Do you think US policies are anti-Muslim?
-
Do you think US policies are anti-Muslim? Good question ... but unfortunately the answer depends on which side its coming from. If a group of people think the war in Afganistan was wrong then I pity those morons. But then again if another group of people think the war in Iraq was right I'd pity those morons too. Think of it this way ... if another country invades yours and tries to enforce a different kind of government will you take it or will you fight back? If you will fight back how long will you fight back? Of course the worst affected are those families who believe the Iraq war was wrong but have had to fight in Iraq or worse send a member of their family out there to fight ... put yourself in their shoes and you will notice how painful it gets when you cannot even blame. http://www.boreddude.com
Pete Madden wrote: Of course the worst affected are those families who believe the Iraq war was wrong but have had to fight in Iraq or worse send a member of their family out there to fight ... put yourself in their shoes and you will notice how painful it gets when you cannot even blame. I have been in those shoes. Pete Madden wrote: Think of it this way ... if another country invades yours and tries to enforce a different kind of government will you take it or will you fight back? If you will fight back how long will you fight back? Are we fighting Iraqis or someone else?
-
A specific story that I heard was about some of the small towns that have no modern luxuries (electricity, running water, basic medicines, etc) while Saddam has multiple palaces with fixtures made of gold. I don't think many would disagree with it. But why didn't the US military just send out some of its finest commando's to kill/capture Saddam rather than wage a war killing innocent people and soldiers. I am sure the US military does have such tactics and trained personnel to carry them out. Or was getting Saddam down to his knees grandly (at the expense of other lives) the sole aim of the administration? http://www.boreddude.com
Pete Madden wrote: But why didn't the US military just send out some of its finest commando's to kill/capture Saddam rather than wage a war killing innocent people and soldiers. That's something I too want to know. David
-
I am not a supporter of saddam, but I also don't support americans policy for iraq. I think that NATO thinks themselves as god's agent to have peace in this world. They forgot that there are more than 200 countries outside NATO, including INDIA, CHINA, JAPAN. If there missions were good, why didn't they make the UN to agree with them. Why countries rejected to support america in iraq, including pakisthan, india and others. There must be some reason for that. http://www.priyank.in/
Priyank Bolia wrote: I am not a supporter of saddam, but I also don't support americans policy for iraq. Agreed, we were there for invalid reasons. If you believe that was deliberate, I think that must be based on beleifs of bad intentions on the part of the US. Otherwise we can agree that it was a very bad mistake that now must be fixed as best as we can. I think that is what is happening now. We can not leave until Iraq is capable of self governance and self defense. Priyank Bolia wrote: Why countries rejected to support america in iraq, including pakisthan, india and others. There must be some reason for that. I do not know. Was it simply because they did not want the US in another muslim country? Or did they believe Saddam was innocent of the charges (answer this based on 2002 knowledge).
-
I read this in an editorial following the first London attacks. It was based on interviews done in Pakistan where many people thought that the US policies were anti-Muslim, especially as they relate to our actions in Iraq. The author claimed that there were mixed opinions about the attack in Afganhistan and the justifications for that (ie some believed it was justified while others believe it was an anti-Muslim plot by Israel and/or US) but almost all believed that the Iraq war was strictly anti-Muslim. I think that the idea that Israel or the US sponsored 9/11 is rediculous, so I really can not say anymore about that (just as I can not argue to you that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west). As for Iraq, I do not see how it is considered anti-muslim. We are not limiting anyone's religious rights. We are not attackng muslims. We are not dictating how they should live culturally. We are putting in a democratic government, but now that government is recreating itself by it's own elected representatives of the population of Iraq. Please help me understand what it is that makes the US appear to be anti-muslim. I use the word appear because whether the US is anti-muslim or not, according the the author of the editorial, we appear to be anti-muslim to a large population. That is what I want to know more about. Any thoughts?
The question assumes that there is something bad with being anti-muslim. So what if we are? I doubt the Muslims are spending much time agonizing over being anti-American. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
A specific story that I heard was about some of the small towns that have no modern luxuries (electricity, running water, basic medicines, etc) while Saddam has multiple palaces with fixtures made of gold. I don't think many would disagree with it. But why didn't the US military just send out some of its finest commando's to kill/capture Saddam rather than wage a war killing innocent people and soldiers. I am sure the US military does have such tactics and trained personnel to carry them out. Or was getting Saddam down to his knees grandly (at the expense of other lives) the sole aim of the administration? http://www.boreddude.com
Pete Madden wrote: But why didn't the US military just send out some of its finest commando's to kill/capture Saddam I do not think that was quite as easy as it ounds or that it may appear in the movies. I was told of a story by a special forces soldier that during Dessert Storm SF troops were tracking 10+ Saddam decoys. Pete Madden wrote: rather than wage a war killing innocent people and soldiers Innocent people have been killed, but US take very special care to minimize that. Most civilians have been killed by insurgents, some others for being in close proximit to insurgents, and some simply by horrible mistakes (which is no consolation for those families affected). As of innocent soldiers you will be hard pressed to find a soldier that was killed while trying to surrender. There may be cases, but they are rare. You will definately not find any cases of the US beheading anyone. Remember, most deaths on both sides of the conflict occured after the cessation of hostilities. That means after the Iraqi military was neutralized. The military option you speak would have made no difference. The actions that have created this environment now was the dismantling of the military and police in Iraq. That was the BIG mistake enabling the insurgency that is happening now.
-
The question assumes that there is something bad with being anti-muslim. So what if we are? I doubt the Muslims are spending much time agonizing over being anti-American. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Stan Shannon wrote: The question assumes that there is something bad with being anti-muslim. I thought much more of you before this. I hope you were not serious. Stan Shannon wrote: I doubt the Muslims are spending much time agonizing over being anti-American. There is a large number of people that htink this way. Look in France, Germany, and many other countries.
-
Priyank Bolia wrote: I think you have missed the lot of pictures on the internet showing US soldiers attitude towards the local citizens. Not only have I not missed those pictires, I have seen them first hand while I was deployed. The camps that I was in charge of which had a population of 75+ fulltime laborers from many countries (Bangladesh, Egypt, India, Pakistan, Syria, and others) which at times some of my soldier became simply too aggressive with. I handled that with firm intolerance and it lasted less than 1 week. Over the course of the 3+ months that I was in charge there the relationships changed significantly from basically US soldiers being afraid of these people (keep in mind that our news media only shows muslims that kill US soldiers) to indifference and even respect in some cases. Priyank Bolia wrote: iraq has elected government, but i lot fighting there dont think so, I think a lot of Iraqis did not have faith in the elections, but following the success of the elections have gained more faith in what has happened. Fortunately those that did not participate in the first elections will still have more opportunities to make a difference in their futures, if they chose to. The question that we can not answer is how much of that fighting is from Iraqis and how how much is from oustiders? Priyank Bolia wrote: but believe me a world's half population in south east asia don't think the americans policy towards them good enough I do believe you, that is why I am asking why they think that. What policies do we have that hurts them. Or is it, as I read in a book titled "Why the world hates America", they basically feel that we are not doing enough to share the wealth? If that is it, I can tell you first had, that a lot of soldiers consider that they reason why the war in Iraq to remove Saddam was justified. A specific story that I heard was about some of the small towns that have no modern luxuries (electricity, running water, basic medicines, etc) while Saddam has multiple palaces with fixtures made of gold.
Bob Flynn wrote: Or is it, as I read in a book titled "Why the world hates America", they basically feel that we are not doing enough to share the wealth? The Vietnamese certainly did NOT want to share the accumulated US wealth of napalm.;P Bob Flynn wrote: A specific story that I heard was about some of the small towns that have no modern luxuries (electricity, running water, basic medicines, etc) while Saddam has multiple palaces with fixtures made of gold. In the 1930s, many rural parts of the US didn't have electricity. I am sure the White House had electricity installed soon after Edison invented the light bulb in the 19th century. Can we compare Herbert Hoover/Calvin Coolidge to Saddam Hussein? There is a certain evolution in technological progress in every country. So, when you bring in arguments of this nature, I would caution you to give more consideration to the context and to the circumstances.
-
A specific story that I heard was about some of the small towns that have no modern luxuries (electricity, running water, basic medicines, etc) while Saddam has multiple palaces with fixtures made of gold. I don't think many would disagree with it. But why didn't the US military just send out some of its finest commando's to kill/capture Saddam rather than wage a war killing innocent people and soldiers. I am sure the US military does have such tactics and trained personnel to carry them out. Or was getting Saddam down to his knees grandly (at the expense of other lives) the sole aim of the administration? http://www.boreddude.com
Pete Madden wrote: But why didn't the US military just send out some of its finest commando's to kill/capture Saddam rather than wage a war killing innocent people and soldiers You give our Special Forces perhaps superhuman capabilities. even if it could have been accomplished (which I doubt), killing Saddam alone would not have solved much, there were still his sons, his top generals, the republican gaurd, and most of the ruling Bath party. Many of these are the same ones who are still terrorizing Iraq today. The problem in Iraq was a corrupt government, not just one person. Saddam controlled and symbolized all that, but his departure wuold not, by itself, have changed the situation of the non-Sunni, non-Bath-party Iraqis much. The Shia and the Kurds seem to have taken the formation of a new government seriously, and are working toward an equitable solution. The Sunni seem to still be fighting to resurrect the their past domination. Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
-
Bob Flynn wrote: Or is it, as I read in a book titled "Why the world hates America", they basically feel that we are not doing enough to share the wealth? The Vietnamese certainly did NOT want to share the accumulated US wealth of napalm.;P Bob Flynn wrote: A specific story that I heard was about some of the small towns that have no modern luxuries (electricity, running water, basic medicines, etc) while Saddam has multiple palaces with fixtures made of gold. In the 1930s, many rural parts of the US didn't have electricity. I am sure the White House had electricity installed soon after Edison invented the light bulb in the 19th century. Can we compare Herbert Hoover/Calvin Coolidge to Saddam Hussein? There is a certain evolution in technological progress in every country. So, when you bring in arguments of this nature, I would caution you to give more consideration to the context and to the circumstances.
Vivic wrote: There is a certain evolution in technological progress in every country. So, when you bring in arguments of this nature, I would caution you to give more consideration to the context and to the circumstances. I am quite sure that it was not beyond the means of Saddam's Iraq to provide more technology to the rest of the country. He had railways running through those regions on the way to the port at Basra, where there was also plenty of the necessary luxuries. Plus, I was not trying to make any point other than share a common rationalization of US soldiers as to their reason for being in Iraq. I really do not understand how your comments relate to this thread other than you are trying to be disagreable. If you want to point out something that I said that you disagree with, that is fine. But please try to make it relevant.
-
Bob Flynn wrote: Or is it, as I read in a book titled "Why the world hates America", they basically feel that we are not doing enough to share the wealth? The Vietnamese certainly did NOT want to share the accumulated US wealth of napalm.;P Bob Flynn wrote: A specific story that I heard was about some of the small towns that have no modern luxuries (electricity, running water, basic medicines, etc) while Saddam has multiple palaces with fixtures made of gold. In the 1930s, many rural parts of the US didn't have electricity. I am sure the White House had electricity installed soon after Edison invented the light bulb in the 19th century. Can we compare Herbert Hoover/Calvin Coolidge to Saddam Hussein? There is a certain evolution in technological progress in every country. So, when you bring in arguments of this nature, I would caution you to give more consideration to the context and to the circumstances.
Vivic wrote: In the 1930s, many rural parts of the US didn't have electricity. I am sure the White House had electricity installed soon after Edison invented the light bulb in the 19th century. Can we compare Herbert Hoover/Calvin Coolidge to Saddam Hussein? What an absurd comparison! Coolidge din NOT have multiple palaces adorned with golden washroom facilities. Nor did Hoover gas any of his western farmers. To compare technological infrastructure expansion with the results of deliberate oppression is just plain silly. Shame on you. Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
-
A specific story that I heard was about some of the small towns that have no modern luxuries (electricity, running water, basic medicines, etc) while Saddam has multiple palaces with fixtures made of gold. I don't think many would disagree with it. But why didn't the US military just send out some of its finest commando's to kill/capture Saddam rather than wage a war killing innocent people and soldiers. I am sure the US military does have such tactics and trained personnel to carry them out. Or was getting Saddam down to his knees grandly (at the expense of other lives) the sole aim of the administration? http://www.boreddude.com
Pete Madden wrote: But why didn't the US military just send out some of its finest commando's to kill/capture Saddam rather than wage a war killing innocent people and soldiers. In 1981, President Reagan issued Executive Order 12333, which stated, “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.” I believe this executive order is still in effect.
-
Vivic wrote: In the 1930s, many rural parts of the US didn't have electricity. I am sure the White House had electricity installed soon after Edison invented the light bulb in the 19th century. Can we compare Herbert Hoover/Calvin Coolidge to Saddam Hussein? What an absurd comparison! Coolidge din NOT have multiple palaces adorned with golden washroom facilities. Nor did Hoover gas any of his western farmers. To compare technological infrastructure expansion with the results of deliberate oppression is just plain silly. Shame on you. Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
Rob Graham wrote: What an absurd comparison! Coolidge din NOT have multiple palaces adorned with golden washroom facilities. Nor did Hoover gas any of his western farmers. To compare technological infrastructure expansion with the results of deliberate oppression is just plain silly. Shame on you. So, here is a better comparison. I am not sure you would like this one either. The British royal family does have multiple palaces. I think at least a couple of bathrooms in those might have some gold fixtures. And I who grew up in India (ruled by Britain until 1947 when I am sure most of Britain was electrified and very little of India was) have actually lived in houses without electricity or running water. Now, can I compare King George V to Saddam Hussein insofar as my personal inconvenience (from lack of electricity) was concerned? :sigh:
-
I don't think the Iraq war was a fight against Muslims. If the United States wanted to fight against Muslim nations, Iraq would be the least of the fish to fry. The Iraqi government was one of thew few secular middle eastern governments. Here is why Muslims see the United States as anti-Islam: we're seen as a Crusader nation in our policing of the world, especially in the Middle East. Even though the US is largely secular, with a secular government, we are seen as a Christian government with a Christian President, allied to Israel, radical Islam's #1 enemy. Defense of Israel, offensives on 2 Arab nations, seen as Christian, and an ally of Judaism, it's no wonder radical Islam hates the US and its allies.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Homosexuality in Christianity Judah Himango
-
Stan Shannon wrote: The question assumes that there is something bad with being anti-muslim. I thought much more of you before this. I hope you were not serious. Stan Shannon wrote: I doubt the Muslims are spending much time agonizing over being anti-American. There is a large number of people that htink this way. Look in France, Germany, and many other countries.
Bob Flynn wrote: I thought much more of you before this. I hope you were not serious Really? :omg: Stan's made it pretty clear a number of times that he thinks 90% of the worlds problems are down to Muslims and the other 10% down to Americans who voted for a democrat. Of course, before 2001 it was all down to the 10%, but hey times change. It really shouldnt come as any surprise to hear him say that. Anything that he perceives to be anti-American is automatically responsible for everything bad, it's a straightforward enough idea. Unfortunately for him things like seeking tolerant communities, the will to address problems by looking at their cause rather than their effects, and in this case specifically Islamic countries and leaders rooting out the extremists in their midst in horror at what they have done is all anti-American. If money doesn't physically change hands over it it is anti-American. I frequently wonder if his rose tinted glasses aren't actualy opaque red plastic...
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (QT)
-
Bob Flynn wrote: Please help me understand what it is that makes the US appear to be anti-muslim. I use the word appear because whether the US is anti-muslim or not, according the the author of the editorial, we appear to be anti-muslim to a large population. That is what I want to know more about. Although I do not think that US policy is intended to be anti-muslim, I do believe there are individuals who are trying to make it anti-muslim. I have been traveling a lot this year, I haven't done this much travelling since 1998 (I think -- been a while), but it is not uncommon to see someone singled out for wearing a traditional clothing of middle eastern region. You will hear lots of people, daily, repeating the concept that all terrorists are muslims. This breeds discontent and hatred. I could handle a lot more that all terrorists are religious extremists, but then any other religion could be used, which some people do not want. Coming from a rather religious extremist area (not muslim), you don't want to equate religious extremism with terrorism. Should be about time for another book burning in town anyway, but then... supposedly they are the "good guys." _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote: it is not uncommon to see someone singled out for wearing a traditional clothing of middle eastern region. Couldn't this be because it is rare? Jeffry J. Brickley wrote: You will hear lots of people, daily, repeating the concept that all terrorists are muslims. This breeds discontent and hatred I find it interesting that suicide bombers seem to be muslim (am I wrong/). There are plenty of other terrorist organizations out there, but I can not think of others that did this.
-
Vivic wrote: There is a certain evolution in technological progress in every country. So, when you bring in arguments of this nature, I would caution you to give more consideration to the context and to the circumstances. I am quite sure that it was not beyond the means of Saddam's Iraq to provide more technology to the rest of the country. He had railways running through those regions on the way to the port at Basra, where there was also plenty of the necessary luxuries. Plus, I was not trying to make any point other than share a common rationalization of US soldiers as to their reason for being in Iraq. I really do not understand how your comments relate to this thread other than you are trying to be disagreable. If you want to point out something that I said that you disagree with, that is fine. But please try to make it relevant.
Bob Flynn wrote: I really do not understand how your comments relate to this thread other than you are trying to be disagreable. If you want to point out something that I said that you disagree with, that is fine. But please try to make it relevant. Giving you a different viewpoint is NOT being disagreeable, just asking you consider another viewpoint. I was reading a biography of LBJ by Robert Caro. I learnt how in Texas power companies would not provide electricity to farmers citing reasons such as the houses were situated too far from the power lines. Even when the farmers said they would pay for lines to be installed all the way from the main transmission lines to their houses, the power companies refused. It tool legislative action led by LBJ and like-minded congressmen to force the power companies to do the "right thing". So there ARE issues (as have been even in the US) that can superficially be dismissed or one could try and make an effort to understand. As to diagreeableness, I think that is one of the occupational hazards of venturing to post on the Soapbox!:rose:
-
Pete Madden wrote: But why didn't the US military just send out some of its finest commando's to kill/capture Saddam rather than wage a war killing innocent people and soldiers. In 1981, President Reagan issued Executive Order 12333, which stated, “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.” I believe this executive order is still in effect.
-
Bob Flynn wrote: I thought much more of you before this. I hope you were not serious Really? :omg: Stan's made it pretty clear a number of times that he thinks 90% of the worlds problems are down to Muslims and the other 10% down to Americans who voted for a democrat. Of course, before 2001 it was all down to the 10%, but hey times change. It really shouldnt come as any surprise to hear him say that. Anything that he perceives to be anti-American is automatically responsible for everything bad, it's a straightforward enough idea. Unfortunately for him things like seeking tolerant communities, the will to address problems by looking at their cause rather than their effects, and in this case specifically Islamic countries and leaders rooting out the extremists in their midst in horror at what they have done is all anti-American. If money doesn't physically change hands over it it is anti-American. I frequently wonder if his rose tinted glasses aren't actualy opaque red plastic...
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (QT)
David Wulff wrote: I frequently wonder if his rose tinted glasses aren't actualy opaque red plastic No way! Red is colour of Marxism.
-
Rob Graham wrote: What an absurd comparison! Coolidge din NOT have multiple palaces adorned with golden washroom facilities. Nor did Hoover gas any of his western farmers. To compare technological infrastructure expansion with the results of deliberate oppression is just plain silly. Shame on you. So, here is a better comparison. I am not sure you would like this one either. The British royal family does have multiple palaces. I think at least a couple of bathrooms in those might have some gold fixtures. And I who grew up in India (ruled by Britain until 1947 when I am sure most of Britain was electrified and very little of India was) have actually lived in houses without electricity or running water. Now, can I compare King George V to Saddam Hussein insofar as my personal inconvenience (from lack of electricity) was concerned? :sigh:
... welcome to the world of "double-standards" my friend ... where hypocrites rule! ...I can't seem to understand all the hype over a few bomb explosions in UK ... while I sympathize with the families I cannot seem to understand what part of "war" in "War on Terror" don't people understand. I suppose people in UK think that war only means killing of Iraqi's and other nationals ... while they live their usual daily life.
-
Bob Flynn wrote: I really do not understand how your comments relate to this thread other than you are trying to be disagreable. If you want to point out something that I said that you disagree with, that is fine. But please try to make it relevant. Giving you a different viewpoint is NOT being disagreeable, just asking you consider another viewpoint. I was reading a biography of LBJ by Robert Caro. I learnt how in Texas power companies would not provide electricity to farmers citing reasons such as the houses were situated too far from the power lines. Even when the farmers said they would pay for lines to be installed all the way from the main transmission lines to their houses, the power companies refused. It tool legislative action led by LBJ and like-minded congressmen to force the power companies to do the "right thing". So there ARE issues (as have been even in the US) that can superficially be dismissed or one could try and make an effort to understand. As to diagreeableness, I think that is one of the occupational hazards of venturing to post on the Soapbox!:rose: