "us."). But I find it extraordinarily unhelpful to reduce the qualities of an entire region in the world to "what else have they got besides oil?" That is, precisely, one reason why "they" hate us.

powerclown · 08-07-2006, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaya

I must ask, have you been to that run-down, boarded-up part of your nearest big city? And if you have been there, have you gotten out of your car, walked into a store, and talked with people standing on the street or working in the grocery? I mean this in the literal sense. Or do you live in fear of what goes on in the ghetto?

I worked in a few different places in the city of Detroit, Evergreen & Plymouth Rd (west side), Jefferson and 75 near the Cass corridor. Detroit is a crime-infested, drug infested, bleak, depressing, dirty, dangerous place for anyone to be. I understand there are reasons for these things. I understand there are deeply rooted, unfair, undeserved circumstances that people are born into, and may have no direct responsibility for at all. But there are reasonable and intelligent ways to respond to hardship.

I will be the first to admit that the way issues of poverty, anger, resentment, etc are being handled (and not handled) in the middle east, by the 'leading countries', leaves much to be desired. Over the weekend, I was watching coverage of the war, and they were showing an image of a building hit by an Israeli bomb.

The first thing that came to mind was, "That LOOKS like something al-Qaeda did or could do." I don't dismiss the emotional and psychological effect that viewing such destruction can have, especially those who are already halfway into the fight so to speak. And then we see the inflammatory rhetorical uses these images are put to in places like Pallywood, Teheran and Damascus to ensure the cycle of destruction continues.

It's messed up that the entire country of Lebanon is under the fist of hezbollah and Iran, but who's fault is that for allowing them into their house to begin with?

xepherys · 08-07-2006, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

It's messed up that the entire country of Lebanon is under the fist of hezbollah and Iran, but who's fault is that for allowing them into their house to begin with?

This may be the most telling statement on this thread. Many of those opposing us in Iraq are using this exact argument for why the US shouldn't be allowed to stay... and they are doing (literally) everything in their power to get us the hell out. I'm sure Hezbollah thinks it's presence in Lebanon is correct and righteous just as we feel our presence in Iraq is so. *shrug*

powerclown · 08-07-2006, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xepherys

This may be the most telling statement on this thread. Many of those opposing us in Iraq are using this exact argument for why the US shouldn't be allowed to stay... and they are doing (literally) everything in their power to get us the hell out. I'm sure Hezbollah thinks it's presence in Lebanon is correct and righteous just as we feel our presence in Iraq is so. *shrug*

To them I would say: Apples & oranges. 2 different things.

In Iraq, muslims are fighting eachother for a country no one has control of.
In Lebanon, Israel is fighting hezbollah to return control to Lebanon.

dlish · 08-07-2006, 11:26 PM

for starters.. like abaya said, there isnt a drop of oil in lebanon....but we do have pride..and yes, we do have a lot going for us. Not all the middle east is rich with oil. a handful yes, mainly dictatorships.. saudi, iran, iraq being the big players. lebanon has been thriving on its tourism for the past 10-15 years. it had a lot going for it..but then again israel was in the same boat. the only difference is that the war was fought within lebanons borders, so therefore the stakes for it would be much higher.

as for hezbollah...how do we 'kick' a force that was set up by due to the 1982 israeli occupation? every shiite muslim in south lebanon..or lebanon for that fact would consider him or herself hezbollah because most would agree with their main ideals of the party. so really, how do u uproot a people based on their religion? this would surely cause a civil war in lebanon if this was to happen. i can already hear it though.."yeah why not"..its easy for "you" to say it, but like ive said before lebanons been recovering from 20 years of civil war.. no body looks at those years with any pride. the whole war came to a trickle and everyone layed down their arms because they realised the futility of the whole thing. another war like that is not the way to go. but its ok for 'you' to say yeah why not, while sitting in your armchairs sipping on cherry soda while watching friday night football... why do 'they' hate 'you' you ask?

ive read recently about that 14 year old iraqi girl who allegedly got raped by the american soldiers. if these guys do get found guilty, and get off lightly, then im sure that this reason for 'hating us' would surely increase. all i ask for is a fair trial. all the iraqis will ask for is their heads..and all the americans will ask for is their aquittal.... ultimately not everyone iwll be happy and this cycle of hate will continue.

abaya · 08-08-2006, 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

I worked in a few different places in the city of Detroit, Evergreen & Plymouth Rd (west side), Jefferson and 75 near the Cass corridor. Detroit is a crime-infested, drug infested, bleak, depressing, dirty, dangerous place for anyone to be. I understand there are reasons for these things. I understand there are deeply rooted, unfair, undeserved circumstances that people are born into, and may have no direct responsibility for at all. But there are reasonable and intelligent ways to respond to hardship.

Fair 'nuff, thanks for answering. I don't know Detroit very well, but I've been working in poor areas of Philly all summer and have had to remove my own stereotypes about what goes on in the ghetto. That's why I asked. I feel that unless one actually goes and experiences first-hand these "scary" areas, facing down that suburban-instilled fear of poverty, it's difficult to really understand what is going on.

I feel similarly about Lebanon; I traveled there last winter, and I can tell you that quite a lot of people did not want to "allow" Hezbollah into their house... but there IS a viable degree of powerlessness. There may be "reasonable and intelligent responses to hardship," at least in one's mind, but to have the material resources and *power* to act them out is often very difficult.

This is in reference to your quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

who's fault is that for allowing them into their house to begin with?

The way you put it, it sounds like Lebanon sent out an embossed double-enveloped invitation with an RSVP for Hezbollah to come into their country. It just didn't work that way. The whole mechanism of how Hezbollah came to power in Lebanon is complicated and cannot be understood by assuming that everyone just "allowed" them in. Yes, some Lebanese allowed Hezbollah, even encouraged them to flourish. But not everyone, by far.

Even now, quite a percentage of Lebanese do not support Hezbollah, but what can they do about it right now? What can they *actually* do? Most of them are hiding in safe places or their basements, waiting for the next airstrike. What can the government do when a substantial percentage of the population is Shi'ia and identifies with what Hezbollah is doing? The whole place is split down the middle... to try and remove one part of that would inflame yet another civil war. (And the US doesn't need to help start another one of those in the Middle East right now, if you ask me.)

JimmyTheHutt · 08-09-2006, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlishsguy

as for hezbollah...how do we 'kick' a force that was set up by due to the 1982 israeli occupation? every shiite muslim in south lebanon..or lebanon for that fact would consider him or herself hezbollah because most would agree with their main ideals of the party.

And therein lies one of the west's major problems with the middle east. Considering the main ideals of Hezbollah consist of eradicating Israel, they (and their supporters) are going to be diametrically opposed to the west. In addition, support of Hezbollah includes support of their methods, which consist of some fairly hideous tactics, such as continuous artillery (in the form of rockets) assaults on civilians DIRECTLY, and the use of unarmed non-combatants (such as women and children) as shields. If the people of the middle east endorse these things, then there is very little room for negotiation or bridge building.

While you may cite civilian casualties at the feet of Israel, I suggest that those are the responsibility of Hezbollah, due to its choice of tactics, and its supporters, for providing the means to execute those tactics.

Even limiting the scope of the conversation to the recent issues in Lebanon, many of the sources of the current conflicts are the responsibility of those that use terrorist tactics. Without a change in the approach from organizations like Hezbollah, negotiation and peace are improbable at best.

Veritas et Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

dlish · 08-10-2006, 06:01 AM

sorry to spoil the party jimmythehutt, but you went off a tangent and miscontrued what i was talking about.

what i was talking about when i said ideals of the party, i was talking about the ideology of shiite islam and not the political goals of hezbollah itself. seeing that 100% of hezbollah is shiite, its only natural for the shiites in general to be supporting them based on religious lines. so like i said.. most if not all shiites in lebanon are 'hezbollah' based on their beliefs and ideals within the religious scope.

flstf · 08-10-2006, 07:48 AM

I think one reason why many Muslims hate us may be because they consider the west a decadent and immoral society whereas they are followers of the true god as revealed to them by their prophet. It seems like many believe it is Allah's will that they do everything in their power to eliminate us and in fact will be rewarded with virgins etc.. if they die trying.

Our support of Israel, our attempts to change Islamic regimes to democratic states and our influence and interference in the ME oil producing countries probably greatly aggravates these feelings.

JimmyTheHutt · 08-10-2006, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlishsguy

sorry to spoil the party jimmythehutt, but you went off a tangent and miscontrued what i was talking about.

what i was talking about when i said ideals of the party, i was talking about the ideology of shiite islam and not the political goals of hezbollah itself. seeing that 100% of hezbollah is shiite, its only natural for the shiites in general to be supporting them based on religious lines. so like i said.. most if not all shiites in lebanon are 'hezbollah' based on their beliefs and ideals within the religious scope.

That doesn't change that what I said was an accurate assesment. Those that support Hezbollah also support their tactics. When I refer to supporters, I mean countries, organizations, and idividuals that provide any level of support. This support allows Hezbollah to carry out their political goals using ruthless tactics. None of their supporters express any sort of concern over the tactics they use, while decrying less vicious tactics employed by the Israeli's. Without a change in that attitude and a change in Hezbollah's approach, a just a sustainable peace is simply unlikely.

Veritas et Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

Ustwo · 08-10-2006, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlishsguy

p.s. they hated you before afghanistan for many reasons.. i tried to only concentrate on the last 5 years since 911 since the question 'why do they hate us' popped up then. i think the question of the origins of why do they hate us has come up in previous threads, but id rather limit this to what is happening now, rather than in the last 50 years since this topic can be sidetracked. but im sure that your aware that colonial powers had much to do with the dismembering of the arab world and the installation of western appointed rulers and despots.

I don't care why 'they' hate us now, if you want to focus after 'they' killed some 3000 people on a clear day in September, thats fine, but the fact is that since they commited mass murder that day we need to look at that hate from a larger perspective than the last 5 years for it to have even the slightest meaning.

Perhaps if the Islamic world had the intellectual honesty to ask themselves 'Why do we as a majority support the murder of innocents' I'd be willing to wonder what justice you have been denied. Based on the global nature of Islamic terror, I think the problem might not be the West here.

Nirvana · 08-14-2006, 08:03 PM

"That doesn't change that what I said was an accurate assesment. Those that support Hezbollah also support their tactics. When I refer to supporters, I mean countries, organizations, and idividuals that provide any level of support. This support allows Hezbollah to carry out their political goals using ruthless tactics. None of their supporters express any sort of concern over the tactics they use, while decrying less vicious tactics employed by the Israeli's. Without a change in that attitude and a change in Hezbollah's approach, a just a sustainable peace is simply unlikely."

i agree completely.even rafik hariri, who in my opinion was an amzing leader, himself said that he had no intention of getting rid of hezbollah because they were an important force against israel in the south. i even remeber not too long ago the prime minister of lebanon (it might have been the ambrassador to the US i cant remember clearly) saying that Hezbollah is upholding "arab honor."

A few weeks ago, one of the rockets fired by hezbollah killed israelie civilians. two of these civilians were young arab girls. Nasrallah apologized for killing them. that apology said a lot about the mindset of such groups.

08-04-2006, 07:15 PM	#1 (permalink)
dlish Currently sour but formerly Dlishs Super Moderator Location: Australia/UAE	Why do 'they' hate us ive been thinking over the last few weeks about this quote "why do they 'hate' us". it really had me torn. i mean, being born and raised in australia, to lebanese parents, and being a muslim, what happened on 911 really did shock me, as it did the rest of the world. some with shock and horror, and sadly some with a shock and spitefulness, others with shock and confusion. i think i was a mix of the first and third category. as people tried to understand the enormity of what happened, people started asking questions. who would do such a horrible thing? why would they do such henious acts? why us? why do they hate US? now nearly 5 years later, sadly it looks like the USA and its constituents still havent really come to terms with these questions themselves..certainly the US administration has not. we are still asking the same questions that we were asking in the aftermath of 911. now, 5 years later...the war on terror has ignited two wars... an ongoing afghan war that doesnt look like subsiding anytime soon, an iraqi insurgency bent on civil war that also seems will be raging for a long time to come. and now with the countless deaths of innocent civilians in lebanon, the US administration still wont heed the warning signs. if the US really wanted a long lasting peaceful solution in the muslim and arab world, it needs to start playing fair. we all agree that in this age the propaganda machine plays an integral role in winning the hearts and minds of its people. be it CNN or Al Jazeera or Al Arabiya..it doesnt really matter, all views are skewed to suit the views and needs or the populace, regardless of whichever side of the fence you're on. And this includes all issues be it abortion, homosexuality, war, euthanasia..all news is skewed to suit the audience at large. so when the 1.1 billion strong arab and muslim world watch the death and destruction of firstly afghanistan, then iraq (rightly or wrongly) at the hands of an occupying force that heeds no authority but its own will,, you can imagine why people start to despise the USA. and now with the situation in lebanon getting worse by the day, and with the USA able to do something about it, but would rather turn a blind eye and blatently have no regard for human life, you start to wonder why on earth would the beacon of justice in this world not giving a flying hoot about a life that is not american? i ask you to put yourself in the shoes of an arab or a muslim for a moment, and look through their glasses, and see what they see or feel. i sense a mood changing from optimism and hope to despair. the blatent disregard to the rights of sovereign nations by the USA has turned the whole muslim and arab world against them. Arab nations that are traditionally allies of the USA are speaking up against her. she has backed herself up in a corner against the entire inetrnational community and the entire muslim world and stuck by its old foe israel through thick or thin regardless of the notion of natural justice. it has turned a shiite iraqi people who have been on the verge of acceptance of the americans against them, and they have undone any good they had done in the land of iraq. it has turned the afghan people against them through 5 years of turmoil. it has taken lebanon back 20 years in the space of a month with its refusal to ask israel for an immediate ceasefire. thats all it takes, two words, yet they refuse to say it. they have turned every muslim and arab who has any sense of belonging to their roots against them. the favourtism shown to Israel confirms to them that this is definately not a level playing field. in my opinion the USA has played it cards wrongly this time. they may have had a justification in afghanistan, or even helped overthrow a despot, but they definately have backed an opressor in Israel this time. as thorny as the issue is, had the USA played it fair, this could have helped the USA strengthen its foothold in the region and in the most forward democracy in the middle east. yet, what we see now is the arab and muslim public opinion turn back against USA. and the american people ask itself...."why do they hate us?" its not because we hate your freedoms..its not because we despise the way you live, its not because you are infidels, its not because we want to usurp you under an islamic caliphate..its none of that nonesense ... the answer is simple.. because we've been denied justice. __________________ An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay? - Filthy

08-04-2006, 10:41 PM	#7 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	powerclown, I don't disagree with your assesment of the governments in the Middle East but you forgot the part where western military is used to prop up regimes in an effort to keep the oil flowing. This is a key part of the equation. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

08-04-2006, 11:21 PM	#9 (permalink)
dlish Currently sour but formerly Dlishs Super Moderator Location: Australia/UAE	cj2112 - no of course its not wrong for the USA to work for its own interests. but to give the impression that your a champion of peace whilst not doing anything about the situation in lebanon is hypocrisy in my opinion. as for ustwo not looking at the issues at hand.. like i said hes a pretty smart guy, but to discount a whole race and side with the more powerful nation because the weaker ones are a little behind the times doesnt mean they deserve some slack. powerclown - i agree with what your saying. the dysfunctionality of the middle eastern nations is quite evident. however, what im saying is if you do want the middle east to become an active member of the international community, we need to open lines of communication and trust. through discourse we can build bridges. but sadly in the past month, ive only seen them burn, quite literally. as for the extreme and violent interpretation of the koran... well the people that the USA is starting to tick off isnt just the muslim arabs... even the christians in the arab world are getting a gutful. so your basically turning every person in the region into an enemy. and thats without even picking up a gun. the USA were faring better when they led their armies into afghanistan and iraq, but now that the shit has hit the roof in lebanon, without somuch as america raising a gun, they have had a tide of anger turn against them by not only the middle east but the entire world with the exception of a nation or two. i dont have issues if the USA came down hard on both sides..it'd serve them right. __________________ An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay? - Filthy

08-05-2006, 10:48 PM	#11 (permalink)
JumpinJesus Junkie Location: Chicago	From what I've read, most of the hatred of Western civilization stems from the formation of Iraq by Winston Churchill in 1919-1920. Churchill had predicted that the next world war would be fought with airplanes. Iraq was established as a coaling station for the Royal Air Force. Since that time, western nations have played an increasingly large part ensuring that western-friendly leaders come to and stay in power. It always has been and always will be about oil. It has never been and never will be about freedom for the middle east. When freedom is mentioned, it is only because freedom is a means to an end. It is this interference with their politics, governments, and economies that cause "them" to hate "us". The tight control that the leaders of many of the Middle Eastern nations have over their populace enable them to whip their citizens into a frenzy of hatred of the West. The reason I say this is because the general populations of these nations do not benefit very much from oil. The leaders do, but not the general population. To this end, the leaders of these nations employ religion as a means to fuel the fires of this hatred. As we can witness in our own countries, religion can sometimes cause people to do some fairly extreme things. __________________ "I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

08-06-2006, 12:42 AM	#13 (permalink)
oberon Quadrature Amplitude Modulator Location: Denver	Keep in mind that not all Arabs take it personally. In fact, I would say only a small minority try to do anything about it. And a smaller minority still use violence as their means. But otherwise, yes, most of it comes from resentment that "Western" countries like the USA occupy space that belongs to their people. And yes, promoting "freedom" or "democracy" is just a smoke screen. The USA itself isn't a democracy, nor is it all that "free" despite what the Bush administration claims. It's all weasel words and bullshit to lull the ignorant masses into keeping them in power. I was shocked that they actually did something like 9/11. It was a calculated attack too: Osama specifically calculated the effect of the planes hitting the twin towers. Apparently he never thought they'd collapse. But I had & have no illusion about their motives. You have to remember, countless agreements have been forged in this region, and all have been violated. I personally don't think the "conflict" will end until they get what they want. A lot of the resentment comes from Israel's formation and continued existence. Personally, I think the quickest way to put an end to the fighting is to nuke Jerusalem and pull everything military out of the region. The ensuing civil war will end at some point when they realize the stupidity of fighting. __________________ "There are finer fish in the sea than have ever been caught." -- Irish proverb

08-04-2006, 08:01 PM	#3 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	I don't know the answer to your question "Why do they hate us". I assume by "they" you are referring to Muslims and Arabs. I used to think it had something to do with our support of Israel in general. I wonder if Muslims and Arabs ask themselves the same question about the U.S.?

08-04-2006, 08:55 PM	#5 (permalink)
cj2112 Unbelievable Location: Grants Pass OR	So because Ustwo disagrees with your opinion and has one of his own, that is a refusal to even look at the issues at hand? Is it wrong for the USA to work for it's own self interests?

08-04-2006, 09:54 PM	#6 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	I don't want to speak for Ustwo, but I think what he initially implies is that no matter what anybody does, extremists will do their thing regardless. 9/11 was before Iraq, the Taliban was before 9/11, there were dozens upon dozens of terrorist attacks going back decades before 9/11, before Dubya, before Clinton, before Reagan, before Carter, before Blair, before Major, before Thatcher. So I don't see it as a refusal to look at the issues; I would guess that Ustwo is well aware of the issues at hand. In the case of the Islamists - who are the source of most of this trouble imo - this shit goes back to an extreme and violent interpretation of the Koran...but I also think it has to do with how Muslims see their place in the world, to what I think flstf was alluding to above. I think they are a culture filled with fear and insecurity, doubt as to who they are and how they achieve their dignity in the world, fear of outsiders and different values...lets face it, if the world was a giant city, the Middle East would be the run-down, boarded up, locked-down part of town that everyone would avoid. Dictatorships and dysfunctional religious oligarchies provide no economic incentive, no foreign investment, poor educational systems, no way to provide for decent jobs, no civil rights, no transparent judicial systems, no freedom of speech, no religious diversity, no political diversity, no cultural diversity, no exchange of ideas, no innovation...these governments don't create the infrastructure necessary to meet their citizen's basic needs, nevermind to allow for the personal/spiritual/academic/technical growth needed to compete with other countries around the world in anything whatsoever. And oil only perpetuates these systems. Most of the thought and energy of any given country in the Middle East is put into extracting and exporting oil - little expertise or involvement in any other field. So this is where I have a problem with the countries of the Middle East feeling a sense of entitlement, while simultaneously pointing the finger at Israel and the West as the source of all their troubles, turning a blind eye to their own corruption and dysfunction. They choose to look outward to avoid having to look inward.

08-04-2006, 11:26 PM	#10 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Thanks for the History lesson Host, too bad the populaces have hated us long before Mubarak. What it boils down to is many of the Muslim clerics can not come to terms with Islam not being the dominant force in the world. Extreamism popped up with their defeats in the initial crusades, re-popped up with the Mongol Invasion, Turkish conquest, Spainish Reconquista, etc. To each of these moments in which Islam lost politically, economically, and militarily extreamism reared its head. It is a symptom of Islam not being the dominant power in the world, not our arrogance (no matter how powerful it is sometimes).

08-06-2006, 12:42 AM	#12 (permalink)
Nimetic Junkie Location: Melbourne, Australia	It's not wrong to work for one's ones own interests - but it's not right either. At best, this seems a morally neutral position. I think what you have to ask is, how does persuing my/our interests affect those of others (nations groups or people). A person/group who doesn't take others interests into account would seem to me to be amoral, by definition. So yeah, not necessarily immoral, but lacking in morals ok?

08-06-2006, 12:53 PM	#15 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	Does that mean I can say the Chi-Sox have no chance of catching our mighty Detroit Tigers, and the Bulls (with OUR 4x DPOY!) won't take 1 game off the Pistons next season? There I said it!

08-06-2006, 01:13 PM	#16 (permalink)
Rodney Observant Ruminant Location: Rich Wannabe Hippie Town	That part of the world has been heavily manipulated by the west for the last 80+ years, largely to keep control of the oil. Pretty much all foreign policy in the region for the US and other powers has been predicated around oil, not the good of the common man in the street in that part. There are justifiable and real grievances. Then on top of that layer imagined grievances, fanned by rabble-rousers seeking power -- and in the East, your credentials to raise a rabble are religion-based. The only secular power are largely the authoritarian regimes backed by the west, which gives religious nutsos even more moral authority in the eyes of the locals. IMHO, religion is almost never the root cause of a "religious holy war." It's only an excuse, a justification. It's just another way of saying "God is on our side" as a way of justifying your anger or ambitions. 'Cause there are a lot of Muslims in black African and in Indonesia (world's most populous Muslim nation), and the kind of sht that's going down in the mideast isn't going down there, nor are they sending terrorists out in any real numbers. Because we, the west, aren't messing with them. No need to declare "Holy War." And you know, we've got a lot of Americans crying "Holy War," too, and reveling in imagined grievances. I wouldn't be surprised if one of them's in the White House right now. Last edited by Rodney; 08-06-2006 at 01:16 PM..*

08-06-2006, 01:51 PM	#17 (permalink)
FallenAvatar Psycho	This is really a situation where it is not dependant on any goverment to changed. Everyone has to changed. There are so many things wrong with the world to day, and there's not one person whom can fix it all. Problems with, race, sex, religion are not the only things we see evidant everyday. I consider myself a very smart person and I will tell you something, which you may or may not need to hear, humanity is going to annihilate until there is either a) no one left, or b) enough left to form and build back from the roots. Annihilation is a problem within itself, but beyond that is the idea that one of two things can happen: 1) Humanity can band together and understand that life is important and that every individual needs to strive to be the most for himself or herself and no one else, with that code of personal values. Through hard work and dedication each man or woman could then possibly engage in a world that could survive. If everyone lived by the same personal values. ( I'm not entering religion in this). As long as there are people that are willing to try and exploit the minds of others or there are people whom are willing to let others exploit their minds then there is nothing that can be done for humanity. I'm not trying to be an asshole but I'll tell you what, I've been lazy in my life, but I don't sit there and try and get others to support me. There are individuals out there in every society who wish to have others do things for them and those people needs to die off, I'm not being cruel; if they aren't willing to work to live then they shouldn't live. (I'm not speaking of those who are completely disabled or retarded etc). If this doesn't happen, someone is going to stand up infront of the masses, a dictator whom can convince the minds of those who are unwilling to fight for themselves. There will be anarcy there will be chaos, and eventually humanity will take itself right back to where it is, or it will die off. I can't fix humanity as a single person, because I can't make people realize what they are doing wrong. I'm not the smartest man in the world, but I know what I want in life and I know how to get it. I may be acting like I'm speak right out of a book, but honestly I share a lot of objectivist views. Hell , I consider my signature one of the most important quotes in history, because it is the truth. I'm not trying to turn this paragraph or post into a pro Ayn Rand post, or a Atlas Shrugged post, but I'm just trying to note how important some of her views were. How important it is for humanity, each individual to find what is most important to him or herself and then engage every situation equally with another individual. __________________ Fetch me the spirit, the son and the father, Tell them their pillar of faith has ascended.

08-07-2006, 11:15 AM	#18 (permalink)
American Upright Location: Hampton Roads, VA	What else do they have over there besides oil? If they didn't sell it, what would they have? __________________ American A Conservative in your face

08-07-2006, 11:26 PM	#23 (permalink)
dlish Currently sour but formerly Dlishs Super Moderator Location: Australia/UAE	for starters.. like abaya said, there isnt a drop of oil in lebanon....but we do have pride..and yes, we do have a lot going for us. Not all the middle east is rich with oil. a handful yes, mainly dictatorships.. saudi, iran, iraq being the big players. lebanon has been thriving on its tourism for the past 10-15 years. it had a lot going for it..but then again israel was in the same boat. the only difference is that the war was fought within lebanons borders, so therefore the stakes for it would be much higher. as for hezbollah...how do we 'kick' a force that was set up by due to the 1982 israeli occupation? every shiite muslim in south lebanon..or lebanon for that fact would consider him or herself hezbollah because most would agree with their main ideals of the party. so really, how do u uproot a people based on their religion? this would surely cause a civil war in lebanon if this was to happen. i can already hear it though.."yeah why not"..its easy for "you" to say it, but like ive said before lebanons been recovering from 20 years of civil war.. no body looks at those years with any pride. the whole war came to a trickle and everyone layed down their arms because they realised the futility of the whole thing. another war like that is not the way to go. but its ok for 'you' to say yeah why not, while sitting in your armchairs sipping on cherry soda while watching friday night football... why do 'they' hate 'you' you ask? ive read recently about that 14 year old iraqi girl who allegedly got raped by the american soldiers. if these guys do get found guilty, and get off lightly, then im sure that this reason for 'hating us' would surely increase. all i ask for is a fair trial. all the iraqis will ask for is their heads..and all the americans will ask for is their aquittal.... ultimately not everyone iwll be happy and this cycle of hate will continue. __________________ An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay? - Filthy

08-10-2006, 06:01 AM	#26 (permalink)
dlish Currently sour but formerly Dlishs Super Moderator Location: Australia/UAE	sorry to spoil the party jimmythehutt, but you went off a tangent and miscontrued what i was talking about. what i was talking about when i said ideals of the party, i was talking about the ideology of shiite islam and not the political goals of hezbollah itself. seeing that 100% of hezbollah is shiite, its only natural for the shiites in general to be supporting them based on religious lines. so like i said.. most if not all shiites in lebanon are 'hezbollah' based on their beliefs and ideals within the religious scope. __________________ An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay? - Filthy

08-10-2006, 07:48 AM	#27 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	I think one reason why many Muslims hate us may be because they consider the west a decadent and immoral society whereas they are followers of the true god as revealed to them by their prophet. It seems like many believe it is Allah's will that they do everything in their power to eliminate us and in fact will be rewarded with virgins etc.. if they die trying. Our support of Israel, our attempts to change Islamic regimes to democratic states and our influence and interference in the ME oil producing countries probably greatly aggravates these feelings. Last edited by flstf; 08-10-2006 at 02:57 PM.. Reason: prophet

08-14-2006, 08:03 PM	#30 (permalink)
Nirvana Crazy	"That doesn't change that what I said was an accurate assesment. Those that support Hezbollah also support their tactics. When I refer to supporters, I mean countries, organizations, and idividuals that provide any level of support. This support allows Hezbollah to carry out their political goals using ruthless tactics. None of their supporters express any sort of concern over the tactics they use, while decrying less vicious tactics employed by the Israeli's. Without a change in that attitude and a change in Hezbollah's approach, a just a sustainable peace is simply unlikely." i agree completely.even rafik hariri, who in my opinion was an amzing leader, himself said that he had no intention of getting rid of hezbollah because they were an important force against israel in the south. i even remeber not too long ago the prime minister of lebanon (it might have been the ambrassador to the US i cant remember clearly) saying that Hezbollah is upholding "arab honor." A few weeks ago, one of the rockets fired by hezbollah killed israelie civilians. two of these civilians were young arab girls. Nasrallah apologized for killing them. that apology said a lot about the mindset of such groups.