US 'alienating' world's Muslims?
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4040543.stm

An interesting read. The report mentions that "Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies" (With our being american). Do you think this problem is correct, and how should it be solved in that case?

See my sig. They need to deal with their own issues before hating ours.

Chickens and eggs. Your issues are part of their issues.

Lets see the USA is the economic, military and cultural powerhouse in this world. Furthermore it has used (or abused if you were on the receiving end of the stick) its powers to shape the world to its (western) image. Almost to a colonial level (some of the definitions regarding European colonisation are definitely applicable to current US foreign affairs).

These actions will make people react towards you, even fear you, due to the fact that they do not want to be subdued/submitted to what is in their eyes a alien culture. However it is not just the USA that has this problem. I live in the Netherlands and we also have problems with certain Muslim factions within our society. It seems there is a polarisation between Muslim tradition and western tradition worldwide.

On the other hand I feel that the USA is alienating not just the Muslims in the world, but also a lot of people in the rest of the world. Because even in my surroundings there is a split between pro and anti American feelings, and we are not Muslim. Besides the policeman of the world caricature there is also the fact that the English language is a big part of the society (economy, movies and music) and the American culture/way of life is omnipresent. Even in France there are revolts against the rise in usage of English.

I do not see the problem, but I can understand the fear people have of change (not always for the better) and maybe even domination. To them it is not a figment of their imagination, it is real.

A solution you ask? Beats me, this kind of fear is a irrational emotion that can only be overcome by honesty, mutual respect and time. But will we get the time?

Ustwo, the IRA, ETA - both active terrorist organisations that are most distinctly un-Muslim. What issues are you referring to, and who are 'they'?

it might help if you looked at some studies of who "islamic fundamentalists" tend to be, where they come from, etc.

they are not parallel to american-style christian fundamentalists--they do not come from a petit bourgeois background for the most part and are not working in situations with stable social networks in place--they are not about instituting new forms of social stability.

it looks like in most places these movements come out of impoverished, marginalized spaces--often french-style suburbs (look at a map of paris, for example, to get an idea of this notion of urban geography--it is almost the opposite of the american---in general poorer folk shoved to the margins of the city and capital concentrated at the center) in which the most basic features of social life--markets, mosques, etc.---have collapsed.

these movements are reflections of social deterioration that operate on the basis of a rejection of the entirety of existing society--including existing forms of islam, existing power relations within and outside the religion. this rejection operates on generational lines as well. there is interesting new work coming out on these movements in morocco, for example, which is well worth checking out.

the general conclusion is that these movements are more about the new types of extremely cultural and economic poverty being engendered by globalization than they are about anything to do with islam as such. this argument is not surprising if you think about it from a viewpoint that does not assume up front that capitalism is an unqualified good.

the viewpoint that ustwo expresses is not about even beginning to try to understand anything about these movements: it is about using a vague idea of them as a justification for racism.
his is a good index of the extent to which the right in the states provides no analytic latitude, no space for thinking, no space for anything really except for the group hate phenomenon. the american right is about the only space on earth where the notion of clash of civilizations has any currency. this operates at a level of sophisitication than maybe someday might rise to the appalling, low standards of such publications as time magazine, but until that day comes will float about in the lower reaches of intellectual vacuousness, the modes of which you check in with by reading the washington times.

The US's only real mistake is we allowed anti-american propaganda to go on for the last 20 years unchecked. Both in Europe and in Muslim areas. We basicly have been out 'PRed'. We assumed our actions and motives were enough, but when you get lies and hate from both the European and Islamic press year after year, it will take a toll.

We are taking steps to rectify the situation, but it will take time, a whole generation of Europeans and Muslims have been bombarded by reporting that is at best biased and at worst outright lies.

obviously, because you operate with a monopoly on american-ness, any viewpoint that sees your position as, say, racist or reductive or absurd, must necessarily be anti-american.

q.e.d.

Obviously since you operate with a distrust of all things American, any viewpoint that sees your position as say, uninformed, baised, or wacko, must necessarily be wrong.

q.e.d.

P.S. If you think the Arabic press is worried about truth, I have property to sell you.

What do you consider anti-american propaganda? Are people just being critical of the US considered liars as well? Can you give me some example of this hate and lies? (I'm especially interested in what lies Europeans have spread)

http://mondediplo.com/2004/11/04moroccoislamists

here is one article in support of the position outlined above.
more as i locate them.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates...-5-57-2216.jsp

another, more general piece--an interview with gilles kepel.
have a look.

the entire american right way of framing the question of islamic fundamentalism is wrong. just read.
i'll post more still as i find it.

Those stories that the terrorists didn't really kidnap Ms. Hassan, and it was actually US soldiers?

And that's from your fellow Americans - Al Jazeera would do much worse. You just haven't been paying attention.

Uhm, was that meant for me? For the record I'm not american.

Fellow Americans could be interpreted loosely there. No need to make a big deal about it.

The problem with blaming "poverty and social deterioration" is that it isn't just the unwealthy involved in muslim terrorism. Also, there are many more impovrished groups that aren't shooting aid workers and decapitating truckers. In the Sudan, muslims are the ruling structure yet they have been commiting genocide against the country's Christians. Was the recent killing of Theo van Gogh about poverty? It could be said that Iran operates as a terrorist state, and their ties to terrorism are pretty undeniable. Many wealthy Saudis also directly or indirectly support terrorism (wasn't that one of Farenheit 911's major points?). Saying there is no
"analytic latitude" is ridiculous, the analysis has just been done faster on the so-called right.

Now thems' some real crocodile tears I'd say!

And you think the 'Europeans and Muslims' have a monopoly on '
reporting that is at best biased and at worst outright lies.' Ha Ha. What country are you living in? Not picked up an American paper or tuned into CNN lately? Have you listened to your President? Or is that the problem?

But don't worry. With him or without him, your President is trying to rectify the situation.

About the only 'lie' Bush has stated was that Islam is a religion of peace. I've seen no proof of that.

Now Ustwo, that's funny. The only guy laughing harder than me is the one in your avatar. Hahaaaaaaha,....best laugh I had all day.

Islam is a religion of peace. As is christianity...Now of course what people do in it's name is horrid (both religions) but the principles of both religions are that of peace. Now if only people would follow them.

How is the application not the religion?

I believe that the main problem Muslims have with the US is that they're religion prohibits foreign military presence within their countries.

I wouldn't say they hate our freedom per say; it's obvious they aren't trying to win converts with terrorist acts, but they don't like our interference.

You don't really believe that do you?

You make some great points here. The top echelon in most terrorist groups aren't poor, desperate or uneducated. On the contrary, they are intelligent, well-educated, well connected, and have access to money. The type of groups that roachboy describes in his article are the legion of poor, alienated bottom echelon members who the leadership use as expendable foot soldiers and suicide bombers.

The big problem is that the middle class is involved as well. The 9/11 hijackers were not recruited from slums.

Indeed. They say there's a potential bin Laden in every Saudi Arabian household.

The issue is radical theology, not socio-economic status. Religious fanatics are religious fanatics, regardless of their socio-economic status. They range from leadership fanatics such as bin Laden & al-Zawahiri, to expendable fanatics such as suicide bombers.

Religion of Peace
 

http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cg...=sd&ID=SP81904

Its a mothers duty to have their children kill others and themselves for allah. Great...

The issue is radical theology (not necessarily limited to Islam), but the tendency to embrace radical theology is, among other things, tied up in socio-economic status. It's just easier to embrace a radical theology if you live a difficult life. The IRA, professional soldiers, criminals or anyone who engages in premeditated violence has to believe in something pretty radical. It's not limited to any particular faith, or indeed faith at all. Whilst there are those in the US Army who are from wealthy backgrounds, the vast majority are likely to be from poorer neighbourhoods where there were fewer employment opportunities. Ustwo's Muslim counterpart is well within his rights to denounce the 'American Imperialist Fanatics' who pose a credible danger to his security and who have already killed many of his kin in their ideological crusade, just as Ustwo is well within his rights to feel the way he does.

Of course, neither of their opinions is going to do the rest of us any good whilst they support the usage of violence against one another, unless we happen to be in either the weapon or the coffin business.

In response to your post on Martyrs, why not read some of the things the mothers of dead American soldiers may have said, are they not proud that their sons died in combat 'protecting freedom' etc?

For me, the problem with the analysis referenced in the thread starter is that it doesn't delve deeply enough into the root causes. The links provided by others do help some in this regard.

In brief, it seems clear to me that the lack of even-handedness the U.S has exercised for more than 50 years in foreign policy - as regards Arab/Israeli issues - is at the bottom of this now deeply-rooted problem.

I've always thought that the egregiously obvious favoritism we have shown toward Israel results in pan-Arab resentment toward us and promotes a continuing distrust of our motives. It needs to be corrected.

I think it's possible for the US to play the decisive role it must play as the global superpower only if we are willing and able to include more of the Islamic perspective into our worldview. We have erred on the side of Israeli intransigence too much to be a fair witness in the Middle East. A paradigm shift is long overdue.

Who is on the ideological crusade? Don't forget, this Iraq War is soley a response to a first strike upon the US. It is the US's attempt to stop such attacks from happening again. And they aren't trying to solve the problem by annihilation, they are trying to solve it by trying to help the Iraqis help themselves through moderate and responsible leadership.

I also agree that the US would find its relations with the Middle East much more productive if it toned down its public rhetoric in regards to Israel. Its just bad politics to keep publicly denouncing one group, and at the same time hollering out your support for their sworn enemy. It needs to be subtler than Bush saying, for example, "There will be no Right of Return for Palestinean refugees.", and then saying "Israel has no greater friend than America." It is a bit ridiculous.

Art you can not have forgotten the cold war already? Islamic dictatorships armed and assisted by the USSR vrs the one democratic state in all of the mideast, Israel. This has had more to do with our Israeli policy then anything else. Even after the USSR collapsed, the same anti-Israeli leaders and terrorists remain.

If anyone wants to find someone to blame for the mideast turmoil, you don’t have to look much farther then the Kremlin.

You don't get much more public than waging a millitary campaign against one of Israel's enemies.

I don't believe that's entirely the case, remind me when did Iraq strike against the US?

I doubt that Arabs need someone else's help to fuck up their country. They seem perfectly capable of doing that themselves. They used Russia as much as Russia used them...

Is it so hard to differentiate between "enemy of Israel" and "enemy of his own people"? The US did not attack Iraq for being Israel's enemy, you know.

The real root of the problem
 

Let's face it, the main problem the U.S. has is that they do not respect the self-governement of other countries. Couple this with an insatiable thirst for energy and consumer products, and the fact that no country could possibly hold them in check, and you have the first ego-centric nation in the world with carte-blanche to do whatever it wants.

Is this too harsh? No. The U.S. has merged it's National Defence policies and it's Foreign Affairs polices that make the attack of a foreign country perfectly acceptable and even rational. Well, it's not, it's the attack on a foreign country that has in place it's own sovereign government. You have the right to disagree with that government, but not to attack it.

It's NOT a P.R. problem, it's an ACTION problem. If you want to protect your bordrers, do so at YOUR BORDERS. if you want to attack nations around the globe for any reason, do so, but do not rationalize a first strike by saying you are protecting your borders because that is a big fucking lie.

I really should not go on. The real truth is that I like most Americans that I meet and know, but I find the American power structure, and the lop-sided military power contained within (and the subsequent misuse of that power), to be more than just a little disgusting, and I think the world, and ironically even the U.S., would be better off with a slightly less armed, less afluent, and less consumer-hungry U.S.A.

Sorry if I offend,
Pierre

Actually they did and George Bush has stated that fact publicly many times.It wasn't the only reason but none the less it was one of the reasons. Either that or my eyes and ears hear and see something other than what Dubya says on CNN.

Also agreed with Arts post. Balance is what is missing. Ariel Sharon to the White House 10 times and the cold shoulder to the Arabs (most Arabs) isn't balance.

Ustwo, my response is to look at this in terms of our own responsibility to be even-handed when dealing with international conflicts as trumping any particular historical exigency. In this scheme, there is nothing more important than holding the high ground. The fact that we would and have relinquished it for possible geopolitically strategic reasons only stregnthens my sense that short-sightedness in world affairs only comes back to haunt us in the end.

The Cold War is one of those generational legacies that overwhelmed more comprehensive ways of looking at the world and which contributed to our myopia over the decades in question. The fact that the Cold War is over only reinforces the need to discard the old paradigms in the search for solutions that more fully address the needs of the world community.

Are you implying that America still would have gone into Iraq if it weren't for 9/11? They were already there, but there wouldn't have been a regime change.

In a war on terror, a juicy target is one which could possibly undermine the Middle East terror hotspots, has comparably rich resources in oil and water with which to found a modern economy on, is practically entirely a flood plain making for quick mobilization, has friendly native Bedouin tribes with a long history of helping the CIA into the country - oh and this target has a government which is known for giving $25,000 to the families of terrorist suicide bombers, thus encouraging the continued senseless violence there. It's remarkable of just how much effect a cheque of that size can have on the morale of people willing to kill themselves so their family can have it. Not to mention that continuing that cycle of violence means more anti-Israel (and by proxy, anti-American) sentiments in the Arabic world because of the responses.

I don't see how you couldn't alienate the world's Muslims in this furball. You don't want to them to annhilate the Jews, they want to annhilate the Jews. They resent you for not letting them annhilate the Jews.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates...articleId=2168

while i do not think that this framework (israeli-palestinian conflict) serves aas more than a backdrop (it does not help understand the various phases of the fundamentalist movement in islam, nor the non-relation between these and islam in general) this article is nonetheless interesting for dismantling much of the cant above about the israeli state.

other stuff on a more specific/germain level to follow.