Do you think US policies are anti-Muslim?
-
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:
-
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: I handled that with firm intolerance Bully for you ! :) "One of the Georges," said Psmith, "I forget which, once said that a certain number of hours' sleep a day--I cannot recall for the moment how many--made a man something, which for the time being has slipped my memory."
-
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.
:laugh: ... what can I say?
-
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:
Vivic wrote: 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. Based on your first hand experience, does this disparity among the wealth of nations have something to do with the hatred on the US?
-
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)
:laugh: Ah, come on. I merely question why being "anti-muslim" is automatically considered to be a bad thing. I don't at all blame people for being anti-American. And I am perfectly willing to look at causes rather than affect, as long as the causes considered do not automatically rise out of anti-American sentiments rather than an unbiased and honest analysis of the global situation. I will admit that I don't believe in "seeking tolerant communities". I believe that those tolerant communities, if they truly are, would not need to be sought out, they would be loudly joining in the chorus of civilization to stop this evil. The fact that they have to be sought tells me everything I need to know about them. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
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.
Bob Flynn wrote: Couldn't this be because it is rare? It is not rare to see a multitude of nationalities present. You will even see occasionally native american tribal symbols on my person (which used to be targed in the 70's). Last time I travelled this often, I only saw people singled out for not-cooperating, not pulled out of line for dress. Bob Flynn wrote: 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. Hard to say. It takes a lot of "faith" to die for your cause, whether right or wrong. Suicide attacks make their statement in death. Others choose to live to make their statement in court, one takes publicity in martyrdom, the other in press zeal. Should it not be the action, bombing for political motivation, that is terrorism, regardless of suicide that should be addressed? There are quite a few in this town that would gladly drive a nuke into Iraq and blow up the whole country. They see absolutely no coincidental behavior or opinion to that of the suicide bombers, even though they would be committing suicide. There is no "clink" in the gears between the ears that shows that the two attitudes are similar. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
You seem to imply it is more about our religion (percieved to be Christian) than anything else, such that if our president was Muslim, then all of these reasons would go away.
Like I said, our perceived religion, our alliance to Israel, and our military presence in Arab nations combined inspire radical Islamic hatred. You bring up an interesting point though. If our President were a radical Muslim, I have no doubt that these problems would go away; a radical Muslim would not be allied to Israel, nor would have a hostile military presence in an Islamic nation. If we backed Syria, befriended the Taliban, and invaded Israel, do you think we would still be getting attacked? I doubt it!
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Homosexuality in Christianity Judah Himango
-
David Wulff wrote: I frequently wonder if his rose tinted glasses aren't actualy opaque red plastic No way! Red is colour of Marxism.
fucking A!! But than, I am from a red state... :~ "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Vivic wrote: 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. Based on your first hand experience, does this disparity among the wealth of nations have something to do with the hatred on the US?
I think he was trying to relate Saddam Hussain's greediness to the Brit's based on an earlier post.
-
You seem to imply it is more about our religion (percieved to be Christian) than anything else, such that if our president was Muslim, then all of these reasons would go away.
Bob Flynn wrote: You seem to imply it is more about our religion (percieved to be Christian) than anything else, such that if our president was Muslim, then all of these reasons would go away. Not really. All these problems would go away only if ALL Americans are Muslims. Remember the 8-year-long Iran-Iraq war and not one among the 35-odd Islamic countries said so much as 'boo'? :laugh: